Debate contribution: Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 19 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2411: Applicability Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4279543
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member giving way. Speaking of people who voted to impose things, though he calls me, along with other parties, a protocol implementer, I never had the opportunity to vote in total and overall to implement the protocol, which is a good thing in the context of Brexit being a very bad thing. Has he spoken to his new colleagues and friends Mr Habib and Mr Tice who, unlike anybody in the Chamber — unionist, nationalist, Leave, Remain, other — did something that none of us ever did, which was to vote to make the protocol law? Is he aware that his new partners did that? Certainly, no one in this Chamber can make that claim. Has he raised that with them?
124 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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: 0.44 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.85).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.28 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.22 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.34 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.14 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.44 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.93 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:51 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.