The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

CMOTDibbler

Bambi wrote: »

Right, so are you claiming that the UK parliament might refuse to act on a successful border poll? Its the equivalent of saying they might invade Spain in the next five years or outlaw fish and chips. They might, but they won't in this space/time continuum

Because unless you believe they might ignore a border poll then this whole argument is grade A bull****.

Indeed. You are correct and right.

The whole thing started because somebody said on the UK election thread (mused even) that a minority British government supported by the DUP might not be able to get the requisite approval from parliament. The DUP would clearly not support it, so the Tories would be outnumbered. (this all dependant on the rest of the house voting with the DUP :rolleyes:).

Francie immediately pounced on this, and here we are.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Britain is the state, Britain has committed and signed this agreement.

It doesn't really matter what impedes it passing the legislation, (as I said the sovereignty of parliament is really of no concern outside of Britain) if it isn't passed Britain's obligations to it fail. Which as we have seen is a violation of international law.
Again I refer to what Ahern said and to the writer of the document I posted wrote.

You're throwing in a lot of assumptions here. Such as the bolded bit. Where have we seen that?

If the agreement itself allows for the possibility of parliament voting aginst the legislation, how is that a breach or violation of anything?

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament ratifying it and it been giving Royal Assent is what you are looking for.

Britain (it's parliament included) agreed to it and signed it. That is why it stays in force no matter what hue of party is in government.

Of course it can revoke it by putting it to parliament at any time, just as parliament could have rejected it when it was first read.

But as long as it is in force, and one of the clauses is met, legislation must be passed or that is illegal in international law and a violation of the agreement.

They are free to violate it if they wish.

You're wasting text if you're not quoting the GFA Francie. That's what I asked for, not the above.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're thorwing in a lot of assumptions here. Such as the bolded bit. Where have we seen that?

If the agreement itself allows for the possibility of parliament voting aginst the legislation, how is that a breach or violation of anything?

Posted earlier.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103796456&postcount=196

Once it passed all stages Britain (including it's parliament signed) the agreement. Britian is responsible for it, not just the government/executive.

If parliament wishes to revoke it, they can. But as long as it is in force failure to pass the legislation is a failure of it's obligations.

Can we leave this? We have gone over and over it again.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Posted earlier.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103796456&postcount=196

Once it passed all stages Britain (including it's parliament signed) the agreement. Britian is responsible for it, not just the government/executive.

If parliament wishes to revoke it, they can. But as long as it is in force failure to pass the legislation is a failure of it's obligations.

Can we leave this? We have gone over and over it again.

That's not relevant.

As I said, and you have agreed with this with respect to the Lisbon Treaty, if the agreement itself allows for certain steps that could bring the agreement to a halt, that's not a breach.

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

Right, so are you claiming that the UK parliament might refuse to act on a successful border poll?

I've already said it's unlikely. My argument is not that they will; my argument is against the idea that Parliamentary approval is a formality; that "unity is ensured once a majority decide on it."

Neither of those claims are true: that's my point.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's not relevant.

Alrighty so.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've already said it's unlikely. My argument is not that they will; my argument is against the idea that Parliamentary approval is a formality; that "unity is ensured once a majority decide on it."

Neither of those claims are true: that's my point.

So your contention is that the entire process was agreed to after all the pain and struggle and death, and the whole kabuddle was contigent on a vote in parliament? A parliament that might have the DUP in it controlling the balance of power?

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Alrighty so.

Good.

Care to address the rest of my post?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So your contention is that the entire process was agreed to after all the pain and struggle and death, and the whole kabuddle was contigent on a vote in parliament? A parliament that might have the DUP in it controlling the balance of power?

You're invoking an argument from personal incredulity again, and the answer to your question is that that's not my contention; it's a fact.

I can only assume that none of the parties made a big issue about it, because - unlike you - they already knew that there's not a goddamn thing that can be done about Parliamentary sovereignty. They might as well wring their hands about gravity.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Good.

