Debate contribution: European Parliament Observer Status

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 8 December 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

8 December 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

European Parliament Observer Status

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5284316

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Not at the moment, thank you. During the Brexit process, unionists were lectured about protecting the agreement in all its parts — every jot and tittle, we were told — but here we are again, faced with a proposal that seeks to trample on those very principles. While working in the European Parliament, I heard not only Sinn Féin MEPs but those from other nations wax lyrical about the deified Good Friday Agreement, when I am sure that many of them had not set eyes on much of it, much less on all its parts. Some of them had expansive and fantastical ideas about what it said. The motion is not about political engagement. It is a Sinn Féin a ploy. As has been outlined, it is a stepping stone to its wish to break up the United Kingdom. If the motion is passed, it will lead to a letter being sent to Brussels claiming that the Assembly supports observer status, despite there being fierce opposition from all on the unionist Benches. No legitimacy will be given to the motion in this place today. Those in Brussels will not have the opportunity afforded to them to ignore and ride roughshod over the concerns of the unionist population of Northern Ireland, against the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, as they did when the protocol was imposed following the acquiescing of the UK Government of the day. Today, the Democratic Unionist Party, along with unionist colleagues, has, rightly, had no hesitation in using the petition of concern to ensure that unionist voices are not silenced or misrepresented. What, after all, does observer status offer? It offers no vote, no influence and no power. It would do nothing to fix the democratic deficit that has been created by the protocol. Instead, it would be an attempt to signal Northern Ireland's willingness to join the EU, a message that those who tabled the motion hope that Brussels would seize upon, entrenching the flawed arrangements that have already damaged our economy. We are still battling threats to veterinary medicine supplies and restrictions on car dealers registering UK-approved vehicles. Those are the real consequences of surrendering control. In many ways, perhaps having the privileges of partial membership that were outlined by my colleague, without the responsibilities or costs, would suit Sinn Féin well. Is that not the arrangement that they have at Westminster, where they are free to travel to London and live the London lifestyle without having any of the responsibility of the work of the House of Commons or any voice for those whom they represent? Perhaps the plan is for John Finucane to add "EU observer" to the jobs that he has but does not do, while he continues his legal career.

Yes.

I assure the Member that I would not give up my seat for it to be filled by one of the Europhiles on the other side of the House. Yes, we will listen intently, but we will respect the vote of the United Kingdom. I know that the Member would like to reduce the referendum to one that is at a more local level, so perhaps he would look at how East Antrim voted in that referendum. I will give the SDLP its dues: it has, at least, been consistent in its Europhile position, whereas Sinn Féin, as we know, has flip-flopped on the issue. Even now, with its relatively new-found passion and enthusiasm for fighting for freedom of sovereignty from the existing Union so that it can hand over power to Brussels, it criticises the Irish Government for not being neutral enough. It wishes to speak about European values and be part of the European system, but it does not want Ireland to contribute in any way to the defence of those values and people. It seems that Sinn Féin's position is no different now than Ireland's was in the 1940s, which is: "We're all right, Jack: you can pay for our defence while we sit on the edge of Europe". It wants to continue to take the benefits of that system, whilst the UK stands with those in Ukraine, as my colleague said, to ensure that defences are maintained across Europe. The protocol was imposed over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, without the support of a single unionist representative. Checks resulting from the border in the Irish Sea undermine our economy and constitutional integrity. If passed, today's motion would compound that harm by further eroding the principle of consent — the cornerstone of our settlement, which it championed when it suited it and at national behest. Some claim that this would give us a voice, but the truth is that Northern Ireland has already had negligible influence over EU laws. Engagement has been tokenistic: merely communicative and not participatory. Goods regulations will still be dictated by Brussels, without the UK's input. The SDLP's answer is not to take back control of our laws but to have an EU office in Belfast.

For what? So that we can go to that office to beg, after the fact, after those regulations have been imposed —

— on our businesses?

863 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

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

Challenge this classification