#Sunningdale Agreement

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in 1974 – Three car bombs in Dublin and a fourth in Monaghan exploded without warning, injuring almost 300 people and killing 34, the greatest loss of life on a single day during the Troubles.

On the morning of 17 May 1974, four cars are stolen in Belfast. That evening, they would explode without warning in Dublin and Monaghan resulting in the deaths of 34 civilians and injuries to more than 300. The bombings were the worst single atrocity in Ireland during the “Troubles.” The bombings were a Loyalist reaction to the Sunningdale Agreement and attempts to introduce power sharing between…

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 5.28 (after 1960)

1961 – Peter Benenson's article The Forgotten Prisoners is published in several internationally read newspapers. This will later be thought of as the founding of the human rights organization Amnesty International. 1964 – The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is founded, with Yasser Arafat elected as its first leader. 1968 – Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 crashes near Nala Sopara in India, killing 30. 1974 – Northern Ireland's power-sharing Sunningdale Agreement collapses following a general strike by loyalists. 1975 – Fifteen West African countries sign the Treaty of Lagos, creating the Economic Community of West African States. 1977 – In Southgate, Kentucky, the Beverly Hills Supper Club is engulfed in fire, killing 165 people inside. 1979 – Konstantinos Karamanlis signs the full treaty of the accession of Greece with the European Economic Community. 1987 – An 18-year-old West German pilot, Mathias Rust, evades Soviet Union air defences and lands a private plane in Red Square in Moscow, Russia. 1991 – The capital city of Addis Ababa falls to the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, ending both the Derg regime in Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Civil War. 1995 – The 7.0 Mw  Neftegorsk earthquake shakes the former Russian settlement of Neftegorsk with a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent). Total damage was $64.1–300 million, with 1,989 deaths and 750 injured. The settlement was not rebuilt. 1996 – U.S. President Bill Clinton's former business partners in the Whitewater land deal, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, and the Governor of Arkansas, Jim Guy Tucker, are convicted of fraud. 1998 – Nuclear testing: Pakistan responds to a series of nuclear tests by India with five of its own codenamed Chagai-I, prompting the United States, Japan, and other nations to impose economic sanctions. Pakistan celebrates Youm-e-Takbir annually. 1999 – In Milan, Italy, after 22 years of restoration work, Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece The Last Supper is put back on display. 2002 – The last steel girder is removed from the original World Trade Center site. Cleanup duties officially end with closing ceremonies at Ground Zero in Manhattan, New York City. 2003 – Peter Hollingworth resigns as Governor-General of Australia following criticism of his handling of child sexual abuse allegations during his tenure as Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane. 2004 – The Iraqi Governing Council chooses Ayad Allawi, a longtime anti-Saddam Hussein exile, as prime minister of Iraq's interim government. 2008 – The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of Nepal formally declares Nepal a republic, ending the 240-year reign of the Shah dynasty. 2010 – In West Bengal, India, the Jnaneswari Express train derailment and subsequent collision kills 148 passengers. 2011 – Malta votes on the introduction of divorce; the proposal was approved by 53% of voters, resulting in a law allowing divorce under certain conditions being enacted later in the year. 2016 – Harambe, a gorilla, is shot to death after grabbing a three-year-old boy in his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, resulting in widespread criticism and sparking various internet memes. 2017 – Former Formula One driver Takuma Sato wins his first Indianapolis 500, the first Japanese and Asian driver to do so. Double world champion Fernando Alonso retires from an engine issue in his first entry of the event.

[dougielombax]

50 years ago today.

17th May 1974.

34 innocent people (all civilians) were killed when the UVF (a loyalist terrorist group backed by the British govt who from their inception were set up to kill as many civilians and innocent people as possible, since they viewed Irish people as being inherently evil and subhuman, which we are NOT!), operating in collaboration (collusion is the preferred term for some) with the British government set off numerous car bombs in Dublin and Monaghan.

These bombings were carried out during the Ulster Worker's Council Strike by loyalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, who opposed the Sunningdale Agreement, that called for power-sharing with Irish nationalists.

The bombings left 34 people dead and hundreds more injured.

The Irish government of the time practically bowed down in response to British demands to stop the investigation into the bombings. Like a bunch of cowardly old women.

Their response at the time (or lack thereof?) was and still is BEYOND shameful. A textbook display of bootlicking cowardice.

Followed by the usual policy for the time of turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Irish in the north, tut-tutting at the PIRA and even blaming them for British attacks. All while washing their hands of the matter and parroting the British state’s propaganda.

Above: A memorial to the victims of the bombings in Dublin.

A campaign by families of the victims led to an Irish govt inquiry in 2003 under Justice Henry Barron, that criticized the Garda Síochána's investigation as well as the inaction of then Labour Govt.

Many idiotic Irish politicians and revisionists today insist that the bombings either didn’t happen, or were an accident or were committed by Sinn Fein. (They were not)

None of which are true.

