Debate contribution: Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 17 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

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 5245742

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Who would have thought that a debate on challenging the harm posed by the Windsor framework would cause such a debate or lack of it in some instances? It is fair to say that a lot of political parties have been on a journey when it comes to the Windsor framework. I genuinely believe that, today, all parties are now in a position where they, perhaps to varying degrees, understand that harm is being caused to some aspects of business in Northern Ireland because of the Windsor framework's outputs. Northern Ireland's economy is largely made up of small businesses, and that is largely on whom the major weight of trouble has fallen. I say gently to Members, although we will always have robust conversation in the Chamber, that it is incumbent on us, as elected Members of the Assembly, to speak up when harm is caused. Often, what has happened in this place is that businesses that have been impacted by the Windsor framework and, indeed, other provisions from the Brexit process — from the withdrawal agreement right through — have felt that they needed to keep their head down rather than speak up on the issues that affect them, their business, their employees and the Northern Ireland consumer. Just at a time when some of them go on the record to talk about their concerns from a business perspective, they are shot down. Some Members shot down the FSB report, saying that the examples that it gave were not relevant and represented too small a proportion. M&S is shot down because it is M&S. The RHA is shot down because it does not represent a wider section of those who are impacted. That is deeply disingenuous for the businesses that have felt the need to speak up on the impact that the arrangements are having on their respective industries. Some parties have reiterated old ground. Sinn Féin talked about the need for a cost-of-living strategy. The Member for South Antrim and chairman of Sinn Féin, Mr Kearney, said that we should stop wasting time. He failed to say that his party has probably tabled more motions about Gaza than about the cost-of-living crisis since it came back to this place. It is a bit rich for those champagne socialists to talk about cost-of-living strategies when it is now the richest party in these islands, with assets estimated to have a net value of over €8 million. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, as the Member mentioned —.

I will indeed. As the Member who is winding up on the motion, I think that it is important that I capture the totality of the debate. Imagine being in such a wealthy position that you do not even know how many properties you own. I will give way to a Member of Sinn Féin if one of them wants to tell us that. No? I suspected that they did not. We can look at the Alliance Party's contribution to the debate. We had the student union debater-in-chief, Mr Tennyson, telling us that it is our fault. He said, "You should have listened to us." Had we listened to them, we would have had the rigorous implementation of the very protocol that preceded the Windsor framework, which would have caused even more catastrophic difficulties for our businesses. We had the SDLP talk about article 14 of the agreement, which would enable the EU to have direct conversations with business representatives and Northern Ireland stakeholders about the impact and —

I will, just briefly.

That is exactly the point that I am coming to. The Member for South Belfast also talked about good relations with the European Union. Members, be under no illusions about this: the EU has played a blinder. It hoodwinked the United Kingdom in the Brexit negotiations. Why do I say that? Let us look at Lord Murphy's review. We can point out its clear limitations, but one of the most startling aspects of his evidence to the Economy Committee just a couple of weeks prior to this debate was the fact that, despite him reaching out in good faith to the European Union, it would not even afford him the courtesy of a meeting. What does that say? Are the parties opposite so blinded by the needs and wants of the European Union that they close their eyes and cover their ears to the genuine concerns of the businesses that are represented in the motion? We have already heard about M&S and the challenges that it faces. Let us look at some of the evidence in the independent report. Products are being delisted locally because GB businesses, particularly micro and small businesses, are choosing not to supply Northern Ireland. Supermarkets feel that the Government's push for 100% compliance with the Windsor framework is unnecessarily disrupting trade to Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the matter. The UK's insistence on 100% compliance is not being met with any form of goodwill from the European Union. It is being met with meek responses and disengagement from the very organisation that could unlock the solutions to a lot of the problems. We talk about the democratic deficit, and, at the start of his contribution, Mr Gaston talked about how the motion contains the wrongs of the Windsor framework. I have always held that position, and I always will. The Windsor framework's root problem, as with the agreements subsequent to it, is that EU law still applies. Whilst EU law still applies in Northern Ireland, we will still have those major issues affecting large swathes of our economy.

When we talk about the democratic deficit, Members across the Floor talk keenly about the need for an Assembly to debate the issues. However, pre-Christmas 2024, after a six-hour debate on articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, the Assembly sent over 300 areas of law, controlling large swathes of our economy, back to Europe. It therefore could have no democratic say on the laws that affect our people, our businesses and our consumers. The laws covered everything from agriculture, the environment and electricity to state aid, VAT and duties, goods and customs. They covered large sections of our economy, yet, whilst we in the House recognise that the Windsor framework presents difficulties to some of our businesses, whether they are small, medium or, in some cases, large, in essence, we voted against the ability to take decisions to benefit those businesses. That is a great shame on the Members who, at the behest of the European Union, sent those laws there. The Road Haulage Association captured some of the issues facing the haulage sector well. Members may want to go on the record to rubbish what M&S said, but the Road Haulage Association identified that, as long as it remains the position that all goods are classified as "at risk" unless it can be proved otherwise, large swathes of checks are placed on those businesses and that trade in particular. At the point of sale, the end destination is known, so why not change the rule so that goods are deemed not to be at risk? By doing so, we would save our businesses from vast swathes of paperwork that is destroying them economically. The motion mentions bureaucracy: 300 pages of paperwork per lorry is simply ridiculous and will only increase as time goes on, unless Members are prepared to open their eyes to the challenges and stand up to the European Union. I would love to know why Members are so compelled to believe that the European Union has Northern Ireland businesses' interests at heart more than the democratically elected Members of this House. I do not see it. I just hope that Members understand that. My colleague Mr Martin mentioned how we are going down the road towards an incredibly difficult position on veterinary medicines, and that will affect not just farmers but owners of domestic pets. Over 40% of pet medicines in Northern Ireland could be discontinued by January. The UK Government and Europe's burying their heads in the sand tells me that there is little genuine interest in dealing with the issues affecting Northern Ireland. This House is the best place in which to determine those laws. I ask Members to reconsider their opposition to the motion and ensure that we can have a democratic input into the laws that affect this place.

1,412 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification