« In Obama’s slipstream | Main | Let sleeping grief lie »

October 20, 2008

Ireland beating us

Why can Ireland do it and we cannot?

Irish Energy Minister and Green Party member Eamon Ryan promised that Ireland would achieve a massive 40% renewable generation by 2020. That’s without nuclear generation, which is illegal in Ireland. Eamon_ryan_td3

His speech was also a bit of history. He is the first minister from the Republic to address a conference in the UK. It was the six-monthly meeting of British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly held today in Newcastle.

The Assembly made a second bit of history in welcoming three Ulster Unionists to the meeting. They had held themselves aloof in the past. Now the missing piece of the jigsaw is in place and all political parties in the two countries are represented here today.

The Senedd was hailed as most energy efficient parliament. When the sun shines the lights go off. It is refreshing that Ireland has given real power to a minority party member who is hugely impressive in his grasp of the future challenges.

There was a hint that Eamon would retain his job even if the dominant party in Ireland changes. That’s sensible Government rather than churning ministers from pillar to post as we do in the UK.

Britain’s new minister Mike O'Brien did not turn up in Newcastle. He has been in job for only a week. It’s possible that facing a grilling on the UK’s new infatuation from knowledgeable politicians may have deterred him.

McKinley Triumph


Andrew McKinlay is a parliamentary treasure._1605269_mckinlay_war_300

Davidkelly_narrowweb__300x411,0 Today he had a very good day. In the past he had one wholly undeserved nightmare day. Doing his job as a pugnacious challenging Select Committee questioner he gave a recalcitrant witness a hard time. The witness, David Kelly, took his life a few days later and Andrew’s questions were shown endlessly on television. Andrew was abused as a national pariah who had driven a man to his death.

Today he persuaded the British-Irish Assembly to demand action on the dreadful unresolved mystery of the Omagh bombing. The likelihood is that there was a foul-up between the RUC and GCHQ.  The bombers were known before the atrocity. The authorities have refused to publish the details to protect sources that supplied the information.

The bereaved families are begging for the truth in order that they can achieve closure. All but two members of the Assembly backed Andrew. Many of the TDs and MLAs present know the families well.

It was two military men who opposed the demand for the truth to be published. Mates Michael Mates MP irritatingly hinted that he knew something we did not know because he is a member of the Security and Intelligence Committee. We had all this before from what has become known as the Stupidity Committee prior to the Iraq War.

They told us that they knew secrets, things that they could not tell us that were so awful that if we knew we would vote for war. It was all cobblers. They were being fed the same lies as the rest of us.

The second dissenter was MLA Ken McGuiness His credibility was at rock bottomKen1 . He had to get up at 4.00 am this morning to get to Newcastle. In spite of his security background, he went to Newcastle County Down in Northern Island in the belief that the Assembly was meeting there. Anyone who gets his Newcastles in a twist is likely to get everything else wrong.

Andrew McKinley's  initiative, backed by the Assembly, will be difficult for the Government to resist.

The needs of the mourning families of Omagh to learn the truth must come before past security worries.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8346d963f69e20105359bdf81970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ireland beating us:

Comments

So, your mate Mackinlay's a national treasure.
Fine words you've spoken at your leisure.
You've obviously been taken in as well,
Like so many others, but time will tell.
The Hutton Farce, there's nary a doubt,
Has left a nasty taste in many a mout.
The 'evidence' is long upon opinion,
From many a good old Government minion.

Too many doubts about this case,
Keep the memory alive, it just won't erase.
An alleged cut that hardly bled,
No fingerprints either, so the evidence said.
And it should be noted at this time.
That it took Freedom Of Information to release that line.
If you'd like to keep this post a 'sticky'
All can be confirmed by reference to Wiki.

I daresay the Omagh families need closure.
Alongside many who would seek exposure,
Of the darker side of Blair's political intrigue,
Exactly who was, with whom, in league?
Hutton is tainted by your mate, Tony Blair,
With his WMD that were never there.
The 45 minutes that threatened our doom.
Resulted in thousands of innocents condemned to the tomb.

Your eulogy of Mackinlay just cries out "shame".
He was part of Blair's dirty little game.
And obviously you are right in it as well,
Despite voting against the Iraqi War Hell.
And before I'm dismissed as a conspiracy theorist,
The facts of Kelly's death are far from the clearest.
Do you really think that the wise Doctor Kelly,
Would kill himself with few pills in his belly?

The man was an expert on death and it's ways,
And the evidence accepted has hardly brought praise,
Except from those with a vested desire,
To condemn Dr. Kelly to the discredited mire.
Your "pugnacious" questioner whom you support fully,
Is nothing more than a pugnacious bully.
Attacking Doc. Kelly, a stressed out mild man.
Who had seen through Blair's illegal plan.

Mackinley's aggressive and confrontational tones,
Clearly distressed Doc. Kelly's gentle bones.
He described the Doc. as a "fall guy" and "chaff".
I suppose that gave you and your mates a good laugh.
I would have asked Mackinlay, man to man.
Do you berate Dr. Kelly just 'cause you can?
I'll quote Dr. Kelly, as he hasn't lasted.
He just describes Mackinlay as one "utter bastard".



That's some nice rhyming skills there.

Paul, on the whole we can't invest in renewables because we're broke. Another reason might also be because our ministers are more interested in setting targets than actually meeting them.

For once i agree with you JR.
I rekon Dr Kelly knew too much and was far too big a problem for Tony. The same think-tank and mindset that decided to stealth bomb Thousands of innocent people wouldn't think twice about murdering a quiet sole that could be a nuisance.
Maybe we will never find out?

On balance the story that Kelly was murdered is not plausible. It was help MacKinley's position it was a Government conspiracy. Andrew is certainly no Government nark on this or on anything else.

The truth usually comes out in these situations. The death of Kelly was a body blow to the Government. What did they stand to gain?

Dr Kelly was a conscientious thorough and careful man, an experienced civil servant who
would not willingly say anything that was at odds with the government line where it could possibly be avoided. But an honest man who would not lie about anything either.

That he was murdered is plausible, there is however no plausible evidence proving that he was and without such evidence there is little point in anyone claiming that he was murdered.

Paul if Dr Kelly ever had been forced to say that pretty much everything the government told us were lies and known by the government to be lies when they told them to us, then the evidence for bringing certain ex labour leader and cabinet members up for war crimes would be there.
We do not know that he would ever have actually said so, that many of us at the time noticed that the information we were being given was either unverifiable and unlikely or checkable and false and are mostly pretty sure that the government and its then leader knew they were lying at the time is beside the point.
We are unable to prove it to a necessary standard, some people believe Dr Kelly may have been in a position to provide the proof, that is what they would suggest the government had to gain or .

One of the puzzling features of this is that Dr Kelly believed that there were WMD in Iraq. How could someone allegedly so well-informed be so wrong?

there must be a full inquiry one day

It's basically about interpretation
When the Weapons Inspectors were withdrawn in 98 there were chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted for.
The general understanding was, that they would probably never be accounted for, that it was unlikely that the Iraqis could account for them and that even if discovered would no longer be of any use.
However as there were chemical and biological weapons unaccounted for a loyal servant of an aggressive government may choose to phrase it that Hussein
"still had chemical and biological weapons"
the evidence for it being, that they are unaccounted for.

He also said
"The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses."

A modest threat is clearly not an immediate and pressing threat, which would indeed make the US and its curs actions illegal under the UN charter, which would make it aggressive war,
which WE decided after world war 2 was the ultimate war crime.
People then were executed for that crime and while I hope no one further is killed with regards to this and indeed would seek to prevent anyone further being murdered,
whether perpetrator or victim
it would be only just if the perpetrators served the remainder of their hopefully long lives in prison.

A full independent and unfettered inquiry is to be hoped for.

Thanks Huw.

At the time, I did not believe that Saddam was even a 'modest threat.' He had never been to war except when he was certain in his own mind that victory was guaranteed, Halluja, Iran, Kuwait. Even he understood any attack on the West would be suicidal.

Indeed he was no threat to any country by 2003. Even Kuwait had no fear of him by then.

Back then it seemed to any reasonable person that if Saddam had WMD,
then attacking Iraq with the object of removing him from power, perhaps leading to his murder by execution, would be the one way to guarantee that he would use anything he had.
One had to assume that those who prosecuted the war, felt safe in doing so because they knew he had no WMD to use.

Huw, that's absolutley right. There was no risk of our troops being hit with WMD

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment