Member's statement: Migration
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 7 May 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Migration
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4487860
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to talk today about a subject that, in one sense, we never stop talking about, but, when we talk about it, we should be careful with our language: the border on the island of Ireland. That is a border that many of us worked hard to ensure remained as open and as soft as possible in the years following Brexit. I do not wish to reopen all the debates around Brexit and its consequences for this island, which were divisive, particularly in this Chamber and elsewhere. I want to point out, however, that many people in the Chamber, on this island, on the island next door, in Brussels, in Washington and elsewhere worked hard to build a coalition that included not just people who were traditionally nationalist but many unionists who wanted to remain in the European Union and many unionists who cared about a soft border on the island of Ireland. People, as I said, who were supportive of our peace process and supportive of an open and soft border on the island of Ireland worked hard to ensure that, post Brexit, that soft border remained, without prejudice to the future of this island. Obviously, I and my party aspire to, at some point, remove the border. The reason that I have given all that preamble is to say that I am deeply disappointed by some of the language that has emerged from certain actors around what only amounts to irresponsible talk about open borders on the island of Ireland. It is important to be careful in our language. There is only one open border on the island of Ireland, and that is the border that we all want to remain open and soft. Most of us want that border to remain open and soft, whether or not we want a united Ireland at some point in the future, so it is deeply concerning to hear the leader of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann — the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald — say that Sinn Féin is not for open borders. If the leader of Sinn Féin is saying that she supports tougher migration controls, she should be honest with people about what exactly she is talking about and what the consequences of increased migration checks at or away from the border would be for people on this island, including the impact that they would have on the operation of the all-island economy. After all the work that has gone on over almost a decade to ensure that we retain a soft and open border on the island of Ireland, it is profoundly irresponsible that, as a result of politicking by Tory right-wingers in Westminster, political debate on this island has been pushed quickly into a dark and damaging place that could have consequences not just for the people who are fleeing war and worse but for those of us who want to retain an open, soft border on this island. I therefore caution people with influence and power, including the leader of Sinn Féin and other politicians —
— to be careful about the language that they use.
524 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: 0.16 (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 (0.69).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.28 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.71 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.25 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:21 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.