By Jamie Bryson
In recent years I have stood on many anti-Protocol platforms campaigning against the Irish Sea border. As we now face a seminal election, in which the Protocol and Irish Sea border is a core issue, in my view it is only right that I set out in writing my view on the approach which should be taken. It cannot conceivably be a defensible position to stand on platforms campaigning and speaking to supporters of that campaign, but then to duck or evade- for either personal or political reasons- providing a reasoned position on one of the most challenging issues which has faced unionism in decades.
The anti-Protocol campaign was one which, at least at some points, encompassed the entirety of unionism and loyalism. The Ulster Day 2021 declaration provided the basis of unity, and it is important to note that some- including elements of the DUP and UUP- were dragged kicking and screaming to adopting robust opposition by the activism of grassroots unionists and loyalists. That should never be forgotten: the grassroots campaign has done more than many elected politicians.
The Ulster Unionist Party abandoned any meaningful opposition to the Protocol and Irish Sea border in 2022, and in January 2024 the DUP- by a majority in their party Executive- betrayed every commitment they made and did a deal with a deceitful Government which will forever be known as the Donaldson Deal on the Surrendering the Union.
It can hardly be credibly contested that firstly the claims in the relevant command paper, and those made in support of it, were always demonstrably false; and secondly, even the modest commitments actually in the command paper haven’t been delivered, and won’t be.
It is important to point out that the DUP leadership were warned both from internally within the DUP at the highest level, and from external friends (such as Jim Allister, Kate Hoey, Ben Habib and me) that the Surrendering the Union deal, based as it was (and is) upon the shifting sand of demonstrable falsehoods, would tear unionism apart. Some may recall when a senior DUP member broke cover and spoke to Stephen Nolan they warned that Donaldson was about to divide the DUP and unionism like never before.
And so it has come to pass. Those who endorsed that deal, and deployed lies and coercion to put it upon unionism, should hang their heads in shame. It is they who are the architects of the present division and, if we are honest, chaos within unionism.
Those who promoted the Donaldson Deal on Surrendering the Union, and actively acted as persuaders for it both within the DUP and externally, adopted a patently absurd but more importantly dishonest position. There is no one could have been in any doubt that the claims being made by the Donaldson leadership team were demonstrably false, and indeed the force with which they were made was simply a ruse to try and deceive more people within the unionist and loyalist community. In the early days, they managed to fool a significant number of people, but even those taken in by the pro deal propaganda have largely recanted and accepted they were played.
The behavior of some pro deal MLAs on the day of Stormont’s return was little short of appalling. Those persons should reflect on their contributions and how they think that can be reconciled with now preaching unionist unity.
Then there are those within the DUP such as Jonny Buckley, Carla Lockhart, Sammy Wilson, Lord Dodds, Diane Dodds, Ian Paisley, Michelle Mcllveen, Paul Girvan, Lord McCrea, Lord Browne and party chairman Lord Maurice Morrow who stood against the deal, both privately within the DUP but also crucially in public whereby they did tell the truth and made clear that what was afoot was an effort to pull off, as put by Lord Morrow, “the sleight of hand of the century”.
Do I think the anti-deal section of the DUP should have done more and been more forceful in taking on Donaldson and those around him? Yes, I do. It is not credible to oppose the constitutional harm being inflicted by the Surrendering the Union deal but remain within a party whose corporate policy is acceptance and implementation of that deal. It may be said that it is better to stay within and seek to change the policy, and that argument has merit, but if that was the course being pursued then it should have been done far more robustly.
It has been equally disappointing to see some (but by no means a majority) of the anti-deal section of the DUP lash out at their own external friends and allies. It was always foolish to take out frustration for the errors of the DUP leadership on those whose only ‘crime’ was to call out those errors, in exactly the same terms as many of the DUP’s own internal opponents of the deal.
But all that said, the differences with the anti-deal section of the DUP are more matters of tactics rather than constitutional principle. On the core issue, such persons agree that the Donaldson Deal on Surrendering the Union does not do what the DUP leadership claimed, and indeed accept that implementing it is inflicting constitutional harm on the Union. What they ought to do about that is a different question and, I suppose, that is where views have diverged (but I hope are on the road to re-convergence).
It is evident therefore, in my view, that there are two categories of DUP candidates: firstly those who were the architects and supporters of the Surrendering the Union deal and who went along with the falsehoods either via silence or enthusiastically joining in the deception, and who have thereafter refused to recant; and secondly those who told the unionist and loyalist people the truth about the Surrendering the Union the deal, but tactically were less than robust in doing anything about it.
