The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If parliament don't pass the legislation what becomes of the GFA and why? Is it a broken international agreement?

No. If the British government doesn't introduce (and support) the legislation, it's a broken agreement. If the British Parliament doesn't pass it, well, that's up to them, their prerogative.

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

No. If the British government doesn't introduce (and support) the legislation, it's a broken agreement. If the British Parliament doesn't pass it, well, that's up to them, their prerogative.

Parliament ratified this treaty already. It is called the British-Irish Agreement. So parliament would be breaking it.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament ratified this treaty already. It is called the British-Irish Agreement. So parliament would be breaking it.

Yes they did.

But the legislation to give effect to a UI which is to follow on from the plebiscite and for which the British and Irish governments have signed up to introduce and support must still pass in their respective parliaments. That legislation is not contained in the GFA and therefore cannot be assumed to be pre-agreed.

That legislation will be a massive undertaking. It will have to involve what happens to British assets in NI, what will happen to NI (and therefore British) civil servants and numerous other minutiae that you and I probably couldn't even conceive of right now.

So to assume that the job is done when everyone votes for a UI would be naive in the most exxtrem sense.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yes they did.

But the legislation to give effect to a UI which is to follow on from the plebiscite and for which the British and Irish governments have signed up to introduce and support must still pass in their respective parliaments. That legislation is not contained in the GFA and therefore cannot be assumed to be pre-agreed.

That legislation will be a massive undertaking. It will have to involve what happens to British assets in NI, what will happen to NI (and therefore British) civil servants and numerous other minutiae that you and I probably couldn't even conceive of right now.

So to assume that the job is done when everyone votes for a UI would be naive in the most exxtrem sense.

Can you answer this question?

If parliament don't pass the legislation what becomes of the GFA and why? Is it a broken international agreement?

Dyr

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yes they did.

But the legislation to give effect to a UI which is to follow on from the plebiscite and for which the British and Irish governments have signed up to introduce and support must still pass in their respective parliaments. That legislation is not contained in the GFA and therefore cannot be assumed to be pre-agreed.

That legislation will be a massive undertaking. It will have to involve what happens to British assets in NI, what will happen to NI (and therefore British) civil servants and numerous other minutiae that you and I probably couldn't even conceive of right now.

So to assume that the job is done when everyone votes for a UI would be naive in the most exxtrem sense.

Can you give an previous example of a british parliament refusing to act on a referendum?

A border poll passes, it's job done. In theory and practice.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament ratified this treaty already. It is called the British-Irish Agreement. So parliament would be breaking it.

The treaty itself says that the government must introduce and support legislation- Article 1 Section 4. Where does it say that parliament must pass it?

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you answer this question?

If parliament don't pass the legislation what becomes of the GFA and why? Is it a broken international agreement?

The government being defeated on a bill usually results in that government falling. Remember John Bruton's shoe tax?

I would assume in that case that the new government would be obliged to put the bill to parliament again.

You've got to realise that such an outcome is not an intended consequence. Pressure from us and the international community would keep the British government on the hook until the bill passed. There is no Plan B. It must pass or rinse and repeat until it does.

That's why I and other posters here are basically confused by your astonishment about this. It's an infinitesmally small chance that such a situation would arise. The very word 'government' implies a majority in parliament.

CMOTDibbler

Bambi wrote: »

Can you give an previous example of a british parliament refusing to act on a referendum?

A border poll passes, it's job done. In theory and practice.

Since British referendums are as rare as hen's teeth, you won't be finding many examples of anything.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The government being defeated on a bill usually results in that government falling. Remember John Bruton's shoe tax?

I would assume in that case that the new government would be obliged to put the bill to parliament again.

You've got to realise that such an outcome is not an intended consequence. Pressure from us and the international community would keep the British government on the hook until the bill passed. There is no Plan B. It must pass or rinse and repeat until it does.

That's why I and other posters here are basically confused by your astonishment about this. It's an infinitesmally small chance that such a situation would arise. The very word 'government' implies a majority in parliament.

You are just afraid to say what would happen because you know that to answer would mean you just wasted a thread.

An internationally binding agreement ratified by all parliaments to it, would be broken. Illegally.

When the agreement was signed there was a good chance that Britain could get cold feet,(clarifications/assurances even had to be given) nobody in their right mind would have agreed to it in that case.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are just afraid to say what would happen because you know that to answer would mean you just wasted a thread.

An internationally binding agreement ratified by all parliaments to it, would be broken. Illegally.

When the agreement was signed there was a good chance that Britain could get cold feet,(clarifications/assurances even had to be given) nobody in their right mind would have agreed to it in that case.

Ah stop. I thought you were engaging in this seriously.

Clearly you are not.

This thread will serve as an indication to others.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ah stop. I thought you were engaging in this seriously.

Clearly you are not.

This thread will serve as an indication to others.

Answer the question you were asked then.


If parliament don't pass the legislation what becomes of the GFA and why? Is it a broken internationally binding agreement?

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Answer the question you were asked then.


If parliament don't pass the legislation what becomes of the GFA and why? Is it a broken internationally binding agreement?

No it isn't.

And really, since I've already answered this question above, you either haven't read it or comprehended it. You choose.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No it isn't.

And really, since I've already answered this question above, you either haven't read it or comprehended it. You choose.

So, parliament having ratified a binding agreement fail to ratify the legislation to enact that binding agreement and that is of NO consequence?

Do you understand what binding means?

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, parliament having ratified a binding agreement fail to ratify the legislation to enact that binding agreement and that is of NO consequence?

Do you understand what binding means?

I do.

Show me where in the GFA, parliament is bound to anything.

Dyr

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Since British referendums are as rare as hen's teeth, you won't be finding many examples of anything.

It's easier just to say "No, I can't give an example because none exist"

And nor will they, you might as well claim that the Queen can put the kibosh on it by refusing to sign the act into law.

I reckon the UK have held about 10 referendums since the time Tony Blair came to power. that's almost one every two years. Hens teeth indeed.

Skylinehead

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I do.

Show me where in the GFA, parliament is bound to anything.

I asked Francie that at least once and he ignored me so don't expect much.

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

It's easier just to say "No, I can't give an example because none exist"

And nor will they, you might as well claim that the Queen can put the kibosh on it by refusing to sign the act into law.

I reckon the UK have held about 10 referendums since the time Tony Blair came to power. that's almost one every two years. Hens teeth indeed.

Even more bewildering is the idea that it would have been agreed to in the first place if it ultimately came down to the whim of a parliament.

I'm out I think.

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

I asked Francie that at least once and he ignored me so don't expect much.

And I answered...parliament is already 'bound' to this agreement having ratified it.

If a 'binding agreement' is broken that is illegal.

CMOTDibbler

Bambi wrote: »

It's easier just to say "No, I can't give an example because none exist"

And nor will they, you might as well claim that the Queen can put the kibosh on it by refusing to sign the act into law.

I reckon the UK have held about 10 referendums since the time Tony Blair came to power. that's almost one every two years. Hens teeth indeed.

Eleven since 1973. Yeah, that's one every two years. :rolleyes:

Only three of those were UK wide.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I answered...parliament is already 'bound' to this agreement having ratified it.

If a 'binding agreement' is broken that is illegal.

You must be dizzy from going around in circles.

You still can't explain why that article 4 is there can you? If what you say is true, it shouldn't be there. It should just say "And the PM shall hand the keys to the Taoiseach and turn out the lights". :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You must be dizzy from going around in circles.

You still can't explain why that article 4 is there can you? If what you say is true, it shouldn't be there. It should just say "And the PM shall hand the keys to the Taoiseach and turn out the lights". :rolleyes:

Jesus, are you reading answers? Already dealt with earlier.

Passing the legislation is a formality. It cannot rescind/revoke/do the two step to the agreement.
Once the majority vote for a UI, that is it.

Unless the binding agreement is illegally broken.

Dyr

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Eleven since 1973. Yeah, that's one every two years. :rolleyes:

Only three of those were UK wide.

