Could Kate Hoey help swing Northern Ireland (and the UK) towards #Brexit?

Clever move, if it works out. Kate Hoey is not only a Labour MP (albeit a near permanently off message on), but she was one of the earliest members of the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland when she was a student PE teacher and worked closely with Michael Farrell in People’s Democracy. British rights for British citizens was her prime motivation.

Kate Hoey, the former Home Office minister under Tony Blair who is one of the most prominent Eurosceptics in the Labour party, is being lined up as a possible leader of the no campaign in the referendum on Britain’s EU membership.

A leading Labour donor who is expected to bankroll the “Brexit” side described Hoey, the MP for Vauxhall, as a “tough fighter” who would appeal across the political spectrum.

John Mills, who was the national director of the no campaign in the 1975 EEC referendum, said: “I think she is a very strong, feisty figure. She is respected, she is liked. She knows her own mind, she is a tough fighter, she has been around for a long while.

She is a reliable cogent figure. These are very important qualities that you need in somebody who is going to lead a campaign like this.”

But what of her opponents in Northern Ireland? Are they ready with something more than empty slogans? If NI proves to be the difference in a tight vote, the No camp in London feel her local voice could carry enough doubters to swing the overall vote.

Will the DUP follow their strong Euroscepticism and push for Brexit? Or will they judge it a high stakes game with too few local returns? Could set up an interesting scenario for the next Assembly elections (whenever they be).

, ,

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Nevin, my own research has brought up many cases of major evidence being left out of the historical record, the reprieve for the two women supposedly drowned at Wigtown in 1685 being one glaring example of this, where a three century old propaganda story has stood almost unchallenged in spite of clear documentary evidence that it did not occur. This is what comes from leaving out significant evidence so as to build a strong case for any one interpretation, and shows the dangers of employing a torrent of textual evidence when it clearly has been written to ensure an obvious political advantage for one side of an issue.

    You quite rightly mention “filtering the incomplete body of evidence through their own prejudices”, and as Frank (“F.S.L”) Lyons said, after Freud and the unconscious which of us can claim total objectivity. While this is undeniably true, we may still attempt to look unblinkingly at the evidence and attempt to be as fair as we can be in evaluating that with which we do not agree. This is the very essence of the discipline of history as it is practiced today.

    I post a link to your own posting of the Dick Spring briefing on Scribd so that anyone else reading may evaluate its significance for themselves:

  • Nevin

    But sure you’re a ‘progressive’ Stuart groupie, Seaan. Have you got a ‘DY’ or a ‘RAC’ tattoo? I’m apparently a royal Stewart by breeding, though not a ‘bluidy’ one.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Progressive thought is not the preserve of the modern age, Nevin, and I’m happy to take it where I find it without pre-conditions.

    I’ve posted this before on Slugger, but it bears yet another outing:

    “By restoring the repealer movement to its rightful prominence, ‘Making Toleration’ also overturns traditional interpretations of King James II’s reign and the origins of the Glorious Revolution. Though often depicted as a despot who sought to impose his own Catholic faith on a Protestant people, James is revealed as a man ahead of his time, a king who pressed for religious toleration at the expense of his throne. The Glorious Revolution, Sowerby finds, was not primarily a crisis provoked by political repression. It was, in fact, a conservative counter-revolution against the movement for enlightened reform that James himself encouraged and sustained.”

    So backing the wrong horse is nothing new for the protestant community in the north. It took most of a century for the Presbyterian community here to recover those very fulsome religious and civil liberties they had enjoyed for some months under James II & VII.

    Oh, and regarding your link, that’s the kind of thing that really needs serious historical contextualisation. Lifting things outside of their qualifying context may help in the scoring of points, but it offers nothing for anyone attempting to understand its actual significance in a genuine historical event. Anyway, as the actor playing Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn says in that excellent film “Kingdom of Heaven”, “Thank you for your visit………”