Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

FrancieBrady · 03-11-2019 5:07pm

Aegir wrote: »

Neither parliament would be bound by the vote, only the two governments. They would have an obligation to put legislation before Parliament and the Dail but there is no obligation on either to actually pass the legislation.

It is the same with the Brexit referendum. Parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum. They then passed legislation telling the government to act on that referendum. To now turn to the people and say "You know what, its a bit difficult so we are going to cancel the whole thing" is, in truth perfectly legal. Morally though, it is absolutely ****ing reprehensible. Just as it would be if Parliament decided that they would ignore the outcome of a border poll.

Francis though, seems to be completely oblivious to this (and a lot else as well, but that's a different story).

FFS.

Again. Parliament CAN refuse to pass the legislation BUT it would be in the full knowledge that they would be breaking the GFA which they previously HAVE passed into law and statute in the NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1998.

Jaysus H Christ! :rolleyes:

03-11-2019 5:13pm

Aegir wrote: »

you didn't read the bit about Parliament and government, did you?

You still haven't shown us the b part of the GFA that Parliament would be breaking if they voted against legislation for a united Ireland.

this is yet another of your warship fantasies, where you absolutely refuse, point blank, to accept pure and simple facts. but then, I guess without gullible people who think if they something enough, it must be true, Sinn Fein and the whole republican movement would have no support.

(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;

I think I finally get what the hell this all about. Aegir is arguing that it binds the government, not Parliament. I suppose the support part would mean that they'd be obliged to whip their MPs to vote for it.

I don't see how this is really worth talking about. It would be astounding to see the British government whip their MPs to vote for it, and not only that not happen, but the opposition also vote against it, in an absolute affront to self-determination.

Let it go.

FrancieBrady · 03-11-2019 5:18pm

Deleted User wrote: »

(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;

I think I finally get what the hell this all about. Aegir is arguing that it binds the government, not Parliament. I suppose the support part would mean that they'd be obliged to whip their MPs to vote for it.

I don't see how this is really worth talking about. It would be astounding to see the British government whip their MPs to vote for it, and not only that not happen, but the opposition also vote against it, in an absolute affront to self-determination.

Let it go.

Jim Molyneaux described the IRA ceasefire that allowed the GFA to happen as 'the worst thing that ever happened to us'. He knew what it meant as did the DUP who never signed up to it and to this day hope it can be overturned. They bet the house on Brexit achieving it and were sorely hurt when the British were not prepared to ignore/break it.

03-11-2019 6:03pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FFS.

Again. Parliament CAN refuse to pass the legislation BUT it would be in the full knowledge that they would be breaking the GFA which they previously HAVE passed into law and statute in the NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1998.

Jaysus H Christ! :rolleyes:

It wouldn’t be breaking the GFA because the government has fulfilled its obligations under the GFA.

03-11-2019 6:34pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

(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;

I think I finally get what the hell this all about. Aegir is arguing that it binds the government, not Parliament. I suppose the support part would mean that they'd be obliged to whip their MPs to vote for it.

I don't see how this is really worth talking about. It would be astounding to see the British government whip their MPs to vote for it, and not only that not happen, but the opposition also vote against it, in an absolute affront to self-determination.

Let it go.

That’s exactly what this is about. This talk of “consultative or advisory referendums” is a load of bollocks.

Any referendum is, to an extent, advisory because no referendum can really ask all the questions and it is the job of government to interpret the result, act on it and to put legislation to parliament to enact that legislation.

Even the referendum on the right to life of an unborn child had to be interpreted by the government. The referendum was simply to change the constitution, the legislation had to be created and passed.

joseywhales · 03-11-2019 6:47pm

So the government that whips every mp to pass legislation, gets defeated because every other party goes against them, on an issue "unionism" none of them are really for.

FrancieBrady · 03-11-2019 7:03pm

Aegir wrote: »

It wouldn’t be breaking the GFA because the government has fulfilled its obligations under the GFA.

AND PARLIAMENT BY PASSING AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT ACCEPTED THE OBLIGATIONS.

Somebody said parliament can 'revoke' the GFA, they can't even do that without agreement from us. They would have to break it.

As I said, have you not been paying attention. They would probably have ignored it but they knew they couldn't.
That is the bind they are in.

Igotadose · 03-11-2019 8:00pm

In other news, Steve Bannon of Breitbart fame, might be buying the Telegraph. Not sure this belongs under Brexit or Trump threads, or both...

https://www.cityam.com/ex-donald-trump-strategist-steve-bannon-considers-daily-telegraph-purchase/

Professor Moriarty · 03-11-2019 9:22pm

Igotadose wrote: »

In other news, Steve Bannon of Breitbart fame, might be buying the Telegraph. Not sure this belongs under Brexit or Trump threads, or both...

https://www.cityam.com/ex-donald-trump-strategist-steve-bannon-considers-daily-telegraph-purchase/

He will find it hard to push it any further to the right than it already is.

