Unionists should make clear that they will all quit Stormont the moment an Irish Sea border comes into operation

(The editorial can be read by clicking here)

Some might say that unionists who supported Brexit brought this fate on themselves. However this is unfair.

Even if the entire population of Northern Ireland had voted to remain it would have not changed the national outcome. In fact it would have only given Westminster an undeniable mandate to treat Northern Ireland differently.

The strategic failures of political unionism came during the Brexit process. In particular the failure to challenge the narrative that a hard land border with the Republic would be both economically disastrous and a serious violation of the Belfast Agreement.

Both the Irish government and Sinn Fein where continuously allowed to make these arguments throughout the EU, and even to the British media with little or no opposition from unionist politicians.

The democratic, economic and political case against an Irish Sea border should have been made much more vigorously than it was, and to a much wider audience than just the ERG wing of the Tory Party.

Democratically, Northern Ireland will in effect become the first colony of the EU. Subject to its regulations but having no representation in either the EU Commission or Parliament.

The Irish government will in all probability step in to fill the void and increasingly become Northern Ireland’s voice in Europe.

This will dilute British sovereignty in the Province and will in time take us closer to a formal joint authority arrangement.

Economically, Northern Ireland trades more with the British mainland than the rest of the world put together.

The very idea of putting up any form of custom barriers, when you already have existing free and unfettered access, does not stand up to even basic economic scrutiny.

Politically, an Irish Sea border is a blatant violation of the principle of consent enshrined in the Belfast Agreement. Unionists must be under no illusions, nor allow themselves to see any imaginary benefits. An Irish Sea border violates British sovereignty and will change forever our relationship with the rest of the UK.

As the mainland gradually drifts away from EU regulations, Northern Ireland will continue to be bound by them just like the Republic. The long term consequence of this will be gradual all-Ireland economic harmonisation.

The unionist community must now awake to the constitutional danger that is approaching. A good first step would be for grass-root unionists and loyalists to begin intensive lobbying of their local MLAs to let them know the extent of the opposition and, indeed, anger that exists.

This can be done in a variety of ways. Write letters to local papers, contact them through their local constituency offices or simply post regularly on their social media accounts.

We should demand that both the DUP and the Ulster Unionists tell London, Dublin and Brussels in no uncertain terms that any attempt to introduce an Irish Sea border is completely intolerable.

They must ‘shout from the rooftops’ that it violates the very heart of the Belfast Agreement which is considered to be so sacrosanct.

One of the reasons why the prime minster betrayed the DUP on this issue was because they offered no threat of sanction. This is in direct contrast to the opponents of a hard land border who in some cases openly warned of potential civil disobedience and maybe even a return to republican violence.

Political unionism must now show the Tory government there will be consequences for the Belfast/St Andrews Agreements for this violation of the principle of consent.

All unionist MLAs should publicly give an advanced warning that they will be resigning from the assembly, and collapsing local devolution, the moment an Irish Sea border comes into operation.

This is the only political strategy open for unionism which can focus the minds of the government, and their Irish counterparts, as they enter negotiations with the EU.

Threatening to collapse local devolution may also the place pressure on the smaller ‘centre parties’ who support the concept of an Irish Sea border.

These same parties tend to be very dependent on the assembly, financially. It also sustains their local media profiles.

A realisation that they may lose devolution, perhaps forever, might force them to take a more balanced approach in regard to unionist sensitivities.

The unionist political parties should also seek to make the opposition to the Irish Sea border as broad as possible.

They need to be lobbying both the local business community and trade unions. These bodies need to be aware that the economic consequences of this border could be catastrophic for their material well being, regardless of their outlook on the EU.

It is essential, however, that as the largest unionist party, the DUP take ownership of the campaign against an Irish Sea border, and outline a political strategy to oppose it.

If they fail to do so, other more insidious elements within the loyalist community may step into the breach.

The consequences of that could be potentially deadly.

It could also result in yet another generation of young loyalists having their life prospects ruined by acquiring criminal records through misguided political protests.

Kirk McDowell BSc. Belfast BT5