subscribe to the RSS Feed

Sunday, August 9, 2026

Varadkar rejects Davis’s hi-tech border solution

Posted by Jim on April 26, 2018

” As this article from the London Times shows, the Irish government is holding the line very well against any British attempt to re-establish a ‘hard’ Border.

 I was born and reared by the British-imposed Border that cruelly partitions Ireland.

London passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, dividing Ireland into two artificial units:Six Counties in the north east, and 26 Counties for the rest of the country, ‘Southern Ireland’ (even though County Donegal is the most northern County in the whole country).

Indeed, that damn Border partitioned not only my country but also my historic parish of Kinawley—leaving part in Fermanagh, one of the Six Counties in Northern Ireland, and the other part in County Cavan, one of the 26 Counties of the Irish Free State, which was named Republic of Ireland in 1949.

To me, therefore,  the Border became the very symbol and personification of England’s injustice in Ireland ( I say ‘England’ because one can hardly blame Wales or Scotland).”—Fr. Sean McManus 

Varadkar rejects Davis’s hi-tech border solution

Jennifer Bray, Oliver Wright. The Times. London.Thursday, April 26, 2018

The taoiseach has challenged new claims made by the British Brexit secretary that the border issue can be solved through technology.

David Davis told a Brexit committee in Westminster yesterday that the technology to deliver a near-frictionless border — including number-plate recognition, authorised economic operator systems and electronic pre-authorisation — already existed and said the UK government had started talks with potential suppliers.

Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney, the tánaiste, dismissed the suggestion. “I am not aware of the existence of the technology that secretary of state Davis seems to believe exists,” Mr Varadkar said. “We have always said that there cannot be a technical solution to the border challenge. It requires a political and legal solution, and that is what we have been working towards.”

Mr Coveney said on a trip to Derry yesterday: “This is not going to be solved by technology and cameras and scanning systems and drones on the border.

“What’s required here is a backstop, which is a political agreement that is consistent with maintaining full alignment with the rules of the customs union and single market in the areas that are necessary to allow for the all- island economy to function, and north-south co-operation to function, and to protect the Good Friday agreement.

“That’s the commitment that’s been made by both sides and now we’re looking for a legal text which reflects that.”

Mr Davis said that the UK planned to submit a new “backstop” for the border. Last year, the Irish government hailed a “bulletproof” backstop plan that would effectively mean Northern Ireland would remain in the customs union if no other agreement was reached.

The UK has rejected this plan and six weeks of negotiations in Brussels have failed to break the deadlock.

Mr Davis has described the backstop as a “reserve parachute” and said that “nobody sees that as the most desirable outcome”.

Negotiators were working on new wording for the backstop solution, he said. “We will come up with our own wording on it. We are working on that as we speak. Then we’ll have an argument about it, I’m sure.”

Mr Varadkar said that he wanted to see the new backstop plan “if it exists”.

“I did see reports that the UK will put forward an alternative text to the Irish protocol to option c [the backstop],” he said. “We would certainly welcome seeing that alternative. That is exactly the kind of engagement we would like to see from the UK, but we have yet to see an alternative text put forward by the UK. We would like to see such a thing, if it exists.”

Mr Davis also suggested yesterday that the June deadline for finding a solution to the border may be “artificial” and that in reality it may not be solved until after the UK has left the EU. “We’re in the middle of a negotiation,” he said. “One of the things that happens in negotiations is people try to set up deadlines, sometimes artificial deadlines, to put pressure on one element of the negotiation which they think is in their favour. We’ve seen a little bit of that.”

Mr Coveney said there was “nothing artificial about the commitments that have been made on dealing with the border issue comprehensively”. The Irish government was not asking for everything to be finalised by June, he said, but it did expect to see significant progress.

Mr Varadkar told the Dáil: “It is our view that we need to see sufficient and substantial progress on Irish issues by June.”

The government has said repeatedly that the UK can avoid a hard border by staying in the customs union, but Mr Davis seemed to rule this out. “I do not expect the solution to be an extension of the customs union,” he said. “I would view that on my part as a failure.”

