Debate contribution: Constitutional Change

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on 18 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Eóin Tennyson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

18 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Constitutional Change

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5548006

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of the Alliance Party. At the outset, I reaffirm that Alliance is proudly a cross-community party that does not define itself around the constitutional question. We are proud to represent people from a broad range of backgrounds and who have a broad range of perspectives and aspirations on the constitutional question, including those who are unionist, those who are nationalist, those who are open-minded about the future and those who simply do not prioritise the question. What unites our members and supporters is support for the principle of consent in the Good Friday Agreement: it is for the people of Northern Ireland and not parties in the Chamber to decide the constitutional future; and that there must be a shared desire to make our society work, building a shared future regardless of either constitutional status quo or change, and to build a united community, whether that be within the United Kingdom or within a united Ireland.

That said, we recognise that fluid, live and open debates are happening across these islands about the future of the UK and Ireland, and factors such as Brexit, the rise of Farage, right-wing populism and English nationalism have given increased energy to them. We have always been clear that we are happy to take part in constructive, evidence-based debates on the constitutional question without prejudice to the outcome of that debate. There are many push-and-pull factors at play and many detailed points that need to be worked through regarding the political structures and institutions, our public finances and the impact on the economy, trade and public services, alongside key questions of identity and how minority identities would be protected in any different arrangement. We want to see that debate move into the space of discussion and challenge on those key points of detail rather than perennial abstract arguments that appear to go round in circles. Are we talking about a unitary or federal state? Who would pay the pension liabilities? Would our constituents have to pay to see a GP? What would be the impact be on those disproportionately employed in the public sector in this part of the island? Those are questions that we are happy to discuss but that the motion fails fundamentally to address. The motion references a single poll by the European Movement Ireland, the participants in which voted 66% Remain. That is not representative and is far higher than the actual result in 2016. Rather than respond to one poll with a motion in the House, we should look at the polling trends over time, and those have consistently indicated a plurality, albeit not a majority, in favour of maintaining the Union, with a significant portion of voters undecided on the issue. There is also clear evidence that that polling has moved significantly as a result of Brexit. The polling shows that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that Brexit was a bad idea. That has been backed up by recent polls by Queen's University and LucidTalk showing that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote to rejoin the European Union if a referendum were held today, and our amendment acknowledges that. While Brexit has, undoubtedly, been a disaster for Northern Ireland, we can draw salutary lessons for this debate about the constitutional question. First, nothing is inevitable. For years, people said that Brexit would never happen — that people would never vote against their own economic interests — and yet it did. Therefore, no one in the Chamber should assume that constitutional change or the constitutional status quo are certainties or guarantees. Secondly, it exposed the folly of running headlong into a referendum without a plan. While that might be a fine strategy to win a referendum, as for every Leave vote there was a different version of Brexit, it was no way to create cohesion around the future that we had post referendum. Again, there are important lessons in that debate, which is why moving to a debate on the actual points of detail rather than an abstract debate is important. Thirdly, it underlined that Nigel Farage is a charlatan who has no solutions, no answers and no interest in the consequences for the people of Northern Ireland. The motion rightly acknowledges the concerns about the rise of right-wing populism, and those are concerns that I share. Nigel Farage and Reform UK trade in a brand of politics that exploits grievance and pits the weak against the vulnerable, the vulnerable against the marginalised and the marginalised against the more marginalised. He told us that Brexit would make people richer, and it did. It made the DUP £435,000 richer and Nigel Farage himself £5 million richer, whilst our constituents suffer. He cares not a bit about working people anywhere in the UK and certainly not about Northern Ireland, given that he has threatened to rip up key cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement. It beggars belief that unionist politicians in the Chamber continue to fanboy over a man who sold them a pup once before and is trying to flog them another. However, we should not overstate the rise of Farage, because the vast majority of people in Great Britain earlier this month rejected Nigel Farage. They voted against him. The problem is that the first-past-the-post system does not reflect that reality, turning a minority of votes into a disproportionate level of political noise.

I will, briefly.

No, I am not, and I actively campaign against the Green Party in Northern Ireland. On a serious point, we have seen worrying lurches both to the left and right with a number of candidates being subsequently suspended from their party for either racist or antisemitic remarks, which are absolutely appalling and should be condemned by us all. We should all be concerned by the rise of populism, be it of the left wing or the right. I am absolutely, categorically clear about that. More fundamentally, the constitutional future of this place is not for the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists or the Alliance Party to decide. The Good Friday Agreement is clear that it is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. The agreement sets out the process for managing the debate, recognising the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the people whom we represent, whether it be to maintain the Union or join a sovereign united Ireland. That principle has been the bedrock of peace and stability on this island over the course of my lifetime, and our amendment reaffirms that principle in full, recognising that both aspirations are credible and legitimate and that it is for the people to decide. That is the position that Members of the Assembly should adopt, rather than trying to manufacture a border poll in the Chamber in a bid to win back some relevance and political support. The constitutional debate will always be part of our discourse. My party is always happy to engage in that discourse when it is debating points of detail and, sometimes, challenging those points of detail too. The beauty of the agreement is that that conversation can happen in parallel whilst, in the meantime, we in the Chamber get on with the issues plaguing our constituents' lives: record waiting lists, lack of an agreed Budget, a cost-of-living squeeze and the need for public service reform and investment. We have more in common than what divides us, and, while the constitutional debate will continue, it is in all our interests to focus on making politics work here at the Assembly: to ensure that the institutions represent the society that we are, rather than the divisions that we inherited; that they can deliver good government for everyone and represent everyone equally, regardless of background and constitutional aspiration; and that, together, we continue to strive to build a more reconciled, integrated and shared society. That is my vision for this place. I want to build a united community, regardless of whether the people whom I represent choose to have it in the United Kingdom or a united Ireland. That is what our amendment offers, and I commend it to the House.

1,379 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:32 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