Sir, – As unionism shifts its focus from the NI Protocol to the supposed spectre of EU law now haunting the six counties, it might be timely to review some recent British legislation that unionists have not objected to. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill gives the British government virtually unlimited power to define “minimum service levels” in any sector of the economy allowing it to effectively ban strike action whenever it wishes. Employers can require named individuals to cross picket lines and if they refuse then summarily dismiss them. Trade unions must take “reasonable steps” to ensure the strike is broken by those named in this way otherwise it will be declared unlawful. Consequently those workers continuing to strike will lose all protection from unfair dismissal and the union itself will be liable to claims for damages. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act of 2021 places state agents above the law granting them licence to commit a range of crimes if authorised to do so by state agencies on the deliberately vaguely defined grounds of “national security” or “economic wellbeing”. This Act was passed in parallel with the Overseas Operations Act, designed to stop British troops being held accountable for war crimes. The Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act gives police officers the discretion to decide when a protest constitutes a crime, and provides for lengthy prison sentences on deliberately obscure grounds, including having caused a “serious nuisance”. The British government is now proposing a further Public Order Bill that would allow police to shut down protests before “disruption” begins and to ban named individuals from attending at all. The Nationality & Borders Act significantly meanwhile erodes protections for refugees and has created a two-tier processing system for asylum-seekers despite Britain’s international treaty obligations. To prevent the removal of fundamental rights on such a scale being subjected to the scrutiny it deserves, the National Security Bill can be employed to suppress independent journalism. Taken together, they comprise a rejection of consensus politics in favour of coercion to maintain a state wedded to a socio-economic system that will deliver neither a decent living standard for people, the protections they are entitled to nor the the public services they deserve. It will be argued that devolution shields the North from the worst of this. That may be true to an extent – for now. Nonetheless the direction of travel for the British state is unmistakable. From its voting record at Westminster, unionism is comfortable within this carnival of reaction. Alternative constitutional arrangements are available. People in the North have nothing to lose by using the forthcoming anniversary of the Belfast Agreement to consider how they might help shape those arrangements and benefit from them. – Yours, etc,
PAUL LAUGHLIN,
Derry.