Hacker News Reader

Comment by lifeisstillgood | Hacker News Reader

I am not sure what this "means"

- that policy is not set by top brass but by the random interactions of those actually doing the work

- that policy is really just seeing which way the winds of history are blowing - and those winds are directed by economics, demographics, technology.

- but that we are not slaves to "psycho-history". All history has been forever "dependant" - one person really does make a difference - Greeks finding a silver mine and buying ships, One Mongol deciding to unify his tribes, it's all ...

In the end perhaps the real lesson is to make choices you will be proud to defend in the last years of your life

View on HN

...or it could be the usual "plausible deniability":

* Offer X, Y and Z. But if it ever comes to light, you weren't speaking for us.

Personally I find it difficult to believe that someone would be allowed to "go freelance" on something this important. It's typical British government spin. They have to keep up the 'We never negotiate with terrorists' front. Even though everyone knows they were in direct comms with the IRA / UDA etc. for decades.

And, if such things do eventually come to light, it's much better to spin it as 'One of our spies went freelance without permission' than to admit to carrying on secret talks a couple of days after the Warrington bombing --which wouldn't go down well with your electorate.

There's also the question of who pulls the strings; the party in government, or the security services. The Prime Minister can stand up in parliament and make all the populist soundbites he likes. But if the "power behind the throne" is working along different lines, they're not going to pay any heed.

The article says he was then asked to leave the service about a year later when IRA published the meeting.

So maybe he was plausible deniability. Maybe Major did order him not to.

I guess the point is you can never know a negotiation so you may as well just go with the assessment of two sides incentives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com