Debate contribution: USA-NI 250

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 24 March 2026.

MLA: Mr Gordon Lyons
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 24 March 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Ministerial Statements
Heading: USA-NI 250
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5462962

Text

Those comments demonstrate that they do not understand what they are talking about, because the programme brings benefit to everybody in Northern Ireland. It is not about me. It is no personal project of mine. Rather, it is something that I am trying to do for the benefit of everybody here. Let us remember that, until recent years, other Members had carried out such work. In the past, Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers recognised the importance of engaging with the US to try to get more tourism and investment for Northern Ireland. We have a unique opportunity this year because of the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the unique contribution made by those from what is now Northern Ireland. Why would we not use that? It is very disappointing to see such words being used to describe projects that have had such strong support from people across Northern Ireland from all communities, because people applied to the fund, and it was oversubscribed. Tourism Ireland is taking that work forward, as is National Museums NI. The universities see the value in it. It seems that the only people who do not see the value in it are those in the parties opposite.
That is not true at all. It did not prove that. It is very important that the Member gets his facts right when he stands up. If he got his facts right, it would show that there is a first time for everything, because he consistently gets up in this place and does not have a clue what he is talking about. I know that he loves the sound of his own voice, so that brings him the comfort that he needs. It is important to do that research work to explore the connections. I appeal to the Member: get over your hostility; get over your bitterness about what we are trying to do, and embrace the contribution of the Ulster Scots. The Member has nothing to fear from Ulster Scots: it is for everybody; embrace it and understand it. I would be more than happy to sit down with the Member and take him through the contributions that were made. I would be more than happy to educate the Member so that he has a better knowledge of the contribution that people from here made. I would teach him some of those historical facts. I would let him know about the Presbyterian values that were so important to those who left here and went across the pond. Maybe he would learn something. That invitation is open to the Member for West Belfast.
It is really important that we create a lasting legacy from this work. I want to get a benefit from it not just this year but in the years ahead. That is why I have had conversations with our tourism promotion agencies and others to see what we can do in the longer term. The Member mentioned Dervock and Cullybackey. William McKinley's ancestors are from Dervock; Chester A Arthur's ancestors are from Cullybackey; and the place where Andrew Jackson's father and brother were born is in Carrickfergus in my constituency. We all have different views on the presidencies of those who have served in the Oval Office, but the connections that exist are a draw and should be highlighted. I am more than happy to engage further with the Member on the matter. I am very keen to see what we can do to make sure that we get a lasting legacy. One of the biggest opportunities for that is in tourism.
We look forward to telling all those stories. It will be up to the organisations that have applied for funding to tell those stories as well. It is funny that a few people have pointed out an apparent irony that, I, as a unionist, am promoting the work of those who contributed to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Let me be clear: I am deeply proud of those who left here and contributed to the founding of a country. There is a significant difference between Northern Ireland in the 21st century and the American colonies of the 18th century. We are not an overseas possession. Although the Member will not like to hear this —
Northern Ireland —.
She has been very loud in the Chamber over the past few days, but it is OK. Let me take this opportunity to explain. We are not a colony; we are part of the United Kingdom.
We have —.
No. Please be assured that if I need any history explained to me, Emma Sheerin is absolutely the last person whom I would go to for an explanation. Does she want to know the difference? We are a part of the United Kingdom. We have elected representatives whom we send to Parliament. Our constitutional position is protected by the principle of consent, and we are a voluntary political union of nations, which is very different from that which existed in the 18th century in America. In fact, many of the grievances that those in the United States had at that time are grievances that we would all share now. There were grievances that have been sorted out by legislation and by custom and practice. If the Member were to read the Declaration of Independence, she would recognise that some of the concerns that were expressed were about the King not granting Royal Assent to documents. That does not happen any more. There were multiple Representation of the People Acts, which, again, went some way towards dealing with some of the issues that existed at that time. If it gives her some comfort, that is fine, go ahead, but Northern Ireland, despite the efforts of Mr Sheehan and others, is part of the United Kingdom.

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

Assessment

Uncertain

Uncertain: this record is excluded from all totals until a person reviews it.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.56 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
Criteria met: Controversy escalation (0.70).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.46).
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.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.52	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.13	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.33	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.44	No
Controversy escalation	0.70	Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.23	No
Overall judgement	0.56	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.46
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it	0.16
Adopts it	0.36

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.75
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy	0.21
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
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 2 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.

Challenge this classification