NI Dec 22 Assembly Election

The Uk government 'ensured' the border was in the Irish sea and trhe DUP supported that AFTER they refused May's deal. It had nothing to do with SF, ALLIANCE, PBP, SDLP or others in Stormont and still doesn't.

The DUP pulling out on this issue is akin to them pulling out because Russia won't vacate Ukraine.

Plus, you need to realise that Brexit was always going to come with a cost and the Protocol mitigates the cost for NI.

I'm afraid this is the nonsense, downcow. Of the parties who participate in Stormont elections, the one that did most to "ensure a border was placed down the middle of our country" was the DUP — backing Brexit, and then backing hard Brexit, and then voting against versions of Brexit that didn't involve a sea border, until we ended up where we are now. I doubt they could have achieved all this on their own, but they have undoubtedly togged out, at all times, with the team that has done this, and they are still togging out with them, demanding that the EU shift its position, and never demanding that the UK shift its position, even though it is plainly the UK position, rather than the EU's, which requires the Protocol.

To be honest, if the DUP wants to collapse something in protest against what has happened, it should dissolve itself. If they don't hold themselves to account for the consequences of what they have done, they have no credibility in trying to hold anyone else to account.

I am actually not one of those who thinks that all this is just a smokescreen for the DUP to avoid having to serve with an SF first minister. But I completely understand why others would think so, because the actions and attitudes of the DUP have been, and still are, completely at odds with the actions and attitudes they would adopt if their priority is, as they claim, to avoid a sea border between NI and GB.

Again, that is passing judgement on the exercising of a right.

If you hold the position that a politician or political party has the right to an abstentionist policy, you are giving them a right that they can then decide to avail of or not. Judging the reasons for exercising that right is stepping back into the territory of denying them a right.

Exactly. The Protocol was concieved to mitigate what the DUP had steadfastedly campaigned for. Even to this day they have no solutions just Never Never belligerence that the ordinary people are paying for.

@downcow wrote "There was to be no change in the constitutional position without a majority of ni agreeing so."

Would you not agree that Brexit was a change in the constitutional position of the whole of the UK?  Regaining soverignty etc?

Using your logic, Brexit must not apply to NI and therefore NI must remain part of the EU

UK came up with, proposed and agreed the Protocol and gave Boris a massive majority.

Accept the democratic will here? You don’t need to like it or ever agree but you do need to show true democratic ability.

UK also negotiated and agreed the WA, including the NIP. The NIP, in fact, was a feature the UK asked for; the EU was quite happy with a WA which didn't include the NIP and which treated the whole UK on a uniform basis, which presumably you also would have been happy with.

As others point out, the WA (including NIP) was democratically endorsed by the UK electorate in 2019, who give the Tories an 80-seat majority on a manifesto to ratify and implement the WA they had already negotiated and signed.

I appreciate that you take the view that the NIP alters NI's place in the Union, without NI's consent, in a way contrary to to the GFA. But you have to appreciate that others - including, inconveniently, the UK courts - take the view that it doesn't. So this can't be stated as a brute fact, and the DUP can't demand as of right that matters proceed as though their view about this is correct and other views are incorrect; they have to actually persuade people of this.

And here they face an almost insurmountable problem, I think. The UK political establishment, and in particular that part of it which the DUP has aligned itself with, values hard Brexit more than it values the health of the Union. For practical reasons, Brexit on terms that results in a hard land border in Ireland is not an option for the UK. The choice is between Brexit for the whole UK on terms that don't require a hard Border - i.e. soft Brexit - or Brexit with NI being treated differently to avoid a hard border in Ireland. For the DUP's "friends" in Westminster, that's an easy choice.

Obviously, the hard Brexiters in the UK government will never accept that their Brexit terms amount to a change in NI's constitutional status that the GFA forbids without NI's consent. NI doesn't want hard Brexit, and giving NI a veto over the only practically attainable form of hard Brexit is tantamount to giving up on hard Brexit altogether. They're not going to do that, and the DUP will not persuade them to.

So there is no "with one bound he was free!" move open to the DUP here. In the medium term, after a change of government in the UK, a rapprochement between the EU and the UK may open up the way to significantly alleviating the impact of the protocol, and even removing parts of it. Complete renegotiation/removal might be possible in the long term.

But in the short term — i.e. before the next election — very little of that can happen. The DUP's position - no devolved institutions while the Protocol remains - therefore seems to me to be against their own interests. It effectively amounts to no devolved institutions indefinitely, and that's not a position acceptable to Westminster, Dublin or the large majority in NI. The effect is not to put pressure on for the fundamental renegotiation of the Protocol, which Westminster very much does not want, but for the fundamental renegotiation of the GFA, so that it does not allow the DUP to collapse the institutions indefinitely against the wishes of the large majority. The GFA was negotiated and put in place without DUP agreement; changes to it could too.

The DUP's best strategy here would be to play the long game, agitating against the effects of the Protocol that they find objectionable, but awaiting the next UK general election which will almost certainly return a government more willing to adopt positions that will allow those effects to be ameliorated, and at least parts of the Protocol to be renegotiated. Trying to force the issue in the meantime risks doing even more damage to their own position than they have already done.

‘Effects of the Protocol’ they already have to lie about.

They are between a rock and a hard place and they put themselves there on their own.

Of course you have the right to fight it, from here until the cows come home.

What you can’t do is hold people to ransom who cannot do anything about the WA your government signed and sealed.

Take your fight to where it belongs - Westminster.

Of course they have the right. The issue is not whether they have the right, but whether the way they are exercising that right at present is either wise or effective, from their own point of view. (The answer, on both counts, is "no". They're making a complete hames of this from every possible point of view. If I were a unionist I would find it both profoundly depressing and buttock-clenchingly embarrassing.)

To sun up the last number of posts.

huys I asked if you thought the unionist community had the right to fight the protocol and you tried to divert to the dup with your answers. I know you don’t like it that 80% of unionist voters want stormont to stay down until protocol is sorted. So let’s forget about the dup etc and answer the question.

does the unionist community have the right to fight this democratically, including asking our politicians not to enter stormont until it’s sorted. We don’t trust them. It’s not the dup deciding not to go into stormont. It’s the people telling them ‘don’t you dare’.

I recognise the right of sf to abstain from Westminster. Even though it means I have no MP

what’s good for the goose.

guys it’s not happening. It’s a non discussion. There will be no devolved institutions in ni until protocol is sorted or there is a United island - and that’s hardly eminent.

you’ll note the one great white unionist that was supporting ‘Irelands future’ has had to crawl into hiding in shame and be dropped from the programme. Turns out he was more republican than the republicans 😂

The difference is SF are NOT holding the people to ransom by abstaining,

By all means abstain to your heart's content, what you cannot do is remove governance from the people over something they cannot change.

They can abstain...nobody stopping them. But not at the expense of people who have no power to give them what they want.

Again: SF pulled out of the Assembly/Executive over issues the assembly could sort but wouldn't. The DUP did it over issues the Assembly/Executive have no power to solve and over issues they backed and endorsed themselves.