The principle of consent over NI remains intact
Whether the DUP supports Government in this week’s Budget votes could hold the key to survival of ‘confidence and supply’ deal, says Rick Wilford
he draft Withdrawal Agreement is now on the Cabinet’s table and thus far has ended the Ministerial careers of Esther McVey, former Work & Pensions Secretary, and Dominic Raab, the erstwhile Brexit Secretary. Just four months into the post, Raab has gone walkies, just like his immediate predecessor, David Davis.
Theresa May’s decision to put ‘Leavers’ into the Brexit post was/is governed by both the need to strike a balance between Leavers and Remainers within the Cabinet and accord tangible recognition to the EU referendum result, even though they turned out to be ill-fated (and wholly misguided) appointments, as was Boris Johnson’s.
Raab’s replacement, Stephen Barclay, is another ‘Leaver’ but his brief differs from that of his predecessors. He is tasked with leading the domestic preparedness for the UK’s departure, a lesser but significant role, while the ongoing negotiations with the EU, crucially over a future trade agreement, will be undertaken by Number 10, ie the Prime Minister.
One glimmer of light in the twilight currently enveloping Mrs May is that by replacing McVey with Amber Rudd, a loyalist and a Remainer, she has slightly tilted numerical support for her deal in Cabinet.
One swallow, however, does
not make for a summer for the PM. Ardent Brexiteers remain in Ministerial post seeking to alter the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) from within. The cabal of Liam Fox, Andrea Leadsom, Penny Mordaunt, Chris Grayling and Michael Gove are eminently capable of making mischief from within the tent, or indeed by deciding to leave it by resigning. All are stubbornly deaf to the EU’s insistence that the WA is as good as it gets.
If they remain in their posts, their opportunity will lie in the trade negotiations that are yet to get under way and which, as they evolve, could yet unravel some of the provisions in the WA. But, as the PM has underlined, no agreement is possible that fails to include a NI backstop, a cornerstone of the WA that has incensed the DUP.
In rejecting what it sees as a betrayal by Mrs May, the DUP has cemented its reputation as the party that likes to say ‘No’. What is especially diverting about its stance is that it is now untethered from many civic bodies, notably those in the manufacturing, farming, agri-business and small business sectors.
They can see a distinct economic and trading advantage by way of the WA for NI that trumps the bogus argument that the proposed beneficial arrangements for our wee country threaten the Union’s constitutional integrity, ie an irresistible drift towards a united Ireland.
There is nothing in the WA that threatens the break-up of the Union: leaving the EU in and of itself serves that function, especially if it is accomplished by means of a No-Deal Brexit, the option favoured by the more swivel-eyed loons and suicidal lemmings within the Brexit camp.
Indeed, the SNP and, for that matter, Plaid Cymru, crave the WA’s special provisions for NI, wanting them extended to Scotland and Wales. Protecting NI’s economy via the WA and a future trading arrangement (though each falls short of the benefits of continuing EU membership) would aid, not undermine, the Unionist cause. And, lest we forget, whatever the final shape of Brexit, the principle of consent about NI’s constitutional future will remain intact.
However, we live in a state of considerable uncertainty. First, Mrs May’s future hangs in the balance, pending a possible vote of no confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party.
If such a challenge materialises, I suspect she would win, if only for a combination of largely negative reasons.
Her opponents within the party are themselves divided, bereft of an agreed alternative deal and, by triggering a possible six-week leadership campaign, would risk transforming a difficult situation into an impossible one. While she may yet survive such a challenge, she could be seriously wounded in the process, unable to avoid a coup de grace when the meaningful vote on the WA is held next month. If it is defeated, the pressure to resign would probably be irresistible. Then what?
Well, Mrs May has outlined three possible alternatives: her deal, no deal or no Brexit.
The latter option is now gaining traction in the form of either a new referendum or a General Election. For Remainers the former seems preferable, despite its obvious risks. What would the question be on the ballot paper? A binary choice: her deal or Remain? A triple choice: her deal, Remain or no deal? Or, a revised deal, no deal or Remain? Even if that matter can be resolved, it would take months to hold a referendum, not least because it would first have to be legislated for at Westminster.
One other complication could be a decision on the electorate: should it include 16 and 17-year-olds, as was the case in Scotland at the independence referendum, or only those 18 and over, two million of whom have joined the Electoral Register since 2016?
The option of a General Election is no less fraught. Under the terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, which established that General Elections must be held every five years (the next is due in 2022), it requires either a vote of no confidence in the sitting Government or the support of two-thirds of MPs to trigger an earlier election.
If, however, a vote of no confidence was successful, given that currently we have a minority Government, the Labour Party would have 14 days in which to try to form a Government that commands the confidence of the House. If it fails to do so, then a General Election will follow.
Whichever of those options materialises — a referendum
or a General Election — each would threaten the UK’s departure from the EU on March 29 next year and thereby imperil the current WA.
Would the EU in such circumstances put the deal on hold? Probably, in part in the hope that a Remain-leaning party would be successful, or at least one that included in its manifesto a pledge to hold a fresh referendum. In either circumstance, whither the DUP?
The current uncertainty is already a threat to the confidence and supply agreement. If Mrs May does survive, however unlikely that may seem, the DUP has made it clear that its arrangement with the Conservative Party will end.
The current Government could then only limp on, relying on DUP support on a case-by-case basis. An early test of the DUP’s tactics will appear this week, when a series of votes will be held on the recent Budget: will it support or oppose the Government, or abstain? Incidentally, if it does unilaterally withdraw from the confidence and supply deal, then it forfeits the remaining chunk of the £1bn integral to the arrangement — almost £600m: what will the voters of NI make of that?
On Saturday the DUP holds its annual conference and, not least because of the RHI scandal, an already beleaguered Arlene Foster has much to explain.
Her political fate looks as fragile as Mrs May’s.
There is nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement which threatens the break-up of the Union
An early test of DUP’s tactics will appear this week, when votes will be held on the recent Budget