So Johnson has 30 days to come up with an alternative to the backstop......

[Bearbehind]

This will be interesting to watch!

No. The error was assuming the UK would act with integrity and uphold their obligations under the GFA.

The recent actions of the current government have demonstrated and reinforced exactly why the safety net/ insurance (Backstop) is required. Given that they have lied about pretty much everything why would anyone trust them when they say that they will respect the GFA and not impose a hard border. They cannot be trusted and they do not give a shiny sh** about NI.

Previous post partly from a response given by law graduate during recent assessment for employment. Their conclusions were;

GFA predicated on assumption that the parties ROI and UK are both members of the EU. If either party leaves the EU the GFA needs to be amended as the leaving party can’t be obliged to follow the rules of an institution referenced in the GFA, but of which it is no longer a member.

GFA requires the parties to take into account EU requirements as and when they change if such changes affect the parties. This mechanism was not followed when Article 50 passed by the EU.

GFA based on; self determination, parity of rights and mutual consent.

NI were permitted to vote in the 2016 referendum, but ROI were not. Hence the GFA fails as by definition the result was not the outcome of mutual consent. Likewise as only one party could vote parity of rights has failed too.

As ROI is independent of UK and NI is not the GFA contradicts itself in terms of self determination and mutual consent.

NI as specified in the GFA has the right to remain in the UK regardless of ROI opinion. If UK as a whole votes to leave the EU the decision applies to all member states as in eyes of the EU the UK is a single member. Likewise ROI can leave the EU regardless of NI opinions.

Such unilateral action by either North or South has negative consequences for the other due to the inter trade between North and South. So the GFA goals of; mutual consent, self determination and parity of rights can’t be achieved at same time as the island of Ireland is two separate countries both of whom can self determine their future without consent of the other and regardless of the consequences to the other.

Decision not yet made which graduates will be offered job, but the applicant who provided the above analysis must be in with a good chance.

@MysteryTripAgain - NI were permitted to vote in the 2016 referendum, but ROI were not. Hence the GFA fails as by definition the result was not the outcome of mutual consent. Likewise as only one party could vote parity of rights has failed too.

So basically, the referendum was illegal as it contravened the GFA. Another reason to revoke A50.

Decision not yet made which graduates will be offered job, but the applicant who provided the above analysis must be in with a good chance.

Why? Because they agree with you?

The opinion of a recent law graduate is not something I would be holding up as gospel, particularly when other more experienced and more qualified people disagree with them.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Maybe your law graduate might help you formulate an answer.

@MysteryTripAgain GFA predicated on assumption that the parties ROI and UK are both members of the EU
Some law graduate whose case had an assumption in it. It wasn't an assumption it was a fact. The UK decides to leave the EU so it must do so in a way that meets it legal obligations. Or are we so shit as a country that we don't behave responsibly. Oh wait, I know this one.....

@Jason118 - you'd wonder what the job is that the law graduate is going for, wouldn't you? Legal advisor to the brexit party maybe?

Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Maybe your law graduate might help you formulate an answer

The electoral system has the flaw that a party can gain power without a majority of the vote. I can't remember which election it was, but apparently Labour had a higher % than Conservative, but due to the seat system they did not gain power. Hence the suggestion to have a second round of votes for the two parties that received the most votes in the first round. Unless by fluke both receive the exact same number of votes then the party in power will be chosen by a majority. Downside is how to decide which MPs would represent which areas?

So basically, the referendum was illegal as it contravened the GFA. Another reason to revoke A50

Referendum was a question on whether UK should leave or remain in the EU. It was not a referendum on GFA. As ROI would be required to have a say in changes to the GFA in accordance with the mutual consent requirement, but excluded from voting in the 2016 EU referendum then the subject of EU membership and GFA are not related. This is further evidenced by fact that Article 50, the mechanism agreed by all 28 EU members that enables any member to leave the EU, makes no reference to GFA.

References to EU in the GFA are as follows:

Relations with other institutions

31. Terms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly representatives and the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure effective co- ordination and input by Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU issues

Clear that coordination with EU is joint responsibility of ROI and UK. Not a problem when both ROI and UK are members of EU. However, if either, or both, ROI or UK exercise their entitlement to leave the EU then they can't be bound to the GFA as currently worded as it makes reference to an institution that they no longer have membership.

5. The Council

(i) to exchange information, discuss and consult with a view to co- operating on matters of mutual interest within the competence of both Administrations, North and South

17. The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.

Again if either North or South leave the EU then compliance with EU rests with the part of the island of Ireland who chose to remain in the EU. The Council overlooked the impacts that Article 50 could have on GFA.

5. The BIC will exchange information, discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the relevant Administrations. Suitable issues for early discussion in the BIC could include transport links, agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues, health issues, education issues and approaches to EU issues. Suitable arrangements to be made for practical co-operation on agreed policies.

