Debate contribution: UK-EU Customs Union
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- 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 5369935
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My God. It feels like Groundhog Day when it comes to debates about Europe in this place. Almost every month, the Assembly returns to similar motions and familiar arguments. We could all go and vote before anybody says a word, because we all know what way it will go. People outside the Chamber are absolutely sick, sore and tired of this tit-for-tat politics. It is pure nonsense. They want less repetition and more delivery. That having been said, the motion reflects a number of important truths, and it is right that we acknowledge them. We are living through a period of significant global change. The rules-based order that once underpinned international trade and cooperation has, indeed, been badly weakened. Under the Trump Administration in the United States, predictability has given way to volatility, and multilateralism has been replaced by unilateral decision-making. As a result, countries and investors are now reassessing risk. They are diversifying their investments and looking for stability, reliability and access to markets. I believe that, done properly, that shift presents an opportunity, particularly for smaller regions that have, too often, been left behind. Northern Ireland should be firmly positioned in that context. As investors look again at where they place their money, we should be moving at speed to attract them here. Our dual market access to the UK and the EU single market is a genuinely unique proposition. Very few places anywhere in the world can offer that. It should be one of our strongest selling points, but the reality is we are failing to make the most of it, and that is the truth. Businesses have told us repeatedly that the Executive are not doing enough to clearly articulate the benefits of dual market access or to actively promote Northern Ireland as a place to invest in. That exposes a deeper problem. How can expect investors to come here when our ability to deliver as a government is so poor? We still do not have a published investment strategy. We still do not have a genuinely plan-led approach to our electricity grid. Our waste water infrastructure remains broken, preventing housing regeneration and economic growth. We continue to tolerate deep economic imbalance, with regions such as the north-west consistently missing out. Too often, Ministers appear more focused on blaming one another than just getting on with delivering for the rest of Northern Ireland. It does not have to be that way.
I will come back to you. Across civic society, the business community and our wider stakeholders, there is no shortage of ambition and willingness to help to build a stronger and fairer economy.
You have just made my point. We need to get delivering for our economy here on waste water, housing and healthcare, but you just want to talk about wedge issues. You are absolutely not at the races when it comes to growing and developing the economy of Northern Ireland. What we are missing is leadership. What we are really missing from your Benches is leadership. We are missing coordination and follow-through from the Executive. There is also no denying the damage that Brexit has done, and to sit and continue to deny it 10 years on is lacking leadership. It is lacking a backbone, and you have not got it or you would display it here, occasionally, in this Chamber. As I have said many times in the Chamber, businesses in Derry are genuinely struggling. Small traders, exporters and family-run firms are being choked by bureaucracy, paperwork and delays. They are not abstract issues but sometimes are the difference between keeping the doors open and closing them for good. If we fail to address that, our high streets will continue to decline and communities will pay the price. That is why we support efforts to reduce trade frictions, including closer alignment between the UK and the EU and serious consideration for a customs union. You cannot contemplate that because you are so dug into your own trenches that you cannot see over the top. Those measures would make a real difference to businesses here. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the elephant in the room. The simple truth is that, if we were to build a new Ireland, we would be placed right back into the heart of the European Union. That is the only way in which the damage done by Brexit could ever be fully reversed. Yes, there are mitigations — the UK-EU customs union, the EU Commission office in Belfast and observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament — but those are all too much for you. You cannot go there.
777 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 (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.86).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.27 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.86 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.12 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| 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.