Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 9 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

9 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5452930

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Perhaps I should leave a bit of time for the leader of the Opposition to regain his normally pale complexion. It went the colour of his hair for a brief moment during the debate. For many in the Chamber, "fundamental reform" has become a buzzword. It has become a buzzword for many within nationalism and, indeed, for the Alliance Party. However, it is often associated with a degree of chronological snobbery. The issue, for which many Members in the House will not account directly, is that there are fundamental differences in our society. There is a fundamental difference in constitutional outlooks and in how people in the House view social issues. I could go on. Therefore, there will always be the need for institutions that reflect and balance the composition of political thought in Northern Ireland. That is a fact. If that had not been the case, we would have had no need for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement or the previous agreements that failed. That is fundamentally factual. When we debate such issues, we should do so with that firmly in our minds. The final six words of the Opposition motion are:

"ahead of the next Assembly election."

That gets to the heart of what the SDLP is trying to achieve with reform. It is not, as the SDLP proclaims, about better or more accountable government but about electoral advantage. I understand that the St Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement — whatever you want to call it — have not served the SDLP well. That party has been reduced in every election to this place to such an extent that voters have now put it into opposition. I understand its desire to see changes to the institutions that have not suited its style of politics. However, time and time again, we see one-upmanship by the SDLP and Alliance when they jump ahead of the very Committee that was set up to look at where accommodation can be found and some of the outstanding issues can be progressed.

It has been mentioned before by Sinn Féin and others that the fact remains that fundamental reform requires buy-in from political parties that make up the Chamber. You cannot get away from that fact. To do so is delusional in the extreme. Whatever fundamental reform you go through, if a party in the Chamber decides that it no longer wants to partake in these institutions because it feels that continuing to do so is demonstrably against its interests and those of the electorate that it represents, it can walk away, no matter what the institutions are reformed to say. That is factual. Then we have a secondary question to that: if the largest party in unionism or nationalism chose to do so, would this place have democratic legitimacy? That is a fact that many Members cannot get their heads around. We need to see good government and a spirit that ensures that the institutions can work to their best for all our people, but there is a crusade by the SDLP leader — sorry, the leader of the Opposition; he may be leader some day — and the Alliance Party to try to drag the Assembly into positions on non-binding motions to influence the work of the Committee. The Committee will produce a report. It may or may not contain recommendations that the entire Assembly can buy into, but that is where the work should be carried out. I say very clearly that it would be a grave mistake to believe that institutional change can be railroaded through at the expense of one side.

The Member makes a vital point. We saw the heartache and instability that was created when certain parties and other institutions, such as the Irish Government, the British Government and the European Union, attempted to remove cross-community consent from a vote in the Chamber to advance their own ends. You have to think about this. Have you ever given thought to the fact that fundamental reform that you may see as being in the best interests of this place for stability might actually cause long-term instability? That is a fundamental point that, time and time again, a lot of Members miss. The devolved institutions in this Province will only succeed if they command broad support from across the political spectrum. Unionism and nationalism are fundamental. They account for significant swathes — the vast majority — of the Chamber. Vital safeguards should remain. Unionism will not be lectured on what should be removed to best advance nationalism. It was OK for provisions to be contained in agreements when it suited nationalism. On the Member's closing point about the Belfast Agreement, I did not support anything that released prisoners onto our streets or led to the disbandment of the RUC.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution is mainly an argument about institutional reform: that changes to the institutions and cross-community safeguards need "buy-in from political parties" and "broad support from across the political spectrum", or they risk "long-term instability". The rubric treats arguments about how consent or designation rules affect a community as legitimate when they engage with substance, and most of this does. The attacks on the Opposition, including the jibe about the Opposition leader's complexion and the claim the motion is about "electoral advantage", are criticism of a party's strategy, not identity-based hostility. Closing lines such as "Unionism will not be lectured on what should be removed to best advance nationalism" do frame reform as one tradition's gain at the other's expense, but they are a minority of a substantive case.

Public interest or divisiveness

The core of the speech deals with a real decision facing the Assembly: whether and how to reform its structures, the role of the committee examining this, and the risk of reform without broad consent. That serves public debate even for someone who disagrees. There is also substantial communal framing, including "railroaded through at the expense of one side", "when it suited nationalism" and the closing reference to prisoner releases and the RUC, which keeps a unionist-versus-nationalist contest running. Both elements are significant, so the effect is mixed.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:03 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