adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,007
Likes: 4,820
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 20, 2021 9:20:31 GMT
|
|
daveb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 194
|
Post by daveb on Jun 20, 2021 20:13:53 GMT
Those are an interesting couple of links, thanks. My recollection as a 16 year old was that many people were influenced by the fact that the leaders of the 3 biggest parties, and most of the media, were in favour of membership, but that even so, 1/3 voted against.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,007
Likes: 4,820
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 20, 2021 21:26:20 GMT
Those are an interesting couple of links, thanks. My recollection as a 16 year old was that many people were influenced by the fact that the leaders of the 3 biggest parties, and most of the media, were in favour of membership, but that even so, 1/3 voted against.
Wilson was for, but Labour's official stance was against. Much as with "Lexit" and Corbyn's failure to do anything very much in 2016, it was the hard left who drove their antipathy - Benn (Corbyn's mentor) and Foot were staunchly anti. news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/26/newsid_2503000/2503155.stm
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Jun 21, 2021 7:28:33 GMT
Fascinating links. Thank you.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Jun 22, 2021 9:44:49 GMT
Those are an interesting couple of links, thanks. My recollection as a 16 year old was that many people were influenced by the fact that the leaders of the 3 biggest parties, and most of the media, were in favour of membership, but that even so, 1/3 voted against.
Wilson was for, but Labour's official stance was against. Much as with "Lexit" and Corbyn's failure to do anything very much in 2016, it was the hard left who drove their antipathy - Benn (Corbyn's mentor) and Foot were staunchly anti. news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/26/newsid_2503000/2503155.stmI always felt sorry for Corbyn in a strange way, he was always anti the EU,but was leader of a party that was pro EU, so IMHO declaring either way would be tricky. Was Foot ever pro anything apart from donkey jackets One thing that did surprise and still surprises me is the Unions, most were and still are very pro EU, yet I would suggest a majority of the memberships voted leave.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,888
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 22, 2021 12:26:28 GMT
I always felt sorry for Corbyn in a strange way, he was always anti the EU,but was leader of a party that was pro EU, so IMHO declaring either way would be tricky.Was Foot ever pro anything apart from donkey jackets One thing that did surprise and still surprises me is the Unions, most were and still are very pro EU, yet I would suggest a majority of the memberships voted leave. I think it was one of his mistakes. Surely you should always say what you believe in.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 22, 2021 14:23:41 GMT
'Hard to see' how Northern Ireland Protocol can remain sustainable, Brexit minister tells MPs
..... Lord Frost told the committee the "basic problem" was the "chilling effect on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is pretty strong".
"Until we began implementing the Protocol nobody could quite know that," he claimed.
Lord Frost urged the EU to adopt more "pragmatism", adding: "If their approach is simply to say 'you must just implement the EU customs code as if this were any other external frontier of the EU' then we obviously have a problem.
.....
Mind blowing. Just mind blowing.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,203
Likes: 6,011
|
Post by registerme on Jun 22, 2021 14:40:19 GMT
Mind blowing. Just mind blowing. Personally I would have gone with "enraging". EDIT: I mean he negotiated the bloody thing in the first place .
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,007
Likes: 4,820
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 22, 2021 15:13:08 GMT
Lord Frost urged the EU to adopt more "pragmatism", adding: "If their approach is simply to say 'you must just implement the EU customs code as if this were any other external frontier of the EU' then we obviously have a problem. I can't decide if it's a complete lack of awareness of they were doing, or whether they're just brazenly lying. There were three and only three options for what to do about NI... 1. UK remains SM/CU.May drew a red line through that. 2. UK leaves SM/CU.Breaks GFA. Entire rest of civilised world said "Don't". 3. GB leaves SM/CU, NI remains within.That's the one they chose. No other option existed. Now they're whining about the consequences? "We want to leave but not really leave"... Like getting divorced but expecting to still use the ex's gym membership and the washing machine. This was going about literally several years ago...
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 22, 2021 15:16:03 GMT
Mind blowing. Just mind blowing. Personally I would have gone with "enraging". EDIT: I mean he negotiated the bloody thing in the first place . Yes well that as well. Call me a cynic, but don't you think they just signed up to this knowing it would be a monumental cluster**** but in the expectation that they could then use it to make the EU look like the bad guys and make political mileage from it ? Or maybe just because the penny had dropped with them a long while ago as to the implications of exiting without being in EFTA and they just had to get the ink dry on an agreement. Totally enraging and mind blowing.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,888
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Jun 22, 2021 15:59:27 GMT
The root cause of the problem is that the Good Friday Agreement assumes UK is in the EU and thus trade can flow freely north and south without any special rules between NI and UK. Therefore that agreement must, however difficult, be re-visited.
