John Cooper
MP for Dumfries and Galloway · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this key debate. The vital question on “Desert Island Discs” is not what luxury a person desires or which tune they would save from the waves; it is how they would cope on their own.”
“A person who has £10 in their pocket in a city can do something with it; they can go somewhere or see a friend. But £10 up an isolated farm track is of little use at all. The reasons for isolation are myriad. People living longer is of course a good thing, but the harsh reality is that one half of a couple is likely to outlive the other.”
“Coastal areas are beautiful, none more so than Dumfries and Galloway, with its rocky cliffs, secluded bays, unspoilt empty beaches and rolling gentle hills, but we cannot eat the scenery or have a chat with the big sky overhead. Loneliness needs to be seen for what it is: a public health issue.”
“As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, it is a delight to see the fruits of Brexit being brought home. Will the Minister confirm that the deal is not contingent on us taking Swiss courts as being superior to our own?”
“Metal prices being what they are, if we were to take the amount of brass neck on show here today and melt it down, we could fund defence properly. The right hon.”
“Scotland stands ready to play its full role in the defence of Britain with many fine young men and, increasingly, women in our forces. We also have a huge array of industrial companies working on defence contracts. There is a problem, however, which is the Scottish Executive.”
The complete record
Every one of 402 lines we hold for John Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 9.
“Sadly, both men are no longer with us, but in life one thing was obvious: neither was a reckless psychopath. They were hard men—yes, of course, for theirs is a lethal business—but rather more planning and preparation goes into tier 1 special forces than novels and TV would have us believe. Controversy reigns over television’s brilliant “SAS: Rogue Heroes” and Blair “Paddy” Mayne’s depiction, but it is nothing new. There were all sorts of claims about the book “Bravo Two Zero” when it emerged after the first Gulf war. Was it fact or fantasy? Peter “Billy Rat” Ratcliffe, former regimental sergeant major of 22 SAS, told me, “Life in the regiment is not really about garrotting 200 sentries, you know.” “But you do know how to garrotte a sentry, don’t you?” I asked.”
“I congratulate my neighbour the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate—we could almost smell the cordite in his opening remarks. My first encounter with the Special Air Service was when, just as we were getting to the good bit, the John Wayne film on TV was interrupted, and it was over to Kate Adie as men in bug-eyed respirators ended the Iranian embassy siege on 5 May 1980, amid the thunder of flashbangs and the staccato rattle of small arms fire. As a journalist, I later met John “Mac” McAleese, who really was the man on the balcony, not—I hate to break it to Members—that bloke down the pub mumbling about the colour of the boathouse at Hereford, as Walter Mitty characters do. I also became friends with Colonel Clive Fairweather, second in command of the regiment.”
“Between 1997 and 2010, about 36,000 jobs were lost in steelmaking, or about half the workforce—that was under Labour, of course. I am concerned to hear talk today about nationalisation, and I say that with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers); the old joke is that if we want to stop crime paying, we should nationalise it. Given that this Government could not run a bath, never mind the steel industry, would a better idea not be to support the industry with, as I have mentioned before, a golden share to give us some say over what happens? Again, is the truth not that the dogmatic pursuit of net zero is driving up energy bills in this country to a level that is simply not sustainable for industry?”
“There is no question but that the hon. Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed)—who are sadly no longer in their places—had a difficult experience in Israel, and that is to be regretted. However, we are hearing today that that somehow makes criticism of Israel impossible in this place, but as we have heard time and again, that is simply not the case. We can speak out in Parliament, and we can continue to do so.”
“As the grandson of a steelworker in Corby, Northamptonshire, I understand something of the iconic nature of the industry. The hon. Lady tries to blame us Conservatives for what went wrong. Is the situation not too confused? The Government are not sending the right signals to the industry and we are not sure what we want. We already do not make the right kinds of steel for much of the defence industry. The steel strategy will be published in the spring—wonderful. When is the spring? The Government need to get a grip and send out signals now. If we are going to negotiate with the Chinese about the Scunthorpe mill and the amount of money we are spending there, should we not have some kind of golden share so that taxpayers are comfortable about what is going on there?”
“What is inappropriate is the way devolution does not appear to be working. Can we pluck from the logjam of Backbench Business Committee debate ideas one on devolution and how it is failing?”
