Starmer accused of ‘downplaying' Troubles veterans' plight
The Government plans to axe legislation that stopped fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, as well as civil actions.
Labour has said that the 2023 Legacy Act is unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups, and judged incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Tim Collins, an ex-British Army colonel who gave a famously stirring eve-of-battle speech on the eve of the Iraq War, said that Sir Keir was 'on the wrong side of the argument'.
Col Collins, who is from Northern Ireland, attended Parliament on Wednesday to hear the Prime Minister respond to concerns raised in the Commons about the plans.
Sir David Davis said that if the plans are not reversed, the Government will 'sacrifice' veterans to 'politically-motivated lawyers trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies'.
Sir Keir in turn accused Sir David of 'cheapening the debate' and 'political point-scoring' with his remarks.
Writing for The Telegraph, Col Collins said that the Prime Minister had been 'frivolous and even disdainful' when responding to Sir David's concerns.
He said: 'The Prime Minister resorted to downplaying an issue that will confront every Labour MP during the upcoming recess.
'As they return to their constituencies, they will face a wave of furious constituents, incensed by the Government's harsh and unwarranted treatment of veterans while seemingly rewarding those who waged a 30-year campaign against the British people.'
It comes ahead of a debate in Parliament on Monday about the proposed changes to the Legacy Act, with several hundred veterans expected to descend on Whitehall to protest.
The Prime Minister said on Wednesday that Sir David 'knows this is a serious issue' but that the phrasing of his question 'did not really reflect that seriousness'.
He told MPs: 'We have to tread carefully and we have to get this right, and I'll work with him on that, but we don't get there by cheapening the debate.
'It's not about political point-scoring. I've worked in Northern Ireland, I've spoken to many of the people affected and I know that we must get this right.'
He added: 'We have to do that in a serious way to address the issues of the past, of course, in a way that has support of victims and survivors.
'That is a key test for me because without the support of victims and survivors I think it's very hard in Northern Ireland to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland, which is why we have to work in the way we do'.
The Northern Ireland veterans' tsar told The Telegraph last month that up to 70 former soldiers could end up 'in the dock' over their actions against the IRA on behalf of the British government.
Col Collins said: 'Families across the UK sent their sons to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Many never came home.
'As summer recess nears, constituents should ask their MPs a simple question: Whose side are you on?
'Will they support costly historical revisionism that diverts funds from the NHS and welfare, or will they stand with the majority of British citizens and reject baseless prosecutions?'
The shameful betrayal by the PM over our Northern Ireland veterans
Watching on from the Special Gallery in the House of Commons during Prime Minister's Questions, I was dumbstruck by the Prime Minister's response to a detailed question from Sir David Davis MP regarding the protection of Northern Ireland Veterans.
The PM was frankly frivolous and even disdainful to even be questioned on this very important issue, didn't you know he worked in Northern Ireland? Here, I thought, is a man who needs to play to the benches behind him, a man who knows he is on the wrong side of an argument that may well contribute to his downfall.
Feeling the intense scrutiny of his own Labour MPs, the Prime Minister resorted to downplaying an issue that will confront every Labour MP during the upcoming recess. As they return to their constituencies, they will face a wave of furious constituents, incensed by the Government's harsh and unwarranted treatment of veterans while seemingly rewarding those who waged a 30-year campaign against the British people.
Before Labour MPs face this reality, a Parliamentary debate is set for Monday, prompted by a petition titled 'Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution,' which has amassed over 167,000 signatures in just over two months. In my view, this is fundamentally about stopping the politically-driven harassment of our veterans, which seeks to distort and rewrite history.
This Labour Government has already stated that they plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Legacy Act, making it again possible to mount criminal cases against armed forces Veterans whilst simultaneously making it easier for those who waged war against the state and their political representatives, including Gerry Adams, to gain compensation for 30 years of malice and terrorism.
