Owen Polley: ​There is no sign that Stormont will end its wasteful ways

It might be possible, in theory, for a unionist party to avoid this tendency. It could appeal to voters on the basis that honesty, transparency and competence would strengthen our place in the UK.

That hasn’t happened in any iteration of Stormont to date. Are there signs that this Assembly will be different?

We’ll come to rows over money later, but let’s look first at the work of the Windsor Framework Committee, set up to scrutinise the impact of that agreement on Northern Ireland.

Less than three weeks ago, the DUP restored devolution on the basis that it had resolved Irish Sea border problems. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson claimed, for instance, that the Safeguarding the Union deal ended an, “automatic pipeline of EU law applying in Northern Ireland”.

“The assembly will be able to scrutinise any new (EU) laws that are coming forward,” the DUP leader told the BBC’s Talkback programme, “Assembly members will be able to say if they think that law is going to be harmful to Northern Ireland and our ability to trade, in other words divergence. The assembly will be able to say no, that law should not apply in Northern Ireland and the UK government has the right to veto that law on behalf of Northern Ireland.”

He was describing a mechanism known as the Stormont Brake, that can be triggered by 30 MLAs from at least two parties. Sir Jeffrey implied that it ensures our laws will not digress over time from those in the rest of the UK.

On Thursday, though, there were signs that some DUP MLAs are already confused about its workings. At the framework committee meeting, Joanne Bunting asked a civil servant what would happen if Stormont used the mechanism.

An official answered that, if Brussels changed an existing regulation and it was blocked by the brake, the amended law would not come into operation but the previous (EU) version would remain in place.

Therefore, if Westminster changed its rules on the same issue it was possible for Northern Ireland to end up in a unique position, out of kilter with both the rest of the UK and the EU.

This possibility was previously highlighted by Tom Elliott of the UUP in the News Letter, but Ms Bunting and her colleague, Jonathan Buckley, seemed surprised and disconcerted by the official’s answer. It was as if the party’s representatives had a poor understanding of the deal to which they had signed up (or that its effectiveness had been grossly exaggerated).

Remember as well, that the Stormont Brake was portrayed as a mechanism to block EU law and stop divergence from the rest of the UK. Many critics suggested that it was unlikely to fulfil that purpose, but that was how it was sold.

If it was ever used successfully, though, to block EU law, Northern Ireland’s access to Brussels’ single market could be reduced.

You would not expect that to be an issue for unionists, who are supposed to believe that our prosperity depends on being fully integrated with the mainstream British economy. But both the DUP and the UUP have spoken about the benefits of ‘dual market access’ for Northern Ireland.

Can we be confident that Sir Jeffrey’s party, never mind other parties at Stormont, will always judge Northern Ireland’s interests to lie with preventing our rules from diverging with Great Britain, even if the mechanism was effective?

Certainly, when it comes to those money issues that I mentioned earlier, the culture of exceptionalism and entitlement at Stormont stretches beyond nationalist parties. Sometimes it takes a moment, when you hear their constant, carping demands of the Treasury, to work out whether you’re listening to a Sinn Feiner or a politician from the DUP.

When the government demanded that Stormont raise £113 million of its own revenue, in return for having a £559 million debt dropped, both parties argued that Northern Ireland was historically underfunded, so this expectation was unreasonable. In which other walk of life does an organisation spend the money that it thinks it should get, rather than the budget it actually has? This £113 million could, in fact, become a powerful symbol of Stormont’s flaws. The government is effectively asking for a sign that the executive will try to end its wasteful ways.

Infamously, during RHI, both unionists and nationalists were caught trying to exploit Westminster’s largesse, when they thought they could obtain ‘free money’ from a green heating scheme.

Previous executives failed to implement public sector reforms, while giving out perks unavailable in most of Great Britain and refusing to consider charges the rest of the country took for granted.

It’s early days for this assembly, but it doesn’t seem that any party will, for example, demand that the Bengoa health reforms, which might mean some hospitals close services, are quickly implemented; or ask schools to amalgamate to reduce empty desks; or argue that our public sector is too large. Neither is a party likely to support water charges, or prescription charges or a rise in student fees.

It looks, instead, like we can expect more of the same. Spending money unwisely, always demanding more and claiming pyrrhic victories rather than taking hard decisions for Northern Ireland’s future.

None of that will strengthen our place in the Union.