Debate contribution: UK-EU Customs Union

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 9 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

9 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

UK-EU Customs Union

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5369848

Read the official Assembly record

Text

What a decade it has been of talking about Brexit. Among Brexit's baleful consequences, it brought me into politics. I am sure that many in the Chamber and outwith will say that, yes, that is probably somewhere on the list of negative consequences of Brexit.

Had Brexit not happened, I would not be here. We support the motion. It is correct when it talks about the connectivity of the Northern Ireland economy North/South and east-west. It has been long proven not by politicians or pundits but by now backward-looking economic data from a range of sources that the disruption to trade flows was a result of the UK's choice to leave the EU and to do so in a particular manner that severed trade ties in the sharpest and most divergent way possible. That was a political choice by the then UK Government, egged on by the right-wing press in England — a choice, it has to be said, that was endorsed at the ballot box by voters who elected Boris Johnson's Government; insanely, in my view— that has led to the UK being a significantly poorer country. That is proven; it is not up for debate. Economists and the out-turn growth figures for the whole of the UK have proven the negative consequences of Brexit. The Centre for European Reform had a monthly Brexit tracker that isolated what it called "lower trade intensity" — less trade in goods and services between the UK and the EU. It is the reason why there are tens of billions of pounds of lost economic output and, therefore, tens of billions of pounds of lost tax revenue to the UK economy every year. Eóin Tennyson is correct to highlight that. That, on top of the austerity and public spending restraint of the years before that, is part of the reason why there is less money to spend on public services in Northern Ireland and, indeed, other parts of the UK. We can make rhetorical points, but that is now proven fact. We are years on from those disruptions. It is important to say that we also have proven economic out-turn data on the relative performance of Northern Ireland versus the rest of the UK. This has happened over a few years. For one of the first sustained periods since, bluntly, the creation of this jurisdiction and partition, Northern Ireland has consistently outperformed other parts of Britain. We are in a remarkable situation. It is in part —

I am happy to give way briefly.

I am not sure that there is much debate that the headline economic figures — the GDP — for Northern Ireland are outperforming or have consistently or generally outperformed the UK over recent years. That point illustrates that, even if the data is disputed a bit, it is true that the argument often made by politicians on the opposite side of the Chamber that the post-Brexit arrangements — the protocol, renamed the Windsor framework — have been the most awful, baleful set of manacles tying the Northern economy down is completely disproven.

I do not have time, butfor the purpose of the debate, I will give way. I am feeling generous.

The Member is talking about services — demand services. Of course, it is also true that trade in goods and services is interlinked. He will accept that Northern Ireland has outperformed the rest of the UK while we have had dual market access and the protocol, because that is indisputable.

I will turn to the text of the motion. Our party believes in a new Ireland back inside the European Union. We are strongly and passionately pro-European. We are the most pro-European party in the Chamber, and we make no apology for that. We think that Northern Ireland should be back in Europe, and we think that the only plausible route to that end is a new Ireland. However, because we care about relationships across these islands — we also care about prosperity and living standards elsewhere — we think that, yes, the UK should move to a closer relationship with the EU. I think that it should rejoin. On the basis of my experience — I have some claim to know a little about it — it is vanishingly unlikely that that will happen, possibly in our lifetime but certainly for the foreseeable future. I think that a UK-EU customs union is a logical and desirable outcome. Whether the unstable politics of the UK will allow that is another question. Some of the progress made in the meetings that happened last week involving Commissioners Valdis Dombrovskis and Maroš Šefcovic, who has been engaged in Northern Ireland, is positive. We encourage that. We also believe strongly in the case for dual market access. We have talked a lot about dual market access and the benefits of it, but I will make one final point as we debate the subject, although we will, no doubt, debate it again, and I will debate it again: the 10-year anniversary of the disaster that was Brexit. I cannot believe that not a single unionist politician can stand up and say that a UK-EU customs union is in our interests.

Genuinely, guys, the fact that, at this stage, a decade on —

— you cannot wise up —.

My God.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification