Newton Emerson: DUP has a way out and it should take it

“London is negotiating with itself again,” an EU diplomat told RTÉ last week.

A more precise and curious observation is that London is negotiating with the DUP.

Persuading the unionist party to restore Stormont has always been a clear aim of the bill to disapply the protocol.

In the days before it was published, the UK government began briefing the media on the exact sequence of steps it expects the DUP to take.

My neighbour’s cat is using my herb garden as his litter tray. What can I do?

---

‘We don’t speak, we don’t eat, we don’t do anything together’: Inside an Irish divorce court

---

Bambie Thug: ‘I fully support anyone boycotting Eurovision’

---

Bryan Dobson: ‘Retirement could be a terrible shock to the system – or not, who knows!’

---

The bill’s first reading in the Commons this Monday was a formality.

Its second reading should be at the start of next month. UK government sources claim this will not take place until the DUP revives the Stormont assembly by nominating a speaker.

The bill then gets looked over by a committee and receives a third reading, at which point it passes the Commons. The UK government hopes to manage this before Westminster’s summer recess on July 21st. In return, it expects the DUP to restore the Stormont executive by nominating a deputy first minister. Only then will the bill be pushed through the House of Lords.

The DUP wants to restore devolution. That is easier for it to sell to unionist voters if it is seen to be under some pressure to move in return for delivery on the protocol.

Leap of faith

But there is too much of an edge to these briefings to write them off as choreography. They give the DUP ultimatums tied to an incomplete legislative timetable. Getting the bill through a hostile House of Lords could take a year and even then no part of the protocol would be disapplied unless the new law’s measures were used.

So the DUP has to take a leap of faith – and faith in Boris Johnson’s government is rarely rewarded. The sequencing could be seen, at best, as a tacitly understood set of confidence-building measures from both sides.

London and the DUP have a common interest in proving to Brussels and Washington that addressing unionist concerns will revive Stormont.

However, UK sources have added a pointed note, saying the DUP also needs to prove it is not blocking powersharing just to prevent a Sinn Féin first minister. Unionists have hampered their bargaining power by their reputation for intransigence.

The DUP is giving itself room to jump by blurring the difference between restoring the Assembly and the Executive and by drawing semantic distinctions between passing the bill and moving it forward. Leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson had already spoken of a “graduated response” to legislation. This week, he said the DUP “has not yet come to a view as to when the institutions might be restored” and noted that passing the bill could “take months.”

Instincts run deep in the party to engage in the stalling and brinkmanship of a classic Stormont stand-off.

Former leader Peter Robinson, brought back in as an adviser, penned a column in Tuesday’s News Letter saying the DUP should offer a clear pledge to return to the Executive if the bill’s “provisions are fulfilled”, but remain outside in the meantime.

That suggests a return to the Assembly is imminent. The second reading is a blunt deadline. If it is missed, it will kill the bill in the Commons in this parliamentary session.

British exasperation

There are already signs of British exasperation. Responding to Donaldson’s comments, UK foreign secretary Liz Truss said the DUP must “get on with it”.

All this might seem absurdly parochial, given the protocol’s international implications. But that perspective assumes the bill is going to pass. What the DUP is really being asked to jump into is a year of stalling by the House of Lords, during which UK-EU talks should produce a new agreement.

It is unclear if even those parts of the British government that strongly support the bill see it as anything more than a negotiating tactic.

Although the EU has put on a great show of outrage, much of it no doubt genuine, the retaliation it has threatened involves a bare minimum of infringement proceedings that would take up to a year to reach a finding. Initial reaction from the White House was also noticeably muted.

Brussels and Washington are waiting to see if Tory infighting disposes of Johnson, the bill or both. Neither cares about unionists but they have to pretend to, having claimed to care so often.

Everything points to a new agreement that can be spun as addressing DUP concerns, although semantic distinctions may be drawn over what constitutes ‘renegotiation’. There has to be a new agreement eventually because the protocol as originally agreed is unworkable, as all sides have quietly conceded.

The DUP is being given a ladder to climb down on the understanding that it has to climb down soon. It would be absurdly parochial of it to think it will get a better offer.