Debate contribution: Constitutional Change
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Constitutional Change
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5548194
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I did not intend to speak in the debate, but some of what has been said in the House deserves to be challenged. Members are giving the leader of the Opposition a fantastic birthday treat today, as he celebrates another year: happy birthday to Matthew. It is important to point out that, whilst DUP Members are very quick to get to their feet to challenge the SDLP's vision for the island and the future of all our people, they do a poor job in laying out their stall as to why we should remain a part of the United Kingdom. In fact, unionism is united in that course, because I am yet to hear any positive contribution from unionist Members as to what is delivered by the UK or the British Government. What we hear daily —
I will not right now.
You had your opportunity, Steve, and it was the same rumpled, old unionist line: "We must remain in the United Kingdom, but we cannot tell you why". However, they can tell you what is wrong with the UK. They tell us every single day that the health service is a disaster, that our schools and roads are crumbling and that we are underfunded. In fact, they have just said that all we get from the British Government are crumbs from the table. The DUP has never really been happy with many British Governments, particularly the most recent Tory Government, when it was tricked into Brexit and accepted a huge cheque for nearly a billion pounds, yet it still cannot tell us what the benefits of Brexit have been.
I will not, Jonny, although, to be honest, you are more than entertaining. It is high time that, if we are really going to have a meaningful discussion about the future of this place, unionism is honest with itself.
The UK is a disastrous mess. If you look at waiting lists, the state of our schools, the state of our roads or the state of Northern Ireland, you see that there is no delivery for people on the ground. If that is not the fault of the British Government, maybe the DUP needs to look closer to home: at how it has presided over this place for almost 20 years in government with Sinn Féin and delivered little. In fact, things have got much worse. Mr Buckley said that people are not talking about the constitutional question. He might be right in that they are not talking about it daily, but they are certainly challenging where we are today, because this place is not working. I will tell you what they are talking about, Mr Buckley: they are talking about how useless the DUP and Sinn Féin are in government, about how useless their Ministers are when it comes to delivering on anything and about how they cram in legislation at the end of a mandate so that they look as though they are doing something meaningful, only to reverse after an election, should it be on car parking charges or anything else. The truth is that you two in government are the greatest advert for why we need change, why we need to move to a new Ireland and why we need to get away from the orange-and-green chaos of distraction. You can deliver absolutely nothing. The Alliance amendment is not surprising but very disappointing. Trying to drive up the middle of the road without hitting something is a big risk. You need to choose which direction you are going in. The truth is that the Alliance Party is irrelevant in the debate; it is not engaging in one of the most important conversations of our time. My firm opinion is that our people across the island, whether Catholic, Protestant, unionist, nationalist or whatever, would be much better off in a new Ireland. There are clear ways —.
I will not. You are not taking a position on anything right now, so I will not let you in either. Mini Nigel in the corner has the DUP shaken, but God help the TUV if Reform were to start to run in Northern Ireland; it would be wiped out. I remind the DUP — it will not like to be reminded of this — that, in 2017, it had 10 MPs. It is down to five; it is losing seats. People are turning away from the DUP's continually regurgitated nonsense about how this place is working and delivering; it is not. People are worse off today than they have ever been. That is down to you guys and your bedfellows in government, Sinn Féin. It is an important debate. We are on the same page as Sinn Féin about the direction of travel for this place, but the SDLP's way is different, as we will persuade people and bring them along. We are not sticking up billboards saying, "Let's have a border poll tomorrow. We want a united Ireland". It is about sitting down, having a meaningful conversation and creating a pathway and a clear policy direction on the key issues that Mr Tennyson raised, such as the health service, pensions or schools.
It is important, folks.
You do not like the truth.
873 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.71 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.80); Dog-whistle messaging (0.66).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.79).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- All thresholds for flagging were met.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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 | 0.80 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.26 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.66 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.33 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.17 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.71 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.19 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.79 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.16 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.