Reports have stated that there is a VERY high likelihood of British security and intelligence services being involved alongside the UVF.

But the British government refuses to release the documents to this day.

I’m posting this here today 50 years on from the bombings because I believe in accountability.

(Also because I study history but that goes without saying)

Reblog the shit out of this.

[emmashouldbewriting]

the wessexes have an apartment at bagshot not the whole house and there are other tenants including businesses in the outbuildings. Crown estates runs bagshot its not the same situation as Andy at Windsor lodge. And Louise's ponies are at Windsor castle stables with other horses. So unless kC is getting rid of all those horses, firing the stable staff and shutting the stables down how are those two ponies costing him so much? Andrew's agreement isn't with KC either its with crown estates which kc doesn't run. I am skeptical bout these stories.

Anon, you contradict yourself regarding Andrew and you're wrong about the Wessexes having an apartment.

The Wessexes have the Mansion House, Sunningdale Lodge, and a block of stables. They have a 150 year lease, and have no commercial farmland or woodland, and thus no way of making money from their property as it's closed to the public. While the only official duchys are Lancaster and Cornwall, many aristos have land and property they can make money off to "pay for" their dukedom. The Wessexes have no such thing, so my anon yesterday speculating about the £ aspect are correct. (Although it should be noted that Edward did pay over £1mil for renovations, so they're not hard up.)

People need to get over the ponies. If it's the case that Charles wants them out of Windsors, the Wessexes have stables at Bagshot they can house the ponies in. Charles is not responsible for Louise's ponies. Even if he does keep them in his stables, he's not responsible for their training, their grooms, their feeding, their care, etc. The Wessexes can afford it and should be paying for it!

As with Andrew, you're right that his lease isn't with Charles but with the Crown Estate. The point is that part of his lease is that Andrew will maintain Royal Lodge from his own funds, and if Charles takes away his £250k allowance, he can't afford the maintenance. Therefore he's in breach of his lease and they will mutually terminate it and he will have to move out.

[wikiuntamed]

On this day in Wikipedia: Saturday, 9th December

Welcome, velkommen, vitajte, ongi etorri 🤗 What does @Wikipedia say about 9th December through the years 🏛️📜🗓️?

9th December 2022 🗓️ : Death - Jovit Baldivino Jovit Baldivino, Filipino singer and actor (b. 1993) "Jovit Lasin Baldivino (October 16, 1993 – December 9, 2022) was a Filipino singer and actor. He was the first winner of the reality talent competition show Pilipinas Got Talent in 2010...."

9th December 2017 🗓️ : Event - Same-sex marriage in Australia Same-sex marriage in Australia became legal as the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 came into effect. "Same-sex marriage has been legal in Australia since 9 December 2017. Legislation to allow it, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, passed the Australian Parliament on 7 December 2017 and received royal assent from Governor-General Peter Cosgrove the following day. The..."

9th December 2013 🗓️ : Event - 2013 Bintaro train crash At least seven are dead and 63 are injured following a train accident near Bintaro, Indonesia. "The Bintaro rail crash occurred on 9 December 2013 when a KRL Commuterline train crashed into a Pertamina gasoline tanker at a railroad crossing in Bintaro, Jakarta, Indonesia on Monday morning, causing at least one female-only carriage to overturn and burst into flames. At least 7 people were..."

Image licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0? by Muhammad Pascal Fajrin

9th December 1973 🗓️ : Event - Sunningdale Agreement British and Irish authorities sign the Sunningdale Agreement in an attempt to establish a power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive and a cross-border Council of Ireland. "The Sunningdale Agreement was an attempt to establish a power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive and a cross-border Council of Ireland. The agreement was signed at Northcote House in Sunningdale Park, located in Sunningdale, Berkshire, on 9 December 1973. Unionist opposition, violence and a general..."

9th December 1922 🗓️ : Event - Gabriel Narutowicz Gabriel Narutowicz is elected the first president of Poland. "Gabriel Józef Narutowicz (Polish: [ˈɡabrjɛl naruˈtɔvit͡ʂ]; 29 March 1865 – 16 December 1922) was a Polish professor of hydroelectric engineering and politician who served as the first President of Poland from 11 December 1922 until his assassination on 16 December, five days after assuming office...."

Image by Unknown (From ETH Zurich)

9th December 1822 🗓️ : Event - French Academy of Sciences In a memoir read to the French Academy of Sciences, Augustin-Jean Fresnel coined the terms linear, circular, and elliptical polarization, and reported a direct refraction experiment verifying his theory that optical rotation is a form of birefringence. "The French Academy of Sciences (French: Académie des sciences) is a learned society, founded in 1666 by Louis XIV at the suggestion of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, to encourage and protect the spirit of French scientific research. It was at the forefront of scientific developments in Europe in the 17th..."

Image by After Charles Le Brun

9th December 🗓️ : Holiday - Christian feast day: December 9 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics) "December 8 - Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar - December 10 All fixed commemorations below celebrated on December 22 by Eastern Orthodox Churches on the Old Calendar.For December 9th, Orthodox Churches on the Old Calendar commemorate the Saints listed on November 26...."

Image by njk92

[citizen69]

United Ulster Unionist Council poster from 1974. The anti-Sunningdale petition was signed by more than 300,000 people and was presented at Westminster. Paired with a loyalist general strike the Agreement collapsed in May 1974.

[georgefairbrother]

On July 10th, 1972, BBC News reported:

"…The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland William Whitelaw has been involved in secret talks with the Provisional IRA in London. Mr Whitelaw broke the news to the House of Commons as he announced that the two week ceasefire in Northern Ireland had come to an end. Six IRA leaders were involved in the meeting that took place in a private house on Friday 7 July. After numerous approaches by the IRA this was the first time that Mr Whitelaw had met with provisional leaders and he claims that he did so to preserve the peace...In the face of criticism by Conservative backbenchers, Mr Whitelaw said, 'I decided that if I were to see these people personally I might be able to do something to save lives'..."

William Whitelaw was the inaugural Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, after Prime Minister Edward Heath had established Direct Rule in March 1972. In a three hour meeting, the IRA members made specific demands in exchange for a continued peace;  a total withdrawal of British forces, the right to self-determination by the Irish people, and an amnesty for political prisoners.

None of these demands proved acceptable to the British government in what William Whitelaw called a re-statement of routine and unworkable demands.

Hostilities recommenced even before the Northern Ireland Secretary was able to report back to Cabinet, over the issues which included housing discrimination in Belfast. In a statement, Whitelaw appeared to apportion blame to both sides, and said, "I want to make it perfectly clear that terrorism and extremism in the community cannot be tolerated, that the rule of law and justice must be restored."

The BBC provided some additional context;

"...With 467 deaths in 1972 alone this was the height of the Troubles and a period that Willie - later Viscount - Whitelaw regarded as the most challenging of his career. In March 1973 he published a White Paper that proposed the election of a 78 member power sharing executive and in December the Sunningdale Agreement was signed. By May 1974 Unionist divisions caused the fledgling Council of Ireland to collapse and Direct Rule was re-imposed..."

William Whitelaw later served as a controversial Home Secretary in the first term Thatcher Government, before being granted a (hereditary) Peerage in 1983.  Margaret Thatcher once said of him that every Prime Minister needs a Willie.

See also:

[timeshareexits]

Obtaining payment for mis marketed timeshare Club la Costa

Club La Costa( CLC) is one of the most significant independent hotel owners in Europe, owning 31 hotels around the world. They are offering fractional possession to those who want to take a vacation for only a few months in a year. Like various other timeshare exits companies, they are exceptionally hostile in selling their time share, using high pressure sales strategies. These methods can negatively influence the reasoning of the investors that later understand their error. Individuals who have been mis sold timeshare club la costa can recover the money they have spent contacting us at Timeshare Claims Financing. We have actually assisted a large number of investors who have spent their cash in CLC and also various other timeshare get their money back.

Resorts, resorts

CLC has 31 resorts as well as resorts at a few of one of the most prominent vacation locations worldwide. Some of these resorts are

CLC Marina de Sol

CLC Benal Coastline

CLC Sierra Marina

CLC Marina del Ray

CLC San diego

CLC Las Tarolas Royale

CLC Sunningdale village

CLC Paradise

In addition to the well designed spaces, the resorts have other facilities like dining establishments, delis, medical spas, gymnasiums for the benefit of the customers.

Member issues

Though the members who have actually bought CLC were offered fractional ownership, they do not possess the residential property, they in fact have obtained fractional timeshare ownership. Some participants are likewise grumbling that they are unable to reserve a holiday at the timeshare. Several of the financiers, have spent a large quantity in CLC. As a result of the covid-19 pandemic they are making terrific losses. So if any type of CLC participant or capitalist desires to terminate their contract with CLC and also obtain a refund of the amount which they have spent, they can call us for help.

Information required.

For supplying support while terminating the agreement with CLC, the member will certainly have to supply some information, like the amount which he has actually invested, period for which the time share was purchased and the number of years, for which he has paid yearly upkeep fees. The member needs to also have to give his contact information like name, phone number and e-mail. We will certainly examine the details which was given and after that contact him for further details like the evidence of payment, documents from CLC and also the info supplied by the salesmans, which influenced his decision making.

Obtaining a refund

It is feasible to obtain reimbursement extra quickly if the settlement is made through the finance partners of CLC which are

- Barclays Partner Finance

- First Vacation Finance

- Shawbrook

- Hitachi

We realize that several CLC members can not afford to pay charges for making cases against CLC. For this reason we only charge costs to our customers, if they win their insurance timeshare exit cost. Our specialists will very carefully evaluate the info supplied by the CLC member that desires to end his agreement, to formulate the most reliable technique for making the case. In some cases, we might call for extra information from the customer. After this we will certainly send our case to obtain payment for the CLC participant.

