The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

For which the punishment is...?

I don't know the answer to that actually, but I could guess at the effect of them repudiating it.

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

Because that is how it is done. The governments produce the agreement and parliament agrees to it's terms. It then goes for Royal Assent. All were done with this agreement. Why would they bother if it meant nothing?
If the terms of the agreement are met then the rest follows or the British break their part of the agreement. Simple enough to understand.


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?[/QUOTE]

An Irish Taoiseach tells a massive lie about the future of northern Ireland in an official speech and is not contradicted by anyone or raises any tensions/hackles? :D

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Right, but what happens next? I get the impression (and I'm open to correction) that you think that unification will somehow happen anyway.

Fratton Fred

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.

On the Brexit thread, you were calling Westminster all sorts of names, because they voted to invoke article 50, due to the referendum and subsequent high court findings regarding Royal prerogative.

Now, you're arguing the complete opposite.

Under UK constitutional law, no government or parliament can bind a future parliament to that legislation. It can't be done. That is why the GFA is worded in such a way.

As you so frequently said in the Brexit thread, under UK constitutional law, a referendum is only advisory. What parliament chooses to do with that advice is up to them. A referendum on the future of Northern Ireland is no different.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An Irish Taoiseach tells a massive lie about the future of northern Ireland in an official speech and is not contradicted by anyone or raises any tensions/hackles?

A massive lie? No, just a valid assumption. Everybody here has said that 99 times out of 100, that legislation will pass because it's sponsored by the government. It can't be a government if it doesn't have a majority or majority support. Ipso facto any legislation it supports will pass.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because that is how it is done. The governments produce the agreement and parliament agrees to it's terms. It then goes for Royal Assent. All were done with this agreement. Why would they bother if it meant nothing?
If the terms of the agreement are met then the rest follows or the British break their part of the agreement. Simple enough to understand.

So what? You think Article 4 is about the GFA itself?

An infinte looping agreement

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

On the Brexit thread, you were calling Westminster all sorts of names, because they voted to invoke article 50, due to the referendum and subsequent high court findings regarding Royal prerogative.

Now, you're arguing the complete opposite.

Under UK constitutional law, no government or parliament can bind a future parliament to that legislation. It can't be done. That is why the GFA is worded in such a way.

As you so frequently said in the Brexit thread, under UK constitutional law, a referendum is only advisory. What parliament chooses to do with that advice is up to them. A referendum on the future of Northern Ireland is no different.

Had you read the thread, you would see that Parliament has already accepted the agreement and its clauses, when one of those clauses is met, legislation will follow. They cannot now change those clauses or rescind them without breaking the agreement which under international law is illegal.
The time to do that was when the agreement was presented to them in 1999 and before royal ascent was given.
Could you deal with that rather than trying to turn my 'opinion' on something else parliament may have done to suit your purposes.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but what happens next? I get the impression (and I'm open to correction) that you think that unification will somehow happen anyway.

Not sure what you are asking me. Are you asking me to predict what happens if they break the agreement/treaty?

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

A massive lie? No, just a valid assumption. Everybody here has said that 99 times out of 100, that legislation will pass because it's sponsored by the government. It can't be a government if it doesn't have a majority or majority support. Ipso facto any legislation it supports will pass.

I don't think anyone was making assumptions about something so important.
And the suggestion that Ahern was OKed by his staff to say something so inflammatory to unionists if it wasn't true is frankly fabulous, given the history of pussyfooting around offending them.

So what? You think Article 4 is about the GFA itself?

An infinte looping agreement

I don't know what you are saying here.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not sure what you are asking me. Are you asking me to predict what happens if they break the agreement/treaty?

Yes. Your argument seems to be that, somehow, Parliament can't fail to act on the outcome of a border poll; that they can be compelled to enact legislation.

Well, they can and they can't, respectively. You've said, and I quote, "unity is a formality". It's not. The Northern Ireland Act is law until it's repealed, and it can only be repealed by Parliament.

I'm not saying it's likely that Parliament would vote down any such legislation. All along, I've been challenging your apparent argument that they can't. At least, I think that's what you've been arguing, because you can be maddeningly vague when you want to be.

