By Jamie Bryson
Tonight in Parliament, in his latest assault on his unionist friends who he attacks to cover his own embarrassment at his volte face on the most fundamental issues, Jeffrey Donaldson slammed all those of us calling for restoring the Acts of Union as “not knowing history or facts”.
We have it all wrong on the Acts of Union, he says, because if we undone the damage to the Acts of Union caused by the Protocol there would be all sorts of tariffs on goods including Bushmills whiskey. It seems Jeffrey knows more than even the Supreme Court!
This is the latest example of Jeffrey Donaldson using his platform in Parliament to lambast those he stood shoulder to shoulder with, and slam the very arguments which he himself endorsed, repeated and championed!
Anyone with a copy of my constitutional law book on the Acts of Union will be surprised to find that Jeffrey Donaldson- he who now slams us all for having “not read or understood” the Acts of Union- in a foreword commended the publication, which makes the very arguments he now rages against.
Will he be seeking to withdraw his foreword from that book on the basis he was terribly wrong in endorsing that which he now rejects for his own political ends?
Of course, this change from Jeffrey Donaldson is part of the plot with the NIO to undermine and subvert the very arguments which unionism collectively made, in order to facilitate and build support for his deal to implement the Irish Sea border, whilst pretending to be doing the opposite.
Let us just deal with the latest Donaldson deceptions.
He again advances the silly claim there would be tariffs on goods moving in the UK such as Bushmills whiskey: no Jeffrey, schedule 1 to the 1801 Acts was repealed in 1879 via the Statute Law Revision Act.
Schedule 1 was agreed- openly and transparently- as setting out specified tariffs (with equalising duties) as transitional provisions to ensure equal footing across the UK. There could be nothing added to Schedule 1. Once trade had regulated itself, Schedule 1 was repealed, and the core component of the Acts of Union continued in force.
Jeffrey clearly doesn’t know or understand this, if he did he wouldn’t be making such ridiculous arguments. Or, perhaps, as with the other mistruths he has repeated again and again in recent weeks, he does know it is all nonsense but simply doesn’t care.
Let us just make it clear for Jeffrey’s benefit; unionism wanted to repair the harm done to the Acts of Union by the Protocol. Don’t take my word for it, Jeffrey can simply review his own speech in Castlederg in April 2022.
To restore that which was subjugated and suspended. In a contrivance with the NIO, Jeffrey has manipulated this to launch a really rather silly attack line that his ‘opponents’ want to restore the Acts of Union to 1801 and thus bring back Schedule 1. If that were so, we would have to advance a territorial claim on Ireland!
But ask yourself this; what point is Jeffrey trying to make?
It can only be that the Acts of Union have changed through the years, and so there is no real issue with changing them now (on Jeffrey’s case). The logic of that is he is arguing for acceptance of the subjugation and suspension of the Acts of Union; the very thing he joined with the rest of unionism in campaigning against.
He won’t say that out loud, because he isn’t prepared to own up to that consequence of his deal and bear the political cost.
Here is a very simple question for Jeffrey: do you agree with the courts that the Acts of Union are subjugated and suspended, and remain so?
If so, then what precisely is your argument and what relevance does schedule 1 from 1801 actually have?
But I repeat my earlier offer: Jeffrey has said he wants ‘debate’ within unionism, but he doesn’t really. He wants environments within his control whereby he can promote his new argument without scrutiny or challenge.
If Jeffrey Donaldson wants to debate the Acts of Union I am happy to do so in any environment, at any time. All the soundbites in the world and falsehoods about Bushmills whiskey can’t conceal the truth.
If you now know so much, and those of us you stood shoulder to shoulder with (copying our arguments after you initially welcomed the ‘opportunity’ in the Protocol and said it was ‘not a constitutional issue’) are so stupid, then face us in a debate and let us put that to the test.