[edisonashley]

Colin Murray: Vichy France and Vassalage: Hyperbole versus the Northern Ireland Protocol

Brexit has posed a profound challenge for Northern Ireland’s fragile constitutional arrangements. Those very arrangements provided for a delicate balance of Northern Ireland’s constitutional position. Northern Ireland is part of the UK only with the continuing consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and the 1998 Agreement provided for a range of measures which connected Ireland and Northern Ireland together. This smoothing of some of the harder edges of statehood was long opposed by sections of Unionism within Northern Ireland. 

Indeed, the playing of the “Orange Card”, or threatening to make the constitutional space of Northern Ireland ungovernable by widespread demonstrations, was as prominent in Northern Ireland’s creation as it was in the aftermath of the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and now in the response to the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. A legal action in which the lead protagonists storm against the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement reducing Northern Ireland to the status of “Vichy France” or to “Vassalage” can be seen to be using the judicial review process to stoke wider resentments. That is the backdrop to today’s important decision in Re Jim Allister’s application for Judicial Review in the Northern Ireland High Court.

The entire challenge is based upon a paradox. The applicants insisted that it is unconstitutional to treat Northern Ireland differently with regard to trade in goods from other parts of the United Kingdom. The argument they present to the public is one of integrationist Unionism; to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley. The argument presented to the High Court, however, was that Northern Ireland is a unique constitutional space in which ordinary rules have been modified. For if Northern Ireland is just like Finchley, then Parliament can pass legislation to rearrange trading rules in different parts of the UK (China, for example, goes further by holding multiple WTO memberships). 

The challenge is also laced with irony, particularly the sight of Jim Allister QC, one of the 1998 Agreement’s staunchest critics, browbeating other Unionist politicians into a legal action which in large part turns on the Agreement’s terms. In irony heaped upon irony, the person making the arguments that Northern Ireland is governed under special constitutional rules which restrict parliamentary sovereignty is Northern Ireland’s former Attorney General, John Larkin QC, one of the most strident critics of what he regards as the legalisation of the political sphere. Perhaps it is only lawfare when someone else is doing it. 

In response to these claims, Colton J offers a much more detailed reflection on what is distinct about Northern Ireland’s constitutional order than the UK Supreme Court managed in its afterthought on Agnew/McCord as part of the 2017 Miller decision. Those scant few paragraphs on Agnew/McCord, in saying little more than that the 1998 Agreement’s principle of consent did not block Brexit, amounted to an acknowledgement that some form of Brexit could be compatible with the 1998 Agreement. The challenge to the Protocol instead deals with whether the concluded Withdrawal Agreement actually landed in a space which is acceptable under Northern Ireland’s constitutional arrangements, and the Court’s emphatic conclusion is that it did.

The first ground of challenge related to the Act of Union and specifically Article VI on people living in Ireland and Great Britain being ‘on the same footing’, at least with regard to trade. As Colton J declared, tongue firmly in cheek, ‘much constitutional water has passed under the bridge’ since the Act of Union [96]. Indeed, many stage 1 law students will be able to dive back to 1872 and Ex parte Canon Selwyn, on the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland to show that Parliament can modify the Act of Union. Colton J did not dispute that the terms of the Protocol cannot be squared with Article VI [62]:

Although the final outworkings of the Protocol in relation to trade between GB and NI are unclear and the subject matter of ongoing discussions it cannot be said that the two jurisdictions are on “equal footing” in relation to trade. Compliance with certain EU standards; the bureaucracy and associated costs of complying with customs documentation and checks; the payment of tariffs for goods “at risk” and the unfettered access enjoyed by NI business to the EU internal market conflict with the “equal footing” described in Article VI.

This might sound like a significant admission regarding Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit constitutional status, but the rights and privileges of the people of Northern Ireland have repeatedly been changed (relative to those applicable in Great Britain) in the centuries of Union, not least by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and Northern Ireland Act 1998. In short, devolution would be impossible if the Act of Union could not be varied. 

The challenge, however, proceeded on the basis that any modification to such a constitutionally significant statute could only have been made in express terms [87-88]. Colton J took the starting point that the later statutes (the European Union (Withdrawal) Act passed in 2018 and modified by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act in 2020) supersede the Act of Union. That is a classical assertion of implied repeal, and that classical account has mattered in the past; the Act of Union has previously been impliedly altered in its operation [102].

It is, however, more difficult to square with some of the discussion in the Supreme Court’s HS2 decision, which maintained that where two “constitutionally significant” statutes conflict, the court should undertake a substantive evaluation of the relationship between the statutes. Although that decision is not explicitly referenced, Colton J proceeds to explore the context of the two enactments, contrasting the generality of the Act of Union with the specific requirements of the Withdrawal legislation (comparable to Beatson J’s weighing up of statutes in Brynmawr). Colton J thus recognised that the Act of Union was impliedly repealed insofar as the Withdrawal legislation conflicted with it.

The issue of clarity of law is important – the terms of the Withdrawal legislation might be specific in legal terms, but they are opaque. The Protocol too often seems to say one thing in terms of trade, but operate in a different way in practice. In not fully explaining these terms in the hurried passage of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020, the UK Government fell into the pattern of historic involvement in the European project set by the European Communities Act 1972 and its concealment of the impact of EEA and then EU membership on parliamentary sovereignty. Boris Johnson himself, the Court notes, added to this confusion in ministerial statements [117]. This obfuscation is not, for Colton J, unlawful, but it is hardly a shining example of good governance.

The second ground was that the Protocol conflicted with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in transferring powers over certain areas of law making for Northern Ireland to the EU without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This issue, however, was unanimously settled by the UK Supreme Court in Miller; the reach of the 1998 Agreement’s principle of consent does not extend further than Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. There really was no scope for Colton J to strike out on his own against that position [137].

The third ground related to the “Stormont lock”, under Article 18 of the Protocol, which allows the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote on the continued application of the Protocol’s trade provisions in 2024. The challenge was on the basis of its operation as a majority vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly, rather than a cross-community vote (as would be normal on devolved issues, but would have allowed Unionists to veto the continued application of these Protocol provisions). For the UK Government, as summarised by Colton J, the overarching trade rules applicable to Northern Ireland were not ordinarily a devolved issue, and this therefore allowed Westminster to put in place a specific rule that departed from cross-community voting in this instance [181]:

Because it was not a devolved matter or a matter within the legislative competence of the Assembly as a matter of principle it did not require cross-community support. Consistent with the approach to the referendum concerning exit from the EU itself it was felt that a simple majority would be sufficient, albeit that cross-community support would be encouraged and achieved if possible.

The Court broadly agreed that this was a matter of international relations, and thus not a transferred or devolved matter, and that a special provision could thus be put in place (even by statutory instrument). The terms of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Democratic Consent Process) (EU) Regulations 2020 can hardly be said to be outwith the parent Withdrawal legislation [206].

The fourth ground, on the application of Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR and the democratic deficit around the application of EU law rules, was more speculative. It is impossible to conclude that Northern Ireland has as much say in the creation and operation of these rules as when it was part of a Member State; but the Court concluded that the Withdrawal Agreement was concluded as a democratic exercise by the UK Parliament [263]. It is, moreover, worth noting that mechanisms like Article 15’s Joint Consultative Working Group continue to provide mechanisms by which Northern Ireland’s representatives can be involved and feed into, EU decision making over the Single Market in goods. If the rules applicable to Northern Ireland were not within the margin of appreciation available under the ECHR, then this would have dramatic consequences for countries like Norway and Switzerland which have long been “rule takers” in their relationship with the EU. 

The final ground for challenge was that the Protocol breached Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, in providing for the continued application of EU law outside the EU. In short, Article 50 did not provide a legal basis for concluding an ongoing legal relationship. But under the Protocol Northern Ireland is not part of the Single Market for goods, the UK as a non-Member State is choosing to apply the rules of the Single Market to this territory as if it were part of it. The Court found nothing within Article 50 to prevent the conclusion of such terms [291].

The argument in the round was thus not over whether Northern Ireland’s constitutional order is special; if it was not special then much of the last five years of debate over Brexit would not have happened and there would have been no more impetus to reach a special Brexit accommodation for Northern Ireland than there was for Scotland. The votes in favour of remain in these two constituent parts of the UK, in short, mattered less than the distinct legal basis of their current constitutional arrangements. Alongside exploring aspect of that order, Colton J placed considerable weight on parliamentary sovereignty and the UK Parliament having endorsed these Brexit outcomes for Northern Ireland [297]:

The court should not interfere with or ignore the clearly expressed will of Parliament in passing primary legislation to implement a valid agreement between contracting parties, both of which endorsed that Agreement through their respective constitutional orders.

The High Court’s decision therefore comes as little surprise. The Protocol was designed to accommodate the terms of the 1998 Agreement and to operate without prejudice towards it (as is made explicit in Article 1). It would have been a colossal failure of years of negotiations for all parties to have missed a hard and fast rule of the 1998 Agreement that conflicted with the Protocol’s terms. Some of these arguments, however, speak to the ambiguous nature of centuries old constitutional documents and also to myth making and even misinformation surrounding aspects of the 1998 Agreement. 

The Agreement was concluded against a backdrop of EU membership and a UK constitutional order which was only introducing devolution and had largely outsourced the management of rules that impinged on trade between its constituent parts to the rules of the EU Single Market. If this ecosystem had not existed, the 1998 Agreement would have had to be much more extensive to provide for it. But just as the Agreement did not preclude the UK’s Withdrawal from the EU, neither do its explicit terms preclude the UK from exercising its statehood over Northern Ireland by agreeing that it be subject to distinct goods regulations and trading rules to other parts of the UK. For Northern Ireland, it must be remembered, is not in the EU Single Market, much less the EU. The rules for the Single Market in goods continue to apply only because this was accepted by the UK and EU as supporting the functioning of multiple elements of North/South co-operation which had developed under Strand 2 of the 1998 Agreement. This deal has undoubted become one of the ‘essential elements of the architecture of the modern United Kingdom’ (Somerville v Scottish Ministers, [169]).

