Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

17879818384108

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Presumably because the ERG was at the height of its power, threatened a split in the Tories and Cameron was a craven coward who only saw the immediacy of power than anything remotely strategic, or the health of the Union. He was just another venal Tory, another privileged posh-boy too incompetent to see the wood for the trees. The stink of hubris that Remain would walk the referendum but never put guardrails into it, just in case.

    Would the ERG have sunk the Tories? Who knows, but they also probably knew the anti EU sentiment had done its work over the last 50 years so Reese Mogg et al could only benefit from running the country off a cliff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,041 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    1. By all accounts, Cameron was convinced that Remain would win, and fostered a culture in the party and in government that regarded even contemplating the possibility of a loss as defeatist, and to be avoided. As a result no planning or modelling was done for a Leave victory. Of all the countries (then) in the EU, the one that did least thinking about or preparation for a Leave victory was the UK. This is a significant part of the reason why the Brexit process was such an unmitigated shambles. So, yeah, it's not only possible but likely that Cameron never gave any thought at all to how leaving the EU would affect the GFA.
    2. Would the eurosceptics have been willing to destroy their own party? They would certainly have been willing to risk it, because they would have perceived the risk to be very small. The crapulous UK electoral system virtually guarantees the permanent dominance of the two major parties, no matter how dysfunctional they become. In most other democracies political parties that fail to perform dissolve, or merge, or get swallowed up, or simply disappear. In the UK the worst they face is a period in opposition, as the alternative government. So the Eurosceptics would proceed on the assumption that neither disastrous and destructive policies nor savage in-fighting and party splits could destroy the Conservative party.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 187 ✭✭walkonby



    During the referendum campaign, Cameron did once warn of the possibility of a border in the Irish Sea should Leave prevail, IIRC, but it was dismissed by Brexiteers as more Project Fear.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It is interesting to watch The House Of Paisley on the BBC and compare the young Peter Robinson to some of the Unionist commentators today. The absolute religiously motivated hatred of the EU - den of Papish iniquity and a Vatican plot - that was at the heart of DUP policy was strong in the early years, led by Ian himself as an MEP.

    Interesting also to see the revulsion from what was then moderate Unionism in the reactions to DUP bile and hate, especially from Terence O'Neill, Brian Faulkner and even Jim Molyneaux. Sadly the rise of the DUP silenced moderate Unionism and left them in a vote freefall quandry. They went silent for fear of being wiped out altogether.

    There is much in Jamie Bryson of the early Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson. The hate of the EU, Taigs and having to powershare is all there alive and kicking. But sadly for Jamie and his ilk (not everyone else) the genie is out of the lamp, the right to equality has been achieved, and nobody is going back to the bad old days of Unionist belligerence and the Unionist Veto. Try as he and the DUP might, they have not been able to muster the rallies and street protest of the Anglo Irish Agreement days.

    I think Doug Beattie senses the opportunity for a resurgance in moderate Unionism. Might take a while, but he might be right. There is no win for belligerence on the cards. The HoC, HoL and Supreme Courts have made that clear. The DUP's and Paisley/Robinson's antics may have been a feelgood suprematist buzz, but ultimately it brought about what they most feared.

    Third part is on tonight. Well worth a watch.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Just to reinforce the position of moderate Unionism and what must be Alliance and UUP's chief targets for votes? The latest LucidTalk puts it starkly: "strong" Unionist voices categorically reject the WF, while the moderates are all in on its potential benefits.

    Now, without having the energy to chase it, I'd be very interested to know the breakdown of those cohorts - whether the strong / hardcore Unionists total smaller numbers polled than the "slightly" unionists. I've no idea if the polling science requires parity across those 5 ideological branches, but if the hardcore are a shrinking rump, eventually they'll need to be ignored. Well. They already are, but still. The DUP better watch their backs.

