Letter: Unionism's position must remain clear -. it’s powersharing or the protocol, but not both

This affinity often seems comparable to a neglected child who desperately wants its parent’s approval but for whom the disinterested parent takes momentary phases of interest but constantly abandons the child whenever it becomes inconvenient.

As unpopular as he is in unionist circles it is hard to imagine that Jeremy Corbyn would have agreed anything worse for unionists than “Boris’s Border”. While unionists can’t expect a Labour government to immediately remove an Irish Sea border we can but hope they will at least feel free to have a more honest dialogue about the reality of what Boris Johnson signed up to. It was noteworthy that when interviewed prior to the Labour conference about whether or not a future Labour government would ease Northern Ireland’s problems by being closer to Europe, Sir Keir Starmer made it clear that he wouldn’t have the UK in a position of being a rule taker.

This is a quite sensible argument but it is an equally fair argument when made by unionists. If it is not acceptable to a Conservative or a future Labour government for the UK to be subject to rules over which they have no control, why should they expect unionists in Northern Ireland to accept that we are the only region of the UK that should?

If the protocol arrangements are not acceptable for the UK as a whole, and they wouldn’t be acceptable to the Irish Republic if implemented on a land border, why should Ulster’s unionists have to tolerate that which everybody else finds unacceptable?

A lack of powersharing does have the potential to undermine the Union in some quarters but, equally, powersharing based on NI as a second class part of the UK runs the risk of undermining support even more by creating the impression the Union isn’t worth preserving based on how NI is treated.

The position of unionism must remain clear to both governments. It’s powersharing or the protocol. They cannot have both.

R G McDowell, Belfast, BT5