Former soldiers willing to help Ballymurphy Massacre inquest

Posted by Jim on

Lawyers for the Coroners Service have interviewed and taken statements from two military witnesses.

Families of those killed in the 1971 Ballymurphy Massacre protest outside Belfast's Royal Courts of Justice (Lesley-Anne McKeown/PA)11
Families of those killed in the 1971 Ballymurphy Massacre protest outside Belfast’s Royal Courts of Justice (Lesley-Anne McKeown/PA)

0

More than 30 former soldiers are willing to assist an inquest examining the deaths of 10 civilians shot by troops in west Belfast almost 50 years ago.

The figure was revealed as Belfast Coroner’s Court was told Army veterans were being encouraged to throw letters from the Coroners Service in the bin.

Ten people, including a Catholic priest and a mother-of-eight, were were killed during three days of gunfire involving members of the Parachute Regiment in August 1971. Another man died of a heart attack following an alleged violent confrontation with the troops in the west Belfast estate.

The incident has become known as the “Ballymurphy Massacre”.

At a preliminary hearing in Belfast’s Royal Courts of Justice, Sean Doran QC, counsel for the Coroners Service, said letters had been sent to 60 potential military witnesses.

Some 32 had indicated they were prepared to help, while seven were “reluctant” to assist, the court was told.

Mr Doran said: “The core group comprises a pot of 60 witnesses. Responses have been received from 46 witnesses. It has been confirmed that five are deceased.

“Of the 41 responses from those who are alive, 32 of them have said they are prepared to assist.

“Seven are reluctant. Two say they are unwell and perhaps too unwell to assist.”

Lawyers for the Coroners Service have interviewed and taken statements from two military witnesses.

A further two interviews have been lined up and six have yet to be arranged.

However, Michael Mansfield QC, who is representing a number of victims’ families, described as “serious” reports that a veterans group had urged ex-soldiers to bin correspondence from the coroner.

There is a risk potential witnesses could be influenced, he said.

Mr Mansfield said: “Putting it shortly, we would submit on behalf of the families that this report, assuming it is accurate, reveals a totally unacceptable situation and it is reprehensible whereby an organisation, namely the Justice for Northern Ireland Veterans, is telling people not to co-operate and put the letters in the bin.

“We would ask that this be addressed and dealt with.”

Judge Siobhan Keegan, who is presiding over the high profile case, said enquiries about the validity of the claims would have to be made.

But she added: “If this is right, it is a total disrespect that somebody would say put the inquest letters in the bin.”

Mrs Justice Keegan also told the court she would write to the MoD and any other organisation regarding the matter.

“If I feel I have to send correspondence to any other organisation other than the MoD I will,” the judge said.

Mr Doran said: “Perhaps and open and public response from the MoD might be appropriate in this case.”

Meanwhile, the families’ request for an independent “tracing agency” to track down potential witnesses was also raised during the hearing.

Mrs Keegan said she would keep the issue “under review”.

Soldiers claimed they had come under attack and returned fire. But the Ballymurphy families have demanded an acknowledgement that their loved ones were wrongfully killed.

In 2010, then-prime minister David Cameron apologised for the actions of the paratroopers on Bloody Sunday after a long-running public inquiry by Lord Saville found the shootings had been unjustified, as the victims posed no threat.

But the Government has rejected calls for a probe – on a smaller scale – into the events in Ballymurphy, insisting it was not in the public interest.

A fresh inquest has been scheduled to start in September.

Mrs Keegan told the court she wanted to ensure it stayed on track.

“My imperative is to try to effectively case manage.

“There is quite a lot of preparatory work to be done in this case, so that is why I want to keep a close eye and handle on it.”

Earlier, the judge had issued a stern warning for legal representatives to resolve outstanding issues causing delay.

She said: “The people at the back of the courtroom have waited a very long time to get an inquest — 47 years.

“And all I get now are problems – and there are problems in this case, but I see nothing by way of purposeful conversation about solutions.”