“The A77 and A75 roads are critical to the people of south-west Scotland, but they are also critical to the UK, because they service the exceptionally busy ferry port of Cairnryan, which links us with our friends in Northern Ireland. The difficulty with these roads is obvious if we ever travel them. There is another difficulty, however, which is that the Department for Transport here does not seem to think this has anything to do with it, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is too busy to meet me to discuss the issue. When the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart), who is in her place on the Government Benches, and I wrote to the Transport Secretary in Scotland, we received a high-handed letter saying that it would be inappropriate to meet us.”
“To say that boats can simply up nets and go elsewhere is to demonstrate a terrifying lack of knowledge about the sea. Fish and seafood are not evenly suffused; they are in some places and not in others. Fishing is food security, as we have heard. It is a livelihood for many—not just for those who literally risk life and limb on the storm-tossed seas, but for those onshore. Fish and chips are as emblematic of this country as the bright fishing boats at quaysides from Kirkcudbright to Kirkwall and more. They must not be frittered away at the behest of an avaricious EU.”
“Member for St Ives is not a huge fan of it, but I certainly am—the EU catches around seven times more fish by value in UK waters than we land from EU waters. Britain’s status as an independent coastal state was hard won, and we must not allow our fleet to be dragged back into the ambit of the hated common fisheries policy. We cannot allow a linkage between fisheries and access to markets to be established. British fishing is already under a series of threats. Let us be as clear as the blue ocean about the conservation issue: fishermen are to the fore in this area, for they know that if they clear the seas of fish today, there is no tomorrow for them. Things such as spatial squeeze are real. Our seas are vast but not limitless. Boats cannot fish between floating wind turbines or trawl near those turbines’ subsea infrastructure.”
“What Labour expects from this reset is opaque at best, but the EU—good protectionist that it is—has already drawn up an invoice, and top of its list is fishing. Amid warm words about security and co-operation between Britain and the EU, the French are keen to lock us out of the new £150 billion Euro defence fund, only to then show a bit of ankle on negotiations involving—quelle surprise!—fishing. Just as Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, with its heavy pro-union bias, takes us back to 1979 and the winter of discontent, so fishing is drifting back to 1973. Then, our prized and pristine waters were the quid pro quo for access to what was then the European Economic Community. Today, the dice are loaded in favour of the EU fleet. According to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation—I note that the hon.”
“But let us talk about chips—not the golden-fried essential component of what we Scots call the fish supper, but bargaining chips, for that is yet again what our fishing crews risk becoming. The statistics are superficially simple: the Office for National Statistics says that fishing accounted for just 0.03% of the UK’s economic output in 2021. However, that does not capture the reality that a great many of our fragile coastal communities, not only in Scotland but across the UK, are entirely dependent on jobs in fishing’s at-sea component and its allied onshore processors. If fishing were a trifling little homespun affair, why is the EU so interested in it? With the Business and Trade Committee, I travelled to Brussels to discuss this Government’s reset of relations.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate. I declare a sort of interest: in a previous life, I was a special adviser with the Scotland Office, and I spent the larger part of 2021 working on exports from Scotland to the EU. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the EU, far from being our avuncular friends in this matter, were a protectionist bloc. Many of the difficulties we faced, including the transport of live langoustines—he mentioned vivier transport—were to do with problems on the far side of the short strait. It was bloody-mindedness at best and outright protectionism at worst.”
“Q9. When he was Director of Public Prosecutions, I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have sat comfortably in the Cabinet of Prime Minister Cameron, but incredibly in Scotland, we have a situation in which the head of prosecutions—the Lord Advocate—does sit in Cabinet. This situation has been thrown into sharp focus lately by a police probe into the finances of the SNP, and has been thrown further into focus because, although not personally involved, the Lord Advocate ultimately sits at the head of the investigation into former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who faced potential criminal charges. This situation has been created by the SNP, who will not fix it. Does it sit with this House to amend the situation?”
“T6. The Hawk aircraft, most famous in the scarlet livery of the Red Arrows, is at the end of its service life. Can Ministers explain what steps they are taking to ensure that we replace it with a British-built sovereign capability?”
“My hon. Friend has begun what I am sure will be an exquisite speech, and she hits the nail on the head when she talks about transport connectivity. One of the great problems that unites all our coastal communities is that it is difficult to get anywhere. For a community like mine in Dumfries and Galloway, it is 80 miles to the nearest hospital. Perhaps rather than a new Minister looking at coastal communities, we need existing Transport Ministers to put their foot down.”
