Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Democratic Consent Resolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4716307
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the deputy First Minister giving way. I and others have dealt with the point about cross-community voting. Will she acknowledge that, prior to the debate, we voted on carbon budgets, which most people would say are a pretty big deal? They are such a big deal that her party forced a Division and voted against them. I might disagree with that, but it is entirely the right of the DUP to have that perspective. That was not decided by a cross-community vote, and that is a pretty significant issue — significant enough for there to be a Division. Will she accept that cross-community voting is not a commonplace thing that happens on every single important vote in this Chamber?
121 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: 0.20 (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 (0.99).
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.28 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.55 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.34 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:46 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.