Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Democratic Consent Resolution
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4716474
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. I appreciate that. At the start of your remarks, you talked about what you regarded as sneering from Members. There was quite a bit of sneering, chuntering and Members shouting from their place from the DUP Benches as well. During one of the first speeches, we were referred to as "quislings". There were several references to the vote on the motion having been rigged, and a jibe was thrown at one of my colleagues about the EU identifying as a plug and his accepting that. Do you think that those comments were out of step with the tone of the rest of the debate?
106 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: 0.23 (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).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.47).
- 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 | 0.33 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.49 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.07 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.27 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.47 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.25 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.50 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.32 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.16 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.