For me, there is a clear distinction; to use a biblical analogy: we must separate the goats from the sheep.
There is no credible argument to say that those who championed (and continue to champion) the Surrendering the Union deal have any right to expect, by mere fact of their professed identity as a unionist, that unionists who oppose the Irish Sea border should stand aside and by virtue of doing so de-facto reward and endorse the deception which pro deal DUP candidates have tried put upon the unionist people. There have been half-hearted efforts to try and walk back the bold claims made, but no substantive honest repudiation of the lies (no other word will do).
If there were to be an unequivocal acknowledgment that unsustainable claims were made and clear acceptance that the Irish Sea border remains, alongside express cast-iron commitments as to steps to be taken to continue the fight which would need to, at a very minimum, include a guarantee that never again will the DUP lay or support an EU law applicability motion and moreover that every aspect of EU law will be resisted (i.e., the Stormont brake will always be pulled), that would be worthwhile. Anything less than those modest steps (which seem to me to be merely a good barometer as to whether the DUP, as their leader’s recent statements suggest, truly oppose as a matter of principle the continued application of EU law) is merely words, and whether they like it or not, the words of the DUP leadership do not have the quality of being trusted at this stage.
Gavin Robinson who- leaving aside my clear differences with him on his approach to the deal- is a genuine unionist and decent person, and he has the opportunity to deliver a reset and move away from the plainly unsustainable positions articulated by Jeffrey Donaldson. The election has been thrust upon everyone unexpectedly and perhaps unionism, collectively, would have benefitted from more time but, unfortunately, at the time of writing the claims made by Donaldson still stand, as does the policy of implementing the Protocol. If that were to change, in a sincere way with accountable commitments, then the landscape would alter and the balance may well weigh (or have been weighed, given the time may well have passed) differently. There is still time, albeit not much.
But put simply; there can be no point of co-operation between the truth and a lie. Similarly, there can be no point of co-operation between those who say the Irish Sea border is gone, and those who are alive to the reality it not only still exists, but that the former category of persons is embedding it.
It is said, correctly, that the price of standing against pro deal DUP candidates may be to inadvertently allow non-unionist to get elected. But, on the other hand, the price of not standing is as a matter of principle to endorse the Surrendering the Union deal and thus the continued implementation of the Irish Sea border and EU law.
In weighing those two positions, it must also be remembered that there was an agreed basis of unionist unity- the Ulster Day 2021 joint declaration, and thereafter all anti-Protocol unionists endorsed the DUP’s seven key tests. The true evil which has caused the present division is those who have abandoned their commitments.
It is irrational to suggest that given such fundamental principle is at stake (i.e., those who are willing to accept and implement the Surrendering the Union deal, and those who aren’t) that electors ought not to be at least given the choice of weighing the competing issues in their own minds and coming to a decision.
Therefore, in places such as East Belfast, East Londonderry and North Belfast, absent a clear change of approach from those who endorsed the deal, there should be an anti-Surrendering the Union deal candidate. The DUP candidates there have been, sadly, amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of the Donaldson Deal on Surrendering the Union.
It is of course up to unionists and loyalists with a pro-deal DUP candidate and an anti-deal unionist candidate as to the conclusion they arrive at when they go to mark their ballot. I personally, on principle, could not endorse a pro deal candidate given the fundamental constitutional nature of the issue at stake. It will be for every pro union voter to personally undertake the balancing exercise inherent in this article and decide whether, or not, to put their mark beside a pro deal DUP candidate for the sake of preserving someone who is at least a unionist, notwithstanding the constitutional harm they have inflicted.
However, to put an end to speculation, in this election I will not be an anti-deal candidate.
That is so for two core reasons which are both personal and political. It is only right I set those reasons out.
Firstly, as I have repeatedly made clear, my personal and professional focus is on completing the necessary steps to be called to the Bar. That initial application and examination process all takes place before this coming Christmas. It is that which is my focus, and it is at the Bar where I think unionism, and loyalism particularly, most needs advocates to rebalance what is a clear and obvious imbalance within that profession. It is for that reason that consistently nationalism has fared better- with significant political consequences- via ‘lawfare’ than has unionism/loyalism. I passionately want to do something about that.
