Debate contribution: Towards a Shared Island
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Towards a Shared Island
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774719
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The SDLP tabled the motion as an Opposition debate, but it is similar to the earlier motions in that, from my perspective and that of my party, it lacks a little detail in what it sets out. It is right to point to the North/South Ministerial Council and some of its failings. It has not met as it should have done, but, when it does, it is the correct vehicle for better cooperation on the island. I am not sure what David Honeyford meant when he described the divisions that still exist. Are you talking about divisions North/South or in the Chamber? Having met many Southern counterparts from the Government that went out and the Government that is now in, I am not aware that there is that much of a rub between us; there is more of a rub in this House. When Declan Kearney from Sinn Féin spoke — I am not criticising Declan for it, because his republican credentials are there for everybody to see every time he speaks — we heard how he sees this very much as another opportunity to advance the united Ireland project. As a unionist with huge ambitions for Northern Ireland and these islands, I think that that might be at the core of the drive. We have achieved much in the 27 years since the Good Friday Agreement, but could we do better? The North/South Ministerial Council met over the border just before Christmas. We discussed issues including perinatal mental health and childcare. Our compatriots in the South share similar frustrations to those that we experience. I will be honest and say that it was a good forum, where we could share experiences. I have no issue with that. However, we have serious issues at hand in this Government. One of the things that concern me about Sinn Féin — I do not mean to focus on you guys — is that you sit in opposition in the South and in government in the North. When you criticise what is happening in the South, it is hard to see why it would be of any benefit to collaborate on some issues. Now, there are areas in which collaboration is absolutely good, right and proper and has been shown to have value: tourism, for instance. I used to work in the Fire and Rescue Service, where there was cross-border cooperation and memorandums of understanding to allow services with very different configurations to operate well together. Certainly, more can be done. We know that the Minister of Health made a bid to the Executive for reintroduction of the cross-border reimbursement scheme, but, unfortunately, that did not get Executive support. That could make a fundamental difference to people's lives by driving down waiting lists. This is a good enough topic for the SDLP to bring for debate. There is a long way to travel before it is exploited and expanded any further. I hope that some of the things that I said have registered with certain ears.
503 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: 0.28 (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 (0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.66).
- 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 | 0.24 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.19 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.18 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.16 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.93 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.