Debate contribution: Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 17 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

17 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5245215

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I, too, have a sense of déjà vu coming to the Chamber once again to rehearse the damage of Brexit. It was interesting that Mr Brett said that that was not his intention, because that is what he proceeded to do. He was keen to use not his own words but the words of businesses. I say gently to the Member that, if only he had listened to the voices of the FSB and other business organisations during the referendum, we may not have found ourselves in this position, for the consequences that he listed were entirely predictable and inevitable. It has been fascinating to watch as those who tabled the motion have slowly come to terms with the consequences of their actions, as they seek to rewrite history and blame everybody else for the Brexit that they campaigned for. You won, guys: own it. Alliance warned that there was no such thing as a good or sensible Brexit and that leaving the EU would inevitably mean increased borders, barriers and friction. The only question was about where that friction would occur, not whether it would occur. We said clearly that that was much more likely to happen at ports and airports than at a porous 300-mile land border, not because we wanted to see those checks happen there but because logic necessitated that that is where they would happen.

Of course, logic was a concept that the DUP never applied during the Brexit process; indeed, the DUP dismissed such concerns, telling those of us who warned of red tape and food supply chain issues that we could, "Go to the chippy". Its former leader said that he could live with 40,000 job losses as the cost of Brexit freedom. The DUP was out of touch then, and it is just as out of touch today. The motion spells out the gulf between those on the DUP Benches who are lamenting the price of food in Marks and Spencer (M&S) and those whom we represent who rely on food banks and expect us to be in the Chamber debating the cost of living and how we tackle poverty in our society. M&S has been mentioned in the motion, so I will say that supermarkets have a choice either to go through the red lane or to use the retail movement scheme, which is also known as the "green lane". The reason that some supermarkets cannot avail themselves of that scheme is that they supply Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. M&S relies on being able to supply the Republic of Ireland through ports, including Belfast, and, because its loads are mixed, the system is bureaucratic and complicated. That is true. From my perspective, the way to address that is through a comprehensive veterinary agreement, for which the Alliance Party campaigned and to which the Government have committed. I hope that the Government will move forward at pace with that agreement. That will require building trust —.

No, I will not, because we heard enough from the Member in his opening contribution. Alliance called for a veterinary agreement during the Brexit process, but Arlene Foster and the DUP dismissed our call. I am grateful that the DUP has undertaken probably the longest U-turn in history and got to a better position, but had it listened to those of us who warned of such issues at the time, our businesses would now be in a better place. The Windsor framework is far from perfect, but it is a function of Brexit. It is intended to insulate us from its worst excesses. It has contributed to a situation in which Northern Ireland's economy has outperformed that of the rest of the UK. In 2024, economic output in Northern Ireland grew at a rate of 3·6%, compared with just 1·4% in the UK as a whole. To be blunt, the framework is also the only game in town. The Government have made that clear. My hope is that, over time, as issues arise, the framework can change, evolve and become less bureaucratic. The Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee's report and Lord Murphy's review can inform that process, but the framework itself is going nowhere. It will be the starting point. Alliance supports the framework not because it is seamless or perfect but because it is the better option when faced with a choice between a hard border and a soft border, a choice between friction and facilitation and between stability and chaos. The Members who have railed loudest against the framework, including in today's debate, have provided no credible alternative over the past eight years. We have set out our proposals and clear asks for how the framework could be improved in order to ease the burden on businesses, including the provision of enhanced support and advice, the promotion of dual market access and the relaxation of the at-risk category. Only a full reversal of Brexit, however, can undo all the tensions and contradictions that the framework poses. We have a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the world. Will we continue to pick at old wounds and create uncertainty and instability or embrace the opportunities of dual market access and send a signal that we are open for business and are serious about doing business? I hope that Members choose the second option.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:48 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