Newton Emerson: Why should the DUP not take advantage if it wins enough seats in the election?

The sudden rush to resurrect Stormont is partly driven by the end of the DUP’s influence at Westminster, leaving behind an unaddressed question: why should the DUP not have influence at Westminster?

If your answer is because they made a mess of it, that is for the electorate to judge.

Why should the unionist party not take full advantage if it wins enough seats in today’s UK general election, and another hung parliament or weak British government emerges tomorrow?

A common unionist response is that the Irish government is not impartial and Sinn Féin aspires to office in Dublin

The DUP has campaigned by promising this could happen; others have campaigned by warning against it. Every party in Northern Ireland, except abstentionist Sinn Féin, runs for Westminster in the hope of its MPs proving crucial. Occasionally they have – the UUP propped up the Conservatives in 1997; independent nationalist Frank Maguire brought down Labour in 1979.

Newton Emerson: Stormont’s last collapse a warning of its next

---

Newton Emerson: Road to united Ireland is via united North

---

Newton Emerson: Suspending democracy is not the way to save it

---

Newton Emerson: Tribal solidarity trumps all in North Belfast

---

However, the scenario was not considered routine enough to be addressed in the 1998 Belfast Agreement, nor did it seriously arise again until the DUP’s 2017 confidence-and-supply deal with the Conservatives. A 2010 UUP link-up with the Conservatives came to nothing.

Stormont fell six months before the DUP deal, but nationalists immediately found the deal incompatible with bringing Stormont back.

Rigorous impartiality

The text of the agreement they have repeatedly cited requires “the power of the sovereign government” to be “exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions”.

The DUP and the Conservatives believed they had upheld this in their deal by distinguishing between Westminster and devolved policies, by allocating funds to universal services and by restating London’s obligation “to govern in the interests of all parts of the community”.

Legally, this looked fine. Several attempts were made to bring the deal to a judicial review and were rejected as having no grounds to proceed.

Politically, however, the deal has remained controversial. As has been seen with Brexit, interpretations of an agreement’s spirit can trump its letter.

Nationalists do not accept that London’s duty to impartiality is restricted to non-discrimination in public administration. They expect impartiality to mean not governing with the help of one identity or tradition, no matter how technically balanced. More precisely, they mistrust the presumed sympathy of British governments with unionism – Conservative governments in particular.

Although unionists would benefit most from more clarity on this issue, the shoe could be on the other foot

Dublin shares this concern. As soon as 2017’s deal was signed, former taoiseach Enda Kenny questioned its impact on the Belfast Agreement. The current Taoiseach and Tánaiste have frequently bemoaned it.

A common unionist response is that the Irish government is not impartial and Sinn Féin aspires to office in Dublin. This complaint is based on a misunderstanding, as impartiality is required only of the sovereign government. But unionists do have a valid complaint about the agreement’s symmetry on impartiality. It envisages a united Ireland where sovereignty simply flips from London to Dublin, leaving everything else unchanged.

In practice, Northern Ireland would almost certainly cease to exist if a majority of its residents voted for Irish unity. Unionists are being told they cannot participate in the full political life of the United Kingdom in return for a matching restriction on nationalists that will never apply.

Rather than upholding the Belfast Agreement, this plainly breaches it. The agreement affirms every individual’s “right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”. It enacts the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the absolute right to free expression via free elections.

Nobody can be told they have a second-class vote, either for Westminster in the present or the Dáil in the future. No politician can have a limit placed on their lawful mandate, even in the pursuit of overtly nationalist or unionist goals.

Sadly, it is no surprise that Northern Ireland’s rights sector has not defended this point during the confidence-and-supply controversy. Equally, it is a pity unionists have not made their case for Westminster participation in terms of rights and the agreement.

That has left few trying to reconcile the agreement’s democratic rights with its duty of impartiality. There must be a way to do so, probably somewhere along the lines attempted by the DUP-Tory deal, but with a more detailed understanding of London’s responsibilities. It cannot be the case that such deals, or full coalitions, are closed off to Northern Ireland parties.

Genuine concerns

Yet nationalists clearly have genuine concerns, as the British government has obliquely acknowledged.

One reason direct rule has not been introduced since Stormont collapsed is because the Conservatives reportedly considered it unwise to govern Northern Ireland while propped up by unionists.

This suggests devolution should be seen as a safeguard for Westminster deals, rather than being incompatible with them.

Although unionists would benefit most from more clarity on this issue, the shoe could be on the other foot. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that SDLP MPs could be asked to help Labour's Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street tomorrow, alongside the Scottish National Party. How would unionists feel about that presumed confluence of sympathies?