03-11-2019 9:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

AND PARLIAMENT BY PASSING AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT ACCEPTED THE OBLIGATIONS.

Somebody said parliament can 'revoke' the GFA, they can't even do that without agreement from us. They would have to break it.

As I said, have you not been paying attention. They would probably have ignored it but they knew they couldn't.
That is the bind they are in.

Parliament has no obligations under the GFA. I’ve pointed this out plenty of times, but you seem incapable of accepting this.

This is another warship scenario Francis.

You carry on living in Fran world though, say hi to the unicorns for me.

FrancieBrady · 03-11-2019 10:16pm

Aegir wrote: »

Parliament has no obligations under the GFA.

They passed it and the 'obligations' it contains into UK law Aegir. If they break their own act, they break their own law and the GFA.
Yeh they have no obligations...:)

The sad dreams of the everyday unionist, thinking they're going to be rescued. Sad really, like with Brexit, your noses will be rubbed in it again. Your 'idea' of what the union is, was trumped by GFA and Britains commitments to it, first by Theresa May and now by Boris.

Beasty · 03-11-2019 10:34pm

Aegir wrote: »

Francis though, seems to be completely oblivious to this (and a lot else as well, but that's a different story).

Aegir wrote: »

This is another warship scenario Francis.

You carry on living in Fran world though, say hi to the unicorns for me.

Attacking the post is fine, attacking the poster is not, so please cease that now

Any questions PM ne

03-11-2019 11:36pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They passed it and the 'obligations' it contains into UK law Aegir. If they break their own act, they break their own law and the GFA.
Yeh they have no obligations...:)

The sad dreams of the everyday unionist, thinking they're going to be rescued. Sad really, like with Brexit, your noses will be rubbed in it again. Your 'idea' of what the union is, was trumped by GFA and Britains commitments to it, first by Theresa May and now by Boris.

Yuh know full well I’m not from Northern Ireland, so I’ve no idea why you persist with the Unionist comments.

well done though, you’ve worn me down so I’ll ask one last time for you to quote, from either the GFA or the Northern Ireland Act 1998 what actual obligation Parliament has.

FrancieBrady · 03-11-2019 11:53pm

Aegir wrote: »

Yuh know full well I’m not from Northern Ireland, so I’ve no idea why you persist with the Unionist comments.

well done though, you’ve worn me down so I’ll ask one last time for you to quote, from either the GFA or the Northern Ireland Act 1998 what actual obligation Parliament has.

Parliament observes the Acts it has created. If it doesn't wish to observe it they have to rescind it.
As the GFA required ratification in the form of an Act, rescinding it unilaterally to get out of 'giving effect to the wishes of the people of Ireland' that would be breaking the GFA.

It is really very simple stuff. So simple in fact that when Arlene came out with the idea of rewriting the GFA to meet a DUP need, she was laughed off the stage.

04-11-2019 10:00am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Parliament observes the Acts it has created. If it doesn't wish to observe it they have to rescind it.
As the GFA required ratification in the form of an Act, rescinding it unilaterally to get out of 'giving effect to the wishes of the people of Ireland' that would be breaking the GFA.

It is really very simple stuff. So simple in fact that when Arlene came out with the idea of rewriting the GFA to meet a DUP need, she was laughed off the stage.

I'm not talking about rescinding the GFA though Francis.

I highly recommend actually reading it before commenting on it again.

FrancieBrady · 04-11-2019 10:25am

Aegir wrote: »

I'm not talking about rescinding the GFA though Francis.

I highly recommend actually reading it before commenting on it again.

Basically what you are saying here Aegir, is that:

1. There is no certainty (none whatsoever if you consider the current balance of power in the HoC) if a border poll is successful.

2. You are saying that an Irish government, along with SF, the SDLP entered into an international agreement on this basis, that a simple vote in the HoC could overturn the 'self determination' guarantees in that international agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Can you just confirm that this is your view?

04-11-2019 11:23am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Basically what you are saying here Aegir, is that:

1. There is no certainty (none whatsoever if you consider the current balance of power in the HoC) if a border poll is successful.

2. You are saying that an Irish government, along with SF, the SDLP entered into an international agreement on this basis, that a simple vote in the HoC could overturn the 'self determination' guarantees in that international agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Can you just confirm that this is your view?

Not just the HoC Francis, the Dáil as well. No government could sign up to legislation that hasn't been agreed yet. In the grand scheme of the GFA, the united Ireland bit is practically a footnote, which you would know if you read it.

FrancieBrady · 04-11-2019 11:37am

Aegir wrote: »

Not just the HoC Francis, the Dáil as well. No government could sign up to legislation that hasn't been agreed yet. In the grand scheme of the GFA, the united Ireland bit is practically a footnote, which you would know if you read it.