Care to address the rest of my post?

No, because I have done it many times before and you are not prepared to listen. So I will leave it with you, if that's ok.
I assure, read back, I dealt with already.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're invoking an argument from personal incredulity again, and the answer to your question is that that's not my contention; it's a fact.

I can only assume that none of the parties made a big issue about it, because - unlike you - they already knew that there's not a goddamn thing that can be done about Parliamentary sovereignty. They might as well wring their hands about gravity.

Nonsense, they would have sought clarity and further assurances. Were you alive when it was being thrashed out?
And those who clutch at any straw would have foamed at the mouth at an Irish Taoiseach making the official speech that he made.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, because I have done it many times before and you are not prepared to listen. So I will leave it with you, if that's ok.
I assure, read back, I dealt with already.

No you didn't. You made up some stuff about parliament being party to the agreement. They are not.

So you haven't answered the question as posed.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No you didn't. You made up some stuff about parliament being party to the agreement. They are not.

So you haven't answered the question as posed.

Jesus man, they ratified it and agreed to it. Once they did that they are Britain. They have the obligation to the the treaty, until it is revoked, not the government of any given day.
If you are right it would be top of the DUP's list to revoke it.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus man, they ratified it and agreed to it. Once they did that they are Britain. They have the obligation to the the treaty, until it is revoked, not the government of any given day.
If you are right it would be top of the DUP's list to revoke it.

Patliament enacts laws. That's it. They don't make agreements, or make policy. That's the government's job.

Sure, the GFA required legislation which parliament passed into law. But they didn't sign up to the agreement and they aren't mentioned as a party to it.

The GFA itself isn't law. If it were, people would be already in breach of the law for all the missed deadlines.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nonsense, they would have sought clarity and further assurances.

What clarity? What further assurances?

There's nothing to clarify: Parliament is sovereign.

There are no assurances: Parliament is sovereign.

Were you alive when it was being thrashed out?

Very much so, I voted in the referendum.

CMOTDibbler

oscarBravo wrote: »

Very much so, I voted in the referendum.

You'd think he might have figured that out from your join date. Unless you were a very precocious two year old.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

What clarity? What further assurances?

There's nothing to clarify: Parliament is sovereign.

There are no assurances: Parliament is sovereign.
Very much so, I voted in the referendum.

Then you would remember how hard fought it was, how every sentence and phrase was parsed and analysed and how assurances where sought and given on other issues.

There is clearly, from this thread, from what a Irish Taoiseach has said and from a paper on the agreement, confusion.

But none of the signatories raised a red flag about the possibility of it all coming undone at the final hurdle?

And I have agreed with you, Parliament is sovereign...it was sovereign when it ratified this agreement. That was their chance to reject it. They cannot fail to legislate now that has happened without breaking the agreement.
And they CAN break it (still sovereign) but that would be failing in it's obligations to a binding treaty. Which as we have seen violates international law.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But none of the signatories raised a red flag about the possibility of it all coming undone at the final hurdle?

What would that red flag have achieved? What assurances could have been offered?

And I have agreed with you, Parliament is sovereign...it was sovereign when it ratified this agreement. That was their chance to reject it.

And round and round and round and round with the implicit misunderstanding of the basic, well-understood fact that Parliament can. not. be. bound. by one of its past acts.

They cannot fail to legislate now that has happened without breaking the agreement.

The Agreement doesn't create any binding obligations on Parliament, because neither the Agreement nor any other legal instrument can create a binding obligation on Parliament.

And they CAN break it (still sovereign) but that would be failing in it's obligations to a binding treaty. Which as we have seen violates international law.

Genuine question for you: what do you believe to be the process for a sovereign nation to withdraw from a treaty to which it no longer wishes to be bound?

Assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the treaty doesn't have an exit clause (so we don't get distracted by brexit).

