In another of those inglorious episodes which have marked his tenure as secretary of state, Chris Heaton-Harris has written to the Irish government to complain about it daring to challenge the Tories’ Troubles legacy legislation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The formal communication, issued to Micheál Martin in his role as minister for foreign affairs by Britain’s ambassador to Ireland, Paul Johnston, is little more than a rehash of the feeble arguments that NIO figures made when Dublin announced its decision in December.
- Conor Murphy says Dublin had no choice but to challenge British legacy planOpens in new window
- UK writes to Dublin government to formally register regret at legacy legal caseOpens in new window
- Sean Brown inquest delays are entirely unjustified and point to the weakness of new Troubles legacy structuresOpens in new window
The case is a matter of “profound regret”, says Mr Heaton-Harris, who adds that it comes at a “delicate time”, which he links to ongoing attempts to revive devolution.
First, if there is any regret, it isn’t at the British government’s hurt feelings. Rather, it is at the determinedly cynical way it has ignored the clear wishes of victims and survivors throughout a process which has resulted in the wholly perverse outcome of legislation that offers immunity to perpetrators, stops legacy inquests and means there can be no more Troubles civil cases.
Second, the idea that the timing is an issue is nonsensical. The logic of Mr Heaton-Harris’s claim seems to be that the DUP - who are the single self-serving impediment to restoring power-sharing - stand poised to end their Stormont boycott but will now be dissuaded from doing so simply because Ireland has taken the interstate case.
The logic of Mr Heaton-Harris’s claim seems to be that the DUP - who are the single self-serving impediment to restoring power-sharing - stand poised to end their Stormont boycott but will now be dissuaded from doing so simply because Ireland has taken the interstate case
Even casual observers will recognise that it is the timing of the DUP’s arguments with itself which are the real obstacle to establishing an Executive. They will further note that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson has managed to give the impression that he is more annoyed with Ireland for taking a case against the UK than he is with the UK for implementing the legacy legislation his own party also opposes.
In his letter, Mr Heaton-Harris also takes a swipe at the Irish government’s own record on Troubles prosecutions since 1998. There are undoubtedly serious questions here, which deserve to be addressed, but arguing that two wrongs should make a right is a highly peculiar approach, even for this abject Tory administration.
Although difficult to see how any of these developments advance the cause of victims and survivors, Mr Heaton-Harris’s position has probably obliged him to make an intervention of this sort. However - and not for the first time - he would have been wiser saying nothing.
