Debate contribution: Windsor Framework

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 8 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

8 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Windsor Framework

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5068199

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will be happy to give way in a moment; I just want to outline some of my points. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the Chamber that the SDLP will oppose the motion and the amendment. I will say this: the Murphy review offers practical ideas for smoothing processes in moving goods from Britain into Northern Ireland and improving democratic scrutiny in the Chamber. It is a reasonable bit of work. I do not agree with everything in it. Of course, I did not agree with Brexit: Northern Ireland should be back in the EU. I reiterate the point that I have made multiple times in the Chamber: the only way that that will happen — the only way of taking control of that process — is by voting for a new Ireland back in Europe.

I recognise, however, that some sensible things are recommended in the report: better resource for Assembly Committees; some action on repayments under the duty reimbursement scheme; and a number of other things. We engaged with Lord Murphy and mentioned our proposals for an EU Commission office in Belfast, as well as observer status for Northern Ireland representatives, be they MLAs or, indeed, directly elected MEPs. I give way briefly to Mr Buckley.

I did not say that it was not worthy of debate. I will tell you this, Mr Buckley: I am happy to debate this any day of the week. I and my side will win the debate, because we have won the debate repeatedly. I say this in the nicest possible way: I am in politics here because of Brexit. I have talked about that many times. Ms Ferguson mentioned that, next year, it will be a decade since Brexit. I was then a civil servant, working in the middle of it. I was literally in Downing Street when it happened. I left that life and career because I could not stay in it. I thought that Brexit was dreadful for Ireland, for Northern Ireland and for the whole system, and so it has turned out to be, worst of all for unionism. I think that we are moving towards a new Ireland, back in Europe. The mad decision that was made by English/British voters in June 2016 is what has driven that. Brexit was not something that I wanted, but it will expedite something that I do want, which is a new Ireland. Today, unionism is once again having a debate in the Assembly not about healthcare, waiting lists or Lough Neagh but about a debate that it cannot win. The Windsor framework is something that you created and have made worse every time. I will be honest: as someone who worked in London and understands how that machine works, I know that no one over there cares about the Windsor framework at the moment. I am really sorry to have to say that, but let me be blunt: it is not on the agenda in London or in Brussels. The Murphy review makes some sensible, practical suggestions. I will give way very briefly.

I will say this: I was delighted to hear the Member have a little pop at the work of civil servants. In front of her is the deputy First Minister, who has SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance Party civil servants working for her. What the Member just said is, frankly, a slur on all civil servants, but that is fine. I have made clear my view on all of that. I will go back to the point that the Member made about majority rule. Mr Brooks mentioned the idea of a constitutional norm, but that is an absurd and wrong argument. By definition, the constitution of this place does not require double majorities for everything. We are in the UK, but I do not consent to that. That is not the way in which this place works, so it is an absurd argument. Mr Brooks also acknowledged that Parliament is sovereign. The UK Parliament — I want a new Ireland — voted for these arrangements. I am sorry for Ulster unionism that it has got itself into the position in which the UK Parliament voted for arrangements that unionism detests so much. Perhaps unionism should reflect on the original Brexit decision and on its tactics now of tabling these absurd and futile motions for debate. I care about the needs of business. I want smooth processes for businesses, whether they import or export. As Mr Tennyson rightly said, exporting businesses in Northern Ireland are increasing their exports. We are performing better economically than the rest of the UK. Yes, I want smooth processes east-west, but you are constantly tabling motions for debates like this about things that will not happen. The UK, which is struggling with growth and says that it does not have enough money to fill its fiscal black hole, will not jeopardise its just-repaired relationship with the EU, in the context, by the way, of a war on the continent of Europe. It is not going to upturn its entire —.

Hang on one second. I let you in. It is not going to upturn its entire relationship with the EU because a few unionist MLAs are ranting about it at Stormont. That is not going to happen. Here is the thing: grow up and accept the consequences of the Brexit that you championed. If you actually want this place to work, get down to real work rather than bringing this nonsense to the Assembly.

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

Assessment

Flagged Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

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

Flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution opens with substance, noting that the Murphy review offers "practical ideas" on goods movement, Committee resources and duty reimbursement. Most of the speech, however, turns into a contest over which constitutional tradition is winning: "I and my side will win the debate", unionism is debating "a debate that it cannot win", Brexit was "worst of all for unionism", and a new Ireland is the outcome. It also derides "a few unionist MLAs" as "ranting", tells them to "grow up", and calls the 2016 vote by "English/British voters" a "mad decision". Much of this is criticism of parties' tactics, which the rubric allows, but the dominant thrust is identity-based point-scoring on a constitutional flashpoint rather than engagement with the motion's content.

Public interest or divisiveness

There is genuine public-interest content: the speech supports specific review recommendations, argues for smooth trade, and urges the Assembly to focus on healthcare, waiting lists and Lough Neagh. That content is outweighed by taunting framed around unionism as a tradition losing to a new Ireland, such as "I am sorry for Ulster unionism" and "accept the consequences of the Brexit that you championed". This keeps the constitutional row going rather than dealing with the substance. Both elements are substantial, but the communal triumphalism sets the tone.

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