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't say it there. It says Westminster Parliament and executive cannot, except through breaking it's treaty obligations....



https://www.diakonia.se/en/IHL/The-Law/International-Law1/Enforcement-of-IL/

Once again let's look at the quotation you rely on:


"1. When does a state violate international law?

A state violates international law when it commits an “internationally wrongful act", a breach of an international obligation that the state was bound by at the time when the act took place. A state is bound to act according to international treaties it has signed as well as rules of customary international law."

Government asks Parliament to ratify unification following referendum. [no breach of international law]

Parliament doesn't want to ratify unification so parliament withdraws from GFA [no breach of international law]

Legislation on unification is defeated [no breach of international law]

Which bit of that is wrong?

CMOTDibbler

The simple fact of the matter is that there already is a template out there for a similar undertaking.

The Welsh referendum of 2011 which gave the Welsh assembly the power to run its own finances and pass its own laws.

To put that into effect took two acts of parliament and six years including a commission to work out all the details. Parliament didn't fail to pass that legislation but it's not a case of a bill being introduced and coming out the end unchanged. Many amendments, debates and re-draftings of the bill occurred. I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that there were twenty versions of that bill before it became law.

An Irish unification poll would result in far more work than the Welsh one. It can't be a case of the British government sayinig "Great lads, here are the keys, there's milk in the fridge and the teabags are by the kettle".

Every line of that legislation will be debated and parsed and analysed and amended and voted on and re-amended and re-read.

That's how parliament works. No signatory to the agreement would be unaware of this. No signatory to the agreement would expect anything less nor would they try and abrogate it. Nor would they believe (except in the most extreme situation) that this legislation wouldn't eventually pass.

But it will take an enormous amount of time and work. For a current example, it would be not unlike Brexit where over 700 pieces of legislation have to be reviewed.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would that red flag have achieved? What assurances could have been offered?

Assurances that the state (not governments) was bound to it's obligations.

And round and round and round and round with the implicit misunderstanding of the basic, well-understood fact that Parliament can. not. be. bound. by one of its past acts. The Agreement doesn't create any binding obligations on Parliament, because neither the Agreement nor any other legal instrument can create a binding obligation on Parliament.

The state (Britain) bound itself by ratification. (how many times do I need to say this stuff?) and can sovereignly unbind itself anytime it wants. It cannot though, as long as it is bound, fail in it's obligations. One of which is to ensure that the will of the people is legislated for in the event of a majority vote.

Genuine question for you: what do you believe to be the process for a sovereign nation to withdraw from a treaty to which it no longer wishes to be bound?

Assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the treaty doesn't have an exit clause (so we don't get distracted by brexit).

This is irrelevant if you read the above. The state can unbind itself but as long as it is bound etc etc.
Failing to pass legislation is NOT unbinding itself from a treaty, it is a failure in an obligation to that treaty and therefore a violation of international law.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Once again let's look at the quotation you rely on:


"1. When does a state violate international law?

A state violates international law when it commits an “internationally wrongful act", a breach of an international obligation that the state was bound by at the time when the act took place. A state is bound to act according to international treaties it has signed as well as rules of customary international law."

Government asks Parliament to ratify unification following referendum. [no breach of international law]

Parliament doesn't want to ratify unification so parliament withdraws from GFA [no breach of international law]

Legislation on unification is defeated [no breach of international law]

Which bit of that is wrong?

The next sentence to the one you bolded is the relevant one.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that there already is a template out there for a similar undertaking.

The Welsh referendum of 2011 which gave the Welsh assembly the power to run its own finances and pass its own laws.

To put that into effect took two acts of parliament and six years including a commission to work out all the details. Parliament didn't fail to pass that legislation but it's not a case of a bill being introduced and coming out the end unchanged. Many amendments, debates and re-draftings of the bill occurred. I wouldn't be exaggerating to say that there were twenty versions of that bill before it became law.

An Irish unification poll would result in far more work than the Welsh one. It can't be a case of the British government sayinig "Great lads, here are the keys, there's milk in the fridge and the teabags are by the kettle".

