Debate contribution: Windsor Framework

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 8 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

8 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Windsor Framework

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5068663

Read the official Assembly record

Text

That is a debate for another day. The Windsor framework was heralded by some as a solution, but, really, it was a deal that sold the people of Northern Ireland the false promise of delivering on the promises that were made by Brexit. In reality, what it did was entrench the Irish Sea border, which tethers us to rules that we do not write. The Member for Lagan Valley was right to point out some trade figures. There are some winners; there have been some losers. In Lagan Valley, there is a manufacturing company that uses steel that is tied to an EU tariff, which makes them uncompetitive with GB production to produce something that goes to the Republic of Ireland, and they are now out of that equation. That is the reality. I will name-drop two of the businesses that he talked about, because they are two fantastic businesses in Lisburn: Leckey and PRM Group. If you were to look at their books, you would see that, year-on-year, before Brexit happened, their profits went up. Do you know why? It is because they are darn well-run businesses with a vision. Yes, Brexit happened, but they took it in their stride because they had good business acumen. It was not Brexit or the Windsor framework that made them good: it was the sound management and leadership in those companies. They would have succeeded anyway. The motion calls for the outright end of the framework. I share the deep frustration that drives it, but our amendment takes a more forensic approach. It shines a light not only on the failures of the framework but on the failures of the so-called safeguards: the Stormont brake, the consent mechanism, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the UK Government's supposed role as guarantor of the Union. Those were dressed up as protections, yet every one of them has failed to prevent divergence within our internal market. They are, at best, paper shields. Although I chair the AERA Committee, I am not speaking as the Chairperson. What I see, however, on a regular basis, is that we are dealing with greater areas of divergence. We see tractors, trailers and lorries sitting in ports in Scotland, which cannot come across because of paperwork and inefficiencies, but I tell you what: we can see drugs coming up through the Republic with no borders or difficulties. There does not seem to be the same challenge to that, yet we are talking about trade and people going about their ordinary, everyday business. Our amendment recognises the practical costs that burden businesses in Northern Ireland. This is not just the fault of Brussels but of our own Government in Westminster who add red tape, costs and delay.

Worse still, major regulatory changes on food and on plant and animal health that we have recently heard being heralded in the reset deal will probably not come to fruition until the end of 2027 or perhaps into 2028.

We have an opportunity, however. We can sit idly by and watch divergence happen and make things more difficult for businesses, or we can do something that has already been done in Wales, where the opportunity was recognised, given the ongoing conversation between the EU and London, to stop works on Welsh border control posts until such time as it makes sense to continue. That is why our amendment calls for action now. The Government must and can invoke article 16 and pause further implementation of the deal until after the UK-EU reset negotiations in 2027. Herein, however, lies the good news for people who seek to apply the protocol and the Windsor framework rigorously: article 16 is a full and equal part of the text of the Windsor framework. It could be rigorously applied, and then, potentially, everybody would be happy. To do otherwise, however, would be to follow blindly the faithful implementation route and tighten the knot that already strangles Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. This is not about rhetoric. I was a Remainer. I voted to remain and would do so again. Mr Gaston was right, and I agreed with him up to a point. He said that Mr Allister was absolutely right, but Mr Allister was absolutely wrong on Brexit. It was the Ulster Unionist Party that warned of what would happen and recognised that, because we have a border here, things would be difficult and Northern Ireland would be treated differently. Mr Allister did not have that foresight at the time. The TUV needs to take an equal burden of the fallout from the protocol rather than just blaming the DUP. Unionists are facing in one direction, however. This is really a good moment, because we are not tearing strips off each other today. As long as the DUP keeps its posters out of Lagan Valley, we will be all right. Let us stop talking about betrayal. Let us stop talking Northern Ireland down. Plenty has been said in the debate with which we can agree. I believe, for instance, that Mr Honeyford genuinely has at heart —.

I thought that I had 10 minutes.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:03 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