The outcome of this case provides an opportunity for the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland to re-evaluate their approach to the Protocol. As Colton J noted in his decision, talk of Northern Ireland as Vichy France is ‘wide of the mark’ [218]. This rhetoric helped neither the argument in this case, nor public discourse over Northern Ireland’s post-Brexit governance. Talk of an appeal has already begun, but in the face of this decision, continuing to insist on the unlawfulness of the Protocol will do little more than ratchet up tensions in Northern Ireland. This is as good an opportunity as there is for some Unionist politicians to say that now that the High Court has clarified the position in law it is time to move on with the important business of engaging in discussions over mitigating some of the problems which have emerged with the Protocol’s workings. 

Colin Murray, Reader in Public Law, Newcastle Law School, Newcastle University.

(Suggested citation: C. Murray, ‘Vichy France and Vassalage: Hyperbole versus the Northern Ireland Protocol’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (1 July 2021) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))

Colin Murray: Vichy France and Vassalage: Hyperbole versus the Northern Ireland Protocol published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.weebly.com/

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in 1974 – Three car bombs in Dublin and a fourth in Monaghan exploded without warning, injuring almost 300 people and killing 34, the greatest loss of life on a single day during the Troubles.

#OTD in 1974 – Three car bombs in Dublin and a fourth in Monaghan exploded without warning, injuring almost 300 people and killing 34, the greatest loss of life on a single day during the Troubles.

On the morning of 17 May 1974, four cars are stolen in Belfast. That evening, they would explode without warning in Dublin and Monaghan resulting in the deaths of 34 civilians and injuries to more than 300. The bombings were the worst single atrocity in Ireland during the “Troubles.” The bombings were a Loyalist reaction to the Sunningdale Agreement and attempts to introduce power sharing between…

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 12.9 (after 1950)

1950 – Cold War: Harry Gold is sentenced to 30 years in jail for helping Klaus Fuchs pass information about the Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union. His testimony is later instrumental in the prosecution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. 1953 – Red Scare: General Electric announces that all communist employees will be discharged from the company. 1956 – Trans-Canada Air Lines Flight 810-9, a Canadair North Star, crashes near Hope, British Columbia, Canada, killing all 62 people on board. 1960 – The first episode of Coronation Street, the world's longest-running television soap opera, is broadcast in the United Kingdom. 1961 – Tanganyika becomes independent from Britain. 1965 – Kecksburg UFO incident: A fireball is seen from Michigan to Pennsylvania; with witnesses reporting something crashing in the woods near Pittsburgh. 1968 – Douglas Engelbart gave what became known as "The Mother of All Demos", publicly debuting the computer mouse, hypertext, and the bit-mapped graphical user interface using the oN-Line System (NLS). 1969 – U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers proposes his plan for a ceasefire in the War of Attrition; Egypt and Jordan accept it over the objections of the PLO, which leads to civil war in Jordan in September 1970. 1971 – Indo-Pakistani War: The Indian Air Force executes an airdrop of Indian Army units, bypassing Pakistani defences. 1973 – British and Irish authorities sign the Sunningdale Agreement in an attempt to establish a power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive and a cross-border Council of Ireland. 1979 – The eradication of the smallpox virus is certified, making smallpox the first of only two diseases that have been driven to extinction (with rinderpest in 2011 being the other). 1987 – Israeli–Palestinian conflict: The First Intifada begins in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. 1992 – American troops land in Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. 1996 – Gwen Jacob is acquitted of committing an indecent act, giving women the right to be topless in Ontario, Canada. 2003 – A blast in the center of Moscow kills six people and wounds several more. 2006 – Space Shuttle program: Space Shuttle Discovery is launched on STS-116 carrying the P5 truss segment of the International Space Station. 2008 – Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich is arrested by federal officials for crimes including attempting to sell the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. 2012 – A plane crash in Mexico kills seven people including singer Jenni Rivera. 2013 – At least seven are dead and 63 are injured following a train accident near Bintaro, Indonesia. 2016 – President Park Geun-hye of South Korea is impeached by the country's National Assembly in response to a major political scandal. 2016 – At least 57 people are killed and a further 177 injured when two schoolgirl suicide bombers attack a market area in Madagali, Adamawa, Nigeria in the Madagali suicide bombings. 2017 – The Marriage Amendment Bill receives royal assent and comes into effect, making Australia the 26th country to legalize same-sex marriage. 2019 – A volcano on Whakaari / White Island, New Zealand, kills 22 people after it erupts. 2021 – Fifty-five people are killed and more than 100 injured when a truck with 160 migrants from Central America overturned in Chiapas, Mexico.

