Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 10 December 2024.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 December 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Democratic Consent Resolution

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4716738

Read the official Assembly record

Text

In closing the debate, I will return to the facts, because they have been sadly absent from many of the contributions this afternoon and this evening. The fact is that, when you come out of the European Union, particularly when you pursue the kind of hard Brexit pursued by the DUP and the Conservative Party, you create a border. It then becomes a question of where that border can be best managed and its impact mitigated. Alliance warned at the time of the referendum that those checks would inevitably happen at ports and airports, where they could be controlled and contained, rather than at a porous land border that stretches over hundreds of miles and that people cross daily for their lives and livelihoods. I say that not to relitigate old arguments but because, until Members in the Chamber ground themselves in that basic fact rather than entertaining the politics of delusion and fantasy that we have seen, we will never make meaningful progress on the issue. The Windsor framework is the product of eight long years of painstaking negotiation between the UK and the EU. It is aimed at squaring an impossible circle of frictions and tensions created by Brexit and is an attempt to mitigate its worst impacts on Northern Ireland. It is imperfect: I concede that. That is why, when the original protocol was proposed, Alliance voted against it at the European Parliament and at Westminster, when other, better alternatives were still on the table. Its continued operation today, however, is absolutely critical, as it is the only viable means by which to protect the Good Friday Agreement, to maintain an open border on this island and to protect our dual market access. While there are no circumstances in which Northern Ireland would be better off than if Brexit had not happened at all, dual market access presents a unique economic opportunity and a competitive advantage. We enjoy privileged and unique access to the GB and EU markets. Those markets combined have almost 500 million consumers and produce over £17·5 trillion pounds in GDP. While Brexit, as my colleague Kate Nicholl outlined, has cost the UK economy a staggering £140 billion, according to independent analysis, the one silver lining is that Northern Ireland has had the fastest growth in the UK in recent years. A number of Members during the debate referenced the Invest NI chief executive's comments. It is perhaps no coincidence that those comments were selectively misquoted, because, if Members look at the export statistics that were read into the record by Philip McGuigan, they will see that, while exports are down in other constituent parts of the UK, they are up in Northern Ireland. That is no coincidence. I also note that, when they want to talk about the impact on our economy, business and trade, DUP Members talk about only one set of imports, when anyone knows — you do not have to be an economist to know it, and I am surprised, from her remarks, that the former Minister for the Economy did not know — that you grow your economy through growing your exports.

The European Union is a project in cooperation, collaboration and easing trade friction. It therefore could not have been a surprise to anyone in the Chamber that withdrawing from those institutions would create new barriers. Yes, that friction has been felt most acutely by some of our smallest businesses, and at no time have I been glib about the consequences for them. However, I am equally clear that those issues will not be solved by rejecting the motion: far from it. To do so, would be foolhardy, reopen a Pandora's box and create even further chaos, instability and uncertainty for those very businesses. Andrew Muir spoke as a private Member and made reference to the potential impact on agriculture. Our dairy industry is deeply integrated on a cross-border basis on the island. Milk is produced in Northern Ireland and transported across the border for processing in the Republic of Ireland, and then it comes back to Northern Ireland for onward sale. Without the protections of the Windsor framework, that industry would be decimated. Members owe it to the public to be honest about the trade-offs and choices that exist and are available to us.

I will.

Absolutely. I could not concur more. Alliance, like the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland, is focused on pragmatic solutions. It is not focused on more chaos and instability, which the people of Northern Ireland have had enough of, regardless of whether they are nationalist, unionist or someone who does not fit into either of those boxes. It is in that vein that a number of my colleagues, Mr O'Toole and Members from Sinn Féin pointed to some pragmatic solutions — for example, on a veterinary agreement — that would significantly ease the level of friction and the number of checks in the Irish Sea. That is an outcome that I want to see, because I do not want to see borders or barriers anywhere in these islands. Recent history shows us that when we act in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation, flexibilities are available. Dr Aiken referred to the specific example of dental amalgam. We have heard from the DUP that unionist concerns have been derided and dismissed. I want to make a number of comments on that point. Part of the reason why we are in this mess is that the only concerns from Northern Ireland that were heard at Westminster between 2017 and 2019, when the protocol was initially being negotiated, were theirs. They held the balance of power at Westminster and propped up the Governments of Boris Johnson and Theresa May. They can cry now at the consequences of their actions, but that will be cold comfort when the people of Northern Ireland know that, when they had influence at Westminster, they squandered it. I have heard a number of contemptuous remarks about the Alliance Party and our designation on the constitutional question. I am proud to be a United Community politician; it is at the core of my political identity. I would never dismiss or deride the political identity of a unionist or nationalist in the Chamber. If I did, there would, rightly, be an outcry. All that we ask is that that same respect be afforded to Members on these Benches, who, by the way, represent an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland. We heard from Mr Buckley about shattered trust. Trust has been shattered on many fronts. It has been shattered between political parties, between Governments, between the UK and the EU and between the electorate and the people whom they elect. What I did not hear from any DUP Member was any introspection regarding their hand in that process. In 2016, they told the public that they could leave the EU, maintain all the benefits and deal with none of the consequences. Earlier this year — in February — they told voters that the Irish Sea border had gone and that they had solved all the issues. Mr Buckley was very quiet, as was the deputy First Minister, in correcting their leader at the time. I see shaking heads now, but that is the reality.

