The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

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.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

I think the two of you have more important people to tell that the British haven't actually agreed to the GFA, than me.

Good luck with that.

I have said my piece on this and we are indeed going around in circles and at least one has resorted to making up stuff about what I said.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the two of you have more important people to tell that the British haven't actually agreed to the GFA, than me.

Good luck with that.

Not one of us have said that. Please quote a post from anyone here who's been debating this with you that actually said that the British haven't agreed to the GFA.

Because you won't find it.

Because nobody said it.

But the fact that you've actually made that accusation means that you haven't read or haven't understood what we've been saying for over 100 posts now.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Not one of us have said that. Please quote a post from anyone here who's been debating this with you that actually said that the British haven't agreed to the GFA.

Because you won't find it.

Because nobody said it.

But the fact that you've actually made that accusation means that you haven't read or haven't understood what we've been saying for over 100 posts now.

The entire thrust of your argument - that parliament can repudiate/refuse to the enactment of certain clauses within the agreement - means that they haven't actually agreed to them - is the 'quote'.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The entire thrust of your argument - that parliament can repudiate/refuse to the enactment of certain clauses within the agreement - means that they haven't actually agreed to them - is the 'quote'.

Nobody said that! Parliament did indeed agree to the GFA. Parliament can also repudiate the GFA. None of this is illegal.

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

Nobody said that! Parliament did indeed agree to the GFA. Parliament can also repudiate the GFA. None of this is illegal.

I know it can repudiate it, I have already said that. The legality of doing that is were we disagree.

They cannot repudiate/refuse to enact the terms without breaking a binding treaty/agreement. That would be illegal.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know it can repudiate it, I have already said that. The legality of doing that is were we disagree.

They cannot repudiate/refuse to enact the terms without breaking a binding treaty/agreement. That would be illegal.

They're not party to the agreement (yep we're here again ), they can't break what they're not part of. The British government refusing to introduce legislation relating to the GFA in the event of a yes to unification vote would indeed be illegal. Parliament voting no on that legislation, however unlikely, is not illegal.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They cannot repudiate/refuse to enact the terms without breaking a binding treaty/agreement. That would be illegal.

Correct. You've managed to get this far, but you keep failing at that last fence.

The incorrect conclusion you draw from the above is that Parliament has no choice but to pass the relevant legislation. But Parliament always has a choice.

It's a bit like saying that you can't rob a bank without breaking the law; that would be illegal - and then concluding that nobody will ever rob a bank.

So, as I said way back when: if you want to have a conversation about the consequences of an unlikely decision by Parliament not to pass the relevant legislation, feel free. But you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that Parliament has no choice in the matter.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The entire thrust of your argument - that parliament can repudiate/refuse to the enactment of certain clauses within the agreement - means that they haven't actually agreed to them - is the 'quote'.

I didn't say that.

If you're going to quote me, it should be an easy matter to find the relevant post and quote that. Not paraphrase your misunderstanding of what I said.

Article 4 has been agreed to by all parties. Article 4 says that legislation will be needed after a UI has been declared. That's the bit parliament has a say in, if and when it happens.

Just the same as what I said above about the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act. Parliament had the right to refuse to repeal it.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. You've managed to get this far, but you keep failing at that last fence.

The incorrect conclusion you draw from the above is that Parliament has no choice but to pass the relevant legislation. But Parliament always has a choice.

It's a bit like saying that you can't rob a bank without breaking the law; that would be illegal - and then concluding that nobody will ever rob a bank.

So, as I said way back when: if you want to have a conversation about the consequences of an unlikely decision by Parliament not to pass the relevant legislation, feel free. But you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that Parliament has no choice in the matter.

And as has been continually said: Parliament has already made it's choice. It has accepted that it is bound to an international agreement between Britain and Ireland. The rest are legislative formalities.
That is what allowed an Irish Taoiseach to say what he did uncontested.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I didn't say that.

If you're going to quote me, it should be an easy matter to find the relevant post and quote that. Not paraphrase your misunderstanding of what I said.

eh, I didn't 'quote' you. I paraphrased what two of you have been saying. Slightly different thing.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as has been continually said: Parliament has already made it's choice. It has accepted that it is bound to an international agreement between Britain and Ireland. The rest are legislative formalities.
That is what allowed an Irish Taoiseach to say what he did uncontested.

As has been continually said by you. Nobody else.

The government made the GFA with eight different parties. It's entitled to do so. They get that power from Parliament. They can't legislate without the say-so of parliament. That's the difference you seem to be finding hard to grasp.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

eh, I didn't 'quote' you. I paraphrased what two of you have been saying. Slightly different thing.

I asked you to quote what you said had been said. You then put forward your understanding of what you thought had been said. Completely different thing.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as has been continually said: Parliament has already made it's choice. It has accepted that it is bound to an international agreement between Britain and Ireland. The rest are legislative formalities.
That is what allowed an Irish Taoiseach to say what he did uncontested.

Nope. Parliament accepted that the government is bound to the agreement. It's right in the text, read it.

You really don't get this parliamentary sovereignty lark do you? You keep bringing up things that plainly aren't in the GFA.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

As has been continually said by you. Nobody else.

