Debate contribution: Constitutional Change

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 18 May 2026.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

18 May 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Constitutional Change

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5548224

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. What an entirely predictable debate it has been so far. I was not going to get dragged into it, but Daniel's contribution was enlightening. He said that we are an irrelevant party in the debate, but we have 17 MLAs. Before the most recent election, we said to the voters, "Our focus is on education, health, fixing our economy and having better government here". We were rewarded in the polls. Maybe the SDLP should reflect on that as we approach the election in 12 months' time. I spoke in the Chamber last week about the predictable rush to the microphones following the election results in Great Britain earlier this month. Once again, every result was immediately interpreted through the narrow lens of constitutional division, identity politics or the culture war. I acknowledge the historic nature of the three First Ministers of the devolved Administrations, as Emma Sheerin outlined, but, in my opinion, the clearest message from those elections was something entirely different: for far too many people, politics simply is not working. Perhaps we should all reflect on what happens when large numbers of people lose their faith in politics and seek a political home elsewhere. Timothy Gaston raised that. We should reflect on what fills that vacuum when trust in institutions collapses, when public services deteriorate and when communities feel ignored, because into that vacuum step those who offer easy answers, simplistic slogans and someone else to blame. I totally agree with Gerry Carroll that people start trying to blame the most vulnerable and marginalised people, including migrants, who have something positive to contribute to society.

The context that we are moving into now is one where populism grows. My party colleague Eóin Tennyson highlighted that, as did Declan Kearney. While there were particular circumstances in England, Scotland and Wales, one statistic that should be of concern to all of us is that turnout in the Scottish Parliament election collapsed to barely half of those eligible to vote. The biggest winner was not one political party but disengagement, frustration and antipathy towards politics itself. There is a risk of something similar happening here. Indeed, one of the greatest dangers facing our politics is that people increasingly conclude that the Chamber is incapable of focusing consistently on the issues that matter in and impact on their daily lives. We should be honest enough to acknowledge that our institutions sometimes encourage precisely that failure. For so long as our political system remains built around communal designation and sectarian veto, we should not be surprised when, as we see in the Chamber today, too much political energy is consumed in constitutional positioning instead of practical delivery.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was not sure that I was getting one. We have said many times, Matthew, that there are people in the Alliance Party who take a number of constitutional positions. Some people are for a united Ireland; some people want to remain in the United Kingdom; and some people just feel natural and comfortable being Irish, British or both. I recognise that there is a distinction, but we focus our energy as a party on making this place work for people. As I said, meanwhile, the public rightly want us to focus on improving healthcare, reforming education, growing our economy, delivering housing, strengthening infrastructure and creating opportunity. This is a rare occurrence where I will agree with Jonathan Buckley and Phillip Brett, who both pointed to that in their contributions. Those are the issues that are being discussed around kitchen tables, and they are what we are being told about on the doorsteps. Those issues will also determine whether young people choose to build their future here, and I think that that is something that Daniel McCrossan did —.

I totally agree with that. As we head towards another Assembly election in less than a year's time, we see today attempts to drag politics back into an endless constitutional headcount. Steve Aiken pointed to that as well. In some ways, this is about people gearing up for the election. Frankly, it is astonishing that, almost three decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, our political structures still directly incentivise that dynamic. As my party colleague Eóin Tennyson clearly stated, the agreement absolutely and rightly provides the mechanism through which constitutional questions are resolved peacefully and democratically, and it recognises the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the majority of people here.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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