Member's statement: Minister for the Economy: Referral of Ministerial Decision
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Minister for the Economy: Referral of Ministerial Decision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5243924
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On 16 October, when the Minister for the Economy issued her politically charged ministerial statement attacking the state of Israel and undermining the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland, this party made it clear that we would challenge that decision at every possible turn. That is why, jointly with the Ulster Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice, this party tabled a call-in petition to the Business Office in relation to that decision. We warmly welcome the fact that a ruling has been made that that decision must now come before the Executive. As we made clear at the time, the attempted decision by the Minister for the Economy was controversial and significant. For the avoidance of doubt, Sinn Féin does not and will not ever set UK trade policy. That is a reserved matter for His Majesty's Government, and the DUP call-in justifies that decision. The value of the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland is £2·2 billion a year, and it employs 10,000 people. The Minister for the Economy is entitled to her personal views on that industry, but she is not entitled to use her office to undermine those jobs and investments. In every corner of Northern Ireland, people from all backgrounds, traditions and none work in that sector. We will not allow their jobs to be put at risk by a Minister who fears more from attack from parties to my left than from delivering in her role as Minister for the Economy. While others may talk Northern Ireland down, try to cost us jobs and not welcome investment, this party will proudly take every opportunity to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland and ensure that our economy continues to flourish.
290 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: 0.29 (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 (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.78).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.16 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.28 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.29 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.16 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.27 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.23 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.20 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.08 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:50 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.