Tory PM Heath tells Taoiseach he’s not interested in Irish unity
SAM McBRIDE, Belfast Telegraph, April 9th, 2026
AMID MOUNTING PRESSURE ON THE PM TO REIN IN STORMONT, GUINNESS BOSS MET WITH HEATH, WARNING THE REPUBLIC COULD 'DEGENERATE INTO SOME FORM OF NATIONALIST OR LEFT-WING CHAOS'
Weeks before the old Stormont was swept away in 1972, Taoiseach Jack Lynch privately pressed the Prime Minister that Britain should welcome Irish unity, but Ted Heath refused, telling him most Northern Irish supported the Union and “he was not prepared to tell them what they ought to want”.
The exchange came in a frantic period where Northern Ireland was becoming ungovernable and in which it was entering what would become by far the worst year of the Troubles.
Previously secret files declassified at The National Archives in Kew contain a slew of material which adds to the knowledge of how closely London and Dublin sought to coordinate their approaches, and even show a private intervention by the boss of Guinness, who urged Downing Street to take charge just weeks before it happened.
On January 18, 1972, the Irish Ambassador to London visited the Prime Minister at Number 10.
Setting out Lynch's view, he told the PM that the Taoiseach “was now convinced that internment had removed moral inhibitions against violence” and the SDLP's influence “was now rapidly diminishing”.
Lynch, it was claimed, believed that “an increasing number of middle-class Protestants in the north accepted unification as something which could be envisaged 'in its own time'.
“The British Government should therefore be prepared to say that reunification would be 'a good thing', even though it was 'not necessarily round the corner'. This was, after all, now the policy of the Labour Party.”
The PM disagreed, telling the Ambassador that “so far as reunification was concerned, it was clear that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland did not want it, and he was not prepared to tell them what they ought to want.
“He was not in any case sure that, as an individual, he would himself think that reunification would be a good thing. There were certain aspects of the Republic which were unattractive to many people.”
OIRA ‘more sinister’ than PIRA
The Ambassador said that while the Provisional IRA in Belfast were “on the run”, he feared that “the initiative would pass to the official IRA, who were more Communist infiltrated and were in many ways more sinister.”
A few days later, the premiers met in Brussels. Downing Street's secret note of their conversation said that “it was extraordinarily difficult to form a clear impression of what Mr Lynch was trying to get at, partly because he had a very heavy cold and partly because his ideas were hazy and far from fully developed”.
Lynch was, however, clear in several regards. “It had to be accepted that Stormont as it was would never be acceptable again,” he told Heath.
He also emphasised that there was new thinking in Dublin, telling Heath he “wanted to produce a situation whereby whenever he and the Prime Minister met in the future they would be looking for solutions rather than taking up old positions”.
Heath, for his part, wildly miscalculated what was to come, telling Lynch that the Provisional IRA “recognised that they had taken a heavy knock and might be near the point of giving up the attempt to produce a solution by violence”, although he was unsure if the Official IRA were “anywhere near such a position”.
In fact, the reverse of this was the truth; it was the Officials who would soon renounce violence.
While Heath accepted that Catholic opinion would struggle to be confident about a solution put forward by unionists, he assured Lynch that “any settlement could be guaranteed by the British Parliament at Westminster”.
Contrary to that assurance, when the Sunningdale Agreement delivered power-sharing in Belfast in 1974, it wasn't guaranteed by London and allowed to collapse amid unconstitutional intimidation, violence and mass disruption.
The PM told Lynch that “all parties at Westminster had made it clear that, if and when a majority of people in Northern Ireland opted for unification, Britain would not resist” — something which undermines Sinn Fein's claim that the IRA's decades of violence were necessary to get the Good Friday Agreement to set out a political path to Irish unity.
A few days later, senior Foreign Office diplomat Sir Stewart Crawford and Robert Armstrong, the PM's private secretary and a future influential cabinet secretary, met Lynch in the Irish Embassy in London.
Armstrong's note of the January 25 meeting said that “at one point he mentioned civil war in the South as a risk which, while not an imminent probability, could not be wholly discounted”.
Guinness and the Common Market
On February 12, 1972, Robert McNeile, managing director of Arthur Guinness Son & Co Ltd, wrote a private personal letter to Heath after he and the PM had dinner in the Connaught Hotel in Mayfair.
McNeile said he was responding to a request from Heath for his “views on the Irish question”.
The brewery boss wrote: “Although I submit these purely as a private person, my company, as you know, has extensive and historic involvements in the Republic, in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, which gives me a view over a very wide spectrum of attitudes and opinions...”
The Guinness chief said there was an urgent need for Government action.
The impending entry of the UK and Republic into the EEC was “a factor of paramount importance in the situation”, he said, not least because if the Republic voted no to Europe on the basis of “IRA-inspired, anti-British and isolationist elements”, then “the effects upon the Republic's industry and export trade would be catastrophic and I have little doubt that the present form of RoI Government would degenerate into some form of nationalist or left-wing chaos.
“That in turn would make the Irish problem totally insoluble…”
By contrast, he foresaw — as did John Hume and others — that joint entry to the European Community “must have the effect of making the border less and less relevant and significant in the future”.
He said the IRA “constitutes a threat to all three Governments” and urged Heath to move towards a compromise which would involve Westminster stepping in over the head of Stormont.
Weeks later, that would happen when the haplessly divided and ineffectual Stormont administration lost control of security to Westminster and Brian Faulkner's cabinet resigned in protest. Majority rule would never return.
Troubles bill could affect UK’s national security
By David Thompson, Belfast News Letter, April 9th, 2026
General Sir Parker a former GOC in Northern Ireland warned Government that Troubles Bill will undermine confidence of troops
The government’s Troubles bill is a “national security issue” as it undermines the confidence of the UK’s armed forces that they won’t be prosecuted years down the line for following orders, a former Army general has said.
General Sir Nick Parker, speaking ahead of the 28th anniversary of the Belfast Agreement, says the focus on individual soldiers in the years since the deal was signed is “wholly inappropriate” – and must end.
The officer, who oversaw oversaw the withdrawal of troops from the streets of Northern Ireland, also said veterans have become scapegoats for a lack of political leadership in dealing with the legacy of the Troubles.
He is among a number of Army generals who want major changes to the Labour government’s legacy bill. Their proposals would mean no new prosecutions or for Troubles-related incidents without new evidence, and a presumption that individual personnel acted in good faith and in belief of the lawfulness orders they received.
It would also end civil cases unless new evidence emerges or a criminal conviction against the soldier in questions had been obtained.
The government has said its Troubles bill will replace the last government's “unilateral and flawed Legacy Act, which was widely rejected across Northern Ireland, including by all the main political parties”. It also says the deal secured reciprocal information sharing with the Irish state, which the previous legislation did not.
However, Sir Nick says the government has failed to recognise a “deeply strategic issue” with its plans – that they undermine the “moral willingness of your soldier to fight”.
Speaking to the News Letter, the former British Army officer said: “If you turn around and say, ‘Oh by the way, the pawn that we're prepared to sacrifice in these greater strategic desires to have a relationship with Republic are our veterans, who served us during Operation Banner’ – that, to me, is a national security issue for the future.
“If your government sells soldiers down to the river for what they did legally in the past, how are people going to feel about fighting in the future for the country? “If I, as a veteran, am held to account for something I did legally for the state in the past, how is a guy serving today going to feel that they can go and do their duty, in really difficult circumstances, and not have somebody judge them in 10 years time to have behaved badly?”, Sir Nick said.
He said that the 1998 deal was deliberately ambiguous, but he could not have foreseen a situation where veterans were being pursued through the courts almost three decades later.
“I was accountable, as the head of the chain of command in Northern Ireland at the time. Part of me feels that the focus on the individual that's occurred since then is wholly inappropriate – if they've done nothing wrong. Because they were acting on behalf of the chain of command and the state – which I was.
“I had made this assumption that that would continue to be a basic understanding as time drew on went on, which, sadly, has not been the case”.
He said the 1998 political settlement was “deliberately ambiguous” and “drew a line”.
“It required leadership to take people forward without retribution emerging out of the ambiguity. Certainly in 2006 when I was here, I was still making an assumption that we were moving in the right direction”, he said.
The former general, who was the Army’s last General Officer Commanding (GOC) for Operation Banner in the province, said the generals are not seeking immunity.
