Concerns about the implications of the Irish backstop for the integrity of the domestic Union contributed significantly to the scale of the 118-strong backbench rebellion that led to Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement being defeated last week, by the extraordinary margin of 432 to 202. Jack Sheldon and Michael Kenny examine what the arguments made during the Commons debate tell us about the nature of the ‘unionism’ that prevails in the contemporary Conservative Party?
"Something ghastly called UK(NI) has been created. Northern Ireland will be under a different regime. That is a breach of the Acts of Union 1800” Owen Paterson MP
“I am concerned about the prospects of a Northern Ireland that risks being increasingly decoupled from the United Kingdom, and about how that could undermine the Union that is at the heart of the United Kingdom” Justine Greening MP
“Normally, as a former Remainer, the House would expect me to endorse the withdrawal agreement in the vote next week, but I am currently unable to do so because of the Northern Ireland protocol… We cannot possibly place part of the United Kingdom in a position that is different from the rest. It would be an appallingly dangerous precedent” Sir Hugo Swire MP.
Concerns about the implications of the Irish backstop for the integrity of the domestic Union contributed significantly to the scale of the 118-strong backbench rebellion
that led to Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement being defeated last week, by the extraordinary margin of 432 to 202.
What do the arguments that were made during the Commons debate tell us about the nature of the ‘unionism’ that prevails in the contemporary Conservative Party? This is a pertinent question, given that the sincerity of professed support for the Union from Conservatives has regularly been called into question by academic
commentators in recent years, with increasing numbers of critics suggesting that leading figures from the Tory Party have harvested ‘English nationalist’ sentiments and are willing to put the future of the Union at risk.
As part of the Between Two Unions
project we have been examining how Conservative parliamentarians feel about the Union and looking at what we can learn about this in the context of Brexit. We have conducted interviews with senior party figures on both sides of the Brexit divide, reviewed speeches and other public interventions, and conducted an analysis of contributions to the Commons debate on the Brexit deal. We have been able to identify a number of patterns in the unionist discourse of Tory parliamentarians.
One very notable aspect of Conservative thinking about the Union is the dominance of a ‘unitarist’ understanding of the Union. For many Conservatives uniformity across the whole of the UK, underpinned by Westminster parliamentary sovereignty, is seen as essential to ensuring that the Union remains together. Divergence between the UK’s component parts is for many viewed with suspicion.
When we interviewed MPs last year there was strong support – among committed Remainers as well as Brexit supporters, it should be noted – for the Prime Minister’s statements
that no British Prime Minister could support a differentiated Brexit deal for Northern Ireland. This widely held view goes some way to explaining the backlash in much of the parliamentary party to the version of the backstop that is included in the Withdrawal Agreement – featuring provisions that could lead to divergence in certain circumstances.
One further feature of this kind of thinking deserves emphasis. This is the tendency for Conservative parliamentarians to view the DUP’s position as an important benchmark for assessing the implications of the Brexit deal the Union. This sentiment cropped up in our own interviews. While some MPs we spoke to expressed reservations about the DUP’s wider policy positions and the implications of the Tories’ reliance upon them, their Unionism is seen by a large group of Conservative MPs as a standard to aspire to.
In the Commons debate numerous MPs expressed similar sentiments to Daniel Kawczynski
, for whom the DUP “are our interlocutors, and if they are telling us, as the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, that they have genuine concerns about the backstop, it would be irresponsible for us to ignore those concerns”. In historical terms such statements are striking: until the past decade or so the DUP were highly marginalised in British politics, including by Tories.
During the course of the debate on the Withdrawal Agreement an alternative narrative in relation to the Union was also aired. On this view – expressed most clearly by Theresa May’s deputy, David Lidington
– it is no deal rather than the backstop that would “cause profound and possibly irreversible damage to the Union of the United Kingdom”. In his speech Lidington claimed that the “tensions resulting from such an outcome in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be severe”, said that he had heard from “moderate people on the nationalist side that have been content with the Union that they are becoming more anxious, more hard-line and more questioning of Northern Ireland’s constitutional status” and argued that the consent of these people is “hugely important to preserving the Union”.
This argument carries echoes of a competing Conservative tradition of pragmatic statecraft, which is comfortable with the development of distinctive arrangements for the governance of the UK’s periphery. Lidington’s view is shared by a few Conservative backbenchers but is far less resonant than the orthodoxy described above. The evidence from the interviews that we conducted suggests that one reason for this is that relatively few leading Tories see Brexit as posing a threat to the Union. There is in fact considerable confidence among the parliamentary party about the future of both Northern Ireland and Scotland in the Union. This is particularly the case in relation to Scotland, following the relative success of the Scottish Conservatives in gaining 12 seats from the SNP in 2017, which seems to have convinced many backbenchers that the threat of Scottish independence has been seen off.
The accusation that leading Conservatives are exponents of a new, atavistic English nationalism overlooks the continued attachment of Conservatives to the language and symbols of the Union. Our research would seem to suggest that support for the Union remains a high priority for members of the parliamentary Conservative Party. However, the unionism that most Conservative parliamentarians advocate takes a very particular form, with the UK understood in unitarist terms, and divergence seen as an inherent threat – despite the markedly different ways in which the composite parts of the UK have been governed by the British state, both before and after devolution.