Debate contribution: Lough Neagh
Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Lough Neagh
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5086719
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In a moment. Words matter. Absolutely, words matter. That is why I cannot support the motion, particularly when it
"expresses regret at the misguided support for a motion calling for a public consultation on the nutrients action programme to be withdrawn".
I will give way in a moment, Mr O'Toole. Mr Tennyson and I rarely agree in the Chamber, but there was a point in his speech when he was absolutely fundamentally correct. He said that the House passed a motion calling for the NAP proposals to be withdrawn. Does Sinn Féin support today's motion, which expresses regret about that motion? Is anybody prepared to answer? I have not heard it from Sinn Féin. Make no mistake: if Sinn Féin supports today's motion, it will have deliberately and callously put the dagger in the back of the farmers who, it said on a previous occasion in the Chamber, were under huge threat from the Minister's proposal. The Alliance Party may not credit me with many things, but they can credit me with one thing: I will be consistent on the matter. Mr McAleer, a Member for Mid Ulster, stated in this place that Mr Muir's proposals were "not fit for purpose". Quote: "Muir must start again". The Member for South Down, Mrs Mason, said:
"They're unworkable and would seriously harm family farms ... in South Down."
That is exactly what you said when farmers asked us to speak up for them. If you support the motion, you will have done a 180-degree U-turn on the position that you outlined in the House. If that is the case, it is a huge betrayal of the farming community. Is it any wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low when they come to the House one month and say that they will stand up and protect farmers and, the next month or months after, say weasel words and hedge their bets? For the second time, I ask it: will Sinn Féin support this motion? There are eight Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber right now: will they support the motion? If they do, they will grossly betray farmers of all creeds and all backgrounds in Northern Ireland — nationalist farmers, republican farmers, unionist farmers, other farmers, whatever type of farmer. If you support the motion, you fundamentally —
In a minute. The Sinn Féin Member has asked me to take an intervention, and I will. I hope that she will clarify whether she will support the motion.
I thank the Member for her intervention. There absolutely are farmers of all creeds, but, right now, Sinn Féin has failed on the third occasion to clarify whether it will support a motion that expresses regret at the position that it expressed in the House months previously. That is a gross betrayal of the beef farmer, the pig farmer, the dairy farmer, the hill farmer and the sheep farmer. Sinn Féin is talking out of both sides of its mouth in today's debate. That is where my criticism lies: if those Members are not prepared to stand up and speak out for farmers, rather than speaking out of both sides of their mouth, in whom can those farmers place their trust? The body politic is damaged daily by politicians who are prepared to tell voters one thing and do the exact opposite. The motion makes no reference to serial polluters such as NI Water, which has dumped millions of tons of raw sewage into our waterways and into Lough Neagh — not a single mention. Its default position is to go after the farmer. Perhaps the House could collectively agree on a motion that would take on NI Water and those who have polluted with raw sewage for years, rather than default to blaming the farmer every time. The farmer is watching. Which way will Sinn Féin vote today?
646 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: 0.25 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.85).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.20 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.50 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.65 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.25 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:05 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.