Unionism cannot afford a strategic own goal over Drumcree

But there is a difference between taking a stand and choosing a strategy. We have a responsibility to consider not only what our actions achieve today, but what they could mean for Northern Ireland tomorrow.

I entered politics with one overriding principle: to put my country first, regardless of the personal or political consequences.

That principle has never changed.

From my earliest involvement in the Orange Order, and throughout my political life, I have stood firmly alongside my hometown of Portadown and our Orangemen.

I know these men. I know their integrity, honesty and decency. I have supported them throughout recent court proceedings, and I continue to support their right to exercise what was a lawful determination.

That support has never wavered.

Some have questioned my motives and integrity because I have raised concerns about the consequences of a particular political strategy.

Let me be clear. I have always had the courage of my own convictions. I think for myself, make my own judgements and will always say what I genuinely believe to be in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

My reaction to the conduct of Michelle O’Neill and other nationalist leaders, following the successful court ruling in favour of 35 Portadown Orangemen, has been one of deep anger and frustration.

I cannot understand how someone who claims to be a First Minister for all can act in such blatant defiance of the law.

Nobody, regardless of political position, should be above the law. Those responsible must be held accountable, and the courts must be allowed to do their work.

This episode has also exposed serious shortcomings in the accountability mechanisms at Stormont.

I want Michelle O’Neill held accountable. I want Michelle O’Neill removed from office.

But I believe the most effective and lasting way to achieve that is through the ballot box: rebuilding unionist strength, restoring confidence and securing the electoral mandate needed to replace Sinn Féin as the largest party.

There is, as has been mentioned by others, another legal mechanism that could remove Michelle O’Neill from office immediately. But the question we must confront is whether exercising it would strengthen unionism or deliver temporary satisfaction at the expense of our long-term interests.

If Emma Little-Pengelly withdrew from government, Michelle O’Neill would cease to be First Minister. The Assembly could continue, but the Executive would cease to function, leaving what would effectively be a zombie Assembly.

I understand why many unionists would welcome that immediate outcome. Their anger is real, their concerns are genuine, and their desire for accountability deserves respect.

But what happens next?

Would Sinn Féin seek to capitalise politically on such a development? Could events rapidly escalate towards the complete collapse of Northern Ireland’s Government?

And if they did, would unionism emerge stronger or weaker?

These are not questions we can afford to dismiss.

Only weeks ago, nationalism appeared divided and dejected, while unionism was energising. Now nationalism is increasingly united and galvanised, while unionism is divided.

This week, the latest polling from ‘More in Common’ places Sinn Féin five percentage points higher than previous polls, although the usual polling caveats apply.

My concern is that a full collapse of our government could produce a significant Sinn Féin electoral surge, leaving unionism confronting an emboldened republican movement demanding further constitutional or institutional changes and renewed pressure for a border poll.

We could also face increased involvement from a Labour Government at Westminster, which has never been our friend, and an Irish Government in Dublin, potentially through alternative arrangements for governing Northern Ireland.

The very safeguards and protections upon which unionism relies within the Stormont institutions would come under pressure.

It is true that these outcomes are not inevitable. But make no mistake: they are serious possibilities, and responsible strategic leadership requires us to consider them before making decisions whose consequences may be difficult to reverse.

I have never argued that the Northern Ireland Assembly is perfect. It is not.

But we must be prepared to ask whether the alternative could be considerably worse.

This is about more than who occupies the office of First Minister today. It is about the constitutional and political position of unionism tomorrow.

I accept that others may take a different view. They are entitled to do so, and I respect the sincerity and conviction with which they hold their opinions.

I seek no confrontation with other unionist parties or anyone within the wider Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist community.

These are my people. They are the community I come from, the people I stand alongside and those whose future I care deeply about.

I do not claim to have all the answers. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom.

But I make one genuine appeal: listen to one another.

We can disagree over strategy without questioning each other’s loyalty to the Union. We can argue passionately without treating fellow unionists as enemies.

At the very moment when we need cooperation, discipline and common purpose, we risk directing our frustrations inwards rather than confronting the challenges before us.

Unionism needs teamwork. Not everyone thinking alike, but everyone recognising that our shared cause is bigger than any individual, any disagreement or any political party.

That is why I am calling on unionist leaders to come together for immediate, formal talks. I have written to them today to formally extend that invitation.

Not unity for the sake of unity. Not an attempt to pretend our political differences do not exist.

But a serious and structured discussion about defending the rule of law, strengthening accountability within our institutions, protecting our constitutional position and developing a long-term strategy to rebuild unionist political and electoral strength.

Surely there are matters of fundamental importance upon which we can find common ground.

Our unionist cause is worth more than loyalty to any individual party.

I did not enter politics for personal advancement. I entered politics because I believed I had a duty to serve my country, its people and future generations.

That remains my motivation.

And if I told you that increasing the risk of bringing down Northern Ireland’s Government would necessarily produce a better outcome for unionism, I would not be telling you what I genuinely believe.

My fear is that the opposite could happen.

Some will say I am wrong. Others will argue that the institutions must fall, whatever the consequences.

I respect their right to make those arguments, and I do not dismiss them out of hand. Circumstances can change, and what may not be the right course of action today may well become necessary in the future. Political judgements must always remain open to scrutiny and reassessment as events unfold.

But I ask one simple question.

Have you considered what happens if I am right?

What if an understandable reaction to a genuine injustice becomes a strategic own goal?

What if decisions taken in anger today produce damaging political consequences for unionism and Northern Ireland in the years ahead?

And who will take responsibility if that happens?

These questions must be asked before decisions are made, not after the damage has been done.

None of this means accepting what has happened. Quite the opposite.

There must be accountability. There must be consequences. The policing failures surrounding Drumcree have left many unionists fearful and sceptical. All alleged criminal wrongdoing must be properly investigated, and the courts must be allowed to do their work.

We must distinguish between holding our opponents accountable and handing them a political advantage.

Unionism needs leadership prepared to look beyond tomorrow’s headlines and consider where our country will be in five, ten or twenty years.

It needs people willing to make difficult arguments, even when those arguments are unpopular.

And it needs teamwork, mutual respect and a renewed sense of common purpose.

I will always stand up for Portadown, for our community, for the rule of law and for the Union.

Nobody should mistake strategic thinking for a lack of principle, resolve or courage.

Anger is understandable. Frustration is justified. But neither, on its own, constitutes a political strategy.

The future of unionism is far too important to be determined by internal division or decisions made in the heat of the moment.

We must not do our political opponents’ work for them.

Our responsibility is not simply to win the argument today.

It is to secure the Union for generations to come.

That is where I stand. And that is the principle that will continue to guide me.