“If there was new evidence, that showed that there was wrongdoing, that has been assessed… by a Supreme Court judge, then people must be held to account. But without that, you should not hold the individual accountable. If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, then you need to turn your attention to those that gave the orders, and the state that sent us there”, he said.
Bobby Sands statue to stay after Belfast City Council drops planning probe
CONOR SHEILS, Irish News, April 9th, 2026
BELFAST City Council has said no further action will be taken over a statue of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands erected without planning permission in west Belfast.
The council launched a planning enforcement investigation last year after the monument was unveiled on housing executive-owned land in the Twinbrook area to mark the 44th anniversary of Sands’ death.
In a statement to the BBC, a council spokesperson said: “Our enforcement investigation on this statue has concluded and the case has been closed.
“The investigation was conducted in line with our planning enforcement strategy, and it was not considered expedient to take any further action in this instance.”
Sands, a former MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, died aged 27 during the 1981 hunger strike.
The statue was unveiled in May last year and First Minister Michelle O’Neill was criticised at the time for attending the unveiling of the statue along with other Sinn Féin representatives
Speaking at the time, she described the statue as a “powerful tribute” and defended her attendance after criticism from the DUP, saying it was consistent with her pledge to be “first minister for all”, pointing to her attendance at a VE Day event on the same day.
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive later confirmed the monument had been erected on its land “without our permission or knowledge”.
DUP councillor Sarah Bunting, the party’s group leader at Belfast City Council, said she was concerned no further action was being pursued, warning of a “perception” that cases involving republicans “do not result in meaningful outcomes”.
“Planning rules are there to be followed. When an unauthorised structure is put up and nothing happens, it sends a clear message that some people can ignore the law without consequence,” she added.
NIO predicted hunger strike possible after end of special category status
SAM McBRIDE, Belfast Telegraph, April 9th, 2026
NI OFFICIALS DECIDED PRISONERS WOULD NOT BE FORCE-FED AND 'IT MAY LEAD TO DEATHS'
Five years before the seminal IRA hunger strike in 1981, NIO officials foresaw that it was likely and decided prisoners wouldn't be force-fed, something which “may well result in prisoners being allowed to die”.
Among files declassified at The National Archives in Kew is a secret January 1976 memo in which the background to the new policy was set out prior to being announced publicly two months later.
Special category status for paramilitary prisoners had been introduced in 1972 as part of a deal between then Secretary of State Willie Whitelaw and the IRA as part of a ceasefire.
Under the deal, paramilitary prisoners were treated more favourably, such as by not having to do work or wear prison uniform.
It meant that IRA and UVF members were treated more like prisoners of war than criminals — even though they were jailed under criminal law and the Government always insisted that the Troubles did not constitute a war.
Writing in January 1976, JH Parkes in the NIO set out the plan to end special category status for the admission of terrorist prisoners to jail.
He said: “We can predict with certainty only that there will be opposition… this may range from 'non co-operation' in the prisons (which may not be a major problem) at one end of the scale to attempts to destroy the prisons coupled with outside demonstrations at the other end.
“Probably we shall find ourselves somewhere between these two; but much will depend on external factors which cannot now be predicted.”
He said one of the issues they had to consider was a hunger strike.
“There is an established drill for dealing with these. This does not involve force feeding except on purely medical grounds.
“It is important to recognise that this may well result in prisoners being allowed to die; and prisoners should be made aware in good time that we are quite prepared to contemplate this.”
He said that if prisoners trashed the interior of prisons, “we think it should be made clear to prisoners in advance that any rebuilding will not be carried out in a hurry and will only be to minimum standards”.
Parkes said that “the worst outcome we can foresee is the destruction by prisoners of their compound living accommodation”.
He said the new rules should be widely communicated and “any signs of weakness or compromise will be unlikely to produce the desired results; they will merely encourage the paramilitaries to press for more concessions”.
Ultimately, that was the approach adopted by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
Four years after the policy shift, and after years of republican prisoners smearing excrement on their cell walls while warders were murdered outside the jails, a hunger strike began.
