‘Theresa & Arlene’s “Dirty Deal” : An Analysis’  by Donal Lavery

At the time of the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland, envisaged in the minds of Protestants motivated by Revolutionary France, many Presbyterian clergymen warned of the tyranny of the Crown.They prophesied doom and destruction on the basis that “Orangeism” was not Protestantism, merely “Toryism” dressed in Reformation clothing. Of course this was the era of the Penal Laws, when Presbyterian land was seized and taxes were imposed to finance the Anglican Church at the expense of Reformation Protestantism. So, the Presbyterians had good reason to fear the toxic mix of materialist High Tory beliefs polluting the minds of non-conformist dissenters. When the rebellion happened, the Orange Anglicans and the SDLP of those days, the Catholic Yeomanry, joined forces to butcher the republicans in their midst, to uphold the Tory class ethics in Ireland. Now, why do I labour this point? Despite the time lapse, the non-conformist sections in the North have generally voted for the DUP – who they view to be to the Left of the UUP on economic issues. The DUP is recognisably more working-class than the Official Unionist Party; garnering votes from many poor Loyalist people. Paisley was very much distrusted by “Big House” Unionists, as a man who could rally proletarian Loyalism around a common cause.

So historically, the Tories and the non-conformist sections of the North have never been constructively compatible,with the English government having oppressed them for centuries. Many Loyalist voters in the council estates that swing heavily behind the DUP don’t trust the Conservative Party or their economic agenda – which destroyed the shipyards and heavy industry they once dominated. That’s a problem for the Unionist politicians which won’t go away despite any acute financial “sweeteners”; for the economic system Britain imposes on Ireland has impoverished those Loyalist communities to the point of desperation. And nobody doubts that for the most part, the Tories will determine the overwhelming majority of stringent fiscal policies in this “rump” Parliament.

The full details of the deal itself have yet to be disclosed, and if this legal challenge to its very legitimacy is successful it may not even come to fruition at all. For as it stands, Theresa May recognisably is a “dead woman walking”, so discredited and distrusted by the British public that she is desperately clinging to Downing Street via the railings and by gripping the tassels of an Orange Sash. Her own metropolitan-oriented party don’t like it, having expected a landslide majority and disliking the Old Testament fanaticism of their new bedfellows. The “1922 Committee” are deeply unhappy with her overall performance, and just like they did with the last “Iron Lady”, will depose her when it suits them to.

But what are we to expect from this sordid arrangement? Are nationalist anxieties generally justified? Well, a leopard cannot change its spots, so the DUP will have bartered for the very same jingoistic policies they espouse regularly here. Namely: an “amnesty” for security service personnel to absolve them of Troubles-related killings; increased monies for infrastructure projects (in particular areas); lower corporate taxation; less regulation of “fracking”; no hard border or impediments on businesses across Ireland; peerages for their Truest of Blues; an easing of the scrutiny placed on Loyalist parades; and whatever other financial “goodies” they can muster to persuade everyone how economically “beneficial” the link with Britain remains.

The truth is, they know fine well they don’t have the Tories by the throat, because a prospective Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn would be anathema to them. In reality, they are pawns on a chessboard to keep the Conservative Party in office. A party which ultimately wants to see the back of them, with their financial appetites. However, the Peace Agreements here aren’t like clothes you can flog on a corner market to any given punter. They are internationally binding treaties between two sovereign governments, scrutinised by both the Americans and the EU, as well as all the parties to them. So, Arlene Foster isn’t going to be able to exercise the kind of leverage which some DUP members are suggesting, for we all have to work within the legal framework established in 1998. No British government can renege on those guarantees, particularly without a return to potential violence and the seismic mistakes of the past.

That’s not to say that this “confidence and supply” gimmick won’t have some nasty side effects. For one, the many victims and their relatives will continue to be denied proper redress and answers as long as this government remains in office. The DUP play their part in the cover-up of collusion, as my own family well know (see reference below). And the Tories are afraid of a certain narrative developing which accounts for the horrors perpetrated by Britain (particularly their grandees) in Ireland. Although one of the unintentional benefits of it all, is that ordinary British people will see for themselves what ordinary Irish people in the North have to put up with every single day.

In countering the aforementioned claim, the Unionists shout about the long term ideological aim of Sinn Fein to receive the call to form a government representative of all the Irish people in the 26 Counties. Now that would be a fair point to make if one such fact were omitted – the Free State government was not an active combatant in the bloody conflict within the North. Besides the failed arms debacle in the 70s, successive Irish governments tried to ignore the war zone on their doorstep. Not that they were entirely neutral either, for many willingly collaborated with the British authorities to persecute their fellow Irishmen, fearing a class uprising in the event of British withdrawal. But they were not up to their necks in running agents or administering extra-judicial killings in the North, as the Westminster government routinely did. Since the election of Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach, each Dublin government has had to address the concerns of Northern nationalists via direct negotiations with all parties to the process, with the Americans forcing Britain’s hand when needed. And the Agreements hold for the eventual and consensual reunification of Ireland, on the basis that the British government must possess no selfish or material interest in undermining that democratic transition, as a right of the Irish people. Therefore it’s a redundant argument to equate the British government’s involvement with the DUP to the long term ambitions (not yet the case) of Sinn Fein forming a future administration in Dublin.

To cut to the gist, there may well be another election sooner rather than later, just like in 1974 – when Europe was also on the parallel agenda. And with it, a new Tory leader. But following the rising tide of unpopularity with the Conservative Party, a British government may soon emerge which returns the partisan serve of the DUP by calling their bluff, in the form of a border poll to settle old scores, with a British Prime Minister arguing in favour of Irish unity. That’s not something which Mr Corbyn will ever rule out, for we know where his and Labour activists’ sympathies lie on the Irish question. And in such an eventuality, the Orangemen are going to discover that they are better off in an Irish government that respects them, as opposed to a British government which betrays them.

References