Victims’ relatives staged a protest outside the court, and were joined by a number of Sinn Fein elected representatives.

Speaking afterwards, John Teggart, whose father Danny was among those killed, welcomed the “firm hand” taken by the judge.

The case has been adjourned until next month.

Remembering Rosemary Nelson

Posted by Jim on April 25, 2018

Posted: 25 Apr 2018

Via The Transcripts John McDonagh marks the nineteenth anniversary of the death of Lurgan solicitor Rosemary Nelson (d. 15 March 1999) with an audio clip of the 20 March 1999 Democracy Now! episode in which host Amy Goodman played the full 4 April 1998 Radio Free Éireann interview with Rosemary as part of her news report on Rosemary’s assassination by Loyalists.


Rosemary Nelson RFÉ 4 April 1999
Radio Free Éireann
WBAI 99.5FM Pacifica Radio
New York City
(begins time stamp ~24:24) Audio Player
John: Now we’re going to do you know another ‘blast from the past’. We’re going to play you a clip from Democracy Now! in 1999. She played an interview that we did on Radio Free Éireann (myself with Sandy Boyer and Brian Mór Ó Baoighill) and it was with Rosemary Nelson. She’s a lawyer from Lurgan and she was over highlighting what was going on in The Six Counties at that time and the pressure that she was under and the death threats that she was getting and during the interview I asked her, I said you know: How do you protect yourself? Do you feel afraid? And she said: Yes, I feel afraid but, she said, You know, what can I do? If they’re going to come for me – that’s it. And not long after that interview she was killed by Loyalist death squads. So I wanted to play this in her honour – it’s the nineteenth anniversary of her death. And then when we come back we’re going to head over to Dear Ol’ Donegal and talk about the Donegal Donkey Sanctuary.

Audio: Clip of Democracy Now! begins.

Amy: (station identification) Northern Ireland’s predominantly Protestant police force faces allegations that it rejected a request to protect human rights lawyer, Rosemary Nelson, who was killed on Sunday by a car bomb outside her home in Lurgan thirty miles away from Belfast. Nelson had represented a number of defendants accused of belonging to the Irish Republican Army. The Red Hand Defenders, an anti-Catholic group, has claimed responsibility for the killing. Representatives of Sinn Féin yesterday accused Northern Ireland’s police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary known as the RUC, of culpability in Nelson’s death saying the force had refused to provide security for Nelson’s protection. Protesters who took to the streets in the hours after the murder also accused the police force of complicity in the murder. The RUC flatly denied that any application for protection had ever been made on Nelson’s behalf. These charges came as Northern Ireland’s police chief, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, announced the British police would head the investigation into Nelson’s killing and he also requested help from the FBI. Today Rosemary Nelson is being buried. There is a funeral for her in Northern Ireland. And on this day we decided to play you an interview that Pacifica station WBAI did with her last April. It was part of the programme, Radio Free Éireann, which is a weekly Irish programme on WBAI that is run by John McDonagh and his collective. This is Rosemary Nelson:

Rosemary Nelson
Photo: The Belfast Telegraph

Rosemary: I’m out on this tour at the invitation of the Irish-American Labor Coalition and I’m very indebted to them for giving us this opportunity to highlight lawyer intimidation in The Six Counties over here because the United Nations recently published a report which has been presented and deals solely with lawyer intimidation and the difficulties faced by people defending people of certain political persuasions within The Six Counties.

John: What type of intimidation are you talking about? Is it from the state itself?

Rosemary: It’s from the RUC. It’s from members of the RUC. It’s not a new problem. It’s a problem that has been going on for a long time – it was there prior to Pat Finucane’s death and has gone on subsequent to his death. It can vary from physical assault to death threats. Now, death threats are fairly regular; they’re relayed regularly to you through clients and, in fact, I was physically assaulted by the RUC and called a ‘Fenian effer’ on the Garvaghy Road last year when the police lines moved in.

John: Right. Maybe explain to our audience: Who exactly was Pat Finucane?

