The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

oscarBravo · 10-06-2017 09:49PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And parliament was sovereign when it bound itself to the agreement until such time as the agreement is revoked.

Correct. And the text of the Agreement obliges the British government to introduce and support legislation, at which point the sovereign Parliament will vote on whether or not to implement that legislation.

There's nothing unclear or ambiguous here. You're repeatedly and pointedly ignoring well-known and -understood constitutional law here in favour of what it suits you better to believe.

Even in the age of Trump, really really wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. There is no possible way for the British government to bind Parliament. It can't be done. End. Of. Conversation.

I genuinely get why you would wish this wasn't true, but it's beyond me why you won't recognise that it is true.

Dyr · 10-06-2017 09:51PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I added my own qualifier because I'm well aware of treaties that don't require legislation.

The one we're talking about does. It says so in, you know, the actual treaty. :rolleyes:

that's odd because I had to explain it you, maybe you mean you're aware of it now

Anyhoo off you go

Do a bit off research of whether the UK parliament has a say in changing the status of NI

then explain how either government can reject a referendum without causing a constitutional crisis

then we can move onto the tautology you worked into the clause

oscarBravo · 10-06-2017 09:56PM

Bambi wrote: »

Do a bit off research of whether the UK parliament has a say in changing the status of NI

Have you even read the GFA?

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 09:56PM

Bambi wrote: »

that's odd because I had to explain it you, maybe you mean you're aware of it now

Anyhoo off you go

Do a bit off research of whether the UK parliament has a say in changing the status of NI

then explain how either government can reject a referendum without causing a constitutional crisis

then we can move onto the tautology you worked into the clause

It's kind of funny that you adopt a patronising tone.

Very funny in fact.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 09:59PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. And the text of the Agreement obliges the British government to introduce and support legislation, at which point the sovereign Parliament will vote on whether or not to implement that legislation.

There's nothing unclear or ambiguous here. You're repeatedly and pointedly ignoring well-known and -understood constitutional law here in favour of what it suits you better to believe.

Even in the age of Trump, really really wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. There is no possible way for the British government to bind Parliament. It can't be done. End. Of. Conversation.

I genuinely get why you would wish this wasn't true, but it's beyond me why you won't recognise that it is true.

The passing of the legislation is a formality otherwise they (parliament) are breaking the agreement. That is the illegality Ahern was referring to.
If they want to legally revoke then the agreement must go first.
Very simple stuff here. I'm surprised tbh.

Skylinehead · 10-06-2017 10:14PM

Bambi wrote: »

that's odd because I had to explain it you, maybe you mean you're aware of it now

Anyhoo off you go

Do a bit off research of whether the UK parliament has a say in changing the status of NI

then explain how either government can reject a referendum without causing a constitutional crisis

then we can move onto the tautology you worked into the clause

Constitutional crisis? Again, back to these words, but in Britain, parliamentary sovereignty effectively is the British constitution. If it weren't put to a vote, or the British government tried to force the British parliament to pass any legislation related to the GFA - now that's a constitutional crisis.

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 10:15PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The passing of the legislation is a formality otherwise they (parliament) are breaking the agreement. That is the illegality Ahern was referring to.
If they want to legally revoke then the agreement must go first.
Very simple stuff here. I'm surprised tbh.

If it was a formality, why is there a clause requiring it?

And why does that clause not use the word 'pass'?

You seem to be stuck in a logic loop. Legislation branches like computer programming.

oscarBravo · 10-06-2017 10:30PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The passing of the legislation is a formality otherwise they (parliament) are breaking the agreement.

That's Parliament's prerogative!!

I'll keep repeating this, if only to force you to keep pointedly ignoring it: nothing can bind Parliament, including past acts of Parliament.

That is the illegality Ahern was referring to.

Hang on, you're invoking Bertie bloody Ahern as a British constitutional scholar?!

Very simple stuff here. I'm surprised tbh.

What's simple is that you're ignoring the core tenet of British constitutional law in favour of what it suits you to believe. I'm actually boggled that you're pushing such a self-evidently ridiculous view as hard as you are.

blanch152 · 11-06-2017 01:39AM

Bambi wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything, the governments obligation to the terms of a treaty does not end with recommending it to parliament, if the legislation is not enacted then they are in breach of the treaty.

Governments sign up for treaties all the time without reference to parliament, they are given power in international relations to agree treaties without reference to parliament. Happens all the time,suprised you're not aware of it tbh

It's only when a treaty has a domestic effect that they usually have to go near parliament.

Your understanding is incomplete.

A government that signs a treaty commits to ratifying that treaty by legislation. However that is not the end of the story. A parliament may refuse to ratify, that leaves a government with embarrassment both internationally and dometically

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 01:51AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Your understanding is incomplete.

A government that signs a treaty commits to ratifying that treaty by legislation. However that is not the end of the story. A parliament may refuse to ratify, that leaves a government with embarrassment both internationally and dometically

And in an illegal breech. That is why the only way to legally get out is to first get rid of the sovereignly agreed contract/agreement.

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 09:25AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And in an illegal breech. That is why the only way to legally get out is to first get rid of the sovereignly agreed contract/agreement.

Perhaps you should have a read of this.

The main point that you don't seem to grasp is this:

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 09:38AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Perhaps you should have a read of this.

The main point that you don't seem to grasp is this:

I have already agreed with that, Parliament is sovereign and has already rubber stamped an internationally binding agreement which will be enacted unless that agreement is changed/breached or revoked.
Enacting legislation will proceed through parliament unless somebody dismantles the agreement first.

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 09:54AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have already agreed with that, Parliament is sovereign and has already rubber stamped an internationally binding agreement which will be enacted unless that agreement is changed/breached or revoked.
Enacting legislation will proceed through parliament unless somebody dismantles the agreement first.

The GFA is not an act of severance. It can't be, otherwise we'd already have a UI since the GFA was passed by parliament and any sections that create a UI would also be passed. It specifically states that in the circumstances of a UI vote, a bill of severance must be drawn up, introduced and supported by the government.

That would require parliamentary approval.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 10:05AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That would require parliamentary approval.

Which is legally guaranteed in a binding agreement if the majority vote for a UI.

There will be no dissention from that not because of a softening of attitude but because the agreement must be legally revoked first.
Anything else would be an illegal breach of an internationally binding treaty.

Cannot state it any clearer than that, so I will leave it there.

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 10:09AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is legally guaranteed in a binding agreement if the majority vote for a UI.

There will be no dissention from that not because of a softening of attitude but because the agreement must be legally revoked first.
Anything else would be an illegal breach of an internationally binding treaty.

Cannot state it any clearer than that, so I will leave it there.

In that case, because I'm tired of going around in circles on this, why is there an article in the GFA saying that the government must introduce and support legislation to give effect to the poll?

If you accept that legislation must be introduced, then you must also accept that parliament has a right to vote on it.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 10:25AM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

In that case, because I'm tired of going around in circles on this, why is there an article in the GFA saying that the government must introduce and support legislation to give effect to the poll?

If you accept that legislation must be introduced, then you must also accept that parliament has a right to vote on it.

Because that is how it is done...formally.
Parliamentarians will simply honour a previously sovereignly agreed treaty.

Nobody was going to agree to it otherwise. A done deal as they say and that is one of the differences between it and the Sunningdale agreements. (Seamus Mallon take note

)

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 10:40AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because that is how it is done...formally.
Parliamentarians will simply honour a previously sovereignly agreed treaty.

So there will be no new legislation then. Is that what you're saying?

And why is the word 'support' used? What is the meaning of 'support' in the context of the legislative process?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody was going to agree to it otherwise. A done deal as they say and that is one of the differences between it and the Sunningdale agreements. (Seamus Mallon take note )

Of course they were going to agree to it. A government can't do anything more than support legislation. It can't speak for parliament. That's what parliamentary sovereignity means.

oscarBravo · 11-06-2017 12:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That would require parliamentary approval.

Which is legally guaranteed in a binding agreement if the majority vote for a UI.

I can see you've decided to adopt the strategy of continuing to repeat a falsehood until it magically becomes true.

There is no such thing as a binding agreement on Parliament. Parliament is sovereign. It is legally impossible to guarantee parliamentary approval.

If you're arguing that Parliament would be in breach of the GFA should it fail to pass the relevant legislation, then make that argument and we can talk about the consequences. But, for the love of jebus, please stop with the legal fictions, because they just make it look like you're trying to invent facts to suit your narrative.

blanch152 · 11-06-2017 06:19PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The two governments have signed a contract. To get out of that contract they must first revoke/rescind it.

That is why Ahern said what he did, unchallenged. To not enact unity, would be illegal as per a binding agreement.

They have signed a contract to support the legislation, but the Parliament did not sign a contract to pass it!!!

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 06:45PM

blanch152 wrote: »

They have signed a contract to support the legislation, but the Parliament did not sign a contract to pass it!!!

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

Skylinehead · 11-06-2017 07:11PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

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

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 07:18PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

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

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

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 07:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Yes they did.

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

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

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

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 07:39PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yes they did.

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

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

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

Can you answer this question?

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

Dyr · 11-06-2017 07:43PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yes they did.

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

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

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

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

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

Skylinehead · 11-06-2017 07:52PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

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

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 07:52PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you answer this question?

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

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

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

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

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

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 08:01PM

Bambi wrote: »

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

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

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

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2017 08:07PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CMOTDibbler · 11-06-2017 08:10PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Clearly you are not.

This thread will serve as an indication to others.

The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

Comments