Nah, since 1997 by my reckoning, I suppose I should do some internet digging now

ah well

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, are you reading answers? Already dealt with earlier.

Passing the legislation is a formality. It cannot rescind/revoke/do the two step to the agreement.
Once the majority vote for a UI, that is it.

Unless the binding agreement is illegally broken.

I'll ignore the irony in your first sentence.

But at least there's some glimmer of understanding in the second one, even if you haven't grasped it yourself.

"Passing the legislation is a formality"

I wonder how that happens?

Have a think about that.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I answered...parliament is already 'bound' to this agreement having ratified it.

And, as has been pointed out to you approximately fourteen thousand times in this thread alone, Parliament can not be bound by a past Act of Parliament, or by anything else.

You were doing so well, bringing the conversation around to the consequences of Parliament's failure to enact legislation as envisaged by the GFA - but it seems you were just using the seriousness of such consequences as an argument that Parliament could somehow be compelled (by whom? how??) to pass legislation.

Dyr

Greater London Authority referendum, 1998

North East England devolution referendum, 2004

Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998

Scottish devolution referendum, 1997

Scottish independence referendum, 2014

Welsh devolution referendum, 1997

Welsh devolution referendum, 2011

2011 Alternative Vote referendum

2016 European Union membership referendum


There we go, 9 in total since 97. Notice anything about most of those referendums, (apart from the fact that parliament passed the legislation of course ) A common thread?

Devolution, independence etc etc. It's almost like the British have a tradition of holding referendums on matters of sovereignty Not bad a for a democratic system which was described as being totally alien to referendums eh?

Anyway, the queen could refuse to sign it, that must be next line now.

Only three of those were UK wide.

Oh deary me, what do you think a border poll will be?

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'll ignore the irony in your first sentence.

But at least there's some glimmer of understanding in the second one, even if you haven't grasped it yourself.

"Passing the legislation is a formality"

I wonder how that happens?

Have a think about that.

Because it is a formality?
Your man thumps on the door at the start of parliament too, because it is a formality.

It's a done deal when a majority vote for it here.
That is why a Taoiseach made an official speech about it and there isn't a word of contradiction on it.
Contrast that with Arlene's hissy fit when Enda said something he shouldn't have.

Why was that?

Have a think about it.

CMOTDibbler

Bambi wrote: »

Greater London Authority referendum, 1998

North East England devolution referendum, 2004

Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998

Scottish devolution referendum, 1997

Scottish independence referendum, 2014

Welsh devolution referendum, 1997

Welsh devolution referendum, 2011

2011 Alternative Vote referendum

2016 European Union membership referendum


There we go, 9 in total since 97. Notice anything about most of those referendums, (apart from the fact that parliament passed the legislation of course ) A common thread?

Devolution, independence etc etc. It's almost like the British have a tradition of holding referendums on matters of sovereignty Not bad a for a democratic system which was described as being totally alien to referendums eh?

Anyway, the queen could refuse to sign it, that must be next line now.



Oh deary me, what do you think a border poll will be?

Fair play for doing all that research. I'm not that bored.

But I did look at one of the more recent referendums that you list above: The Welsh referendum of 2011 which produced two acts: The Wales Act 2014 and the Wales Act 2017 which gave effect to the result of the referendum of 2011 (after having been through a commission first). Both went through all stages in parliament as bills and were voted on in the normal way before the Queen gave royal assent.

For the record, bills are voted on a number of times on their way through the houses of parliament. iirc: second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading. In both houses. Amendments can be made at most of the stages as well.

Here's a record of debate on the third reading in the commons on 24th June 2014.

