Debate contribution: UK-EU Customs Union
Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- UK-EU Customs Union
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5369814
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Well, well, is it not interesting? Here we are again to debate matters relating to Brexit, the protocol and the Windsor framework. To my shock, the motion was tabled by the Alliance Party, a party that, when unionists bring concerns to the Floor or table motions, is usually found hand-wringing at the repetitiveness of debates or snarking about the predictability. Now that Alliance has brought the matter to the Floor, I trust that it will be deemed worthy of our time. We may even be grateful that its Members have elected to cast their wisdom before us. The DUP has always been clear: continued barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable. They undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom's internal market. We fundamentally reject the notion that trade friction within our internal market was ever inevitable. The UK Government should never have conceded that the customs and regulatory controls needed to be shifted away from the recognised international land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and placed instead in the Irish Sea. That decision was always going to create deep economic and constitutional harm that could not simply be managed away with technical fixes or warm words. The Northern Ireland protocol was imposed over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland without the support of a single unionist elected representative. What has been the record of the Alliance Party since then? A record of rigorous implementation. Is anyone really surprised that, instead of seeking to address the internal trade friction in the United Kingdom, it now wants us to focus our attention on an external customs union? Let us consider the real-world consequences. Great Britain is the source of the overwhelming majority of veterinary medicines used in Northern Ireland. Those products are vital for animal welfare and health, yet the primary market will now be pushed to the bottom of the pecking order, as local vets are given powers to procure medicines from other jurisdictions instead. Why? Because the Government believe that it is necessary to impose EU rules on the marketing, authorisation and distribution of medicines in Northern Ireland. That is not pragmatism; it is displacement. We believe that the Government should be radical in moving on from the Windsor framework, rather than tinkering around the edges or merely treating the symptoms. The sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement reached in principle between Great Britain and the European Union may help to ease the flow of trade between GB and Northern Ireland, but let us be clear: it is not a silver bullet. It does not address the fundamental problem created by the application of EU law in Northern Ireland. If alignment on food, plants and animal products is now envisaged, the Government should immediately halt the construction of border control posts at our ports. Such an agreement removes any supposed justification for such facilities, yet the work continues regardless. If, as Ministers claim, trust has been restored with the EU through that SPS agreement, it would be entirely incongruous to continue to insist on the costly phasing-in of "Not for EU" labels for products that are eligible to be produced to UK standards under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme (NIRMS). We are told that engagement with the EU is improving, but current arrangements allow businesses and officials to be informed of the European Commission's work programme without having any meaningful role in reshaping it. That is not democracy. Trade diversion is not theoretical; it is real. While the Secretary of State points to purchases from Great Britain in 2023, senior economist Dr Esmond Birnie has shown that, when we compare 2023 with 2020, we see that trade from the Irish Republic has grown at twice the rate of Great Britain. What of the promised benefits of so-called dual market access? At a recent meeting of the Economy Committee, Members from across the Chamber heard from representatives from Invest NI, who were unable to cite a single example of foreign direct investment (FDI) linked to it.
In October 2024, the chief executive of Invest NI confirmed that there was no evidence of FDI as a result of dual market access. More than 12 months later, nothing has changed. I give way to the leader of the Opposition.
We do not support the motion. It has been proven that dual market access is a myth. Businesses can count the very real costs—.
Not at the moment, thank you. I am going to make some progress. Businesses can count the very real costs of the Windsor framework, but its supposed benefits remain impossible to quantify. No amount of engagement, guidance or signposting can remove the fundamental issue: the people of Northern Ireland do not have the democratic right to make or change the laws that govern them. The barriers faced by businesses are the direct result of EU law, and no amount of administrative smoothing can change that. When will those who tabled the motion stand up for the integrity of the UK's internal market and for the United Kingdom as a whole? We will continue to make the case for the full restoration of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, including removing EU law from our country and the Irish Sea border that it created. EU law is the problem, and the evidence from hauliers, particularly on customs, makes that abundantly clear.
900 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: 0.27 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.30 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.27 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.12 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.