Discussion on a United or re-partitioned Ireland

[Wolfman]

You're wrong in your first assertion, in that what you see doesn't or hasn't applied in reality. As in the mainstream.

The second point seems to coincide with the supposed 'opposing' view, and if/when it happens, we won't have much choice in the short-to-medium term I reckon, though at least you acknowledge it's possible?

[DannyInvincible]

James Brokenshire wrote a piece in the Sunday Telegraph complaining that an apparent "imbalance" has led to a "disproportionate" focus on criminal inquiries involving former British soldiers who served in the north of Ireland. (He wrote his piece on the forty-fifth anniversary of Bloody Sunday, no less. Was this futile ignoramus even aware of the date's significance? Probably not!)

His assertions are demonstrable nonsense considering only a handful of soldiers have ever prosecuted for the British army's hundreds of civilian killings in the north. Brokensire said, "I am clear the current system is not working and we are in danger of seeing the past rewritten." On this matter - a crucial one that would lay the groundwork for allowing northern society to move on from its conflicted past - he seems to be making the same noises Villiers made in the same role a year ago when she insultingly denounced those who seek truth and justice as promulgating a "pernicious counter narrative". Dealing properly and transparently with legacy issues isn't just a matter of political necessity; there is also a legal obligation on the British government to act on inquests relating to the conflict.

As Brian Walker points out, this all shows Brokenshire, and, by extension, the Tories, for whom he is doing the bidding, to be way out-of-step with what's going on and what needs to be done in the north of Ireland.

The explanation that he is courting DUP support in potentially tight Brexit votes is plausible but unlikely. The Conservatives have those votes in the bag unless he does something startling over the legacy or other matters. He didn’t need to offer them anything more.

More likely is that as Mrs May’s former understudy at the Home Office he is still more affected by a read-across to Northern Ireland of English Conservative anger about “our boys” being prosecuted officiously over Iraq than about our legacy on its merits. Coupling the two theatres of Iraq and Northern Ireland does no service to the cause of justice for soldiers who served in either.

Despite all his access to people and information it shows what a bubble he lives in and what his real priorities are. Theresa May herself has form in criticising the judiciary.

So, probably the most inept single intervention of 18 here-today gone-tomorrow secretaries of state in 44 years.

The Tories show time and time again that they have little to no concern for the interests of the Irish people. A timely reminder that it's long past time to break the connection once and for all.

[CraftyToePoke]

This hot on the heels of his claiming the lake for Queen & country, is a bit out of date certainly, as though he arrived in the job from a time machine somehow, out of date I mean. Its depressing to hear British refer in these base terms to the issues facing society in NI. The Tories / Brexit English seem determined to regress on every front presently.

[Charlie Darwin]

James Brokenshire wrote a piece in the Sunday Telegraph complaining that an apparent "imbalance" has led to a "disproportionate" focus on criminal inquiries involving former British soldiers who served in the north of Ireland. (He wrote his piece on the forty-fifth anniversary of Bloody Sunday, no less. Was this futile ignoramus even aware of the date's significance? Probably not!)

His assertions are demonstrable nonsense considering only a handful of soldiers have ever prosecuted for the British army's hundreds of civilian killings in the north. Brokensire said, "I am clear the current system is not working and we are in danger of seeing the past rewritten."

The right are becoming emboldened across the board by events of the past couple of years. The pendulum is swinging back and we'll see more of these attempts to rewrite history. Or unrewrite history as I suppose he'd put it.

[DannyInvincible]

Brokenshire's claim that investigations into "Troubles" killings are unduly focused on those committed by the British army has been debunked by the BBC using available figures: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38844453

Figures obtained by the BBC challenge claims that investigations into Troubles killings are unduly focused on those committed by the Army.



The DUP says up to 90% of the PSNI legacy investigation branch's caseload is focused on killings by the Army.

The PM, secretary of state and other unionist and Conservative politicians also say there is an imbalance.

But PSNI figures show investigations into killings by the Army account for about 30% of its legacy workload.

The police legacy branch will re-investigate 1,118 deaths not previously reviewed or completed by the now defunct Historical Enquiries Team (HET).

Of those killings, 530 were carried out by republicans, 271 by loyalists and 354 by the security forces.

It is not known who was responsible for the other 33 killings.

