The notion {that a} lack of consent can represent a veto may be traced again not less than to the Petition of Concern, and abuse thereof. Steadily and predominantly, this has been triggered by the hands of the DUP in an effort block varied payments and motions by the years with various success. The wide-ranging substance of which has included, however will not be restricted to, same-sex marriage and built-in schooling. Satan’s advocates might nicely argue that all events have abused the Petition of Concern sometimes, however the numbers are clear – from 2011 to 2016, for example, the DUP signed 86 petitions of concern, as in comparison with the 29 petitions of concern signed by SF and the SDLP.
The intuition that manifests itself on this disproportionate abuse of the Petition of Concern is arguably the identical as that which now manifests itself within the DUP’s Protocol machinations: The will for what “is successfully a veto energy.” However a veto over what? Not solely a variety of payments and motions, as highlighted by earlier Petition of Concern abuse, however more and more any adjustments to Northern Eire’s constitutional standing too, as hinted at by Jeffrey Donaldson in latest months. Writing for Unionist Voice in March, for example, he “counsel[ed] a further provision” to Part 1 (1) of the Northern Eire Act 1998 entailing that:
“Any” (put up 1998) change to Northern Eire’s constitutional standing inside the UK ought to require the consent of a majority of the individuals of Northern Eire voting in a ballot held for that goal or must be topic to a cross neighborhood vote of the Northern Eire Meeting.” (Unionist Voice, March 2022, emphasis added)
The “or” right here is revealing. Maybe an “and” would have made extra sense on this context? Maybe not – it could appear he wishes one or the opposite, however which one? That’s in the end for Donaldson to reply. Taking Donaldson at his phrase, nonetheless we should ask: Beneath what circumstances would or ought to there be a cross neighborhood vote on Northern Eire’s constitutional standing inside the UK? Earlier than “a ballot [is] held for that goal”? Afterwards? Concurrently? Within the absence of such?
Regardless of the case, we should always not underestimate the dimensions of the change wanted right here on this suggestion. Presently, the solely provision for altering the North of Eire’s constitutional standing is a Border Ballot, to be known as on the discretion of the NI Secretary of State and determined by a easy majority, as outlined within the Good Friday Settlement. It’s arduous to not conclude that by throwing a “cross neighborhood vote of the Northern Eire Meeting” into the equation, that that is the most well-liked various.
But it’s value declaring the plain right here that Unionist MLAs can be no extra prone to vote for a critical change to Northern Eire’s constitutional standing within the Northern Eire Meeting, than Nationalist MLAs can be to vote in favour of Northern Eire’s present constitutional standing if that was put to vote within the Northern Eire Meeting. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a indication that the status-quo can be equally topic to a cross-community vote within the Meeting – it’s taken as a ‘given’, and solely ‘change’ may be voted on. So, is it maybe honest to imagine that the will for this ‘extra provision’ is basically motivated by the thought {that a} cross-community vote within the Meeting would virtually definitely return a outcome {that a} Border Ballot wouldn’t, and that the previous would subsequently be preferable?
Maybe it could be uncharitable to imagine so, however I’m not positive we will rule it out. In any case, this isn’t the primary time that amendments have been floated as to how Northern Eire’s constitutional standing could be modified – and Unionism doesn’t have a monopoly on floating these amendments, both. Seamus Mallon, for example, made a not dissimilar suggestion: “parallel consent” [in the event of a Border Poll] involving a majority of each unionist and nationalist voters. But supposing we now have our first Border Ballot and a majority of Nationalists vote in favour of Irish Unity – and subsequently tacitly (or explicitly) vote in opposition to the status-quo – doesn’t the logic subsequently observe that there is no such thing as a longer “parallel consent” for the Union both? What occurs then? It appears this type of logic isn’t taken to its correct conclusion.
Nonetheless, Mallon’s suggestion is instructive insofar because it highlights that consent lies on the coronary heart of the veto matter. That is particularly evident in ongoing Unionist opposition to the Protocol and Irish Sea Border, the place the shortage of Unionist consent is continuously highlighted – although the shortage of consent from amongst Nationalists and Others right here for the Brexit that spawned them is a somewhat extra uncared for level…
However did the Good Friday Settlement, which is so generally appealed to recently, ever intend for an absence of consent to operate as a form of veto on this means? The Good Friday Settlement mentions ‘consent’ on eleven events. Eight of those pertain to constitutional change, one in relation to key choices (Eg. Election of the chair of the Meeting), one in relation to the British State being certain by the Settlement, and one in relation to Particular Committees figuring out whether or not a measure or proposal for laws is in conformity with equality necessities. It’s clear that consent, as delineated within the Good Friday Settlement, has a transparent and overarching emphasis on the particular matter of constitutional change – and it makes no bones about the truth that:
“[It] can be unsuitable to make any change within the standing of Northern Eire save with the consent of a majority of its individuals” (Emphasis added)
Not a majority of its Unionist individuals. Not a majority of its Nationalist individuals. Not a weighted majority of both or each. Not parallel consent. However its individuals. All of them equally. A easy majority of its individuals. As has typically been mentioned, if 50%+1 is ample to take care of the Union, it’s ample to finish it. Donaldson remarked in a latest episode of UTV’s View from Stormont that he:
“[Can’t] perceive why a Unionist get together just like the UUP, is standing aspect by aspect with Sinn Féin and saying there shouldn’t be a Unionist veto.” (Emphasis added)
It will maybe be honest to counter that in saying it’s arduous to know why anybody who calls themselves democratic would want to alter the parameters of constitutional change as outlined by the Good Friday Settlement – by no means thoughts twisting the letter and spirit of it to have a everlasting neighborhood veto on any and all different issues both.
Blaine McCartney is a Co. Down-based author