So: if the SoS introduces and supports legislation, but Parliament fails to pass it, what then? Do you think that the 1998 Act will somehow repeal itself?

blanch152

This thread is quite funny, as it is about something that is 90% unlikely to happen within our lifetimes. There won't be a border poll for at least another decade, and even then it won't pass, so the rest of this thread is pointless.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

I think this may be the source of your misunderstanding. Was it actually signed or ratified by both parliaments? An international treaty is normally signed by "the executive" not "the legislature".
So the parties to this treaty were the ROI govt. and HM govt. Not the two parliaments.

So this means that in the event of a pro-united Ireland plebiscite, future govts of both countries would be bound to support a bill proposing a united Ireland.
The British parliament, being sovereign, would be free to vote down this bill as proposed by their govt. But in order to do that, some of the govt. MPs would have to vote against their own bill.
In practice, you need not be too concerned about it. It would be very similar to what happened after the Brexit result. The parliament would make some noise about their right to vote on it, but in the end, they would not want to be seen to be subverting democracy, so they would rubber stamp the wishes of the people as expressed.

In Republic of Ireland its different because the people are sovereign, therefore the Dail would not be entitled to vote against the result of the plebiscite. The wording of the bill would presumably have already been included in the wording of the plebiscite/referendum as held on this side of the border.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And the suggestion that Ahern was OKed by his staff to say something so inflammatory to unionists if it wasn't true is frankly fabulous, given the history of pussyfooting around offending them.

Bear in mind he wasn't talking directly to unionists, he was talking to republicans.

Speaking at the 1916 Easter Rising Commemoration at Arbour Hill in Dublin....
...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

But yes, his quote is a source of confusion, given that it was/is partly untrue.
Yes, the British govt. and people are out of the equation. But no, the British parliament is definitely not out of the equation.

Anyway, as I remember it, there was a lot of fudging around certain issues at the time, eg the decommissioning of the weapons was not entirely completed. There was a lot of telling people what they wanted to hear. And maybe all that fudging and all those little white lies are what got the agreement actually signed off in the end.

Either Ahern was deliberately lying to the Arbour Hill crowd, or he got carried away with himself and forgot about the complexities of British constitutional law. But are we really going to slate him for that, given that peace was achieved?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. Your argument seems to be that, somehow, Parliament can't fail to act on the outcome of a border poll; that they can be compelled to enact legislation.

Well, they can and they can't, respectively. You've said, and I quote, "unity is a formality". It's not. The Northern Ireland Act is law until it's repealed, and it can only be repealed by Parliament.

I'm not saying it's likely that Parliament would vote down any such legislation. All along, I've been challenging your apparent argument that they can't. At least, I think that's what you've been arguing, because you can be maddeningly vague when you want to be.

So: if the SoS introduces and supports legislation, but Parliament fails to pass it, what then? Do you think that the 1998 Act will somehow repeal itself?

Nobody is 'compelling' parliament to do anything. Parliament has accepted the agreement already. I don't know why it was brought before them if not for this purpose and received royal assent.

If parliament fails to pass legislation it breaks the agreement contrary to international law.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

I think this may be the source of your misunderstanding. Was it actually signed or ratified by both parliaments? An international treaty is normally signed by "the executive" not "the legislature".
So the parties to this treaty were the ROI govt. and HM govt. Not the two parliaments.

So this means that in the event of a pro-united Ireland plebiscite, future govts of both countries would be bound to support a bill proposing a united Ireland.
The British parliament, being sovereign, would be free to vote down this bill as proposed by their govt. But in order to do that, some of the govt. MPs would have to vote against their own bill.
In practice, you need not be too concerned about it. It would be very similar to what happened after the Brexit result. The parliament would make some noise about their right to vote on it, but in the end, they would not want to be seen to be subverting democracy, so they would rubber stamp the wishes of the people as expressed.

In Republic of Ireland its different because the people are sovereign, therefore the Dail would not be entitled to vote against the result of the plebiscite. The wording of the bill would presumably have already been included in the wording of the plebiscite/referendum as held on this side of the border.


Bear in mind he wasn't talking directly to unionists, he was talking to republicans.But yes, his quote is a source of confusion, given that it was/is partly untrue.
Yes, the British govt. and people are out of the equation. But no, the British parliament is definitely not out of the equation.