[CraftyToePoke]

Fintan O'Toole on the DUP contribution to a UI - http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fi...land-1.2956656

Fintan O’Toole: DUP has done the most for a united Ireland

Unionist party’s idiocy and sleazy behaviour threatens Northern Ireland’s foundations

Northern Ireland's First Minister Arlene Foster releases a video message, in which she says that 'Sinn Féins actions are not principled, they are political' following Martin McGuinness's resignation.



Whatever else can be said about the Democratic Unionist Party, it can surely be absolved of some of the most serious charges routinely laid against it.
The DUP is not hostile to the legitimate aspirations of Irish nationalists and it is not wedded to sectarian stereotypes.
In fact, it has an extraordinarily positive record in both areas. The fact that this record is entirely accidental is no reason to be churlish.
In the first instance, the DUP has achieved more progress towards a united Ireland than any Irish political party, North or South, since partition in 1921.
Before it embarked on its Brexit spree, Northern Ireland was becoming a surprisingly stable political entity.
For the first time in its history, the Catholic minority had been largely integrated into its political structures.
The Belfast Agreement had created a settlement that protected unionism, in the medium term at least, from demographic change.
In December 2012, when census results showed that for the first time the Protestant population in Northern Ireland had fallen below 50 per cent, this might have been an epochal moment. But it wasn’t really.
The institutions were largely working and, for all the rhetoric, there was little appetite on either side of the Border for a radical alteration of the constitutional arrangements.

Community of minorities
Those census figures showed something else: that Northern Ireland had become, as Steven McCaffery of The Detail put it, “a community of minorities”.
It had evolved to have not the two strands of historical lore, but at least three.
The census found that 38 per cent regard themselves as British, 25 per cent as Irish and 20 per cent as Northern Irish.
It also found that while 41 per cent identified themselves as Protestant and 40 per cent as Catholic, a striking 17 per cent declined to categorise themselves as either.

This diversity was the greatest long-term protection that unionists could have.
It guaranteed that there could be no majoritarian tribal victory for either side.
The real Northern Ireland was a place of multiple identities and any future political settlement would have to reflect this complexity.
And then the DUP went to the big Brexit roulette and put all its chips on red, white and blue.
The only way to acquit the party on the charge of idiocy is to find it guilty of an enormous bluff.
It thought it could indulge itself in some ultra-British flag-waving but with no real-world consequences.
It would back Brexit and be secretly delighted when it lost.
The gambit was especially reckless for a party for whom the union is its whole raison d’être.
The English nationalists who drove Brexit don’t really care about the union – under the rhetorical covers, they will ditch Northern Ireland and Scotland if need be.
They were playing with loose change. The DUP was playing with the deeds to its house.
It has thus done more to advance a united Ireland than the Provisional IRA managed in 30 years of mayhem.
In the short term, there is likely to be a border for the movement of people that separates the island of Ireland as a whole from the island of Britain as a whole.
However loyally British you may be, you will have to show her majesty’s passport when you land in Stranraer from Larne or in London from Belfast – but not when you drive from Newry to Dundalk.
In the longer term, the Northern Irish identity to which 20 per cent of the population adheres and from which unionism could draw its greatest comfort will be profoundly undermined because it was predicated on Northern Ireland being in the European Union.

Self-destructive
The EU underpinned the willingness of much of the population to settle down within the current borders for the foreseeable future.
It is breathtakingly self-destructive for unionism to withdraw that certainty.
And that’s even before we consider how those who regarded themselves as British will feel when they go to London looking for English nationalists to make up the €7,533 million in direct investment from the EU into Northern Ireland since 1988 and the 87 per cent of farm incomes that come from EU subsidies.
One can but wish them the best of British luck.

As for sectarian stereotypes, it should be acknowledged that the DUP in its period in government has done more to demolish them than we puny pluralists have ever managed.
The stereotype was that Catholics were dodgy and sleazy while Protestants were straight and upright. The DUP selflessly took upon itself the task of reversing these cliches.
In the Iris Robinson affair, in the handling of Nama’s Project Eagle property deal and in the cash-for-ash scandal, it has ensured that nobody can ever again trot out the notion that Catholics bend rules while Protestants respect them without being blown over by gusts of laughter.
There used to be talk that Fianna Fáil would establish a northern branch – who knew that it would be the DUP?
Ordinarily, a party with such epic achievements would deserve to be rewarded with a continuation in power. But in the case of the DUP, it is hard to imagine what more it could achieve in these areas. Its work is done.

