Border issues ‘should have been foreseen' as former NI Secretary Julian Smith hits out at Cameron's cavalier' approach to Brexit
Having been appointed as Secretary of State by Boris Johnson in 2019 Mr Smith, who remains MP for Skipton and Ripon in Yorkshire though called himself 100% Scottish, found himself in the midst of what he called 'an unforgivable decision' by former Prime Minister David Cameron to call the referendum on leaving the European Union.
'I joined the Conservative Party because of David Cameron, because he was dynamic, but it was unforgivable that this fundamental question was put to the British people when you have a whole range of issues, not least the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland,' he told the BBC's Red Lines podcast.
Now on the back benches, one of the few supporters of Theresa May's government to have survived, he's highly critical of Lord Cameron's approach, calling the former Prime Minister 'extremely cavalier' in his approach to Brexit.
'It (the referendum) was put to the British people as if it was some sort of Eton game,' he said, referencing the fact that Mr Cameron was one of several at the heart of the UK government who had been educated at the famous private school.
After losing the referendum vote, David Cameron resigned and left piecing it together to others, among them Mr Smith who was a key figure in Teresa May's doomed government, serving as chief whip under her leadership from 2016-19.
'There should have been a proposition which outlined how both answers, yes and no, would be addressed,' he said.
'Issues such as how to maintain an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should have been foreseen. Instead the UK was led into years of contemplating an answer to that question.
'It was a pretty disastrous period. It has led to many of the challenges today where concerns over immigration are unaddressed and a polarisation of politics. That may have come anyway, but it was really accelerated by that period from 2017 onwards.'
Theresa May resigned in 2019 due to an inability to pass Brexit legislation - three times the votes went against her government in the Commons, During that time he had built up a relationship with the DUP, who had secured their 'confidence and supply' arrangement to prop up government.
'The DUP relationship was very helpful in one of the big factors - keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of power,' he said.
'They were positive to work with, but it was obviously a very difficult time when you had a very small party that was critical to the stability at Westminster and so influential. On a personal basis I found them straightforward to deal with.'
When Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister Smith was appointed to his first Cabinet as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and was instrumental in breaking three years of political inactivity as Stormont resumed in January 2020.
'I wasn't sure I would get a job,' he said, having been a key figure in supporting Teresa May.
'I was delighted to get the role,' he continued, admitting days in Northern Ireland was the first time he had dealt with Sinn Fein politicians.
'They don't take their seats at Westminster,' he said. 'Probably they could have had the votes to influence things (over Brexit)
'But I found Sinn Fein to be a very driven and organised party. I find what happened in the past abhorrent and I disagree with their goals, but I found their politicians straightforward to deal with and developed good working relationships with them.'
That led to Stormont returning in January 2020. A month later, Julian Smith was out of the job.
'It was quite frustrating,' he said. 'The restoration of Stormont was one of the first successes of the Boris Johnson government. I had pushed back in cabinet about the idea of a 'no deal' Brexit. Looking back, if I had been Boris, I'd have been irritated by that too.
'I felt I could have assisted him more as Prime Minister. But no, it wasn't unexpected he decided to get rid of me as I'd served Teresa May.'
Asked about the potential for a border poll, Smith said he did not think the conditions were 'right'.
'Look at all the other things that need to be done,' he said.