After three decades of violence, the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, widely seen as its political wing, entered a peace process led by the Government. As part of this, the Blair administration issued over 200 'comfort letters' to individuals suspected of serious crimes, providing them with written assurances that they would not face prosecution. No such guarantees were given to the MoD, nor were they considered necessary at the time.
Over 90 per cent of killings during the Troubles were perpetuated by illegal paramilitary groups, with the IRA responsible for the vast majority, including most murders within their own Catholic community.
In contrast, the police and armed forces accounted for less than 10 per cent of killings, with nearly all of these, lawful, under clear and established rules of engagement. In the rare instances of wrongdoing, charges were brought, and cases were adjudicated.
The state acted to protect civilians from sectarian violence. Through the immense service and bravery of soldiers and police officers, full-scale civil war was averted. Tragically, 800 soldiers and over 300 police officers killed, with thousands more left permanently injured.
Now, in an effort to rewrite history for a new generation, malevolent forces are seeking prosecutions for events, often over 50 years ago, in the knowledge that many, if not all, have no chance of achieving a prosecution. But the goal isn't justice, it's creating a new narrative. A revised version of history, funded by UK taxpayers, designed to suit the agenda of our former enemies.
While Sinn Féin has mobilised a cadre of republican-sympathising lawyers, bankrolled by public funds, the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office are locked in negotiation. Indeed, one Northern Ireland MP told me the Irish Government is effectively driving the Northern Ireland Office's approach.
The process now resembles a Dutch auction. The Irish Government wants up to 14 cases, possibly involving multiple veterans, while the MoD argues for none. A compromise looms, with several weak cases likely proceeding, despite the passage of time and scant evidence.
What do the respective governments gain? For Starmer, it's the prestige of appearing progressive on the global stage, earning praise from left-leaning circles for confronting history, even if that history is distorted or fabricated. Additionally, some also have a very close personal interest. Notably, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, previously represented former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams against claims made against him.
For the Irish Government, a historic coalition of two parties once divided by the Irish Civil War, the stakes are nearly existential. With Sinn Féin resurgent and poised to potentially seize power in the next election, the coalition must outshine Sinn Féin's republican credentials to secure their political survival. Targeting British veterans offers a convenient way to do so, especially when the British taxpayer foots the bill.
This issue extends far beyond Ireland. Families across the UK sent their sons to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Many never came home. As summer recess nears, constituents should ask their MPs a simple question: Whose side are you on? Will they support costly historical revisionism that diverts funds from of the NHS and welfare, or will they stand with the majority of British citizens and reject baseless prosecutions?
Following last week's contentious Welfare Bill vote and its chaotic whipping process, MPs' responses could shape the Prime Minister's future. Perhaps that explains his decision to play the man and not the issue in his dismissive response to David Davis MP. Our nation expects better.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
34 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Most Europeans would support independent Scotland joining EU, poll finds
A majority of Europeans favour an independent Scotland being allowed into the European Union – though a third of Britons would be opposed to this, a survey has found. YouGov questioned people living in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Spain on their views on the prospect of an independent Scotland becoming part of the EU. Support across these nations for Scotland to join the EU ranged from just under two-thirds (63%) to three-quarters (75%). 46% of Britons support independent Scotland joining EU 32% of Britons opposed to this But across Great Britain – where more than 2,000 people were polled – less than half (46%) said they would back an independent Scotland being part of the EU, with 32% saying they would oppose this. The research was carried out despite Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer having made clear he has no plans to allow a second vote on Scotland leaving the UK. Just last month the Labour leader said having another ballot on the issue is not a 'priority' and he cannot imagine one taking place while he is in Downing Street. And while the UK Government recently announced a new agreement with the EU, there is no prospect of the UK seeking to rejoin the trading block as things stand. YouGov's research comes almost a decade on from the 2016 Brexit referendum, which saw the UK as a whole vote