Motion or amendment: Moving Beyond the Windsor Framework - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 4 September 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Moving Beyond the Windsor Framework”
- Heading
- Moving Beyond the Windsor Framework - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 448247
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Moving Beyond the Windsor Framework - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘this Assembly’ and insert:
‘recognises the need for the continued operation of the Windsor Framework; acknowledges that specific arrangements for Northern Ireland remain vital, including to prevent a hard border and protect the all-island economy; further acknowledges the need to continue to streamline processes relating to the movement of goods across between Great Britain and the EU, and acknowledges progress in this area while encouraging further engagement, including the conclusion of a comprehensive EU-UK veterinary agreement; notes the failure to address new barriers to trade on the island of Ireland as promised in Article 11 of the Windsor Framework, including in relation to services trade and the free movement of people; and calls on the UK Government and the EU to work positively to address all outstanding issues, with the aim of minimising barriers to trade both East-West and North-South and to work to increase the democratic representation of the people of Northern Ireland via observer status in the European Parliament, reflecting this region's obligations under EU law and the birth right of its citizens to both European and UK citizenship.’
193 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: 0.09 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:08 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.