Debate contribution: Constitutional Change

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 18 May 2026.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

18 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Constitutional Change

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5548106

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The debate started off badly, because the leader of the Opposition had to justify or attempt to justify why he brought the motion today, and it only got worse from there. He did not table a motion on delivering the A5, which, I am sure, his colleague Mr McCrossan would support. He did not table a motion on job cuts at Magee university caused by Sinn Féin, which, I am sure, Ms McLaughlin would support, or, indeed, a motion on issues that Mr McGlone would support. No, no: the SDLP dedicates its vital Opposition time to wallowing in the defeat of its sister party, the Labour Party, across the United Kingdom. Rather than dealing with the issues as to why the Labour Party was wholly rejected by the people of the mainland United Kingdom, the Opposition blame the people for the decisions that they take. They are not looking at the issues in relation to the failure by Matthew O'Toole's sister party to deal with illegal immigration. The leader of the Opposition did not raise issues in relation to taxing businesses and workers to death or in relation to picking the pocket of pensioners, which perhaps the SDLP supported at Westminster. No, no: instead, let us blame the people. There is an obsession in the party opposite when it comes to Reform and Nigel Farage. I took a short look at Hansard yesterday: which politician in the Chamber, do you think, has used the words "Nigel Farage" more than any other person? The leader of the Opposition has mentioned Nigel Farage in the Chamber more than every other MLA combined, because he is utterly obsessed with him. I understand the obsession. It is because the SDLP has been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland and so, instead, tries to find a bogeyman who will increase support for its party.

Instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, Mr McCrossan, perhaps you would be better listening to this. Members talk about the great victory of the SNP, and they talk about the SNP being a model that we need to follow. So interested is that party that they completely rewrote him out of history, but Ian Paisley achieved a lot. My recollection about whether Ian Paisley signed the Belfast Agreement is very different from what the leader of the SNP outlined and very different from the childhood that I grew up in. There was no mention or criticism, of course, of the SNP by the leader of the Opposition. We are used to Mystic Mary Lou McDonald predicting border polls in Northern Ireland, but now we have Mystic Matthew O'Toole. Mary Lou McDonald promised the people who voted for her party in 2022 that, within five years, we would have a border poll. Mystic Mary Lou then looked at her crystal ball again later that year and changed it to 2030.

I will happily give way.

What we have now is Mr O'Toole trying to predict the outcome of the next UK general election, and that is because the SDLP has been unable and unwilling to articulate a case for itself. We often have the rewriting of history in the Chamber, but let us look at the outcome of the so-called historic elections. Let us first deal with Scotland. The SNP lost six seats and over half a million votes. The leader of the Opposition may say that losing seats and votes is a victory — indeed, that is a pattern that his party continues to go down — but I do not think that any other political party would state that that was a great election victory. In Scotland, before the last election, in terms of the popular vote, unionism and those who want to break up the United Kingdom were neck and neck. Now, those parties who advocate Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom have a 17% lead over the SNP and the Green Party. Those are the facts that the parties opposite do not wish to engage with. Instead of trying to outsource their failed break-up of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government, who are refusing to in any way advance constitutional change on the island, they try to cling to the coat-tails of election results in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is interesting, though, that the party opposite has dropped its new line of a historic three so-called nationalist First Ministers across the United Kingdom.

I wonder whether that is because the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales refused to meet Sinn Féin last week when it ran over to Westminster to try to meet them on bended knee. They see the truth, which is that the people of Northern Ireland want all of us here to use our time in the House to focus on the issues that matter to them. Mr Kearney, I encourage you to go to some street corners and pubs, because the issues that people are raising there are not about constitutional change but about the fact that Sinn Féin Ministers continue to fail the people of Northern Ireland. You are exposing the fact that you are unable to deliver for the people whom you claim to represent.

873 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 speech is a partisan rebuttal in a debate on constitutional change. It argues that the Opposition should be raising matters such as "delivering the A5" and job cuts, disputes claims about recent elections in Scotland and elsewhere, and mocks opposing politicians with lines such as "Mystic Mary Lou" and "on bended knee". Its ridicule is aimed at named parties and their leaders over their priorities, predictions and record, not at nationalists or any community as a whole. The passing reference to "illegal immigration" is a criticism of a government's record rather than a portrayal of migrants, so the text does not meet the rubric's tests for communal antagonism, dog whistles or cultural grievance.

Public interest or divisiveness

Arguing for or against constitutional change and contesting election claims is ordinary democratic debate, and the speech repeatedly says the Assembly should "focus on the issues that matter" to people. However, much of it is sarcastic party point-scoring, mocking an opponent's "obsession" with another politician, rather than dealing with substance. The point-scoring is party-political rather than hostility towards a community, so the speech is combative but not identity-based division.

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