Will someone spell it out. What role for Dublin under ” direct rule? “

Patrick Murphy’s apt question in the Irish News. “ Why do we think Dublin would  be any better than running the North than London?”  prompts the even more basic question:. What sort of new Dublin “input” is wanted or even necessary?

Later this month, “Direct Rule” in whatever guise would  in key respects be inevitably different from the direct rule of 1972 when the two sovereign states had barely begun to cooperate. Today, the British- Irish relationship through governments and parliaments is permanent and unassailable.  Its outworking  in the main covers the human rights and citizenship issues stemming from the legacy of history  and the Troubles. But it reaches far wider than that, to the contexts of British-Irish reconciliation  and up to March 2019 it would seem,  joint membership of the EU.

While Brexit is of course a hugely unwelcome complicating factor, if anything it strengthens the need  for British-Irish cooperation over a host of issues to make the eventual   outcome work.

But direct rule applies to the domestic governance of Northern Ireland, mainly on how public money is spent. Does Dublin really require a say in that?  What would be their locus to intervene on health, education and welfare?  What would be different from the direct rule of the first half of the previous decade when the Assembly lights were similarly shorting?

There is the principle of government introduced in the American Revolution. “ no taxation without  representation.” We might turn that on its head to read “ no representation without taxation”. In other words unless  Dublin wishes to acquire fiscal responsibility and stump up significant funding for the North, it is not appropriate  for them to assume a detailed role in this area.

What is the issue here anyway? I’m at a loss to understand it. We have a form of joint authority already although  not of the constitutional kind. Nor should we. Is it that Dublin and northern nationalist   opinion generally are afraid that Theresa May’s faltering government would somehow allow an Orange  state to develop out of the DUP pact? Or Brexit?  The idea is completely fanciful

Or might nationalists go on to develop the embryonic argument   that Irish and therefore EU citizenship for northerners would give them trading and other social rights different from UK citizens in our region? This is equally fantastic.

Or it  “greener” direct rule – a NIO notion of former days  –   raising its  head again as  to put pressure on the DUP?

Our obsessive public discourse concentrating  on legacy and identity encourages  this sort of unreal argument which basically sidelines the practicalities of government.  The political  objections  to them are substantial : not only are they unacceptably  vague,  but the  idea of a new nebulous role  for Dublin under direct rule  simply places the prospect  of  a return  to the Executive in a deeper freeze. Under our present over-arching British-Irish arrangements, it is a distraction and arguably undemocratic.

Brokenshire  is palpably reluctant to  do anything that annoys anybody. Only a few would like him to do a Peter Hain  and deliberately  threaten either main parties’ cherished  positions. Oh for a brave British minister who  would shake them out of their complacency! But that’s the biggest fantasy of all.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Stephen Kelly

    sorry wrong person

  • Stephen Kelly

    Are you sure

  • mickfealty
  • Stephen Kelly

    Exactly the reply would be you can keep the black north.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Republicans agreed it was legitimate almost 20 years ago, please move on

  • Skibo

    MU of all the strands, there is only one section that does not require the presence of representatives from Stormont, the BRITISH-IRISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE.

  • Skibo

    Mick a post that has nothing to do with what you stated.
    What has Nationalism asked to be judged on by a lower standard?
    It was a very good speech though.

  • Skibo

    It did not remove it. It repackaged it and called it the BRITISH-IRISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

  • MainlandUlsterman

    whatever floats your boat. Unionists were satisfied with it anyway so you can draw your own conclusions

  • sparrow

    I think you’re overstating what republicans agreed about the northern state 20 years ago. Accepting the reality of something is not the same as accepting its legitimacy.

  • Skibo

    I think they were not completely satisfied with it and was one of the reasons the DUP opposed it.

  • NotNowJohnny

    On what do you base your analysis? I’m open to being persuaded but it seems clear enough to me. Strand 3 includes the requirement that ‘All decisions shall be made by agreement between both governments.’ This goes further than what was contained in the AIA and is clearly more than a consultative role (which was the role of the Irish government in the AIA). It’s not a question of nationalism trying anything on. It’s in the international agreement signed by the British and voted for by an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland.

  • Damien Mullan

    “Dublin should have no significant NI role.”