It ended in disputed circumstances before the 1981 hunger strike would alter the course of the Troubles by hardening nationalist and global opinion, pushing Sinn Fein towards electoral politics, and triggering a series of events which would result in the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Bomb squad called to Office of Irish DPP in Dublin
BAIRBRE HOLMES, Irish News, April 9th, 2026
ARMY bomb disposal experts were called to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on Tuesday after a suspicious package was found in the area.
Military vehicles and garda members were seen at the building, which is located at the edge of Phoenix Park and beside the Criminal Courts of Justice, on Tuesday afternoon.
In a statement yesterday, An Garda Siochana said “Gardai and emergency services attended the scene of an incident involving a suspicious package at a premises on Infirmary Road, Dublin 7” at around 3.30pm on Tuesday.
They said a cordon was established and the army explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) was notified.
They said the package was declared safe, some items will be sent to Forensic Science Ireland for analysis and they are investigating the incident.
The Defence Forces said their bomb disposal experts “responded to a request for assistance from An Garda Siochana”.
In a statement, they said the EOD team made the scene safe, handed it back over to the Gardai and returned to barracks at 8pm.
It’s time to overhaul Irish Govt compensation scheme for victims
Frank Clarke, Irish Times, April 9th, 2026
A new scheme must ensure that victims’ rights are respected throughout the compensation process
Criminal justice was traditionally seen as a matter primarily between the State and the offender, and the victim’s main function was as a witness to an offence.
However, from the 1950s onwards, there was a growing awareness in discussions of criminal law and policy of the marginalisation of victims and the harm caused by the system’s offender-centric focus.
A shift began towards a rights-based understanding of victimisation. Over time, victims of crime came to be regarded as people with fundamental rights within the criminal justice system.
Many countries have systems in place for compensating victims of crime. The widespread adoption of state-funded victim compensation schemes was influenced by the victims’ rights movement which highlighted the significant impact of violent crime on victims.
Ireland introduced a victims’ compensation scheme in 1974; it was applied retrospectively to the victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. At more than 50 years old, it needs reform. In particular, it is time to enshrine the right to compensation in statute. Statutory rights ensure clarity, certainty and permanency – features that are currently lacking. Consultation with victims of crime highlighted a number of issues with the existing scheme, including difficult-to-navigate procedures, insufficient funding and long delays in obtaining compensation. This is exacerbated when a criminal case is also being pursued.
Those affected also demonstrated a lack of clarity regarding the application of the terms of the scheme, including who was actually considered a victim under the scheme.
The Law Reform Commission has recommended the creation of a new victim-centred statutory scheme that will take a rights-based approach to compensating victims. It will be administered by an independent statutory body which is staffed by those trained in trauma awareness. Information should be accessible, and if required, the staff of the new body should assist applicants to complete their applications and provide trauma-informed support throughout the compensation process. These reforms should ensure that victims are not re-traumatised by a process that is meant to assist them.
Timely payments
Under the new scheme, compensation should be paid without delay, and without waiting for the outcome of any criminal or civil proceedings, unless dealing with a claim might interfere with court proceedings. Timely payments should improve the situation of victims – as should the longer application deadline. A conviction is not currently a prerequisite for compensation and the commission recommends that this remains the case. This statutory body will assess applications and compensate victims for the harm suffered. This should include full reimbursement for financial loss, as is currently the situation. However, unlike the current scheme, the new scheme should include payments for pain and suffering. Victims of violent crime have a right under EU law to “fair and appropriate compensation” in the member state where their injury occurred. The amounts paid for pain and suffering will be based on new scales that are fixed by statutory instrument. This will ensure that the scheme complies with a recent decision of the European Court of Justice which held that national compensation schemes should compensate for pain and suffering.
While the scheme addresses only the right to compensation for victims of “crimes of violence”, the proposals adopt a sufficiently broad definition of this so that the harms associated with both physical and non-physical violence are captured.
Apart from offences that are obviously violent like murder and assault, other offences such as harassment and stalking, intimate image abuse offences and domestic violence offences should be expressly included in the scheme. Recognising that crimes of violence give rise to different levels and types of harm, the definition of harm for the purposes of the new scheme should clearly encompass non-physical impacts arising from particular offences such as sexual offences and domestic violence.