Every line of that legislation will be debated and parsed and analysed and amended and voted on and re-amended and re-read.

That's how parliament works. No signatory to the agreement would be unaware of this. No signatory to the agreement would expect anything less nor would they try and abrogate it. Nor would they believe (except in the most extreme situation) that this legislation wouldn't eventually pass.

But it will take an enormous amount of time and work. For a current example, it would be not unlike Brexit where over 700 pieces of legislation have to be reviewed.

The Agreement is only signed by two parties, Britain and Ireland. One of them is clearly saying the same thing as I am. There is no legal way (as long as the BIA is in force) to fail to legislate.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The next sentence to the one you bolded is the relevant one.

That sentence is contingent on the previous one. You can't be bound by something you are no longer party to.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That sentence is contingent on the previous one. You can't be bound by something you are no longer party to.

Can you show us anywhere that Britain (Parliamentary sovereignty only matters internally) is not bound to the BIA?
What does the UN recognise as the 'state' in terms of a treaty?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Assurances that the state (not governments) was bound to it's obligations.

You don't seem to understand what sovereignty means.

In Ireland, the people are sovereign: the sovereignty of the state is vested in the people. Even the pooling of sovereignty requires the express consent of the people, which is why there has to be an article in the Constitution permitting such pooling through EU membership.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign: the sovereignty of the state is vested in Parliament. The UK is bound to the terms of the GFA insofar as Parliament has consented to be so bound, and any change to a prior Act of Parliament requires another Act.

The extent to which the state is bound by the GFA is written down in the words of the GFA: in the event that the people of Ireland want a change in the status of Northern Ireland, the government will introduce and support legislation.

Nobody was demanding assurance that Parliament would be required to pass such legislation, because - unlike you - all the parties involved understood that there was no legal way such assurance could be given.

The state (Britain) bound itself by ratification. (how many times do I need to say this stuff?) and can sovereignly unbind itself anytime it wants. It cannot though, as long as it is bound, fail in it's obligations. One of which is to ensure that the will of the people is legislated for in the event of a majority vote.

That obligation doesn't appear in the Agreement. It's obvious that you know it doesn't appear in the Agreement, because you've been asked to quote it and you've failed to do so.

The obligation in the Agreement is that legislation will be introduced and supported. That's it.

Failing to pass legislation is NOT unbinding itself from a treaty, it is a failure in an obligation to that treaty and therefore a violation of international law.

There is no obligation in the Agreement to pass legislation. If there were, you would have quoted it by now.

You need to face facts: you're wrong about this.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what sovereignty means.

In Ireland, the people are sovereign: the sovereignty of the state is vested in the people. Even the pooling of sovereignty requires the express consent of the people, which is why there has to be an article in the Constitution permitting such pooling through EU membership.

In the UK, Parliament is sovereign: the sovereignty of the state is vested in Parliament. The UK is bound to the terms of the GFA insofar as Parliament has consented to be so bound, and any change to a prior Act of Parliament requires another Act.

And Parliament has excercised it's sovereignty on this agreement.

There is no explanation in the agreement of how the Irish legislature functions. How Britain arrives at ratifying international agreements is their own internal concerns, just as it is if it were Canada or Belgium or Greece.

The states are Britain and Ireland and once ratified by both at all stages it is an agreement between 2 states. Sovereignty does come into it unless they wish to revoke the agreement. (Passing legislation is a part of the agreement)
Just as in Ireland, if we wished to revoke the agreement we would have to go back to the people.

he extent to which the state is bound by the GFA is written down in the words of the GFA: in the event that the people of Ireland want a change in the status of Northern Ireland, the government will introduce and support legislation.

Nobody was demanding assurance that Parliament would be required to pass such legislation, because - unlike you - all the parties involved understood that there was no legal way such assurance could be given. That obligation doesn't appear in the Agreement. It's obvious that you know it doesn't appear in the Agreement, because you've been asked to quote it and you've failed to do so.

