Debate contribution: Towards a Shared Island
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Towards a Shared Island
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774685
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Agus mé ag moladh an rúin, ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú don Tionól go gcreidim go fíor, agus go daingean in aontacht phobail na tíre go síochánta, le cóimheas agus le comhréiteach ar mhaithe linn uile.
I believe in that passionately and have worked through many years to facilitate and bring about that aim. We have outlined in the motion our many issues and proposals on positive cross-border cooperation and the benefits that can accrue from it. In doing so, I have to say that the Executive have shown a lack of ambition in their Programme for Government. Indeed, that contrasts very deeply with the detailed commitments that are in the Irish Government's Programme for Government on the Shared Island initiative and others. I will return to that in a moment or two. It is very important that we make the case for such cooperation, and it makes sense for economic integration. Many companies on this island, particularly in the agri-food and agriculture sectors and others, are already doing that. That emphasises the benefits of cross-border cooperation and shared economic planning. It is not just about that, because we could be working on many other issues together; however, that is not being done properly, whether it be health, the environment, education or the multitude of other key policy issues that both Governments could facilitate and work on on this island. There has been very little practical action from Sinn Féin on cross-border cooperation, despite its power to secure mechanisms, such as shared budgeting, and there has not really been any substantial progress on that. We returned to the North/South Ministerial Council, which really has failed to live up to its full potential due to ongoing political instability, particularly the repeated suspension of the institutions here in the North. The Irish Government's Programme for Government commits to a comprehensive shared island programme, including funding for cross-border infrastructure, economic planning and healthcare integration. In contrast, the Northern Ireland Executive have yet to produce a final Programme for Government and have not prioritised cross-border cooperation. A number of key asks in the SDLP manifesto were around the expansion of the Shared Island unit. We already have a commitment from the Irish Government for an additional €1 billion on that front. In their Programme for Government, there is a commitment to operate on a cross-border basis — North/South and east-west — in the area of renewable energy. They also refer to deepening:
"collaboration between the healthcare systems on the island".
Other issues include examining the establishment of an all-island skills task force, with a focus on planning, construction and infrastructure development; developing the vision set out in the all-island rail review; developing an all-island plan to improve water basin management, water quality and nature restoration; and creating an all-island nature and climate fund. All those issues were priorities in the SDLP manifesto, and they have been included in the Irish Government's visionary Programme for Government, which deals with North/South issues. Economic modelling by ESRI confirms that greater economic integration would benefit both jurisdictions. Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic on key economic indicators. Increased collaboration could drive economic growth and investment. All the issues that I have highlighted are to our mutual benefit. Nobody can refuse them. Nobody can say, "No, we can't go with that". Despite Sinn Féin's rhetoric on a united Ireland, there has been a failure to progress meaningful mechanisms such as shared budgeting, which could facilitate cross-border infrastructure projects and service delivery. From our point of view, our motion highlights the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive to match the ambition of the Irish Government's Shared Island commitments. It calls for concrete actions in the form of shared budgeting —
— to ensure practical cross-border cooperation in key areas such as healthcare, infrastructure and economic development. No one, but no one, can dispute that.
651 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: 0.14 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.87 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.