Rosemary: Pat Finucane was a lawyer who defended quite a few high-profile Republican cases, quite a few high-profile Republican clients. Pat Finucane was shot dead. In any other jurisdiction in the world that calls itself a democracy the killing of a lawyer for defending their clients would have been attacked, would have been questioned, would have been investigated but, simply because of the allegations of collusion which were raised at the time and continue to be raised, the British government didn’t want to address this – the RUC obviously didn’t want to address it – so Pat Finucane died. He was simply shot dead for defending people with whose views the RUC didn’t agree.

Sandy: What has been your personal experience with threats from the RUC?

Rosemary: I’ve had death threats. I’ve had death threats from the RUC. I’ve had threatening telephone calls to the house. I mean, it’s fairy difficult to describe. Any contact at all with the RUC – the hatred’s absolutely palpable. It’s frightening. I mean, this is a frightening organisation. And this isn’t particular to me. This is particular to any defence lawyer who touches this type of work.

Sandy: But I understand that there are relatively, perhaps because of this intimidation, there are relatively few defence lawyers who are willing to touch this kind of work.

Rosemary:
Absolutely! Yes. I think the number of defence lawyers who touch this type of work are restricted to something like thirty-forty and in that context, in fact, thirty-three lawyers within the past two or three months issued a media statement basically calling for disbandment of the RUC and pointing out that there’s a crisis of confidence in the rule of law in The Six Counties. People cannot and will not rely on getting justice while the RUC is the RUC and remains unreformed.

Brian Mór: Why is it there seems to be such an interest in the Finucane case right now?

Rosemary: The interest in the Finucane case has just recently resurfaced. It appears that new evidence has emerged after the role of Brian Nelson and British Intelligence handlers in this. Now this was addressed, the case was addressed specifically in the UN report and you’re right! It’s a case that’s gone on for far, far too long – it hasn’t been looked at. And the response of the British government to the report has been totally inadequate. The British government says that the matter’s been investigated twice and won’t be investigated again. The fact is the matter was investigated twice by the RUC and it’s against the RUC that these allegations of collusion are made! We need openness and impartiality.

Sandy: Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about these revelations, about Brian Nelson and his role in the assassination of Pat Finucane?

Rosemary:
Yes, certainly. Brian Nelson was a UDA (Ulster Defence Association) man. Brian Nelson in fact was a British agent who infiltrated the UDA. He eventually was charged with a number of very, very serious charges including murder. It emerged that during the time the British intelligence services were handling Brian Nelson he had indicated to these people that Pat Finucane was actively being targeted and was going to be shot. Pat Finucane wasn’t warned. The RUC didn’t warn him. British Intelligence did warn him. Therefore, he died. He was shot dead. Now as I said, Brian Nelson was charged with very, very serious charges – it appeared that he actively took part in some of these terrible acts. He made a statement apparently. He made a statement of some eight hundred pages admitting his involvement and admitting the involvement of British intelligence services in a lot of terrorist incidents in The Six Counties. That case never came to trial because the Attorney General who prosecuted – who at the time, incidentally, was Sir Patrick Mayhew – who briefed Brian Kerr, who’s now Mr. Justice Brian Kerr, as his counsel – withdrew several of the most serious of those charges including murder charges. And in fact, the court was told at the time that those charges were withdrawn and – this is a quote – after ‘a rigourous examination of the interest of justice.’ Well, who’s justice? Certainly not Pat Finucane’s.

John: Maybe was can describe how this climate is created with the Loyalists – there’s certain things they drop to Loyalist prisoners, the RUC. You can speak about that MP getting up in the House of Commons – how they create an atmosphere where your life is in danger. What do the RUC say? Where they can really back off and say: Listen, we had nothing to do with this. But I understand through interrogations of Loyalist prisoners they drop maybe your name or Pat Finucane’s name.

Rosemary: Yes, well they will do that when interrogating Loyalist prisoners they’ll say things like: I don’t know why you don’t shoot those Republican solicitors you have. I don’t know how they can be allowed to live. I don’t know why they don’t die? I mean clients of mine are arrested on fairy routine matters and they’re told: Don’t request Nelson. She won’t be about much longer. She’s going to be shot. Now, if they say that long enough and they get someone suggestible enough who’s to say what’s going to happen? It’s a dangerous practice. It worked. Pat Finucane died. And quite, I mean quite a few very competent, very able lawyers simply don’t touch this type of work because they’re afraid because it can seriously endanger your health.

John: Also with us in the studio is Jean Forest, she’s with US Voice of Human Rights in Northern Ireland. Yes, Jean – who are we defending now?

Jean Forest: Rosemary, the UN report is something like thirty-two pages long but could you give us some of the highlights? What they’re bringing out? Naturally, the British have officially rejected the tone of the report. (I picked that up on the internet last night.) Could you give us a summary of some of the highlights of that report?

Rosemary: Yes, indeed. The United Nations report found, quite categorically, that there’s routine, systematic and concerted intimidation of defence lawyers within The Six County jurisdiction as a result of the type of work they do. It called for an open investigation into allegations of intimidation against defence lawyers – and incidentally when this happens who do we report it to? The RUC? The RUC finds itself invariably innocent in cases like this – and it’s called for an open, impartial and independent investigation into the death of Pat Finucane. Now I think after ‘rigourous examination of the interest of justice’ this case demands openness.

John:
I want to get to one of the other things you do – you represent some of the community where the Orangemen are marching through the Garvaghy Road…

Rosemary: …That’s right…

John: …and I remember last year you were in negotiations with the British government, I believe maybe even Mo Mowlam, up until like two in the morning when, it was later found out, they were just having you there and just leading you on – I mean, why would anybody want to negotiate now with the British government especially after what they did to you last year? Because I believe I read somewhere you were up until two or three in the morning the day before the march having legitimate negotiations about what to do and meanwhile they brought in all the British troops and forced the Orangemen through. I mean, is it possible to go back this year and do the same negotiations?

Rosemary: Well, what actually happened last year was: I represent the coalition, the Garvahy Road Residents’ Coalition. These people sought to act within the law. These people had me there so that I could challenge a decision in a court, in a court of law. I remained there for that. In the end no decision was made. No decision was notified. These people were denied access to the courts for a change. Now, whether or not that will happen this year is totally out of my hands; it’s up to the residents’ coalition but I can say that that’s a community that has suffered and suffered greatly. Now I was downtown today at a Martin Luther King memorial rally and I saw some great posters there (actually which I mean to bring back) which said: ‘I Am Somebody’ – that’s what these people need to believe – that they are somebody. So far they’ve been told they’re not. And I sincerely hope that will change this year.

Sandy: Rosemary, we had on the sister, on I believe it was on Saint Patrick’s Day, with Jean, the sister of Robert Hamill, a case that you had the misfortune, I’d say, of handling…

Rosemary: …Yeah…

Sandy: …a young man who was kicked to death on the streets of his hometown simply for being a Catholic and the RUC was involved in that case as well I believe. Can you tell us about that?

Rosemary: I can. That case is absolutely horrific. It’s appalling. And it’s something that should not take place in any democracy under any circumstances. This, again, was coming up to the marching season in Portadown. Nobody can underestimate the atmosphere in Portadown coming up to this march. Robert Hamill was returning home with a few friends after a night out. A Loyalist crowd began to gather. Somebody was walking down in front of Robert Hamill as the crowd cried: A Catholic! approached police in a Land Rover who were parked some yards from where the crowd had gathered, warned the policeman that Robert Hamill and his friends were coming down and may need protection because of the extent of the hostility. Robert Hamill and his friends saw the van, felt safe (because they were policemen) and walked down the street. They were attacked by the Loyalist mob. Robert Hamill died and the RUC didn’t even open the door of the Land Rover to see what had happened. Robert Hamill died within full view and within yards of an RUC Land Rover.

Sandy:
And what do they say happened to the RUC men who sat in the van while he was kicked to death?

Rosemary: Well this is all very interesting because I mean, obviously, as legal representative for the family, I’ve been writing to the Secretary of State, I’ve written to the RUC, I’ve written everywhere – I can’t get any official identification as to who these people were – they won’t even tell me who they are. But I do know that they’re not suspended from duty. I do know that they’re still actively serving within the RUC. And they’ll not give any answers. They’ll not tell us why it happened. Robert Hamill, it appears, was dispensable. He was just another life.

John: Rosemary, I want to get back to you. You’re describing all the death threats you’re getting, the RUC cursing at you in the streets. What do you do for your own protection?

Rosemary: Nothing. I mean, what can you do? You sort of stay in your own area and of course you can take security precautions – and I sure do all that sort of thing. I’m married. I have a young family. I’ve got three young children. I’d like them to live as normal a life as possible and I don’t want them to be polluted by RUC threats if it’s at all avoidable.

John: But then this brings up: Why do you take on these cases because like you said all your other fellow solicitors are now backing away after what happened to Pat Finucane and they know the headaches that you get when you take on some of these cases – why you consistently do this?

Rosemary: I live in Lurgan. I’m local to the town. I live around the Lurgan-Portadown area. I can’t say to these people: I’ll handle your personal injury claims, I’ll handle your property transfers but if you get into trouble – don’t ask for me.

Amy: Rosemary Nelson – the late Rosemary Nelson – she’s being buried today in her hometown. Violent protest in the Northern Ireland town and the killing of a former Protestant guerrilla overshadowed the Saint Patrick’s Day peace appeals yesterday by Irish and British politicians and by President Clinton. Violence erupted in the town of Portadown on the eve of Rosemary Nelson’s funeral today, the human rights lawyer who was killed this week by a group tied to a pro-British paramilitary outfit – it’s called the Red Hand Defenders. She was interviewed on Pacifica station WBAI last April by Radio Free Éireann, a weekly Irish show that includes John McDonagh, Sandy Boyer and Brian Mór. (station identification)

Audio: Clip of Democracy Now! ends.

John: (station identification)

We’re now live and we just replayed that because it’s the nineteenth anniversary of Rosemary Nelson being killed by Loyalist death squads and it was a very eerie interview. At the time you didn’t think much about it – asking her about her safety – but that was played on Democracy Now! so that went nationwide. And for me, it was just great to hear Sandy Boyer’s voice and hearing Brian Mór and that and we’ll probably play it again next year. That interview got worldwide attention on the BBC, RTÉ and Democracy Now!

US Congress members raise concern over legacy issues

Posted by Jim on

US Congress members raise concern over legacy issues

RFJ director Mark Thompson

Connla Young – Irish News

Members of the US congress have raised concerns about continued delays in dealing with legacy issues in the north.

A letter, which has been signed by 16 members of congress, was recently sent to the British ambassador in Washington, Kim Darroch.

The congress members said they are “concerned by the ongoing absence of adequate resources for coroners’ investigations into deaths during the Troubles”.

“We are also concerned by a proposal in Westminster for a statute of limitations for British military personnel,” they said.

The politicians also raised concerns about “at the approach of the United Kingdom on national security issues in relation to the essential work of the proposed Historical Investigations Unit in investigating the hundreds of outstanding cases”.

They said said the establishment of the Stormont House legacy framework and addressing inquests “is long overdue” and urged the British government to “to do everything in its power to see these steps taken now”.

Relatives for Justice director Mark Thompson has recently visited the US and as well as briefing members of congress provided evidence at a congressional hearing.

“Families have waited far too long for accountability. Legacy, legal obligations and human rights, sit quite separately from the politics and political vacuum and must be addressed whether or not the political institutions are reestablished,” he said.

The ancient Order of Hibernians in America has also welcomed the letter.

Prominent New York member Martin Galvin last night said: “We welcome this Congressional scrutiny and will monitor and provide information in relation to the British government’s response.”

Malign influence of Powell alive and well

Posted by Jim on

Brian Feeney in article below reminds us all about Enoch Powell (1912-1998)— the nasty old racist, anti-Irish, and anti-Catholic politician who “parachuted” into Northern Ireland to get re-elected when the English finally rejected his racism.It was later revealed that Fr. Mc Manus, while he was still in England, had also been in Powell’s crosshairs.

http://www.irishnationalcaucus.org/fr-mc-manus-enoch-powel…/

Malign influence of Powell alive and well
“[Enoch Powell’s] extremist views were immediately attractive to—who else?— but Ulster Unionists. In October 1974 33,000 unionists elected this man, reviled as a racist and publicly shunned by MPs of all parties in Britain, MP for South Down which he remained until defeated in 1987…
Brian Feeney. Irish New. Belfast. Wednesday, April 24, 2014

It turned out that it was wonderfully appropriate to broadcast Enoch Powell’s notorious speech of April 20, 1968 on its fiftieth anniversary last week.

The broadcast and commentary surrounding the speech coincided with Theresa May’s nasty government being caught on treating post-war immigrants from the Caribbean in, to use the current home secretary’s words, an ‘appalling’ fashion. May’s behavior as home secretary from 2010 to 2016 was shown to be perfectly consistent with the attitude to immigrants displayed by British governments since the 1950s. In her case it was just more explicit.

Powell’s speech in 1968 didn’t just come out of the blue. It was in the context of a powerful populist racist campaign Powell led to block the entry to the UK of East African Asians with British passports. The Labour government, spooked by enormous marches and demonstrations supporting Powell, rushed through emergency legislation, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, in three days. East African Asians were being given a rough time in newly independent Kenya and Uganda. Powell and racists like him feared Asians from Kenya and Uganda would arrive in England and change the blood line of their fantasy ‘sceptered isle, this other Eden, demi-paradise’, making it no longer purely English. What nonsense.

Immigration was an issue in the 1970 general election and many think Labour’s perceived weakness on the issue and Powell’s campaigning lost them the election. Lost despite Labour passing that 1968 act, the most blatantly racist piece of legislation to deprive British citizens of their right to come to Britain. It led in 1973 to a case in the European Court of Human Rights, East African Asians v. UK, in which the UK was found guilty of breaching Articles 3, 5, 8 and 14 of the European Convention. Did they care? Not a bit.

However in contrast to the attitude and behaviour of this British government, Ted Heath the Conservative leader in 1968, sacked Powell from the shadow cabinet. He spent the next six years intriguing with Labour against his own party until in 1974 he repudiated the Conservative government and campaigned fiercely against joining the EEC as it was then. He was delighted when Labour won the first 1974 election with his public support hoping Harold Wilson, the Labour prime minister, would hold a referendum advocating leaving the EEC. By that time Powell was a political pariah shunned by Conservatives as a ‘Judas’ and regarded as a dangerous maverick by Labour.

His extremist views on the purity of Britishness, his hostility to the EEC as a diminution of British sovereignty and his nostalgia for empire placed him out on a limb, a figure of evil for some. Powell was such an imperialist that he was shocked to the core by Indian independence in 1947. He had wanted to be viceroy of India (honest) and on the announcement of independence he walked the streets of London all that night in despair.

Not to worry. His extremist views were immediately attractive to—who else?— but Ulster Unionists. In October 1974 33,000 unionists elected this man, reviled as a racist and publicly shunned by MPs of all parties in Britain, MP for South Down which he remained until defeated in 1987 by the SDLP’s Eddie McGrady.

Unionists didn’t care that Powell believed the Common Travel Area allowing Irish the same rights as British people in the UK was an absurdity. In fact they agreed with him because after all they were British weren’t they – until they arrived in England? Powell exercised a malign influence on the UUP insisting that devolved government with Irish influence was a diminution of British sovereignty. Integration was what he advocated, a complete dead end as a policy because no British government, even Thatcher’s, would accept it. However poor Jim Molyneaux bought it, in awe of Powell.

We know now that Powell said aloud on immigration what many senior British politicians believed then and now. We know Thatcher regularly met Powell and listened to him and that he was revered by Conservative right-wingers who listened to his views about the EU as it became. In fact you can trace a direct line from Powell’s 1968 speech to today’s Brexiteers.