[Gather round]

O'Toole's article is little more than an extended sneer, lazily researched and misunderstanding how and why Brexit happened as it did. Variously,

a) Unionists or even NI as a whole had very little numerical effect in an all-Britain contest. Unionists are 1% of the population, the winning margin was 4%. Even had it been narrower- or even more so, had Remain won- the Leave camp would just have kept gurning for another Referendum. The DUP backing Remain likely wouldn't have made any difference- even before you consider that a historically anti-EU party doing so would have looked pretty silly

b) so actually it's Farage and co that have done most to increase the likelihood of a UI from next to nothing. That he's done more than every Shinner combined for 40 years doesn't suggest much confidence in the latter completing the process

c) we may well have passport checks at Aldergrove and Belfast Ferryport. Could be interesting (I use the latter regularly and security checks are basically non-existent). But there'll still be a large Unionist constituency, and it may well still be led politically by the DUP (as recent opinion polling suggests) even if they sacrifice a couple of disgraced leaders

[Gather round]

Impressive graphic posted by DI there. Did you notice that

d) the figures don't add up (530 + 271 + 354 +33 = 1188, not 1118)

e) according to CAIN, British Security forces were responsible for 363 Troubles killings (so the PSNI is investigating 97% of them)

I don't know where Brokenshire is getting his data (quite likely out of his backside), but the simple stat that you'll see in the wider Brit media also refers 90%. The proportion of killings attributable to various paramilitaries (again from CAIN)

PS I'm pretty sure the Telegraph hacks and NIO advisers well understand the significance of last weekend, even if JB and many readers don't

[backstothewall]

PS I'm pretty sure the Telegraph hacks and NIO advisers well understand the significance of last weekend, even if JB and many readers don't

Call me cynical but my reading of it is that there will be an amnesty after the election for British Army, RUC, IRA and loyalisto alike. Brokenshire is sabre rattling about british soldiers now so it can be presented to Unionism and (more importantly) the British public as being done to protect their boys (even if they are mostly pensioners).

[DannyInvincible]

Call me cynical but my reading of it is that there will be an amnesty after the election for British Army, RUC, IRA and loyalisto alike. Brokenshire is sabre rattling about british soldiers now so it can be presented to Unionism and (more importantly) the British public as being done to protect their boys (even if they are mostly pensioners).

Interesting theory. I'm a supporter of an all-inclusive amnesty (albeit with accountability and acknowledgement of wrongdoing or pain inflicted through a process of restorative justice) as a sort of "carrot" (to use a very cynical term) in order to encourage the revelation of truth (from all quarters) and the development of greater reconciliation. The amnesty idea isn't something that is universally popular, even within nationalism/republicanism or my own family necessarily, but, as I've said before, I think transparency is the only way to generate real long-term trust and one's principles have to be applied across the board. Otherwise, one is guilty of hypocrisy.

For what it's worth, Charlie Flanagan said the Irish government would not support amnesties a few days ago: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38793891

The Irish government has said it would not support any proposal to introduce "amnesties from prosecution" when dealing with Troubles legacy cases.

It follows criticism of inquiries by Northern Ireland Secretary James Brokenshire, who said they focused "disproportionately" on state forces.

But the Irish foreign minister said all unlawful killings must be investigated.

Charlie Flanagan said Dublin would not look favourably on any proposed amnesty for either "state or non-state actors".

A number of former soldiers are currently facing prosecution over killings carried out during the 30-year conflict.

On the other hand, FF's Éamon Ó Cuív is a prominent member of the southern establishment who does support the notion of amnesties and made that clear upon last year's Bloody Sunday anniversary: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...oubles-amnesty

The grandson of Éamon de Valera, one of the key politicians in the founding of the Irish Republic, has called for an end to the prosecution of an ex-soldier accused of killing civilians in the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1972.

Éamon Ó Cuív, a Fianna Fáil TD and former Irish government minister, said he supported an amnesty for all those involved in the Northern Ireland conflict from 1969 to the 1998 Good Friday agreement, and this had to include the paratroopers involved in one of the most infamous atrocities of the Troubles.

“Whether it is ex-IRA volunteers, loyalists, the old RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment or British soldiers, there should be an amnesty for all,” Ó Cuív told the Guardian

[Gather round]

Call me cynical but my reading of it is that there will be an amnesty after the election for British Army, RUC, IRA and loyalisto alike. Brokenshire is sabre rattling about british soldiers now so it can be presented to Unionism and (more importantly) the British public as being done to protect their boys (even if they are mostly pensioners)

Aye. I agree with journo Newton Emerson who sees it as a wider issue affecting Brit forces globally, partic in Afghan and Iraq recently.