to leave the EU, while Scotland voted to remain. The latest poll found 63% of French people surveyed would support an independent Scotland joining the EU, with only 13% opposed. In Italy, 64% favour Scotland being allowed to join, with 11% against, broadly similar to Spain – where 65% said they would support an independent Scotland in the EU while 13% are opposed to this. In Germany, support was higher at 68%, with only 10% of people polled against an independent Scotland being part of the EU, while in Denmark three-quarters (75%) of people back Scotland being part of the trading block, with 6% against this. External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson said: 'Brexit has diminished Scotland in every way – it has left people poorer, hurt business and ripped opportunities away from our young people. 'Returning to the EU is in the best interests of Scotland. It is central to our future economic and social success and offers us the chance to regain what has been lost by Brexit. 'With the UK Government unwilling to rejoin, it is clear that it is only with independence that Scotland can take our place at the heart of Europe as a co-operative EU member state – and it is welcome that people in many European nations stand ready to welcome us.' SNP MSP Stuart McMillan said: 'It comes as no surprise that people across Europe would welcome an independent Scotland rejoining the EU. 'People recognise the benefits of EU membership for all countries and can see the enormous damage that Brexit continues to cause. 'Brexit, which Scotland never voted for, is making people poorer, damaging our NHS, harming the economy and stealing opportunities from our young people. 'Labour's broken Brexit Britain is failing at every turn. It is only with independence that Scotland can build a better future, back where we belong in the heart of Europe.'
The National
37 minutes ago
- The National
Labour rushed to help Lindsey oil refinery. So why not Grangemouth?
Here, Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP for Falkirk East – which includes Grangemouth, writes on the Labour Government's differing approaches. LIKE many, I was alarmed to hear of the potential closure of Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire at the end of last month. On June 30, Prax Group, the owners of the refinery, announced they were going into administration, and therefore the future of the site was at risk. The very same day, the UK Government sprang into action. Energy Minister Michael Shanks gave a statement to the House of Commons confirming the [[UK Government]] is funding the continued operation of the refinery, adding: 'The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers.' Energy Minister Michael ShanksNow, I welcome this, and any action to save jobs is commendable. All options should be considered to keep Lindsey operating. But as the constituency MSP for Grangemouth, I cannot help but think – while the [[UK Government]] sprang into action for the Lindsey refinery the day the news broke, where was that sense of urgency and action for [[Grangemouth]]? Yes, the circumstances are different – but over a period of months, there was nothing even close to what took place for Lindsey in a day – no urgent statement, and little to no meaningful Government intervention. READ MORE: Labour admit 'not a penny' of £200m Grangemouth rescue fund spent This isn't the first time either. Many Scots were quite rightly astounded that the UK Government very quickly spent billions to save British Steel in Scunthorpe but came nowhere close for Grangemouth. It's worth repeating that Scotland generates well over 90% of the UK's crude oil in any given year – but now has no capacity to refine it. It's also worth repeating that Labour promised to save [[Grangemouth]] before the election and failed. Indeed, the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland said: "We would step in to save the jobs at the refinery." This is the second refinery to face closure on Labour's watch, with thousands of related jobs being lost elsewhere in the supply chain. It would appear that, when it comes to industry elsewhere in the UK, Westminster can immediately pull out all the stops – but when it's in Scotland, the [[UK Government]] simply isn't interested. READ MORE: 'Unacceptable': SNP hit out as Labour 'keep Tory-era veto on Scottish laws' Some may argue that these issues are for the Scottish Government to respond to. This is correct – but any response must include the power to take financial action in the form of significant borrowing powers. These are powers that the [[Scottish Government]] lacks. The truth is, Grangemouth is just as important to Scotland's industrial output as Lindsey is to England's. It's no wonder that a growing number in Scotland quite rightly feel that Scotland is an afterthought to this – or any – UK government. It begs the question: if the UK Government can immediately step in to save major industrial sites in England – on more than one occasion – then why not in Scotland? My view is, as it always has been, that the only way to ensure Scotland's massive natural wealth is utilised for the benefit of Scotland's people is with independence for Scotland.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Rachel Reeves' mortgage bombshell do more harm than good?
