Owen Polley: The failures of unionism and the worst of Stormont were exposed by the assembly vote on the Windsor Framework

​It was portrayed as an opportunity to debate the Irish Sea border properly and make a decision about Northern Ireland’s future.

Instead, this pointless exercise demonstrated a lot of what is worst about our devolved institutions.

Of course, the ‘democratic consent mechanism’ set aside Stormont’s usual voting rules, so the result was effectively predetermined. But there were problems other than the fact that the whole thing was a charade.

One of the most serious was the strikingly poor quality of the debate. It failed to engage properly with the details of the Windsor Framework, its economic impact or the broader constitutional implications.

To his credit, Timothy Gaston of the TUV managed to challenge Alliance on the grounds that its support for the sea border made it a tool of nationalism and republicanism. Instead of a spirited exchange, that argument provoked something of a tantrum from Naomi Long and Eoin Tennyson. They appealed to the speaker, Edwin Poots, to shut down the North Antrim MLA.

That was consistent with the cosy atmosphere that pervades the current assembly, where most of the parties seem reluctant to challenge their rivals. On this occasion, though, Mr Poots advised members to be a little more robust.

They should expect to be criticised and have to defend themselves. He reminded them that Stormont is not a ‘student debating chamber’. Often, though, that is exactly what it resembles.

The News Letter’s political editor, David Thompson, has repeatedly exposed an ongoing farce at the Executive Office Committee, which was supposed to grill Michelle O’Neill on her part in controversies over safeguarding. That committee, and particularly its chair, Alliance’s Paula Bradshaw, seemed more concerned with protecting O’Neill and other witnesses, rather than asking searching questions.

Mr Gaston again proved the exception, insisting on holding O’Neill to account, and following-up with criticism of Bradshaw’s handling of the affair. The response from the chair and some committee members was effectively to attempt to shut him up.

Last Tuesday, there was at least the appearance of a debate, but in fact it consisted mainly of repeating tired party lines, rather than genuinely challenging received ideas about the sea border. That reflected two facts.

Firstly, many of our politicians have proved incapable of understanding sea border issues from the beginning. And secondly, although the ‘democratic consent mechanism’ was intended to give the appearance that Stormont was asked, the Windsor Framework was imposed on Northern Ireland.

With that in mind, perhaps the most depressing contribution to the debate was Emma Little-Pengelly’s insistence that the DUP had been misrepresented on its Safeguarding the Union deal. The deputy first minister said that her party had made progress toward restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and implied that it had never claimed to have removed the Irish Sea border.

The vote was at least an opportunity for unionists to spell out clearly the damage caused by the Windsor Framework. Instead, Ms Little-Pengelly used it as an exercise in self-validation for the DUP.

Rather than reassuring voters, that will encourage them to ask whether the party has learned any lessons from its previous mistakes.

The claims that it effectively removed the sea border, ended checks and stopped a pipeline of EU law are matters of record. The DUP’s leader, Gavin Robinson, even admitted that it initially oversold its deal.

New regulations from Brussels continue to flow to Northern Ireland without impediment, including its latest tranche of product safety rules. The sea border is deepening rather than disappearing and Westminster cannot pass laws for this part of the UK that clash with EU diktat.

The party also has to wrestle with its recent history during Brexit negotiations.

Under Arlene Foster, it actually endorsed the idea of a regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And Jeffrey Donaldson later claimed that customs checks would have no constitutional impact.

The DUP used Safeguarding the Union to justify returning to Stormont and at the time, it made all kinds of outlandish claims. Most pro-Union critics maintained that, while it was by no means absurd to decide to restore power-sharing, the deal delivered few meaningful changes to the protocol.

As the year comes to a close, Safeguarding the Union has already been almost forgotten and Stormont looks more docile than ever.

The assembly spends an inordinate amount of time debating motions that will not result in legislation, exactly like a ‘student debating chamber’. Budget legislation is not yet ready, two months after a package was introduced.

There is no progress on making potentially difficult decisions on revenue raising. Meanwhile infrastructure, including our water system, is allowed to rot, because it is too difficult to take responsibility.

Last week, when the assembly had a chance to examine the most important issue that faces Northern Ireland, the sea border, it produced an anaemic rehash of the parties’ arguments on Brexit. Even the committee set up specifically to interrogate the impact of EU law dare not fulfil its remit too closely, in case that reveals inconvenient truths.

As for unionists, while they managed to unite to vote against the framework on Tuesday, their messages on that agreement have often been weak, self-serving and contradictory, with a few honourable exceptions. That is the troubling political landscape we are forced to contemplate, as we look ahead to 2025.​