Member's statement: BIPA Report on UK/EU Defence and Security Cooperation Post-Brexit
Member's statement by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 20 October 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- BIPA Report on UK/EU Defence and Security Cooperation Post-Brexit
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5188293
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, I make a declaration of interest as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) and a long-standing member of committee B. Last week, our committee submitted a report on UK/EU defence and security cooperation post-Brexit. The committee consists of members from the Oireachtas, Westminster and the devolved Administrations, including members from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Scottish National Party. We conducted the inquiry through a series of evidence-gathering meetings and visits to key areas. The meetings included talking to the ex-chief of the Irish Defence Forces; Garda Commissioner Drew Harris; the European Union, including the European Hybrid Centre of Excellence; NATO, including the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence; the National Crime Agency; and cybersecurity experts. The report, which I recommend to everybody — I will ask the Assembly Library to ensure that it has copies of it — is well worth the read. The key supplementary themes became apparent during the investigation. The first is that there is a clear and present danger to this island from Putin and non-state actors, including narco-terrorists and criminal gangs. Attempts to sabotage critical cables, other parts of national infrastructure and the near relentless cyberattacks in every aspect of our lives show that the hybrid war is raging, and the Irish Republic has a particular vulnerability. Secondly, evidence shows that Ireland's shores, air and cyberspace are, regrettably, defenceless. The lack of security for vast areas of sea, subsea, air and cyberspace are an open back door for those wanting to harm not only the Irish Republic but transatlantic trade, the European Union and NATO. Sadly, there is a degree of hypocritical expectation from most Irish political parties, including the current presidential Sinn Féin candidate, that they pontificate about the UK and NATO for their so-called militarism and defence expenditure while doing absolutely nothing to defend themselves. Paradoxically advocating drone defences at Dublin Airport while bashing the only nations that can make effective protective systems is a case in point. As we discovered at BIPA and as even the most myopic TDs or senators now know, NATO has other priorities. We in Northern Ireland, as part of NATO, have a defensive umbrella that is widely stretched but protects us. The Irish, with their minuscule defence spending, have little or no willingness or capability to defend themselves, with few or no guarantees.
Our committee has recommended joint UK/Republic of Ireland maritime patrolling and increased joint working. Without NATO membership, however, Ireland has no access to a military alliance that can secure its borders. Hoping for good luck, the goodwill of hard-pressed neighbours or the beneficence of the triple-lock nations, is, I am afraid, no security at all.
446 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.24 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.38 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.24 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.13 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.60 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:31 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.