So,

'recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

was all just bull****?

What you are either willfully ignoring or sadly unaware of is that if 'legislation' is not agreed...that 'legislation' is reworked and reworked until it does find agreement.

There is no going back from a decision to unify unless the UK decides to break an international agreement.

04-11-2019 12:04pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So,

was all just bull****?

What you are either willfully ignoring or sadly unaware of is that if 'legislation' is not agreed...that 'legislation' is reworked and reworked until it does find agreement.

There is no going back from a decision to unify unless the UK decides to break an international agreement.

You missed this bit, which is important:

1. The participants endorse the commitment made by the British and Irish Governments that, in a new British-Irish Agreement replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they will:

Please note the highlighted word and then, as requested previously, read this

Then remember that after the "Will fo the People" has been determined, this is the next bit

(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;

so if the only deal that can be thrashed out, is that a united Ireland will be brought about, but as part of the United Kingdom, what are the Dáil supposed to do? If they reject it, are they breaking an international treaty?

26000 Elephants · 04-11-2019 12:18pm

Aegir wrote: »

Please note the highlighted word and then, as requested previously

Ate you seriously suggesting that the people who spent years framing the language of those agreements and subsequent laws were somehow lacking in a nuanced understanding of what those two words mean? That somehow you, who doesnt come off in any way as a scholar of parliamentary law, see a clear distinction in these words that was not envisaged by them?

Ok. Work away, but I think you are the one out of step here. Sorry.

Imreoir2 · 04-11-2019 12:22pm

Aegir wrote: »

so if the only deal that can be thrashed out, is that a united Ireland will be brought about, but as part of the United Kingdom, what are the Dáil supposed to do? If they reject it, are they breaking an international treaty?

It would clearly be a breach of the spirit and intention of the GFA for the British government to refuse to accept any deal other than one calling for the annexation of Ireland into the UK against the expressed wishes of both north and south.

In that case, the British government would clearly be showing that it is not interested in upholding the GFA and the Irish government would have to seek outside help in mediating the dispute.

Parliament is within its rights to reject any given deal, but the force of the GFA is such that once a referendum on unity is passed in NI, any and every British government from then on is obliged to work out a deal to put that vote into effect and have it ratified by parliament. Parliament rejecting a given deal does not remove this obligation, continued rejection would create a political crisis as parliament would be preventing the government from complying with its obligations under international law. This could well topple the government, but the obligation would carry on to the next government, and the next untill the will of the people of NI is put into effect.

This is not the same as Brexit. There is nothing preventing them just saying balls to it tomorrow and calling the whole thing off. There is no legal obligation on the government to agree a Brexit deal and have it ratified by parliament.

FrancieBrady · 04-11-2019 12:23pm

Aegir wrote: »

You missed this bit, which is important:

Please note the highlighted word and then, as requested previously, read this

Then remember that after the "Will fo the People" has been determined, this is the next bit

so if the only deal that can be thrashed out, is that a united Ireland will be brought about, but as part of the United Kingdom, what are the Dáil supposed to do? If they reject it, are they breaking an international treaty?

What in the lord is that ^ about?

Batty Boy · 04-11-2019 12:27pm

Brexit will never happen, the powers that run the world were never going to allow it happen.

Imreoir2 · 04-11-2019 12:31pm

Batty Boy wrote: »

Brexit will never happen, the powers that run the world were never going to allow it happen.

The powers that run the world? What powers would these be? Who makes up these powers?

FrancieBrady · 04-11-2019 12:37pm

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It would clearly be a breach of the spirit and intention of the GFA for the British government to refuse to accept any deal other than one calling for the annexation of Ireland into the UK against the expressed wishes of both north and south.

In that case, the British government would clearly be showing that it is not interested in upholding the GFA and the Irish government would have to seek outside help in mediating the dispute.

Parliament is within its rights to reject any given deal, but the force of the GFA is such that once a referendum on unity is passed in NI, any and every British government from then on is obliged to work out a deal to put that vote into effect and have it ratified by parliament. Parliament rejecting a given deal does not remove this obligation, continued rejection would create a political crisis as parliament would be preventing the government from complying with its obligations under international law. This could well topple the government, but the obligation would carry on to the next government, and the next untill the will of the people of NI is put into effect.

This is not the same as Brexit. There is nothing preventing them just saying balls to it tomorrow and calling the whole thing off. There is no legal obligation on the government to agree a Brexit deal and have it ratified by parliament.

Exactly as I said originally.

There is no Act of parliament that enshrines the right of the 'people to decide' in the 2016 referendum.

Despite the lies/false promises of Cameron, it was legally a non binding referendum, therefore nobody has been able to mount a legal challenge to Parliament not honouring the people's choice.

