THIS is from a Belfast Telegraph editorial last Wednesday: "...the Tories are accused of not simply siding with one party in Northern Ireland ... but of taking sides with the unionist community. That notion must quickly be dispelled otherwise the likely next Government of the UK will be seen as partial - a recipe for disaster in this Province".
It doesn't matter who is Prime Minister, for they are Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that kingdom includes Northern Ireland. That is a political and geographical fact of life. And since the 'constitutional guarantee' (which underpins politi
cal development here) insists that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom for so long as the majority wish it (which we do), then how can a Prime Minister be anything other than partial? Particularly if the party he leads is either fielding or endorsing candidates in Northern Ireland!
Let's be quite clear on this, if David Cameron isn't seen to be taking sides with the unionist community then he is wasting his time here. His task, therefore, is a fairly straightforward one: he must be an unembarrassed and unambiguous persuader for and promoter of the socio-economic, historical and political benefits of the Union and the constitutional integrity of the UK. And if that upsets the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the 'not-really-sure-where-we-stand-on-the-Union' Alliance Party, then tough! Let them be persuaders for and promoters of a united Ireland, helped along, as they are, by Brian Cowen.
I'm all for the pluralism, reaching out and pan-UK unionist approach which lies at the heart of the UCUNF project, but as I wrote over a year ago the success of the project 'will boil down to whether or not the pro-Union community is ready to trust the Conservative Party and David Cameron to promote and protect their interests.' In other words, he had to move beyond the constitutional guarantee and a few well crafted soundbites and be seen as aggressively partial on unionism and the Union.
Is the Belfast Agreement in any way undermined by a Conservative Prime Minister being regarded as partial? Well, if it is, then it surely means that nationalists/republicans really do regard the Agreement as a staging post to a united Ireland - which is what the DUP used to believe before fear of Plan B pushed them into the arms of Sinn Fein.
Let's put it another way: is unionism and the Union undermined by a Conservative Prime Minister - any Prime Minister in fact - being regarded as a neutral broker? Of course: which is why I believe that UK Prime Ministers should be Union-partial in word and deed. The job of the Prime Minister is to represent and champion the interests of the United Kingdom, so a little less concern for the needs of unsuccessful republican terrorists wouldn't go amiss at this point.
But while I remain broadly supportive of a realignment of unionism which embraces the UUP/Conservative pan-UK approach and a policy strategy directed at that very significant electoral demographic who aren't entirely comfortable with purely 'little Ulster' unionism, I am fundamentally opposed to a so-called 'unionist unity' involving the DUP and Orange Order.
I have never voted DUP and I will never vote DUP.
