Debate contribution: Democratic Consent Resolution
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- 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 4716578
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for Mr Gaston to refer to the Alliance Party as "nationalist" and "republican" when it is clear that we designate in the Assembly as "United Community"?
37 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.51 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.76); Controversy escalation (0.72).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.45).
- Subject area: Another identity-related subject.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mainly advances the public interest
Against the published rubric
The text is a brief point of order asking whether it is in order for another member to describe the speaker's party as "nationalist" and "republican" when it designates as "United Community". It does not frame the issue as a contest between communities, show hostility to any group, or raise a cultural grievance. If anything, it pushes back against treating members who are neither unionist nor nationalist as belonging to one camp, which the rubric treats as legitimate.
Public interest or divisiveness
The contribution's function is procedural: it seeks a ruling from the Chair on how members' designations are described during debate, and it corrects what the speaker considers a mischaracterisation. That serves accuracy and the orderly conduct of business rather than point-scoring. It does not keep an identity row going or attack any community.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.76 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.49 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.72 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.10 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.51 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.13 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.38 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.45 |
| Adopts it | 0.04 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.81 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.13 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.