Debate contribution: All-island Economy
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- All-island Economy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5453668
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Alliance is interested in growing our economy, full stop. The potential for North/South economic collaboration is absolutely huge. Right now, we hear far more talk about that than we see delivery. Alliance absolutely supports the principles behind the motion and the amendment, but we are really disappointed that the debate has become party political and about point-scoring. Honestly, we need everybody across the House — all parties — to support our economy to move forward. We need less party politics and more delivery. We need stronger North/South collaboration on a wide range of issues: the economy; infrastructure; health, which has been left out of the motion and the amendment; skills; education; sport; the arts; and energy, which is also massive. That should not be controversial at all. It is about making life better for ordinary people, businesses and our communities. That is exactly what common-sense Alliance politics is all about: focusing on what works and actually improves people's lives. Sharing the island is absolutely not about constitutional politics; it is economic common sense that makes people's lives better. In his new book, Sam McBride wrote:
"Whatever our aspirations, we should be able to unite around making both parts of this island work and understand each other better."
I absolutely agree with that. That should be the spirit of the debate. Alliance comes to it from there. I have talked so many times about our position on a shared island. I have consistently made the case for sharing the island. If you look at Hansard, it will be hard to find anybody who has spoken more about the issue in here than I have. I have written opinion pieces about it. I have spoken about it. I have pushed for practical change, because it is about economic opportunity and making people's lives better. It is simply common sense. Progress is far too slow. The truth is that our economy is growing but that that is not due to anything that is happening in Departments or anything that has changed; it is because our businesses have got on with it themselves and taken advantage of structural change and dual market access. Businesses already operate North/South; they always have. Workers already move across this island; they always have. Some 70% of our tourists come through the South, and 80% come through Dublin Airport. Investment already flows across this island, but we must make all those things easier and much more accessible and create new opportunities for people. A quick example is energy. It underpins our whole economy. Our energy shows the problem, which is that we operate one all-island electricity market, but we still maintain two electricity systems. We cannot build the North/South interconnector. It remains delayed. That is costing every house in Northern Ireland about £100 a year. If a small island cannot even connect two electricity systems with copper wires, we need to ask serious questions about whether we are really that keen on economic collaboration. A party that is in government in Northern Ireland, yet is in opposition in the South, should not hold back change here for our constituents. At the same time, we are seeing the spikes in fossil fuel costs now and proposals for renewable schemes need to come forward, we need to create systems here to allow investment in renewables, not with an investment border in Ireland but attracting investment to the North. Those are practical suggestions that we need to move forward at pace. Skills is another issue on which I have led. We have asked for a talent development agency like Skillnet Ireland, and there was support for that across the Assembly. We need to see that pushed forward and delivered. The all-island rail review was mentioned. The reality is that we are not anywhere close to even moving to a business case to drive forward the reopening of the Knockmore line. Despite the frustrations, the opportunities are absolutely massive. Sam McBride said:
"Sharing resources to improve transport, health services and green infrastructure is simply worth doing."
I absolutely agree. The Alliance Party will always focus on improving people's lives, creating opportunities and not filtering that through constitutional aspirations; it is simply about making life better. The truth is that our future depends on east-west and North/South collaboration. If we want higher wages, better infrastructure and stronger public services, we have to be confident enough to share the island, to work together and to unlock that opportunity.
743 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: 0.07 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.90 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| 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 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.