Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Ms Claire Sugden on 2 June 2025.

MLA

Ms Claire Sugden

Party at the time

Independent

Date

2 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

European Future for Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4981557

Read the official Assembly record

Text

When I became an MLA, I, like every MLA in the House, was required, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to designate as unionist, nationalist or other. I have no difficulty in being honest about a view that I have every right to hold, as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement. In fact, I have a responsibility to take a position, not just because of our past and what we should not go back to but because of our future, in that that choice might one day be put to a referendum. I appreciate that, for many people, constitutional identity is not a daily concern, but, as an elected representative, I know that it shapes how we fund, deliver and improve public services. That would look very different in a united Ireland. I am a unionist because I believe that the Union gives us the most stable and fair foundation on which to deliver for everyone in Northern Ireland through properly resourced public services and a model that redistributes according to need. That does not make me sectarian or orange, as opposed to green — indeed, I am both and every colour in between — but it makes me focused on how we best meet the needs of the people whom we were elected to represent. I am disappointed by the motion. Those who tabled it will have known that unionists could not support it. In doing so, they have moved away from the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, which recognises that Northern Ireland's future is a matter for its people. It is not about motions that promote one outcome over another in the Chamber. The motion goes beyond economic cooperation and uses trade language to advance a constitutional project that points towards Irish unity and EU re-entry. Of course, as a unionist, I cannot support that. What was to be the outcome of the debate? To divide the House? That is disappointing. I fully respect those who hold a view different from mine. Nationalism is a legitimate aspiration, just as unionism is. The agreement did not ask us to abandon those identities; it asked us to express them peacefully and with respect. Of course, we have serious challenges with public services. Health services are under severe pressure; the housing system is stretched beyond breaking point; and our education sector is having to choose between cost and developing our children in the way that we should be. Those challenges are not unique to us, but they are perhaps in a more critical state because of years of political instability and dysfunction. However, despite all that, the Union still gives us the means, if properly governed, to protect and improve public services fairly and equitably. Too often, those who call Northern Ireland "a failure" are the people who have held power here for a decade or more. If it is failing, maybe they need to take responsibility for that. It is not a failure of the constitutional framework; it is a failure of government parties to deliver. The tools we are here. We benefit from block grant funding, diplomatic standing and market access as part of one of the world's largest economies. However, those advantages matter only if we have the leadership in the Chamber to turn them into outcomes. That is why I have always taken a pragmatic view of big constitutional shifts, including Brexit. I voted Remain, not because I felt especially European but because I understood how deeply rooted and intertwined our systems had become and how disruptive a Leave vote would be with an open land border. Everything that has happened since has shown how difficult it has been to navigate that. Some say that Brexit has brought us closer to a united Ireland. I argue the opposite: it has shown how disastrous constitutional upheaval can be, and, in Northern Ireland, with our layered identity, law and infrastructure, the consequences would be even more destabilising and far-reaching. What concerns me is how the conversations are increasingly being framed as though they are heading in one direction. A united Ireland is not inevitable; in fact, opinion polls consistently show that we are nowhere near to having a majority in support of constitutional change.

We are hearing more about momentum than reality, and that often ignores the fact that many who would vote to stay in the Union feel politically unrepresented.

Unionism is often misrepresented as being narrow or outdated. I understand why. That is why I am independent. Many of the largest parties represent conservative views, but that is not the whole story. You can believe in the Union and be progressive. You can support LGBT rights, call out injustice in Gaza or advocate for women's equality and still support remaining in the UK. Many of those who support staying in the Union take a centrist or centre-left view but feel politically homeless. The drop in support for the unionist parties suggests that there is a drop in support for the Union, but that is not the case. That is a shallow argument and one that we need to look at. I will not support the motion not because I do not value cooperation with the EU but because I do not accept the framing that our future is already decided. It is far from it.

890 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