The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

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.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'TO GIVE EFFECT'.

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

Actually, you're doing the cherrypicking.

If you're going to parse out individual phrases, the one you're looking for is "legislation to give effect" - in other words, legislation which, if enacted, would give effect.

But it's best to read the actual clause as a whole, which couldn't be clearer: it imposes a binding obligation on the government to introduce and support legislation. It imposes no binding obligation on Parliament to pass that legislation, because - I may have mentioned this before - it's legally impossible to impose such a binding obligation on Parliament.

It's my genuine belief that Bertie Ahern was flat-out wrong in his statement. Certainly there's nothing in the text of the Agreement to support his claim. Was he lying? I don't know, I can't speak to his motives, but I think it's clear from this thread alone that there are many people who have a deep-seated need to believe that Parliamentary sovereignty can be overridden.

I asked before: do you believe it's possible to create a legally-binding obligation on the Irish people to pass a referendum? You deflected, as you tend to do when faced with tricky questions, but it's key to understanding this issue.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, you're doing the cherrypicking.

If you're going to parse out individual phrases, the one you're looking for is "legislation to give effect" - in other words, legislation which, if enacted, would give effect.

But it's best to read the actual clause as a whole, which couldn't be clearer: it imposes a binding obligation on the government to introduce and support legislation. It imposes no binding obligation on Parliament to pass that legislation, because - I may have mentioned this before - it's legally impossible to impose such a binding obligation on Parliament.

It's my genuine belief that Bertie Ahern was flat-out wrong in his statement. Certainly there's nothing in the text of the Agreement to support his claim. Was he lying? I don't know, I can't speak to his motives, but I think it's clear from this thread alone that there are many people who have a deep-seated need to believe that Parliamentary sovereignty can be overridden.

I don't have a 'need' for anything. My 'need' was satisfied by the commitments given by the British in an internationally binding treaty.
You fail time and time again to accept that parliament, by ratifying/signing this agreement have in international law bound themselves...legally.
The only way they can renege on that agreement is to revoke it, in it's entirety and that is not the same thing as legislating for a UI. Legislating is merely a stage in giving effect to the wishes of the people. Legislation simply legalises the ceding of territory, WHICH THEY HAVE sovereignly agreed to do in the event of a vote in favour.
There is no impingement on parliamentary sovereignty at any stage. They can fail, but they would be breaking a binding international agreement etc etc.
They cannot, while the agreement is in place, fail to legislate for/give effect to, the will of the people.

I asked before: do you believe it's possible to create a legally-binding obligation on the Irish people to pass a referendum? You deflected, as you tend to do when faced with tricky questions, but it's key to understanding this issue.

No it isn't possible. I said this before. And it is not required by the agreement. 'If' is the word you seem to be missing.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have a 'need' for anything. My 'need' was satisfied by the commitments given by the British in an internationally binding treaty.

The commitment given was to introduce and support legislation.

You fail time and time again to accept that parliament, by ratifying/signing this agreement have in international law bound themselves...legally.

No, they haven't, because they legally can't.

I see you're falling back on the tactic of repeating a falsehood in the hope of magically making it true.

The only way they can renege on that agreement...

There is no such agreement. You can tell there's no such agreement, because it's not in the text of the Agreement.

You've been asked to cite the text of the Agreement in support of your bizarre assertion, and the closest you were able to come was to surgically extract the words "to give effect to", as if taking them out of context would imbue them with a meaning they clearly don't have in the document itself. And then, hilariously, accused others of cherrypicking.

Legislation simply legalises the ceding of territory, WHICH THEY HAVE sovereignly agreed to do in the event of a vote in favour.

They have agreed to introduce and support legislation to do so. You can tell that that's what they've agreed to, because that's what's written in the Agreement.

They can fail, but they would be breaking a binding international agreement etc etc.

No, they wouldn't. The Agreement isn't binding on Parliament, because - I might have mentioned this before - it legally can't be.

They cannot, while the agreement is in place, fail to legislate for/give effect to, the will of the people.

Of course they can. If the government fails to introduce or to support the legislation, then it will be in breach of the Agreement, but if Parliament votes it down, it won't be, because the Agreement imposes no binding commitments on Parliament.

No it isn't possible.

Of course it's not possible. The Irish people are sovereign, and nothing written in any international treaty can compel them to vote in any particular way.

