IT'S been four months since Rishi Sunak and Ursula von der Leyen unveiled the Windsor Framework. It was a deal designed to herald a new era in EU-UK relations but one that would also pave the way for the restoration of devolution. In the months before the breakthrough, painstaking efforts were made to find an accommodation that assuaged unionist concern about trade and state aid but also protected the integrity of the EU's single market. Progress was possible due to good faith, flexibility and pragmatism on both sides.
Brussels and the British government have seemingly been good to their word – implementation of the revised protocol arrangements is continuing, while work on border inspection posts at the north's ports is underway. The Specialised Committee on the Implementation of the Windsor Framework met last Friday, with its co-chairs welcoming the recent adoption by the EU of legislation in the areas of agrifood, medicines, tariff rate quotas and customs.
Yet despite the positive signals from Brussels and London, the key aim of restoring the institutions has yet to be realised. The DUP, corporately at least, hasn't rejected the Windsor Framework, and has even acknowledged that it represents progress, but it still didn't pass the party's so-called seven tests, even with their built-in wriggle room. Many observers argue that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson missed a gifted opportunity at this point to sell the deal as a victory for the DUP. Instead, he said more needed to be done by the British government in terms of providing legislative safeguards around trade and sovereignty. Others within his party were more forthright – Ian Paisley and Nigel Dodds were among the senior figures who very early sought to limit their leader's ability to compromise.
The establishment of a panel chaired by former party leader Peter Robinson to assess the framework on the DUP leadership's behalf was seen as another opportunity for the party to find a way to buy-in to the process without losing too much face. By all accounts, that panel has completed and submitted its findings, yet its report remains under wraps, the contents known only to Sir Jeffrey and his allies. May's local government election campaign enabled yet more indulgence of the DUP's stalling tactics. The consensus suggested the leader needed a strong mandate on which he could move forward. His party's performance at the polls – neither a collapse or a landslide – failed to provide a clear signal and so another opportunity to break the deadlock went begging.
In April, former British prime minister Tony Blair told this newspaper that political leaders should be "prepared to say to their supporters things that they don't want to hear and not simply things that they do want to hear". It was clear message to Sir Jeffrey that he needed to be more like David Trimble, willing to take risks for the greater good. However, the Lagan Valley MP's overly cautious approach indicates a leader whose party remains riven by division.
And all the while the DUP dithers and plays tic-tac with the British government, the north's financial crisis deepens and our public services further deteriorate. Those experiencing the worst impact of this situation are society's most vulnerable – the elderly, the sick and disabled, schoolchildren and the unemployed. Whinging about the inability to get British sausages and certain parcels has subsided while the DUP apparently seeks assurances about internal UK trade. It has been reported that the party is in ongoing negotiations with the British government yet less than a fortnight ago Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris told The Irish News that he was still waiting to hear from the DUP regarding the demands that could pave the way for a return to power-sharing. Within days, the party's asks were presented to the British government, though both sides remain coy about how things might progress. The landing zone, if there's to be one, is limited. Whatever guarantees on trade can be given must not undermine the Windsor Framework or threaten international law. Demands for dual regulation and mutual enforcement are not only cumbersome and bureaucratic but completely at odds with the spirit and the letter of February's breakthrough deal.
So as time goes on, the once widely-touted prospect of the institutions being restored in September looks increasingly less likely – the "drift" Michelle O'Neill speaks of becomes more apparent by the day. There's little over a fortnight before Westminster's summer recess begins and when MPs return in September there'll be just two weeks before parliament breaks up again for the conference season. Finding time to pass legislation against this background may not be impossible but it's highly improbable. There's always an assumption that interventions by London and Dublin will eventually pull Stormont out of hole, and that there'll be an accompanying windfall. However, as time drags on and budgets are cut, the public's patience with the DUP's intransigence and British government nonchalance wears increasingly thin.