[timesharemisselling]

Obtaining settlement for mis sold timeshare Club la Costa

Club La Costa( CLC) is one of the most significant independent hotel owners in Europe, having 31 hotels all over the globe. They are offering fractional possession to those who want to take a holiday for only a few months in a year. Like other timeshare companies, they are extremely hostile in offering their time share, making use of high pressure sales methods. These methods can detrimentally affect the reasoning of the financiers that later understand their blunder. People that have been mis marketed timeshare club la costa can recoup the money they have actually spent calling us at Timeshare Claims Financing. We have actually assisted a multitude of financiers who have spent their money in CLC as well as other timeshare get their cash back.

Resorts, hotels

CLC has 31 resorts as well as hotels at a few of one of the most popular vacation locations on the planet. A few of these resorts are

CLC Marina de Sol

CLC Benal Beach

CLC Sierra Marina

CLC Marina del Ray

CLC San diego

CLC Las Tarolas Royale

CLC Sunningdale town

CLC Heaven

Along with the well made areas, the resorts have other facilities like restaurants, delis, health facilities, gyms for the advantage of the customers.

Participant troubles

Though the members that have bought CLC were sold fractional possession, they do not possess the residential or commercial property, they really have got fractional timeshare ownership. Some members are additionally complaining that they are not able to schedule a holiday at the timeshare. A few of the investors, have invested a large quantity in CLC. Because of the covid-19 pandemic they are making terrific losses. So if any kind of CLC member or investor dreams to cancel their contract with CLC as well as obtain a refund of the amount which they have invested, they can call us for aid.

Info called for.

For giving help while terminating the agreement with CLC, the participant will need to offer some information, like the quantity which he has invested, period for which the time share was bought and also the number of years, for which he has paid yearly upkeep costs. The participant ought to also have to supply his contact details like name, contact number as well as e-mail. We will evaluate the details which was provided and after that contact him for additional information like the evidence of settlement, documents from CLC as well as likewise the information offered by the sales representatives, which influenced his decision making.

Obtaining a reimbursement

It is possible to get refund extra easily if the settlement is made with the money companions of CLC which are

- Barclays Companion Financing

- First Holiday Finance

- Shawbrook

- Hitachi

We recognize that many CLC members can not pay for to pay costs for making claims against CLC. For this reason we just bill fees to our customers, if they win their insurance claim. Our specialists will thoroughly analyze the information offered by the CLC participant that desires to finish his agreement, to develop one of the most reliable technique for making the case. In some cases, we might require extra details from the customer. After this we will certainly submit our case to obtain compensation for the CLC member.

[nhjalthistflags]

Formed as a splinter of a splinter, The British Ulster Dominion Party (BUDP) was not expected to be a significant player in Northern Irish politics. However, analyst underestimated how deep the party’s message resonated with a Norther Irish population disillusioned with the UK after the suspension of the Northern Irish Parliament and the attempted implementation of the Sunningdale Agreement, yet one that still refused unification with Ireland. Stunning everyone, the BUDP was success in the 1977 Local Elections, gaining a majority of local councils. Using this electoral success as a springboard, the party attempted to negotiate directly with Westminster, who refused to acknowledge these attempts. The BUDP’s more overwhelming victory in 1981 Local Elections, however, forced Westminster to concede to BUDP plans. Negotiations lead to a referendum, and the referendum leads to the Dominion of Ulster, legislatively independent but still loyal to the British Monarch, represented in country by a Governor General.

Moreover, with legislative security comes control of security forces, which the new dominion uses with quick abandon, repressing Catholic paramilitary forces within the province. Those forces don’t take the repression laying down, and a low-level civil war occurs. International pressure (particularly from the UK, embarrassed by events, and the United States, with its strong Irish connection) forces the creation of a power-sharing agreement, which puts the lid on the situation for now. However, it won’t last long here, the only country still classified as a Dominion.

[tanadrin]

Would you be able to explain the context behind Margaret Thatcher's negotiations with the IRA (which, if I understand, was a crucial step in the path to a ceasefire), because I accept that it happened but, as an American with a limited understanding of Thatcher, it strikes me as a really, really strange thing. Certainly, I can't imagine any American right-wingers doing anything but ordering more crackdowns, though maybe this is more reflective of modern, more than American, right-wing politics

My knowledge of the Thatcher government is a lot weaker than my knowledge of modern American anti-terrorism policy, but you’re not wrong that the latter is  unusually shortsighted. Imagine trying to convince Britain in the 80s that the IRA was blowing up stuff in London because “they hate our freedoms,” and you have roughly a picture of how pants-on-head ridiculous the current American understanding of the phenomenology of terrorism is.