    Well if you take that attitude, then severely sick children in NI will just have to continue to get an almost two hour flight across the water to Great Ormond Street Hospital, instead of the planned intention for them to use the new National Children’s Hospital in 2021. As well as funding the construction of the first motorway standard road west of the ban, with the imminent announcement of the construction of M2/A5 road from Dublin to Derry, the NI portion of the road will be part funded by the Irish Exchequer to the tune of some €465 million, to be announced in the new National Development Plan next month.

    I’d like to know where those Irish landlords are now, most of them are living in their English estates. So yes the British governments of the day loaned Irish tenant farmers money to buy the land they farmed, to buy it from the same folks that packed out the House of Lords.

    The brazenness of it is unbelievable.

  • NotNowJohnny

    The GFA is not the AIA but the Anglo Irish Intergovernmental Conference (remember its Maryfield secretariat so loathed by unionists) hasn’t gone away but has been subsumed into the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (it too has a sectretariat ) under the GFA. It is worth noting that whereas the Anglo Irish Intergovernmental Conference merely had a consultative role, the British Irish version has a consultation PLUS role. Of course the other difference is that the British Irish version allows Northern Ireland Executive ministers to attend they have no decision making role and during the absence of an assembly there are no NI Exectuive ministers to attend. Interestingly the BIIC only tends/seems to meet when devolution is not operational. I understand that unionist leaders like to claim that the AIA has gone but the reality is not as straight forward as that.

  • Accountant

    RoI also did pretty well from UK’s last 20 years’ contribution to the EU, a good chunk of which was passed on to its wealthiest member ! But that’s all history now.

    Cross-border cooperation on hospitals is basic human decency, but it doesn’t earn RoI a right to participate in our government.

  • lowhanginfruit

    Let’s be clear, the Irish don’t trust the British Government, the British Irish do not trust the British government, the “Ulstermen” don’t trust the British Government…it is fair to say no one trusts the British to do the right thing here.
    Can the Irish Government be any worse?

  • Damien Mullan

    Structural funds only had an effect from 1993 until they came to an end in 2006. It was Albert Reynold’s who secured those funds in 1992 when the opportunity arose by siding with Germany over EU expansion eastwards, at the EU summit in Edinburgh in 1992, with the quid pro quo being structural funds. But again, the most significant years were the mid to late 90’s, in the noughties the portion was much less, with their termination in 2006. The structural funds ended over 11 years ago, and since 2014, Ireland has been a net contributor to the EU budget.

  • David Crookes

    The AIA was one of the worst acts of betrayal in British history.

    A nation which more or less came into existence on the basis of NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION pressurized the Reichsthatchler to involve the RoI in the governance of part of the UK, at a time when the RoI still made a fatuous constitutional claim to that part of the UK, and in the circumstance (which still obtains) that the RoI’s politicians had no electoral mandate of any kind outside their own territory. No representation, as we might say.

    When in 1985 the Americans told the Reichsthatchler to roll over, she rolled over at once.

    One reason behind the AIA was President Reagan’s need to do some kind of favour to T P O’Neill.

    Another reason was the USA’s desire to bring all of Ireland under the NATO umbrella.

    On the day after the AIA was accepted by Parliament, Nicholas Scott was sent over to Washington to explain the new arrangement to the Reichsthatchler’s masters, and the Irish army began to engage in a Slattery’s-Mounted-Fut programme of anti-nuclear manoeuvres.

    The AIA was a failure from the very start. It didn’t help the Reichsthatchler that her SoS (Tom King) was a weak, inarticulate, and prodigiously stupid man.

    When real historians, laden with boxes of documents, begin to write the Anglo-Irish history of the 1980s, they should not neglect to study the assiduous manner in which the Irish Embassy in London cultivated bibulous British politicians. Rarely can so much alcohol have been drunk so often by so few. (Grain rather than grape, and the sheer quality of the fluids worthy of an EU superjunket! Very expensive indeed, but a rather good investment, or so it seemed at the time.)

    After his sojourn in NI, Tom King was rewarded by being sent to the ministry of defence. It seemed to many of the grown-up people that Caligula’s equine consul had been surpassed by an oversized garden gnome.

    Nicholas Scott, the messenger of the treacherous new covenant, was undone many years later by the free booze of the Irish Embassy.

    Historia ultrix…..

