DUPmustworkwith anti-Boris politicians

IF one accepts the appropriateness of a simple majority vote to determine whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, the pledge to deliver on the will of the British people as expressed in the 2016 referendum has a laudable ring to it. But what does that vote actually mean?

Does it mean leave the EU without a deal? Does it signify indifference as to whether a deal is agreed with the EU? Does it mean subject to a deal? And, if so, what sort of deal must be concluded before leaving the EU can truly be considered to be giving effect to the will of the British people?

The DUP’s recent trauma demonstrates how significant the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU are.

It may be that a no-deal Brexit is something the DUP could live with, but here it has to take account of former DUP finance minister Simon Hamilton’s warning that a no-deal Brexit would do untold damage to the Northern Ireland economy.

The party has rejected two deals as incompatible with Northern Ireland’s position within the UK.

It’s contribution to stalling Boris Johnson’s deal may save face for a while, but sooner or later the DUP has to answer the question of whether remaining in the EU would be better than exiting with a deal that crosses its so-called ‘red lines’.

The option of a no-deal Brexit may not gather sufficient votes in Parliament, either before or after an election, and we have surely reached the end of the road so far as getting any other deal that does not cross the red lines is concerned.

The time has come for the DUP to accept the advice of Adam Moore, twice explained in these pages this year. It has to work together with other anti-Johnson political leaders to give the people a choice to which a clear answer can be given.

That is a double referendum, which first asks which of two alternatives to the status quo — a no-deal or the Johnson deal — should be offered against remaining in the EU in the second stage of the referendum.

When it gets to the second stage, the DUP should campaign for remaining in the EU, because this is the option that ticks all its boxes: it best avoids damage to the Northern Ireland economy, it keeps the UK as one and, in the longer term, bolsters the Union by maintaining the constitutional settlement enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement.

The latter clearly assumes continued membership of the EU by both nation states with a presence on the island of Ireland and makes all kinds of non-unionist acceptance of the Union considerably easier.

It also happens to be what the business and farming communities (as well as a majority of people) very clearly want.

DR DAVID CAPPER

School of Law Queen’s University Belfast