Debate contribution: Constitutional Change

Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on 18 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Emma Sheerin

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

18 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Constitutional Change

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5548094

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome today's debate. Unlike some others, I think that it is appropriate that we, as political activists in the North of Ireland, have conversations about elections that will ultimately affect us, and that is a sensible and rational thing for us to do. Whilst the debate thus far has been interesting and, perhaps, entertaining at times, it has probably missed the point. It is very clear that political unionism is rattled in the wake of the election results just over a week ago, and that is understandable, given that the so-called Union is shaking at the seams, and we can see that reflected in the voting patterns across England, Scotland and Wales. The big story in the headlines after the local elections was the success of pro-independence parties in Scotland and Wales, and the significance of that cannot be overstated. We should engage in a conversation about the fact that the SNP has won its fifth election in a row and Plaid Cymru has become the biggest party in Wales. That is people voting for change. It is people exhibiting bravery; it is people voting for a different way of life; and it is people rejecting the chaos of Westminster. How much more explicit could that be than it has been in the past week? The current Labour Government cannot even deliver for themselves. They are so distracted that the thought of delivering for the English people, let alone for people in towns and cities across this place that they could not point to on a map, is ridiculous. There has been a lot of sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to engage. That is not helpful for any of the people whom we represent. We have had references to the fact that Sinn Féin is the biggest party in Ireland and, obviously, the Six Counties. We are so because people want to reject the status quo. The motion alludes to the fact that we have to plot our way to a new Ireland. We have to bear in mind that that debate, without the calling of a referendum, has not yet started in earnest. The people are ahead of us. We are here as representatives of the people, and people are already talking about Irish unity and what it will look like. We all have to be engaged in that conversation. It is for us to have that debate and to see that change formulate. For us to say, "Oh no, we just have to remain tethered to Britain" does a great disservice to all those whom we represent. Week after week, politicians come to the Chamber and bemoan the lack of delivery from this place and the problems that we face across our health service, education sector, road network and infrastructure, all of which, we know, are a result of a lack of funding over decades, and a system in which we cannot succeed long term. This island is too small to support two of everything. There is duplication of service everywhere. It does not make sense. From a basic economic perspective, there is no rationale to support it. It is the status quo for us to say, "People have the right to want a united Ireland, and they have the right to remain within the United Kingdom, but, for now, let's just stop talking about it" and then continue within our current arrangement. People are voting against the status quo. It is our responsibility to have that conversation and to stand up for those people and show them what a new Ireland could look like. That is what the motion should be about, and it is the focus that we should have. Rather than allowing ourselves to be swept away by the hatred of Nigel Farage and his cohort, we should be talking about hope — hope for the future and hope for a better way. This state has not delivered for any of the people whom we represent. We know that it is not going to work long term; there is no length in it. It is —.

The Member knows rightly what I meant. Your party has Ministers in Government, and you know how difficult it is to deliver in this place. I say that as somebody whose party's Ministers are trying to deliver but cannot because your party's Ministers are blocking them. The nationalist people come to us, continuously, with complaints about a lack of delivery here, because we see the worst impact of a right-wing regressive DUP policy that is anti-Irish, anti-rights, anti-bill of rights and anti-delivery of anything progressive. "No, no, no. Never, never, never": that is all we ever hear. That is the tip of the iceberg with regard to the British establishment with which we are trying to work. We know that this constitutional arrangement cannot go on forever, and we know that it does not work for the people whom we represent. We are trying our best to work within that prism. That is the challenge that we have. This place allows us to make incremental gains, but that is all that they are. You know that as well as I do. You referred to the farming families that you want to support. You only want to support some of them. You do not care about hill farmers. You voted against Declan McAleer's areas with natural constraints Bill, which would deliver support to real people.

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

Assessment

Flagged Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty

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

Flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

Much of the contribution argues a constitutional position, citing election results and claiming that an island 'too small to support two of everything' wastes money, which is legitimate advocacy. It also uses the loaded label 'the so-called Union' to delegitimise the other tradition's constitutional allegiance and says 'political unionism is rattled'. After the interruption, it accuses a named party's policy of being 'anti-Irish' and frames 'the nationalist people' as bearing 'the worst impact' of 'the British establishment'. The rubric treats this kind of identity-based attack on a party, and the communal framing around it, as culture-war features.

Public interest or divisiveness

Arguing for constitutional change and making an economic case for it is ordinary democratic debate, and parts of the speech do engage with funding and delivery. However, the closing section turns the argument into a contest between communities, presenting one party as hostile to Irish people and nationalists as its victims, and so deepens rather than addresses division. The same standard would apply to a unionist speaker describing 'the so-called Republic' and calling a nationalist party 'anti-British'.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:32 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