Unionists are obviously aggrieved by the democratic consent vote but not for the reasons you might think. Yes, they’ll be unhappy with the all-too-predictable outcome and the fact that unlike other assembly votes, the motion required a simple majority rather than cross-community support.
But what really irks unionists, and the DUP in particular, is that we’re talking about Brexit again. The DUP’s decision to support the UK’s withdrawal from the EU is regarded as one of the most ill-thought-out political strategies in the history of Northern Ireland.
Arguably the party could have been more pragmatic when the outcome of the referendum was known, as initially indicated by Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness’s joint letter to Theresa May in October 2016. However, what followed was a series of missteps driven by blinkered ideology and a fear of being lundied by Jim Allister.
The DUP today is a significantly less influential force than it was pre-referendum, both in Stormont and at Westminster. Other factors are at play but it’s fair to say that Brexit and its fallout caused irrevocable damage to the party’s brand.
The DUP also does not want to be reminded about Safeguarding the Union, the deal its former leader struck with the Tories that led to the restoration of the devolved institutions less than ten months ago. The party wants to forget the two years Stormont lay dormant due to its protest and the over-egged deal that brought it to an end.
Tuesday’s assembly debate on the retention of the post-Brexit trading arrangements brought all those poor judgements of the past eight years back to the fore.
The origins of the motion on which the assembly voted on Tuesday lie in the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement that saw Boris Johnson ‘get Brexit done’. It gave the assembly the opportunity to vote on retaining the protocol arrangements that keep the north in the EU’s single market and impose checks on goods arriving from Britain – an imperfect solution to an intractable problem.
There are issues with the protocol, since re-branded as the Windsor Framework, including difficulties with trans-Irish Sea supply chains, especially for small businesses, while the so-called best of both worlds, dual market access has yet to deliver to the extent its supporters suggested.
Yet the alternative of a hard border and a disruption to north-south trade would have led to major social, economic and political upheaval.
There was a nostalgic tone to Tuesday’s assembly debate as all the old arguments were rerun across familiar battle lines. Leo Varadkar’s bombed customs post stunt was recalled, while the pro-Remain ‘rigorous implementers’ were reminded of how much they upset unionism in 2020. With no time limit placed on those speaking, the contributions were prolonged, occasionally straying into the verbose and self-indulgent, though on the whole proceedings were conducted in a amicable manner.
As well as decrying the fact that Brexit wasn’t realised in the manner they would have liked, the DUP took issue with what Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly termed the “rigged” vote. She even criticised her own “sovereign government” for agreeing to a vote that didn’t require cross-community consent.
But the outcome of the vote was widely telegraphed and never in doubt. The upshot is equally clear – it’s as you were, with the British government expected to launch a independent review of the protocol arrangements, as set out in the agreement five years ago. The Windsor Framework will remain in place for four further years.
Under the new-ish Labour administration the direction of travel is towards greater alignment with the EU and the signing of a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, which would ease checks on goods being traded across the Irish Sea.
That process is expected to be as arduous as the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and it’s likely to be at least year before it’s finalised.
Until we reach that breakthrough point, the DUP along with the rest of us, would rather not be reminded of Brexit.
