Debate contribution: Windsor Framework

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 8 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

8 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Windsor Framework

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5068179

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is telling that the first motion that we are debating in the Chamber on our return from summer recess is not about the crisis that faces children with special educational needs, hospital waiting lists, the ecological crisis that faces Lough Neagh or the cost-of-living crisis bearing down on our constituents; rather, it is a crass attempt from the DUP to relitigate old arguments and rewrite history. I understand why the DUP wants to do that, for it is not a pretty history from its perspective. Having campaigned for, promoted and voted for Brexit, it is once again shedding crocodile tears at the inevitable consequences of Brexit. Our departure from the EU has been a monumental act of self-harm. It increased division in our politics and chaos in the UK economy and deprived us of key opportunities. That may well not be the fantasy that previous Governments promised, but it is certainly the Brexit that those of us on these Benches voted against, because everyone knew that, whatever was written on the side of Boris Johnson's campaign bus, the DUP would inevitably end up under it. Alliance warned that leaving the EU meant new borders and new barriers and that those were always going to be constructed at ports and airports, where they could be managed and mitigated, rather than along a 300-mile land border. That is just logic, something that the DUP never applied during the Brexit debate. Instead, it told us that we were scaremongering. It told those who warned of supply chain issues that they could, "Go to the chippy", and, shamefully, it said that it could live with up to 40,000 job losses in the event of a no-deal Brexit. To attempt now to pin the consequences of its Brexit squarely on the Windsor framework is akin to driving your car square into a brick wall and blaming the airbag for your bloody nose. The Windsor framework is imperfect, as any solution short of full EU membership would be, but it is the bare minimum that is required to mitigate the impact of Brexit on our economy, create stability for business and protect the Good Friday Agreement. Let me say this clearly and unequivocally: Alliance recognises the challenges facing many of our smallest businesses. Unlike the proposer of the motion, we have set out solutions to ease that burden through simplification of the at-risk category, improvements to the Trader Support Service, streamlining of the customs duty reimbursement scheme, and awareness and training campaigns for GB-based suppliers.

I will indeed.

I could not agree more. That causes cash flow issues for businesses, and it is a practical issue that could be addressed by government. Alliance is also clear, however, that, through returning to, at least, the customs union and, ideally, the single market, we can wipe away much of that Brexit-related bureaucracy. Today's motion omits key facts from the Federation of Small Businesses report. Some 87% of the businesses that responded to the survey were based in England, Scotland and Wales, businesses that do not enjoy the protections available to businesses in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. When we look at export statistics, we see that business exports were up by 7% in Northern Ireland last year. In Scotland, they were down by 13%; in England, they were down 4·5%; and, in Wales, they were down by 9%. The Northern Ireland economy grew faster than the UK average. I make no apologies for championing the interests of Northern Ireland businesses above all others. Crucially, nowhere in its report does the FSB call for the suspension of the Windsor framework, as both the motion and the amendment clearly do. On the contrary, the report explicitly calls on the Executive to "promote dual market access" and:

"position Northern Ireland as a gateway for trade".

I wholeheartedly support that call.

I will not give way again. Thank you, Steve. It is long past time that we moved beyond rehearsing the same old tired, circular arguments and talking Northern Ireland down. We have an opportunity to focus on practical and pragmatic solutions aimed at building on the protections of the Windsor framework and creating a more stable, prosperous and vibrant economy and future for everyone who calls this place "home". On that basis, we will not indulge or support the motion or the amendment.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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