Debate contribution: European Parliament Observer Status

Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on 8 December 2025.

MLA

Mr Jon Burrows

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 5284381

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I oppose the motion. It is divisive, negative, fails to learn the lessons of Brexit or our past and wastes time dealing with matters that we have no authority over. Frankly, if we are building something in Northern Ireland, it should not be an office for bureaucrats in Belfast but homes for young people. We are short of homes in Northern Ireland. This shows that our focus is entirely on the wrong thing. Brexit was divisive and negative, and I say that as a lifelong Eurosceptic. The EU is an organisation that was committed to ever closer union, was not very democratic and was tin-eared to reform. David Cameron tried to strike a deal but got nowhere. However, the Ulster Unionist Party, to its credit, before I was in it, thought through the implications of Brexit with its head and not its heart and realised that it was going to be particularly difficult for Northern Ireland, as it came to pass. I credit my colleagues, before I came into the party, for that. Majoritarianism is worrying. A signal is being sent by many in nationalism and now Alliance that majoritarianism suits when they are in the majority, otherwise we have to exercise cross-community consent.

I am not going to give way. I will towards the end. Ms Ferguson, I think, said that people in Northern Ireland did not endorse Brexit. However, people in Northern Ireland have not supported this stunt. This is a constitutional change, yet it has no support from the people of Northern Ireland, only the arrogance to think that we in the Chamber can make a decision that is constitutional and rests squarely with the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is a constitutional issue. Let me deal with this. Frankly, for MEPs to write to the president of the European Parliament to say that we should have observer status is little different from me writing to Catherine Connolly and saying, "Dear President, I think that Ireland should join NATO. It should join the Commonwealth". Members of the Dáil, who sometimes have more sense, would not waste their time debating it. They would realise that they have more important things to do, like build infrastructure for young people like those from Friends' School Lisburn, if I recognise the uniform, who are watching from the Gallery.

Thank you. We will come back to that in a moment. The motion is about supporting a united Ireland. The Alliance Party has fallen into a trap. I do not want to paint them green, white and gold; they never got over me painting them yellow on Facebook

I have committed that I will not paint any of their faces again. However, that is a trap that they fall into. Let me deal with the democratic deficit. The biggest democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is —

Thank you. The biggest democratic deficit is that people in eight out of 19 constituencies in Northern Ireland are represented by Sinn Féin MPs who do not go to Westminster. It is all right for the ones who voted for Sinn Féin but not for the rest of the electorate, who only get one choice of MP. Here is the thing: what could they be doing at Westminster? Making a contribution to the assisted dying Bill, lobbying about the family farm tax, making representations about veterinary medicines or, like our party, putting amendments down to the Legacy Bill — the Troubles Bill — that mean that those who committed sexual crimes in the name of the IRA can be investigated by the Legacy Commission.

I am dealing with the democratic deficit: the real one.

It seems as though we have failed to learn the lessons from our past and from Brexit. In this place we should be joining together and asking, "What can we agree on, so that we can lobby to change the invidious and iniquitous Irish sea border? On what issues can we can come to a consensus as a body so that we can then go and make representations?". We do not do that, however. The motion is a divisive stunt and party politicking by a party that wants to cause endless problems in Northern Ireland. When we deal with economic issues, we should welcome investment such as the Bank of America investment, but we do not. That is the reality. Alliance has made a mistake here. It has fallen into a trap set by Sinn Féin. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have thought with our heads and not our hearts throughout. The motion is dangerous and unconstitutional, and we are right to oppose it forthrightly.

777 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 an argument against a motion seeking European Parliament observer status. It argues that the motion is outside the Assembly's competence, that the issue is constitutional and rests "with the people of the United Kingdom as a whole", and that time would be better spent on housing and economic issues. It has partisan edges: it calls the motion "about supporting a united Ireland", jokes about not wanting to "paint them green, white and gold", and criticises Sinn Féin abstentionism. These are attacks on parties' positions and conduct rather than on a community or its culture, and the text contains no cultural grievance or coded hostility towards a group.

Public interest or divisiveness

Most of the speech deals with substance: the constitutional status of the motion, cross-community consent versus majoritarianism, representation at Westminster, and calls to find consensus on the "Irish sea border" and investment. Some lines add heat and keep the constitutional row going, such as the "divisive stunt" label, the claim that one party "wants to cause endless problems" and the green, white and gold quip. Its main function, though, is ordinary opposition to a constitutional motion rather than identity-based point-scoring.

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