4. Wales Bill: Consideration of the Bill New Clause NC1-(Mr David Gauke)-brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause NC2-(Jonathan Edwards)-brought up, and read the first time.
Question proposed, That the Clause be read a second time.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause NC4-(Nia Griffith)-brought up, and read the first time.
Question put, That the Clause be read a second time.
The House divided.
Division No. 18.
Ayes: 202 (Tellers: Tom Blenkinsop, Heidi Alexander).
Noes: 276 (Tellers: Harriett Baldwin, Gavin Barwell).
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment 13 proposed.-(Nia Griffith.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The House divided.
Division No. 19.
Ayes: 196 (Tellers: Tom Blenkinsop, Heidi Alexander).
Noes: 278 (Tellers: Harriett Baldwin, Mr David Evennett).
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments 1 and 2 made.
Question put, That Amendment 8 be made.-(Jonathan Edwards.)
The House divided.
Division No. 20.
Ayes: 8 (Tellers: Pete Wishart, Mr Mike Weir).
Noes: 278 (Tellers: Harriett Baldwin, Gavin Barwell).
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments 3 to 7 made.
5 Wales Bill: Third Reading
Bill read the third time, and passed.

And that's only a tiny fraction of the proceedings on that bill. A full list of the various proceedings and amendments on its passage through parliament can be seen here.

It took six years for the result of that referendum to be put into law.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it is a formality?
Your man thumps on the door at the start of parliament too, because it is a formality.

It's a done deal when a majority vote for it here.
That is why a Taoiseach made an official speech about it and there isn't a word of contradiction on it.
Contrast that with Arlene's hissy fit when Enda said something he shouldn't have.

Why was that?

Have a think about it.

Have a look at my post above about the Welsh referendum of 2011. Is a politician going to add a bunch of technicalities to his speech about how parliament works in outlining the gist of a treaty?

No. He makes the assumption that a government sponsored bill will be passed, even if only the government party votes for it. Because the government is, you know, in the majority,

People didn't make a fuss about it because they know (even if you don't) how parliament works. Every clause in a bill is drafted, debated, voted on, re-drafted, debated again, passed on to the next stage, rinse and repeat. The Wales Act of 2014 runs to 46 pages and that only covers half of what Wales voted on in 2011.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Have a look at my post above about the Welsh referendum of 2011. Is a politician going to add a bunch of technicalities to his speech about how parliament works in outlining the gist of a treaty?

No. He makes the assumption that a government sponsored bill will be passed, even if only the government party votes for it. Because the government is, you know, in the majority,

People didn't make a fuss about it because they know (even if you don't) how parliament works. Every clause in a bill is drafted, debated, voted on, re-drafted, debated again, passed on to the next stage, rinse and repeat. The Wales Act of 2014 runs to 46 pages and that only covers half of what Wales voted on in 2011.

We are talking about an internationally binding agreement between two sovereign states here, which is not to be confused with it's add-on the Multi-Party Agreement.

It became an 'internationally binding' agreement when it's terms and clauses where signed off/ratified by both parliaments.

It is not an assumption, it is recognising and living in a world where you expect a parliament to operate legally.


If they do, unity is a formality after a majority vote.
That is why an Irish Taoiseach could be so positive, and so unchallenged by Unionists who haven't been slow to challenge before.


*Ps That is me answering the question I asked you in my last post.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are talking about an internationally binding agreement between two sovereign states here, which is not to be confused with it's add-on the Multi-Party Agreement.

It became an 'internationally binding' agreement when it's terms and clauses where signed off/ratified by both parliaments.

It is not an assumption, it is recognising and living in a world where you expect a parliament to operate legally.


If they do, unity is a formality after a majority vote.
That is why an Irish taoiseach could be so positive, and so unchallenged by Unionists who haven't been slow to challenge before.

It's an international treaty. Yse we can agree on that. I've never said otherwise.

The bit you can't seem to grasp is that included in that international treaty (that all parties have agreed to) is a requirement that the governments propose and support legislation. Nowhere does it say that the respective parliaments must pass that legislation.

Until you can actually quote from the GFA a clause that specifically says that parliament must do anything, we are going to go around in circles for ever.

You have consistently failed to do this and keep returning to "but, international agreement" or "but Bertie Ahern" or "but a formality". None of those buts are in the GFA. Stop repeating them, they are meaningless.

To be clear: No Act of Parliament or Act of the Oireachtais ever appeared newly minted as law without first going through all the stages legislation must go through in those institutions before becoming law. The above Wales referendum being a case in point.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's an international treaty. Yse we can agree on that. I've never said otherwise.