'Constitutional discussion is basically an excuse for not dealing with these priority issues. Don't let politicians in Northern Ireland off the hook on dealing with social mobility, dealing with the health service, revenue raising
'I cannot in any world see a border poll with interest from Ireland, acceptance from the UK. We're better focusing on making people's lives better.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
39 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Moaning Scot Gov civil servants in fresh quit threat over working in office just TWO DAYS a week
Scroll down to read some of the civil servants' moans SHIRKING FROM HOME Moaning Scot Gov civil servants in fresh quit threat over working in office just TWO DAYS a week Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) WHINING civil servants have threatened to quit and boasted about being able to pet their cat amid moves to cut working from home. The fresh round of moaning comes as Nats chiefs demand they return to the office for just two days a week. Sign up for the Politics newsletter Sign up 3 Workers shared their gripes in messages unearthed by Scottish Tories from the Scottish Government's internal messaging site Viva Engage. Credit: Getty 3 Some claimed that coming back in to work could hamper them having a family or getting a pet, Credit: Getty Grumbling penpushers also raised concerns about staff who had moved to England thanks to work-from-home rules. They also highlighted the benefits of being able to stand up and smell the fresh air. Just weeks ago The Scottish Sun revealed how civil servants demanded the reopening of a long-shuttered swimming pool at a government office and a pay rise over cutting their days at home. Others claimed coming back in to work would hamper them having a family or getting a pet, while others suggested their human rights may be breached. In new messages, unearthed by Scottish Tories from the Scottish Government's internal messaging site Viva Engage, officials continued griping. One bragged not being in the office allowed their 'furry little HR advisor' to 'check in on me in the morning' — attaching an image of their cat. 3 New messages reveal the whinges of civil servants Another said: 'I know some colleagues who don't actually live in Scotland any more, so are they going to still be WFH full time? 'They are not going to travel up from England a few times a week to come into the office are they?' Stephen Kerr, employment spokesman for the Scottish Tories, slammed the fresh batch of complaints. He said: 'Hardworking Scots will give short shrift to civil servants throwing their toys out the pram about having to go back to the office. 'If that is all it takes for some to say they will leave, then you question what value they were adding to workforce productivity anyway.' Woke Scottish Government staff demanded POOL & pay rise to return to office for just TWO days a week We told earlier this month how top civil servant Joe Griffin - now on a £180,000 salary - was blasted for moaning about his long working days He also joked to a colleague about being distracted from playing the video game Tetris.
Metro
3 hours ago
- Metro
Should the voting age be lowered or raised and what about a top limit?
Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments. Regarding Labour's announcement that the voting age will be lowered from 18 to 16 for the next general election (Metro, Fri). The young are more invested in the future of this country than voters in their 70s or 80s because they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of political decisions made in the here and now. A great many of them are far more attuned to the challenges facing our nation and our planet. Age doesn't necessarily bring wisdom. Those who were stirred up by rabble-rousers on social media and went on to riot in the streets last year – burning libraries and looting shops – were by and large in their 20s, 30s and 40s. More pertinent, surely, would be to consider placing an upper age limit on voting, given that many in their twilight years will no longer have full command of their mental faculties and may tend to vote for more selfish reasons. It is said that voters tend to become more right-wing as they grow older and, as was amply illustrated by Brexit, this is often because they haven't thought through the implications of any political changes, since they are unlikely to have to contend with them. Encouraging people to participate in politics from an earlier age can only be a good thing. A great many of those who complain about politicians today don't even bother to vote, feeling they can't make a difference or that the outcome will have little effect upon them. Apathy is the enemy of social cohesion – an engaged population is good for the health of the nation. Julian Self, Wolverton I was absolutely sickened when I heard Sir Keir Starmer is allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote! Before last year's general election, he promised that if Labour won, he would grant the vote to EU nationals with settled status, who – unlike youth – contribute (or have contributed) to the economy of this country through their skills and taxes. I have lived in this country for more than 40 years and have a sound knowledge of the political, economic, security and defence issues it is facing. Is that the case with 16-year-olds? Thanks, Starmer, for breaking your promise and continuing to treat more than three million people as second-class citizens. This is a very strange and unfair concept of democracy! Marie-Claire Orton, Newcastle Upon Tyne, A Frustrated EU National Lowering the voting age to 16 is just another clutching-at-straws idea by a poor government that knows it will be voted out. The age should be raised to 21. There are so many things you are not allowed to do until you are even 18, such as leave education, so at least have a few years in the adult world before being allowed to make a decision about who runs the country – because at 16 your choices will be misguided. RCG, Bishop's