I'm surprised the Remainer didn't pick up on that fact before the referendum. If people were informed that by leaving the EU, the GFA and the resulting peace that has occurred would be at risk, there might have been a few more moving to the Remain side.
As for why Frost/Cummings/Johnson did what they did - I suspect NI was much further down their priority list than prosperity for the rest of the UK so they just kicked the can a bit.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,203
Likes: 6,011
|
Post by registerme on Jun 22, 2021 16:56:27 GMT
I'm not sure that's quite correct michaelc in that I don't think that the Good Friday Agreement assumes that the UK is in the EU. That being said Ireland remains a part of the EU and can (and should be able to) look to the EU when its interests are threatened. Similarly people living in Northern Ireland were allowed to retain their EU citizenship after Brexit, so the EU does have a legitimate part to play where the GFA is concerned (as does the US, albeit for different reasons). As part of this the EU expressed its concerns that Brexit might undermine the GFA, for instance via the imposition of a hard border (which was always a natural consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market). The UK committed to avoid this. The consequences were obvious (see adrianc 's diagram above). It's for this reason that I also disagree with you when you said "I'm surprised the Remainer didn't pick up on that fact before the referendum...". It was picked up on, it was discussed widely and publicly, and it was either ignored (by the voters), dismissed as "project fear", or "hand wavy magic technology" (which didn't exist, and doesn't exist) would be employed somehow to prevent it ever becoming an issue. Johnson and Frost et al knew this. After all they'd also seen the diagram above. They understood it. Ahead of time. They ploughed on regardless. And here we are.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 22, 2021 17:12:32 GMT
I'm not sure that's quite correct michaelc in that I don't think that the Good Friday Agreement assumes that the UK is in the EU. That being said Ireland remains a part of the EU and can (and should be able to) look to the EU when its interests are threatened. Similarly people living in Northern Ireland were allowed to retain their EU citizenship after Brexit, so the EU does have a legitimate part to play where the GFA is concerned (as does the US, albeit for different reasons). As part of this the EU expressed its concerns that Brexit might undermine the GFA, for instance via the imposition of a hard border (which was always a natural consequence of the UK leaving the Single Market). The UK committed to avoid this. The consequences were obvious (see adrianc 's diagram above). It's for this reason that I also disagree with you when you said "I'm surprised the Remainer didn't pick up on that fact before the referendum...". It was picked up on, it was discussed widely and publicly, and it was either ignored (by the voters), dismissed as "project fear", or "hand wavy magic technology" (which didn't exist, and doesn't exist) would be employed somehow to prevent it ever becoming an issue. Johnson and Frost et al knew this. After all they'd also seen the diagram above. They understood it. Ahead of time. They ploughed on regardless. And here we are. In terms of the language within the GFA, I'm sure you are correct that there is no statement that the GFA only holds as long as both sides are in the EU. Quite possibly it doesn't mention it at all. Nonetheless the GFA was of course crafted and signed while both countries were in the EU, so it is not unreasonable to refer to it as 'assuming' that both countries are in the EU, since they were. The Common Travel Area is another interesting one. Up until Brexit, it had never been tested while either both countries were non-members of the EU, or both countries were members, Eire and UK accession to the EU occurring contemporaneously.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,203
Likes: 6,011
|
Post by registerme on Jun 22, 2021 17:21:36 GMT
I'd certainly agree that both the UK and Ireland being part of the EU provided important (vital) context for the signing of the GFA.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,007
Likes: 4,820
|
Post by adrianc on Jun 22, 2021 17:26:45 GMT
In terms of the language within the GFA, I'm sure you are correct that there is no statement that the GFA only holds as long as both sides are in the EU. Quite possibly it doesn't mention it at all. Nonetheless the GFA was of course crafted and signed while both countries were in the EU, so it is not unreasonable to refer to it as 'assuming' that both countries are in the EU, since they were. The issue isn't so much EU membership per se, but SM/CU membership. The CTA covers personal movement across the border. Of course, Dublin may decide that Schengen makes more sense than the CTA now...
|
|