Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 2 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

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 4981510

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will start off by addressing some of the points made so far. When I was chatting with — he has just disappeared — the leader of the Opposition about the figures for Germany's GDP and pointed out that the figures were from 2010, the Alliance economy spokesman suggested that they were skewed, in some way, by the financial crisis in 2008, and he said that we were responsible for it. I was not sure whether he was saying that I was responsible for the 2008 crash or that my party was responsible for it; we were responsible for quite a few things. Maybe he meant that the United Kingdom was responsible for the financial crash. I have to tell him that the crash was started in the US by a financial firm called Lehman Brothers. It certainly did not start in the UK. That is one thing that we are not responsible for. I nearly feel sorry for the Opposition for bringing the motion. I am not really sure that the leader of the Opposition warranted the attacks from the Alliance economy spokesperson in this debate. Notwithstanding that — I will certainly take an intervention from the leader of the Opposition on this — two bits of the motion are counterintuitive. Part of it states:

"Northern Ireland retains a competitive advantage as a result of its guaranteed dual market access".

However, later in the motion, there is a call for us to rejoin the EU. It is unusual for a motion to praise something that, if you follow through on the logic, you will lose at the end. If he wants to pick up on that, I will certainly take an intervention.

I am not sure whether the leader of the Opposition has a hotline to Mystic Meg about what a new Ireland will look like, but that is all probably speculation. I want to reflect my fondness for Europe and for the diversity of cultures and language that are present there. I have visited Europe on many occasions. I honeymooned there. I always found Europeans to be very kind and gracious as long as you had a go at speaking their language, which I always did, although that sometimes drew wry smiles. However, that does not mean that I want my country to be in a political and economic union with Europe. I am incredibly proud to be British; other values are available. I am proud of that politically, culturally and socially. Our country — my country — was instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade. As my colleague mentioned, in the last century, we stood against dictators who were hell-bent on destroying Europe. Also during the last century, the NHS was established by Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who some of the Members opposite may have a passing respect for. I do not think that Northern Ireland desires to be part of a united Ireland, and I will continue to make the case for a union with the sixth-largest economy in the world. It will be useful to give an example. We have talked, in this debate, in very high-level terms about the machinations of the motion, but think about this one example of the impact that closer EU alignment would have. The example presented itself at the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee recently. Antimicrobials are, essentially, antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal medicines with which you would treat athlete's foot, thrush or dandruff. We found out two weeks ago that there is an EU proposal to make those medicines prescription only. Think for one second about the impact that that would have if it were adopted in Northern Ireland. Think about the impact on patients if, when you wanted one of those medicines, you could get it only by having a prescription from your GP. Think about the impact on our pharmacists and the general workload of the NHS, which, as we all know, is already under pressure. I give that as one example, because we need to understand what closer alignment to the EU would mean. The Members opposite are clearly in favour of it, but it is worth reflecting, for real-world people who may be listening to the debate, that these things can have impact. This is not a problem that the Department of Health has caused in any way. In fact, the Department of Health has been very useful. In that one small example, the proposal would have an impact on every person in Northern Ireland, and the Department of Health has said that it is completely "counterproductive" to what it is trying to foster, which is self-care. While perhaps well-meaning, and certainly in line with the SDLP's political objectives, I do not believe, to quote the motion:

"Northern Ireland's best long-term future will be achieved by rejoining the European Union".

I urge Members to vote against the motion.

814 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