Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

1…457910…13

Comments

  • #182
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    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.
    You think there's something written into the Treaty of Rome that allows this. Yet you still refuse to recognise the explicit wording of Artucle 1. (iv) and what that means.

    As I said above and which you seem to have ignored:
    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    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.


  • #183
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    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?

    Yes, they have withdrawn and there has been a protracted debate of what the terms of that withdrawal are. Because there are terms if they wish to withdraw within the rules.

    My understanding of an internationally binding treaty is that all sides must comply with what was agreed.


  • #184
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    You think there's something written into the Treaty of Rome that allows this. Yet you still refuse to recognise the explicit wording of Artucle 1. (iv) and what that means.

    As I said above and which you seem to have ignored:

    I am going to state this one last time:

    Once parliament ratified the agreement they agreed to it on behalf of Great Briatain and the queen gave it Royal Assent.
    Passing of legislation is a formality unless they wish to break the agreement, which is their prerogative, but which is illegal.

    Please accept that as my point of view and your question answered, again. I have NOT ignored it.


  • #185
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I am going to state this one last time:

    Once parliament ratified the agreement they agreed to it on behalf of Great Briatain and the queen gave it Royal Assent.

    yes, the agreement to present legislation to Parliament (the same obligation for both governments, by the way)
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Passing of legislation is a formality unless they wish to break the agreement, which is their prerogative, but which is illegal.

    no, it isn't. please show us all, where not passing that legislation would be illegal. there is nothing in the GFA that says legislation must be passed. it isn't there, it doesn't exist.
    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Please accept that as my point of view and your question answered, again. I have NOT ignored it.

    your point of view is incorrect.


  • #186
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I am going to state this one last time:

    Once parliament ratified the agreement they agreed to it on behalf of Great Briatain and the queen gave it Royal Assent.
    Passing of legislation is a formality unless they wish to break the agreement, which is their prerogative, but which is illegal.

    Please accept that as my point of view and your question answered, again. I have NOT ignored it.
    You have ignored the fact that the exact same wording is used in both cases. Therefore each case is the same and could produce the same outcome. You've already agreed to that.

    So you're falling back on the agreement being agreed. Nobody is denying that. You're just denying the fact that written into the agreement is an article that specifically says that Parliament will vote on legislation to give effect to a UI.

    That's the bit you're ignoring.

    THat's the bit that has applied to every devolution in British history.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    You have ignored the fact that the exact same wording is used in both cases. Therefore each case is the same and could produce the same outcome. You've already agreed to that.

    So you're falling back on the agreement being agreed. Nobody is denying that. You're just denying the fact that written into the agreement is an article that specifically says that Parliament will vote on legislation to give effect to a UI.

    That's the bit you're ignoring.

    THat's the bit that has applied to every devolution in British history.

    They are not out of the Treaty Of Rome yet. They agreed to abide by the rules and costs of leaving. They have not legally found a way to do that yet.


  • #188
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Yes, they have withdrawn and there has been a protracted debate of what the terms of that withdrawal are. Because there are terms if they wish to withdraw within the rules.

    My understanding of an internationally binding treaty is that all sides must comply with what was agreed.

    OK, let's follow that one and see where it leads. The rules the UK is currently following to leave the EU were created for the first time by the Lisbon Treaty. If the UK had decided to leave the EU in (say) 2005 there would have been no legal mechanism set out in the treaties for them to do so.

    Per your argument in this thread, brexit under those circumstances would have been an illegal act.

    The thing is, "international law" is a wooly concept at best. It exists insofar as countries agree it does. Treaties are only binding in the sense that they are contracts: if one party reneges, then the contract is void, and the other party is no longer bound by it.

    To an earlier point of yours: if there are no consequences for breaking the law, then the law, to all practical purposes, doesn't exist. There are lots of reasons why Parliament would almost certainly pass the required legislation in the event of a vote for unity on both sides of the border, but the notion that it doesn't have a choice in the matter isn't by any stretch of the imagination one of them.


  • #189
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    yes, the agreement to present legislation to Parliament (the same obligation for both governments, by the way)



    no, it isn't. please show us all, where not passing that legislation would be illegal. there is nothing in the GFA that says legislation must be passed. it isn't there, it doesn't exist.



    your point of view is incorrect.

    You attach too much importance to the sovereignty of Britain's Parliament in international affairs. It is only important in it's own affairs.
    From the paper posted earlier:
    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.


  • #190
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,863 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Yes, they have withdrawn and there has been a protracted debate of what the terms of that withdrawal are. Because there are terms if they wish to withdraw within the rules.

    My understanding of an internationally binding treaty is that all sides must comply with what was agreed.

    There doesn't need to be any debate on the terms. They have withdrawn, if nothing happens, then very hard Brexit after two years, simple as. All gone, treaty gone, EU membership gone, all just by a decision of parliament.

    Tell me now how they managed to withdraw from the Treaty of Versailles and wage war on Germany in WWII?

    There is no logic to your posts at all. Your understanding of an internationally binding treaty is not based on fact.


  • #191
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There doesn't need to be any debate on the terms. They have withdrawn, if nothing happens, then very hard Brexit after two years, simple as. All gone, treaty gone, EU membership gone, all just by a decision of parliament.

    Tell me now how they managed to withdraw from the Treaty of Versailles and wage war on Germany in WWII?

    There is no logic to your posts at all. Your understanding of an internationally binding treaty is not based on fact.

    Nobody ever denied that Britain can arrogantly overlook it's obligations. Nobody at all.

    But assuming they will operate legally certain inferences can be made.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,863 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You attach too much importance to the sovereignty of Britain's Parliament in international affairs. It is only important in it's own affairs.
    From the paper posted earlier:

    Read that quote again, the one you think backs you up:

    "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."

    Where does it say in that quotation that it is illegal for the Westminister parliament to break its treaty obligations? It is perfectly legal for any State to withdraw from an international agreement because of the sovereignty of the people.


  • #193
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You attach too much importance to the sovereignty of Britain's Parliament in international affairs. It is only important in it's own affairs.
    From the paper posted earlier:

    1) Parliament voting down legislation regarding the GFA is not contrary to the GFA.

    2) The only paper that actually has any merit here is the GFA itself. Which you STILL apparently refuse to read, given that you still can't quote what part of the treaty is broken if Parliament doesn't vote yes to unification.


  • #194
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, let's follow that one and see where it leads. The rules the UK is currently following to leave the EU were created for the first time by the Lisbon Treaty. If the UK had decided to leave the EU in (say) 2005 there would have been no legal mechanism set out in the treaties for them to do so.

    Per your argument in this thread, brexit under those circumstances would have been an illegal act.

    The thing is, "international law" is a wooly concept at best. It exists insofar as countries agree it does. Treaties are only binding in the sense that they are contracts: if one party reneges, then the contract is void, and the other party is no longer bound by it.

    To an earlier point of yours: if there are no consequences for breaking the law, then the law, to all practical purposes, doesn't exist. There are lots of reasons why Parliament would almost certainly pass the required legislation in the event of a vote for unity on both sides of the border, but the notion that it doesn't have a choice in the matter isn't by any stretch of the imagination one of them.

    I never said they didn't have a choice. I have said it again and again, they do.


  • #195
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    1) Parliament voting down legislation regarding the GFA is not contrary to the GFA.

    2) The only paper that actually has any merit here is the GFA itself. Which you STILL apparently refuse to read, given that you still can't quote what part of the treaty is broken if Parliament doesn't vote yes to unification.

    I have read the GFA and much other stuff as well.

    We have been over the question you asked already.


  • #196
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Read that quote again, the one you think backs you up:

    "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."

    Where does it say in that quotation that it is illegal for the Westminister parliament to break its treaty obligations? It is perfectly legal for any State to withdraw from an international agreement because of the sovereignty of the people.

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

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


  • #197
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    It doesn't say it there. It says Westminster Parliament and executive cannot, except through breaking it's treaty obligations....
    The GFA specifically gives them the right to vote against it. It's right there in Article 1. (iv).

    The same as the right to vote against the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act is there in Article 2.


  • #198
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


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

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

    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****.


  • #199
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    The GFA specifically gives them the right to vote against it. It's right there in Article 1. (iv).

    The same as the right to vote against the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act is there in Article 2.

    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.


  • #200
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I have read the GFA and much other stuff as well.

    We have been over the question you asked already.

    "Other stuff" is irrelevant tbh. We haven't been over the question until you specifically quote the part of the GFA where it says that Parliament cannot vote no. Until then...I guess I'll have to keep asking?


  • #201
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    "Other stuff" is irrelevant tbh. We haven't been over the question until you specifically quote the part of the GFA where it says that Parliament cannot vote no. Until then...I guess I'll have to keep asking?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭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.


  • #203
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭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?


  • #204
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #205
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #206
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭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.


  • #207
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #208
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    That's not relevant.

    Alrighty so.


  • #209
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,679 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #210
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Alrighty so.
    Good.

    Care to address the rest of my post?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement