Ben Lowry: Hauliers have helped to harden some unionist politicians against the Windsor Framework deal

With the exception of Jim Allister, not one unionist of note has come out unequivocally against the deal to reform the outworkings of the Northern Ireland Protocol. The deal clearly improves the flow of trade across the Irish Sea but equally clearly leaves a fundamental trade border in place.

The loyalist Jamie Bryson delayed his response to the deal for days before rejecting it but, rather that doing so outright he then explained how its core parts could be “restructured within a constitutionally acceptable arrangement” (but that would entail changes that the UK will not so much as raise with the EU, let alone be accepted by the latter).

The dominant position of unionism to the Windsor Framework has been to take time to study it. Our newspaper editorial line has been to support such time, so that there is no repeat of the rush to accept or at least overlook the 2019 Northern Ireland Protocol. Then, Boris Johnson apologists denied that the prime minister had agreed to anything of consequence, insisting that there was only going to be a slight increase in existing livestock checks. This nonsense helped to muddle the unionist response to the major trade barrier (that, if it had been rigorously implemented, would have inflicted great harm on our place in the UK). Businesses overwhelmingly backed the NI Protocol, as they had done Theresa May’s backstop, as they have done this deal. Not even business spoke up for what is by far NI’s most valuable trade, East-West, and instead implicitly accepted the underlying premise of all those proposals – that keeping the Irish land border free of so much as CCTV was the post Brexit imperative.

But in 2019 Mr Johnson had agreed to the biggest constitutional change since the creation of Northern Ireland, more so even than the 1985 Anglo Irish Agreement. The latter laid the foundations for the current problems of UK near neutrality and partisan pro nationalist Irish interventions, only gave the Republic of Ireland a consultative role in Northern Ireland (a role that by the end of the 1980s was already being ignored by London, in light of Dublin’s abject failure to help with border security to thwart IRA terrorism).

However, it is not hard to see why the DUP and the Ulster Unionists have still not made clear whether they will reject the Windsor Framework. The pressure on unionists is so relentless in the political and commentary worlds that unionists know to be cautious about rejecting things out of hand. While Sinn Fein was allowed to keep Stormont down for three years without criticism until it got its Irish language act, unionists know that they will not be allowed the same leeway to oppose the Irish Sea border. It is true to say that the year-long DUP suspension of Stormont has been tolerated, and has even helped secure some results, but most pundits knew that once London did a deal with the EU there would be no real way to continue that suspension without a grievous penalty being applied on unionists, such as a move towards joint stewardship over Northern Ireland. This would not be joint authority (formally shared control of NI between UK and the Republic of Ireland) but rather an increased say in the running of Northern Ireland for highly partisan Irish ministers such as Simon Coveney, alongside neutral and weak NIO ministers.

Now that deal with the EU has been done, and it will not in any significant way be changed. The deal will lead to a significant reduction in friction caused by the Irish Sea border, which is very welcome, but the barrier is still there. Last week I wrote about how muted the unionist reaction to the framework had been, with an apparent move towards some form of acceptance of the deal, albeit not approval. Since then the position seems to have hardened. I believe that this is because some highly experienced hauliers and manufacturers have been explaining in detail to some unionist MLAs the scale of ongoing impediment to shipments from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. These hauliers and manufacturers believe that some unionist MLAs now realise they could be about to embrace an irreversible fracture of the Great Britain supply chain.

This might be why remarks on Tuesday from Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in America seemed more robust than other recent DUP statements. He asked why “those Northern Ireland businesses that do not trade with the EU and only trade within the United Kingdom why should they be required to follow EU laws”. Sir Jeffrey might say this only reiterates what the party has said for months but DUP tone and emphasis about the trade barrier was softer after the deal was announced on February 27.

While unionists have had good reason to delay their final reaction to the deal, an unfortunate by-product of the delay was that it seemed to be defusing opposition on the Tory benches. Some sceptical MPs might be thinking that if there is little sign of alarm in the DUP then why should they be concerned?

In writing all this I am not suggesting that there are easy options. But unionism is at a crunch moment. Some unionists might now think that the best way forward is to accept major compromises to secure the Union. It is by no means a stupid notion. I have been moving towards a different conclusion – that unionists increasingly need to resist compromises on every front from culture to legacy to constitutional. But at the same time to develop a friendly wing that engages with London, Dublin and America. This will involve a return to Stormont. A unionism that is firm but agreeable. Unionism has often been the reverse: sour-seeming but actually weak in practice, due to a subconscious acceptance of the nationalist idea that we are part of a process that has only one direction.