It is intended that the proposed scheme should be accessible to all victims of crimes of violence without discrimination. In general, the crime must be reported to gardaí (or Fiosrú) and applicants must co-operate with the investigating and prosecuting authorities, and with the statutory body itself. This will assist the administration of justice and the work of the new body. There are detailed provisions for exclusions from the scheme, including cases of fraud, collusion or contributory misconduct. The proposals would also allow for the State to recoup double payments (where, for example, damages are recovered in civil proceedings) or payments that are subsequently found to have been based on fraud.
The courts can already order convicted persons to pay compensation to victims. The provision is not frequently used for a variety of reasons and obviously, not every accused person will be in a position to pay compensation. Nonetheless, where a convicted person in an appropriate case has means, it is only right that they should pay compensation to their victims. The commission’s recommendations should result in the increased use of the existing provisions.
The new statutory body should be funded from predictable and sufficient Government funds. Evidence suggests that the limited funds available to the current scheme have delayed payments to victims in the past. Decisions about compensation should be consistent, transparent and subject to an inbuilt internal appeal, to help minimise the delay and costs of appeals.
Further recommended safeguards in the new system include the publication of appropriately-redacted decisions and appeals to the High Court on a point of law. Because of the assistive function that is built into the proposed statutory body, the vast majority of applicants should not require a lawyer’s assistance.
However, precertification for a contribution towards legal costs would be permitted in limited cases where an application cannot effectively be made without a guaranteed payment to a lawyer.
This new scheme, if implemented, will ensure that victims’ rights are respected throughout the compensation process. It will provide timely, fair and appropriate compensation to victims, which should help them access the assistance they need and aid their recovery from the impact of violent crime.
Justice Frank Clarke is President of the Irish Law Reform Commission
Revenue level raised by Stormont is ‘lowest in the developed world’
JOHN MANLEY, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, April 9th, 2026
REVENUE raising by Stormont ranks lowest in the developed world, according to an assembly research paper.
The briefing document also highlights how the devolved administration is almost £1bn worse off in the current financial year due to a shortfall of £400m and the ending of the so-called stabilisation funding worth £520m that the executive received after its restoration in February 2024.
Prepared for MLAs to help them scrutinise Finance Minister John O’Dowd’s multi-year budget, the regional legislature’s Research and Information Service (RaISe) has provided comparative analysis of the devolved administration’s income generating capacity.
As reported by The Irish News last week, the minister has yet to secure executive agreement on the three-year budget proposals he unilaterally launched in January.
Among Mr O’Dowd’s proposals are a 5% increase in the regional rate for domestic properties and 3% for non-domestic, generating approximately £42.6m this year.
The RaISe paper begins with the assertion that the north “raises the lowest level of revenue in the developed world compared to other jurisdictions”, with the Treasury providing 95% of the executive’s budget.
While one item of research cited to support its claim notes that “the UK has the most centralised government of the G7, as measured by the proportion of revenue raised by sub-central government”, Stormont has yet to secure or implement any regionalised revenue-raising powers comparable with the devolved governments in Wales or Scotland, which both vary rates of income tax.
Water charges
Both jurisdictions also have domestic water charges, which the briefing paper says has the potential to generate “approximately £307m annually” in Northern Ireland.
It says that up to an additional £226m could be raised every year through the suite of income generating measures which the then secretary of state Chris Heaton-Harris consulted on in 2023.
The paper notes that no decisions have been taken on implementing the consulted measures and that “significant political opposition to several options – most notably domestic water charges – remains”.
RaISe highlights the other constraints the Stormont administration operates under, including its “border with the lower-tax jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland” and the lack sufficient incentive to expand its own tax base.
“The Barnett Formula, which allocates funding based on population share rather than assessed need, further compounds this by failing to reward fiscal innovation at the devolved level,” the document states.
It also points to a “distinctive constellation of constraints”, which include repeated assembly suspensions, post-Brexit obligations under the Windsor Framework that limit fiscal autonomy in areas such as state aid and VAT, and a comparatively narrow private sector tax base characterised by higher economic inactivity and lower productivity relative to the rest of the UK.
The paper notes how Mr O’Dowd’s draft budget statement “frames the fiscal challenge within a broader argument for enhanced devolved fiscal powers”.
“In my view, the Autumn Budget is another illustration of why we need greater powers locally,” the minister said.
