Debate contribution: Windsor Framework

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 8 September 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

8 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Windsor Framework

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5068118

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Many of us will have engaged in good faith with Lord Murphy's review when he visited this place in the previous term. I met him in my role as the Deputy Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and, later that day, as part of a delegation from my party. I feel that, even then, there was a sense that whatever was suggested would not stretch the Government's ambition to reform how the framework operates. Despite the fact that Lord Murphy clearly heard and understood some of the mechanical issues around the functioning of our Committee in particular, it is clear that the report has been a missed opportunity to press for the necessary fundamental reform of the framework. Beyond tinkering at the margins, there is clearly an unwillingness in London at this time to take on board anything, however valid and obvious, that causes frustration in Brussels. Perhaps I should be unsurprised. When I worked in the European Parliament for my colleague beside me, it seemed to me that Keir Starmer spent more of his time there, seeking to assist European efforts to undermine a democratically mandated Brexit for the UK as a whole, than he did in Westminster. As our motion lays out plainly, the independent review of the Windsor framework, however well intentioned, has failed to address the obvious and extensive concerns that remain. The recommendations in the areas that require the most significant and urgent intervention are not filled with demands or pressing but merely meekly will the Government to "continue to do" all that they can, despite it being clear that the Labour Government are not currently showing and have never shown any intention of doing everything that they can to address the issues at hand. The framework risks being yet another exercise in glossing over the continued failure of successive British Governments to honour commitments and to address the problems faced economically and certainly constitutionally, if it has not already established itself as such. Fundamentally, the framework continues to lack democratic legitimacy in Northern Ireland. It was by design, not by accident, that the framework was adopted without the accepted norm of our constitutional settlement of there being cross-community support in this place. Unionist MLAs and, thus, the unionist community were overridden and had their concerns sidelined. That was not democracy in action, and it was certainly not the system of anti-majoritarianism that has been hypocritically championed by London, Dublin and non-unionist parties in the Chamber since 1998, when it was thought that unionists would otherwise benefit. The December 2024 consent vote, which passed with a simple majority, triggered the independent review precisely because the system lacks the essential consent of the unionist community. The review, commissioned under statutory obligations, is set to become another layer of bureaucracy rather than a genuine vehicle for restoring parity of esteem for the unionist community. Unless it delivers —.

Brexit was established by a nationwide referendum — it was the largest democratic exercise ever carried out in the United Kingdom — so it was a very different proposition. I do not argue that a sovereign Parliament cannot overrule this place, as a devolved institution; I am saying that it should not, given the norms that have previously been established. Let us be clear: unless the framework delivers real powers and protections, it merely entrenches the democratic deficit. I welcome the fact that Lord Murphy has listened to the concerns that all parties in this place raised about the accessing of information, the unrealistic timelines faced by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the need to have adequate staffing in relevant areas and the need for departmental points of contact to be empowered to speak to the Committee about areas as required. As I have said, however, the language on the more significant issues is weak.

The Government and Brussels should be aware that the oft-repeated sound bites of reverence for the Belfast Agreement and the peace process will be as a fig leaf if the fundamental basis of confidence on both sides of the community continues to crumble, while genuine appeals to secure the foundations of these institutions and the actions required to do so are treated with contempt.

Under the terms of reference set by the UK Government, Lord Murphy was asked to identify issues and make recommendations to command cross-community support. However, let us be clear: the terms of reference themselves presume legitimacy in the framework that simply does not exist. The framework maintains EU law supremacy in Northern Ireland in areas such as customs, VAT, state aid and even medicines regulations without unionist consent or an adequate time frame. The Stormont brake and the Democratic Scrutiny Committee are in place, but this party has always been clear that they are not enough in themselves and that there is more work to do. Current mechanisms are not a remedy to a sovereign Parliament electing to bypass cross-community consent when the protections afforded to nationalism become an inconvenience if wielded by unionism. Unless the independent review assists the fulfilment of government promises and the full restoration of Northern Ireland's place within the UK internal market without the distorting overlay of EU law, it is fundamentally toothless. Moreover, as our motion outlines, recent findings from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in Northern Ireland reveal the harsh realities of the framework's impact on small firms. Its comprehensive study found that 58% of businesses trading with Great Britain and Northern Ireland reported moderate to significant disruptions, while more than one third — 34% — had already ceased trading rather than grapple with the growing compliance burden. Even more alarming is that 56% of affected businesses lacked confidence in future planning and only 14% understood or benefited from the touted dual market access. We look forward to welcoming the FSB to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to discuss its concerns about widespread trade friction, low confidence —

Absolutely, and, when some of those organisations were supportive of the vote to remain, other parties in this place valued their input.

I will make some progress, if that is OK. I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I wholly agree, although I recall that, at a previous meeting of our Committee, when we invited the FSB to speak to us, a Sinn Féin member remarked that it was not the only stakeholder. While I agree with that, we know that it represents 89% of businesses in Northern Ireland, and I think that it would be concerned to hear the party that holds the economy brief being so dismissive. The message seems clear that, rather than functioning as the economic lifeline that many in the Chamber extol, the framework is introducing confusion, cost and red tape, fracturing the UK internal market and undermining business confidence across the region. This party warned that that would be the case with the protocol, and the framework has not resolved those issues, not least because successive British Governments have failed to honour promises made. However, the British electorate at large will be as unsurprised as unionists in Northern Ireland that the current Government show scant regard for commitments made. Unionists believe that the current arrangements continue to undermine sovereignty and seamless economic integration with the rest of the UK. Business and trade have been made not easier, as was heralded, but more complicated. What the independent review should have done was to confront the systematic distortions head-on, not merely document the inconveniences and encourage the Government to keep calm and carry on. It should have been bold enough to demand reforms to remove the EU impositions and remedy the issues that divide this nation, harm business and corrode community confidence in the very idea that the mechanisms within our devolved institutions can be trusted to be used in a fair and balanced way for both sides of the community. My party leader, Gavin Robinson, noted correctly that the independent review must be an honest assessment rather than an exercise in papering over problems and that there must be more urgency in responding to unionist concerns.

That is not a request; it must be a demand. The DUP carries a clear mandate to continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in our United Kingdom and remove any legislative or administrative apparatus that undermines it. We will not surrender from working to that end.

1,403 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech moves a motion criticising the independent review of the Windsor Framework. It engages with what the framework does (EU law in 'customs, VAT, state aid' and medicines), with the scrutiny committee's practical problems, and with business survey figures. There is identity framing: the claim that unionists were 'overridden' 'by design', and that power-sharing protections were 'hypocritically championed' by 'non-unionist parties' only when unionists might benefit, edge towards a deliberate-targeting grievance. However, the rubric treats arguments about how cross-community consent rules affect a community as legitimate. Here the main thrust is a constitutional and economic policy case, not hostility towards a group or a symbolic dispute.

Public interest or divisiveness

Most of the contribution deals with substance: the adequacy of the review's recommendations, the committee's resourcing and timelines, trade friction and the democratic basis of the arrangements. It also contains some communal point-scoring, including accusing other parties of hypocrisy towards unionists, a jab at a rival party's dismissiveness and closing rhetoric such as 'We will not surrender'. These elements are noticeable, but they sit within a mainstream constitutional argument rather than driving it, so the overall picture is mixed.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:57 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