Debate contribution: Job Creation and Cross-border Cooperation in the North-west

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 4 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

4 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Job Creation and Cross-border Cooperation in the North-west

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4833084

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes, well, Mr Honeyford referred to Lagan Valley, and I could not let that go. We have been told that Northern Ireland would have access to the UK market and the EU market and that everyone should be overwhelmed by the fantastic opportunity that that provides. How wrong that has turned out to be, for one simple reason: inward investment was supposed to flow into Northern Ireland because of dual market access, but it has not done so. Under questioning from the Committee Chair, Mr Brett, Invest NI had to admit that there had been no upturn. Why is that? It is because the price of access to the EU market was the fettering of trade from Great Britain. A manufacturer wishing to set up a business in Northern Ireland in order to have access to the EU market is bound to consider, "Where will I get my raw materials?" If they decide, as many do, that they must get them from GB, they will discover that they have a trade border to navigate. Dual market access has always been a fairy tale and oversold. As a member of the EU single market, which, sadly, we are, we have to subjugate our sovereignty to that of the EU. That means that, to enjoy the so-called benefits of the single market, we have to subject ourselves to 300 areas of law that we do not make and cannot change. EU laws are foreign laws. The truth is that it is our services industry, not our manufacturing industry, that has expanded. The irony is that services are not covered by the protocol; they remain within the United Kingdom context. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Being in the EU single market is not benefiting the economy of Northern Ireland or, indeed, the north-west; instead, it fetters our relationship with our biggest partner. It all comes back to this fundamental question: is it right that, as a people, we are governed by laws that we cannot make and cannot change? That can never be right.

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention and for recognising that I am generous about letting other people in. When we talk about the protocol, the answer lies with the EU and mutual enforcement. However, the Irish Government, in their political pursuit of unifying the island of Ireland through the protocol, rejected that which is the basis for international trade elsewhere: if you want to make goods that are destined for a foreign market, you make them to the standards of that foreign market —

— and you will mutually enforce —

— each other's laws.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I was just coming back to the north-west and how mutual enforcement would benefit the north-west as well as the rest of Northern Ireland. I will go back to mutual enforcement. It is a fundamental element of international trade. We do not need the protocol, not in the north-west or in the rest of Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the DUP has found reverse gear since its 'Safeguarding the Union' document, when it embraced the ideal of dual market access. I will join DUP Members in the Lobby to vote for their amendment.

553 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:03 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