Editorial: The question for unionists is not whether there is constitutional harm from the Northern Ireland Protocol, which there is, but how unionists should respond to it

There is a sense that the EU has made major concessions. This column yesterday acknowledged that it has indeed made concessions.​ There is going to be reduced checks of GB to NI goods. Rishi Sunak has made a real effort to improve the protocol. But some positivity is tipping into unrealism.

When three respected unionist voices were on Radio Ulster Talkback yesterday, there at points was agreement, or near agreement, with the presenter when he cited an MP’s analogy between Irish Sea checks and a check which might need to happen going to the Isle of Wight or any part of the UK, say on policing on trafficking. Also that green lanes, if they minimised checks, meant there was no constitutional harm. Further that there had been pre Brexit checks to NI. This is utterly misleading because the situations are not remotely the same. That a large body of EU laws in NI takes precedence over UK laws is clear constitutional damage. We need to be clear about the parameters of the unionist situation.

Peter Robinson, a skilled unionist leader, condemned those who supported a deal or rejected it in advance. But given that the EU was not even negotiating ending the prevalence of much EU law in NI, it is no surprise that some unionists rejected it in advance on principle.

The real debate is about options. What happens if Stormont stays down? How do we manage institutional lack of support in Westminster? Can support be re-gained medium term? Can the constitutional damage be mitigated enough by change such as this deal? Can London help unionism in other ways? Do unionists need to be wary of repeating past blunders? etc

That’s a hard debate. But be wary of claims that unionists have got their demands.