Debate contribution: EU Office in Belfast

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 12 January 2026.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

12 January 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

EU Office in Belfast

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5312157

Read the official Assembly record

Text

All my comments will be about the EU office in Belfast and everything that it could be doing. Part of the motion seems straightforward and not worth objecting to. Access to both markets has benefited suppliers and businesses in the North, which is an OK thing to note, observe and, for me, support. I have no issue with that, but I have to say that many unionist parties have over-egged some of the issues since the protocol. There was an obsession with getting and ensuring access to certain foods and goods from Britain when similar products could be acquired south of the border. That was bizarre and perplexing, and, in some cases, too much focus was placed on the flag on the packets of meat rather than on their content and on whether they were healthy and safely produced. Tray bakes and cots are new ones on me, however.

Sledges. OK. Important stuff indeed. Investment is mentioned in the motion. Investment in public services, in infrastructure and in communities generally is essential, but it is important to emphasise and tease out what kind of investment is being proposed, in particular what kind of investment an EU office in Belfast would advocate, because that was not directly spelt out in the motion or in the first speech. Ethical investment is key and essential. It is worth mentioning that the EU often does not engage in ethical investment, and that is putting it mildly. It had a special trade deal in place with Israel, and, on the proposal for an EU office in Belfast, it is worth asking whether it will be used to expand and deepen that deal, which was only partially suspended. It was not thrown out and still exists. That is not to mention that the European Union has been a pillar of support for Israel and that it green-lit its genocide in Gaza. EU member states also failed to adopt any measures following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) orders in the case brought by South Africa for alleged violations of the genocide convention in January 2024, which —.

Sure, I will do. We are told that the organisation is about human rights and freedom, which is something that many people in the Palestine solidarity movement and beyond would question. That is not to mention the fact that the EU has funnelled weapons to Israel and elsewhere. I am opposed to an extension or expansion of that form of investment or trade, regardless of whether it creates jobs in Belfast, Derry, Ballymena, Lagan Valley or elsewhere. People need well-paid and secure jobs, but those jobs have to be ethical. They also have to be safe in those jobs, as do poor and oppressed people in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. It would be foolish of me not to mention in closing the role that EU leaders have played in beating the drums of war. I know that that is something that the Member to my right is keen to support. Demanding more military spending by member states —.

Absolutely. It is ironic that this place is often presented as a place of peace and as something that came about out of negotiation and a peace settlement, but, in the debate so far, we have not heard one word about the stated drive of EU leaders. They invest in arms and support greater investment in arms manufacturing across Europe. Regardless of the tuts to my right, that is true, and it is among their stated aims. We also have the question —.

The Member to my right shouted something. I do not know what was said, but I am happy to give way to him if he wants.

I do not think that the Member has read the motion. It talks about having an EU office in Belfast. Maybe he should read the motion. To go back to my point, we have not had a discussion about data centres. They are key to investment and to technology in general, but it is proven that they suck up resources, leading to rocketing emissions, which raises all sorts of difficult questions about —.

I remind the Member —.

I remind the Member that he was working in Westminster at the time of Brexit. His fingers are all over it, if anyone's are. You have a cheek and a nerve to accuse other people of stuff that you, more than anybody else, were complicit in. You had nothing to say about the role played by EU leaders in cheering on the genocide in Gaza because your illusions about them are so deep. It is up to the Member to live with that. Let us add the pertinent and serious questions around super-intelligent AI into the mix of the debate. The North should not be a back door for that type of technology, which could be very dangerous. It is not just me saying that from the sidelines but people who have worked in that industry. Like I said, all of that is connected to the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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