Stortford Regarding the pair jailed for felling the Sycamore Gap tree (MetroTalk, Thu), they should be released as soon as it grows back to its former size. Our new neighbour has bulldozed all their plants and trees to make way for concrete extensions, outbuildings and a patio – all legal. No one speaks up for these well-established plants and trees. Mity, London I'd like to join Terry McCranor (MetroTalk, Fri) in raising a glass in toasting Rob Buckhaven's column on 'Why it's cool to chill red wine'. The British hospitality trade needs all the help it can get and this article should be flagged up on your website for months. That would allow diners and pub-goers to point to it when commenting or challenging restaurateurs and landlords about the temperature of red wine. More Trending Most staff have no idea about wine, or the best serving temperature, and pour red wine from bottles on shelves behind the bar. Perhaps a future column might include four cut-out business card-size summaries of it, so readers can pass them on to the food and drink emporiums they visit. Supermarkets and leading wine merchants must help, too, by insisting winemakers include relevant advice about red wine temperature on the back label. Warm red wine is horrible and unlikely to result in a repeat order from discerning customers. Lester May, Camden Town MORE: Don't expect water bills to stop rising after we overhaul sector, minister warns MORE: Who's next for Oleksandr Usyk? Joseph Parker could get his shot but a third fight with Tyson Fury cannot be ruled out MORE: Charli XCX and new husband George Daniel celebrate wedding with wild afterparty
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Suella Braverman reveals blueprint for leaving ECHR
Suella Braverman has unveiled her legal blueprint for how the UK could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and accused Strasbourg of 'judicial imperialism.' In a 56-page document, the former home secretary and attorney general says the UK should rewrite the 1998 Belfast Good Friday Agreement, stripping out ECHR references and replacing them with domestic UK and common law human rights principles. Setting out the detailed legislative changes, she rejects 'apocalyptic' claims by the left of the Tory party and centrist politicians that this would threaten peace in Northern Ireland. Writing in The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman says there is barely a 'single sphere of national life' left untouched by the 'creeping remit' of Strasbourg, from blocking the deportation of foreign criminals because of their family life to enabling the 'relentless persecution' of veterans and 'shackling our soldiers abroad.' She adds: 'This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave.' Mrs Braverman, who was the first Cabinet minister to publicly call for the UK to quit the ECHR in 2022, is understood to have secured cross-party backing for the proposals from key figures on the right of the Tory party, senior DUP and Reform politicians and some within blue Labour. It goes further than the Tories under Kemi Badenoch, who has said it is 'likely' she will seek to leave but has commissioned a review by shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson into the impact of any potential withdrawal. It aligns Mrs Braverman with Reform UK, which has promised to quit the ECHR. She has pledged to remain in the Tory party but has backed an electoral pact with Nigel Farage's party. Her husband, Rael, quit Reform last week after attacks by its former chair Zia Yusuf on her and Robert Jenrick, who also supports quitting the ECHR. Tory peer Lord Frost said: 'We all understand that leaving the ECHR is now essential. As Suella rightly argues, the real question is not 'whether' but 'how': how it can be done without disrupting our international relations or compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom. 'This bold, clear plan shows exactly how we can shake off the control of the ECHR's court and jurisprudence, and finally reclaim the sovereignty that Brexit promised.' Richard Tice, the Reform deputy leader, said: 'This is a valuable and welcome policy paper on the vital objective of leaving the ECHR. Until we leave the ECHR, we are unable to save the UK from inexorable decline in so many important areas' Former Northern Ireland first minister Baroness Foster said Mrs Braverman's proposals were a 'starting point for discussion and a pathway to restoring the primacy of our common law and the sovereignty of our Parliament whilst also securing the integrity of the UK.' In her legal document, Mrs Braverman admits the ECHR is more entwined with law in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. However, to leave it as part of the Good Friday Agreement would mean 'unacceptable further divergence' between Northern Ireland and the UK. She proposes amendments to the Northern Ireland Act to remove references to ECHR rights and replace them with new provisions ensuring continuity of rights in common law. She argues that the Agreement has already been modified five times since 2006 through supplementary deals. 'There is no obligation within the Belfast Agreement to remain a party to the ECHR, only to protect rights in Northern Ireland. This can be achieved through domestic mechanisms, including the common law,' she said. Mrs Braverman says the changes should be underpinned by four principles: legal uniformity between Northern Ireland and Britain; democratic accountability where Parliament and UK courts, not Strasbourg, determined human rights; consultation with Northern Irish communities; and honouring the spirit of the 1998 Agreement. To quit, the UK would invoke article 58 of the ECHR, setting in train a six month transition process during which the UK should engage 'respectfully but firmly' with the Irish Government and Northern Irish parties to update and renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes,' she says. At the same time, the UK would repeal the Human Rights Act, which embedded the ECHR in UK law, and