Debate contribution: Windsor Framework

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 8 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

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 5068677

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the first day back, it has been a spirited debate, but it did not take long for some of the typical accusations and slanging to come from across the Chamber. First, there was a tantrum from the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, who told us to "grow up". Does that not summarise the SDLP's approach to unionists' concerns about the Windsor framework and the protocol? That party's leader said that there could be civil disobedience "at a very minimum" if it did not get its way on post-Brexit conditions. We then had Sinn Féin tell us in the Chamber that it is "solution-focused". It was not solution-focused when it did not want even so much as a camera at the border or when Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou were breaking down fake bricks at the border. Was that the constructive, solution-focused mindset that we so often hear about in Sinn Féin's media lines? Absolutely not. We then had the Alliance Party tell us that it is a champion of small business. It was no champion of small business when it voted through over 300 areas of law with scant scrutiny, to the detriment of small businesses, and no scrutiny for dealers of second-hand agricultural tractors, who face the myriad of bureaucracy associated with a framework in respect of which — let us be real, folks — it called for a worse version to be rigorously implemented. The Alliance Party has more faces than the town clock. Mr Honeyford said that the motion is not about jobs, stability, investment or our economy.

Mr Honeyford is fundamentally wrong on every item. Each of those issues is contained in the motion. Members opposite want to say, "My goodness, how dare the DUP bring up the issue of the Windsor framework in its first motion for debate after we come back?". Why did we do that? We did it because it affects so many sectors in Northern Ireland, whether that is farmers on the one hand — we already know their credentials when it comes to farming — or, on the other, small businesses. What about the consumer who faces increased costs for parcels —?

I will in a moment. What about the consumer who faces increased costs in accessing cars? Mr Honeyford may not remember — maybe a summer mirage is affecting his opinion — what he said when the second-hand car dealers came to Stormont. What did he say? Mr Honeyford said, "It seems like you guys have got the worst of both worlds", yet he talks today about dual market access, reverting to his media type rather than identifying facts. I will give way to Mr Frew.

The Member is absolutely right. I would argue that we have had a spirited debate, because the issue fundamentally matters.

I will in a moment. The issue matters. Whenever we come to issues of such importance, we have to remember that we have been here before. Whether we are talking about Brexit itself or any version that followed, they have not enjoyed the unanimous support of the House. Arrangements post Brexit — this should concern any Member who understands Northern Ireland politics, its complexities and the need for cross-community consent — have never enjoyed cross-community consent in this place. That should be of concern, and that in itself merits debate in the Chamber. Mrs Dodds raised a salient point. We are dealing with the consequences of a Brexit deal that was botched by consecutive UK Governments. The truth is, however, that, until this UK Government deal with the fundamental heart of the issue, which is that we have the continued application of EU law in this place, there will always be regulatory barriers and divergence that affect consumers and businesses alike. That is a statement of fact. Members can revert to media lines about the Brexit deal and about what happened, what did not happen and whose version of Brexit it is, but this version is clearly that of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. They called for it, championed it and ensured that barriers were put up to prevent consumers from accessing goods across Northern Ireland. I have often heard in debates in this place that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Folks, if every Member who voted that day in Northern Ireland had voted Remain, guess what: Brexit would still have happened. Members are deluding themselves and confusing the people out there. We have to get back to the fundamentals. There is dwindling business support for arrangements that cripple industry. What industry? The movement of parcels, consumers, used agri-food vehicles, cars and veterinary medicine. In a previous debate, I outlined more than 30 areas of business that are affected by the Windsor framework, yet Mr Honeyford and others in the Chamber tell us, "I have heard no concern. I have no concern. The place is booming". There is a survey by the FSB that some try to discredit, but what does it state? It states that 58% of businesses that were surveyed had moderate to significant challenges operating under the Windsor framework. Now, they are not the only ones with challenges. Due to the toxic nature of the debate, which people like you have introduced, anybody who is against the framework is deemed to be against stability, jobs and investment. People have been afraid to speak out, but no more. They are speaking out and calling out the disruption that they face. Now, the challenge is to the other parties. Are they prepared to champion business? Are they prepared to put their heads above the parapet, admit that they got it wrong and set about putting it right? If the Assembly approached the debate collectively, with the understanding that the Windsor framework is creating barriers for consumers and businesses, we could get real about dealing with the issue. I have no doubt that the Europeans would listen if some of their lapdogs on the Benches opposite came to that realisation and spoke up for Northern Ireland businesses. We then had the Murphy review, which has been touched on. The Murphy review identified some of the core issues, but it fundamentally failed to bring forward proposals that would deal with the issue substantially. Why was that? There was an in-built veto to that very review that said that, unless a recommendation was likely to gain cross-community support, it could not prosper. Where is the irony in that?

No, not at this point. There is an irony that a recommendation from that review requires cross-community support, but the very arrangements that were being reviewed, which have no support from unionism in this place, are not subject to cross-community support. Folks, we have to be real. We have to help businesses, but, whilst people in the Chamber want to continue to bury their heads in the sand and ensure that businesses cannot get to the issues of barriers to trade and divergence of trade and consumers continue to face the repercussions of increased costs, we are fighting a losing battle. Whilst some across the House may not agree with me constitutionally or understand why I feel, as a unionist, that the agreement is so wrong, you will agree with me in the future when it shows that businesses and consumers from nationalist, unionist and other backgrounds alike—

— face continual barriers, increased costs and a lack of consumer choice.

1,241 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

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

The speech is mainly about the practical effects of the Windsor Framework: costs and barriers for parcels, cars, second-hand tractors and veterinary medicines, an FSB survey finding "58% of businesses" facing challenges, and the continued application of EU law. Its cross-community consent point, that the arrangements have "no support from unionism", is the kind of designation argument the rubric treats as legitimate when it is not put in loaded language. The barbs at other parties ("tantrum", "more faces than the town clock", "lapdogs" of the Europeans) are sharp partisan insults about their positions and record. They are not identity-based attacks on a community, so the rubric is not met.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main function is to argue a constitutional and economic case on a live policy question and to set out its effects on businesses and consumers. The closing line stresses that people "from nationalist, unionist and other backgrounds alike" are affected, which frames the issue as shared rather than communal. The heavy partisan point-scoring and name-calling coarsen the debate, but they target parties' political choices rather than a group's place in public life.

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