Critics of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson are reportedly redoubling their efforts to undermine the deal he has struck with the Conservative government in London.
Since the announcement of a deal by Sir Jeffrey in the early hours of Tuesday morning, we are finding out more and more details on a drip-feed basis.
So far the choreography has not been as slick as one would have expected it to be, 6 weeks on from when I originally broke the news of the deal being agreed in principle. At the time one source close to the proceedings said the changes were largely cosmetic – as those involved in the talks had been barred from reopening the Windsor Framework Agreement – a view that soon wove its way through hardline opponents of Agreement inside the DUP. Indeed, despite confirmation given to me by a source on 12 January that the deal was once again ready to be struck, there was yet another delay.
This further procrastination by Sir Jeffrey and what my source called “The Magnificent 7” was interpreted by some in the party’s grassroots support-base to be a renewed attempt to drive up the numbers in favour of the deal.
As I revealed in a tweet last night, there are now unconfirmed reports that the DUP leader only received 53% backing (technically 52.6%) in a vote by his party’s Executive.* This indicates trouble ahead for Sir Jeffrey in two ways. First, despite it being a technical majority, it is not a resounding victory for the DUP leader and, perhaps, a poor reflection on his ability to convince naysayers that the deal is as “significant” as he has been claiming. Second, it leaves the door open to further challenge to his authority and leadership in the party from both inside the DUP and beyond.
Indeed, as I warned before Christmas, despite attempts to represent the challenges solely as coming from the TUV, the reality is the biggest opposition to Sir Jeffrey’s deal is from inside the DUP itself. We only have to look at the chaos and farce which ensued when loyalist activist Jamie Bryson live-tweeted what was being said in a closed briefing to DUP members.
Mr Bryson’s criticism since then has been that there really was nothing new in the deal that fundamentally altered the situation as it stood under the Windsor Agreement. TUV leader Jim Allister has called it “thin gruel”. Meanwhile, loyalists have continued to sign up to the “Keep Your Word” petition as one avenue for holding the DUP to account. Despite my dismissals of such protest action, the fact remains that there is no evidence that this grassroots opposition is running out of steam. Indeed, it now seems likely, though not certain, that the Loyalist Communities Council will refuse to back the deal. When taken in line with the anger amongst some sections of the grassroots, which I said was evident in my interview with Mark Carruthers on BBC’s The View last week, it is likely that Sir Jeffrey’s position will be further undermined by his decision to back the return to the political institutions. It is worth remembering, lest we should forget, that there will always be those implacably opposed to the DUP’s upbeat objective of returning to power-sharing, regardless of the terms of a deal on the Irish Sea border.
As I told The View last week, Sir Jeffrey will have his feet held to the fire on the deal, specifically in relation to how it sits alongside the DUP’s “7 Tests”, some critics claim is “a lesson in constructive ambiguity”. Prophetically, I warned that there are people moving ahead of the deal to spoil it and the best time for Sir Jeffrey to move was now.
Little did I know that would come in the form of a source inside the meeting (it has since been said that the source was two-legged but, as security experts are well-aware, there are other ways of listening in on conversations outside a closed room), which triggered a huge degree of paranoia within the DUP leadership.
The DUP’s 7 Tests confirm that their opposition is about outstanding political and economic issues. Much commentary has concentrated on the trade barrier side of things but what does this mean for the Union going forward?
The government’s publication of its Strengthening the Union Command Paper on Wednesday claims to advance ‘a range of measures that, in the event of the restoration and ongoing functioning of the institutions, would copper-fasten Northern Ireland’s political and constitutional place in the Union, strengthen the operation of the UK internal market, and support ever greater opportunities for trade within it – responding to the deeply held concerns that have been expressed.’ I will return to the document in a subsequent post.
This is welcome news. However, it may not be enough to quell dissent within certain sections of unionism and loyalism. These are people who do not trust their politicians and, while this may manifest itself in terms of voter apathy at the ballot box, such negative energy can also find itself easily taking the form of protest action on the streets. No-one can predict with any kind of certainty the direction of travel as the pieces of this complex jigsaw puzzle are slotted into place.
Interestingly, for the DUP leadership, this is a positive deal. As Gavin Robinson claimed in the House of Commons, the DUP had “turned the impossible into the possible” by securing it. Meanwhile, Robinson’s colleague Sammy Wilson broke ranks, declaring instead how, “Despite the gains which my party leader and deputy party leader have gained in these negotiations, the fact remains that in NI there are still EU-manned border posts being built which will create a border within our own country.”
So, to return to the question I posed in the headline of this blog post: when is a border not a border? The answer, according to DUP critics, is when it is rebranded a “new UK internal market system”.
* This figure is disputed by the DUP, including in comments by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson on BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback show. Sir Jeffrey called the vote in his favour “decisive“.