It's utterly bizarre that you accept this without question, but dismiss out of hand the idea that Parliament is similarly sovereign where the UK is concerned. It's actually a very blatant act of doublethink on your part.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

The commitment given was to introduce and support legislation. No, they haven't, because they legally can't.

Why are you ignoring the rest of the clause...'to give effect to those wishes'??

I see you're falling back on the tactic of repeating a falsehood in the hope of magically making it true. There is no such agreement. You can tell there's no such agreement, because it's not in the text of the Agreement.

You've been asked to cite the text of the Agreement in support of your bizarre assertion, and the closest you were able to come was to surgically extract the words "to give effect to", as if taking them out of context would imbue them with a meaning they clearly don't have in the document itself. And then, hilariously, accused others of cherrypicking. They have agreed to introduce and support legislation to do so. You can tell that that's what they've agreed to, because that's what's written in the Agreement.

They have agreed to 'introduce and support legislation (because that is a necessary step) to give effect to those wishes.

It is a simple piece of housekeeping, nothing more.

No, they wouldn't. The Agreement isn't binding on Parliament, because - I might have mentioned this before - it legally can't be. Of course they can. If the government fails to introduce or to support the legislation, then it will be in breach of the Agreement, but if Parliament votes it down, it won't be, because the Agreement imposes no binding commitments on Parliament.

This is just crazy now. They won't be voting on the 'agreement'. They will simply be legislating for the outcome of a vote.
The agreement has already been sovereignly ratified and agreed to.

Of course it's not possible. The Irish people are sovereign, and nothing written in any international treaty can compel them to vote in any particular way.

It's utterly bizarre that you accept this without question, but dismiss out of hand the idea that Parliament is similarly sovereign where the UK is concerned. It's actually a very blatant act of doublethink on your part.

Does the agreement state that it is between The Government of Great Britain and The People Of Ireland?

It should if we follow your ludicrous logic here.

That what it's title really means is: The Government of Great Britain (if that is ok by parliament) and The Government Of Ireland (which is really the people of Ireland)


'Government' in this context means Britain and Ireland.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why are you ignoring the rest of the clause...'to give effect to those wishes'??

Alright, let's look at the entire clause, in context:

BIA wrote:

The two Governments... 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;

The governments affirm that they have a binding obligation to introduce and support legislation. That's it. The Agreement doesn't create a binding obligation on Parliament to support that legislation, because - guess what? - it's legally impossible to create such a binding obligation.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have agreed to 'introduce and support legislation (because that is a necessary step) to give effect to those wishes.

It is a simple piece of housekeeping, nothing more.

So why isn't there a binding obligation written into the Agreement that Parliament will pass the legislation?

This is just crazy now. They won't be voting on the 'agreement'. They will simply be legislating for the outcome of a vote.
The agreement has already been sovereignly ratified and agreed to.

I'm having trouble even figuring out your point here, since you seem to be replying to things I didn't say.

Does the agreement state that it is between The Government of Great Britain and The People Of Ireland?

It should if we follow your ludicrous logic here.

Then you're not following my logic, which is probably because you don't want to.

The Agreement is between the governments. It imposes obligations on the governments. It doesn't impose any obligation on Parliament, for the same reason it doesn't impose any obligation on the people of Ireland: because it can't.

'Government' in this context means Britain and Ireland.

No. 'Government' in this context means 'government'.

FrancieBrady

Let's ask a basic question here: Define Britain when it comes to international agreements. Leave the BIA aside for a moment

For the life of me, I cannot find Britain defined with the rider 'parliament may subsequently change it's mind' which, in the instance of the BIA, they would be doing it they failed to give full effect to the wishes of the people. Simple as.

Could you please show me where the concept of Britain is defined with that rider in international law?

I have shown you what is expected of nations in international treatys.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, you're doing the cherrypicking.

If you're going to parse out individual phrases, the one you're looking for is "legislation to give effect" - in other words, legislation which, if enacted, would give effect.

But it's best to read the actual clause as a whole, which couldn't be clearer: it imposes a binding obligation on the government to introduce and support legislation. It imposes no binding obligation on Parliament to pass that legislation, because - I may have mentioned this before - it's legally impossible to impose such a binding obligation on Parliament.

It's my genuine belief that Bertie Ahern was flat-out wrong in his statement. Certainly there's nothing in the text of the Agreement to support his claim. Was he lying? I don't know, I can't speak to his motives, but I think it's clear from this thread alone that there are many people who have a deep-seated need to believe that Parliamentary sovereignty can be overridden.

