Kate Hoey: The DUP deal with the government needs the test of proper legal scrutiny

This is a moment of maximum peril, and unionist voters are entitled to transparency.

There should be the opportunity for detailed scrutiny of the proposed deal, particularly the legal text. As unionists learnt bitterly in regards to the principle of consent which was presented in the political agreement as doing one thing, but in the legal text, as exposed in our pan-unionist legal challenge to the protocol, it meant something much less than promised.

That challenge was led by John Larkin KC and his junior Denise Kiley, who has herself recently deservedly become a KC. All of us as applicants, and indeed all unionist parties, had complete faith in that legal team. So I suggest that the DUP present the relevant legal text of the proposed deal to John Larkin and/or Denise Kiley and commission their independent legal opinion as to whether, as a matter of law (which is all that actually matters), that which is proposed restores the guarantee of Article 6 of the Acts of Union and removes the Irish Sea border.

If those in the DUP who are pushing for this hitherto secret deal which is be shielded from scrutiny could produce a credible legal opinion in support of their deal, then that would add much credibility. It would dispel any fears that there is a reluctance to get legal scrutiny on the deal because its proponents know that the answers will be inconsistent with the bold claims which will be made in an effort to deceive the unionist base and win support for returning to Stormont.

Last week The Daily Telegraph published details of the deal, which was then discussed on Friday’s Stephen Nolan Show. The one consistent theme was that the Protocol Framework was going nowhere. Rather, we are told, there is to be easements on the deceptively called ‘green lane’ (it is suggested, most insultingly of all, this would be ‘patriotically renamed’), a range of committees to monitor matters and an East-West council. This is to be accompanied by ‘comfort legislation’, which amounts to nothing because just like the Acts of Union, it will give way to section 7A of the 2018 Act and thus the protocol and framework.

It will follow the same deceptive theme as saying NI is part of the UK customs territory, whilst applying the EU rather than the UK customs code, or like last week in the Lords when I and others pointed out that the government said legislation extended to NI, but it didn’t.

The riposte to this article may be ‘but you haven’t seen the deal’. But that is so because it is being concealed.

The effort to entwine with this a large financial package is something which many unionists will find repulsive. There is no financial price which ought to convince any principled unionist to give in on the most fundamental constitutional issue of all: the Union. Allowing money to be part of the discussion on the Windsor Framework was a huge mistake of the DUP.

If unionism goes back and says yes to the Irish Sea border – even one with a ‘patriotic’ coat of red, white and blue paint – then never again can unionism say no. It is an acceptance that never again will Northern Ireland be a full part of the United Kingdom.

It seems that there are some in the DUP who are desperate to get back to Stormont, and it might be that some of those driving this deal have their eye on ministerial office and the prestige that would bring.

Those who want to go meekly back to Stormont as implementers of the Irish Sea border will no doubt be clapped into the assembly by Sinn Fein and Alliance. But whilst there may be short-term personal gain, they will be remembered as those who sold out on the Union, and will be responsible for a seismic fracture in the DUP, which could have a devastating effect at the next election. There are numerous TV clips of the explicit promises that the party leader Sir Jeffrey made to the public and I am sure the party would want voters to feel that they could trust those fundamental commitments.

l Baroness Hoey is a former Labour MP