Jamie Bryson: Windsor deal must be rejected but its core parts could be restructured within a constitutionally acceptable framework

On Monday the Windsor Framework was published. Since then I have personally, alongside colleagues from the Centre for the Union and others, studied the relevant materials, the most crucial of which is the legal text contained within the draft decision of the EU-UK joint committee (Scroll down for story about how John Larkin KC says the deal is not compatible with the Acts of Union).

The first thing to say is that I am not sure whether the joint committee is even empowered to make such far-reaching amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement, of which the protocol is part. That, however, is besides the point for present purposes.

It was obvious to me relatively quickly what the right answer was as to whether unionism should endorse the deal. However, such a detailed and complex series of interlocking texts warranted rigorous examination, and as such I have reserved judgment until today, when I have written this article for the News Letter and published a more extensive 1,600 word piece on the Unionist Voice website.

In common with the protocol itself, the government – and prime minister himself – says they are doing one thing, but the legal text does another.

It was claimed, for example, that the customs border in the Irish Sea had been removed. It has not. Indeed, Article 9 (2) of the draft decision of the joint committee makes clear that even for the ‘green lane’, information is required to be provided for ‘customs purposes’.

That confounds the pronouncements of the prime minister and the government’s own command paper.

Moreover, whilst the command paper and the prime minister both in Parliament and writing in this newspaper proclaimed their commitment to the Acts of Union, there is absolutely no legal text which in fact frees the Acts of Union from the present subjugation.

That is unsurprising because the Windsor Framework is incompatible with the Acts of Union. There is not even a credible argument that it is not. That answer is simple. EU law continues to apply and trade GB-NI is on a different footing that, for example, trade from England to Scotland.

It follows that the sacred principle which bound together the anti-protocol campaign, and to which every unionist party has expressly committed, is the Acts of Union. It is the first of the DUP’s seven key tests. Those tests do not belong to DUP politicians, but to the electorate who provided a mandate based upon them.

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has united unionism, alongside Jim Allister. They have both remain faithful to their commitments and been unwavering in their position: the Acts of Union must be restored.

It follows therefore that, in truth, the answer to the Windsor Framework is not in fact at all a difficult one for any self-respecting unionist. It does not restore the Acts of Union, rather it entrenches the subjugation. Therefore anyone who endorses the deal is complicit in the subjugation of that which, in a legal sense, is the Union.

There is the potential that the Windsor Framework’s component parts could be restructured in order to fit them within a constitutionally appropriate framework. That is a small, but yet fundamental, step. A step however which offers the prime minister the prize of being able to arrive at a position whereby he has a deal which can truly command majority support in unionism as well as nationalism.

The Windsor Framework must be rejected; however, if the game is still on – and I believe it is – the component parts need not all be dispensed with. They can be restructured and placed within a constitutionally acceptable framework.

Let us hope Downing Street truly values power sharing. If they do, then they know there is more work to do.

Jamie Bryson, Centre for the Union, Co Down

Windsor Framework and Northern Ireland Protocol: Ian Paisley endorses John Larkin legal report which demands further concessions

Editorial: John Larkin KC's view of the protocol deal shows why it is right to take time to assess the agreement