Editorial: John Larkin KC's view of the protocol deal shows why it is right to take time to assess the agreement

John Larkin KC was asked if the framework was compatible with the Acts of Union, if it remedied the "subjugation" of the Article 6, which guarantees free trade, and if its proposals "strengthened the constitutional guarantee respecting the constitutional status of Northern Ireland".

Mr Larkin is a much respected barrister who took the unionist challenge to the original protocol to the UK Supreme Court.

Critics might point out that the legal case failed. But this is nonetheless an important legal opinion from one of the province's leading lawyers, and it adds to the overall concern there is about the so-called constitutional guarantee for Northern Ireland, which is key to unionist confidence.

On this page the loyalist Jamie Bryson, who commissioned Mr Larkin's opinion, says that he has decided to reject the Windsor Framework. Ian Paisley Junior MP last night expressed concern at Mr Larkin's conclusions, but stopped short of rejecting the deal.

What does all this mean?

Curiously Mr Bryson talks about the Windsor Framework having the potential basis for a new deal. The problem is that there is no prospect of the EU agreeing to such. Does this mean that such critics will never support the deal or will edge their way to it?

In any event, the constitutional damage to Northern Ireland was put in place back in 2017, and unionists failed to see what was happening. Boris Johnson sweet talked the DUP then betrayed them in a moment to become prime minister.

This is a serious situation with no obvious solutions. But it vindicates the time unionists are taking to assess the deal.