The bit you can't seem to grasp is that included in that international treaty (that all parties have agreed to) is a requirement that the governments propose and support legislation. Nowhere does it say that the respective parliaments must pass that legislation.

Until you can actually quote from the GFA a clause that specifically says that parliament must do anything, we are going to go around in circles for ever.

You have consistently failed to do this and keep returning to "but, international agreement" or "but Bertie Ahern" or "but a formality". None of those buts are in the GFA. Stop repeating them, they are meaningless.

To be clear: No Act of Parliament or Act of the Oireachtais ever appeared newly minted as law without first going through all the stages legislation must go through in those institutions before becoming law. The above Wales referendum being a case in point.

The GFA didn't formally pass through our house for over a year and I think it took that long in the UK too.

Were we just assuming it was an agreement in the interim? Was there a scintilla of a chance that it would be torn down by either parliament a year after it was signed? No there wasn't. Because there were MANY who would have tried. You had the Unionists parties and people diametrically opposed to it (eg Michael Gove types)
Passing the legislation was a formality. Something that happens when agreements are signed.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The GFA didn't formally pass through our house for over a year and I think it took that long in the UK too.

Were we just assuming it was an agreement in the interim? Was there a scintilla of a chance that it would be torn down by either parliament a year after it was signed? No there wasn't. Because there were MANY who would have tried. You had the Unionists parties and people diametrically opposed to it (eg Michael Gove types)
Passing the legislation was a formality. Something that happens when agreements are signed.

The GFA was an agreement made between two governments. Such an agreement doesn't require ratification by parliament except where the agreement affects existing law. So after the agreement, we had to amend our constitution and Britain had to repeal the Government of Ireland Act.

The UK government also doesn't have to run EU treaty agreements through parliament but we have referendums on them. In both cases, the resulting legislation must be passed by our respective parliaments. So in the case of the UK, they could agree any treaty with the EU without consulting anyone and then present the required bills to parliament for debate and ratification.

From your question, it seems that you are confusing intra-governmental agreements with law. One may impact on the other, but an agreement is not a law. So if your government makes a trade agreement with another country, that agreement is binding but only requires legislation if (say) tariffs or duties are to be reduced.

The use of the word 'legislation' in Article 4 of the GFA implies all the processes and procedures required to produce legislation. No government can legislate without the consent of parliament. The word for that is dictatorship.

CMOTDibbler

It may not have occurred to you (and I fear for your blood pressure ), but at any time, either government could repudiate the GFA. The same way that the British have repudiated the Treaty of Rome and its follow-on treaties. That they held a referendum to decide this is irrelevant because they didn't need a referendum for anything other than a mandate.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The GFA was an agreement made between two governments. Such an agreement doesn't require ratification by parliament except where the agreement affects existing law. So after the agreement, we had to amend our constitution and Britain had to repeal the Government of Ireland Act.

The UK government also doesn't have to run EU treaty agreements through parliament but we have referendums on them. In both cases, the resulting legislation must be passed by our respective parliaments. So in the case of the UK, they could agree any treaty with the EU without consulting anyone and then present the required bills to parliament for debate and ratification.

From your question, it seems that you are confusing intra-governmental agreements with law. One may impact on the other, but an agreement is not a law. So if your government makes a trade agreement with another country, that agreement is binding but only requires legislation if (say) tariffs or duties are to be reduced.

The use of the word 'legislation' in Article 4 of the GFA implies all the processes and procedures required to produce legislation. No government can legislate without the consent of parliament. The word for that is dictatorship.

You do like to misconstrue.

The Agreement was contingent on changes to our constitution and changes to the GOI Act.
There was no formal/legal agreement until that was done. It didn't happen 'after' the agreement.

And again, the 'agreement' is already ratified/passed so it's clauses must be met, if the British Parliament wish to remain 'legal'.

If they don't wish to remain 'legal' then anything can and probably will happen.
If any 'assumption' is being made, it is that the British Parliament will act legally.