“Large spending announcements for defence would make people think that Britain is marching to war, but the Ministry of Defence is bimbling along with procurement systems that are better designed for peacetime. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to bring British industry into this fight, and quickly?”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is in fact my neighbour, for giving way. He talks about the number of farms that will be affected by this. It is far higher than the Treasury tells us. We know that the Scotland Office is compiling its own figures, to push back against the Treasury figures, which will no doubt be trotted out here again today. Is there not a fundamental problem here, as the vast majority of farms will be affected by this?”
“3. What estimate she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the number of farms affected by changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in Wales.”
“The Scotland Office is conducting a series of agricultural roundtables, talking directly to farmers and putting together statistics to push back against the orthodoxy that only a tiny number of very wealthy estates will be affected, which is simply not the case. This increasingly looks like a war on farmers by the Treasury. What part is the Minister playing in fighting back against it?”
“The hon. Lady is a fearsome campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. She talks about intimidation and paints a lovely picture of unions working actively for their workers, but how can we square that with the version of intimidation that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) seems to be referring to with the return of flying pickets?”
“This skimpy Bill, cobbled together with indecent haste to meet Labour’s “first 100 days” deadline, bears all the hallmarks of a thank you note from Labour to its union backers. If it passes, the unions are going to party like it’s 1979. However, Labour Members pocketing supposedly pristine union donations should have a care, because that 1979 winter of discontent saw the public lose patience with a Labour Prime Minister captured by the unions. History does not repeat precisely, but this does look awfully familiar.”
“If a Cabinet Minister is already at the unions’ mercy, what chance do the general public have? We have heard about positive trade union benefits, but it is not all sunlit uplands. One rail union refuses to let bosses use email for rotas, insisting on fax machines— I imagine I am one of the few Members who remembers those. Another left passengers inconvenienced when it ordered members not to use a footbridge as it had a skim of snow on it no thicker than the icing on a cake. They must be licking their lips at clauses that remove previous thresholds for strike action such as the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. I think the public will support amendments that would keep existing benchmarks as modest guardrails, not to crack down on unions but to limit the damage that hotheads might inflict.”
“In the Business and Trade Committee we have heard that good relations are possible between employers and trade unions. Of course they are—not all union reps are agitators, any more than all bosses are grasping exploiters of the workers. But stripping out existing protections, as this Bill does, risks tilting the law too far in favour of the unions, making strikes more frequent and more damaging thanks to, for example, lower notice periods. We know that the unions are already restive; just ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, unable to attend an event with, ironically, the Scottish Confederation of British Industry in his own office because he would not cross a picket line, and he has had to cancel at least one other event as the pickets strike on.”
“I rise as a former member of a trade union, and the harsh lessons I learned then are what concern me about this Bill. As a low-paid journalist on a local paper, I had hoped that the union would go in to bat for me. Instead, it was more interested in Cuban socialism and collective bargaining, more concerned about traducing Mrs Thatcher’s legacy than the tribulations of a junior reporter, more interested in funding the Labour party than supporting me and my newsroom colleagues. That is why I am backing amendments such as amendment 292, which seeks to defuse what has been called a subscription trap, where inertia is used to allow political donations taken from members to tick up year in, year out. Is this the clean money of which the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke?”
“We are being asked to walk into a cage without a key. I have seen this before with the SNP’s woeful prospectus for Scottish independence in 2014. Scots were bright enough then to see through the smokescreen. Will Members across the House be sharp enough to discern the dangers here?”
“The Secretary of State for Business must surely recognise the importance of this—after all, I saw him just days ago in a slick video, with cuts quicker than the shower scene in Hitchcock’s “Psycho”, boasting of “working together abroad to deliver growth at home”. Now, I love a fantasy film as much as anyone, but the Secretary of State is in danger of jumping the shark with this level of sophistry and stretching credulity beyond snapping point. Growth at home is feeble, and this Bill is its enemy. So lacking in detail is this Bill, which was clearly scrabbled together to beat the Government’s own deadline of the first 100 days, that it is the equivalent of a parliamentary blank cheque—sign here, and we will fill in all those pesky details later—handing sweeping powers to the Secretary of State.”
