Foster criticised for describing Brexit stance as ‘blood red’ line
DUP leader Arlene Foster has described her Brexit red line as ‘blood red’ and ‘very red’.
The leader of the party, which props up British prime minister Theresa May’s government, was stressing her party’s unwillingness to give ground on potential checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Ms Foster has insisted that Ms May needs to show her any new proposals on the border before presenting them to the EU.
She made the comments in an interview with BBC Radio Four on Tuesday, though the clip was not played until yesterday.
When asked if she would vote down Ms May on a Brexit deal, she said: ‘We don’t want to be in that position. This is too important to be playing around with things because this is the union. This is what brought me into politics.’
When asked ‘how red’ her red lines were she said: ‘The red line is blood red. It’s very red.’
Her comments came amid reports – denied by senior conservatives – that the British government was considering allowing more regulatory differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK to ensure that a free-flowing border is maintained on the island.
Sinn Féin vice president Michelle O’Neill branded as ‘bizarre’ her description of her Brexit red line as ‘blood’ red.
Ms O’Neill said the remarks showed the DUP was not speaking for the majority in Northern Ireland, where most voted Remain.
‘They are bizarre in the context that people are worried about their future, their future prosperity, their jobs, the economy. Students are worried about how they are going to study across Europe, our rights in terms of the future and what that means for all of us.’
Ms O’Neill also said the DUP’s deal with the Conservative Party stood in the way of restoring power sharing in the region, 21 months after the executive collapsed.
She said: ‘I think the DUP are demonstrating day on day that they are more interested in propping up the Brexiteers than they are in... the rights of citizens here in the North.’
Ms Foster’s reference will be interpreted by some as a reference to the Ulster Covenant, which was signed by almost 500,000 men and women in the province in 1912, some of whom are said to have signed it in their own blood.
The signatories pledged to use ‘all means which may be found necessary’ to oppose the home rule bill.
YESTERDAY in this newspaper, Matt Cooper explained why Arlene Foster’s language on the Good Friday Agreement, when she said it was ‘not sacrosanct’, was so dangerous and alarming. Sadly, she was only warming up.
In a further interview, she said that her party line on a Brexit deal that would divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom was not just red, but ‘blood red’.
Peace on this island might well be 20 years old, but it is fragile nonetheless, and any mention of blood is profoundly disquieting – we saw enough of it over the course of 30 years to never want to see a single drop spilled again.
Equally, it conjured up an echo of the Ulster Covenant, signed by over 500,000 Unionists in 1912 in protest against the Home Rule Bill presented to Westminster at the time. Though the theory has been largely disproved, the mythology that some signed it in their own blood is a persistent hardline Unionist boast.
Ms Foster’s comments are another startling example of the bellicose language emerging in Northern Ireland, and they seemed far from accidental. There is no way she does not remember the Troubles. Her father was the target of a failed attempt on his life, and her own school bus was bombed by the IRA, leaving one classmate seriously injured. To invoke any mention of blood cannot be excused as careless, when it was inflammatory.
Nor is it exactly helpful at this time for Sinn Féin to name the British armed forces as the chief protagonists of the Troubles. There is no need to invoke the past when such language will serve only to anger our neighbours at a time when cool heads are the only way we will see a Brexit deal that impacts least calamitously on the entire island.
Both sides must think very hard indeed about what they say next.
Just as was the case with the Troubles themselves, this is not a battle anyone can ‘win’. Both sides must measuredly consider the consequences of their incendiary rhetoric and step back from a precipice we will all tumble over if they’re not careful.