There's a great deal riding on Rachel Reeves' Mansion House speech tonight – more so than usual. Between the government's welfare reform plans being torn to shreds, the economy hitting a wall and public finances being mired in a sea of red ink, things haven't been great for the chancellor lately. Then there was her tearful appearance in the House of Commons a few weeks ago, blamed on a personal issue, and the lukewarm endorsement she received from Keir Starmer – which was swiftly reversed because the fiscally hawkish Reeves is seen in the City as greatly preferable to any of her possible replacements, and the markets reacted very badly when speculation about her future was at its height. Of course, she is not solely responsible for all of the above, but she does need to get back on the front foot – and her audience with City grandees is key to her success. As is typically the case with the annual event, large parts of its contents have been pushed out in advance – most notably the so-called 'Leeds reforms' which will tear up some of the post-financial crisis regulations that the City has been chafing against. At the centre of this are plans to make it easier for people to obtain bigger mortgages. The government is also launching a state-backed mortgage guarantor. The risks are obvious: do this and you could easily end up with more bad debt and more defaults when economic conditions turn against borrowers. Interest rates are on a downward path, and mortgage deals have been improving, which helps. But it won't always be that way, and unemployment is rising (thanks in part to Reeves increasing taxes on jobs). The new guarantor will also inevitably shift the burden of risk on to the taxpayer. Am I alone in having a problem with privatised profits and socialised losses? The City will always applaud deregulation, and quietly welcomed Labour's prodding the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to cool its regulatory jets and get with the programme. The Leeds reforms promise more of the same – including reform of the Financial Ombudsman, which has in recent years been functioning as a quasi-regulator. That, we are told, will end. An easing of the much hated senior managers and certification regime, another post-crisis measure, is promised. Ditto the FCA's consumer duty rules. So, too, are there are plans to boost fintech – and to ensure the Basel capital rules on banks are implemented in a way that 'supports UK competitiveness'. I suspect this means we'll find a way of cheating. A review of the ring-fencing regime – designed to protect retail banking assets (so yours and mine) from the City casino – is promised. My bet is that this will end up getting scrapped. Cross your fingers. If things go wrong again, it could get very messy. And there will be another crisis. It's in the nature of banking. City trade body UK Finance was positively gushing in response. 'We submitted a range of ideas to government to help support growth and the UK's position as a global financial centre. Across many of these key areas the chancellor has listened and delivered significant positive change,' said its CEO, David Postings. Of course he did. But here's the thing: if you take a look at the Treasury's press release, you will see that there is one very big omission. It is the one thing everyone attending tonight's shindig will want to hear about. It trumps even the most radical parts of the 'Leeds Reforms' and will ultimately be what Reeves is judged on. By now you've doubtless guessed that I'm talking about tax. Reeves has already soaked businesses by taxing jobs, with predictable results when it comes to unemployment. The City's view is that it already pays enough, contributing nearly £1 in every £10 the chancellor raises. Reeves is hoping that her reforms will spur growth, which she desperately needs. The City will tell her that it won't happen if she hits it again. That doesn't just apply to her increasing the burden on businesses. She will also be told not to hammer Britain's millionaires. With little headroom left over, her self-imposed fiscal rules and a tax-raising budget expected, Reeves has said the burden of balancing the books will fall on those whose shoulders are 'the broadest'. Most would agree that this is only fair. Many understandably find it offensive that Britain's poorest are being kicked via what remains of welfare reform while the richest employ clever accountants to cut their bills. But if she hits the uber rich too hard it turns into a zero sum game, because while some will stick around and grouse about their bills, others will just leave altogether. The result is that you don't end up raising more money – and you may, in fact, end up with less. So, how does Reeves plan to solve this problem ? I'm not sure the City will get an answer. Not yet. Reeves has made a start at re-establishing some credibility and authority, but the likely response to Mansion House will be this: 'Good start. But our verdict – and our business decisions – are on hold until the budget is in.'
