Debate contribution: Constitutional Change

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 18 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

18 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Constitutional Change

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5548244

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who participated in the debate. Perhaps predictably, when we debate issues in the Chamber, even if they are framed in way that is hopeful and positive and does not fall down along what might be called traditional, tribal framing lines, that framing is placed on it by others. I would have expected that from some across the Chamber; I was disappointed to hear it from colleagues in the Alliance Party, because, on multiple occasions, Members from the Alliance Party have sought to frame the question of people in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist, nationalist or do not designate — by the way, lots of people who vote for my party are somewhat bored by traditional labels —

I will in a second. — having a view or seeking to have a debate, seeking to use the Assembly to debate the future after what was, clearly, an historic council election with regard to the results in Great Britain, reflecting on that and talking about it and us, as elected officials, saying that the public in Northern Ireland, whether they have no designation preference or have minimal preconceived identity issues, seeking to reflect on it and offer our views on the future is inherently and categorically divisive and tribal —

I will in a second. — is deeply problematic.

Multiple statements were made, some of which I have. I am sure that Hansard can be consulted afterwards. There was this phrase that was used, I think, by Paula, whom I have a huge amount of respect for by the way as a constituency colleague, where she talked about constituency colleagues and identity politics. She talked about a constitutional headcount: that is not particularly constructive when it comes to anyone having a debate. The point was made that others were focused on making this place work and that us having a debate about the future was not about making this place work. It is a constant pernicious framing. I am afraid that Claire Sugden, whom I also have a lot of respect for, did that, too. Our party makes absolutely no apology for believing that bringing the people of Northern Ireland together and bringing the people of these islands together in a new Ireland is —

I will give way in a moment. Your ill-timed intervention cost me the conclusion of my speech last time, Andrew. I will give way, I promise, but I will be slightly more judicious about when I offer to. I just want to go through some of my points. Our motion was not intended to thrash out a kind of tribal green-orange debate, as Daniel McCrossan said. Those who frame it as such will have a problem. We have a problem talking about the status quo, because, if anyone talking about change is accused of engaging in some kind of green-orange slanging match, that is a problem, and it says a lot about the status quo. I will just go through some of the remarks that were made and reflect on them, because it is important to respond to them. It is important to say, as I said in my opening remarks, that we talk constantly in the Chamber about decisions made in Britain and frustrations with the British Government. I heard Timothy Gaston talk about the awfulness of the Labour Government. Clearly, they have not been anywhere near the expectations of even their most supportive followers. Clearly, the Tories were 15 years of austerity, chaos and Brexit. I would like to hear from a unionist politician about the kind of British Government that they would like to see, because I hear them talk in the Chamber time after time about the limitations and frustrations of different British Governments. Then, whenever we say, "Could we think about planning carefully" — yes, Gerry Carroll, it is important that we plan carefully — "over the years and decades ahead a new future for ourselves on this island that would, by the way, involve a new and close relationship with jurisdictions on the island of Britain?" — we hear, "No, no, that's divisive. That's backward", and I find that deeply frustrating. The elections in Britain were a legitimate reason for us to debate our response to it in Northern Ireland. That is what we are using Opposition time to do. Yes, we use Opposition time, and we will use it today to talk about a 111 service and Caleb's Cause. The idea that the official Opposition do not come here and constantly hold the Executive to account for their delivery — mostly lack of delivery — is obviously absurd. The idea that we are not constantly putting issues forward to hold the Executive to account on health, education, transport and everything else is not just offensive; it is daft and self-evidently ridiculous. Executive parties would do better to agree their own Budget rather than smearing the official Opposition for using Opposition time to debate motions. The energetic Jonny Buckley was up and down. I am not sure whether he is a supporter of Reform UK. The DUP is not normally shy about making its views known, but there appears to be a wee bit of a tentative —.

Yes, I will give way if he is going to tell me if he supports Nigel Farage being Prime Minister.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat amused to hear Mr Buckley accusing the SDLP of being obsessed by ideology. It takes one to know one. There are lots of mirrors in the Building, Jonny: feel free to consult one when it is next convenient. Phillip Brett talked about mysticism and predicting dates. This debate is not about saying when a border poll should happen. It is not even about forcing that question. It is about how we need to reflect on decisions made in Britain that we cannot control and choosing a new future. We make no apology for putting that proposition to the Assembly. It is not responsible to constantly name arbitrary dates for border polls. What matters is building a case, persuading people and then making the argument for a hopeful new future on this island. The idea that politicians should not talk about this, as Mr Tennyson seemed to suggest, is, by definition —. By the way, I have no issue with the Alliance Party not taking a position on this, but elected representatives should be able —.

Will you let me speak, please? Elected representatives are, by definition, here to advocate for their political positions, including constitutional arguments. It is absurd to argue that we should not do that. Mr Tennyson said that his amendment indicates that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to make the decision. That, of course, is the case. No one disputes that that is the mechanism by which constitutional change will ultimately happen, but the idea that, in advance of that, politicians should not make arguments is absurd. The argument is, of course, that there should be more detail and more meat put on the bone. Who is going to do that? By definition, it has to be elected politicians. That is our job.

By all means, engage on it. Some of us will lead that debate. We will not just engage or be passengers in that debate. We will lead it, we will persuade people, and we will make no apologies for that. That has always been the job of our party. We are proud of it, and we believe in it, and the constant implication that we are engaging in divisive and distracting politics is absolutely ridiculous. I want to make Northern Ireland work. In the here and now, we will champion accountability. We will constantly hold the Executive's feet to the fire for failure to deliver. However, we will also make a hopeful new argument for Northern Ireland being back in the EU, and the only way that we can decisively shape that future, genuinely, is via a new Ireland. Despite all the heat in the Chamber today, I did not hear anybody else make that argument. I will give way very briefly.

There is a whole range of things that we can discuss that would be different in a new Ireland.

I have just over a minute left in the debate. I would not be doing justice to it if I were to list of those things now. However, I am glad that you agree that it is a legitimate subject for debate. We did not table the motion simply to have a green versus orange shouting match. We did so because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a serious proposition put in front of them and to have a serious debate on the topic that Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to live in a country that is not run by Nigel Farage. More broadly, they should have the opportunity to choose a new Ireland that is back in the European Union. Whether you take no constitutional position or have a strong constitutional perspective — whatever your identity — you have a right to make that choice. At some point, we will make it. We make no apology for seeking to persuade and inspire people of that vision, and I commend the motion to the Assembly.

1,565 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