Motion or amendment: All-Ireland Tourism Strategy
Motion or amendment by Mr Philip McGuigan on .
- MLA
- Mr Philip McGuigan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 June 2022
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- All-Ireland Tourism Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Document 375264
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
All-Ireland Tourism Strategy
That this Assembly recognises the importance of tourism to our economy; acknowledges that tourism is one of six areas of cooperation on the island of Ireland, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement; further acknowledges the untapped potential benefit of all-Ireland tourism to our local communities; notes that in 2019 the Wild Atlantic Way tourism experience generated €1.9 billion and attracted 3.4 million overseas tourists to the nine counties that it currently covers; acknowledges that extending the Wild Atlantic Way, Ireland's Ancient East and Ireland's Hidden Heartlands would create significant opportunities for our local tourism sector; and calls on the Department for the Economy to work with Tourism Ireland, Tourism NI and Fáilte Ireland to extend the major tourism brands across the island, and to work with local communities to develop sustainable tourism which enhances and protects the local environment and natural heritage, supports local businesses and creates jobs and prosperity.
155 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.71 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.27 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:42 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.