Motion or amendment: Replacement of EU Funding for Community and Voluntary Sector (Revised Wording) - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Replacement of EU Funding for Community and Voluntary Sector (Revised Wording)”
- Heading
- Replacement of EU Funding for Community and Voluntary Sector (Revised Wording) - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 409209
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Replacement of EU Funding for Community and Voluntary Sector (Revised Wording) - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘post 2025;’ and insert:
‘calls on the current Government to fulfil the promise to replace EU funding in full and to provide certainty for community and voluntary sector organisations beyond March 2025; and further calls on the Minister of Finance to make it clear to the Government that future programmes must be developed with due regard to the Executive's agreed priorities, and with meaningful input from local Ministers, in order to maximise opportunities for communities and projects across Northern Ireland.’
98 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 flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.73 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.27 |
| 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 08:56 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.