All simple, non delusional facts tbh. And it is complicated by white noise coming from people talking about 'rights'. Invariably they are people who haven't taken the time to understand. Aegir has allowed his unionist (small 'u') ideology to rule his head here.

04-11-2019 12:42pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Ate you seriously suggesting that the people who spent years framing the language of those agreements and subsequent laws were somehow lacking in a nuanced understanding of what those two words mean? That somehow you, who doesnt come off in any way as a scholar of parliamentary law, see a clear distinction in these words that was not envisaged by them?

Ok. Work away, but I think you are the one out of step here. Sorry.

They knew exactly what they were doing. They were doing the only thing they could do based on the constitution of both countries. Short of actually negotiating the divorce from the UK and what a united Ireland would be, which as we can see from the Brexit negotiations, isn't exactly an easy process and would have meant the GFA took about ten years to negotiate.

Just as with Brexit, a united Ireland could be lots of different things. It could even be united as part of the United Kingdom with a devolved parliament in Stormont. There is nothing in the GFA to say otherwise. If the legislation doesn't exist, then parliament can't vote on it and the constitution of pretty much every democracy in the world would prevent them from binding a future Parliament to accept something. The only thing that can be agreed, is an obligation on the government of the day to introduce legislation and let the HoC and the Dáil debate it.

Imreoir2 · 04-11-2019 12:47pm

Aegir wrote: »

Just as with Brexit, a united Ireland could be lots of different things. It could even be united as part of the United Kingdom with a devolved parliament in Stormont. There is nothing in the GFA to say otherwise. If the legislation doesn't exist, then parliament can't vote on it and the constitution of pretty much every democracy in the world would prevent them from binding a future Parliament to accept something. The only thing that can be agreed, is an obligation on the government of the day to introduce legislation and let the HoC and the Dáil debate it.

There is an actual obligation on the British government to agree a deal, intorduce the relevant legislation in parliament and support its ratification. That obligation does not cease to exist if parliament happens to reject a given deal. There is no such obligation in relation to Brexit.

04-11-2019 12:52pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly as I said originally.

There is no Act of parliament that enshrines the right of the 'people to decide' in the 2016 referendum.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/introduction/enacted

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Despite the lies/false promises of Cameron, it was legally a non binding referendum, therefore nobody has been able to mount a legal challenge to Parliament not honouring the people's choice.

BECAUSE NO ONE CAN TELL PARLIAMENT WHAT TO DO. IT IS SOVEREIGN. A POINT YOU SEEM TO MISS, SPECTACULARLY. JUST AS THEY DO NOT HAVE TO APPROVE ANY LEGISLATION THAT IS PROPOSED SUBJECT TO A BORDER POLL

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All simple, non delusional facts tbh. And it is complicated by white noise coming from people talking about 'rights'. Invariably they are people who haven't taken the time to understand. Aegir has allowed his unionist (small 'u') ideology to rule his head here.

yeah, pretty random ad hominem there that just shows how you spectacularly fail to grasp my point.

26000 Elephants · 04-11-2019 12:54pm

Aegir wrote: »

They knew exactly what they were doing. They were doing the only thing they could do based on the constitution of both countries. Short of actually negotiating the divorce from the UK and what a united Ireland would be, which as we can see from the Brexit negotiations, isn't exactly an easy process and would have meant the GFA took about ten years to negotiate.

Just as with Brexit, a united Ireland could be lots of different things. It could even be united as part of the United Kingdom with a devolved parliament in Stormont. There is nothing in the GFA to say otherwise. If the legislation doesn't exist, then parliament can't vote on it and the constitution of pretty much every democracy in the world would prevent them from binding a future Parliament to accept something. The only thing that can be agreed, is an obligation on the government of the day to introduce legislation and let the HoC and the Dáil debate it.

The GFA and subsequent laws made no attempt to formalise the terms and conditions of a united Ireland - that's a textbook strawman. What it enshrined is the principle that both countries will accept the will and enact legislation to support it, if that proved to be the will of the majority.

Unless I'm mistaken, your whole point is that the UK government could unilaterally refuse to do so simply because - as you cited earlier - constitutionally no parliament can be bound by a predecessor. I've already pointed out the problem with this premise.

Imreoir2 · 04-11-2019 1:01pm

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, your whole point is that the UK government could unilaterally refuse to do so simply because - as you cited earlier - constitutionally no parliament can be bound by a predecessor. I've already pointed out the problem with this premise.

Indeed the government will always be bound to implement the result of a border poll. Parliament cannot change that without repudiating the GFA.
Parliament can reject a given deal, but has to be careful that by its actions it does not effectivly cause the British government to be in breach of its obligations to put the result of the referendum into effect. Rejecting a given deal is not likey to have this effect, but rejecting any possible deal would.

Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

Comments