Debate contribution: Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 17 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

17 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5245237

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Bob Dylan is playing in Belfast on Wednesday night.

Somebody asked who Bob Dylan is: he is a famous musician from the United States. The debate is almost like a greatest hits, except that it is not as great that as those that Dylan will be playing, we hope, on Wednesday night. It is the same old stuff that we have heard before. In many ways, I am happy to play those tunes. I came into the Assembly because of Brexit. I literally would not have been here without it.

I have talked many times in the Chamber about my personal and professional experience. I could rehearse that and give you guys all the gory details of how the interests of this island, including those of the North and of unionists, were ignored systematically throughout the Brexit process, but I will not do that, because I have only five minutes. We have talked about it before and will talk about it again. We will not support the motion. To be substantive, however, I will go through the various bits of the motion in good faith in order to explain why we will not support it. First are the practical disruptions that are felt by sectors of our economy, specifically east-west, that exist. We have never trivialised them and have always sought practical solutions to them. There are small retailers who need to move partials and who now face new barriers because of that. That is a fact. Clearly, there are questions around veterinary medicine. That is a fact, too, and we do not diminish it. We have never diminished any of the consequences of Brexit, and those are both consequences of Brexit. The electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which is now required for the 70% of tourists who come to Northern Ireland via Dublin, is another consequence of Brexit. That would not have happened had the UK not left the EU. Those are all practical consequences that we need to resolve. How we do that is the next question, and that will happen via a number of means. None of those has been outlined in the DUP motion or in the remarks that we just heard from Dr Aiken. They are just saying, "Turn the table over, because we are angry about all this". I am angry about Brexit. I do not like the constitutional disruption of Brexit, and neither do lots of the people who vote for my party. However, it is about practical solutions. I will list a few, none of which are mentioned in the motion. Number one relates to most of the checks on food and veterinary medicine. Mr Tennyson mentioned the comprehensive veterinary agreement, which we had called for for ages. That is a critical part of softening the burdens. Let us be absolutely clear: it is not possible, in practical terms, for England or GB to be outside the EU's SPS rules and for Northern Ireland to follow. Why is that? It is not because the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party or some inchoate mass of liberals are trying to do down unionism; it is because there are cattle that graze in both Cavan and Fermanagh. That is how our agriculture works, so we have to have an integrated SPS zone on the island. Our food production is integrated. Cattle that produce milk in Donegal are processed in County Tyrone. That is literally the way in which our agriculture system works. That covers the comprehensive veterinary agreement. Number two is about how we interact with the EU. That is mentioned in the motion. I totally agree that we need better mechanisms. Lots of this was talked about in Lord Murphy's report. I am unabashed about saying that we are the most pro-EU party in this place. We want to be back in the European Union, although I think that that will happen only via a new Ireland, if we are honest with ourselves. In the meantime, I want to have representation for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament so that unionists, nationalists, the left and others can make representations there on behalf of our constituents and businesses. We should also have an EU Commission office in Belfast. Why not? That would not change the constitutional position, given that we had an EU Commissioner —

I can see Mrs Dodds complaining vociferously about all the evil EU things. Why not bring the EU Commission to Belfast? It could set up an office. I will give way to the Member. Will you make it relatively concise, so that I can have a bit of time left in which to respond?

I would love to do that in Northern Ireland, Brussels or Dublin. Any of those would be great to me. I wish, however, that the Member would face up to the consequences of the Brexit that she challenges. She is a former MEP, so she knows these things all too well. That is all set out in our policy paper. More representation for the North in the here and now and for its businesses and workers who face those EU rules can, and should, happen. There is a range of other practical consequences of Brexit. The consequences for traders and people who use veterinary medicine need to be examined, but so, too, do the consequences for the all-island economy. As Mr Kearney rightly said, the all-island economy is growing. Northern Ireland has massively outperformed Britain in economic growth. Many economists think that that is to do with us being shielded from a significant number of the consequences of Brexit. That is a reality with which the DUP will not engage. Why has Northern Ireland grown faster than every other part of the UK over the past number of years? That is a remarkable thing. We should also deal with the disruption to people moving across the island of Ireland, whether they are French students who are backpacking in Galway but cannot now easily come to Derry or tourists on coach trips to the Giant's Causeway. Those are all consequences of Brexit. One way to deal with that, rather than taking Dr Aiken's nuclear option of using article 16, is very simple, and it is to use article 14 of the original protocol, now the Windsor framework. That allows the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) to raise specific concerns to the Joint Committee on the operation of the protocol. The deputy First Minister was not even here.

I will not give way, because I will not get another minute, but I am happy to debate it in another place. I have not heard anything about article 14 being triggered by the Executive. The First Minister was here earlier. Are the Executive doing anything via the NSMC to raise those issues? There are practical solutions to these problems. The ultimate one is, of course, to rejoin the EU via a new Ireland, but, in the meantime, let us get real about solutions.

1,166 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