Debate contribution: Summit on the Break-up of the United Kingdom
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 14 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- Summit on the Break-up of the United Kingdom
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5685196
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The first thing to say is that I am not sure whether the DUP has heard of a thing called the Streisand effect. If it has not, I encourage it to look at that. It is where you attempt to drive attention away from something but inadvertently create more attention on it. However, that may actually be the point of today's intervention from the deputy First Minister. It is entirely fine and right for political parties to engage with one another. The First Minister is in a party that believes in Irish unity, as does my party. She is entitled to engage with other political parties on that basis, and it is true to say that there are now nationalist First Ministers in all devolved jurisdictions. There are different rules, and we are at different stages when it comes to independence or, in our case, unity. That is important. I will say this in relation to some of what we have seen from the DUP today. The idea that political parties do not engage with one another outside and outwith their official capacities is, of course, totally negated by the decades of engagement between the DUP and the hard right of the Conservative Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Reform, the Brexit campaign — How did that go? We all know. — and, most recently, a bromance with Donald Trump, which went very sour for the DUP this weekend.
In addition to their official roles, political parties will engage when they have shared interests, and that is pretty much to be expected.
The SDLP also believes in a new Ireland. This weekend, at our conference, we were engaged in exactly that conversation about how we want to build a better North — a better Northern Ireland — in the here and now through our work as an official Opposition, but also in our campaigning on a whole range of areas, and to bring people from non-traditional unity-supporting backgrounds into a conversation about a new Ireland in the future. It is a positive and inspiring vision that we are really proud about. Claire Hanna has led that as the leader of our party. Do you know what? I say to the DUP that some of the miserable way in which politics proceeds in this place, and the dysfunctional nature of Stormont, is exactly why more people from non-traditional nationalist backgrounds are engaging in the conversation about a new Ireland. If you want more people to become depressed and demoralised about the status quo, which is the thing that you are supposed to be protecting, crack on, guys; keep going, because, sadly, from your perspective, all you are doing is making more people engage on the idea of a new Ireland. The Executive need to function in the here and now. The fact that this is the first thing that the deputy First Minister is prioritising today is not particularly encouraging, when the Executive are without a Budget and public services are in crisis. There is no contradiction between thinking that you need to do your job in the here and now — taking responsibility for governing the North — and pursuing your constitutional aspirations in future, as we are doing, because we want to build an inclusive new Ireland. The DUP, as it is with Drumcree, is engaging in distraction and deflection, not just because it knows that the Executive are not delivering —
— but because it has nothing else to offer its electorate.
584 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: 0.49 (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 (0.75).
- 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 | 0.59 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.37 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.46 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.12 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.49 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.75 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.22 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:15 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.