Debate contribution: Election of the President of Ireland: Voting Rights

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 6 May 2025.

MLA: Mr Phillip Brett
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 6 May 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Election of the President of Ireland: Voting Rights
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4929881

Text

The House will be aware of the saying that impersonation is the greatest form of flattery. I am sure that the leader of Aontú in the Irish Republic will be impressed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP's having spent today trying to impersonate him. I am sure that Mr Tóibín is smirking and smiling as he sends both parties into a political tailspin. The leader of the SDLP has been on the radio today, putting forward the policies not of Hume or Mallon but of Vicky Pollard, in saying, "Yes, these people should have the extension of the right — no, they shouldn't — yes, but no, but yes, but no". The national chairman of Sinn Féin has been wheeled out to prove Sinn Féin's republican credentials, because it has not moved the debate on Irish unity forward one iota. Those parties have spent today arguing with themselves about who has advanced the cause of Irish unity more. Today, we heard the leader of the Opposition say that the SDLP had done more than any other party on strand two. The Member for South Antrim said that Sinn Féin did that. Nationalism cannot even agree with itself on the issue. The House and, indeed, those watching on television should be in no doubt that today's debate is about the fact that Aontú outsmarted, outmanoeuvred and out-greened Sinn Féin, which is using the debate as an echo chamber to cover up the failings of its republican movement. The former Steward of the Manor of Northstead, former Member of Parliament for West Belfast, Mr Gerry Adams, proclaimed to the world that Irish unity would be delivered by 2016.
The current president of Sinn Féin said, in light of the most recent Assembly election, that a border poll was inevitable, and the current First Minister changes the timeline depending on what day it is. What have they achieved? We have Sinn Féin bringing a motion to the Northern Ireland Assembly, begging the Irish Government to introduce a referendum. That shows how far forward the issue of presidential voting rights has moved.
We on these Benches have huge respect for anyone who wishes to identify as Irish here in Northern Ireland, but it is clear that the Irish Government have absolutely zero interest in advancing the issue. The recently agreed Programme for Government by the parties in the Republic of Ireland makes no mention of it; they are not interested. More importantly, those who live in the Republic of Ireland have absolutely no interest in the issue either. Despite being told that the Taoiseach-in-waiting Mary Lou McDonald would herald in a change on the issue, the people in the Republic of Ireland rejected Sinn Féin in the recent Irish general election and re-elected the current Government. Polling last Sunday in the 'Sunday Independent' highlighted the issues that are of importance to those who live in the Republic of Ireland. Do you know what percentage of people in the poll were concerned about Irish presidential voting rights for those in Northern Ireland? Zero per cent. Do you know what percentage were interested in Irish unity? One per cent. The people of the Republic of Ireland, like the vast majority of those who live in Northern Ireland, are more interested in fixing the health service, delivering a world-class education system and sorting out the scandal around childcare. That is where the focus of the Assembly should ultimately be. Be in no doubt: if the motion passes with the support of the Alliance Party, there will be no extension of voting rights tomorrow. It is simply not going to happen. The Member who spoke previously made reference to a democratic deficit. The president of the Irish Republic has no democratic legitimacy here in Northern Ireland, or in any other part of the United Kingdom. I respect the office of president. Whilst I may not have a huge amount of respect for the current office holder, I respect the office of president of the Irish Republic, just like —.
I happily give way.

675 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.68 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
Criteria met: Identity framing (0.65); Dog-whistle messaging (0.64); Controversy escalation (0.61).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.52).
Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
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 23 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict: Not flagged
Public interest or divisiveness: Mixed

Against the published rubric

The speech opposes a motion on Irish presidential voting rights. Much of it ridicules nationalist parties' handling of the issue, saying the SDLP's position is 'yes, but no' and that Sinn Féin was 'out-greened' and is using the debate as 'an echo chamber'. That is mockery of parties' positions and record, which the rubric does not count as an identity-based attack, and the text states 'huge respect for anyone who wishes to identify as Irish'. Alongside it are substantive arguments against the motion: the Irish Government's lack of interest, polling in the Republic, competing priorities such as health and childcare, and a claim about the democratic legitimacy of the office.

Public interest or divisiveness

The tone is heavily point-scoring and frames the debate partly as nationalism arguing 'with itself', which keeps a constitutional rivalry going. But it is a direct response to a constitutional motion before the House and engages with whether the proposal is achievable or wanted. It does not portray Irish people or the nationalist community as a threat or as not belonging. Partisan sharpness and real substance are both substantial, so the effect is mixed.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.65	Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.16	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.07	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.64	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.61	Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.26	No
Overall judgement	0.68	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.46
Reports or questions it	0.01
Criticises or condemns it	0.01
Adopts it (chosen)	0.52

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.89
Another identity-related subject	0.08
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.02
No identity-related subject	0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:27 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.

Challenge this classification