Anyway, as I remember it, there was a lot of fudging around certain issues at the time, eg the decommissioning of the weapons was not entirely completed. There was a lot of telling people what they wanted to hear. And maybe all that fudging and all those little white lies are what got the agreement actually signed off in the end.

Either Ahern was deliberately lying to the Arbour Hill crowd, or he got carried away with himself and forgot about the complexities of British constitutional law. But are we really going to slate him for that, given that peace was achieved?

The British Irish Agreement was presented to both Parliaments and ratified in both and in Britain received royal assent.
In my opinion Ahern was right to say what he did. The risks were too great to get it wrong.
20 years after the GFA Unionists are still having hissy fits if a Taoiseach speaks out of turn.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If parliament fails to pass legislation it breaks the agreement contrary to international law.

Parliament didn't make the agreement, the British government did.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British Irish Agreement was presented to both Parliaments and ratified in both and in Britain received royal assent.
In my opinion Ahern was right to say what he did. The risks were too great to get it wrong.
20 years after the GFA Unionists are still having hissy fits if a Taoiseach speaks out of turn.

The exact same risks were inherent in the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act (A clause in the GFA), the re-stating of Articles 2 and 3 of our constitution (another clause in the GFA) and the passing of the Northern Ireland Act.

Any of those fail and what happens?

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Parliament didn't make the agreement, the British government did.

The exact same risks were inherent in the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act (A clause in the GFA), the re-stating of Articles 2 and 3 of our constitution (another clause in the GFA) and the passing of the Northern Ireland Act.

Any of those fail and what happens?

I think I will stay on the side of the Irish Taoiseach on this and almost anyone else I am aware of (except a couple of guys on the internet)


If the British parliament fail to pass the legislation necessary after a majority vote then they are in breach of the GFA and are breaking a binding international treaty that they sovereignly agreed/royally assented to uphold. And they have broken international law.


Done on this, unless new info comes to hand.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Had you read the thread, you would see that Parliament has already accepted the agreement and its clauses, when one of those clauses is met, legislation will follow. They cannot now change those clauses or rescind them without breaking the agreement which under international law is illegal.
The time to do that was when the agreement was presented to them in 1999 and before royal ascent was given.
Could you deal with that rather than trying to turn my 'opinion' on something else parliament may have done to suit your purposes.

Parliament hasn't agreed to anything and is not obliged to do anything. No one can force parliament to do something, it is Sovereign.

The Government has agreed to:

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish

and further:

DRAFT CLAUSES/SCHEDULES FOR INCORPORATION IN BRITISH
LEGISLATION
1. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a
majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the
purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern
Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a
united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such
proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

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

http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think I will stay on the side of the Irish Taoiseach on this and almost anyone else I am aware of (except a couple of guys on the internet)


If the British parliament fail to pass the legislation necessary after a majority vote then they are in breach of the GFA and are breaking a binding international treaty that they sovereignly agreed/royally assented to uphold. And they have broken international law.


Done on this, unless new info comes to hand.

Prove it. As in, show me the text in the GFA where any of this is written down. You've consistently failed to do this, instead relying on conjecture that has no legal basis in reality.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament has accepted the agreement already.

Yes: it passed the Northern Ireland Act. Which is law, until Parliament repeals it. We've covered this already, and you still don't get to magically make your falsehood true through mindless repetition.

If parliament fails to pass legislation it breaks the agreement contrary to international law.

...and then?

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

This thread is quite funny, as it is about something that is 90% unlikely to happen within our lifetimes. There won't be a border poll for at least another decade, and even then it won't pass, so the rest of this thread is pointless.

What makes it pointless is the idea of westminister refusing to act on a referendum. Well into the sphere of if-my-aunt-has-balls-she'd-be-my-uncle

I think we'll see a border poll in under 10 years given the way things are going

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

What makes it pointless is the idea of westminister refusing to act on a referendum.

The thing is, I don't think that Parliament would fail to pass the relevant legislation. What I've been arguing against is the bizarre idea that somehow Parliament don't have a say in the process at all.

I also don't think it can be considered a foregone conclusion that Parliament would necessarily pass the legislation. It's taken as axiomatic that the government has a majority in Parliament, which is a really weird thing to believe, considering that the government currently doesn't have a majority in Parliament.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and then?

and then...we all live happily ever after?

