Debate contribution: UK-EU Customs Union

Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on 9 February 2026.

MLA

Ms Kate Nicholl

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

9 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

UK-EU Customs Union

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5369962

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a joy to be able to make a winding-up speech on the debate. So many new arguments were made. Much of Northern Ireland but especially our economy is built on connections, on relationships North/South and east-west — not borders and paperwork. Businesses here rely on the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, and for years we have benefited from frictionless trade, predictability around rules and regulations, and the seamless movement of goods and services, but that changed with Brexit. It did, and it created additional barriers. Yes, the Windsor framework made important progress. It has protected dual market access and given Northern Ireland a unique ability to trade into the EU single market and the UK internal market. However, we acknowledge that for many firms, especially smaller ones, the paperwork and bureaucracy are still an issue. That is not good for jobs or for ordinary families who are trying to make ends meet in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

Across the world, reliable and stable trade relationships are really important for resilient economies. When you simplify customs arrangements, align the rules and reduce barriers, businesses can thrive. Ultimately, that is what this motion is about and what a UK-EU customs union would deliver. It is about cutting red tape, making supply chains simpler, reducing costs to businesses and boosting growth across these islands.

Go ahead.

I understand your point, but I am not entirely sure how beneficial those trade deals have been in comparison with being part of a UK-EU customs union. The deputy leader of my party made a good point about how it is not just about Northern Ireland: this is what UK businesses want. They want us to be back in the UK-EU customs union, because that would make their lives simpler. It is not just for Northern Ireland, and it is not about ideology but about pragmatism. It is about recognising that, in the uncertain global economy, the closer we are aligned to our biggest trading partner, the better off we are. There is one point that I really want to make. I will say it slowly and clearly, and, if anyone ever repeats it again, I will know that they are being disingenuous. The phrase "rigorous implementers" is frequently used to insult Alliance. For anyone who does not know, the phrase "rigorous implementation" refers to a joint party letter that leaders wrote in September 2020 with regard to the Internal Market Bill and the threat of the UK Government's breaking international law in a limited and specific way. It was about stressing the importance of upholding existing agreements and international law more generally. Without those commitments, the task of fixing the issues with the protocol would have been impossible. The phrase "rigorous implementation" related to the UK Government's threatening to break international law; that is what it was about. If you use it again, I will know that you are being disingenuous and are just using it to play politics. I will mention some of the other things that were said. The only thing on which I agree with David is that the barriers to trade are unacceptable.

Not you; I agree with everything that you say.

Ciara was solution-focused and talked about the importance of maximising dual market access; I absolutely agree. Eóin Tennyson said that the cost of Brexit is a cost to our public services — let us not forget that — and that agriculture is such an important example of how we work. He also said that the motion is just about being practical and taking a practical step to make things better and deal with some of the damage. I have addressed rigorous implementation very clearly. Diana talked about the "fiction" of dual market access and Invest NI's inability to list businesses that have benefited from it. So much of that is because we cannot promote or sell it. In that Economy Committee meeting, officials said that a lot of businesses are afraid to come out and say that they are benefiting from dual market access because it is so polarised and has become so toxic. David loves to talk about the businesses in Lagan Valley that are benefiting from it, so let us do more to encourage more businesses to talk about it and to access its benefits. Matthew said that he was here because of Brexit, and we are all delighted that he is here. Declan talked about the importance of the economy and said that it continues to show growth but still faces challenges, which is true. The resetting of relationships is important. I absolutely agree with his analysis of the Brexit genesis as being a Tory party issue. David Honeyford gave an enjoyable speech and gave the business perspective. Our economy is growing. We have always been a trading region; we trade beyond our borders. I very much enjoyed Jonathan Buckley's referring to anyone else as having given an Oscar-winning performance, then going on to do similar. I did not agree with a single thing that he said, but I very much enjoyed his delivery.

I will answer that question in a way that will give headlines: the Alliance Party is a cross-community party.

It is so difficult for people who see only through a unionist and nationalist lens. We are a party of people with multiple identities and multiple ideas. Our core focus is on creating a shared future in which everyone can benefit. We want to be back in the EU: we see the benefit of that. The debate always comes back to that constitutional question, however, which is so abstract to me.

That is their view. That is not our view.

We are a cross-community party. We want our public services to work. We want life to be easier for people. We want our children to have opportunities and to be able to respect and embrace cultures across the board. When Members bring every debate back to that constitutional question, it does a disservice to the actual issues; it distracts from the issues that people face. Right now, the issue that people are facing that we are trying to deal with is the inability of businesses to trade as well they could and the need to make things easier for them. That is not just about Northern Ireland but about the UK in general. We need to move beyond the old arguments and division and to look at what works. Sinéad spoke so well on this: we live in a scary time when there is so much division, mistrust and fear. Building alliances and connections and working with and trusting people are not weaknesses but strengths. We need to do more of that. I urge Members to support the motion, to move beyond old arguments and to focus on what works: a genuine partnership with our neighbours in Europe that puts jobs, growth and people first. Backing a UK-EU customs union would send a strong message that cooperation and good trade agreements are not weaknesses but are very much strengths.

1,184 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