I asked before: do you believe it's possible to create a legally-binding obligation on the Irish people to pass a referendum? You deflected, as you tend to do when faced with tricky questions, but it's key to understanding this issue.

To be fair to Bertie Ahern, I don't think he was lying, I just think he wasn't capable of grapsing the concept.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

To be fair to Bertie Ahern, I don't think he was lying, I just think he wasn't capable of grapsing the concept.

You are probably just being mischievous and getting in a petty dig, but we all know that official speeches are cleared first and probably not even written by the Taoiseach.
This is a government point of view, I'm afraid to tell you. And it was entirely uncontested by unionists who are very sensitive to Irish government statements as we also know only too well

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let's ask a basic question here: Define Britain when it comes to international agreements. Leave the BIA aside for a moment

Why?

We're talking specifically about the BIA here, and it's very explicit as to who entered into the Agreement (the respective governments) and on whom it creates binding obligations (the same governments).

The word "Britain" appears three times in the entire document, and in none of those instances is it remotely unclear what it means.

Why are you looking for definitions outside of the Agreement that have no bearing on the Agreement? There's nothing unclear about the Agreement, it's very explicit in what it sets out.

For the life of me, I cannot find Britain defined with the rider 'parliament may subsequently change it's mind'...

"Parliament can change its mind" is a truism, because there is no mechanism by which Parliament can be prevented from changing its mind, any more than there's a mechanism that can prevent the Irish electorate from voting whatever way it pleases in a referendum.

I keep bringing up that parallel for good reason. I've already explained it once in this thread: Parliament is sovereign, in the same way as the Irish people are sovereign.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

We're talking specifically about the BIA here, and it's very explicit as to who entered into the Agreement (the respective governments) and on whom it creates binding obligations (the same governments).

The word "Britain" appears three times in the entire document, and in none of those instances is it remotely unclear what it means.

Why are you looking for definitions outside of the Agreement that have no bearing on the Agreement? There's nothing unclear about the Agreement, it's very explicit in what it sets out. "Parliament can change its mind" is a truism, because there is no mechanism by which Parliament can be prevented from changing its mind, any more than there's a mechanism that can prevent the Irish electorate from voting whatever way it pleases in a referendum.

I keep bringing up that parallel for good reason. I've already explained it once in this thread: Parliament is sovereign, in the same way as the Irish people are sovereign.

So will the Irish people get a final say?
No they won't because we, like Britain have already excercised our sovereignty and will abide by the agreement.
To give effect to the wishes of the people legislation must be passed. Otherwise they violate the agreement.
The only legal way now to deal with revoking the agreement is to pass another motion all the way through the houses and get Royal Assent.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So will the Irish people get a final say?
No they won't because we, like Britain have already excercised our sovereignty and will abide by the agreement.

Of course we will. Unification can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and we'll need a referendum for that.

To give effect to the wishes of the people legislation must be passed. Otherwise they violate the agreement.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but here we go again: Parliament isn't a party to the Agreement. The British government is. The Agreement imposes no obligations on Parliament; only on the government. If the government fails to introduce and support legislation, it's in breach of the Agreement. If Parliament fails to pass that legislation, we're in uncharted territory, but Parliament can't be in breach of an agreement to which it's not a party and which in any case makes no claim to bind it.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course we will. Unification can't happen without a constitutional amendment, and we'll need a referendum for that.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but here we go again: Parliament isn't a party to the Agreement. The British government is. The Agreement imposes no obligations on Parliament; only on the government. If the government fails to introduce and support legislation, it's in breach of the Agreement. If Parliament fails to pass that legislation, we're in uncharted territory, but Parliament can't be in breach of an agreement to which it's not a party and which in any case makes no claim to bind it.

Simple question: Why did parliament ratify and agree to it then if they are not party to it?

Parliament ratified and agreed to it on behalf of future parliaments until such time as the agreement is revoked, which can happen legally. But not by failing to pass legislation.

Everyone in parliament will know that if they fail to pass legislation then they will be asking the current British government, whoever that might be, to act illegally.
But they are free to do that because (as I have said many times) parliament is sovereign.

Are you able to grasp that point. The same as the irish government made. There is no legal way to fail to honour the wishes of the people under the agreement.
There are other legal ways, pointed out many times too.

Britain can be in breach of the agreement in many other ways too. BRITAIN parliament and all.

*Can you link to were we will get a referendum on the enabling legislation please (as opposed to a referendum on unity)? I cannot find any info on that.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Simple question: Why did parliament ratify and agree to it then if they are not party to it?

