Motion or amendment: Role of the Irish State during the Troubles - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 March 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Role of the Irish State during the Troubles”
- Heading
- Role of the Irish State during the Troubles - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 431662
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Role of the Irish State during the Troubles - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘justice;’ and insert:
‘agrees that the Irish Government has an important role to play in dealing with the legacy of the Troubles in partnership with the UK Government, Northern Ireland Executive and victims and survivors; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to engage with the UK and Irish Governments in support of legislation for the establishment of, and full cross-border co-operation on, a Historical Investigations Unit for Troubles-related deaths, including those with a cross-border element, as part of a wider package of measures to deliver legacy proposals that meet the needs of victims, survivors and their families.’
116 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: 0.10 (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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.92 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:03 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.