The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

oscarBravo · 13-06-2017 12:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Not really, no. Can you cite the relevant provision of the GFA that they would have breached?

blanch152 · 13-06-2017 12:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Do you have a link to international case law that demonstrates that is the case. After all, the international agreement only commits the UK government to sponsoring the legislation. That is all.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 12:29PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not really, no. Can you cite the relevant provision of the GFA that they would have breached?

Parliament has ratified the agreement, if they don't fulfill it's terms, specifically the one dealing with a majority vote in favour of unity, they breach that commitment. The right to self determination.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2017 12:32PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament has ratified the agreement, if they don't fulfill it's terms, specifically the one dealing with a majority vote in favour of unity, they breach that commitment. The right to self determination.

Right, but I was asking you to quote the text of the Agreement.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 12:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you have a link to international case law that demonstrates that is the case. After all, the international agreement only commits the UK government to sponsoring the legislation. That is all.

No I don't have a link, because I am not particularly interested in international law.

What I know is that it is a 'binding international agreement' if the government fail because parliament refuse to pass legislation, that is a breach and illegal under international law.

If, as I said a long time ago, the British Parliament wish to operate illegally that is their perogative, but if you assume, as we all do (including the Irish government, see Ahern's official speech) that the British will act legally, then it is safe to say Unity is a formality.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 12:39PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but I was asking you to quote the text of the Agreement.

Can you quote a caveat, 'that this agreement is contingent on the ultimate decision of Parliament'?

What was the point of bringing it to parliament and getting it royal assent?

Why is it not just an agreement between two governments?

Fratton Fred · 13-06-2017 12:40PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No I don't have a link, because I am not particularly interested in international law.

What I know is that it is a 'binding international agreement' if the government fail because parliament refuse to pass legislation, that is a breach and illegal under international law.

If, as I said a long time ago, the British Parliament wish to operate illegally that is their perogative, but if you assume, as we all do (including the Irish government, see Ahern's official speech) that the British will act legally, then it is safe to say Unity is a formality.

what Oscar Bravo is asking you to do, is to cite the actual part of the agreement that is being broken, should Parliament fail to pass the legislation.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2017 12:56PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you quote a caveat, 'that this agreement is contingent on the ultimate decision of Parliament'?

Sure:

...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;

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What was the point of bringing it to parliament and getting it royal assent?

Because it was necessary to repeal the Government of Ireland Act and replace it with the Northern Ireland Act.

Why is it not just an agreement between two governments?

Because the British government doesn't have the authority to repeal Acts of Parliament; only Parliament can do that. Which is the point several of us have been making all along.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 01:03PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

what Oscar Bravo is asking you to do, is to cite the actual part of the agreement that is being broken, should Parliament fail to pass the legislation.

It isn't there, as is the caveat that Parliament might reject it ultimately or have the final say.

If parliament ratify and royal assent is given to an agreement between two governments they agree to it's terms.
If they fail/or subsequently revoke (as is their prerogative) they break the agreement. And that is illegal under international law.

That is why (and you can snipe all you wish about the personality of Bertie, I would agree with you) an Irish Taoiseach in his official capacity and in an official speech was able to say what he did. Because all the signatories and players accept this to be the case.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 01:09PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure:

Because it was necessary to repeal the Government of Ireland Act and replace it with the Northern Ireland Act. Because the British government doesn't have the authority to repeal Acts of Parliament; only Parliament can do that. Which is the point several of us have been making all along.

The Northern Ireland Act was part of their commitment to the agreement.

The British-Irish Agreement was ratified and given Royal Assent in full.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2017 01:22PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British-Irish Agreement was ratified and given Royal Assent in full.

...and in that Agreement is a binding commitment on the British government to introduce and support legislation. If, as you claim, there's a binding commitment on Parliament to pass it, please quote it.

CMOTDibbler · 13-06-2017 01:26PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously?

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

Correct.

And yet the same terminology is used to describe the British and Irish government's obligations in those matters:

2. The participants also note that the two Governments have accordingly undertaken in the context of this comprehensive political agreement, to propose and support changes in, respectively, the Constitution of Ireland and in British legislation relating to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

1. (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;

If as you accept, that there's a possibilty of Part 2 of the Constitutional Issues section not being passed (either by the Irish people or the British parliament), why can't you accept that there's an identical possibility written into Part 1. (iv) of the same section of the agreement and signed by all parties that could also not be passed by the British parliament?

It's a part of the agreement itself. Not some external factor but something agreed to by all parties.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 01:32PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and in that Agreement is a binding commitment on the British government to introduce and support legislation. If, as you claim, there's a binding commitment on Parliament to pass it, please quote it.