Secondly, as I stated over many months, I do believe that anti-Protocol (which is now obviously anti-Surrendering the Union deal) unionism must as a matter of principle provide the electorate with a choice in places where the only unionist choice is found in those who support the deal and thus the embedding of the Irish Sea border. I had made clear that if circumstances arose whereby there was no candidate in such a constituency, then I would seriously consider running merely on a point of principle and contrary to my own personal ambitions which are set out above. I had held preliminary talks with TUV and Reform on this. As things have transpired, TUV/Reform has an available candidate they can endorse and whilst some have urged me to nevertheless run as well, I see no merit in doing so as there would be nothing to be gained, and no point of principle on which it is necessary to stand given there is an anti-deal candidate.
If a significant number of persons conclude they must vote as a matter of principle for an anti-deal and thus anti-Irish Sea border candidate, then any pro-deal unionist who in consequence falters at the ballot box will have no one to blame but themselves. They have had multiple opportunities to recant on the Surrendering the Union deal and (thus far) have consciously chosen not to do so. They, and they alone, own any consequences which flow from that.
In equal terms, I want to clearly and unequivocally confound the deliberate and contrived falsehoods being spread by opponents of Alex Easton (both within unionism and outside it) that there has been a ‘deal done’ that should he be elected MP that I would take his MLA seat. That is without any foundation whatsoever. There has never been any form of discussion as to this issue, and in any event I have absolutely no interest nor desire to be an MLA and would refuse, and have in the past refused, suggestions that I should seek to be so.
However, turning now to the second category of DUP representatives. Those who may be legitimately criticised for their less than robust tactics in opposing the Surrendering the Union deal once delivered, but who can at least point to the public positions they adopted as evidence that they did not go along with the Donaldson leadership’s deceitful and quite frankly appalling propaganda campaign. Put simply: they told the truth about the deal.
The question in respect of such persons is does disagreement on how they opposed the Surrendering the Union deal, warrant running candidates against them in the context that, as discussed, there may be inadvertent consequences for unionism as a whole?
If we are being purely intellectually honest then such an approach probably is warranted. There is an arguable proposition that goes like this: the DUP’s corporate party position is acceptance and implementation of the Irish Sea border- via the Surrendering the Union deal- therefore everyone standing under the DUP banner, regardless of their personal views, own that policy position.
There is no real answer to that point. Therefore, it is wrong to criticise those unionists who advance that intellectually honest proposition, and therefore feel there really ought to be no distinction made. The DUP as a party are Protocol implementers, and therefore so are their candidates on that analysis.
It really comes down to on one hand the correctness of the proposition above, weighed against the price of strict adherence to it, which (differing somewhat from the pro deal DUP candidates) may be inadvertently removing a unionist who agrees within the fundamental principle that the Surrendering the Union deal was a fable of falsehoods and that in consequence the Irish Sea border remains, on the basis of a disagreement as to their approach in how their opposition has manifested itself.
On balance, in my personal view, I would not be in support of running against the category of DUP candidates who fall under the anti-deal banner. That is a product of weighing the issues above, and some more private knowledge as to the efforts which were made by the anti-deal DUP campaign to stop Donaldson and those around them doing what they ultimately did. It is also the case that the stronger the anti-deal sentiment in the Parliamentary party, the more it binds the leadership.
It is true to say, and there is no point ignoring, that the position I have arrived that is one which slightly diverges from that of Jim Allister KC MLA. That difference is not one of principle; indeed, candidly, Jim is intellectually correct, whilst the point I have arrived at is one of seeking to reconcile that which- as a matter of purity- in truth ought not to be reconciled.
This does not represent, and ought not to be presented as representing, a ‘division’ between me and Jim. We remain at one on our views on the Irish Sea border and the constitutional consequences thereof, alongside the reality that no one who endorses the Surrendering the Union deal should get a free pass. We will continue that fight together.
But just as Jim Allister is his own man, so am I. We each respect the other enough to make allowance for difference of views when such views are arrived at via reasoned and sincere consideration. Indeed, it is- in large measure- out of respect for Jim Allister, who is the most intelligent and principled unionist advocate I have ever met, that I have felt compelled to set out my position in such detail, accompanied by reasons.
The argument which Jim makes is intellectually and logically unanswerable. Therefore, I make no effort to answer it. He is right.
However, in my view, the challenge we face is that it is not enough to be right, when being right may have wrong consequences. Therefore, for my part personally, I have sought to weigh principle, consequences and circumstances and arrive at a position which- in my view- is admittedly not intellectually and logically pure, but which I believe is a position which remains faithful to fundamental principle, whilst taking into account overarching consequences.
Finally, I return to the core point. Unionism is divided, and the blame for that does not lie with those unionists who have remained faithful to the shared commitments of unalterable opposition to the Protocol, but rather with those who have abandoned those commitments. It is that latter category of persons who bear the burden of atoning for the original sin.