Debate contribution: First Minister and deputy First Minister Titles
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- 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 5453019
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Most mornings, when I arrive up here, I think that I am in a parallel universe, but, when I hear lectures from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party about the institutions, I know I am in such a universe. Those two parties created the institutions that they have now come here to criticise and debate. They try to bring us back to the good old days of yore, when they were the two big players in the Assembly and tell us that, if only they were still the two largest parties, Northern Ireland would be a far better place. I need not remind the House that the institutions did not survive long under the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. Those parties then come here and criticise the creation of the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. Which parties created those titles? The Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. However, when the facts do not speak to the reality, they come up with the nonsense line that keeps getting brought out: "Oh, it is the true meaning of the Belfast Agreement", or, "It is the spirit of the Belfast Agreement" — not what is written down in law, not what was voted on by the people of Northern Ireland, not the law that passed through Parliament but the "true meaning" and the "true spirit".
No. I will not give way, Mr Aiken. Of course, the people of Northern Ireland cannot be smart enough to read the text of the Belfast Agreement, so those parties have to come up with the "spirit" or the "true meaning". I also challenge the remarks made by the Chair of the Executive Office Committee about sectarian vetoes. The Democratic Unionist Party was elected by the unionist people of Northern Ireland to ensure that we stood up and protected them. The veto given to unionism and the protection of unionism are not sectarian. We take the discharge of our duties to the electorate very seriously.
It is, and I was just coming on to that point. The Chair of TEO Committee said that she wanted to see an Executive who are more reflective of the electorate. If that were the case, we would have only one Alliance Minister in the Executive. Perhaps, as with the work of the AERC, the Chair of TEO Committee has not been following the debate very closely. The unionist electorate of Northern Ireland will somewhat object to Mr Aiken’s remark that the St Andrews Agreement was no improvement on the Belfast Agreement. Tell that to the people of Northern Ireland, who wanted to ensure that all Ministers in the House supported the police. Tell that to the electorate of Northern Ireland, which wanted to ensure that every Minister and Member of the House had to reject violence and that every political party here had to decommission its weapons. I strongly challenge the remarks made by the Ulster Unionist Party that the St Andrews Agreement did not deliver much-needed change. The member for South Down Ms Ennis reminded the House about the Democratic Unionist Party's generosity of spirit. Perhaps I will take the opportunity to remind her and her party about Sinn Féin's generosity of spirit when it comes to supporting the murder of people in Northern Ireland and its generosity of spirit when it comes to protecting British and Irish passport holders caught up in the Middle East. The First Minister of no alternative would rather be the First Minister of not turning up. Indeed, she would rather spend her weekend celebrating bloodthirsty murderers such as Brendan "Bik" McFarlane than doing her job as the First Minister of this country. Ultimately, the people of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity in 14 months' time to have their say on the reform or political party that they want to vote for. The Democratic Unionist Party will clearly set out its message to the people of Northern Ireland. It will be for them to decide the changes that will take place in this place, not a meaningless motion from the leader of the Opposition.
687 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.86 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.82); Dog-whistle messaging (0.72).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.89).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The text adopts a strongly antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
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 | 0.82 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.47 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.72 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.58 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.11 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.86 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.06 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.89 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.91 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.