What safeguards this agreement as governments change party hues?

i.e. Say the DUP and the Tories do a deal and part of that deal is the DUP want the GFA rescinded/revoked.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2017 01:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What safeguards this agreement as governments change party hues?

i.e. Say the DUP and the Tories do a deal and part of that deal is the DUP want the GFA rescinded/revoked.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but if you're asking whether the British government could unilaterally revoke their commitment to the GFA: yes, they could - if they could get Parliament to pass the relevant legislation.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 01:58PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question, but if you're asking whether the British government could unilaterally revoke their commitment to the GFA: yes, they could - if they could get Parliament to pass the relevant legislation.

They could but they can't because that would be illegal under international law. Any changes have to be agreed between all to keep it legal.

That is why the DUP won't be able to go near it and that is why it got signed in the first place because all parties accepted and expected that all parties to the agreement would stay legal.
Hence Ahern being able to say what he did as the leader of the Irish government.
He was not accused of being provocative or triumphalist because he was right.

CMOTDibbler · 13-06-2017 02:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could but they can't because that would be illegal under international law. Any changes have to be agreed between all to keep it legal.

Explain how they got themselves out of the Treaty of Rome then.

International Treaty, check
Signed up to by the government, check
Ratified by parliament, check
Pulled out of it unilaterally by the government.

oscarBravo · 13-06-2017 02:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could but they can't because that would be illegal under international law. Any changes have to be agreed between all to keep it legal.

Again with the "can't". Who's going to prevent them? If Parliament repeals the Northern Ireland Act and replaces it with one that fails to recognise the principle of consent, who's going to prosecute them and in what court?

You make some awfully definitive assertions for someone who claims not to care about international law. So far all you've offered is arguments from incredulity and appeals to authority (worse still, to the authority of Bertie Ahern, who you choose to believe because he's telling you what you want to hear).

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 02:43PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Explain how they got themselves out of the Treaty of Rome then.

International Treaty, check
Signed up to by the government, check
Ratified by parliament, check
Pulled out of it unilaterally by the government.

Is it 'illegal' to do what they did? No, I think is the answer, if they do it in such a way as laid down by the terms of the treaty. Therein is the current debacle over it.

recedite · 13-06-2017 02:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British Irish Agreement was presented to both Parliaments and ratified in both and in Britain received royal assent.

If that was true, then you would be able to point to exact date it was ratified. What happens is, the govt. has the power to sign an international treaty. In the UK the convention is to lay the treaty out before parliament for 21 days, and if nobody kicks up a fuss it is considered ratified.
But its the govt. that signs the treaty, not the parliament. In the specific case of the GFA treaty, AFAIK it was the plebiscite in NI which was considered to be the ratification, not any parliamentary or royal assent.

Separately, as it happened, the parliament had to pass legislation inserting the new wording into UK law, which you could interpret as parliamentary assent to a treaty that was already signed and ratified.

Still though, there is nothing in that legislation compelling a future parliament to vote according to the wishes of a future NI plebiscite. Just because Bertie said it, that does not make it factual.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 02:44PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again with the "can't". Who's going to prevent them? If Parliament repeals the Northern Ireland Act and replaces it with one that fails to recognise the principle of consent, who's going to prosecute them and in what court?

You make some awfully definitive assertions for someone who claims not to care about international law. So far all you've offered is arguments from incredulity and appeals to authority (worse still, to the authority of Bertie Ahern, who you choose to believe because he's telling you what you want to hear).

Is this a, 'they can do what they want because there are no real consequences in international law' argument?

That there is little to no punishment doesn't make it any less illegal.

Skylinehead · 13-06-2017 03:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is this a, 'they can do what they want because there are no real consequences in international law' argument?

That there is little to no punishment doesn't make it any less illegal.

Where is this illegality? Obviously the terms of the GFA are the reference point, please explain where in that text Parliament is breaking it if they vote legislation down.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 03:00PM

This phrased a little more eloquently than my good self but is off the same hymn sheet.

The Agreement will be embedded in a treaty between two states, and it is based on recognition of Irish national self-determination
as well as British constitutional convention. The UK officially acknowledges in the
Agreement that Northern Ireland has the right to join the Republic, on the basis of a local referendum, and it
recognises, in a treaty, the authority of Irish national self-determination throughout the island of Ireland.
Moreover, the Agreement’s institutions are being brought into being by the will of the people of Ireland, North
and South, and not just by the people of Northern Ireland – recall the interdependence of the North-South
Ministerial Council and the Assembly. In consequence the UK’s relationship to Northern Ireland, at least in
international law, is explicitly federal because the Westminster parliament and executive cannot, except through
breaking its treaty obligations, and except through denying Irish national self-determination, exercise power in
any manner in Northern Ireland that is inconsistent with the Agreement.

https://kellogg.nd.edu/faculty/research/pdfs/OLeary.pdf

Not the bible by any means but another person who holds the same view.

blanch152 · 13-06-2017 03:02PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could but they can't because that would be illegal under international law. Any changes have to be agreed between all to keep it legal.

