Motion or amendment: Challenging the Harm Posed by the Windsor Framework - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Declan Kearney on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan Kearney
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 November 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Challenging the Harm Posed by the Windsor Framework”
- Heading
- Challenging the Harm Posed by the Windsor Framework - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 458839
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Challenging the Harm Posed by the Windsor Framework - Amendment 2
Leave out all ‘deficit created by’ and insert:
‘Brexit, which the majority of people here opposed in the 2016 EU referendum; believes that our long-term future will be best served by rejoining the EU; notes that EU leaders have guaranteed that Northern Ireland will resume full membership of the EU in the event of a united Ireland; acknowledges that the Windsor Framework provides a pragmatic way to manage the new trading realities which now exist, has prevented a hard border on the island of Ireland, has protected the integrity of our peace settlement, and secured dual market access for businesses in this region; calls on the EU and UK Government to continue to work towards solutions on behalf of all business sectors within the current Windsor Framework and to ensure that power sharing institutions and all relevant stakeholders are fully and democratically involved in the successful implementation of the Windsor Framework.’
162 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: 0.16 (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 (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| 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 09:17 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.