Editorial: Unionists still let it seem there’s a joint legacy stance

The government is "determined" to pass its legacy legislation despite part of the bill’s defeat in the House of Lords.

Peers adopted a role that they often adopt when elected governments try to press ahead with controversial aspects of their agenda – one of lofty superiority. When it comes to the legacy of the Troubles (ie of terrorism), the Lords have rallied round the idea that the legislation, by offering immunity from prosecution in return for truth telling, is deplorable.

The respected former NI Secretary Lord Muprhy of Torfaen says it has been "almost universally condemned". This is true, indeed Leo Varadkar is citing the cross party Stormont opposition to threaten the UK with legal action against the plan. Unionists are partly to blame for the Taoiseach being able to make such a threat because they have let it seem that they are in agreement with the Irish government, with the SDLP, critics of the UK on legacy such as Baroness O'Loan, the Alliance Party and even Sinn Fein on legacy.

They should have made clear their contempt for every aspect of the republican approach to legacy, from the raking over the past (which republicans have led in the endless calls to investigate the state) to celebrating terrorists. It should be made clear that there is and never will be common cause.

While London's plan of shutting down legacy is imperfect it is far preferable to a process which turns against the state. Yet only the small Malone House Group seems to fear such an outcome flowing from a retreat from the partial amnesty plan. Amendments suggested by the Malone House Group have been supported, which shows that there is some sensible thinking in government. But there has never been a will to make this process uncomfortable for republicans or for Dublin, no mater how determined they are to make it uncomfortable for the UK.