An effective amnesty is obviously more likely now than in 1997 or 2007 (defendants and witnesses to any investigations will have died in many cases), but I can understand why FG want to kick any formal welcome for it into the long grass.

[DannyInvincible]

Impressive graphic posted by DI there. Did you notice that

d) the figures don't add up (530 + 271 + 354 +33 = 1188, not 1118)

I didn't notice that, but I imagine it was a typo (fairly minor) which doesn't change the proportions significantly. The general point still stands.

e) according to CAIN, British Security forces were responsible for 363 Troubles killings (so the PSNI is investigating 97% of them)

I don't know where Brokenshire is getting his data (quite likely out of his backside), but the simple stat that you'll see in the wider Brit media also refers 90%. The proportion of killings attributable to various paramilitaries (again from CAIN)

Tying to give the impression - as the DUP have been doing - that 90 per cent of "Troubles" killings being investigated are killings committed by British state forces is a far cry from the truth, which is that investigators are looking into over 90 per cent of the portion of killings committed by British state forces along with the hundreds of killings by other combatants and that it is all being done in a proportionate manner.

It is also worth remembering that the state colluded with loyalist paramilitaries, meaning the latter carried out plenty of the former's dirty work.

Just on the topic of statistics relating to the conflict, Liam Ó Ruairc wrote a very interesting piece on how such statistics have been presented in order to give a certain impression: http://thepensivequill.am/2011/11/st...nflict-of.html

...

Liz Curtis notes that republican violence "dominates the coverage" and the tendency of media of "blaming the IRA" for violence. (Liz Curtis, Ireland: The Propaganda War, London: Pluto Press, 1998, pp.106-107) This is reflected in the coverage of the casualties. The media most often reproduces the following breakdown:

Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001
Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent)
Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent)
British Forces: 363 (10 percent)
Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent)
Total: 3528
(CAIN – Sutton Index of Deaths. Appendix : Statistical Summary)

The way casualties are presented above will put Republicans at the top of the hierarchy of killings and Crown forces at the bottom. This is also reflected in most academic writing. (For example: Richard English, Armed Struggle: A History of the IRA, London: Macmillan, 2003, pp.378-381) But this not the only way of looking at statistics. There are grounds to challenge the above representation. One of the problems with it is that those who have statistically suffered the most from the conflict – the Nationalist population - are totally invisible and while Republicans certainly played a major part in the conflict, they were not the only component and violence used by the state and loyalists – responsible for the majority of casualties of the largest category of deaths - is largely minimised. Republicans can point to an alternative way of looking at these statistics. Of the 3747 people killed as a result of the conflict between 1966 and 2006, the book Lost Lives breaks them down into the following categories:

Security Forces : 1039 (27.7%)
Republican Activists : 395 (10.5%)
Loyalist Activists: 167 (4.4%)
Catholic Civilians: 1259 (33.6%)
Protestant Civilians: 727 (19.4%)
Others-Unknown : 160 (4.2%)
(David McKittrick, Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney and Chris Thornton, Lost Lives: The stories of the men, women and children who died as a result of the Northern Ireland troubles, Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing Company, Revised and updated edition, 2007, p.1555)

It should be noted that approximately twenty per cent of Protestant Civilians killed were murdered by Loyalists because they were mistaken for Catholics. These casualties figures demonstrate that the two largest categories of fatalities were ‘Catholic Civilians’ killed by the security forces and loyalists, and members of the security forces killed by republicans. The largest category of deaths was innocent Catholic civilians. Statistically they were those most at risk of death in the conflict. To put these deaths in context, Catholics represent one third of the population of the north but suffered nearly three fifths of the civilian casualties. "Catholic civilians have evidently suffered both absolutely and relatively more than Protestant civilians." ((Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry, The Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland, London: The Athlone Press, Second Edition, 1996, p.34) The number of Catholics killed per 1000 of population was 2.48 and Protestants 1.46.Catholics were at approximately 50 per cent greater risk of being killed, both relatively and absolutely.

While it should be noted that "neither community in Northern Ireland has a monopoly of suffering in the present conflict, amongst both Catholics and Protestants, hundreds have been killed and thousands injured, lives have been ruined and homes wrecked." It should be emphasized that:

In relative terms it is undoubtedly the Catholics who have suffered the most, for it is against them that the main weight of repression has been directed. Most of the vast number of people imprisoned over the years for so-called 'terrorist' (i.e. political) offences have been Catholics and most of the victims of sectarian assassinations have also been Catholics." (Bob Rowthorn and Naomi Wayne, Northern Ireland: the Political Economy of Conflict, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988 pp.6-7)

...

(Quote is continued below in next post...)

[DannyInvincible]

(Quote is continued below in this post as I didn't have enough room in one post...)

...

A study carried out by the University of Ulster on the 3593 conflict-related deaths between 1969 and 1998 estimated that 1543 of the dead were Catholics, including 355 Republican activists. In terms of agencies responsible of those 1543 deaths:

Killed by Republicans: 381 (24.7%)
Killed by Loyalists: 735 (47.6%)
Killed by Security Forces : 316 (20.5%)
Others-Unknown: 111 (7.2%)
(Source: Marie Therese Fay, Mike Morrissey and Marie Smyth, Mapping Troubles-Related Deaths in Northern Ireland 1969-1998, INCORE (University of Ulster & The United Nations University), Second edition with amendments reprinted 1998, Table 1.1 Deaths by Religion by Organisation Responsible)

These statistics show that there were two campaigns of violence in the North, the republican war against the British state, and the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries counter-insurgency campaign not just against Republicans but against the Catholic population as a whole. Civilian deaths constitute the largest category of victims of state killings - over 50 per cent. Almost all such victims were unarmed; the vast majority - 86 per cent - were Catholic. The next largest category is republican paramilitaries, accounting for 37 per cent of state killings. Remarkably few loyalist paramilitaries were victims of state killings - only 4 per cent of the total. If it is presumed as a shorthand calculation that republican activists were likely to have been Catholic while loyalist activists were likely to have been Protestant, it follows that the Catholic or nationalist community experienced the overwhelming bulk of killing by state forces; 88 percent of victims of state killings were from the nationalist community.

Deaths resulting from collusion between state forces and loyalist paramilitary groups are not included in the above figures. "To do so would be to add at least the same number of deaths again." Collusion has been a factor in loyalist killings since early in the conflict, but reached a peak in the early 1990s. As Arthur Fegan and Raymond Murray documented, between March 1990 and September 1994, loyalists killed 185 people. Of these deaths, 168 (91 percent) were sectarian or political in nature, and in 103 cases (56 percent of all the loyalist killings in the period) there is evidence of some form of collusion. (Figures from: Bill Rolston, Unfinished Business: State Killings and the Quest for Truth, Belfast: Beyond The Pale, 2000)

While the security forces waged war on the republicans, the loyalist paramilitaries were left relatively unhindered. The security forces did not respond to loyalist attacks with the same determination as they responded to republicans. As John Newsinger notes: "The fact is that the British and loyalist campaigns were symmetrical. There is no doubt that the loyalist paramilitaries’ murderous war against the Catholic minority was regarded as reinforcing rather than undermining the security forces’ war against the Provisional IRA." (John Newsinger, British Counterinsurgency: From Palestine to Northern Ireland, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002, 178) Loyalist actions helped wear the Catholic working class down. Loyalists were in effect the substitute for state deaths squads. (ie. Jeffrey Sluka, ‘For God and Ulster’: The Culture of Terror and Loyalist Death Squads in Northern Ireland, in Jeffrey Sluka (ed), Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Philadelphia, 2000) On top of that the borderline between "security forces" and "paramilitaries" could be blurred. An investigation for example showed that members of the UDR were one and a half times more likely to be convicted of scheduled offences than the adult civilians who they were supposed to be protecting. (Brendan O'Leary and John McGarry, The Politics of Antagonism: Understanding Northern Ireland, London: The Athlone Press, Second Edition, 1996, pp. 268-269).

Roy Greenslade, a former editor of The Daily Mirror working today for The Guardian has noted the media’s tendency to create a "hierarchy of deaths" in which those killed by Republicans receive the most coverage while those killed by Loyalists the least. Those forming the largest single category of fatalities are thus actually the most invisible in the media. (Roy Greenslade, A Hierarchy of Death, The Guardian 19 April 2007) The "hierarchy of deaths" is most visible when looking how the media covered the deaths of children during the conflict. Children have also been killed during previous phases of the republican struggle. For example, of more than 250 civilians killed during Easter Week 1916, 28 children aged between two and 16 were killed by gunfire. (Genevieve Carbery, Call to remember 28 children who died in Rising, The Irish Times, 17 August 2011). Between 1969 and 1998, 23 children under five years of age, 24 between 6 and 11, and 210 aged between 12 and 17 were killed as a result of political violence. Security forces and Loyalists are responsible for the majority of the killings (67 and 74) and Republicans for 90 (some of them soldiers not yet 18 years of age). (Marie-Louise McCrory, More than 250 children killed during Troubles, The Irish News, 16 August 2010) Yet this has not been reflected in media coverage. There are ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ victims. While some victims had a name and a face, others were just an anonymous statistic.

The media however often points that civilians and non-combatants constitute the largest category of victims of the conflict, but without specifying this important fact :

Civilian Victims from Political Violence, 1969-1998:
Civilian Deaths as Percentage of Deaths by this Agency:
Security Forces : 54.4 per cent
Republicans: 35.6 per cent
Loyalists: 87.2 per cent
(Calculated on the basis of Marie Therese Fay, Mike Morrissey and Marie Smyth, Mapping Troubles-Related Deaths in Northern Ireland 1969-1998, INCORE (University of Ulster & The United Nations University), Second edition with amendments reprinted 1998, Table 1.2 Political Status of Victims by Organisations Responsible for Deaths)

The war in the North is often reduced by the media to "terrorism". In the case of terrorism, there is no agreed definition in international law, nor is there consensus among scholars; and moreover the term is politically contested. There have been numerous diplomatic efforts aimed at producing an agreed definition of terrorism. The formula which many governments and international organizations have decided to adopt describes terrorism as politically motivated violence that intentionally targets civilians and non-combatants. This approach has been adopted in various United Nations Security Council Resolutions dealing with terrorism and was endorsed by the UN Secretary General in March 2005. (Peter R.Neumann, Old and New Terrorism: Late Modernity, Globalization and the Transformation of Political Violence, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009, pp.6-7) On the basis of this definition and the statistics above, one would be unable to label unequivocally Republicans as terrorists –they have actually been the most discriminate party to the conflict - but on the other hand the security forces would qualify as terrorists since a majority of their casualties are civilians.

On top of that during the conflict there has been an extensive list of violation of human rights by the state. There have been allegations of:
- Shoot to kill
- Collusion between state forces and loyalist paramilitaries
- The use of unnecessary force on the streets
- Abuse of stop and search powers amounting to harassment of communities and individuals
- Abuse of powers of arrest and detention for purposes of intelligence gathering
- Prolonged use of detention before release without charge
- Mistreatment of people while being interrogated in custody
- Intimidation of lawyers by the state.

In addition, there have been criticisms of the following:
- Abolition of trial by jury
- Partial abolition of the right to silence
- Inadequate means of legal redress either through the inquest system or through complaints bodies.
The ratios of arrests to charges, and of charges to convictions have been relatively low, suggesting the large-scale deprivation of many innocent citizens of their liberties.

Many of the allegations have been upheld by international bodies and organisations such as:
- The European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights
- Amnesty International
- United Nations Human Rights Committee
- European Committee for the Prevention of Torture

The state's reaction to these violations has generally been one of cover up and failure to punish the culprits.

There is thus a counter-narrative to the official and media account of the human costs of the conflict. Representations – such as ‘victims’ and ‘terrorists’- are constructed and can be deconstructed. It is possible to provide a solid counter-narrative to those who try to blame republicans for the bulk of the conflict.

[Gather round]

(Quote is continued below in this post as I didn't have enough room in one post...)

There isn't really a contradiction between 'Nationalist paramilitaries did the majority of the killing' and 'Nationalist civilians were killed in the greatest number'. Both are true and part of a bigger picture. Which has been covered in hundreds of books and thousands of articles from a wide range of positions during and since the Troubles, so complaining about media bias is a bit lazy.

Rather than have an academic debate about terrorists and freedom fighters, O'Ruairc and his fellow 'scholars' could just call them paramilitaries. It's both accurate and as neutral as you're likely to get.

[Wolfman]

Yawn. More whataboutery.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Still posting demonstrable nonsense that the majority of Northern Irish people want a united Ireland is he?

