Debate contribution: Towards a Shared Island

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 3 February 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

3 February 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Towards a Shared Island

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4774747

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Five minutes is, of course, nowhere near long enough to cover the breadth of Members' contributions and the importance of the subject. It is important to say a couple of things at the start. Lots of Members talked about constitutional change. Indeed, as my two colleagues said, our party proudly aspires to constitutional change on this island and is unabashed about that. However, it is important to say that the motion does not mention constitutional change. It does not oblige anyone to support a united Ireland, but lots of people went there pretty quickly and felt that it was important to critique it from, for example, a unionist perspective, because they felt that it was committing them. As a representative who believes in a new and united Ireland, I want the Northern Ireland Executive to work collaboratively with the UK Government as well as they possibly can. I want the maximum financial settlement, and I want collaboration. That does not undermine or change my view of the constitutional future. It is sensible and obvious. The motion does not threaten anybody, and it is completely rational. It is completely rational because of what is in the joint ESRI-NIESR report. I am glad, to be fair to the Minister, that he referenced that report. The report is, in a sense, an east-west collaboration between ESRI in Dublin and the National Economic and Social Research Institute in London. They have found the potential benefits. The report is a look at how a model of the Northern Ireland economy could be built to see how it could interact on an all-island basis. However, they missed the very real potential not only for economic growth but for joint investment in things such as infrastructure. That is why our motion is not simply about the end of the NSMC meetings. North/South Ministerial Council meetings are important. The DUP thwarted them for years on end, which was a crude violation of the Good Friday Agreement and the ministerial Pledge of Office. However, meetings are not an end in themselves. Simply showing up and having meetings are not the outputs that our citizens seek. Transformative partnership is what we need to see, whether that is in the provision of healthcare or the delivery of infrastructure. The Shared Island unit has marked a step change. The aspirations that are in the Irish Government's Programme for Government are significant. Declan Kearney made some comments about that not going far enough on Irish unity. There is some legitimacy to what he says, but I also say this: would that the Northern Executive match that. Sinn Féin Ministers hold the three biggest economic Departments — Finance, Economy and Infrastructure. I would like to see Sinn Féin Ministers show what they are doing to build the structures and muscle memory of North/South cooperation, rather than simply pushing it to Dublin all the time. I will hold him to his word and his colleagues to account. I did not quite hear from the Minister a commitment to push for shared budgeting on a whole range of things. Shared budgeting would be an important step forward. There are some areas of shared budgeting. Diane Forsythe, my very able Deputy Chair in the Finance Committee, asked me this about shared budgeting:

"Where does he propose to draw that funding from?"

to match the Irish Government. I will answer two of her points. Nowhere in our motion do I say that we should exactly match the Irish Government. Here is one of the reasons why: we cannot afford to. Why can we not afford to? It is because their economy is much stronger and healthier than ours and because they generate loads more tax than we do. I acknowledge that Diane said that healthy North/South cooperation does not threaten anyone from a unionist or British perspective. I welcome that. It is important that she acknowledged that. She is right. All the unionist representatives who spoke acknowledged that. That is a positive step forward in how we debate these things in this place. David Honeyford, as always, is very engaged on these subjects. I say this in the nicest possible way: I and, I think, one or two others from both a unionist and nationalist perspective slightly bristle at the idea that having a view on the constitution — my view is that the island of Ireland will function better when there is not an international border on it — is some profound failing, that it is a rigid ideology, and that only the Alliance Party is smart enough and ethical enough not to hold to such rigid, outdated ideologies. That is not me, nor is it my party.

Yes, because you are going to get me an extra minute.

You have put that on the record. Anna Lo —.

I am going to move on to some other points.

I will not give way, because I do not have enough time. We can talk about it outside the Chamber. It is not really the main thrust of what we are talking about. The purpose of our motion is not to presuppose a constitutional outcome but to talk about the potential for building cooperation on this island. I have no qualms about saying that I think that we will be much better off when there is not a border on the island of Ireland. For a whole range of reasons, the best future for Northern Ireland is back in a new Ireland, inside the European Union. However, until we get there, and even if we do not get there, which is the aspiration of unionist Members, we need to grow and deepen North/South cooperation. We need much more ambition than we have in the current Northern Programme for Government, which has very little. Justin McNulty talked passionately, as he does, about healthcare provision in Daisy Hill. He is exactly right: whatever your view on the border in the long term, it should not be the limits of our aspiration or ambition for our people. We should see beyond it, whether that is building all-island rail infrastructure, green jobs for our people, better healthcare or all the other opportunities. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

1,044 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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