“To ensure our tax system takes account of our circumstances. Having greater fiscal powers would allow us to make different choices, to spur economic activity, or to generate income for public services, in a fairer and more progressive way.”
DUP's Gary Middleton stands down as Foyle MLA following 'significant mental health challenges'
By David Thompson, Belfast News Letter, April 9th, 2026
Gary Middleton will resign his Assembly seat tomorrow to focus on his recovery, after announcing that he has been suffering from mental health issues which have “significantly limited” his ability to represent his constituents.
The DUP MLA for Foyle says that he wanted to be open about the challenges that he has faced to give encouragement to others who may be in a similar situation, but he cannot focus on his health whilst in public office.
Mr Middleton, who has served at Stormont for over a decade, said in a statement that he is leaving public life because he is “suffering significant mental health challenges”.
Party leader Gavin Robinson MP thanked the Londonderry representative for years of service and dedication, saying he had been “a dedicated and steadfast servant” to the people of the city and beyond.
The DUP boss said that while the party deeply regrets that the Foyle MLA is leaving public service, “we will do all we can to support him”.
In a statement released to the media by his party, Gary Middleton said: “Over the last few months, I have been suffering from a bout of ill-health which has significantly limited my ability to represent my constituents in the way I always have.
“I had hoped to be able to return to work and to recover but I have come to the point of accepting that if I am to focus on getting back to full health, I cannot do this whilst remaining in public office.
“It would have been easier for me to withdraw from the political arena quietly and without explanation but I wanted my constituents and the wider community to understand that I am leaving public life because I am suffering significant mental health challenges.
“I am journeying through a difficult experience and have been for some time. I am receiving treatment thanks to the wonderful services afforded to me by our National Health Service. The support and encouragement from my family and friends, combined with the expert treatment I am receiving has given me hope and I can see a glimmer of light in what has been a very dark tunnel.
“In making this statement I want to give encouragement to those who may be on a similar journey by highlighting that help is available. I have learned in recent times that it’s ok not to be ok.
“I want to thank all those who have supported me in Foyle over the years and who bestowed the privilege of electing me, first into Local Government and then to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
“Finally, I want to thank all my colleagues in the DUP for their support and friendship, to my staff for their loyalty and to my wife and family who have been my rock during this period. I will always be grateful for all the support shown to me”.
He wished everyone he has worked alongside, regardless of party affiliations, “every best wish for the future”.
Reacting to Mr Middleton’s departure, Gavin Robinson MP said he has been “a strong and consistent voice” in the Assembly, and “was never afraid to stand up for what he believed was right”.
The East Belfast MP said: “In being such a clear and consistent voice for Unionism in Foyle, Gary has at times faced threats from republicans. That pressure never silenced him nor deterred him, he continued to stand firm for his constituents and his principles.
“While we deeply regret that Gary is leaving public service, we will do all we can to support him”.
Comments and Letters, April 9th, 2026
Proinsias de Rossa: I found the Frank McCoubrey interview ('I live, eat and breathe the Shankill’ by Suzanne Breen, Belfast Telegraph, September 4th) fascinating. It confirms my own view [and experience] that encouraging people on all sides to engage with each other in political decision making at local and other levels, particularly where decisions have a positive impact on local communities, leads to a more peaceful society, without necessarily diminishing a person's fundamental values or principles; in fact they can be become more rounded and humane. Communication with the base on why things are decided and the negotiations underpinning them is also essential. It would be great to get him onto one of RTE's discussion programmes. radio or tv.
It's [almost] unbelievable that Sinn Féin can, with a straight face, say that Mícheál Martin is the biggest obstacle to a united Ireland. I realise it's an effort to shore up their base, but surely the very first step for a peaceful and shared future for this island is reconciliation in Northern Ireland? I very much welcome their condemnation of the attempted bombing of a PSNI station; but surely they can see that strategically prioritising unity over reconciliation lends credence to the militarists.
Padraig Yeates: I fear our campaign will fail. It is just too removed from the current political dialogue of SF and the DUP.
Both have managed to consolidate their bases in the North.
Dublin and London are so conditioned to supporting the Victims and the Legacy lawyers lobby that the new Labour Govt Bill is worse than the Tory Act, without even a smidgeon of reconciliation in it. I suspect that if there is sufficient opposition from veterans lobbies in Britain the legislation may be quietly shelved.