I was not afforded any opportunity by DUP Members to intervene, when I attempted to do so — and, yes, deputy First Minister, I did attempt to intervene during your comments. We heard a lecture on the Good Friday Agreement from the DUP today. Thankfully, the DUP did not speak for a majority of people in Northern Ireland in 1998. It did not speak for a majority of people in Northern Ireland in 2016, and it certainly does not speak for a majority of people in Northern Ireland today. We heard about a democratic deficit, but there is no recognition from those on the Benches to my right that people in Northern Ireland not only voted to remain in 2016 but have voted in increasing numbers in eight elections since for pro-Remain parties that are pragmatic and want to see solutions to the issues. I caution Members about their attitude towards the Alliance Party. If they reflect on the size of the unionist bloc in 2016 versus its size now and on the size of the Alliance bloc in 2016 compared with its size now, with 17 MLAs, they might find that instructive about where many unionists now lie. I am proud to represent people who are nationalist, people who are unionist and people who fit into neither of those boxes. Many unionists are not only pro-Union but pro-European Union and choose to express that view by voting for the Alliance Party. Those on the unionist Benches do not have a monopoly on unionist opinion. We are on record about the need for reform of cross-community voting in this place. Cross-community votes in the Assembly are the least cross-community votes that can happen, because they ignore the voices of genuinely cross-community parties. Again, it would be an outrage if the vote of a unionist politician or a nationalist politician were discounted. Why should we stand for that today?

I have heard many references to the Belfast Agreement. The Member who chunters from a sedentary position was not worried about the Good Friday Agreement when his party collapsed its institutions, so I will take no lectures from those Members on those issues. They also fail to recognise that Northern Ireland has changed utterly since 1998. There is no majority in Northern Ireland any more. We are all minorities, and our political institutions need to start reflecting that reality. We heard in a number of contributions about the rights of young people and rights to equal citizenship. I believe that Mr Gaston, Mr Buckley and a number of others made noises about equal citizenship. Again, I find that galling. I did not hear any vociferous cries from those parties about equal citizenship when LGBT people in our society could not access marriage on the same basis as people across the water. I did not hear any vociferous opposition when women in our society did not have the same access to reproductive rights. I heard loud noises, however, the minute that there was a problem with getting sausages from Stranraer to Belfast. That says it all about the priorities of those on the Benches opposite.

Absolutely. There is a border in the Irish Sea for a host of issues, some of which are a product of devolution and some of which are a sad consequence of failures of devolution. Pay is one example. There is also a border in the Irish Sea in respect of the rates support that a number of our businesses receive. Those are the real challenges. Those are the real borders in the Irish Sea that we ought to be dealing with. On Steve Aiken's comment on the Mercosur agreement, Mr O'Toole rightly pointed out that, since Brexit, the UK Government have pursued a number of trade agreements that undercut GB farmers from which Northern Ireland farmers have been insulated. It is also the case, however, that, when we were a member of the European Union, the UK was a significant player with veto power on a number of issues. I accept that we do not have as much democratic input now as we did pre 2016, but those are the consequences of the Members' actions in pursuing Brexit. We heard that voting against the motion would send a strong message. It would send a strong message. It would send a strong message that those of us —.

I will indeed.

Absolutely. I am happy to apologise. I was referring to other Members in the Chamber. I understand that Mr Aiken voted Remain, and he outlined that in his remarks. We have heard that it would send a strong message for us to reject the motion, and it would. It would send a strong message that politicians in Northern Ireland are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, that we are untrustworthy, that we cannot do business and that our economic environment is unstable and febrile. That is not the message that any of us in the Chamber, irrespective of our constitutional outlook, should wish to send. We also heard comments about sneering in the Chamber. I note that it is "sneering" when it is the Alliance Party doing it, but it is "robust debate" when a unionist Member is chuntering from a sedentary position. I want to take Members back to a time when the Members who are now on the unionist Benches were accusing the Alliance Party of scaremongering when it outlined the inevitable disruption to supply chains that would arise as a result of Brexit. Sammy Wilson, MP for East Antrim, told those who warned of supply chain disruption that they could "go to the chippy". Let us not throw stones in glass houses when it comes to dismissing legitimate concerns or sneering in a debate. David Brooks referred to potential alternative arrangements. That is fantasy politics of the highest order. We had eight years of negotiations between the UK Government and the EU. An Alternative Arrangements Commission was set up. It looked at the models that have been referred to over the course of the debate, and they were dismissed, so the idea that those models are going to be reinvigorated now, in 2024, is delusional. Diane Dodds made a number of comments with which I deeply disagreed. First, she accused my colleague to my left, Kate Nicholl, of stating that she or her colleagues in the DUP were in some way backward. Kate is much too kind to make a comment of that nature. I will leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions as to whether they believe the DUP to be progressive or regressive, based on the positions that it takes on social issues, climate change and other matters. Mrs Dodds did not address the point about dual market access, but, when she was Economy Minister, she refused to market the dual market access that Northern Ireland enjoys. If, as Members on those Benches claim, we are not seeing the impact of dual market access, perhaps some introspection about why there is not good global knowledge of Northern Ireland's unique position would be useful. Perhaps we need to think about how we can take better advantage of that unique position. Today is an opportunity to finally bring this war of attrition over Brexit to an end. I think that we have all had enough; I know that I certainly have. Today, we can turn the page and work together to build on the unique position that we are in and to market Northern Ireland as a place in which to live, work and do business, having privileged access to the GB market and the EU market. Irrespective of constitutional outlook or position, surely that is an ambition that we can all get behind: good jobs, investment, a roof over people's heads and good quality of life. At the end of the day, is that not what we all care about?

2,541 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification