Ulster: towards withdrawal?

The result of the election to the Ulster Constitutional Convention was a severe blow to the Westminster Government and also, of course, to those redoubtable political warriors, Mr Fitt and Mr Faulkner. The latter, indeed, is now certainly finished; having destroyed his political career in a grim battle to save his province and the Westminster connection. It is likely — perhaps even certain — that the dominant United Loyalist Coalition will now come in to open conflict with Mr Merlyn Rees, for the concessions they are prepared to offer to the SDLAP — places on powerfuly legislative committees below cabinet level — are unlikely to satisfy Mr Rees and Mr Fitt and their colleagues. In such a situation we are likley to see yet another major confrontation — for Protestant workers seem determined again to bring the province to a halt if Westminster does not give way to the demands of the coalition for what amounts to a return to the Stormont system before direct rule.

Prone though the Irish, of all political and religious colours, are to dwell on the past, it would be useless now to go over all the details of the rights and wrongs of the past in Ulster, even to the extent of re-stating the argument that it was the continual pussy-footing of British politicians, especially in regard to the use of the army that led us to the present impasse in which, while the IRA prepares to renew its armed struggle, the British Government falls over backwards to release its thugs from confinement. But there is one fundamental fact from the past which must not be forgotten, for its bears heavily on the claims now being made by Mr Craig, Mr West and Mr John Taylor that Westminster must bow to the will of the people of Ulster as expressed in the return of forty-six Loyalist members to the new assembly. It is this: over and above what stringent measures were needed for security purposes, the dominant Protestant majority in Ulster steadily and systematically persecuted even the loyal Catholic population of the province for nearly half a century. It matters not that successive Westminster governments turned a blind eye to what was going on in what purported to be a part of the United Kingdom: the fact of the matter was that Unionist governments regularly and deliberately fell well below the standards of political rights set for that kingdom. It is this fact, combined with the professed loyalty of Ulster to the Crown, which gave Mr Heath his mandate for direct rule; and it is this record which dictates that Mr Rees and his colleagues should not now, as long as the Ulster majority wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom, yield their powers to a convention majority on any terms other than those acceptable to Parliament at Westminster.

Of course it is not only the Ulster Protestants who have been guilty of malfeasance in Ireland. Until very recently Dublin governments, despite many professions of good faith, declined to play anything like a decent part in the stamping out of mainly Catholic terrorism. Even now, the Opposition party of Mr Jack Lynch — once regarded in some uncritical quarters in this island as the epitome of responsibility and good sense — is bitterly fighting proposals to make easier the extradition of criminals and terrorists. And it was, of course, sections of the Catholic population of Ulster that made possible, by their succour, the rise of IRA gunmen. But the Westminster government, faced with a triumphant and very probably hostile Assembly majority, must needs concentrate on its own moral authority vis-a-vis the Protestants; and if an acceptable solution is not found to the problem of the structure of an Ulster government then it will be necessary to begin to think of withdrawal.

The one direct and unvarying responsibility of Westminster in Ulster affairs has been and always will be to the army, which has fought so gallant a campaign against terrorism, badly supported though it has been at home. Westminster's responsibility to a Catholic population that is essentially republican in tendency has long been discharged, both by providing them with protection, and by a stream of civil rights legislation. The moment is rapidly approaching when, if the Protestants prove intransigent, it will be necessary to break with them finally, for the army cannot be expected to face the hostility of both communities in an atmosphere of industrial disruption when both circumstances and political pusillanimity have denied it the means of decisive action. A dominant Ulster Assembly would, of course, have to be warned that the province would be unlikely to survive on its own without the close support of Britain — which it could not, after a withdrawal, expect — or of the EEC; and on its entry into that organisation the Republic of Ireland would enjoy a veto, and would probably use it.

Freedom to rape

Judges are sometimes fools, and the law often an ass, but the worst qualities of both can rarely have been seen in so obvious a fashion as in the recent judgement on the applicability of pleas in rape cases. Essentially their Lordships, in their wisdom, have ordained that, if a woman acused a man of rape and he is brought to trial he should be found guilty if the jury believes that he genuinely believed that that the woman, in spite of any resistance offered, had consented to intercourse. Hitherto, the jury has been required to estimate whether any conviction expressed by the accused to this effect was reasonable or not; and this gave a court the opportunity of considering whether a woman bringing such an accusation had, perhaps, behaved coquettishly, or whether her prosecution had some element of vengeance about it. The vital alteration which their Lordships have made — in striking out the consideration of reasonableness — makes it both unlikely that a rape victim will prosecute (it is notoriously difficult to persuade such victims to prosecute even now) and more likely that a rapist will get off.

The moral as well as the legal implications are staggering. Essentially, the Law Lords have taken another step towards the destruction of that cornerstone of personal responsibility for action which was once one of the vital elements in English criminal law; for in the circumstances which they now postulate almost any pervert will find it easy to make a plea of consent, both flattering to insane vanity and pleasing to the twisted mind. And again, the Law Lords have struck a savage blow against the possibility of rape victims receiving redress for what is one of the most brutal as it is one of the most destructive crimes on the statute book. The Labour MP, Mr Jack Ashley, who intends to raise the matter with a view to legislative action is to be congratulated and supported; and it is important that Mr Jenkins takes action as soon as possible to undo the harm which a foolish and irresponsible judgement has caused.

Defence gaps

The remarkable, and indeed fundamental, irresponsibility of the Government in the field of national security was again revealed in the Defence debate this week. Since Attlee there has been no Labour politician of real seniority or weight within his party who is not prepared almost entirely to ignore the defence of the realm in order to placate those on the left of the party who are either out and out pacifists or who have not the wit to see the great dangers faced both by this country singly and by Western Europe collectively. Even apart from the cuts themselves, of course, the neglect of the Armed Services and the instability and uncertainty to which continually changing defence policy give rise are extremely damaging for the morale of the forces, and extremely inhibiting to future recruiting.

Even the excuse of détente is no longer available; for the talks undertaken some years ago on the question of mutual and balanced force reductions on both sides in Europe are now stalled, and the Chiefs of Staff as well as many concerned students of these matters have urged upon the Government the undesirability of allowing the Russians to assume that, if they prove intransigent, Western nations will proceed to destroy their own defences piecemeal. The Conservative Opposition has taken the decision to oppose the Government's plan, on the grounds that insufficient account is being taken by ministers of defence needs: their own record in government was good, without being spectacular — or as vigorous as was required. But it is now essential for Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues not merely to oppose what is done by Mr Wilson and his, but to proceed to the development and elucidation of a genuine Conservatove defence policy, so that the danger in which the nation is being placed can be brought home to the people, with the support of a thoroughly worked out and consistent policy.

Sterling: the Treasury's guilt

Richard Body MP, as a matter of urgency, raised in the House of Commons on Monday the continued inactivity of the Treasury in respect of the pound sterling in the currency markets. On Friday, May 2, Christopher Frere-Smith, Chairman of the Get Britain Out campaign, drew the attention of the Government to the fact that the pound was being allowed to slide in the run up to the referendum. It is a serious situation when speculators are permitted to play politics with Britain's currency. The Treasury has denied that there is any contrived move to devalue but has refused to say that it will support the pound. This has followed inspired information that the pound is being allowed to slide a further 5 per cent. The pound has already slid over 22 per cent since Britain signed the Treaty of Accession in 1972 so raising the costs of imports into the United Kingdom. The pound has continued to weaken during the past few days leading in due course inevitably to higher food and fuel bills and making it more difficult for firms to conclude overseas contracts. Ironically the threat that food may cost even more comes in a week when the United States correspondent of the Financial Times, Paul Lewis, reports a downturn in world food prices. However Britain as a member of the EEC will not benefit if the result of the referendum should keep Britain in the Community aggravating the present situation.

Food prices in Europe are believed to be 30 to 40 per cent above British prices, but by 1977 Britain, if still in the EEC, will be due to align her price structure with the rest of the Community which on past experience means that prices will increase 10 per cent with each annual review, the operation of the Common External Tariff as well as the Common Agricultural Policy promoting further inflation. The pound sterling may drop below the 50p level within two years — it may well _happen sooner. Increased food prices will inevitably fuel wage claims, which in turn are inflationary.

The devaluation of the pound since 1972 has been more closely linked with entry into the EEC than the public has been allowed to realise. European bankers however knew that when Mr Heath signed the Treaty of Accession in 1972 that both his delegation and the Irish delegation envisaged that Britain would devalue through a float. This was held to be a 'smart' move in the words of Geoffrey Rippon allegedly to improve Britain's competitiveness in the EEC and because Britain would thus pay less for its EEC obligations using devalued currency. A 22 per cent devaluation has not prevented an adverse trade balance with the EEC and has been a major factor in Britain's world trade indebtedness. It is British business and a long-suffering public who are footing the bill not only in higher prices and more inflation, but also in the servicing of huge new debt. Interest rates are being raised to protect sterling against the dollar, saddling business with what amounts to a prior charge on profits of £7 billion. As the referendum approaches and opinion polls swing against entry the fall in the pound — conspired to by the Treasury — will lead to the cry that a vote against Europe is a vote against sterling

Unstable lads?

Power workers may black us out, postmen may decline to collect or deliver our letters, railwaymen may throw our transport into chaos, dustmen may let refuse pile high in the streets; all this, and more, can be borne with fortitude and resignation. But the disruption of horse racing is, by the Lord Harry, too much. Reading the indignant comments of racing correspondents and members of the turf hierarchy, and listening to the outraged voices of the BBC's commentators at Newmarket last Saturday — when striking stable lads staged a demonstration on the course to delay the start of the Two Thousand Guineas — it was clear that an act of unholy desecration had taken place. This was no mere industrial action. This was sacrilege.

It is difficult for anyone outside the enclosed world of racing to speak with just authority about the claims of the stable lads but, while they are no longer so mercilessly exploited as was once the case, it seems clear that their demand for £4.47 above their present basic weekly pay of £30.83 is not unreasonable and that the trainers and their owners should make every effort to meet it. Significantly those trainers who have themselves risen from the ranks of the lads are in sympathy with their case, and it is in their favour also that, strike or no strike, they seem not to have allowed the horses in their care to be seriously neglected. It is to be hoped, nevertheless, that there will be no more deliberate disruption of race meetings. They have brought their predicament to the attention of the public and, as is inevitable in all such circumstances, have probably lost a certain amount of public sympathy in doing so. For them to go further could only damage irretrievably the sport and the industry on which they depend for their jobs.