  • Georgie Best

    The Dublin government will be responsible for agricultural standards and the like to allow NI remain in the Single market. The wise move would be to give them some role in the industrial development etc to exploit this, raising NI living standards and saving British taxpayers money.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    As I understand it, in periods of Direct Rule, the BIIC is consulted from time to time but the SoS is still very much running NI. The BIIC is a body containing British and Irish representatives so the Irish can be listened to through it but have no real power. It’s certainly not a vehicle for the kind of joint authority arrangement you seem to be describing.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    decisions about what though, NNJ. Look at its remit.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    The UUP was the main party then; and the DUP came around not long afterwards

  • MainlandUlsterman

    read the GFA, they recognised its democratic legitimacy – that NI exists due to the wishes of its people and that it “would be wrong” to change its status without their consent.

  • NotNowJohnny

    You’ve moved very subtly from a position where you claim that the Irish government has no power to no real power. By the why I haven’t mentioned joint authority at all nor have I described such an arrangement. I’m challenging your claim that ‘the Republic does not have the right to dabble in internal NI political matters – it is a fundamental principle of the Good Friday settlement. NI elects an executive and it then deals with Dublin. Mess with that and the whole GFA settlement crashes in’ and subsequently ‘The GFA is quasi-constitutional and it set out agreed arrangements which did not involve Dublin having a consultative role’. I’m pointing out to you that the republic DOES have the right to dabble and not only DOES it have a consultative role, it has MORE than a consultative role under the GFA.

    Im afraid I’m not clear about your point about the SOS. The SOS was clearly also running NI under the AIA in 1985. If the fact that the SOS is running NI under direct rule is evidence that there is no interference from Dublin then it makes you wonder what those 100,000 people at the city hall back then were protesting about.

  • mickfealty

    It’s both an admission of ten years of failure in office, and an ethno nationalist whinge.

  • sparrow

    That is an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation, together with an agreement that the use of violence to coerce unionists into a reunited Ireland was / is wrong. That says nothing about the legitimacy of the northern state.

  • Skibo

    Ten years of trying to get the DUP to accept the position of Nationalism within society.
    I was hoping for some positivity from you but again everything is down to the Nationalist community demanding equality where they don’t deserve it!

  • Skibo

    Would that be the same UUP who wouldn’t touch it with a forty foot barge pole?

  • mickfealty

    But they didn’t try for ten years. They both tried to get the Bill of Rights and failed to agree on its provisions. Ditto the ILA. Then both were dropped for the Fresh Start election.

  • Skibo

    Mick you are being very generous if you are including the DUP in trying to introduce a bill of rights or the ILA. Blocking would hardly come under the trades description of trying.

  • mickfealty

    There were two consultations on the Bill of Rights early on, both of which went for an uber maximalist positive rights agendas, on the second occasion against the advice of the first Human Rights Commissioner.

    On an ILA, what the SAA committed both parties to was a language strategy. If not the art of the possible then we are settling for the impossible and in the real world, the impossible never gets done.

  • Skibo

    Mick the SAA clearly states an ILA and gives the parameters for it in proposing an act similar to the act in Ireland or Wales.
    I know Alliance and Linda Irvine are proposing an act similar to Scotland.
    I would need to look further into the Bill of Rights. I believe what was proposed became rather cumbersome, probably coming from as us and them attitude.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    The UUP agreed to it mate

  • MainlandUlsterman

    except that it expressly says NI is legitimate

  • MainlandUlsterman

    We’re back to the Strands again. When the SoS runs NI under direct rule, he is picking up the work of the executive under Strand 1. The rest of the GFA carries on largely as is, or as close as can be without the executive in place. Bottom line is , he doesn’t suddenly have to consult Dublin over issues where the NI executive would not. He just carries out stuff that would otherwise have been devolved. And Dublin is consulted as before under Strand 2, with all the protections against Dublin meddling that are in there.

  • mickfealty

    The Annex refers to the Government (ie, Westminster). Poor drafting, or classic example of Blair’s ambiguity?

    Point being that some provisions could have been via a strategy leading to an act.

    But that would not have left scope for this unaccountable Government by negotiation, and culturally based controversy they’ve got themselves hooked on.

