The GFA and how consent is reached and legislated for

oscarBravo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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****.

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.

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?

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.