Debate contribution: Shared Future: Strategic Framework
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Shared Future: Strategic Framework
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4481127
Read the official Assembly record
Text
While it is on my mind — before I forget — Carál Ní Chuilín made reference to "middle-class sectarianism", which is an important issue to be debated. I am not sure whether she has read John Hewitt's fabulous poem 'The Coasters', but, if she has, she will know that it speaks very much to her theme. I have a spare copy if she is interested. I begin with our foundational document — the 1998 agreement — and quote paragraphs 2 and 3 of the declaration of support. Paragraph 2 talks about the "tragedies of the past" leaving:
"a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering"
and the fact that "we must never forget" but:
"we can best honour ... through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all."
Paragraph 3 states that there is a commitment to "partnership, equality and mutual respect". Those concepts — partnership, equality and mutual respect — acknowledge the fact that we have different identities that we cherish. This is not about everybody jumping into the equivalent of a virtual blender and coming out the human form of beige. Republicans will be republicans, nationalists will be nationalists, unionists will be unionists, and those who do not want to be labelled as such will not be labelled as such. Without getting too far up on my hobby horse, if we are having a review of the agreement, we need to define what we mean by "reconciliation". We need to find another word to replace "tolerance", which, for me, is simply about the absence of hostility. It needs to be something a bit more positive. We need to find another term for "others", because that is demeaning to the Alliance Party, given its current level of support. On division, I reported on far too much of the Troubles as a broadcast journalist. Politicians came in to bemoan the fact that we were a divided society. The one shining example of difference was the former leader of the SDLP John Hume, who talked not about division but about diversity. He talked about diversity being a strength and part of the human condition. That is what we need to focus on in this debate and in the work that we perform in the rest of the mandate. The proposer of the motion talked about placing a duty on each Department to look at the issue. I would be more comfortable if it were an Executive-led initiative. My fear is that we might repeat what I consider to be mistakes from the previous mandate. We had, for example, an initiative from the Department for Communities on shared housing, but, at the same time, the Department of Education had an initiative on shared education. The problem was that, geographically, they were separate. Surely it would make much more sense if the shared housing were to surround the shared education campuses. I do think that it should be about having a son of the social investment fund, under which there was £40 million for dereliction and £40 million for deprivation. That was perceived too often to be an orange and green carve-up. We can learn from what we have done in the past and do it better in the future. I have been here 13 years. I sense something different in the air. I sense a positivity that I have not really felt before. I sense a determination to deliver that I have not felt before. I sense possibilities that I have not felt before, possibilities to truly deliver for all our people by looking at this place that we all call "home" and respecting each other's differences and identities and finding many common causes. I am happy to support the thrust of the motion.
644 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: 0.11 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.63).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.20 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.63 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.31 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:53 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.