'Brexit was the biggest own goal in 100 years of unionism' and has 'corroded' devolution, warn Northern Irish politicians

The politicians were in Scotland for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement

Nuanced reflections on a complex past feel a rare occurrence within the walls of the Scottish Parliament these days as rhetoric between the SNP and the Conservatives rises, at times, to hysterical incoherence.

However, in a sun-baked, stiflingly stuffy committee room on Tuesday evening, there was a welcome relief from histrionics and bluster.

Three politicians from Northern Ireland’s past gathered to reflect on the lessons of one of the greatest diplomatic success stories of recent history – the Good Friday Agreement.

Students hold up Sinn Fein anti-Brexit placards during a rally against Brexit and any hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland outside Queens University Belfast. Picture: Paul Faith/AFP via Getty Images

Mark Durkan, former SDLP deputy first minister and negotiator of the agreement, Professor Monica McWilliams, founder of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition, former MLA, and a delegate at the peace negotiations, and Mike Nesbitt, former leader of the UUP, offered insights on how Northern Ireland went from a war zone to peace.

Mr Nesbitt provided the most interesting reflection, claiming the decision of the UK to vote leave and, more pertinently, the DUP’s decision to back Brexit, was the “biggest own goal in 100 years of unionism”.

Speaking to The Scotsman the following day, all three politicians were keen to reflect further on lessons to be learned for Scotland and the challenges ahead for the union and Ireland.

However, pressed on whether his analysis of unionism and Brexit extended to Scotland, Mr Nesbitt was clear the EU referendum had fatally undermined the unionist argument because “Scotland wanted to remain”.

Mike Nesbitt, Mark Durkan, and Professor McWilliams at a Scottish Labour/John Smith Institute event partially hosted by the Irish Consultate.

“If the DUP would show some buyer’s regret, I think it would be incredibly helpful in terms of their position,” he said. “But let’s remember that they didn’t just say Northern Ireland was better off out of the EU, they very vigorously campaigned here in Great Britain.

"They have their fingerprints on this. That was a big mistake because it has really unsettled the horses, not just in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland as well.”

Mr Durkan said the lack of devolved consent to Brexit, driven by the DUP’s balance of power in Westminster who labelled legislative consent as a “Remoaner’s Charter”, was also to blame.

He said: “The own goal factors aren’t just because of the fact of Brexit being opposed against the expressed wish of people in Scotland and people in Northern Ireland, it’s also to do with the form of Brexit that was pushed, including by the DUP, as a consent-free mystery tour.”

One conclusion from all three was that not only had Brexit been a strategic mistake for unionists, but the ensuing slew of legislation, most notably the Internal Market Act, had led to a “corrosive impact” on devolution.

Mr Durkan said: “Some of the ways in which that legislation has been done is devolution corrosive. It can also create a situation where people can play the games, and we’ve already had this problem whereby people who could be taking devolved decisions say ‘we can’t really do that because that’s really Westminster’s job or they’re not letting us do it’. And the public are left in a very confused way, everybody’s pointing their finger at everybody else.

"The citizen, the democratic citizens are left saying the politicians are making all the excuses. They’re all blaming a different tier of government.

"Devolution, to work, getting decisions to be taken where they can best reflect the immediate interests and rights of those who are going to be affected by them, that has to be done on a clear and rational basis.”

These criticisms will not be alien to watchers of Scottish politics who, in recent months, have witnessed a step-up in rhetoric and action from governments north and south of the border over constitutional issues. Both have, inevitably, blamed each other.

Prof McWilliams said the impact of Brexit had hit local community groups whose funding was at risk. She said Westminster’s involvement in devolved issues was threatening devolution.

“People have got so fed up with this notion of vetoing that they’re also confused about devolution because it has either delayed, disrupted normal politics because it’s been used wrongly,” she said.

"We have it as a petition of concern, which was meant to be a safety blanket that has turned out to be a weapon. And so people are now worrying about how good was devolution in terms of delivering speedily because everything is getting delayed or held up or disrupted.

"We’re meant to have parity, like charity it is meant to start at home, and yet it is also confusing because marriage equality came in through Westminster, the abortion stuff came in through Westminster, and no doubt there may be other issues that will have to come.

"People are saying ‘well, let Westminster do it’. But the difficulty then is if you let Westminster do that, what powers are you leaving, and did we use all the powers we were given?”

Asked whether the UK Government was to blame for the collapse of inter-governmental relations, Mr Nesbitt said he believed the Conservatives were looking at devolution with envious eyes.

Recalling a conversation he had with Tony Benn, he said the Labour stalwart had commented “if anybody is going to screw unionism, it’s the Tories”.

Mr Nesbitt added: “I think the Tories will always do whatever it takes to preserve the Tory party, particularly if they’re in power, and I think on that basis, looking through that lens, I think they look at Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh differently.

"What sort of threats are they posing to us winning the next election? Within that ERG [European Research Group], that hardline group, there is that resentment that decision making is not theirs, and I think that is the threat to devolution.

"But we’re heading for a Labour government and that opens new possibilities.”

Prof McWilliams, however, cautioned Sir Keir Starmer had failed to approach Northern Ireland with the appropriate nuance required.

He said: “Keir Starmer has to watch himself though because he recently has been reprimanded, I think by Paul Murphy, reminding him when Starmer says he’ll ‘fight’ if there’s a referendum, I’ll fight to keep a United Kingdom.

"He was reminded he can’t do that. You have to remain neutral because in the peace agreement it says that. It will be the people who decide, not the governments.

"That was a statement he was making to his own constituents about keeping the UK united as a Labour Party would do in terms of its stand in Scotland. But it’s a different issue and he needed to get that. He didn’t [have that nuance].”

Some within the nationalist community in Scotland look enviously across the water to Northern Ireland, which, through the Good Friday Agreement, does have a clearer route towards a united Ireland than Scotland does towards independence.

Asked whether there is a need to clarify these routes, Mr Nesbitt said he was “uncomfortable” about the lack of comparative clarity.

He said: “I think we’re still having a debate about whether we want a kind of uniform federalism where if one power is devolved, it is devolved in equal measure to all three, or we continue with this asymmetrical evolution model.

"I believe in the UK, but I’m very uncomfortable that Scotland doesn’t have the same powers and statutory entitlements that we have in Northern Ireland.”

Mr Durkan, however, said much of the intention during the peace talks were to enable a “consensus politics”. He warned that had they agreed a clear criteria, such as elections, then “every single election in Northern Ireland was going to be fought as a potential primary for a referendum”.

"That wasn’t going to give us the different type of politics where people would be voting on bread-and-butter issues, people would be voting on performance in government and positive policy perspectives,” he said.

Mr Durkan continued: "If we had started to specify that sort of criteria, we’d have been sentencing politics in Northern Ireland in an awful way.”

“If there is a referendum in the future, we need to develop an understanding very quickly. It’s not united Ireland, Yes or No, because a referendum, if it is going to happen, has to be without presumption, has to be without prejudice and it has to be without predicament.

"We need to be very clear that the choice in the referendum is between the two equally legitimate choices set out in the agreement. It’s United Kingdom and united Ireland, and those who will be campaigning for the UK have to set out a clear and positive prospectus for that outcome, as do those campaigning for a united Ireland.”