Debate contribution: All-island Economy
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- All-island Economy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453662
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the junior Minister to her place. I wish the Minister for the Economy well in her endeavours in the United States as she continues to sell the importance of Northern Ireland's position within the internal market of the United Kingdom and the strengths of our services sector, which is, of course, not covered by the Windsor framework. As a party, we happily support cooperation with our international partners in the Republic of Ireland and 100% recognise the close economic and political ties between our two jurisdictions. I do not believe, however, that the motion is intended to command the support of unionism, because there is no mention in it of trying to deliver the best possible economy here in Northern Ireland; instead, it is about an all-island economy, which does not and will not exist.
I will come on to that point later. The motion does not talk about the impact of the Irish Sea border on companies in all parts of Northern Ireland.
The motion is more about attacking Sinn Féin. It is designed to attack Sinn Féin on the fact that it told us, when it took up the positions of First Minister, Economy Minister, Infrastructure Minister and Finance Minister, that it would deliver the mythical all-island economy. Clearly, that has not been the case, and will not be the case. That is not the fault of, or due to the ineptitude of, Sinn Féin Ministers: the fact is that we will never have an all-island economy because we have two distinct and very different jurisdictions on the island. We operate under different regulations, tax regimes and employment law, and with different currencies. Some Members of the House have a real inability to distinguish between an all-island economy and all-island trade. I support the growth in all-island trade. I support the fact that our businesses in Northern Ireland are able to export to their neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. However, a lot of that is down to the fact that there has been a displacement of trade between Northern Ireland and GB, which has become all-island trade. That does not mean that there is an all-island economy. I am not particularly interested in getting involved in an intra-nationalist spat between Sinn Féin and the SDLP about who has, or has not, delivered what. The fact remains that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the internal market of the United Kingdom: the sixth largest economy in the world; and an economy that is protected by a military that is now, thankfully, helping our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland by guarding their shores. There is no all-island economy. There will be no all-island economy. The creation of a task force in the Executive that dictates trade policy in the United Kingdom is not going to happen. Sinn Féin and the SDLP can have that battle all they like. However, the fact remains that Northern Ireland benefits massively from being part of the sixth largest economy in the world. The focus should be on growing our economy in Northern Ireland. That means, yes, having important trade links with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland, but our focus should be on restoring fully Northern Ireland's place within the internal market of the United Kingdom, because that is our largest market.
554 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: 0.34 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.41 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.25 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.40 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.34 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.19 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.94 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| 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 15:06 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.