Debate contribution: Towards a Shared Island
Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on .
- MLA
- Mr Justin McNulty
- 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 4774729
Read the official Assembly record
Text
You took the words out of my mouth. It is, indeed, hypocritical. I turn to the North. We have our first nationalist First Minister, but there is still no mention of a shared island in the Executive's Programme for Government — hypocritical indeed. A thousand days have passed since the last Assembly election, and still we have only a draft Programme for Government. There is a distinct lack of ambition when it comes to exploring and embracing the full potential of a shared island, and we must ask ourselves, "Why have the Executive been so reluctant to match the ambition demonstrated by the Irish Government? Why?". The motion calls on the Minister of Finance:
"to bring forward proposals for shared budgeting between the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government".
That is a crucial step to addressing the deep-rooted issues that we face. Take cross-border cooperation on health. When it was working, the cross-border healthcare directive acted as a lifeline for people languishing on Northern waiting lists. Reimbursement for treatment in the Republic alleviated pressures on our waiting lists and, more importantly, provided people with timely access to healthcare and to improved health outcomes and overall quality of life. Another example of sensible partnership is found in the North West Cancer Centre, a life-changing initiative that allows people in the north-west to access cancer treatment without having to travel hundreds of miles. I have long maintained that Daisy Hill Hospital in my constituency is unfairly disadvantaged because of its proximity to the border. In the eyes of the Department of Health, Daisy Hill is a peripheral hospital in a peripheral region: peripheral to what? Newry sits at the heart of the Belfast to Dublin corridor, the most populated region on this island, so I ask this again: peripheral to what? Throughout the pandemic, we heard repeatedly and saw writ large that illness does not recognise borders. That is the truth. If illness does not recognise borders, why should healthcare? Why should people in my constituency be expected to accept poorer access to healthcare and poorer health outcomes simply because they find themselves peripheral to a contrivance? Are we not entitled to expect a bit of ambition and forward thinking from our Executive? Where is the plan or even the plan for a plan to establish Daisy Hill Hospital as a cross-border area hospital? Let me be clear: this is not about pushing the unity agenda for unity's sake, although I believe passionately in a reconciled, dynamic, diverse and united new Ireland. Rather, it is about recognising the potential for progress, prosperity and shared responsibility. It is about acting on the findings of best practice and expert research and investing in a future in which all the citizens of Ireland can benefit and flourish on a stronger, more interconnected island. I urge the Assembly to support the motion and to press both Governments to take the necessary steps to foster closer, more effective cooperation across the island. That starts here, not with pointing the finger at Dublin. Start it here. For the sake of our economy, our people and our future, let us embrace the transformative power of unity and cooperation.
530 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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.87).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.87 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.12 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another 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.