Debate contribution: Towards a Shared Island
Debate contribution by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Towards a Shared Island
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774697
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I congratulate the Minister on his new role as Finance Minister. The DUP supports practical, sensible and targeted cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. People on both sides of the border share close economic and social ties, and we are pleased that those ties have improved significantly over the past 25 years. We do not feel that our British and unionist identity is under any threat from the many positive examples of beneficial and life-saving cross-border health projects, including the all-island congenital heart disease network and the North West Cancer Centre. Indeed, the DUP wants that vital work to continue. I represent the border constituency of South Down and see at first hand the benefits of assets such as the Carlingford ferry enhancing the economy on both sides of the border. However, the arrangements underpinning cross-border cooperation must have due regard for and respect the constitutional place and position of Northern Ireland. Crucially, they should also be accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. We make no apologies for the fact that the North/South Ministerial Council has not lived up to its potential, as the SDLP sees it. Prior to St Andrews and the safeguards that we secured at that time, there was scope for an expansive approach that undermined Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom and was corrosive to local community relations. It is unsurprising that the motion from the leader of the Opposition criticises the Executive's lack of ambition when it comes to cross-border cooperation, but he needs to accept that the political and economic conditions in this place are far removed from current events in Dublin. Mr O'Toole suggests that the Executive ought to replicate the additional €1 billion being invested in Shared Island initiatives by the new Irish Cabinet. Where does he propose we draw that funding from? What public services, which specific schools, hospitals and roads, does he suggest that that money be taken from? As Chair of the Finance Committee, he is acutely aware of our financial situation. Does the leader of the Opposition also accept that, for unionist Ministers in the Executive, their ambition with respect to North/South cooperation will naturally be tempered by a desire to promote and strengthen links with their counterparts in Great Britain? Surely that goes without saying for unionist Ministers in the Executive and all unionists in the Assembly. There are synergies in the two documents as we look at them. For example, the all-island rail review is listed as a priority in the Programmes for Government in Dublin and Stormont. We welcome that. The DUP believes that there is no contradiction between its pro-Union stance and support for growth-orientated and mutually beneficial expansion of transport links between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. As I said at the start, the DUP supports practical, sensible and —
— targeted cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
484 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: 0.18 (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 (0.62).
- 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 | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.62 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.69 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.08 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.22 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.99 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.