Debate contribution: European Parliament Observer Status

Debate contribution by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on 8 December 2025.

MLA

Dr Steve Aiken OBE

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

8 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

European Parliament Observer Status

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5284297

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The Ulster Unionist Party opposes this unconstitutional motion and the amendment. I shall outline our reasons for doing so. There is no doubt that the decision by all the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has had far-ranging and highly disruptive consequences not only here but across Europe. The predictions of slower growth, loss of global influence, the undermining of our existing treaties and the potential large-scale impact on Northern Ireland and our unique position, as laid out by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, that our party made as part of our case to remain — the only unionist party to have done so — have been borne out. Indeed, we are on the record as saying that our wish was for the United Kingdom to stay and give leadership to Europe, as we all faced the multiple challenges of Putin's war in Europe, the growth of China and an increasingly disengaged United States. Rather than it being the best of both worlds, with the UK-USA tariff agreement, the EU single market and the UK internal market, even the most myopic can see that we are suffering the worst of at least two of those three worlds.

No. The unattainable chimera of EU observer status will not change that. We already have a report before us from Lord Murphy that makes it clear that we need to beef up our capacity, including giving more staff to the Northern Ireland Office in Brussels, our Departments and the Assembly. The Ulster Unionist Party made those recommendations on page 16 of his report. If we act on those, we would at least improve awareness and be able to try to intervene earlier. The motion calls for us to apply for accession state observer status in the EU, because, bizarrely, some believe that a united Ireland within the next few years is credible or even possible. That is precisely what the motion implies. As a party, however, we welcome moves by our Government to develop ever-closer relationships with the European Union, not because we believe that we are heading back to full EU membership — that is not going to happen — but primarily because we need to deal with the absurdity of the self-imposed Irish Sea border. On the back of the actions of those who would rather rigorously implement decisions that most other EU nations privately ignore, that border is increasingly morphing into a trade, regulation, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), digital and, should the ridiculous idea of digital ID cards come to fruition, identity border. However, the motion does not seek to address those issues. It is a farcical attempt by Sinn Féin to undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and further the united Ireland agenda. As the Connolly House drafters know full well, the EU is very legalistic. The European Parliament observer status is granted only to accession states. That rule is clearly laid out in rule 13 of the rules of procedure of the European Parliament. The Irish MEPs made a particularly clumsy attempt to have the EU follow on behind in recognising that the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom should be changed. This will come as no surprise, but, on the basis of a calculation made in Brussels between keeping the most capable military power in Europe engaged in European security or throwing a Bonio to the biggest freeloaders and tax evaders on the continent, that is not going to happen.

The motion and the amendment are, therefore, a farce. We will not support them in any way, and neither should any party that believes in the peace settlement that was laid out in 1998. Unconstitutional and majoritarian stunts will achieve absolutely nothing — not here, not in London and definitely not in Brussels.

No. I have just finished my remarks.

635 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

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution is a substantive argument against a motion on the constitutional question. It cites rule 13 of the European Parliament's rules of procedure (observer status is granted only to accession states) and points to the Murphy report's recommendations on staffing and capacity as the practical alternative. The rhetoric is sharp, including "farcical attempt", "Connolly House drafters" and "unconstitutional and majoritarian stunts", but this criticises a party's motion and constitutional aims rather than a community. The jibe at the Irish state as "the biggest freeloaders and tax evaders on the continent" is a derogatory national stereotype, but it is a passing line in a speech whose main thrust is legal and policy reasoning.

Public interest or divisiveness

The speech mainly engages with whether the motion is achievable and what would better serve Northern Ireland's interests in dealing with the EU, which is ordinary democratic debate on a constitutional matter. Several lines add partisan point-scoring and insult, notably the "Bonio" and "freeloaders" remark about Ireland, and these give the contribution a combative edge. That rhetoric is substantial enough to note, but it does not displace the substance.

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