Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 2 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

2 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

European Future for Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4981496

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Having read the motion and the amendment, I found that the motion contained four obvious tenets. One was the inarguable realism as it started out, and then there was the arguable perspective on some of the fallout of Brexit and the protocol. That was followed by its inarguable contradictions and reframing of the constitutional debate. For those reasons, we will not support the motion. We will not support the amendment either, even if Alliance portray it as being helpful, because that would be tantamount to treating national referendums as hokey-cokeys. In reality, however, the motion is riddled with contradictions, half-truths and a selective reading of our recent history and our current political realities. At first glance, it appears to be balanced. In the first three or four lines, it welcomes reduced trade friction, heralds dual market access, which has been a mantra for the SDLP and Alliance for some time, and talks about pragmatic cooperation with the EU. However, when you scratch the surface, it quickly becomes clear that it is not about practical governance but political positioning and, more worryingly, an attempt to reframe every recent development as a stepping stone towards a predetermined destination, which is EU re-entry through Irish unity. Let us begin with the core contradiction at the heart of the motion. It praises dual market access as a "competitive advantage" for Northern Ireland, something that the SDLP and Alliance have spent years highlighting, and some would argue rightly so. Then, with the same breath, it claims that our best long-term future can be secured only by leaving the UK altogether and fully joining the EU. Which is it? Is the dual market access under the current arrangements an opportunity to be maximised, or is it a stopgap en route to something else? We need to wake up and smell the coffee. You cannot credibly claim that you want to capitalise on Northern Ireland's unique trading position whilst arguing that the only real solution is to scrap it and start again. It is a political bait-and-switch, using the economic argument to smuggle in a constitutional one. The motion also claims to support the reduction of trade friction, yet champions an outcome — rejoining the EU — that would almost certainly increase friction with our largest market, Great Britain. That is not friction reduction; it is friction redirection. Then there is the consent issue that is at the centre of the Belfast Agreement. The agreement was designed to ensure that both communities had a say in their future and that no change to Northern Ireland's status could come without majority consent, but the motion does not read like an invitation for dialogue. It reads like a declaration of intent: a future in Europe and, by implication, outside the United Kingdom is framed not as one of many options but as an inevitability, and that does not reflect the spirit of partnership or balance that was promised in 1998 by a co-author along with us. It is quite strange but not that surprising these days. The Assembly should be focused on stability, prosperity and a pragmatic sense of cooperation. Instead, the motion attempts to retroactively define Brexit as a national error whilst glossing over the contradictions in its argument. Members, you cannot celebrate dual access and simultaneously advocate for its elimination. You cannot claim to respect the Belfast Agreement while using it to advance a single, unilateral constitutional vision. You cannot reduce democratic complexity to a binary narrative of historic self-harm versus salvation through Brussels.

The Member will know that I have absolutely no issue with and totally respect the fact that we have differing constitutional priorities and visions. However, the Belfast Agreement is absolutely clear that it is about respect, and it is not about a single, unilateral direction. Today, we are speaking about the motion, and its last two sentences literally take any other avenue off the table and out of the discussion and fundamentally say that there is only one route to achieving the desires of the party. I will conclude my comments. I urge the House to reject the motion and the amendment.

695 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