  • Skibo

    I agree “the Government” refers to the British Government but when the power is devolved to Stormont the responsibilities of the Government are devolved also.
    The point on strategy is it was never intended to lead to an act otherwise it would have been included within the main body of the SAA. Was it a ploy by Tony or was the DUP just as culpable. They entered toe Executive on the strength of SAA and then said they never signed up to it all.
    Sometimes I wonder had PR allowed it’t input through the annex in the hope to convince the rest of the party but as in the case of Captain O’Neill and indeed Ian Paisley, Unionism is not ready to facilitate the Irish identity.

  • sparrow

    No it doesn’t. It states, more than once, that those signing up to the Agreement ‘recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status’. We haven’t had a border poll since and unionists seem intent on keeping it that way, so there’s no knowing what the choice of people living in the north of Ireland actually is. (Polls for magazines, etc don’t count, before you mention some recent survey conducted by the Belfast Telegraph, or some such).

  • mickfealty

    Even if we accept that as you present it (the unfulfilled promises of an outgoing government die when they leave office), they had an obligation on behalf of the ever patient Language to actually do something in this space.

    They haven’t and they won’t. And nor will the DUP oblige them by making it easy for them to get *anything* out of this round of negotiations.

    So long as culture war remains both message and the medium there’s no incentive for them achieve anything with the mandate. Including a united Ireland.

  • Skibo

    Mick I agree with your analysis that unfilled promises die with an outgoing government just as the policies of political parties differ from electioneering to forming a government.
    The difference is that the SAA is a legislated document and is binding until a new piece of legislation supersedes it.
    In essence, the ILA is in British legislation but this would not be the first time that British legislation has not been enforced by those who demand that their Britishness is recognised.
    I trust you will post your video on how the Unionist community hold the DUP politicians accountable for bad government while Nationalist community do not. I found it quite disturbing!

  • mickfealty

    It’s in the Annex, not the legislation (and therefore unenforceable). SF had ten years to sort this out, and ten years in which it was barely an issue. They could not sort out the Bill of Rights either.

    They came up with no novel answer to amending the Petition that the DUP abused either. Simple enough to negotiate one, or failing that back the equivalent of Jim Allister’s SpAd Bill.

    But if John Garry’s research is right, why bother? Why not just sit on it and keep it for a rainy day and pump the volume up to 11? That’s fine, but what it’s not is power-sharing.

  • Skibo

    Mick, you know yourself that the ILA was the responsibility of the Minister for CA&L. Edwin Poots, Gregory Campbell and Nelson McCausland were all ministers before Caral Ni Chuilin in 2011. I am quite sure you are aware that Caral brought forward proposals for an ILA but these were blocked by the DUP.
    I wasn’t expecting either of the first three to do anything but perhaps had they done something, they could have introduced an ILA lite, took the Irish language off the table completely and took the moral high ground.
    Unfortunately when you think you can walk on water, looking for the moral high ground would not be their first option.

  • NotNowJohnny

    I dint think that is the case at all. The North/South Ministerial Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly are mutually inter-dependent and one cannot function without the other. If strand 1 goes strand 2 goes with it and we are left with strand 3. Strand 1 is a mechanism to deal with devolution and devolved issues; under direct rule there is no devolution and issues which were devolved are no longer. It is simply not the case that the SOS consults Dublin as before under strand 2. The SOS has no role under strand 2 and the collapse of strand 1 doesn’t change that. Consultation between the UK and Irish governments is under the mechanism of strand 3.

  • Get The Grade Get The Grade

    Eh? Denmark and Sweden also arranged identical bilateral loans with Ireland. Sorry Jeff but you are all over the place with your facts – quit reading the UK Daily Mail!

  • MainlandUlsterman

    but how does Dublin get into Strand 1? That’s what I don’t get here.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    that’s some wriggling 🙂

  • NotNowJohnny

    Double doesn’t get into strand 1. Dubln gets into strand 3 as I keep pointing out to you. And of course under direct rule there is no strand 1 for Dublin (or anyone else) to get into.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    but the executive and assembly, or lack of one, are strand 1. Since when did Strand 3 institutions have the ability to go into Strand 1 devolved matters (whether actually devolved or sitting with SoS pending restoration of the executive)?