Dyr

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It may not have occurred to you (and I fear for your blood pressure ), but at any time, either government could repudiate the GFA. The same way that the British have repudiated the Treaty of Rome and its follow-on treaties. That they held a referendum to decide this is irrelevant because they didn't need a referendum for anything other than a mandate.

Are you going to keep falling back to another barricade rather than just admit you were talking through your hat?

but what if...but what if...but what if...

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It may not have occurred to you (and I fear for your blood pressure ), but at any time, either government could repudiate the GFA. The same way that the British have repudiated the Treaty of Rome and its follow-on treaties. That they held a referendum to decide this is irrelevant because they didn't need a referendum for anything other than a mandate.

Ah yes, love the attempt to depict me as somebody who is suffering from blood pressure. I suppose that is where we are going next.

Any party to the GFA can repudiate it. That goes without saying.

We all though, expect all parties to it, to observe it. Why? Because they are legally bound to it. Why? Because it is an internationally binding agreement.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We all though, expect all parties to it, to observe it. Why? Because they are legally bound to it. Why? Because it is an internationally binding agreement.

The parties to the GFA are the British and Irish governments. Not parliaments.

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

The parties to the GFA are the British and Irish governments. Not parliaments.

Because governments make agreements on behalf of 'parliament' who then ratify/agree to be bound to and by those agreements.

CMOTDibbler

Bambi wrote: »

Are you going to keep falling back to another barricade rather than just admit you were talking through your hat?

but what if...but what if...but what if...

Not sure what you are talking about. That may well be my fault, I've been responding to multiple posts and may have mixed up my replies. In your case, I responded to this question:

Bambi wrote: »

Can you give an previous example of a british parliament refusing to act on a referendum?

A border poll passes, it's job done. In theory and practice.

I'm not sure why I have to provide examples of parliament refusing to act on a referendum. I have never said that they have to, just that they have the right to.

Not trying to muddy the waters or anything, I genuinely thought I answered that question by showing how referndums have required legislation which then goes through the usual hoops in parliament.

If I've got you wrong somewhere, please let me know.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah yes, love the attempt to depict me as somebody who is suffering from blood pressure. I suppose that is where we are going next.

Any party to the GFA can repudiate it. That goes without saying.

We all though, expect all parties to it, to observe it. Why? Because they are legally bound to it. Why? Because it is an internationally binding agreement.

The inherent contradiction in the above statements, is, well, inherent.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because governments make agreements on behalf of 'parliament' who then ratify/agree to be bound to and by those agreements.

Where is that mentioned in the GFA? And, as has been mentioned time and time again Parliament is not bound by its past decisions.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because governments make agreements on behalf of 'parliament' who then ratify/agree to be bound to and by those agreements.

Governments govern, parliaments legislate. An agreement between governments doesn't necessarily require legislation and therefore can be done without the input of parliament.

For example, an agreement to allow the export of cattle to a certain country only requires a ministerial order to lift any ban on such exports. No parliamentary approval required

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

Where is that mentioned in the GFA? And, as has been mentioned time and time again Parliament is not bound by its past decisions.

Why would you need to mention it in the agreement if it isn't 'parliaments who make agreements'.

Governments make agreements on behalf of parliament.

It was when this agreement was brought before parliament that it could have been 'legally' repudiated.
Once they ratified/passed it, it became an internationally binding agreement.
If they now want to repudiate it then it will be an illegal breach of the agreement.

I don't understand why you fail to see the importance of the 'binding' bit.

And I also fail to see how you cannot see that an Irish Taoiseach (regardless of what you think of Bertie personally) would say in an official speech, cleared as they all are, by civil servants etc. would NOT make the claim he did if he was on shaky ground.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you need to mention it in the agreement if it isn't 'parliaments who make agreements'.

Governments make agreements on behalf of parliament.

It was when this agreement was brought before parliament that it could have been 'legally' repudiated.
Once they ratified/passed it, it became an internationally binding agreement.
If they now want to repudiate it then it will be an illegal breach of the agreement.

I don't understand why you fail to see the importance of the 'binding' bit.

And I also fail to see how you cannot see that an Irish Taoiseach (regardless of what you think of Bertie personally) would say in an official speech, cleared as they all are, by civil servants etc. would NOT make the claim he did if he was on shaky ground.

Please show us where the GFA was enacted as an act of parliament. Name the act and year of enactment.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Please show us where the GFA was enacted as an act of parliament. Name the act and year of enactment.

Here's what I and a whole lot of more qualified people (like the head of the Irish Government) and all of the parties to the agreement (as I see no contradiction of what our Taoiseach claimed) base our thoughts on.

http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/2000/TS0050.pdf

http://www.legislation.ie/eli/1999/act/1/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's what I and a whole lot of more qualified people (like the head of the Irish Government) and all of the parties to the agreement (as I see no contradiction of what our Taoiseach claimed) base our thoughts on.

http://treaties.fco.gov.uk/docs/pdf/2000/TS0050.pdf

http://www.legislation.ie/eli/1999/act/1/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2

Neither of those are acts of parliament agreeing to the GFA. The first is the GFA itself and the second is the legislation giving legislative effect to the various bodies required by the agreement including the legalities of cross-border co-operation. If the GFA were legislation it would be referred to as the Good Friday Agreement Act of xxxx or something similar and the entire text of the act would mirror exactly the entire text of the agreement.

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what governemnts and parliaments do. I said it above and it hasn't changed. Parliaments legislate. They enact laws. Agreements are not laws. Do you understand this fundamental distinction?

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Neither of those are acts of parliament agreeing to the GFA. The first is the GFA itself and the second is the legislation giving legislative effect to the various bodies required by the agreement including the legalities of cross-border co-operation. If the GFA were legislation it would be referred to as the Good Friday Agreement Act of xxxx or something similar and the entire text of the act would mirror exactly the entire text of the agreement.

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of what governemnts and parliaments do. I said it above and it hasn't changed. Parliaments legislate. They enact laws. Agreements are not laws. Do you understand this fundamental distinction?

I said it was an 'Act'...really?

I think you'll find that I said 'enactment would be a formality' because parliament has already bound itself to the agreement.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said it was an 'Act'...really?

I think you'll find that I said 'enactment would be a formality' because parliament has already bound itself to the agreement.

And I asked the question because you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the function of parliament.

You keep saying that parliament is bound to the agreement. But you have yet to show how that came about. Parliament enacts laws. Where's the law that bound parliament to the agreement?

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would you need to mention it in the agreement if it isn't 'parliaments who make agreements'.

Governments make agreements on behalf of parliament.

It was when this agreement was brought before parliament that it could have been 'legally' repudiated.
Once they ratified/passed it, it became an internationally binding agreement.
If they now want to repudiate it then it will be an illegal breach of the agreement.

I don't understand why you fail to see the importance of the 'binding' bit.

And I also fail to see how you cannot see that an Irish Taoiseach (regardless of what you think of Bertie personally) would say in an official speech, cleared as they all are, by civil servants etc. would NOT make the claim he did if he was on shaky ground.

If parliament was bound to this, would the text not say that the government should pass legislation, instead of "introduce and support"? You're trying to add things into the treaty that simply don't exist.

I don't care what Bertie says outside of the actual legal documents, a speech has no legal standing whatsoever.

The "binding" part is on governments. You say I fail to see this - no, it is you who is constantly failing to see (I say ignoring at this point, you won't address this) that Parliament is bound by absolutely nothing that it does in the past. Literally, nothing. That is indisputable, but I'll watch you try it anyway.

This is going around in circles, so I'll end on this: Show me the text where it says Parliament is bound to the GFA in regards to having to passing legislation to make it happen. Until then, you've got nothing.

CMOTDibbler

Just to simplify this further

Governments can enter into agreements whenever they like. This is a power that they derived from previous acts of parliament and which they are free to do whenever they so wish.

If those agreements require laws to be enacted or changed, then the government has to bring those laws or amendments to parliament for approval and enactment. That's parliament's job.

A perfect example of this is in the GFA itself. One of the requirements of the GFA was the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act. The British government duly brought that to parliament and it was repealed by parliament. Not the government.