Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document.
A summary is factually consistent if all statements in the summary are entailed by the document.

Document: Not all DUP politicians are Sabbatarians, but enough are to make it party policy to avoid being seen to negotiate on a Sunday. It was no coincidence that a DUP statement effectively denying that any final deal with NAME_1 NAME_2 had been reached was published at midnight exactly, not one minute past. As UK voters try to find out what the DUP stands for, there's been an understandable emphasis on their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage and the outspoken views of some of their representatives denying man made climate change or espousing creationism. However, as the former DUP minister NAME_3 pointed out on BBC Radio 5 Live on Sunday, the party encompasses a range of views on these issues. So far as the discussions with NAME_1 NAME_2 are concerned, the moral arguments are likely to be a red herring, even though they create an uncomfortable backdrop for many

Summary: 1. Their argument is that it will undermine any attempt to re-establish the power of the executive exchange in UK, which collapsed earlier this year in a row over a controversial and expensive renewable heating scheme.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document?
Start your answer with "Yes" or "No".

Answer:


 In your response, capitalize a few words to stress main points. Please limit the number of words with all capital letters to less than 15.
user