Debate contribution: European Future for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 2 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

2 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

European Future for Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4981580

Read the official Assembly record

Text

OK. Let me just say this: we all had to sign in. After we became MLAs, because of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, we all had to designate as "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other". I designate as "Nationalist" and "Social Democrat". I am also proudly pro-European. I am proud to be Irish, and I believe that there should not be a border on this island, but everything about my life, my family and the way in which I live and approach politics has been cross-border and cross-community. I have lived most of my adult life on the island of Britain rather than the island of Ireland. I do not belong in a narrow, binary box. I sometimes feel that the party that, more than any other in the Chamber, is constantly obsessed with binary categories is the party that does not designate, and that can be frustrating. I do not want to have a debate purely based on the categories of unionist or nationalist.

I am already hearing hectoring from a sedentary position. I do not want to have a debate on that basis; I want to have a debate about Northern Ireland being back in the EU. OK? I respect everyone's political perspective, whether they take a position on the constitution or whether they, like Claire Sugden, have a position on the constitution that is decided and clear but entirely different from other people who have the same designation, which Claire Sugden articulated very well. The point was made that there are two routes back into the EU for Northern Ireland. In a theoretical, literal sense, that is true. In fact, one could have added to the motion other potential routes for Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU. There used to be, going way back, a marginal theory in parts of loyalism that Northern Ireland should unilaterally declare independence. Northern Ireland could, theoretically, declare independence and then seek to accede to the EU. We could try to join France, Belgium or Poland. I say that not to be facetious but to talk reality. The UK is, I am afraid, extremely unlikely to rejoin the EU. With the politics of Britain —

— as they are — I will give way in a moment — there is probably no more than a 5% chance that, in the decade or two to come, there will be a move towards a vote to rejoin, which is the stated position of no major party that is represented in Parliament. I will give way to Mr Tennyson.

I offered the Member an intervention for the purpose of the debate, and I am glad that he said that, because — let me be clear — at the minute, those do not seem like equal propositions. He said that, in British politics, a Government involving Nigel Farage and a Government involving a pro-European coalition that would push for a second referendum seem equally likely. Those are not equal propositions at the minute, and no serious observer of British politics thinks that they are. Here is the important point, however, and this is what our motion is all about: even if they were, we have no say over that. No one in the Chamber and none of our voters have much say over that at all. I think that it is really important — others disagree — that we send MPs to Westminster to articulate the interests of our constituents, even though I aspire to a different constitutional position, but the votes of people here will not fundamentally shift the tenor of UK politics.

I will give way in one second. We cannot shift that. We are about a million and a half voters out of 60 million.

No, I will not give way. I have already given way. By the way, the Member will not debate me. His party has refused to debate me tonight on UTV. If he wishes to make an intervention, he can join me on television in a couple of hours' time. I am told that the Alliance party has pulled out.

I will return to the subject of the debate, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If Alliance Members want more interventions, they can see me at UTV in an hour's time. Apparently, they were not so keen on doing that, but we are here in the Chamber. The point about the options for European Union membership is that there is no serious route back in. I would genuinely love the UK to rejoin the European Union. If there were a referendum in the next five years, I would canvass for the UK to rejoin. As a civil servant, I worked hard to keep the UK in, so I have direct knowledge of this, and I do not think that it is likely. The campaign — the argument for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union — is the only viable, realistic route for Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU. I genuinely do not think that that is a controversial point. It is also the case that it is the only option over which we and our voters, the people who elect us, have a clear ability to affect the outcome. That is true. Even if UK politics were moving towards Remain — it definitely is not — we cannot move it. If there were a referendum, we could be easily outvoted by voters in England. For all those reasons, there is one clear, decisive option to get back into the European Union. I will come on to some of the points that Members made. The debate has been really interesting. Some of the comments have been relatively testy, but others have been good-natured. It is important to have such debates in the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is nothing illegitimate about debating the constitutional future, and the debates do not have to fall into binary categories. As I said, lots of the people whom I represent are from unionist backgrounds and are interested in the debate. I hear from them all the time. I know them. I do not just represent those people; they are my friends. There is nothing in our motion about the politics of exclusion, as Mr Honeyford said that there was. Those words are put in my mouth by the Alliance Party. Mr Honeyford also called the SDLP irrelevant. That is not really an appropriate way in which to engage in debate here. We have the same number of MLAs as his party had before the last elections, so let us just park all that stuff, please. I very much want the best possible future for all the people of Northern Ireland. I want a future that leads to proper investment in our public services and ends the division that has held our people back for far too long. I genuinely believe, and my party has always believed, that the European context is a really hopeful and positive way for us not just to manage but to celebrate that diversity. By the way, that would also mean an enhanced and close relationship with the UK state after we re-entered the European Union. Lots of the comments were interesting. Declan Kearney correctly said that there is a democratic deficit. I acknowledge that. Those of us who support the protocol acknowledge that. That is why we want to see improvements. David Brooks made interesting and robust remarks, and I was glad to have him participating in the debate. Robbie Butler said that there was a predetermined outcome from our motion. No: we have a predetermined view, but it is our job to persuade people. In the same way, he has a predetermined view about the status quo, and it is an entirely legitimate one that he is more than able to deploy. Peter Martin talked about being proud to be British. It is really important that I, as someone who advocates a European future for Northern Ireland, not just acknowledge his Britishness but celebrate it and that of all the people who vote for him. I have no vision of the future that does not involve Britishness in this part of the island being treasured, celebrated and special. That is why I think that the European context is so important for our future. Phillip Brett, who, I think, is not here now, said, among other things, that the protocol was always part of pursuing a constitutional endpoint. It genuinely was not and is not. Ultimately, people in Northern Ireland and the Republic will get the say over the constitutional future. It will not be the EU or the UK.

To go back to the point that Northern Ireland rejoining the EU is really only viable via a new Ireland, it is true to say that Sinn Féin MEPs have worked on it, but the very first commitment from a UK Government Minister was secured by our former party leader Mark Durkan. He secured a commitment from the UK Government in 2017 that Northern Ireland would automatically rejoin the EU upon a vote for a new Ireland. No such equivalent commitment exists. There is not even a formal accession process under way or theoretically under way for the UK at any point in the future. Timothy Gaston made his points robustly, as always. It is probably unlikely that Timothy will vote for the motion or the amendment, but he set out his views. I understand why Claire Sugden will not vote for the motion. She said that she was disappointed in the motion because it effectively sets out a constitutional aspiration. She then went on to explain eloquently why she is a unionist. There is nothing wrong with her explaining why she is a unionist, just as there is nothing wrong with me explaining why a new Ireland back in Europe is the best possible future for Northern Ireland. We will continue to make that case positively and constructively in the Chamber and elsewhere. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

1,678 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