That is why the DUP won't be able to go near it and that is why it got signed in the first place because all parties accepted and expected that all parties to the agreement would stay legal.
Hence Ahern being able to say what he did as the leader of the Irish government.
He was not accused of being provocative or triumphalist because he was right.

No, any country can withdraw from an international agreement - look at the UK withdrawing from the EU. It would be perfectly legal for the UK to say we are withdrawing from the GFA and putting the following other arrangements in place, whatever they are.

Think about it, a Labour UK government could turn around and say we are having a border poll even though the Secretary of State doesn't believe it will pass. That also confirms that the only people out there trying to circumvent the GFA are Sinn Fein in calling for a border poll before the circumstances are right. Alternatively a Conservative/DUP government could say we are withdrawing from the GFA and implementing direct rule.

That doesn't mean any of it is politically possible but they are all legally possible.

blanch152 · 13-06-2017 03:06PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could but they can't because that would be illegal under international law. Any changes have to be agreed between all to keep it legal.

Do you have a link to anything that shows this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#Ending_treaty_obligations

"In practice, because of sovereignty, any state can purport to withdraw from any treaty at any time, and cease to abide by its terms."

Please show me something different other than Bertie spoofing.

Fratton Fred · 13-06-2017 03:17PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This phrased a little more eloquently than my good self but is off the same hymn sheet.

https://kellogg.nd.edu/faculty/research/pdfs/OLeary.pdf

Not the bible by any means but another person who holds the same view.

this is the bible. An actual word for word copy of the actual agreement signed between the parties and held on a United Nations database.

I have already quoted this and even highlighted the relevant parts to make it clear for you

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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;

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

Read it.

Skylinehead · 13-06-2017 03:23PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This phrased a little more eloquently than my good self but is off the same hymn sheet.

https://kellogg.nd.edu/faculty/research/pdfs/OLeary.pdf

Not the bible by any means but another person who holds the same view.

I was looking for the "bible" itself actually, the GFA. The only thing that matters.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 03:54PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

this is the bible. An actual word for word copy of the actual agreement signed between the parties and held on a United Nations database.

I have already quoted this and even highlighted the relevant parts to make it clear for you

Read it.

Once more.

Parliament ratified and royal assent was given to the British-Irish Agreement.
It became, as a result of this and the fulfilling of other terms and conditions an internationally binding agreement.
If Parliament wishes to use it's prerogative, it can go ahead and do that, but it will be an illegal act.

This is why more than Ahern have said what they have said. Unity is not in the gift of Parliament (a ridiculous notion to believe in respect of this specific agreement that anyone would have agreed to that) if it operates legally.

Fratton Fred · 13-06-2017 04:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Once more.

Parliament ratified and royal assent was given to the British-Irish Agreement.
It became, as a result of this and the fulfilling of other terms and conditions an internationally binding agreement.
If Parliament wishes to use it's prerogative, it can go ahead and do that, but it will be an illegal act.

This is why more than Ahern have said what they have said. Unity is not in the gift of Parliament (a ridiculous notion to believe in respect of this specific agreement that anyone would have agreed to that) if it operates legally.

Is that the same Bertie Ahern who has money "Resting" in his bank accounts?

The British-Irish agreement won't be broken, providing the legislation is put before parliament. What parliament chooses to do with it, is entirely up to Parliament and if they (For some bizarre reason) choose to vote against it, then they have again, not broken any agreements, international or otherwise.

That applies to both parliaments.

The GFA also says this:

1. It is the firm will of the Irish nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversityof their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

a lot of people are reading it, that this will require a referendum in the South as well as the North. What if the one in the South is rejected? have Ireland just broken international law?

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2017 04:23PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is that the same Bertie Ahern who has money "Resting" in his bank accounts?

It isn't my fault if you cannot separate an official speech given by the office holder of Taoiseach and the personal life of the man.

The British-Irish agreement won't be broken, providing the legislation is put before parliament. What parliament chooses to do with it, is entirely up to Parliament and if they (For some bizarre reason) choose to vote against it, then they have again, not broken any agreements, international or otherwise.

Dealt with all of this previously.

That applies to both parliaments.

The GFA also says this:

a lot of people are reading it, that this will require a referendum in the South as well as the North. What if the one in the South is rejected? have Ireland just broken international law?

No.

blanch152 · 13-06-2017 04:26PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Once more.

Parliament ratified and royal assent was given to the British-Irish Agreement.
It became, as a result of this and the fulfilling of other terms and conditions an internationally binding agreement.
If Parliament wishes to use it's prerogative, it can go ahead and do that, but it will be an illegal act.

This is why more than Ahern have said what they have said. Unity is not in the gift of Parliament (a ridiculous notion to believe in respect of this specific agreement that anyone would have agreed to that) if it operates legally.

Explain the concept of an internationally binding agreement?

I have already explained to you that a UK government can withdraw at any time from an international agreement - aren't they doing that just now?

The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

Comments