enshrine in UK law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities. Mrs Braverman says: 'The ECHR's remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act.' The debate is no longer whether, but how, we leave By Suella Braverman For some years now, the case for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights has ceased to be controversial – at least among those willing to see things as they are. That case has been rehearsed exhaustively, not least in these very pages. It is a case grounded not merely in law or policy, but in something deeper: the democratic instinct of a free people to govern themselves without supervision by unelected, unaccountable judges in Strasbourg. During my time as attorney general, I saw first-hand the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has contorted itself in pursuit of an ideology foreign to our constitutional tradition. The moment that court blocked our ability to remove illegal migrants to Rwanda – a sovereign policy decision by a sovereign nation – was, for me, the final straw. Enough. Let us be clear about what we are dealing with. A court that rules foreign criminals cannot be deported because of their family life. That shields terrorists from justice. That permits violent protestors to vandalise with impunity. Enables the relentless persecution of British veterans – men who risked life and limb to uphold the peace in Northern Ireland – while real threats go unchallenged. A court that shackles our soldiers abroad and unpicks our policies at home. From planning law to immigration control, from welfare reform to environmental regulation, there is barely a single sphere of national life left untouched by the creeping remit of Strasbourg. This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave. My new paper with Guy Dampier at the Prosperity Institute offers a comprehensive roadmap to reclaiming our sovereignty and restoring constitutional self-respect. The main argument used to block any discussion of withdrawal is the supposed impossibility of doing so under the terms of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. We are told, in increasingly apocalyptic tones, that departure from the ECHR would unravel the peace. This is legally wrong and politically hollow. The Agreement makes reference to the ECHR, but it does not require the UK to remain a party in perpetuity. Indeed, the Belfast Agreement – hailed at the time as the final word on peace – has already been torn up, amended, and repurposed more times than its authors might have imagined. The Northern Ireland Protocol, imposed in direct contradiction to the spirit of that Agreement, did not provoke collapse. As the late Lord Trimble warned, it amounted to a breach – and yet life carried on. There is room, therefore, for adaptation once again. We set out four principles to manage this transition. First, legal uniformity: there must not be a two tier human rights regime within the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland must not be left behind. Second, democratic accountability: our Parliament and courts, not Strasbourg, should determine the content and enforcement of those rights. Third, genuine consultation with all communities in Northern Ireland. And fourth, peace through fairness – honouring the spirit, if not always the letter of the 1998 Agreement. Once Article 58 of the Convention is invoked – a straightforward legal mechanism – the UK will enter a transition phase. During this period, the government should engage, respectfully but firmly, with the Irish government and Northern Irish parties to update and, where necessary, renegotiate the relevant portions of the Belfast Agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes. But this is not just about Northern Ireland. The restoration of sovereignty requires action across the UK's legal architecture. That means: repealing the Human Rights Act 1998; enshrining in law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities; reforming judicial review to limit the reach of activist jurisprudence; amending the devolution statutes for Scotland and Wales to reflect the new constitutional settlement and renegotiating the references to the ECHR in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The essence of our liberty Would this mean the end of human rights in Britain? Only to those who have forgotten – or never understood – that this country did not discover liberty in 1950. Long before the ECHR was drafted, our freedoms were protected by a rich body of statute and common law. As Lord Hoffmann once put it, the Convention did not create rights; it reflected the common law. Our system was already protecting people from torture, arbitrary detention, and state overreach – not through foreign fiat, but through Parliament and centuries of common law evolution. Unlike the codified, bureaucratic, top-down systems of continental Europe, the British legal tradition begins with the individual. What is not prohibited is permitted. That is the essence of our liberty – and the foundation of our legal and political culture. To depart the ECHR is not to dismantle rights, but to place their guardianship back where it belongs: with our elected representatives and our own courts. If those representatives err, the people can remove them. If judges overstep, Parliament can correct them. That is not chaos. That is democracy. This will not be easy. We should not pretend otherwise. There will be resistance from vested interests: political, legal, and diplomatic. But sovereignty is not the path of least resistance. It is the path of self-respect. The ECHR, like so many post-war institutions, was born out of noble intentions. But intentions alone do not justify perpetuity. Its remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act. We have laid out the roadmap to freedom. The path is there for those with the courage to walk it. The only question that remains is this: Who among us still believes that the British people are fit to govern themselves – and will act accordingly?
