Debate contribution: European Parliament Observer Status

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
8 December 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
European Parliament Observer Status
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5284334

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As a passionately pro-European party, Alliance supports the motion to secure observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament and, indeed, a European Commission office in Belfast. The debate has highlighted the fact that, despite having campaigned for Brexit 10 years ago, the DUP is still not able to name one solitary benefit of leaving the European Union. You cannot come to the Chamber, having campaigned for Brexit, and pin all its inevitable consequences on the Windsor framework. That is the political equivalent of driving your car into a brick wall and then blaming the airbag for your broken nose. The DUP was warned pre referendum that Brexit would inevitably mean increased friction and barriers and that that would impact on the UK's ability to influence the European Union, to make rules and to contribute on matters of peace and security, poverty, migration and the global economy. That is exactly what has happened. Despite not causing that mess, Alliance has consistently come to the Chamber and other forums with practical and pragmatic solutions that would address the situation in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland. We believe that, by having observer status, we would be able to influence upstream EU law that has an impact on Northern Ireland.

It was through faithful implementation that we were able to secure trust and confidence for many of the changes that followed in the Windsor framework. Unlike the Member, we are not in the business of championing breaches of international law. In his contribution, Mr Buckley said that the debate was about rewriting the Brexit referendum and misrepresenting the views of the House. Of course, that is exactly what the DUP did when it held the balance of power at Westminster between 2017 and 2019, when it was only the voices of members of the DUP that were heard in the room. They are the architects of their own misfortune in all of that. Mr Brooks cannot claim that there must be cross-community support for how we Brexit but not for whether we Brexit in the first place; you cannot have it both ways. That principle needs to be applied consistently and fairly, but, more important than that, Northern Ireland has evolved and changed since 1998. There is no majority and minority in the House. We are all minorities: those who are unionist, those who are nationalist and those of us on these Benches who do not designate as nationalist or unionist. Our voters deserve better than to be treated as second-class citizens. The deployment of a petition of concern on this vote is a shameful perversion of democracy and an abuse of process. Prior to the debate, the Members opposite complained in their press statement of a rigged debate. There is no clearer way of rigging of a debate than the deployment of a petition of concern, because nobody's vote matters now except for that of the DUP, which wishes to govern by diktat.

No, I will not give way. I gently say to the Members opposite that we have seen where this has led in the past. In previous mandates, the petition of concern was deployed and abused to deprive LGBTQ+ people of their rights, to prevent Members from being held to account and to derail bread-and-butter politics. That directly led to a breakdown in relationships and a collapse of the institutions. That is simply not good enough. No one should play fast and loose with the operation of the institutions. I also gently say to the Members opposite that there has been an awful lot of sneering and laughing in the debate. This is not a game; this is not debate club. We come here to work together in a spirit of respect and cooperation to deliver for the people who elected us, not to knock lumps out of one another and trade insults across the Chamber every day. The politics of distraction, fear and division is what upended the institutions in the past. The people whom we represent deserve better.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.26 (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).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.62).
  • Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.23No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.10No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.22No
Controversy escalation0.19No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.52No
Overall judgement0.26At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.35
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.62
Adopts it0.03
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.38
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.38
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.17
Another identity-related subject0.05
No identity-related subject0.01

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