Proinsias de Rossa: As far as the future is concerned it's not easy to predict, but I feel you may be right about a desire in official circles to let the process 'fade'.
Even so I think what you and the Truth Recovery Process group have done has been valuable.
I think there is a need for an NGO type group that supports and promotes the idea of a 'shared island without constitutional change' which would counter the drumbeat for a constitutional referendum and an alleged and non-existent, 'constitutional imperative to unity'.
The whole point of the alterations to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution was to end the constitutional claim by this state vis-a-vis NI, which was claimed as part of their justification by militarists.
Such a group (the TRP?) might help to formulate and popularise an alternative narrative based on the GFA/Belfast Agreement, while emphasising reconciliation within NI, and a shared future between NI and the Republic.
Proinsias de Rossa is a former Irish MEP, President of the Workers Party and Labour Party, and Minister for Social Welfare in the Raindow Coaltion, 1994-7
Raymond McCord: I would like to point out to Brian Feeney that the country, or nation that he says does not exist, is on the other side of the border that separates the ROI and Northern Ireland.
His comments are a disgrace but nothing new, as he has shown by his previous opinions on unionism and unionists.
He will hardly want to vote in a border poll, as he clearly states that Northern Ireland is not a country so there is no need for a poll.
So will he just get a rubber from his old school bag and rub out the line of the border that separates two countries?
I didn't study geography for O levels at school but, having been educated at two Northern Ireland schools I can confidently say that it exists as a country and that our national football team is Northern Ireland.
Whenever I’m in Dublin meeting Fine Gael and Fianna Fail politicians they always show the greatest respect to people from the unionist community of Northern Ireland and to cross community victims of the Northern Ireland Troubles.
Could they and the people of Northern Ireland be wrong in saying Northern Ireland is a country? Division exists in many forms, which sometimes need reality checks. Reconciliation instead of an only green agenda/narrative
Raymond McCord Victims campaigner Belfast Northern Ireland.
LETTERS: Greatest acts of barbarity in history are grounded in religious conflict
CURRENT events in the Middle East highlight a fundamental issue that society seems unwilling to grasp. This is the extent to which religious fanaticism has been responsible for world conflicts throughout the millennia.
As I watch the increasingly deranged Trump and his genocidal aide de camp, Netanyahu, wage an illegal war against Muslim countries of the Middle East, I am reminded of the religious fervour that fanned the flames of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Balkans, Ireland, etc.
We stand on the sidelines and rail against the horror unfolding before our eyes, yet refrain from calling a spade a spade, lest we concede political correctness or annoy one religion or another.
Competing religious ideologies have shattered our world into separate moral communities, and have created the division which is a continual source of human misery.
“Unless we acknowledge the impact of religious extremism, unless religion has no power in government, judiciary and education, the world will remain on a knife edge
We have immuned ourselves from the reality that the greatest acts of barbarity throughout history are grounded in religious conflict.
We call Hitler a madman, conveniently forgetting that he regularly invoked God in his speeches, that the German soldiers who managed the concentration camps were predominantly Christians, that Hitler and Mussolini entered concordats with the Catholic Church, that the anti-semitism that fuelled Auschwitz was an inheritance from a European medieval distrust of Judaism.
Many conflicts in the world today are caused because moral communities are defined on the basis of religious affiliation, not the territorial concerns they are often portrayed as – Palestine (Jews v Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbs v Catholic Croats), Kashmir (Muslim v Hindu), the Middle East (Judaism v Muslim, Shiite v Sunni) etc.
The moral indignation of the ‘moderates’ who claim God’s love, and quote selected pieces of their chosen holy books (Bible, Koran etc) does not stand up to scrutiny.
They ignore the fanaticism of their own religion’s claims that ‘their’ God is the one true God and therefore incompatible with others.
None of the three Abrahamic religions have ever changed their stance on this and their competing ideologies serve only to ignite the underlying tensions of mistrust that one religious sect has against another
Unless we acknowledge the impact of religious extremism, unless religion has no power in government, judiciary and education, the world will remain on a knife edge.
DANNY TREACY Ballyclare, Co Antrim
