Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 2 June 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

European Future for Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4981468

Read the official Assembly record

Text

TikTok, indeed. In the current global context, it always strikes me as curious that we have two nationalist and separatist parties in this place whose primary objective is to achieve full Irish sovereignty over the whole of this island, yet they would enthusiastically see any new state subsumed immediately as part of the ever-closer union with Brussels. The pan-European solidarity, however, is not all that it seems. They have watched the Republic, which, before Brexit, unlike the UK, had long been a net beneficiary rather than a contributor to the EU, and they have seen how the Republic's infrastructure has been modernised by EU funds. They like the ability to travel and work across the continent freely. Perhaps most all, the SDLP, in common with the Irish state, which it aspires to join, would say that it likes those common European values of freedom, democracy and equality. Yes, those are virtues that those parties hold dear, but do not ask them to provide defence for those European values or their allies. The first duty of any credible nation is to provide for the security of its citizens. That is where the Irish state is found wanting and where Irish nationalism has a disinterest. The shameful policy of neutrality is an article of faith in the South and on the opposite side of the Chamber. They will require this European future to be without threat, because if it is not, do not ask them to pick a side when those values or their supposed allies are challenged by tyrants. They did not do that when Europe faced its greatest historical threat, and they do not do it today. There is money for everything, it seems, except for the defence of themselves, their borders and their friends. Irish nationalism is keen to have a European future but is content that His Majesty's armed forces and their European and NATO allies continue to pay for and provide its defence. Mind you, this is an SDLP motion, so what could be more socialist than a reliance on other people's money? I will move on to Brexit issues and the UK's vote to leave. It is welcome that, on this occasion, the Opposition uncharacteristically recognise that the vote was UK-wide, even if the Social Democratic and Labour Party showed itself throughout the Brexit process not to be particularly committed to democracy by honouring the outcome of that vote, which its members claim in the motion to be a self-harming decision. I would argue that it was the attempts of undemocratic elements in this place, London, Dublin and Brussels that have wrought harm upon Northern Ireland and have meant that Northern Ireland has not been treated fairly or equitably in line with the outcome of the referendum.

Yes.

That was an admirable attempt at deflection, but I have no answer for him in any case. Moving on, the SDLP and the rest of the rigorous implementers, including its friends in Alliance, were not prioritising the economy of this place. Certainly, they were not prioritising our links to the UK internal market, which is by far our largest market for goods. Instead, they sought to aid Brussels in using Northern Ireland as a punishment and a price to be paid by the UK for daring to leave. Northern Ireland should have left the EU on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. That it did not was plainly down to the undemocratic Remainers and to the weakness of successive Conservative Governments and Prime Ministers by not standing up to Brussels.

No, I want to make some progress. I will perhaps give way if I can make some progress, although I am nearly finished.

I have another minute? OK. The best of both worlds remains elusive: the much talked-about but never evidenced unicorn of the protocol. I suspect that that is largely because international investors are not mugs. There are many positive reasons to invest in Northern Ireland, but facing friction and trade in one's own country while not being a full member of the European Union has proven to add complications, a lack of clarity and, as those of us who sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee can attest, a continuous lack of necessary information from the Government. That is not the best of both worlds but the greyest of grey areas. That is why the chief executive of Invest NI was unable to evidence any significant foreign investment, noting our supposedly dual position as a key incentive. The detail does not line up with the sales pitch. Moves by the current Government to reduce friction and minimise divergence are not enough, but, in the context of the current arrangements, they may be an improvement. It does not —.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Qualifying

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

Much of the speech is ordinary constitutional and Brexit debate, and the closing section on the Windsor Framework, investment and the lack of information from government is substantive. However, a sustained passage attributes failings to "Irish nationalism" as a tradition rather than to party policy. It says Irish nationalism "has a disinterest" in security and "did not do that when Europe faced its greatest historical threat, and they do not do it today". It also casts nationalism as content for "His Majesty's armed forces" to "pay for and provide its defence". That carries a disloyalty-and-freeloading insinuation about a political community, which meets the rubric's tests for identity framing and a dog whistle, and it sits alongside labels such as "undemocratic Remainers".

Public interest or divisiveness

The Windsor Framework section serves the public interest: it engages with trade friction, investment evidence and scrutiny of government information. The larger first half, though, functions as identity-based point-scoring. It presents the nationalist tradition as hypocritical, unwilling to stand by allies and reliant on others, and it reaches back to the Second World War to make the point. Both elements are substantial, so the overall effect is mixed.

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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification