Debate contribution: Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5245698
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. It is a very topical, serious issue for many of our constituents and businesses, small and large, and it is a big issue for many consumers who are trying to buy their wares from GB companies and are finding it increasingly difficult. I know from my mailbag and my email lists the amount of concern out there. We, as a party, have a very good sense of organisation. When we get emails regarding the protocol, we pass them to the central party, and it engages for us, on our behalf, with the relevant departments in Westminster. It has proven to be a very good way of getting information down to constituents. However, it seems to me, from listening to the debate, that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party have no concerns about those issues and no complaints from their constituents. Going by the level and tone of their debate, it seems that, if they do, they basically reply, "Suck it up, buttercup. You should have listened to us during the Brexit debate". That is simply not good enough. The Brexit debate and referendum were run nearly 10 years ago. It is time for the parties here to get over themselves, get over the result and move on. I know that they are angry, and I know that they love to be EU fanatics. Well, most of the parties do. Sinn Féin has only really adopted that policy in the past 10 years because, before that, it was Eurosceptic. In effect, it was probably the most militant party against the EU on this island. It changed tack, but it did so because it saw a point of division that it could exploit. Boy, has it tried to do that. Sinn Féin is not trying to resolve the issues; it is just trying to divide. Of course, all the other parties are aligned with that. The "suck it up, buttercup" mentality, however, will not work in North Antrim, Lagan Valley or Upper Bann, where so many people voted for Brexit but then experienced the ill effects of the protocol. That is where the violence was done. The violence was done by the protocol. The Windsor framework was labelled as some sort of remedy when we knew that it was not. It was this party that said that it was not. It was this party that fought against the worst excesses of the protocol and fought against the Windsor framework in order to make it better for all our people. Yet, those parties cannot get over themselves about the decision that was taken by UK citizens nearly 10 years ago. We are where we are. The practicalities of the protocol and the Windsor framework are upon us, so it is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to make sure that the people whom we represent, no matter what church they go to or what their political philosophy is, are not damaged and that their trading relationships and consumer practices are not damaged by the protocol and the Windsor framework. We are facing a really serious issue with regard to veterinary medicines. We have tabled the motion so that we can air those concerns. Instead of having the concerns of our people echoed across the Chamber, however, they are thrown back not just in our faces but in the faces of the people whom we represent. This issue affects everybody, no matter who they vote for. Once again, it is the DUP that is stepping up and raising the legitimate concerns of our people, while the other parties are very flippant about it. Members on the other side of the House can laugh about that, but we will continue to fight for our people in order to ensure that those barriers are removed.
643 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.55 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.77).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.69).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.37 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.41 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.77 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.41 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.43 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.55 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.29 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.83 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.13 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:58 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.