Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on 2 June 2025.

MLA: Mr Declan McAleer
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 2 June 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: European Future for Northern Ireland
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4981504

Text

The recent reset of EU-UK relations is a positive step forward in rebuilding the bridges that were damaged by Brexit. In a time of global economic uncertainty, it is reassuring to see the removal of barriers between us and our largest trading partner, the EU. The deal promises fewer checks and less red tape for the agri-food sector, which is essential for our farmers and rural communities. Keir Starmer has said that the boost to the UK economy will be in the region of £9 billion. However, analysts have pointed out that it will recover only a small fraction of the overall cost of Brexit, which in itself confirms it to be an act of historic, diplomatic and economic self-harm. As I have said previously, in the North, we voted resolutely against Brexit, and its impact has been felt very keenly, especially in our agricultural heartlands. Indeed, as the agriculture spokesperson for Sinn Féin, I looked at some of the statistics to see the impact. When we left the EU, the UK Government promised that any lost EU funding would be replaced pound for pound. However, the Shared Prosperity Fund made no mention of the CAP funding being replaced. We were grossly underfunded compared with the position before Brexit. Whilst the British Tory Government did ring-fence the single farm payment budget of £330 million for a number of years, eventually that ring fence was taken away, and we were told to find the money ourselves.
Thankfully, our Ministers and our parties have agreed to ring-fence that budget within the under-pressure block grant.
Whilst that happened here, our counterparts down South received €9·8 billion for the period 2023-27 under the common agricultural policy plan. Their budget for single farm payments this year is €2·1 billion. On top of that, they have a sheep welfare scheme down South that we do not have here. They also have a beef welfare scheme. They have a €60 million agri-climate rural environment scheme (ACRES). They have a €320 million capital investment programme for farms. They also have a €0·5 billion rural development programme. We do not have a rural development programme here as a consequence of leaving the EU. That is all in the context of a much more favourable agricultural tax environment there. They have agricultural relief down South that we do not have here as a consequence of our being manacled to Westminster. On top of that — we have heard this week after week in Committee, most recently from the mushroom sector — British Home Office immigration rules are crippling the industry here. The mushroom industry here has been crippled because it cannot get seasonal workers. It is dubious that the British Government will ever rerun the Brexit vote. That simply will not happen. It is important therefore that we have our say. We should let the people here choose: stay in a sinking UK or rejoin the EU as part of a new Ireland.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.23 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.79).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.16	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.15	No
Controversy escalation	0.07	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.79	Yes
Overall judgement	0.23	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.89
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.11

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.94
No identity-related subject	0.03
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers	0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00

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