  • mickfealty

    If it sinks on impact with your “powersharing”, it’s a design failure, or culture war. Simples. Caral has to have known her proposal would fail its first test in the Castle, and was therefore bogus signaling: as did Catriona over her consultation over allegedly getting rid of selective education.

  • Skibo

    So damned if you do and damned if you don’t!
    As for selection, any Education expert who does not have an axe to grind will tell you that selection is a bad idea at 11.
    Nationalist politicians all agree about this. Loyalist politicians representing the working class agree on it.
    The one education group who support it are the Grammar schools but then they have an ulterior motive and it has nothing to do with the pupils.

  • sparrow

    I don’t think it is. Wriggling is when you sign up to an Agreement which promises to recognise ‘the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland’ and then start finding spurious reasons for not allowing people to exercise that choice. (‘there’s no need for a poll because we know the result in advance and sure themmuns wouldn’t accept the result anyway…’). Similar wriggling around the issue of the ILA (‘we signed the Agreement but we didn’t agree to that bit’). That’s wriggling.

  • mickfealty

    Do what exactly? If know you haven’t got the say so of your only serious partner in government then you are consulting on a false premise.

    This epic failure of SF’s over a ten year period is always attributed to the DUP (or Unionists, if you like). But that’s just the culture card being played.

    Education needs reform, but it needs credible and sustainable reform that can be delivered through powersharing.

    All else is sound and fury, signifying…

  • MainlandUlsterman

    the agreement sets out the mechanism for a border poll being triggered. It’s in the gift of the SoS and he/she is only obliged to allow one if it looks like there is a chance of a UI winning. That is not close and is no closer now than it has ever been. Stop making the present a hostage to the future and realise this obsession with a UI paralyses N Ireland. Too many generations of young people have been held back already, it is time to let the province grow freely without this smothering blanket over it.

  • NotNowJohnny

    You keep implying this but the suggestion that strand 1 deals with the lack of an assembly or the lack of an executive is absurd. Strand 1 only deals with the operation of an assembly and an executive. It clearly does not deal with the lack of one. I challenge you to provide any reference to support your view that it does. I really don’t want yo play the man here but it seems to me that you have decided that (in your view) direct rule should not involve any Dublin interference and you have therefore set out to reject any interpretation of the GFA indicates that it does and to misinterpret the GFA in any way necessary to try to support your view.

  • sparrow

    He’s only legally obliged to allow one in the event he thinks it’s likely to be a yes vote to a UI. That doesn’t preclude him from calling one any time he likes. And again, why do you assume there is no chance of a border poll winning? Recent referenda and elections – Scottish independence, Brexit, Trump – were all won by the group / person who had started the campaign trailing heavily in the polls. Polls mean nothing. The only vote that counts is the vote cast in the privacy of the polling booth. Unionists know this and they secretly fear it, which is why they’re running scared of a border poll. As for the province growing freely- the six counties will never develop economically, politically or socially until they are removed from a union which consigns them to perpetual stagnation and sterility on all fronts.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    No, this is based on my understanding of the three strand framework of the GFA. To quote wikipedia for example:
    “The agreement set out a complex series of provisions relating to a number of areas including:
    – The status and system of government of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. (Strand 1)
    – The relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. (Strand 2)
    – The relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. (Strand 3)

    In the GFA itself, Strand 2, paragraph 1 refers to the N/S Ministerial Council being to “bring together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Irish government …” – which sounds like it would include the SoS, where the executive is not operative.

    The BIIC in Strand 3 is there for the UK government and Irish government “to promote bilateral co-operation at all levels on all matters of mutual interest within the competence of both Governments.” It says the Republic may put forward “views and proposals” on “non-devolved Northern Ireland matters” but decisions are only taken by agreement of *both* governments. They are supposed to make determined efforts to resolve differences, but the GFA is crystal clear that the UK government is the decision-maker over its territory and the Irish over theirs. Paragraph 4 of the section on the BIIs says: “There will be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government.”

  • MainlandUlsterman

    There’s never been a poll in which they’ve been even close.

    The GFA is open to different interpretations on the freedom the SoS has to call a poll. He has the power to call one, but it is also qualified – or simply explained? – by a statement of circumstances in which he “shall” hold one. The most natural reading though looks to me that the wording sets out the only circumstances in which he can hold one. If it meant to say the power went beyond that, it would have made it explicit, with wording like “including but not limited to …”

    In the absence of such wording, I would see paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, the circumstances of exercise, as a qualification on paragraph 1, the power.