I have no idea OB, and it doesn't really bother me what sanction there is for breaking international law, I just know it will have been broken and the GFA will be no more.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

and then...we all live happily ever after?

I have no idea OB, and it doesn't really bother me what sanction there is for breaking international law, I just know it will have been broken and the GFA will be no more.

...and the Northern Ireland Act will still be law, and Northern Ireland will still be a part of the UK.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The thing is, I don't think that Parliament would fail to pass the relevant legislation. What I've been arguing against is the bizarre idea that somehow Parliament don't have a say in the process at all.

I also don't think it can be considered a foregone conclusion that Parliament would necessarily pass the legislation. It's taken as axiomatic that the government has a majority in Parliament, which is a really weird thing to believe, considering that the government currently doesn't have a majority in Parliament.

And you are asking us to believe that some of the players signed up to this without considering that?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and the Northern Ireland Act will still be law, and Northern Ireland will still be a part of the UK.

Yes. And Britain will have welched on an internationally binding agreement.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you are asking us to believe that some of the players signed up to this without considering that?

There is no other option. You can't pre-determine a decision of parliament any more than you can pre-determine the result of a referendum.

Do you not get that?

You've consistently stuck your fingers in your ears at the mention of the fact that there were two other legislative and one other referendum decisions that the GFA relied on being made for it to get to the stage it's at now.

But insist that a third legislative decision that has to be made is already made.

How are you being consistent here?

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There is no other option. You can't pre-determine a decision of parliament any more than you can pre-determine the result of a referendum.

Do you not get that?

You've consistently stuck your fingers in your ears at the mention of the fact that there were two other legislative and one other referendum decisions that the GFA relied on being made for it to get to the stage it's at now.

But insist that a third legislative decision that has to be made is already made.

How are you being consistent here?

I have consistently said that they can indeed refuse to legislate as they can stand on their heads naked while blowing bubbles.

But to do that they will be breaking an internationally binding agreement that they have ratified and given royal assent to.
That is an illegal breach of international law.
As Ahern said: They cannot LEGALLY refuse to legislate.

Can YOU please accept that is my argument?

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

What makes it pointless is the idea of westminister refusing to act on a referendum. Well into the sphere of if-my-aunt-has-balls-she'd-be-my-uncle

on the same basis they were morally obliged to vote in favour of invoking article 50. To call a referendum and ignore the result is unthinkable in a modern democracy.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have consistently said that they can indeed refuse to legislate as they can stand on their heads naked while blowing bubbles.

But to do that they will be breaking an internationally binding agreement that they have ratified and given royal assent to.
That is an illegal breach of international law.
As Ahern said: They cannot LEGALLY refuse to legislate.

Can YOU please accept that is my argument?

Bertie and the truth. That's a new one

The UK will not be breaking any agreements, because they have not agreed to legislate, only to ask Parliament to legislate. The UK government is not capable of entering in to any agreement that binds Parliament to do anything. It simply can't be done.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you are asking us to believe that some of the players signed up to this without considering that?

Nope. I'm pretty sure all the players recognise that Parliament is sovereign, and that wishful thinking won't change that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. And Britain will have welched on an internationally binding agreement.

Maybe, but Northern Ireland will be part of the UK until Parliament repeals the Northern Ireland Act.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have consistently said that they can indeed refuse to legislate as they can stand on their heads naked while blowing bubbles.

But to do that they will be breaking an internationally binding agreement that they have ratified and given royal assent to.
That is an illegal breach of international law.
As Ahern said: They cannot LEGALLY refuse to legislate.

Can YOU please accept that is my argument?

Would the Irish people have broken the agreement if they'd voted against the amendment of articles two and three of the constitution?

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Would the Irish people have broken the agreement if they'd voted against the amendment of articles two and three of the constitution?

Seriously?

The agreement would not have come into being/effect until all those provisions were met.

The agreement has passed all stages and is now a binding international agreement under international law.

If you fail to meet it's provisions, you break that law. Parlimentary sovereignty or not. Get your house in order, as they say.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe, but Northern Ireland will be part of the UK until Parliament repeals the Northern Ireland Act.

That goes without saying. Do you agree Britain would have welched on an international agreement in that case?