Jamie Bryson: I concur with the News Letter editorial about the restoration of Stormont

I concur with the impugned editorial. A return to power sharing whilst the Irish Sea border remains in place could not be described as anything other than a defeat.

There is an argument which has begun to tentatively be developed- most overtly by the UUP – which elevates devolution to an overriding and all-conquering priority, rooted in the assertion that (i) this is somehow necessary for the preservation of the Union; and (ii) Westminster takes decisions which are not in our interests. This implicitly suggests devolution is an effective barrier against such interventions.

Firstly, the logical outcome of the argument that devolution, above all else, is necessary for preserving the Union is that unionists, if it comes to it, ought to pay the price of collaborating in the implementation of the Irish Sea border which – it is agreed by all unionist leaders (see Ulster Day declaration 2021) – has the effect of subjugating the Acts of Union, described by Lord Trimble as constitutive of the Union itself (“the Act(s) of Union is the Union”).

Put simply; the price of devolution without the Protocol/Framework being removed is implementing the subjugation of the Union which- by design- chains Northern Ireland within an economic United Ireland as the entry point into EU territory, in an arrangement described by Lord Justice McCloskey in Allister et al as NI “belonging more to the EU market than the UK market”.

It doesn’t seem to me to be intellectually reconcilable to claim devolution is necessary for preserving the Union, if the price of devolution is dismantling the very Union that devolution, we are told, is necessary to protect.

Secondly, the argument as to devolution being a necessary safeguard against Westminster acting against unionist interests (which successive UK Governments undoubtedly shamefully have) is belied by the fact that devolved arrangements have repeatedly been shown to be utterly impotent and incapable of acting as a safeguard against such interventions.

Westminster, when Stormont was sitting, expressly disapplied cross community consent for the prospective Protocol Article 18 vote; it further disapplied the cross-community veto within the Executive to force through an Irish Language Act and abortion; and it has most recently threatened to override devolved responsibilities to implement the Irish Sea Border.

The 1998 Act devolved safeguards were powerless to act against the imposition of such anti-unionist policies and legislation. So how can it be credibly argued that devolution is necessary to protect unionist interests, when it is so patently incapable of doing so?

Whilst DNA traces of the aforementioned primacy of devolution argument can be detected in Sir Jeffrey’s letter, I do not read his contribution as embracing the kind of full-fat ‘devolution at all costs’ position adopted by the UUP and others.

The DUP leader’s position appears to be more nuanced, evidenced by the fact that his letter expressly makes clear that the party will say no to a return to Stormont unless NI’s place in the Union is restored. That appears to be unequivocal that it is not, and never will be, devolution at costs. That of course can’t be reconciled with an interpretive reading of the earlier portions of the letter which places primacy, in terms of protecting the Union, on devolution.

Perhaps it was merely designed to be a restatement of DUP commitment, in principle, to devolution. That is somewhat different than being prepared to pay the price of collaborating in subjugating the Union in order to retain devolution. It would be unfair to read the letter that way, and indeed such a position would be inconsistent with the DUP’s commitments, to which they have thus far held firm.

If the proposition, however, were in fact to be that devolution wins support for the Union, and therefore ultimately there is no price too high for this ‘prize’, then that argument should be developed with intellectual honesty. That means accepting that if that is so, then the price to be paid is that unionists must participate in incrementally dismantling everything in relation to the Union, to preserve (for now at least) the last thing, which would (in such circumstance) amount to merely symbolic nominal UK sovereignty.

Returning to power sharing with the Irish Sea border (and subjugation of the Acts of Union) remaining would be to adopt the (in my view illogical) proposition of dismantling the Union to save the Union. I believe no unionist should ever even tip-toe down that path.

Jamie Bryson, NI Director of Policy, Donaghadee