  • NotNowJohnny

    If you’re going to quote from wiki you need to quote all the relevant references. You’ll be particularly interested in the last sentence which is completely contrary to what you’ve been saying these last few days and in fact supports my position. You’ll also be aware that ours has not been a discussion about sovereignty but rather about Dublin interference (‘dabbling’ as you referred to it) in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland under direct rule and therefore there is no need to quote paragraph 4. This is not an issue about sovereignty.

    ‘The BIIGC replaced the Anglo-Irish Conference which was established under Article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the BIIGC is supported by officials of the British and Irish Governments, including a standing Joint Secretariat of officials dealing with non-devolved Northern Ireland matters. The BIIGC secretariat has approximately 21 staff (10 for the British side, 11 for the Irish side). The staff comprise a mix of grades from senior civil servants to administrative support grades. On suspension, devolved matters revert to the Conference’s remit. ‘

  • MainlandUlsterman

    And what about: “There will be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government”? Where does that leave Irish input into internal matters?

    Of course the UK government discusses NI with the Republic, that is unproblematic. But it is not obliged to co-run the place with the Republic. And under the same provision we in the UK comment on what goes on in the Republic, the BIIC is not just about NI. It’s mainly about “east-west” issues between London and Dublin. The SoS runs the place and will consult with the Republic at times on sensitive issues affecting them. I’d rather that wasn’t there in the GFA but it’s pretty harmless.

  • NotNowJohnny

    I’ve already explained to you this is not and was not a discussion about sovereignty. That has always been clear. I don’t know why you have chosen to introduce sovereignty into the discussion at a late stage or why you continue toattempt to discuss it when it’s been made perfectly clear that no one is disputing the issue of sovereignty.

    Furthermore having introduced wiki references to the discussion in an attempt to support your position you refuse now to comment on the wiki reference to devolved matters reverting to the BIIG Conference’s remit on suspension but instead, in spite of this, continue the to claim that they revert to the SOS with no reference to the BIIGC.

    As to your claim that the SOS runs the place and will (only?) consult on sensitive matters affecting them …. you need to be aware if what strand 3 actually says. It says ‘in recognition of the Irish Government’s special interest in Northern Ireland and of the extent to which issues of mutual concern arise IN RELATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND” (my emphasis). I don’t think it can be any clearer that it is not sensitive matters affecting the ROI that is referred to but issues affecting Northern Ireland,

    As regards saying that it’s pretty harmless I’d agree with you in that but it does raise the question of what it was that was contained in the AIA that you found so offensive (and presumably harmful)?

  • NotNowJohnny

    The GFA makes clear that in respect of the BIIC, all decisions will be by agreement between both Governments. How does this fit with the claim made in the first paragraph of your response?

  • Nevin

    NNJ, that assertion is qualified. Where agreement can’t be reached then each government is sovereign within its own jurisdiction.

  • NotNowJohnny

    Can you point me to the reference where it is qualified in relation to the BIIC?

  • Nevin

    BRITISH-IRISH INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE

    4. All decisions will be by agreement between both Governments. The Governments will make determined efforts to resolve disagreements between them. There will be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government”

    Anyone can avail of the services of the BIIC JS aka B-I JS but the JS phone number in Belfast now only takes you through to the Irish Secretariat. I don’t know when the British team left the shared office.

  • Hawk

    Mick, apologies this is not the right article,.. but you locked the other articles comments.

    When you say “Between 1969 and 2001 the RUC solved 50% of murders committed by Loyalists, compared with 30% of those committed by Republicans.“. Here: https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/07/28/terrorisms-true-face-has-been-masked-at-the-expense-of-a-fine-police-force/

    Is that in William Matchett’s book? I’m looking to reference those figures but I’m strugglying.

    I’ll delete this post should you reply, thanks.

  • mickfealty

    They all lock after a fixed time. Think it’s three weeks. I think so.

  • Hawk

    Thanks.

    I found another source here: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/victims/docs/group/ruc_gcf/rucgcf_06_stand.pdf

    – good enough for me

  • mickfealty

    Very useful find. I have the paper copy which oils probably where I got it.