“If growth is the intended destination, as my friends in Dublin would say, “You can’t get there from here”. This Bill—so long on amendments and so short on detail—cannot be reconciled with this Government’s stated mantra of growth, growth, growth. By their own estimate, the Bill will cost business £5 billion—so easily dismissed by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), despite being a serious amount of money. The only growth will be in the mountain of red tape in which the Bill will snare businesses. I rise to speak in favour of new clause 87, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the “international competitiveness of the economy” and its growth in the medium to long term.”
“Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too.”
“My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws, clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy.”
“I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job? As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs.”
“With due deference to the newly appointed Minister for Aberdeen on the Conservative Benches, the question of these jobs is not a matter purely for the north-east or purely for Scotland. Those 200,000 jobs are spread across every constituency in this country and they are all at risk. As we heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), they are being pushed off a cliff edge. The Minister talked about our energy bills being in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Does she not agree with me that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place? We have Vladimir Putin on one side driving up energy bills and her dogmatic Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the other.”
“It covers a bloc of over 500 million people and includes countries such as Australia, Canada, Japan and Singapore, and economies that are ripe to bloom, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, in contrast to the sunset economies of Europe, which have sclerotic growth. Yet we are told that trade deals take up British GDP only marginally. We lack ambition.”
“But do these estimates give us hope for growth? Rather than confidently striking out for new global deals, Britain today looks like a cork in a storm-tossed sea—at the mercy of events, and not their master. On a Business and Trade Committee visit to Brussels, we explored what the Government might expect of their much-vaunted reset of relations. Troublingly, Britain lacks for any clear definition of its ask beyond warm words about defence and security, yet the EU, being made up of good protectionists, already has an invoice drawn up. We have acceded to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—that is not easy to say, especially with these teeth.”
“The Business and Trade Committee heard only yesterday that although work by the previous Government had created an ideal environment for the emerging technology of quantum computing, Britain has earmarked a few billion pounds for the sector—impressive, until one hears that the United States is injecting over $50 billion. The US’s R&D spend alone is perhaps seven times our total budget in this field. No Government are ever in full control of events, and the storms of war are howling. Even as this Government’s industrial strategy is being shaped, defence is now the utmost priority. If we as a nation are not secure, we are not a nation. Wars are fought in trenches and on myriad battlefields, but they are won in boardrooms and on the shop floors and shipyards of industry. Economic growth, then, is a key arrow in the British quiver.”
“The eye-catching headline figure in the supplementary estimates is that the Department has been allocated a total funding increase of £1.8 billion, yet that money is largely earmarked for Post Office compensation. It is absolutely right and proper that the victims be compensated quickly, but there should be no pretence that the money is a shot in the arm for DBT. Although the extra £440 million for the British Business Bank is good news, is it enough? This country lacks not for start-ups but for scale-ups, and we hear time and again that a lack of finance from risk-averse banks is the block. Scale matters.”
“I, too, am a member of the Select Committee. Perhaps no other Department has an impact on the lives of so many Britons. The economy affects each and every one of us, and when the Government’s No. 1 priority is the fastest sustained economic growth in the G7, then—to use football parlance—the Chancellor is the midfield general and the Department for Business and Trade is the big striker in the opposition box. The rest of us—all of us—have a spot on the terraces, but oh dear! We have barely kicked off, and we are pinned in our own half. Where is business confidence, given that less than a quarter of the businesses that cheered Labour on, signing a letter ahead of the election, are still waving their red scarves? One said that it now feels “duped”. What of the financial back-up?”
“I completely agree that much more needs to be done on international trade. As I said, we lack ambition in this field, because we base so much of what we expect on previous deals. Frankly, there has never been a deal like CPTPP, the putative deal with India and the dripping roast that is a free trade deal with the US. The Department for Business and Trade needs to step up, not be beaten before we even start. Growth is the destination that we in this House should all agree on; the path there is where the disputes lie. We are in an economic relegation zone after a dud Budget. Can the Department for Business and Trade help pull off the shock result that we all need? Britain’s got talent, and the Department for Business and Trade can boost it.”
“The Chancellor, with her unimpeachable record in the sector, will know that economics is known as the dismal science. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, rather than using second-hand statistics, I have spoken directly with businesses one to one and found that the mood is indeed dismal. After her dud Budget, can she think again and go back on this desperate jobs tax? She is in danger of becoming tough on growth and tough on the causes of growth.”
