The agenda for Starmer and Martin in Cork

Keir Starmer whose legal eminence was  seen as an asset not so long ago,  is now stigmatised as a narrow minded creature of process whose survival is now at stake. You’d think his legal background would give him.a clear advantage when  dealing with the Past  But instead, the legacy prompts the question: what is it now more about? Law or politics?

The long drawn out saga of new British legacy legislation falls between two stools. Too much law for anti “lawfare” campaigners. Not enough legal enforcement for some victims groups and “transitional  justice” experts.

Facing this dreary deadlock we need to bite the bullet and revert to drawing a straight line under the Troubles, albeit with much better preparation than was insultingly absent in the Conservatives’ unilateral  U turn from the Stormont House Agreement version, which had at least sought consensus (unsuccessfully).

Candour all round is urgently required. How long must we persist in  exposing  elderly state actors to nakedly unviable prosecutions tested to destruction in order  to.appease the understandable anger of victims groups, opportunist politicians and ideologically committed lawyers who too easily trot out the nostrum that justice is beyond price? Meanwhile those ” who called the shots but didn’t pull the trigger” up.the line  remain unaccountable.

With a blanket amnesty first offered but then furiously rejected as a fundamental breach of legal principle, the time has surely come to rule out legal process altogether after completing the revived  agenda of inquests which cannot acceptably be halted again.

I disagree that a coordinated British- Irish approach lets British sovereign responsibility off the hook. In.good faith it should permit both states to admit degrees of culpability where they exist.  A determined  joint approach would have the clout to overrule the familiar objections.

The best that can be hoped for at this level are narratives which may diverge to a degree but which allow for a reconciliation of accounts  that should suffice for civil society. Testimony of a  Boston College type should be protected by both governments declaring  not to prosecute however stark the admissions and endorsed by both the US and the EU.  Creating a radical new precedent they should take their chances jointly at the Strasbourg Court.

The South already has a de facto amnesty. If it seriously entertains hopes of Irish unity, candour is of the essence.

On the British side  it’s abundantly clear that Neither Confirm Nor Deny will not be abandoned. Any argument that our conflict is domestically  self contained  and complete is unlikely to be accepted at least while dissident activity on both sides prevails. More  importantly from MI5’s point.of view, the  precedent that would be set during the present resurgence of Islamist threats and a barely suppressed conflict with Russia is – I would contend with regret-  unconsciable.

However, the chilling effect  of NCND may be exaggerated. Convincing narratives are emerging from official nquiries like Kenova where NCND hangs by a thread, from investigative  journalism and from justice and truth telling campaign groups. All.of these are putting pressure on both  the British and Irish states and their people in favour of acknowledgement, which is the real holy grail of eventual reconciliation.

So for society as a whole, credible narratives about both the state and  paramilitary actions seem viable, emerging as protagonists depart the scene.

The proposed panel of historians should critique the reports and be given access to state and private files to do their own independent research.

For individual victims and families the best account in each case is  what the Legacy Commission can provide. If these hit a brick wall,  pressure can be applied to.pull it down.

Has anybody got a better idea?

For God’s sake, let’s get on with it.


Discover more from Slugger O'Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.