With mutterings and rumblings within Loyalism over the potential long-term impact of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Political Commentator Dr John Coulter assesses if Loyalist hardliners really have the stomach for a physical fight.

By insisting on a Protocol in terms of the Irish Sea border, the European Union in its naivety may have thrown the peace process in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement into a state of confusion.

An umbrella group, the Loyalist Communities Council, (LCC) which represents the views of the main pro-Union terror organisations, has written to the British and Irish governments telling them they are withdrawing support for the Belfast Agreement in protest at the Irish Sea trade border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The LCC represents the four main Loyalist paramilitaries, who between them accounted for a significant number of the estimated 3,500 people killed during the Troubles.

The so-called ‘Big Four’ Loyalist terror groups are the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters.

In 1994, the four terror groups came together under the banner of the Combined Loyalist Military Command (CLMC) to publicly unveil the loyalist ceasefire.

However, the latest utterance from the LCC is a sign of the growing unease within the Loyalist community that the Protocol poses a significant threat to the constitutional future of Northern Ireland’s position within the UK in this Northern Ireland’s centenary year.

Already the existence of the Protocol has witnessed Unionist parties coming together to mount a legal challenge to get it axed in a show of Unionist unity not seen since the Ulster Says No campaign against the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.

It was signed by then Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald and gave the Irish Republic its first real say in the running of Northern Ireland affairs since partition in the 1920s.

While the LCC letter to London and Dublin says that Unionist opposition to the Protocol should remain “peaceful and democratic”, it will surely sound alarm bells that a section of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland may be considering the possibility of a more violent reaction towards the Protocol.

Just as the ceasefires from the mainstream Irish republican movement represented by the Provisional IRA spawned a dissident republican movement represented by groups such as the Real IRA and New IRA, so too, there is the danger that Loyalist anger at the Protocol could create a so-called dissident loyalist terror movement.

This happened in the past among Loyalists who disagreed with the 1994 CLMC ceasefire, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the peace process in general.

Dissident Loyalists formed their own grouping to rival the CLMC - the Protestant Military Alliance. One of the most notorious breakaway groups was the Loyalist Volunteer Force formed by leading terrorist Billy Wright, a former member of the Mid Ulster unit of the UVF. Wright was later shot dead by an INLA inmate in 1997 while in the top security Maze prison in Northern Ireland.

Indeed, suspected renegade members of the mainstream Loyalist terror gangs carried out attacks under the cover name of the ‘Red Hand Defenders’ in the years after the CLMC ceasefire.

While these are strong words from the current LCC leadership, even with an emphasis on “peaceful and democratic” opposition, questions are still being asked if Loyalist terror gangs actually have the resources and manpower to realistically mount a terror campaign against the Protocol, or would it be similar to the dissident republicans’ ‘stop-start’ terror tactics.

The Dublin administration will be acutely aware of what happened in 1974 during the Ulster Workers’ Council strike to bring down the then power-sharing Sunningdale Executive.

When Dublin tried to put forward a blueprint to kickstart the peace process, Loyalist terrorists set off no-warning bombs in Dublin and Monaghan killing around 30 people and injuring another 300.

The bitter reality which Dublin must face is that, unlike the UK economy, the Republic of Ireland’s economy - in spite of massive EU cash injections over the years - does not have the financial capacity to ‘soak up’ the effects of a Loyalist bombing campaign south of the Irish border.

While the security assessment of a potential violent Loyalist backlash against the Protocol suggests mainstream loyalism would not engage in such a strategy, it is not taking account of the changing structures of terrorism globally as a result of Islamic fundamentalism.

At the start of the Troubles in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Loyalist terror groups were organised in platoons, companies and brigades. Essentially, they copied the structures of the anti-Home Rule UVF militia of 1912.

In later years, some of the Loyalist groups moved to a Maoist terror cell structure of smaller numbers in a so-called ‘Active Service Unit.’

However, the problem posed by the Islamic terrorists is that they operate in very small groups of only three or four people, making it very difficult for the security forces and intelligence community to penetrate.

Unionism is going the legal route against the Protocol because it has recognised that street protests simply do not work. In short, the street campaign which toppled Sunningdale in 1974 failed to have the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement axed.

London could also make the mistake it made in 1971 when it introduced selective internment based on outdated intelligence. In 2021, London, Dublin and Brussels could be basing their analysis of a potential loyalist backlash based on people who were active in the CLMC in 1994.

Has a new generation of influential Loyalist activist emerged for whom 1994 and 1998 are merely dates in a history book? Taking Islamic militancy as a benchmark, it would only take a handful of Loyalist fanatics to inflict murder and mayhem on the Republic in reprisal for implementing the Protocol if it emerged the Protocol was creating an economic United Ireland. 