The government made the GFA with eight different parties. It's entitled to do so. They get that power from Parliament. They can't legislate without the say-so of parliament. That's the difference you seem to be finding hard to grasp.


I asked you to quote what you said had been said. You then put forward your understanding of what you thought had been said. Completely different thing.

Two things.
There is the Multi-Party Agreement and then there is the British-Irish Agreement. You seem to have some difficulty with that. The British-Irish Agreement is between the two governments.

The other is, I didn't 'quote' you. I paraphrased your entire argument, so I present your entire contribution to this thread as back up for what I said.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And as has been continually said: Parliament has already made it's choice. It has accepted that it is bound to an international agreement between Britain and Ireland. The rest are legislative formalities.

Oh, come on. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet at this stage.

Parliament isn't bound by a past Act of Parliament. Parliament can't be bound by a past Act of Parliament. That's what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

You're seriously hurting your credibility here. You're arguing tooth and nail against something that's well understood to be objective fact, purely because it suits you to believe otherwise. I can understand why you'd argue this hard against an opposing opinion, but you're repeatedly throwing yourself headlong at facts here.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Two things.
There is the Multi-Party Agreement and then there is the British-Irish Agreement. You seem to have some difficulty with that. The British-Irish Agreement is between the two governments.

I have no difficulty with that. Neither of us are wrong in either statement. It's irrelevant to the discussion we are having other than the fact the two governments are free to make any agreements they want without being subject to parliamentary approval. Except if such agreements require laws to be enacted, amended or repealed.

I posted an example of where a clause in the GFA required parliamentary approval in the case of the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act. This is the relevant clause (Annex A, Clause 2):

2. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 is repealed; and this Act shall have effect notwithstanding any other previous enactment.

You'd think that would have been that then? It said so, so it should therefore be? It's an international agreement, parliament should just say yes, isn't that how you put it?. But no. That repeal had to be inserted in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and then voted on. And guess what? It was voted on. Here is the record:

Northern Ireland,—A Motion was made, and the Question being put, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved—(Mr Secretary Mandelson); The House divided.
Tellers for the Ayes, Mr David Jamieson, Mr Clive Betts: 318.
Tellers for the Noes, Mr William Thompson, The Reverend Ian Paisley: 10.
So the Question was agreed to.
Resolved, That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointed Day) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 29th November, be approved.

I see Ian Paisley voted against it. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The other is, I didn't 'quote' you. I paraphrased your entire argument, so I present your entire contribution to this thread as back up for what I said.

I know you didn't quote me. I asked you to. Instead you paraphrased your understanding of what I and other posters are saying. Which understanding is wrong.

I asked you to quote for a reason. That you're not prepared to do so proves that such a quote isn't there.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet at this stage.

Parliament isn't bound by a past Act of Parliament. Parliament can't be bound by a past Act of Parliament. That's what Parliamentary sovereignty means.

You're seriously hurting your credibility here. You're arguing tooth and nail against something that's well understood to be objective fact, purely because it suits you to believe otherwise. I can understand why you'd argue this hard against an opposing opinion, but you're repeatedly throwing yourself headlong at facts here.

I haven't argued that Parliament isn't sovereign.
I have argued that the only way Parliament can stop Unity in the event of a majority vote, is to break (illegally) the agreement.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't argued that Parliament isn't sovereign.
I have argued that the only way Parliament can stop Unity in the event of a majority vote, is to break (illegally) the agreement.

OK, let's put some flesh on those bones. Let's imagine that there has been a border poll, and the British government has, as required, introduced and supported legislation in Parliament to give effect to the will of the people. Let's then imagine that Parliament votes down that legislation.

What do you think happens next?

Skylinehead

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's put some flesh on those bones. Let's imagine that there has been a border poll, and the British government has, as required, introduced and supported legislation in Parliament to give effect to the will of the people. Let's then imagine that Parliament votes down that legislation.

What do you think happens next?

And, more specifically, what part of the GFA has been broken in the above scenario?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's put some flesh on those bones. Let's imagine that there has been a border poll, and the British government has, as required, introduced and supported legislation in Parliament to give effect to the will of the people. Let's then imagine that Parliament votes down that legislation.

What do you think happens next?

They have broken an internationally binding treaty. That is an illegal act under internatinal law.

I have never denied that they can act illegally btw. They can, we can but assume that they won't.
That is why I agree with the words of our Taoiseach on it

Its constitutional future, whatever about its past, will rest and rely entirely and exclusively upon the principle of consent. The British government are effectively out of the equation, and neither the British parliament nor people have any legal right under this agreement to impede the achievement of Irish unity if it had the consent of the people North and South, not that I believe the vast majority of British MPs or people would wish to do so,

not a couple of guys on the internet.

He stated that in an official speech on a state occasion btw not down the pub.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have broken an internationally binding treaty. That is an illegal act under internatinal law.

For which the punishment is...?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have never denied that they can act illegally btw. They can, we can but assume that they won't.

Well explain why the wording in Article 4 doesn't say 'pass' legislation and what 'support' means in the same article.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is why I agree with the words of our Taoiseach on it

not a couple of guys on the internet.

He stated that in an official speech on a state occasion btw not down the pub.

Doesn't matter where he said it. Have you never heard a politician leave out technicalities or small print whilst clapping themselves on the back?