Owen Polley: Just as business belatedly finds its voice on the Irish Sea border, some unionist politicians lapse into near silence

On the 11th of August, a ‘BCP’ will also start operating in Belfast, the other major port where food and consumer goods arrive in Ulster.

These extraordinary milestones have so far been greeted by most unionist politicians with silence.

To date, neither the DUP nor the UUP have reacted directedly to this development on their websites or social media channels. As usual, the strongest reaction was from the TUV.

The party’s leader, and North Antrim MP, Jim Allister, described the BCPs as the most ‘concrete, physical expression’ yet of the Irish Sea border, which he said ‘divided Northern Ireland from Great Britain’.

To be fair, all the unionist parties are opposed, in theory, to these arrangements. Where they differ is on how to respond to them.

The DUP, of course, previously claimed that its deal with Rishi Sunak’s government removed the Irish Sea border entirely. It used this rationale to return to Stormont, after boycotting power-sharing for two years.

The party was forced, later, to accept that it had oversold the Safeguarding the Union agreement, as the border continued to operate and harden. However, it maintained that its negotiations with the government had made progress towards removing barriers between GB and NI.

The party’s leadership effectively accepted that the Windsor Framework would be in place for the foreseeable future and tried to sell its contribution as a win.

The DUP is therefore embarrassed when new developments show how far Northern Ireland has actually been pushed from the UK mainstream. At best, its message can be something like, ‘ok, things aren’t great and we were economical with the truth, but you would be even worse off if it weren’t for us.’

To this end, some of DUP’s representatives continue to highlight the problems the framework creates for businesses, but opposing it is no longer the party’s dominant theme and it often ignores or downplays important developments.

For the UUP, its finger-prints are not on the sea border or subsequent failed attempts to remove it. That gives it more latitude to be critical. At the same time, its position on the framework is more or less the same as the DUP’s, albeit that it reached its conclusions earlier.

We do not like this situation, but we cannot do much about it, so we are going to focus on other things.

You could portray the parties’ shared resignation on the sea border as either cynical or pragmatic, depending on your cast of mind.

The Labour government has certainly shown no interest in removing trade barriers or tackling constitutional issues created by the EU retaining authority here. In fact, ministers have claimed that these circumstances are vital safeguards for the Belfast Agreement and peace in Northern Ireland.

This view could not be more misguided, but it is still likely to dictate policy for the next four years.

It would be wrong not to acknowledge that unionist politicians are in an invidious position.

If they give the sea border the attention it deserves, they are accused of negativity and ‘talking down’ the Union. Indeed, unless they make progress on removing it, their campaigns seem increasingly futile.

On the other hand, if they ignore the framework or play down its importance, people can justifiably ask what unionist parties are even for. While Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom was eroded, the critics would say, our politicians refused to rouse themselves to defend it. And they would have a point.

You can be forgiven if you haven’t paid close attention lately to every nuance of the protocol / framework debate. It has lasted seemingly forever and, outside the pages of the News Letter, it is no longer given much coverage.

Recently, though, there has been a distinct change in tone, noticeable in the reports and committee meetings where these issues are still discussed.

Many unionist politicians remain silent, but more business representatives are speaking out forthrightly about the problems they’ve experienced or expect to become worse.

The Federation of Small Businesses published a withering report, highlighting the downsides of the sea border for its members, arguing that any ‘competitive advantage’ had ‘not been realised for most.’

Likewise, the Road Haulage Association’s managing director, Richard Smith, wrote a devastating article, arguing that the framework had delivered only “higher costs for businesses and less choice and increased prices for Northern Ireland consumers”.

Previously, for the most part, the logistics industry voiced its concerns privately to government officials, rather than explaining them openly in public. Presumably, the hope was that this was a more effective way to get things done. It now seems that haulage representatives have lost faith that ministers were listening.

This change of mood raises the prospect that, just as business belatedly finds its voice on the sea border, some unionist politicians lapse into near silence.

You can understand why significant parts of unionism are currently soft-pedalling on the framework, but it will not look good to be oblivious, as companies start to experience its worst effects. People will wonder, not just about political judgement, but whether political representatives genuinely understand or care about the problems Northern Ireland faces.