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
 Listen to Dr John Coulter’s religious show, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM, or listen online at www.thisissunshine.com

Loyalist Unease At Protocol ➖ Mere Sabre Rattling Or The Opening Moves In New Terror Campaign?

With mutterings and rumblings within Loyalism over the potential long-term impact of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Political Commentator Dr John Coulter assesses if Loyalist hardliners really have the stomach for a physical fight.

By insisting on a Protocol in terms of the Irish Sea border, the European Union in its naivety may have thrown the peace process in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement into a state of confusion.

An umbrella group, the Loyalist Communities Council, (LCC) which represents the views of the main pro-Union terror organisations, has written to the British and Irish governments telling them they are withdrawing support for the Belfast Agreement in protest at the Irish Sea trade border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The LCC represents the four main Loyalist paramilitaries, who between them accounted for a significant number of the estimated 3,500 people killed during the Troubles.

The so-called ‘Big Four’ Loyalist terror groups are the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters.

In 1994, the four terror groups came together under the banner of the Combined Loyalist Military Command (CLMC) to publicly unveil the loyalist ceasefire.

However, the latest utterance from the LCC is a sign of the growing unease within the Loyalist community that the Protocol poses a significant threat to the constitutional future of Northern Ireland’s position within the UK in this Northern Ireland’s centenary year.

Already the existence of the Protocol has witnessed Unionist parties coming together to mount a legal challenge to get it axed in a show of Unionist unity not seen since the Ulster Says No campaign against the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.

It was signed by then Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald and gave the Irish Republic its first real say in the running of Northern Ireland affairs since partition in the 1920s.

While the LCC letter to London and Dublin says that Unionist opposition to the Protocol should remain “peaceful and democratic”, it will surely sound alarm bells that a section of the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland may be considering the possibility of a more violent reaction towards the Protocol.

Just as the ceasefires from the mainstream Irish republican movement represented by the Provisional IRA spawned a dissident republican movement represented by groups such as the Real IRA and New IRA, so too, there is the danger that Loyalist anger at the Protocol could create a so-called dissident loyalist terror movement.

This happened in the past among Loyalists who disagreed with the 1994 CLMC ceasefire, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the peace process in general.

Dissident Loyalists formed their own grouping to rival the CLMC - the Protestant Military Alliance. One of the most notorious breakaway groups was the Loyalist Volunteer Force formed by leading terrorist Billy Wright, a former member of the Mid Ulster unit of the UVF. Wright was later shot dead by an INLA inmate in 1997 while in the top security Maze prison in Northern Ireland.

Indeed, suspected renegade members of the mainstream Loyalist terror gangs carried out attacks under the cover name of the ‘Red Hand Defenders’ in the years after the CLMC ceasefire.

While these are strong words from the current LCC leadership, even with an emphasis on “peaceful and democratic” opposition, questions are still being asked if Loyalist terror gangs actually have the resources and manpower to realistically mount a terror campaign against the Protocol, or would it be similar to the dissident republicans’ ‘stop-start’ terror tactics.

The Dublin administration will be acutely aware of what happened in 1974 during the Ulster Workers’ Council strike to bring down the then power-sharing Sunningdale Executive.

When Dublin tried to put forward a blueprint to kickstart the peace process, Loyalist terrorists set off no-warning bombs in Dublin and Monaghan killing around 30 people and injuring another 300.

The bitter reality which Dublin must face is that, unlike the UK economy, the Republic of Ireland’s economy - in spite of massive EU cash injections over the years - does not have the financial capacity to ‘soak up’ the effects of a Loyalist bombing campaign south of the Irish border.

While the security assessment of a potential violent Loyalist backlash against the Protocol suggests mainstream loyalism would not engage in such a strategy, it is not taking account of the changing structures of terrorism globally as a result of Islamic fundamentalism.

At the start of the Troubles in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Loyalist terror groups were organised in platoons, companies and brigades. Essentially, they copied the structures of the anti-Home Rule UVF militia of 1912.

In later years, some of the Loyalist groups moved to a Maoist terror cell structure of smaller numbers in a so-called ‘Active Service Unit.’

However, the problem posed by the Islamic terrorists is that they operate in very small groups of only three or four people, making it very difficult for the security forces and intelligence community to penetrate.

Unionism is going the legal route against the Protocol because it has recognised that street protests simply do not work. In short, the street campaign which toppled Sunningdale in 1974 failed to have the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement axed.

London could also make the mistake it made in 1971 when it introduced selective internment based on outdated intelligence. In 2021, London, Dublin and Brussels could be basing their analysis of a potential loyalist backlash based on people who were active in the CLMC in 1994.

Has a new generation of influential Loyalist activist emerged for whom 1994 and 1998 are merely dates in a history book? Taking Islamic militancy as a benchmark, it would only take a handful of Loyalist fanatics to inflict murder and mayhem on the Republic in reprisal for implementing the Protocol if it emerged the Protocol was creating an economic United Ireland. 

