Debate contribution: EU Office in Belfast

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 12 January 2026.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

12 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

EU Office in Belfast

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5312011

Read the official Assembly record

Text

In following the previous contributor, I remind people that the UK left the European Union as part of the UK's largest ever democratic exercise — something that you will not see in places such as Venezuela that other parties have tended to support until now. Today, we are asked to consider a motion calling for the establishment of an EU office in Northern Ireland. The motion supposes that that will allow businesses to benefit from the so-called advantages of dual market access, and it speaks to aspects beyond the proposal for a pseudo consulate, but we know that, for those on the Benches opposite, the issue is more about symbolism. In fact, that has been more or less admitted. It is about bread and circuses. It is to add a facade and the perception of difference and a European connection without changing anything in reality. What they seek is a visible symbol of the barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom through the protocol. The proposal would do little to address the real challenges facing businesses that cannot directly influence the laws that govern them. I find it difficult to believe that the major stumbling block for any major business considering investment in Northern Ireland and wishing to grasp that great white elephant of the protocol — the legion of so-called dual market access benefits — is the lack of a physical office for the EU in Belfast city centre. Members will know that, for example, analysis by Chartered Accountants Ireland states that our higher rate of corporation tax is the primary disincentive for those who choose not to invest in Northern Ireland, whatever relationships we have with the EU. They will know, too, that, when asked, Invest NI failed to identify a single business that has come to Northern Ireland as a result of dual market access. At a recent Economy Committee meeting, Invest NI could not provide a single example of foreign direct investment that was linked to dual market access. In fact, it stated explicitly:

"We cannot attribute dual market access exclusively to the establishment of any FDI in the past four years."

Over a year ago —.

I will make progress, thank you, not least because I will probably run out of time. Over a year ago, its chief executive confirmed that there was no evidence of such investment. Nothing has changed.

No, I will not, thank you. Dual market access has been mythical. There is only so long that you can sing of something's virtue while it remains un-evidenced. We were previously told that it was down to the lack of a Government, yet here we are without any further evidence: it is all a bit like the emperor has no clothes. Businesses can see and, more importantly, count the real costs of the Windsor framework, but the benefits remain impossible to quantify. Was there ever a more hyped up example of jam tomorrow than that very element? Indeed, Invest has described a "seamless" trading relationship with both jurisdictions, which, I am sure, many local companies think is the stuff of Alice's looking glass. The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), too, has shown that the Windsor framework is creating severe disruption and fracturing the UK internal market: 58% of businesses trading between GB and NI report moderate to significant challenges, and over a third have ceased trading altogether rather than face new compliance demands.

No, I will not, thank you. Those are not technical issues but barriers that drive up the cost of transport, logistics and production and ultimately increase prices for consumers. An EU office will not change that. Can other parties not acknowledge the disadvantage that that creates for local businesses throughout the supply chain? In October, there was a report from Queen's University. I have to admit that I have not often quoted David Phinnemore and Katy Hayward's work on Brexit issues

; I do not pretend that it often lends itself to my position. Nevertheless, I hope that others in the Chamber take more notice more of the trends in their work than they would of me. The report noted that, now, only a minority — 48 % — still view the Windsor framework as being, on balance, a good thing for Northern Ireland. That figure is still higher than those who outright disagree, but, given that it is at its lowest since February 2023, it represents a downward trend. It is worth restating that international relations are a reserved matter. Northern Ireland is represented in such matters, first and foremost, by our sovereign Government, the UK Government. I do not always agree with them or like their decisions, but such is the sovereignty of Government. The responsibility for promoting trade in Northern Ireland lies with elements of the Executive that work alongside the Department for Business and Trade on the mainland. That is how trade should be advanced within the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive clearly have a role in interpreting locally the realities of the rules under which we have been compelled to operate and in helping local businesses and individuals navigate the complexities that needlessly befall them under the continued application of EU law. There will be more on that tomorrow.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:17 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