Debate contribution: Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 2 March 2026.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

2 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5433126

Read the official Assembly record

Text

In this fairly generic motion, we have an attempt to tick the box of noting the Irish presidency loaded with buzzwords and sectors, with the SDLP trademark of a new Ireland in the EU bolted on, because, sure, why not? Even Alliance has seen through that aspect of the motion.

In these troubled times, however, Europe is focused on ramping up its mutual defence. Nationalist parties have even less to say about that than the Irish state has had to contribute.

A generic motion requires a restating of our position, so I will say, as we have said in debates on previous motions, that Northern Ireland's priority should be decided not by the Irish Government but by locally accountable Ministers and representatives here in Northern Ireland. Relations between the UK and the EU are a matter for the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament. They should not be outsourced to the Irish Government. Motion after motion comes before the Assembly that talks up constitutional change. Regardless of the efforts that the SDLP and Sinn Féin make in that regard, the reality remains the same: the appetite for constitutional change in this place has not risen since 1998. I remind many across the Chamber that it was the will of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The future of Northern Ireland and its constitutional position will be decided by the people of Northern Ireland. We will continue to make the case for the full restoration of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, including the removal of the application of EU law in our country and of the internal Irish Sea border that it has created. Nevertheless, as my colleague said, we wish Ireland well for its presidency of the EU. We hope that it fosters only better relations. That presidency has no remit here, however. If Ireland wants to assist the people of Northern Ireland, it should start by removing EU interference in our jurisdiction and its imposition on our sovereignty. We know that, in practice —.

I absolutely agree. The Member and I have shared that burden for some time. We know that, in practice, Ireland rarely asks what it can do for its European allies. Instead, Ireland asks what its European allies can do for it. It is notable that, at a time when Europe's greatest concern is the growing threat from the east, the shadow fleets and the ghost ships that we have seen operating globally but certainly in the Atlantic, off our shores —.

I thank the Member for the update. Ireland should look again at its policy of neutrality. Members on the nationalist Benches opposite have been less sure-footed in their enthusiastic pro-Europeanism than they have been for quite some time when such issues are discussed. It at least seems to be something that they do not want to talk about. Perhaps that is because, despite the musings of Messrs O'Toole and Kearney from the Benches opposite during Matters of the Day earlier, diplomacy does not deal with tyrants unless they rule with an iron fist clothed in a velvet glove.

No, sorry. I need to make some progress. Preaching about UN charters and international laws, as we have heard here today, has no bearing on those who have never sought to observe them. Parties and, indeed, a state that, during the Brexit process, expected the whole of the European Union to stand beside and behind them in solidarity, even to their disadvantage, are, as ever, found sadly wanting when Europe looks for friends within and without its political structures. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, demonised by many in the aftermath of Brexit, has proven to be a much firmer friend to its European allies, as it always has been. As ever, it has made a much more significant contribution to the defence of Europe at large, even from outside the club. Who knew that one could be pro-Europe without being pro-European Union membership? If the Irish presidency is to gain respect, or relevance at all, it must engage meaningfully on the issue of defence and confront the cowardice of neutrality. The motion states:

"Ireland's EU presidency can play an important role in supporting improved relations and closer cooperation between the United Kingdom and the European Union".

It was a welcome step to hear last week that the Irish Government are to permit, as we have heard, His Majesty's Royal Navy to patrol Irish waters and ensure, as any sovereign nation should, that Ireland's waters and therefore those of Europe are safer from the Russian menace that has persisted. "Get your Brits in", as it were. That is the right decision in the current context. It will ensure that those with the capacity to defend infrastructure critical to Ireland, the UK and Europe at large are able to do so. I commend the Irish Government for taking that decision. We, in this party, have no fear of positive cross-border cooperation where that is mutually advantageous and does not undermine current constitutional arrangements. For the Irish Republic, however, that should be only a first step. How can those whose raison d'être is the extension of Irish nationhood hide behind neutrality? How can they be comfortable knowing that Ireland, as a nation with an economy and wealth that those on the opposite Benches love to play up, does not have the ability to fulfil the first duty of any nation, which is the defence of its people and borders? Perhaps the Republic could use this presidential term to make a step change and address its legacy of pitiful defence spending rather continuing to rely on UK defence. When Sinn Féin elements in the South argue for more neutrality —.

Thank you very much.

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

Assessment

Flagged Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:00 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.