[BonnieShels]

Interesting statement in Brussels today from our Gracious leader. Keep it up. FG no longer Free Staters... [Headline news on Guardian]

Irish leader calls for united Ireland provision in Brexit deal

Ireland wants a special provision in any Brexit deal to allow Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU should the province be reunited with the Republic.

The taoiseach, Enda Kenny, said in Brussels that the deal between the EU and the UK should include language” that would allow the north to easily return to the bloc.

Kenny said the provisions that allowed East Germany to join West Germany and the EU “in a seamless fashion” after the fall of the Berlin wall offered a precedent.

Kenny said it was important that the terms of the Good Friday agreement, including what might happen if the island of Ireland was united, was part of any deal.


Brexit talks could get 'gory, bitter and twisted', says former ambassador
Read more
“In other words, that in such future time, whenever that might be, were it [reunification] to occur, that the north of Ireland would have ease of access to join as a member of the European Union again … We want that language inserted into the negotiated treaty, the negotiated outcome, whenever that might occur,” he said.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the European commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, and the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, Kenny also said the believed that the triggering of article 50 would be “delayed a little”.

It has been widely assumed that Theresa May planned to start the talks at the European council meeting on 9 and 10 March. Kenny said: “We had expected the prime minister was going to move article 50 on a particular date; I think that might be delayed a little.”

Kenny brushed off questions about his own future, saying he was focusing on the political issues caused by the Brexit vote. He is rumoured to be considering stepping down next month after severe criticism of his handling of a crisis in the Irish police force.

Juncker offered Kenny his support, saying: “I will continue to work closely as possible with Enda in the next coming weeks and months and if something would happen which would lead me to be very very sad, relations would continue.”

Juncker said discussions between Kenny and Barnier had focused on all the issues that arose for Ireland from Brexit, including how it would be possible to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Juncker said: “We don’t want to have hard borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic, we don’t want to have the Good Friday agreement to put under risk, and we want land borders to be open as possible.”

Kenny said he had agreed with May that there would be no return to a hard border, but he said a concrete plan for keeping to the pledge could not yet be provided due to the lack of clarity on the UK’s aims with regard to membership of the customs union.


The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
He said: “We had a discussion particularly about the border and the peace process. I made the point that when the old style of the border existed you had sectarian violence.

Advertisement

“We agreed with the British government and the British government agree with us: there should not be a return to the hard border of the past and indeed there won’t be. This is a political challenge as distinct from any technological issue.

“Obviously Michel Barnier and his taskforce can’t deliberate on an outcome until [article] 50 is triggered and until we know with clarity what it is the British government is talking about in terms of future relationships with the EU, because that will have an impact on trade with Ireland.”

Kenny said Ireland and the EU needed to know what May’s hopes were “in terms of customs union membership or associate membership”. And while emphasising the good standing of relations between Ireland and the UK, Kenny added: “We sit on the European negotiating side of the table when this actually starts.”

At the end of the press conference the two men were asked which one of them would resign first. Kenny shrugged off the question, saying he was focusing on the issues at hand.

Juncker, who is rumoured to have considered quitting over a lack of support among member states for his vision of the EU’s future, said: “I will not resign, I will bring my mandate to an end, that is 3 November 2019, but you knew that anyway.”



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...in-brexit-deal

[culloty82]

Interesting statement in Brussels today from our Gracious leader. Keep it up. FG no longer Free Staters... [Headline news on Guardian]

In fairness, the GDR precedent just covers NI's EU potential for a few decades down the line, no suggestion of any dramatic change in the near future.

[BonnieShels]

That's what I took from it.

It was an FG Taoiseach talking about a potential United Ireland... that's the bit I like.

Also, the GDR precedent is rather interesting. East Germany didn't reunite with West Germany.
The Lander ( Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, and Saxony) individually joined with West Germany. This got around the technicality of the DDR needing to be up to spec etc for joining the EC. Not an issue for us but shows that the EU can be flexible when they want to be.

[backstothewall]

That's what I took from it.

It was an FG Taoiseach talking about a potential United Ireland... that's the bit I like.

Also, the GDR precedent is rather interesting. East Germany didn't reunite with West Germany.
The Lander ( Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, and Saxony) individually joined with West Germany. This got around the technicality of the DDR needing to be up to spec etc for joining the EC. Not an issue for us but shows that the EU can be flexible when they want to be.

Interesting.

As a nordie I'm quite willing for NI to continue, provided Antim, Down, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh And Fermanagh all join with the Republic.

And people say we're stubborn up here...