Debate contribution: European Parliament Observer Status

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 8 December 2025.

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 5284234

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was not a short intervention. Clearly nothing is happening in the Northern Ireland education system if the Education Minister can afford to come in here to debate our European motion. That is fine. I will respond, because I believe in responding in debates. There were two points from the Education Minister. He said that this place proceeds on "consensus". It proceeds on the basis of our having inclusive, pluralist government respect for one another. It does not proceed on the basis that our constitutional future is decided by cross-community consensus. That would not work, because, right now, we are still part of the UK. I do not consent to that, because I want a new Ireland. That is not how the Good Friday Agreement or, indeed, the St Andrews Agreement works, so that is a factual fallacy that pro-Brexit politicians have constantly pushed. To come back to the point, a majority of people in Northern Ireland supported us, that is, the UK, remaining part of the EU. We were dragged out against our will. I will not go through all that history, but it is why I am a politician here, and I am sure that the DUP is delighted by that. Our best future is not in the UK as it is currently constituted but in a new Ireland inside the EU, and I will relentlessly make that case. However, in the here and now, — as Ciara Ferguson said — there are a number of specific reasons why Northern Ireland deserves and should have EU observer status. First, as noted in the ‘Our European Future’ paper, we are distinct within the EU. First, by dint of birthright, even before Brexit, the protocol, the awful Windsor framework and all the stuff that the Members opposite hate so much, people here had an automatic right of citizenship in this part of Ireland. In fact, I should say in this part of the UK, because it is the only part of the UK where people, by birthright, have EU citizenship. My second point is consistently made by the DUP members opposite: we are bound by EU law. They keep telling us about how we are bound by EU law, and how awful that is, specifically in relation to goods. While I do not think that it is awful, by all means, we need the opportunity to scrutinise, lobby and test, and what better opportunity could we have than through observer status? The best thing that we could have is full-blown EU membership via a new Ireland. They do not want to go there. That is fair enough — it is their position — but EU observer status in the new Parliament would at least give us that opportunity —.

Members across the Chamber say, "It is servile", as if we want to be in the service of the EU. Those are the same people who, last week, moaned and groaned about everything that the UK Government were doing to them — "the awful British Government that forced an awful Budget on us. Isn't it terrible, but we have to stay inside the UK as it is currently constituted.". It is the worst thing in the world to even talk about leaving the UK. They are silent now, because it is awful for me to aspire to rejoining the EU, and a united Ireland would have exactly the same vote at the European Council as every other EU member state, but we have to stay in the UK as it is currently constituted, where we, in the Chamber, can huff and puff about how much we hate the UK's Budget but can do very little about it. That is their preference, not mine. They can answer for it. Mr Frew laughs. He laughs because his position is indefensible. Let us go back to the main thrust of the motion and the amendment: better representation for Northern Ireland's farmers and businesses on how EU law affects us. Why not? Even if you are a unionist, that makes sense. The final point is that I aspire to full membership of the European Union, and I acknowledge that unionists do not. We are guaranteed automatic re-entry into the EU after a referendum on a new Ireland; that is guaranteed to the people of Northern Ireland. We can take that power into our hands, and that is unique. The people of Scotland cannot do that, and Ukraine, which has been bombarded by Vladimir Putin, does not have that power, and many of those people want to join the EU. That right is not automatic. The only place where it is automatic is right here. Therefore, for all those reasons, we have specific rights.

I will not give way because your colleague's intervention took up so much time that I do not have enough time. Specifically, in the here and now — I am very flattered to debate a very similar motion to the one that stood in my name a few months ago — our amendment adds something very practical: a European Commission office. What could be wrong with that? I want business groups, farmers and others who are affected by the consequences of Brexit to be able to say to the European Commission, "Actually, lads, can we engage on how that is being implemented? Can we have a bit of a conversation about that?" A European Commission office in Belfast would not jeopardise anybody's constitutional position; it would be rational and it would be a protection. The Members opposite are not fans of this UK Government; they do not seem to be fans of any UK Government, which is ironic, because they do not want us to leave the UK. The position of the DUP appears to be that —

Point of order?

No, I will not give way. If the Education Minister had not pushed his luck in taking so much time, I would be able to give way to more people. The best future for Northern Ireland is in a new Ireland, back inside the EU. The SDLP is the most consistently pro-European party in the Chamber and will keep making that case. I welcome today's motion, and we have added our amendment to it, which seeks to support an European Commission office in Belfast. I only wish that the DUP would finally face up to the consequences of its actions, the consequences of the Brexit that it supported and the consequences of everything that it has done over the past decade. We are looking for practical solutions to improve things for people in the here and now, and that could include EU observer status in the European Parliament and, yes, a European Commission office in Belfast. In the future, I want us to be back in the European Union, and there is no reason why we cannot have better representation and accountability in the here and now. I support the motion and commend our amendment to the Assembly.

1,173 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mainly advances the public interest

Against the published rubric

The contribution argues for EU observer status and a European Commission office in Belfast so that farmers and businesses can 'scrutinise, lobby and test' EU law that applies here, which is a substantive policy case. It openly advocates a 'new Ireland' inside the EU and criticises opponents' support for Brexit and their stance on the UK Government, but that is criticism of a party's policies and record, not an identity-based attack on unionists as a community. It explicitly acknowledges that unionists hold a different aspiration ('that is fair enough') and argues the measure 'would not jeopardise anybody's constitutional position'.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main thrust is practical: better representation on how EU law affects goods, farmers and businesses after Brexit, set out alongside a legitimate constitutional preference. There is a good deal of partisan point-scoring, including 'dragged out against our will', mocking opponents' complaints about the UK Budget and calling a laughing member's position 'indefensible'. That is sharp party-political argument rather than hostility towards a community or its place in public life.

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification