Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on 2 June 2025.

MLA

Mr David Honeyford

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

2 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

European Future for Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4981391

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Listen: you want to go back that far because there was a collapse in Germany. Let us look at the period —

There was a collapse in the UK that you helped to cause. We will get on to that in a wee second. Restoring the three freedoms that we have lost is fundamental to us, and we welcome the fact that the UK has finally aligned more closely with the EU. Alliance led the campaign against Brexit, which was sold as every dream under the sun. It was never defined, and there was never a plan. The campaign to leave ranged across a spectrum of fantasies: we could stay in the Union

BMWs and always being part of that; the parading of a bus advertising savings of £350 million for our NHS; and the approach of all out at all costs — who cares what damage it does? Let us not forget that the DUP was the dealmaker for that Tory Government and that it chose the option of the hardest of Brexits, thus destroying our economy and lowering our living standards. Let us face facts: it created a border and trade barriers between our businesses and those in GB that then had to be sorted out. Even last week, in the debate on funding North/South bodies — we had been offered greater funding and better resources to grow our economy and increase tourism — the DUP chose its failed ideology over what was best for people here. The DUP literally voted to keep people down rather than seize an opportunity to create jobs and grow tourism for people here, once again exposing the fact, which it reinforced through its Members' voting, that it has absolutely no intention of making Northern Ireland work. In fact, it votes against everything that would bring about any change. Moreover, the SDLP has lowered the debate by returning to the old style, which we also saw in the media stuff today about "not Farage". In other words, it is using the "I must win" argument as an alternative to constitutional politics. It is really disappointing that the SDLP has focused on fear rather than send a positive message, have a positive debate on the benefits of the EU and continue to build a coalition of support on all sides to oppose our leaving the EU. Rather than be positive and outline the benefits of EU membership and how it would —.

I heard a rant, but I do not know what it was about. If I had, however, I do not think that I would have understood it. Rather than be positive and outline the benefits of EU membership and how it would make the lives of the public better, and rather than outline how we might grow our economy and create jobs and prosperity, the SDLP has instead risked all to fall into the same trap of the first Brexit debate, with no plan and with Farage politics, where the option for change is not defined or outlined. I worry that the SDLP set up this debate to divide, knowing exactly what would follow in the Chamber. We are obsessed with the word "united" in this part of the world, whether a united Ireland or the United Kingdom. From sitting here listening to both sides of the House, however, I have not heard a vision of anything from either side: a vision for what a future would look like now, or in any of the years to come. All that I have heard are words that I am supposed to understand. Alliance is not interested in your battles over territory. We do not base our politics on that. Alliance is interested in people and in making their lives better. That is fundamental to us, and fundamental to me is uniting people. I am more interested in working now to make changes to deliver a better future in 2030, 2035 or 2040, regardless of the constitution and regardless of what change may or may not come about.

I will let you in in a second. I have set out clearly the Alliance position and its values for a shared island two or three times now in the Chamber. We will work to unite, to create and deliver the best health system, to grow our economy, skills and education system, to clean up our environment and to look for investment in our communities through the arts and sports. Those are the areas around which the House should be uniting. Each requires a shared island approach in order to enable the delivery of the best possible public services. The best is what all our people deserve, and I am not trying to win any constitutional argument by saying that. Whether there is constitutional change or we remain in the UK will be decided by our people, not by the political parties in the House. We came through the trauma of the Troubles, which ended with the Good Friday Agreement. No side won, but everybody benefited. In the future Northern Ireland, regardless of whichever "united" we have, we must provide better opportunities and greater prosperity for all our people. We all must win, and everybody must benefit. Alliance is really clear in its belief that will come from being in the EU.

Very quickly.

That is completely not true; it is not a devolved issue.

The fact that we had a vote was because of you, so maybe try looking in the mirror before you start firing any shots across a Chamber. Regardless of anybody's opinion on a new Ireland, it is simply not factual and not true to state that it is the only way back into the EU, and that is what has been paraded out today. The mindset of having to win is actually the root cause of division, causing further division rather than less. The spirit and values of the Good Friday Agreement, of peace and reconciliation, bring our communities together; they do not divide them. Those are the values that the EU was built on.

I can hear a rant over here, but I do not know what is being said.

Yes.

You have 10 seconds.

I will address that very simply: the SDLP's head is in 1998. It has remained in 1998 and it is not relevant to anybody in today's world, which is why it has eight Members.

That is the reason for this debate: to try to become relevant.

The pro-European campaign — this is vital to state — united people across a range of parties, but to suggest that re-entry is only a binary constitutional position potentially alienates a group of people who want to rejoin the EU but who currently either vote for unionist parties or do not have a view on the constitution at all and remain unconvinced by words towards a united Ireland when there is no plan and nothing in front of them to judge it on. Who could blame them? The SDLP has never given us an idea of what that would look like. Using fear is not the best way to gain support or build our future. The reason for our amendment is to factually state that there are two entry routes back into the EU, not one. The wider coalition against leaving the EU was from a wide base from every background. Building re-entry must keep everybody on board, and every option must be open to us as we build and unite our people.

1,254 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:46 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