The obligation in the Agreement is that legislation will be introduced and supported. That's it. There is no obligation in the Agreement to pass legislation. If there were, you would have quoted it by now.

You need to face facts: you're wrong about this.

You need to face the fact you may not know what you are talking about here.

The British-Irish Agreement is what we are discussing, the Multi-Party agreement is irrelevant here.
The BIA is between the two states and ONE of them clearly believes what I am saying.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

(Passing legislation is a part of the agreement)

There are exactly two references to passing (or, more accurately, "enacting") legislation in the BIA, and both of them are setting out prerequisites for the entry into force of the Agreement.

The Agreement does not, because it can not, create a binding obligation on Parliament to pass legislation.

Prove me wrong: cite the text of the Agreement that creates such an obligation. Stop flim-flamming, stop with the hand-waving and logical fallacies, for jaysus sakes stop citing Bertie Ahern as the definitive constitutional scholar: just cite the text of the Agreement, already. Or admit that you're wrong.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are exactly two references to passing (or, more accurately, "enacting") legislation in the BIA, and both of them are setting out prerequisites for the entry into force of the Agreement.

The Agreement does not, because it can not, create a binding obligation on Parliament to pass legislation.

Prove me wrong: cite the text of the Agreement that creates such an obligation. Stop flim-flamming, stop with the hand-waving and logical fallacies, for jaysus sakes stop citing Bertie Ahern as the definitive constitutional scholar: just cite the text of the Agreement, already. Or admit that you're wrong.

It doesn't need to be in the agreement.
The BIA is between 2 states - Britain and Ireland. Just as the title of the treaty does not concern itself with Ireland's political system neither does it with Britain's (i.e. Parliamentary sovereignty)

Once Britain's parliament ratified the agreement and it received Royal Assent that is the 'state' agreeing to it's terms.

The niceties and complexities of each legislature matters nothing in agreements between states. Once it passed through all stages that is parliament exercising it's sovereignty and speaking for the state.
The state must now meet the terms OR revoke the agreement.
It cannot fail to meet the terms while the agreement is in force.

*Ahern was speaking as the head of state here in an official capacity, not in a personal capacity.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Once Britain's parliament ratified the agreement and it received Royal Assent that is the 'state' agreeing to it's terms.

Yes. And those terms don't include a binding obligation on Parliament to enact legislation.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. And those terms don't include a binding obligation on Parliament to enact legislation.

Parliament is the state or part of it.
It's a bit like saying, 'I agree with that but that might not matter....etc

There is no provision for that in an international treaty. The two states agreed a treaty. The states can utilizing whatever their systems demand, revoke that treaty. Nobodies sovereignty hurt yet...you agree?
But as long as that treaty is in force they have obligations under it.
They can fail in their obligations sovereignty but that is a violation.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't need to be in the agreement.

So it isn't in the Agreement. Fair enough, we are all agreed. There is nothing in the agreement requiring the British Parliament to pass an Act permitting a united Ireland.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So it isn't in the Agreement. Fair enough, we are all agreed. There is nothing in the agreement requiring the British Parliament to pass an Act permitting a united Ireland.

It doesn't need to be in the agreement in the same way that Irish routes to a revocation don't need to be in the Treaty.
The niceties of legislatures are of no importance outside their own parliaments. Britain signed this.
Because, as has been said many times, Parliament can use its sovereignty and refuse to pass legislation, but that would be a violation of their obligations to a treaty they have ratified and agreed to.
Which as you can see from the link you want to cherrypick sentences from is a violation of international law.


See, no diminution of sovereignty there, is there?

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...Parliament can use its sovereignty and refuse to pass legislation, but that would be a violation of their obligations to a treaty they have ratified and agreed to.

Nope. You've invented those obligations from thin air.

Cite where in the Agreement there's an obligation on anyone to pass legislation.

You've claimed that there's a binding obligation. So far, your evidence for this is "but surely there has to be!" and "Bertie says there is!"

