Debate contribution: UK-EU Customs Union
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- UK-EU Customs Union
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5369807
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, it is clear that communities across the North still feel the effects of that disastrous decision to leave the EU. We can take the recent example of the British Government's promise to fully replace the lost EU funding. That was never going to happen. Now, we face a crisis in the community and voluntary sector born out of the lies and deceit of the British Government. Ordinary people are paying the price for false promises and a reckless Brexit agenda. The party opposite proclaimed that it could live with 40,000 job losses: how does it square that with the reality faced by our hard-working community groups and of the ordinary workers who are on the verge of losing their jobs? It is a fact that Brexit was and remains a disastrous act of economic self-harm of which the British Government and the unionist parties here were well warned, a warning that they blatantly ignored. The majority of citizens here voted to remain in the European Union. Despite Britain's total disregard for that reality, our aspirations for a better future for our people remain our focus. That is why we and other Remain parties in the Chamber pushed to secure dual market access. As a result, we have managed to stave off the worst excesses of Britain and the DUP's failed Brexit agenda. We went on to secure vital assurances that there would be no diminution of our hard-won rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity, as protected in the Good Friday Agreement. We also secured the declaration from the European Council of its decision that, in the event of a united Ireland, we will be given automatic membership of the European Union. Whilst we recognise the value of this well-intentioned motion, which emphasises the need to reduce checks through custom arrangements, our overall focus remains on looking beyond that and towards a return to full EU membership through unification. At all times, we must be focused on finding solutions to minimise the frictions created by Brexit and maximise the opportunities of dual market access. Therefore, additional support must be urgently provided to local businesses to enable them to operate to their full potential under the terms of the protocol. The immediate establishment of an EU office in Belfast is also a means to deliver that. It is clear that Brexit has intensified mainstream conversations regarding the need for a referendum on Irish unity. That is the reality. There have been encouraging signs of growing support for Irish unity in successive electoral results, demographic changes, contributions from civil society and public commentary. Whilst Brexit did not have the consent of the people in the North, I am certain that our future return to the EU can be achieved through a new Ireland based on consent. Consent is built by reaching out. A classic example of that was how our Irish president spoke in the city of Derry last week. Others could learn something from that example of mutual respect and understanding and apply it in their own engagements.
I want to finish; I still have a lot to get through. Whilst Britain can expect to live with the damage of Brexit for a generation or longer, we have a different story to tell. Our destiny is ours to make, and that includes all of us here. History is unfolding. We must now build on the opportunity to progress the reunification of our country and deliver a new, united and fair Ireland for all.
591 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.31 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.77).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.39 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.22 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.31 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.77 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.22 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:33 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.