    Interesting though how the "Strongly Nationalist" grouping is less enthusiastic about the WF than those Slightly Nationalist. Wonder why that is; maybe it's the Ultra-Left in SF et al who just can't countenance the EU as anything except an antagonist?




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,890 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    I'd imagine the difference between the strongly and slightly Nationalist position is more likely tied to a perception that a functioning NI Protocol/WF makes NI stronger economically, and that presents difficulties in arguing for Unification which many value over everything else.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Not sensing that tbh Fionn.

    I think nationalism knows that defeating the attempted Unionist veto is critical and are behind any mitigations of hard Brexit.

    I wonder is it a bit of they would rather 'no potocols at all were neccessary' coming through.

    I get the sense that nationalism/republicanism is relaxed about the inevitability of a UI and that it is a battle for another day.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,890 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    I don't get the logic, Francie.

    Why would, 'no protocol was necessary at all' be a differentiating factor between those leaning slightly and those who are strongly Nationalist?

    If Nationalism is behind any mitigation of a hard Brexit, one would expect support for the WF to increase with stronger Nationalism rather than slightly decrease?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Could be an expression of 'I am for the solution to something but I would rather the problem hadn't been created in the first place'.

    There is also the 'question asked' aspect, maybe some of them don't think the WF addresses all of their concerns, I.E. doesn't go far enough.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,494 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The DUP is fishing for votes in 23% of the electorate

    The poll also indicated that 23% of respondents will only vote for candidates in the next Assembly election who are favour of scrapping the protocol and/or the Windsor Framework.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭political analyst


    I'm aware that Cameron was also complacent about the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. After an opinion poll shortly before that referendum, he made concessions on Scottish devolution. Gordon Brown had to give a rousing speech in defence of the Anglo-Scottish union.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,174 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    So 23% of the electorate want a hard border on the island. Because that's the alternative here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭trashcan


    I wonder do they also realise that such a position basically ejects them from the single market, or do they care ? once the perceived threat to the Union is gone (in their eyes). I would imagine that the likes of Jim Allister would happily sacrifice access to the single market if he could have a hard border. Ironically, that might cause those “soft” nationalists who currently aren’t that concerned about unity and aren’t particularly minded to disturb the status quo, to have a bit of a re-think.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Hadn't realised or remembered that Jim was Paisley Jun's campaign/manager until the doc on Paisley.

    He quit the DUP for the second time I think over powersharing with SF. 25 years after the GFA he still can't bring himself to accept the idea of powersharing or Dublin having a say.

    Of course he would have people live in penury if it meant a hard border, but please keep sending the EU pension to Antrim.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,352 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Regarding EU directives that have become law in Northern Ireland since Brexit, does the Windsor Framework not provide a means for the NI Assembly to review and amend those directives. It leads me to raise the wider issue of whether there is any oversight of directives that are issued by the European Commission (EC). It appears that citizens of EU member states, never mind the people of NI, have no say in the creation and implementation of those directives. It seems that the EC can do pretty much whatever it wants - how is that acceptable in a democratic society?!



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 44,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ...but the current arrangements were voted overwhelmingly upon by Westminster. Is that not being democratic?

    Also bear in mind that the majority of the electorate in NI voted not to leave the EU.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭political analyst


    But what oversight is there over EC decision-making?



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,048 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    But not in their back yard.

    I'm assuming that most of those voters aren't in border counties.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 44,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    For the people of NI? The British people voted to remove that entitlement when they left the EU following a referendum and the subsequent negotiations which were voted upon by Parliament (which in the UK is sovereign).

    Now NI get some of the benefits of EU membership but without the say (but they do have processes within the WF to overcome issues of dispute). This was decided upon by the democratic parliament in Westminster.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Well a Directive is a 'goal' to be implemented by National legislation, so I assume for NI the oversight is the Assembly drafting the laws to enable it? Or London as the case may be? But yeah, its a bit mad that a soverign nation would vote to have no input or review of laws while committing themselves to implementing new and existing.