Binding obligations are written down. Show us where the obligation to pass legislation is written in the Agreement.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. You've invented those obligations from thin air.

Cite where in the Agreement there's an obligation on anyone to pass legislation.

You've claimed that there's a binding obligation. So far, your evidence for this is "but surely there has to be!" and "Bertie says there is!"

Binding obligations are written down. Show us where the obligation to pass legislation is written in the Agreement.

You cannot say that someone has the right to self determine if you keep a gate on the road to that shut.

That obligation.

*By the way, other than say 'parliamentary sovereignty' over and over you have provided very little in back-up.

I think 'one side' of the agreement making an official statement on it counts for a little more weight than that.
How many times would you say a Taoiseach 'lied' in an official speech? Do give examples please.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot say that someone has the right to self determine if you keep a gate on the road to that shut.

By that rather bizarre argument, self-determination is a logical impossibility, because it's a legal impossibility for a treaty to create a binding obligation on Parliament to pass legislation, in precisely the same way that it's a legal impossibility for a treaty to create a binding obligation on the Irish people to vote in favour of a referendum proposal.

That obligation.

That's not an obligation. Once again: obligations are written down. Cite the Agreement.

*By the way, other than say 'parliamentary sovereignty' over and over you have provided very little in back-up.

Says the chap who claims the BIA creates a legally-impossible binding obligation, but won't quote the text of the Agreement to back it up.

I think 'one side' of the agreement making an official statement on it counts for a little more weight than that.
How many times would you say a Taoiseach 'lied' in an official speech? Do give examples please.

I didn't say he lied. I'm saying you're imposing an invalid interpretation on his words, and refusing point-blank to back it up with the text of the Agreement.

The idea that a binding obligation can be implicit - that something you've decided to read between the lines of a Treaty creates a legal compulsion - is one of the more bizarre assertions I've seen made on this forum, and that's saying something.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

By that rather bizarre argument, self-determination is a logical impossibility, because it's a legal impossibility for a treaty to create a binding obligation on Parliament to pass legislation, in precisely the same way that it's a legal impossibility for a treaty to create a binding obligation on the Irish people to vote in favour of a referendum proposal.

The terms of the treaty are written down in the agreement.
The obligations are to treaties themselves NOT to the agreement, why would they be in the agreement???

The obligations to international treaties are written in international law.

Start with this and follow the links and you will get a grounding in it all.
https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/lrsnotes/LRSNoteInternationalLaw_121942.pdf

But really you need to do your own reading on this stuff.

That's not an obligation. Once again: obligations are written down. Cite the Agreement.

See above.

Says the chap who claims the BIA creates a legally-impossible binding obligation, but won't quote the text of the Agreement to back it up. I didn't say he lied. I'm saying you're imposing an invalid interpretation on his words, and refusing point-blank to back it up with the text of the Agreement.

I didn't interpret at all. Because it doesn't require any, it's fairly simple and clear English. Try it again.

"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,"

That is either the way the Irish government see it or a massive lie.

The idea that a binding obligation can be implicit - that something you've decided to read between the lines of a Treaty creates a legal compulsion - is one of the more bizarre assertions I've seen made on this forum, and that's saying something.

The legal obligation is to international law.
Parliamentary sovereignty remains intact if they act legally and also if they act illegally.

We just ASSUME they will act legally NOT for the ridiculous notion that they are in a good mood.

Skylinehead

Ok so what treaty obligation is broken if Parliament doesn't vote for unification?

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

Ok so what treaty obligation is broken if Parliament doesn't vote for unification?

Already covered many times.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Already covered many times.

Hard to keep up with all these changing tactics(GFA itself, now general treaties, with a sprinkling of self-determination).

The GFA itself does not mention that Parliament should vote yes, only that the government at the time of a unification referendum should introduce and support that legislation. So what is Parliament doing wrong? What exactly is it breaking? You're maddeningly vague.

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

Hard to keep up with all these changing tactics(GFA itself, now general treaties, with a sprinkling of self-determination).

The GFA itself does not mention that Parliament should vote yes, only that the government at the time of a unification referendum should introduce and support that legislation. So what is Parliament doing wrong? What exactly is it breaking? You're maddeningly vague.

We have done the whole Government/Parliament thing. Once parliament exercised its sovereignty in accepting/ratifying the agreement they are one and the same in international law. (If they aren't find me anywhere on for instance the UN site where it says 'Britain agrees(but not parliament)'.
You won't Britain is Britain and it has signed, ratified and given Royal Assent to the BIA.

Legislating for a UI is a function of the agreement. They can refuse to do it but it is failing in its obligations to the treaty. And that is a violation of international law.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Legislating for a UI is a function of the agreement. They can refuse to do it but it is failing in its obligations to the treaty. And that is a violation of international law.

If the electorate of the Republic failed to vote for unification, would they be in violation of international law?

If not, why are you drawing a distinction between the two?

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the electorate of the Republic failed to vote for unification, would they be in violation of international law?

If not, why are you drawing a distinction between the two?

What?

Why can you not accept that Britain has already exercised its sovereignty on the agreement. It is a deal.
Now they have obligations to that deal. If a majority decide in favour they will legislate.
At all stages their sovereignty is intact. If they wish to break a binding agreement they can.
To do so legally they must, using parliamentary sovereignty revoke it first.

Skylinehead

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have done the whole Government/Parliament thing. Once parliament exercised its sovereignty in accepting/ratifying the agreement they are one and the same in international law. (If they aren't find me anywhere on for instance the UN site where it says 'Britain agrees(but not parliament)'.
You won't Britain is Britain and it has signed, ratified and given Royal Assent to the BIA.

Legislating for a UI is a function of the agreement. They can refuse to do it but it is failing in its obligations to the treaty. And that is a violation of international law.

Quote it.

Oh, and "excercising your sovereignty" isn't a one-time dealy.

FrancieBrady

Skylinehead wrote: »

Quote it.

Oh, and "excercising your sovereignty" isn't a one-time dealy.

Seriously, are you reading what is being written? THEY CAN EXCERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY ANYTIME THEY WANT.

BUT, they have (Britain and Ireland) a BINDING OBLIGATION to introduce legislation TO GIVE EFFECT to the wishes of the people.

They cannot decide they don't like it at that stage. They have to abide by the wishes of the people expressed in a vote.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously, are you reading what is being written? THEY CAN EXCERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY ANYTIME THEY WANT.

BUT, they have (Britain and Ireland) a BINDING OBLIGATION to introduce legislation TO GIVE EFFECT to the wishes of the people.

They cannot decide they don't like it at that stage. They have to abide by the wishes of the people expressed in a vote.

Yes. By INTRODUCING legislation (seeing as we're shouting now), not by PASSING it, because there can be no binding obligation to PASS legislation.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. By INTRODUCING legislation (seeing as we're shouting now), not by PASSING it, because there can be no binding obligation to PASS legislation.

'Support and introduce TO GIVE EFFECT', notice the abscene of 'maybe give effect.

*capitals for emphasis. Calm down.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously, are you reading what is being written? THEY CAN EXCERCISE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY ANYTIME THEY WANT.

BUT, they have (Britain and Ireland) a BINDING OBLIGATION to introduce legislation TO GIVE EFFECT to the wishes of the people.

They cannot decide they don't like it at that stage. They have to abide by the wishes of the people expressed in a vote.

At last we are in agreement. There is an obligation to introduce legislation, we can all agree on that, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, there is no requirement to pass it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

At last we are in agreement. There is an obligation to introduce legislation, we can all agree on that, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, there is no requirement to pass it.

'TO GIVE EFFECT'.

Cherrypicking parts of sentences now? Typically, in international agreements you are not allowed to do that anymore but nice try.