But I will say this: Britain tried strategies just as stupid and shortsighted to control Ireland, and they tried them for a lot, lot longer. The long, pre-Catholic-Emancipation, pre-Act-of-Union history of the island can be skipped, even though it’s a source for a lot of the imagery that still causes bad blood between different groups in Northern Ireland (e.g., the imagery of the Williamite War, which is steeped in the massacre of Irish civilians but is beloved by Unionists). Irish nationalism (as opposed to factional support for pretenders to the British throne) took off in the 19th century, helped by nationalist movements across Europe, and the charmingly civilized equivalent of 19th century terrorism (attacking police barracks in rural Ireland, burning down the giant country homes that were a symbol of Irish Catholic dispossession, after kicking the inhabitants out) were met with harsh British reprisals. The Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence, which the IRB and IRA fancied were proper wars conducted between two states (thus, they could legitimately target the apparatus of the enemy state, like their military and police), the British treated like modern America would treat nail bombs in a shopping mall, if America reacted to that sort of thing by sending the police to a football pitch in Baghdad and opening fire on the crowd.

Things went downhill from there (cf. Black and Tans), and the resulting backlash among the general population is why we have the Republic of Ireland today. Nothing radicalizes people to support terrorism like atrocity, and the British policy in Ireland was the same as its policies in any other colony. They weren’t uniquely bad (French in Algeria, Germans in Africa, Americans in America have all done just as bad or worse), but this is an instructive example uniquely accessible to us because it took place in western Europe, and everyone involved spoke English.

Crucially, none of this was ancient history in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland started nonviolently agitating for an end to discrimination against Catholics. Their model was the American Civil Rights Movement, and they might have had much the same trajectory. The British, having learned from the mistakes of the past, were less eager to use heavy-handed tactics in--hahah, no, just kidding again. They shot 28 unarmed people in 1972, producing the modern wave of terrorism and reprisal known as the Troubles, with the same colonial mindset by the British government (or elements of the British government) leading to the Protestant terrorist groups getting tacit approval and support from people in British intelligence. This proceeded to drag on for another quarter-century before the British public got sick enough of it to force a change in tactics.

In this context, Thatcher having some back-channel communication with the IRA is kinda understandable from a “this has been dragging on for decades and we’ve made zero progress” sort of view, especially given that the wider British public did not share the fervent zeal of British elites for holding on to various bits of their ancient empire, and certainly not the tolerance of the Protestant leadership in northern Ireland for civilian casualties. (There’s actually a really strong analogy to be made, politically and tactically, between the IRA of the Troubles, the ANC/MK, Northern Ireland pre-GFA, and apartheid; this is uncomfortable for a lot of people because is blurs the distinction between terrorists and good guys, how that perception is altered by whether the power they’re fighting against is a U.S. ally, and how easy it is to recast the Irish independence struggle even in the 1920s as basically a relatively civilized terrorist campaign. Which really just goes to show how useless “terrorist” is as a taxonomic distinction, but I digress.)

It’s notable, though, that she never made this public while she was in charge, and indeed, probably couldn’t have. It’s also notable that this is basically just informal contact with no substantive resolution of differences, or indeed even token concessions. British policy in Northern Ireland did not fundamentally change until the 90s. It’s notable that the GFA was in many ways a rehash of the Sunningdale Agreement in the 70s, and the uncomfortable lesson here might be it took decades of insistent violence by a minority in order to force negotiations. And, indeed, it’s worse than that: only because Britain’s attitude toward culturally distinct overseas regions changed (i.e., it was no longer a political liability not to insist on the greatness of British empire), resulting in increasing apathy by the government toward this small, unproductive, war-torn patch of ground, did the national government finally drag the Unionists to the negotiating table kicking and screaming. If the Unionists had had their way, no change in the political structure of Northern Ireland would have taken place, and there still would be no mechanism to ensure the minority had a role in government.

I’d like to think the U.S. can critically rethink its foreign policy before 2027, but I’m not hopeful. The Irish peace process had incentives going for it that don’t exist when it comes to America reappraising its approach to the war on terror, and the fact that terrorism in the west is the result of dysfunctions of foreign policy, and not domestic policy (or even domestic policy in overseas regions of the country) means there’s much less ability or incentive to bring everyone to the negotiating table and work this out like civilized human beings.

(Any errors in the above political analysis of the history of Ireland are entirely my own. I got fairly interested in modern Irish history while I lived there, but I don’t claim to be an expert.)

[libamericaorg]

Guide To British Politics Part 2 : The Irish Peace Process

Guide To British Politics Part 2 : The Irish Peace Process

The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is usually thought to have ended in 1998. The root of the problem, however, stretches back centuries, not decades.

In 1534, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, a law that made Henry VII the Supreme Head of the Church. This break from Rome set in motion events that would lead to centuries of sectarian conflict. It led to a populist shift towards Protes…

[tiffanywillis]

Guide To British Politics Part 2 : The Irish Peace Process

Guide To British Politics Part 2 : The Irish Peace Process

The Troubles began in the late 1960s and is usually thought to have ended in 1998. The root of the problem, however, stretches back centuries, not decades.

In 1534, Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, a law that made Henry VII the Supreme Head of the Church. This break from Rome set in motion events that would lead to centuries of sectarian conflict. It led to a populist shift towards Protes…