There are three issues to consider when we ask whether the DUP might return to Stormont while there is a Conservative Government in Westminster.<\/p>\n
First and foremost is the way in which the NI Protocol undermines the economic harmony of the United Kingdom and breaches the fundamentals of the Union in doing so. If the DUP returned to Stormont with the NI Protocol largely in place, which is what the Windsor Framework ensures, would unionist voters ask, \u201cWhat has the DUP achieved?\u201d This could represent a return to the roll-over Robinson era, whose time has passed. The DUP vote, its mandate, is currently based on not returning to Stormont without restoring the equilibrium of relationships that sustained the Union before the Protocol.<\/p>\n
Second, the DUP and the Government are also discussing the future funding of the Stormont administration. The DUP claims that the Barnett formula no longer works, and the Conservative Government may be wondering how much money it will take to get Stormont up and running. The other local Parties will welcome any money. In the past, the executive has mismanaged money, so that there is never enough funding, thanks to inefficiency and poor management. These have been outlined again and again in Audit Office and other reports, but the lessons never seem to be learned.<\/p>\n
In any case, the DUP will be wary of allowing any return to be framed in terms of money alone. The broad unionist electorate would rightly ask \u2018what about the Protocol?\u201d. How much is the Union worth? Is the fundamental issue ‘the cash’ or ‘the Union’.<\/p>\n
Which places added emphasis on the future of the NI Protocol. Perhaps the third and biggest single issue is one of \u2018trust\u2019.<\/p>\n
Those who blame unionism for \u201cBrexit\u201d and take the attitude that the Protocol is the DUP\u2019s fault, miss too many points to address them all here. The central point though is that while the DUP may have supported leaving the EU, the only ask subsequently was that Northern Ireland leave on the same terms as the rest of the UK.<\/p>\n
Theresa May\u2019s solution failed because with her backstop NI\u2019s separation was used as a means of retaining close (sometimes described as dynamic) alignment with the EU for the whole UK. Had the case been made for a closer relationship, albeit outside the political Union, May might have succeeded had she not included the backstop, but she lacked the political intelligence or capital to be able to make the case for a softer departure.<\/p>\n
Along the line of Conservative Party leaders Liz Truss was willing to bring forward and conclude the Protocol Bill, offering a brief glimmer of light for unionism. We\u2019ll never know.<\/p>\n
Underlying the unionist electoral antipathy to a return to Stormont without resolution of the Protocol is a massive distrust of the willingness of the Conservative Government to deliver on promises.<\/p>\n
Added to which there is the political calculation of trusting a Conservative Government that can promise what it wants but is unlikely to have time, even it was believed to have the inclination, to deliver on any promise.<\/p>\n
Reflecting on the political conference season it\u2019s hard to find a clear sense that the Conservative Party can deliver on anything!<\/p>\n
Conservative Home Editor, Paul Goodman, provided a series of articles from the Conservative Conference, each with an air of tired resignation, one of which ended: \u201cDo the Conservatives really want to win?<\/a> Or are they, in their heart of hearts, ready for Sir Kier Starmer?\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www1.thedissenter.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/H-Broken-Promise-2-1-300x158.jpg\")
<\/p>\n