Debate contribution: European Parliament Observer Status
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 8 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- European Parliament Observer Status
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5284214
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to speak to the motion, with which we enthusiastically agree. We are so much in agreement with it that we pre-empted it by six months by putting down basically the same motion, albeit today's motion is updated with the reference to a letter calling for observer status — Sinn Féin MEPs had a part in that — which I strongly welcome.
We, obviously, have engaged with our Irish MEPs on that.
I will not hold it up, because I know that we are not supposed to brandish props, but, in front of me, I have a paper that we produced a year ago called 'Our European Future'. In it, we in the SDLP set out in detail our vision for our European future in the short term, meaning how we will achieve the like of European Parliament observer status in order to improve our responses to some of the questions and dilemmas that people have raised about our post-Brexit arrangements and to build for a European future back inside the European Union. To be clear, those who are not in favour of our rejoining the European Union via a new Ireland should be, because they have said repeatedly, "You should be in favour of us addressing some of the issues to do with the democratic deficit that have arisen as a result of our being bound by a corpus of EU law on the single market for goods and a couple of other discrete areas". One does not guarantee the other, but we are clear that our vision is for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union.
We are also clear that the only way for Northern Ireland to rejoin the European Union is via a new Ireland. That is because we have the unique right of automatic re-entry. It is also because British politics looks strikingly and infinitesimally unlikely to move in the direction of a full-blown rejoining of the European Union, even if, although I hope it that does, there is progress towards greater alignment and membership of the single market and the customs union. Even that currently looks unlikely. Therefore, having moved an almost identical motion six months ago, I am more than happy to support this one. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so, obviously, we are keen and delighted to debate this motion today. I am, however, slightly surprised at the DUP pulling the stunt today of tabling a petition of concern on a non-binding motion when it did not do so six months ago on our motion. Even if the petition of concern is successful after a cooling-off period, not only will it have no effect, because it is giving an indication of the Assembly's will, but it will not matter, because the Assembly voted in favour of the topic only six months ago. The DUP did not table a petition of concern then. This is about two things: first, Sinn Féin imitating our policy, which I am happy about — it has been happening for years, we are flattered by it and that is grand; we are all on the same page on that — and, secondly, the absurdity of the DUP tabling a petition of concern on a motion that is not only non-binding but that has already been given the will of the Assembly. Regardless of whether you like it or not, a majority of Members has already supported the thrust of the motion.
I will give way to the Education Minister in one minute. Further to what I was saying, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for us to remain. I will come back to that point, because it is germane to our amendment. I give way.
631 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: 0.21 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- 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 | 0.25 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.27 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.32 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.21 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:08 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.