Ed Curran: DUP needs to play its cards carefully in the days ahead

Anyone who cares to plough through the 585page Brexit withdrawal deal will find that Northern Ireland is at its heart.

So much so, that it must have taken weeks and months for the negotiators to arrive at the lengthy list of articles which relate to our future relationship with the rest of the UK, with the Republic and, crucially and controversially, with the European Union.

Consequently, it is surprising that the DUP, for all its cosy closeness to Theresa May, has been caught so unaware and off-guard to the extent that almost 33 years to the day since the Anglo-Irish agreement, history is repeating itself.

The DUP appears to have woken up to the Brexit risks when it wrote to the Prime Minister recently seeking some clarification and reaffirming its red line about no border in the Irish Sea.

In truth, the broader population of Northern Ireland was nowhere near so trusting. An opinion poll showed more than 60% distrust of Mrs May, a figure which spanned Protestants and Catholics, unionists and nationalists.

Still, just as an earlier unionist leader, James Molyneaux, found to his cost with another Tory leader, Margaret Thatcher, in November 1985, perfidious Albion works in deviously unpredictable ways.

Ulster Says No was the unionist mantra then, but the question now is to what extent Ulster will say No in 2018. The answer to that among unionists is far from as clear-cut as it was in 1985.

In the House of Commons yesterday, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds delivered a menacing glare across the chamber in the Prime Minister’s direction. He could point to the claims of her resigning ministers that the Brexit deal undermined the Union. He could warn her directly: “The choice is now clear: stand up for the United Kingdom, or vote for a vassal state and the break-up of the Union.”

But beyond the bitter words of betrayal, where does that leave the DUP and the general unionist public back home?

Whether the constitutional future is at stake, as unionist leaders and anti-deal Conservatives are claiming, there is no stomach for the level of protest which accompanied the Ulster Says No campaign three decades ago.

Nor do the arguments for and against the current deal divide on simple constitutional lines, as evident from the Brexit referendum in 2016, which showed 56% in favour of staying in the European Union. For the first time in the history of Northern Ireland, the leadership of unionism cannot claim to represent majority opinion on such a fundamental issue as the Brexit deal.

It may be that the 56% Yes vote for staying in the EU is actually enhanced now by people who are relieved there will be no return to a hard border, or who are actually pleased that, in future, Northern Ireland business and agriculture will have unique access to the UK and European markets.

Certainly, on the evidence of statements and reports from the commercial community, the DUP’s wrath at Westminster is not reflected in the broader mood of people, some of whom see new opportunity in Mrs May’s deal and are also influenced by envy expressed by the Scottish Nationalist leader, Nicola Sturgeon, who thinks Northern Ireland will have an unfair advantage.

All of this may be immaterial, of course, if Theresa May cannot survive the Conservative rebellion, if her Government falls, if a general election, or a new referendum, is called, or if no deal can be brokered with Brussels.

The imponderables are everywhere and no one has a clue how it will all end, not least the people of Northern Ireland.

Our future is centre stage in the battle for power and influence, but we find ourselves watching the last act at Westminster from the wings. What we do know is that for all its pro-Brexit bluster, the DUP did not have the influence in London, or in Brussels, that its supporters may have believed it had.

Just like James Molyneaux in 1985 and Brian Faulkner in 1972, Arlene Foster has been wrong-footed and misled into a false sense of political comfort by a Conservative Prime Minister. It is not as if Mrs Foster was not warned of this possibility, or that it could not have been foreseen.

Meanwhile, in Dublin, there is subdued delight that virtually everything Leo Varadkar asked of Brussels and of this Brexit deal has been granted. For all the unionist criticism of Mr Varadkar, he has won a significant victory in the Brexit negotiations and can even condescendingly ask the Dail to show understanding of the unionists’ difficulties.

The Irish government has a huge advantage in Brussels and undoubtedly brought all its diplomatic pressure to bear on the negotiations. In contrast, hampered by no Assembly at Stormont and cut out of the UK negotiating team, the local politicians effectively sidelined themselves and the unionists, in particular, are now paying the price and trying to pick up the pieces belatedly.

By aligning itself so trenchantly with the hardline Brexiteers at Westminster, it was always going to be difficult for the DUP to back a moderate deal to exit Europe, such as the one now on the table.

Even if new regulatory checks had not been proposed for Northern Ireland, could the DUP have supported wholeheartedly Theresa May’s deal any more than Boris Johnson, or Jacob Rees-Mogg, or Nigel Farage? Hardly.

Having shored up Mrs May’s premiership for so long, the DUP now finds itself in a Brexit no-man’s land at Westminster: loved by the Brexiteers, unloved by Remainers, in danger of detachment from the mainstream of the Conservative Party and a long-standing critic of Jeremy Corbyn, a potential Prime Minister, if Theresa May falls.

How the DUP plays its cards in the coming days may determine not only the future of Mrs May and her Brexit deal, but also who remains a friend of unionism at Westminster and in Europe.