““Scottish soldiers could be in Ukraine by end of the year”, was the headline in The Herald newspaper this morning, based on quotes from First Minister John Swinney in answer to questions from the BBC. Notwithstanding that the British armed forces have many fine and gallant young Scots serving with them, can the Prime Minister confirm that the decision on—indeed, the burden of— deploying British troops anywhere sits with him and with this House, and not with a divisive First Minister and the head of a devolved Administration.”
“It is wonderful to hear that my hon. Friend has a new string to her bow. She makes the point about the many ways in which we are connected and share heritage across the country. We are celebrating St David’s Day, and we all have our own local saints and national saints, but is it not marvellous that ultimately we all come together as one nation—the United Kingdom—and that more unites us than divides us?”
“Labour needs to step away from its anti-business policies so that firms in every part of the country can step up with wealth creation, with the private sector leading the charge.”
“I have said it before, and I make no apology for saying it again: “Unions gonna party like it’s 1979.” Labour Members see business as a dripping roast to be devoured, taxed to a standstill, and not much mischief if it fails. They perceive a nobility in the public sector when they see only avarice in the private sector, but they are as wrong about that as they are about profit being a dirty word. The drivers of growth are in the private sector. They deserve our admiration and, more important, our support. What can the Government do for them? How about getting out of the way? How about less legislation, not more? How about less petty regulation, and more can-do attitude? How about lightening the tax load, not adding to it?”
“That is £5 billion, when grandparents are in tears as family farms face being split up; £5 billion, when families who have been in business for decades look at their bottom line and despair? The worst aspect of that Bill is the premise that all trade union organisers are saints and all business owners are robber barons intent on exploiting the workers. [ Interruption. ] The unions are restive. The Secretary of State for Scotland would not attend a reception in his own magnificent Dover House because of a picket line—and how ironic that the meeting was with the Scottish CBI. Now those same strikers have forced the cancellation of a Scotland Office event with National Air Traffic Services.”
“Family businesses are often among the front rank of successful scale-ups, as their multi-generational nature and the investment, literal and metaphorical, of senior figures imbues stability. The Prime Minister talks a good game, but talk is cheap, and his actions have expensive consequences. He said that he and his Chancellor had made it clear to Cabinet colleagues that in each of their briefs “growth is the number one mission”. Well, the Deputy Prime Minister did not hear—perhaps her rave music was too loud—for how is growth compatible with her Employment Rights Bill, which the Government’s own analysis says will cost businesses up to £5 billion a year.”
“Similarly, The Usual Place, a charity in Dumfries that provides wonderful opportunities for youngsters in catering, is making cutbacks. Six people will lose their jobs as the reality of the anti-business agenda—designed in No. 11 Downing Street—bites. When we, in government, proposed raising national insurance to fund the NHS, one Labour Back Bencher denounced it as the “worst possible tax rise”. Now that same politician is Chancellor, and the tune has changed. And spare us the claim that Labour’s manifesto pledge on national insurance covered only that paid directly by employees, which is sophistry—sheer sophistry. We lack not for start-ups in Britain, but we struggle for scale-ups—the firms that expand and grow.”
“Britain’s got talent! Right across this great land we have many clever people innovating and working hard. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have been in places as far apart as Exeter and Glasgow, talking with people who make everything from satellites to sausage rolls. The mood, however, is not good. The strivers are still striving, straining every sinew to deliver success, but confidence is not so much on the floor as deep in the cellars below. In my constituency I spoke to a family firm of bakers who had modest expansion plans—two or three extra staff drawn from the ranks of youngsters who might struggle to find that all-important first job. Those plans are parked; those youngsters, for all I know, are on the dole.”
“Scotland wants to play its full part in this great national endeavour at this moment of peril, yet, almost incredibly, tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will discuss stripping defence companies of state funding. It is remarkable. The measure may not pass, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Will the defence industrial strategy take into account what is happening in Scotland, where certain elements seem to be siding with other national interests, so that we can protect our defence industry and this great country?”
“It is a truism from ancient Roman times that if we want peace, we must prepare for war, and I am glad the strategic defence review is preparing us for war—sadly—although in slow motion, unfortunately. Will the SDR consider the unlocked back door that is Ireland, which sits outwith NATO? It is clear that alarm bells are ringing in NATO, but Ireland, cash rich, sits outside NATO and has a critical role in defending undersea cables. We learn from the Irish press that its navy is setting sail without sufficient officers to man its main guns—it is sending out gunboats without guns. What can we do to encourage Ireland to play a full role in what will, I think, be a confrontation with Russia?”
“Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives?”
“It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that.”