Debate contribution: Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 2 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5433152
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
As others from our party have outlined, we will support the motion and vote against the UUP amendment. For clarity for the previous contributor: Britain was demonised around the world long before it voted for Brexit; he should bear that in mind. Looking at the motion, we are reminded again of the folly of Brexit and the impact that it has had on the communities that we all represent through the loss of funding in real terms. One of the things that has been highlighted as a potential positive outcome from our presidency of the Council of the European Union is that it provides an opportunity to regain some of the PEACE PLUS funding that a lot of community groups across our constituencies, as well as those in border regions of the Twenty-six Counties, benefited from in the past. I note with interest that the UUP amendment —.
Yes. Aidhe, lean ar aghaidh.
I doubt that I will need it. I thank the Member for her intervention. As a representative of my constituency, I will accept funding for its community groups from wherever it comes. My point is that, in voting for Brexit, the UK Government cut us off from major funding opportunities, including, as my colleague highlighted, the Shared Prosperity Fund. The loss of that fund has had a disadvantageous impact on groups in our constituencies that work with the most vulnerable. The motion prioritises opportunities for those whom we represent. It is regrettable that the UUP pivoted that objective towards a focus on defence and militarisation. I do not see the benefit of or rationale for that.
Go ahead.
Your focus is on opportunities for defence and militarisation. As has been outlined, Ireland's position of neutrality has long been supported by the Irish people, and we support it. As you correctly outlined, it is important that we support the people of Ukraine against the aggression of Russian imperial power. I regret that you did not mention the Palestinian people, who have also been oppressed. It is a crying shame that the EU has decided to stand with Israel. I note that you did not have anything to say about that —
— in your contribution on your amendment. You have the opportunity now, if you want it, to condemn Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people.
You do not have anything to say: that is my point. In the past, our membership of the EU gave us opportunities to help the people whom we all represent. Instead, we are having a discussion about defence spending and militarisation. That is not what we should be focused on at this time.
We should be focused on helping the people whom we all represent, not on dropping bombs on countries that we have never been in or have any reason to go to. We support self-determination, and we have been consistent in that. We support the right of any country to defend itself, but we do not support the killing of innocent children in foreign countries that we are never going to be in nor that we know anything about.
I have taken multiple interventions. Tá mé críochnaithe anois.
534 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: 0.35 (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 (0.64).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.20 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.38 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.39 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.53 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.35 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.64 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.17 |
| Adopts it | 0.18 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.64 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.23 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:00 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.