Debate contribution: Economic Trends on the Island of Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Jon Burrows on .
- MLA
- Mr Jon Burrows
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Economic Trends on the Island of Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5341279
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will keep it short, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because my colleague Diana Armstrong made excellent points that were full of facts and devoid of ideology, which is refreshing, given some of the contributions. The proposers of the motion failed to read the room when they proposed that extra tax-raising powers be brought to this place. The people of Northern Ireland have no trust in the performance of this place: it is held almost with contempt because of its failure to spend money wisely, fix problems, transform public services or deal with waste.
No, I will not give way yet. The public are being short-changed by the Executive. There is only one thing that is worse than being short-changed and that is being taxed more and short-changed. That is why it really is worrying to think that Members would think that there is any public appetite for giving us more powers. We need to demonstrate that we can spend money wisely and deal with problems, rather than always blaming someone else. The other big concern that I have with revenue-raising powers is that many Members subscribe to Marxist-type ideologies. The last thing that they need is more power to tax, spend and cause problems. I will add one other thing that does not require any new powers whatsoever. There is a failure on the part of many parties in the Assembly, particularly Sinn Féin, to sell to the world the benefits of the Northern Ireland economy. I never hear anyone shouting from the rooftops that we have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe; that we have a vibrant and highly skilled cybersecurity sector and fintech sector; or that we feed a quarter of the people of the United Kingdom through our excellent agri-food industry. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland gets called a basket case or, even worse, as it was by a former Sinn Féin Member, as an s-h-i-t-hole.
What impact does that message have on the morale of people here and the confidence of those who might inwardly invest?
Rather than look for more powers, we should use the good influence that we have to extol the benefits of Northern Ireland and encourage people to invest. We should not use ideology to discourage foreign investment. The motion is ill founded. In particular, it will cause many out there — those who get out of bed to go and work hard and who already have tax taken out of their pay packet — to shudder, because, even though this place is unreformed and does not show a willingness to find savings and spend wisely, it would have more powers to raise revenue. My party has no ideological objections to working with our good friends in the Irish Republic and having real economic cooperation, but it is not about creating an all-island constitution. It is about raising prosperity for everybody North and South. Unfortunately, too much ideology is brought into such debates. I note the depth and strength of the UK economy. We should never lose sight of the fact that the relationship with our greatest trading partner goes east-west. Not only is that where the bulk of our trade is, but we are part of a United Kingdom with a domestic market of £60 million, instead of somewhere with one of only a few million. That is why groceries are cheaper here than down South. It also means that, when the global shocks that have been talked about happen, as they did in the credit crunch 20 years ago, our economy has resilience, because the broad and deep UK economy can help it through those shocks. That is why it was benevolent of the United Kingdom to lend the Irish Republic £3·25 billion on favourable terms to help to bail out its economy. We need to remember that we are more prosperous in the UK and that we can cooperate North/South, but let us leave ideology out of it and work hard for the good people of Northern Ireland. I shudder to think of a Sinn Féin Minister for anything having powers to raise more revenue and waste that money.
688 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.37 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Dog-whistle messaging (0.63).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.66).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.50).
- 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 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mainly advances the public interest
Against the published rubric
The contribution is mainly an argument against giving the Assembly tax-raising powers, based on the Executive's record on spending and waste, and a case that the east-west trading relationship with Great Britain matters more than an all-island approach. It does touch on the constitutional question, saying cooperation is "not about creating an all-island constitution" and calling the UK loan to the Irish Republic "benevolent". Its criticism of one party, for talking the economy down and for how it might use tax powers, targets that party's record and policies rather than accusing it or its supporters of bigotry or hostility towards a community. The "Marxist-type ideologies" jibe is partisan rhetoric, not an attack on an identity group, so the rubric's tests for identity framing, communal antagonism or dog whistles are not clearly met.
Public interest or divisiveness
The main thrust is a substantive position on fiscal powers, public spending and economic strategy, which someone who disagreed on the constitutional question could still engage with. There is sharp partisan point-scoring, such as repeating a former member's crude description of Northern Ireland and the line "I shudder to think of a Sinn Féin Minister", and a pro-Union economic framing. These are ordinary adversarial politics on a constitutionally tinged motion rather than hostility towards a community or a challenge to any group's place in public life.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.19 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.37 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.63 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.30 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.37 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.47 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.75 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.21 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:31 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.