    But to your more general 'wider issue', the EC propose laws, and the CoE and EP both must pass the propsed law... the EP being comprised of those democratically elected MEPs and CoE those democratically elected ministers from each country....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    Yes exactly. Whether we agree that the WF is SB or BS, you are correct that sf will have concerns about anything that makes ni even more successful as that eats away at the Ui vote.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    And you want to hit the nuclear button to reject the whole thing. Doesn't make any sense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,041 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Your mistake here is to treat the EU as something wholly separate from its members states. The EU isn't something that exists outside and apart from the member states, doing things to them; it is the member states acting together, collaboratively. To say that "citizens of EU member states . . . have no say in the creation and implementation of these directives" is to say that they are not represented by their own governments, that they have no control or influence over what their governments do. If that's true then, yeah, there's a huge failure of democracy here, but its a failure at the level of the member states, not at the level of the Union.

    It's true that democratic input into the making of directives is indirect - people elect parliaments, parliaments choose governments, governments participate in the Council, the Council makes regulations or mandates the Commission to do so. But indirect democracy is a phenomenon within the member state as well - nobody in NI, for example, has any real say in who gets to govern the UK, because the UK governing parties mostly do not contest NI elections. They do get to make representations to the UK government via the 5% or so of parliamentary seats that are elected from NI, and that, apparently, satisfies their appetite for democracy. But you'd have to concede that it's pretty indirect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,041 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    But by that logic SF should oppose the WF and unionists should support it. We observe the opposite to be the case. What gives?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,503 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Well, if one side is against something, the other side is for it, or vice versa.

    The DUP want a hard border with Ireland, and Brexit should/might provide it, so SF are against Brexit, and in favour of the Protocol/WF.

    Simples.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,094 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    Reminds me back in the early seventies SF were very against membership of the EEC ( which became the EU), because they were National Socialists and the UK was becoming a member etc. Now the UK are out of it, SF are very in favour of the EU.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Political parties evolve all the time.

    FF and FG were once strenously against gay rights and same sex marraige...now, very pro both.

    The Tories were once very pro EU, became very anti and are now evolving back to something else - still unclear what.

    Why would you expect SF not to evolve similarly?

    By the way, they were well on the way to embracing the EU long before the UK decided to self harm. This is from their 2004 manifesto, long before 2016 and when the UK was very much in it.

    Another fail and another manipulation of the actual facts from you Francis.

    The European Union is a more dominant force than ever in the political, economic and social life of Ireland. Sinn Féin has a policy of critical but constructive engagement with the EU. This means we decide to support or oppose the many and complex developments in the EU each on its own merits. We have supported EU and other Europe-wide measures that promote and enhance human rights, equality and the all-Ireland agenda - measures which are an example of the EU at its best, promoting a guarantee of a basic level of rights protection in all member states. But Sinn Féin has also never been afraid to stand up against EU measures damaging to Irish interests. We want to build a Europe of Equals – a true partnership of equal sovereign states, co-operating in social and economic development in Europe and beyond. We want an EU that promotes peace, demilitarisation and nuclear disarmament and the just resolution of conflicts under the leadership of a reformed, renewed and democratised United Nations. Ultimately, we want a future United Ireland to take an active, leading role in such a reformed EU. 

    EU04 Election Manifesto (michaelpidgeon.com)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,094 ✭✭✭Francis McM


    And the statement I made was completely true. As I said, back in the early seventies SF were very against membership of the EEC ( which became the EU), because they were National Socialists and the UK was becoming a member etc. Now the UK are out of it, SF are very in favour of the EU.

    Do not forget the UK were well aware of what the EU were evolving in to and many there were not fully committed Europeans : for example, when it came to the Euro, they kept the £ as they wanted to be able to control their own interest rates. We have to adopt the interest rates that suit Germany, not us.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,857 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    They were committed to the EU WHILE the UK were in it. Therefore they didn't change anything when the UK left. It's there in black and white and in the factual world.



Advertisement