Editorial: A candid debate about the deal is needed within unionism

​In Westminster yesterday the DUP leader and his deputy pitched for their deal with London.

​Both Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and Gavin Robinson pointed out the horrors of the original Northern Ireland Protocol and the situation that unionists were grappling with, coming from so far back after Theresa May in 2017 capitulated to Irish-EU demands that there must be no change at the land border, and then, just as bad, in 2019 Boris Johnson abandoned all his tough rhetoric over NI.

Sir Jeffrey said that they had to “repair the damage of that decision” and it was a “work in progress” and that he recognised “ongoing concerns” but that it was time to ”bank gains, recognising that there is more to do”. Mr Robinson said that the deal is “a culmination of part of that process” to repair the division of the position in which the government “had left” NI.

The line-up of the eight DUP MPs on Westminster’s green benches was, perhaps coincidentally, four who reportedly are supporting this new deal, then four who are not. The South Antrim MP Paul Girvan cited concerns about diversion of trade (goods that were sourced in Great Britain but now in Ireland), Carla Lockhart mentioned the hundreds of EU laws that govern our goods. Theresa Villiers, the ex NI secretary, appeared to challenge the claim that the province is outside the EU single market for goods. Sammy Wilson made clear that he opposed the deal, and Lord Dodds, ex deputy leader, did the same in the Lords.

This is not an ideal situation for the DUP, akin to 1998 when half of the then 10 Ulster Unionist MPs opposed their leader David Trimble’s Belfast Agreement. But unionism must have a candid debate about a new dispensation that is at best imperfect for NI’s place in the UK.

An alternative scenario is that optimistic claims about the new arrangements lead to future unionist disillusionment, and that is not in Northern Ireland’s interest.