Have a think about these two comments.
“You cannot on the one hand repeatedly condemn successive governments for letting us down and then argue with credibility that we are better off ruled directly by those who do not really understand what makes this place tick.” (Jeffrey Donaldson)
“The hostility that has been evident in this meeting, the barrage of questioning and re-questioning, I believe it has been nearly like a character assassination. I think sadly for any loyalist watching these proceedings, they will see the hostility in which the loyalist voice is held by the government of this land.” (Carla Lockhart, MP)
Those are extraordinary admissions by two senior figures in the DUP. Donaldson – addressing the party annual conference last Saturday – admitting that the political establishment at Westminster doesn’t know what makes NI (I think he actually meant unionism, to be honest) tick. Then Lockhart, speaking after Jamie Bryson had been roughed up by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on Tuesday, not even attempting to disguise the hostility directed by the government to loyalism (or at least one particular voice in it).
Read more:
Alex Kane: DUP is running out of time to decide
Brian Feeney: Jeffrey Donaldson's dithering has only emboldened his opponents
We can vote to leave failing UK
Westminster a deep freezer for unionism
The impression conveyed is that Westminster has become a deep freezer for unionism, rather than just a cold house. And I agree with both of them. Indeed, I have been writing for years about the nature of the relationship between ‘Ulster’ unionism and successive Conservative and Labour governments. I certainly don’t think the relationship, from the Westminster end at least, could be described as hatred. But it is certainly a relationship based on distance, detachment, disinterest and uninterest.
One Conservative who watched the entire recording with Bryson summed it up quite well: “At times it resembled an exchange by people who weren’t even speaking the same language. I’m not sure I know any more about loyalism now than I did at the start of the conversation. I’m fairly certain, too, that I am one of a very small minority of MPs who will have bothered to watch it either live or later.”
Which suggests to me that there really isn’t any desire at Westminster to unravel loyalist or unionist concerns about the protocol/framework; and certainly not to the extent of putting pressure on Rishi Sunak (or Keir Starmer if he becomes PM) to reopen negotiations with the EU any time soon. It’s not an issue in the top 10 of any MP’s in-tray and there’s scant evidence of what’s left of the ERG wanting to reboot a civil war.
Plan for direct rule
What should be of more concern to broader unionism – and this is maybe what Donaldson was hinting at – is that the prospect of having to implement direct rule for a potentially lengthy period is now being game-planned at Westminster. From October 2019 (when the protocol reared its head) until February 2023 (when the framework was agreed) there was a feeling that a deal to keep the DUP in the executive could be done. That feeling is no longer as certain as it was.
Which is a problem, of course, because the key players in the DUP and UUP really, really don’t want a lengthy period of direct rule. Because if it gets to that point then it won’t just be the DUP who’ll need to be willing to reboot further down the line. Sinn Féin would also have to be courted and I’m pretty sure it has a lengthy list of demands which would come into play – including the terms and conditions under which a border poll could be called.
DUP division
On Saturday, Donaldson set out the case for an “east-west council to bring together all parts of the UK family to discuss and collaborate on the trading and any other opportunities presented by the union”. Sunak endorsed it in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
I presume it’s another step in the ongoing choreography by the government and DUP to secure devolution again. But is it enough for Donaldson’s internal opponents?