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
 Listen to Dr John Coulter’s religious show, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM, or listen online at www.thisissunshine.com

13 comments:

  1. Hopefully the scenario described in the last paragraph will never come to pass. If it does it will be a legacy of the lies told by Boris & Co during and after the EU referendum and of the failure of the DUP to bring about a soft Brexit when they had the numbers in Parliament to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry,

      It won't, despite John's seemingly hoping it will. There simply isn't the same set of ingredients required that caused the conflict to spark up in 69. Loyalist action will remain to be pursuant of democratic outcome, as it should. There are no large scale internecine communal violence episodes that invariably cause armed groups to arise.

      As long as there's food in the belly and roof over their heads the vast majority will be peaceful about any protest. The only thing that could change this is if some group started picking off Prods, but that is highly unlikely to happen given the BritIntel saturation levels of all Republican groups.

      Delete
    2. Steve - John has to be allowed to explore ideas without being accused of seemingly wanting them to work out in a particular direction. What he says is one possible scenario even if unlikely. Already I have seen one journalist not known for holding back say that he would be circumspect for fear of putting ideas into people's heads. I see the difficulty but it serves to deprive public understanding of his very valuable contribution on these matters.

      Delete
    3. AM,

      I wasn't saying he shouldn't be allowed to say what he likes, I'm just pointing out an underlying theme he seems to have running under his pieces. I am HIGHLY suspicious of evangelical Prods at this type of behaviour, as I blame Paisley for most of the shite that went on over the passed 50 years.

      Delete
    4. Steve - it is less about you supporting his right to say what he likes and more about you portraying whet he says as in some way endorsing or yearning for some sort of loyalist violence. Despite my profound political and secular disagreements with him, I have always found him a man of great integrity. He is no shill for violent loyalist ideas.

      Delete
    5. AM,

      Well that's the way he comes across to me at least. He may hold strong convictions but should he be given a bye-ball just because he holds them?

      There's been a few articles by John were it's seemingly like he's agitating to provoke something into life.

      And there was somebody else like that not long dead.

      Delete
    6. It has not been suggested that because he holds strong convictions he shouldn't be challenged. In fact the stronger the conviction the greater the need for probing and challenge in case those convictions run roughshod over others.
      It is the grounds on which the challenge is being made - which is to suggest that because he is exploring possibilities he is inciting.

      Delete
    7. Then why does he keep bringing up violent Loyalist actions in relation to the future? Albeit with the token caveat of 'warning'?

      There's no threat of violence from Loyalism over Brexit and I have yet to hear of even a rumour of resistence should a border poll be carried out. People who stir shit should be made to lick the spoon in my opinion.

      Delete
  2. I'm in the rare position of agreeing with Stevie G. There isn't the same conditions as there was in years previously.

    The security forces are hostile to loyalism in a way that they weren't in previous years. I'm fairly sure MI5 and Special Branch will have identified serious loyalist disorder and violence as the major catalyst for large-scale conflict, and will have plans in place.

    London never really wanted the North, and wants it even less now. Loyalist violence will only strengthen the nationalist cause, and resolve.

    My own thoughts are that some loyalist violence will occur; some sectarian murders, perhaps the occasional symbolic bomb against Eire or EU targets, but the culprits will be caught and sentenced to massive terms in prison, and with no political settlement that will include their release.

    There is a danger that some republicans groups hit at PUL targets to invite reprisal and set the scene for something bigger, but I can't see that happening.

    There will be dogmatic, murderous individuals on both sides. Loyalism has always needed the wider "unionist family" to share the core beliefs of betrayal and hatred. That doesn't exist at the moment, and there is something quite pathetic about the oft Tweeted "young people" not "tolerating" the sea border, or "anger at levels not seen since the Anglo-Irish-Agreement" - it seems to me that the more the likes of Jamie Bryson and that LCC dickhead "warn" of loyalist anger, the more they are acknowledging the reality that most people are just getting on with their lives.

    The flipside to this is that dogmatic republicans have always assumed the legal and political right to kill, without recourse to the feelings of their wider community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you need to stop thinking about Rangers, sore as their title victory has been!!
      Steve R, not Stevie G!!

      Delete
  3. "you need to stop thinking about Rangers"

    This might become my new mantra. It has not been at all pleasant...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm touched to be mentioned in the same sentence as Sir Stevie G though!

      Delete
  4. For the first time, I find myself agreeing with some of what John Coulter says. He's not predicting ( or hoping ) that Loyalists will go back to their old methods. What he's giving us is a window into their thinking.

    I agree with Brandon and Steve that the conditions which existed 50+ years ago do not exist now. No joined up 'unionist family', no private unionist militia, posing as a police force, despite the obvious flaws in the PSNI, and no universal support within the loyalist communities.

    ReplyDelete