There's no "if" about it. You know how you can tell that Parliament are not a party to the Agreement? By reading the damn Agreement. It states, clearly and unambiguously, who the parties to the Agreement are.

It's getting seriously tiresome arguing with someone who's trying to use sophistry to infer that the Agreement means something other than the actual words that are written in it, to the point of casting about for definitions of "Britain" - whatever that has to do with anything.

If you want to believe that Parliament is an implicit party to an Agreement that explicitly spells out who its parties are, you tell yourself whatever helps you to sleep at night.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no "if" about it. You know how you can tell that Parliament are not a party to the Agreement? By reading the damn Agreement. It states, clearly and unambiguously, who the parties to the Agreement are.

It's getting seriously tiresome arguing with someone who's trying to use sophistry to infer that the Agreement means something other than the actual words that are written in it, to the point of casting about for definitions of "Britain" - whatever that has to do with anything
If you want to believe that Parliament is an implicit party to an Agreement that explicitly spells out who its parties are, you tell yourself whatever helps you to sleep at night.

Internationally, are Britain and it's parliament separate things?
The government of Ireland are referenced in the agreement, why isn't the subtly that it is actually an agreement with the 'people' of Ireland mentioned? The answer is rather obvious btw.

Again I will answer for you because you avoid the obvious: because Britain...all of it, parliament included have ratified and agreed to it.
And further, Britain (all of it) have agreed to be bound by this agreement for all time until such time as they legally revoke it.

You forgot to link to this:

*Can you link to were we will get a referendum on the enabling legislation please (as opposed to a referendum on unity)? I cannot find any info on that.

FrancieBrady

What it means when you ratify a treaty. Note the use of the word 'state'.

The 'state' accepts the provisions of the treaty.

Ratification

Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

[Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

Britain, excercising it's parliamentary sovereignty (as I said) ratified the BIA on the domestic level in 1999 and the British State is bound by it as is the Irish State.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

*Can you link to were we will get a referendum on the enabling legislation please (as opposed to a referendum on unity)? I cannot find any info on that.

Are you trying to make the argument that the international agreement is not binding on the Irish people (who need the Dail to pass a vote to hold a referendum to agree to unity) but is binding on the British people (who need a Parliamentary vote by those they elect to represent them to agree to unity)? Because it certainly seems that you are and that makes your argument a nonsense.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Are you trying to make the argument that the international agreement is not binding on the Irish people (who need the Dail to pass a vote to hold a referendum to agree to unity) but is binding on the British people (who need a Parliamentary vote by those they elect to represent them to agree to unity)? Because it certainly seems that you are and that makes your argument a nonsense.

The poster seemed to claim that we the Irish people will get a referendum on the enabling legislation as well as on the unity question. I was looking for a link about that.

oscarBravo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Internationally, are Britain and it's parliament separate things?

I don't understand the question. Why are you asking about Britain? It's an agreement between governments.

The government of Ireland are referenced in the agreement...

Yes. The government of Ireland is a party to the Agreement.

...why isn't the subtly that it is actually an agreement with the 'people' of Ireland mentioned?

Because it's not. Read the Agreement. It says in plain English who the parties are.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you link to were we will get a referendum on the enabling legislation please (as opposed to a referendum on unity)? I cannot find any info on that.

It may well be that a referendum on unity will propose to amend the Constitution in the process, in which case we'll get our final say at that time.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't understand the question. Why are you asking about Britain? It's an agreement between governments.

So you are just going to ignore yet another link? That shows that once 'domestic proceedure' are cleared it is the 'State' that is oliged to the terms of a treaty.

Yes. The government of Ireland is a party to the Agreement.

On behalf of the 'people' And The government of Britain is party to the agreement on behalf of parliament. Kinda simple really if you take on board the link posted (and as it is a UN link, I can't see how you can still be in denial about that)

Because it's not. Read the Agreement. It says in plain English who the parties are.

See above.

It may well be that a referendum on unity will propose to amend the Constitution in the process, in which case we'll get our final say at that time.

We will get our final say on unity? We, like the British, have had our say.
There will be no referendum on legislation, because we have already agreed that if the majority vote for it, legislation to effect that follows.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The poster seemed to claim that we the Irish people will get a referendum on the enabling legislation as well as on the unity question. I was looking for a link about that.

Yes, but you accept that the Irish people get a second go at deciding through a referendum, but you don't accept that the British people get a second go at deciding through a parliamentary vote.