Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Democratic Consent Resolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4716664
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Third time lucky. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just like yesterday, everything that I say is connected to the issue that we are discussing this evening. I found it almost — almost — humorous hearing some unionists talking about minority rights and being trampled on during the debate. You could not really make that up. How many times have they trampled on minority rights, including those of Irish language speakers, LGBT people, women and workers? The party to my right has trampled on a long list of minority rights. People living in border communities have enjoyed nearly 20 years free from customs posts and a security presence, and we cannot go back to that. I would say that nobody wants the restoration of physical borders, but I think that some do want and have wanted the restoration of physical borders since the debate began. We should continue to allow the free movement of goods across the border. Throughout the debate, from some to my right, we heard more about pet food and other animal products than we did about poverty, the free movement of people or any other issues of that nature.
I am happy to give way, yes.
I am definitely not a fellow Brexiteer, and I do not agree with you on many issues. Viktor Orbán was mentioned earlier. I am sure that you would probably be glad to welcome him into your political party. When it comes to the opportunities for reshaping the economy on this island, we have to say that the neoliberal orthodoxy of European economic policy has sought to liberalise and privatise services, increase competition, deepen the power of the private market and weaken workers' rights and social protections, and that is the last thing that we need to continue in this period. Whilst we in my party agree that existing trade agreements should continue to apply in the North, there is also an opportunity to develop a new political economy outside the neoliberal orthodoxy of the European Union. A new political economy for the North should prioritise public ownership of services to combat inequality, poverty and environmental destruction. A new political economy could also reverse industrial decline by redeploying existing infrastructure and greening jobs, giving support to workers to buy up manufacturing facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. Procurement could be leveraged for social good, building community wealth and stabilising jobs, but it has not been done. On the question of migration, instead of addressing the root causes of displacement such as war and genocide, the EU is using deterrence techniques to stop migration, which is relevant to this debate and the protocol. Since September, it has spent £11 billion on deportations, which is probably music to the ears of the party to my right. Increased controls and deterrence techniques have only fuelled a booming smuggling industry that has led to at least 29,000 deaths. These are only the documented deaths of people travelling to Europe between 2014 and 2021. There has been a lot of renewed talk about Syrians after the fall of Assad, but how many have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea because of the EU policy of racism and the dehumanising of their right to move into Europe or wherever they want to? The protocol is obviously a trade deal, but we should also briefly mention in the debate the EU-Israel association agreement trade deal that the EU has with Israel. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, perpetrated by Israel, has resulted in multiple, clear and well-documented violations of the human rights of Palestinians. Hospitals have been bombed and destroyed, and a population faces famine and death by contagious disease. In the course of its war on Gaza, Israel has blocked food, water, fuel, medicine and humanitarian aid, all backed by von der Leyen and the EU. There are sanctions for some states that intervene and occupy countries but not for Israel. It is sickening, and it needs to be called out. In spite of those well-documented human rights violations and, to put it more clearly, genocide, its economy continues to enjoy privileged access to the EU market via the EU-Israel association agreement. In fact, trade between the EU and Israel has increased since the signing of the agreement in 2000. The EU is Israel's biggest trade partner — let that sink in — accounting for almost 30% of its trade and goods in 2022. The EU says that it considers respect for human rights to be an essential element of EU association agreements with partner countries, yet it refuses to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement. I am calling on it today to do so. Serious breaches of the agreement mean that the EU can suspend it at any time. There is no denying that Israel's treatment of Palestinians constitutes a serious breach of the human rights clauses in the EU-Israel association agreement, yet the EU cannot bring itself to suspend the agreement and stop rewarding Israel for its war crimes.
Yes, I will give way.
The Member needs to be careful with his language, because "globalists" can mean very different and strange things. Maybe check the meaning of that.
If you want an answer, listen. On elitist corporations, the DUP is the party that backs elitist corporations in the North, so I think that you need to check your facts on that as well. You and everybody else should remember that, when we are talking about the EU, we should mention the role of von der Leyen and the people who have backed Israel every single step of the way in the past year. Members should remember that when they are up to their necks in backing and supporting Israel and its horrible crimes.
957 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.41 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.61).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.28 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.22 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.09 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.51 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.56 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.41 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.16 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.61 |
| Adopts it | 0.23 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.78 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.