This article is devastating. It suggest early discussion on EU issues that affect North and South. Development of Article 50 began around 2001/2002, not long after GFA was concluded in 1998. Article 50 finalized in 2009. Talk of an EU referendum began around 2013, but BIC did not consider the impacts on GFA.

Hindsight is always perfect, but the GFA requires the council to take into account developments within the EU and how it may affect North and South. This did not happen.

Certainly when UK leaves the EU the GFA will have to be amended as not possible for the GFA to be valid when it refers to UK having to comply with EU issues.

@MysteryTripAgain - you have still not answered the question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Yes or no?

It was not a referendum on GFA.

No it wasn't. But the UK had a responsibilty not to take action that would contravene the GFA, in the same way Ireland considered the GFA when making a decision on Schengen.

Your post is grasping at straws to try and blame the EU and Ireland because the UK did not consider the GFA before having the referendum.

in the same way Ireland considered the GFA when making a decision on Schengen

How does Schengen relate to the 2016 EU referendum?

Your post is grasping at straws to try and blame the EU and Ireland because the UK did not consider the GFA before having the referendum

Article 50 was developed by the EU to enable any member to leave the EU. No reference to GFA made in Article 50.

The Council are at fault for not following the provisions made in the GFA to take into account the evolution of the EU rules and procedures and revisit the GFA if there would be any impact on North or South. This never happened which is why there is not an agreed protocol how to deal with the border in the event ROI of UK leaves the EU.

As per the GFA the British Irish Council is to be as follows:

"Membership of the BIC will comprise representatives of the British and Irish Governments, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established, and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, together with representatives of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands"

So if you want to allocate blame for GFA not being revisited after Article 50 was developed the list is;

British Government

and

Irish Government

Work on Article 50 started around 2002 and was complete by 2009. Referendum was in 2016, but agreement to have a referendum was made in January 2013. If you look on the link

www.britishirishcouncil.org/member-administrations/northern-ireland

Go through the BIC website and the only reference made to GFA is that is was made 10 April 1998. Look at the annual reports and there is no reference to impacts on the border and GFA that might arise even after the referendum result was known. So yet another Government department wasting tax payers money.

When UK is leaves the EU it will be interesting to see what the revised GFA looks like. The existing GFA becomes void when UK leaves the UK due to the references made to EU and that North and South must take into account EU policies.

@MysteryTripAgain - How does Schengen relate to the 2016 EU referendum?

It doesn't. It's simply an example of how Ireland acted with integrity in relation to their obligations under the GFA when making a decision that would affect Ireland but not NI.

Article 50 was developed by the EU to enable any member to leave the EU. No reference to GFA made in Article 50.

Again, it was reasonable to assume the UK would act with integrity in relation to their obligations under the GFA and leave the EU in a manner that does not conflict with these obligations.

So if you want to allocate blame for GFA not being revisited after Article 50 was developed the list is British Government and Irish Government

Nope. The Irish government made the reasonable assumption that the UK would act with integrity when making decisions that impacted the GFA, in the same way they did when deciding about Schengen. Although given the history of the UK in relation to Ireland, it was, in hindsight, an erroneous assumption.

Brexit and the GFA were prominent items on the agenda of the BIC once it became clear that the UK did not intend to honour their obligations under the GFA by leaving in a manner consistent with those obligations.

When UK is leaves the EU it will be interesting to see what the revised GFA looks like. The existing GFA becomes void when UK leaves the UK due to the references made to EU and that North and South must take into account EU policies.

I disagree that it becomes void. Under the GFA, the UK need to ensure compliance with EU regs in NI. The only amendment necessary would be to remove the statement "and as partners in the European Union"

You have still not answered the question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Yes or no?

Article 50 makes no reference to GFA. If it did then ROI would have had to take part in the 2016 referendum whether or not UK leaves or remains in the EU. That’s a nonsense situation as you have pointed out previously ROI is an independent country so they could not be involved in UK’s decision.

Same happened in the Scottish referendum of 2014. Only Scotland voted. None of the other three members took part in the referendum.

The BIC is overseen by both British and Irish governments. Their collective tasks are detailed in the GFA and on the website.

Go through all the BIC meetings and annual reports uploaded onto the website before and after the referendum you will not even find the word border. Similarly the word border does not appear in the GFA.

So not sure where your statement that Brexit was high on the BIC agenda after Brexit comes from? Even if correct why did BIC wait until after the referendum before they considered impacts on North and South? GFA requires early discussion on EU policy if it may affect either North or South. Should have started when Article 50 passed by EU in 2009 or January 2013 when David Cameron announced a referendum would take place if he was elected. At very latest BIC should have considered Article 50 when Cameron was elected in 2015 as then it was known for sure a referendum would take place.

Under the GFA, the UK need to ensure compliance with EU regs in NI

In a no deal scenario all treaties and laws that UK has with EU lapse instantly. No deal is not the best scenario, but looking more likely as 31 Oct approaches.

No deal creates the ROI conundrum of how to comply with EU and GFA at the same time. Varadkar has acknowledged that some checks will be required at the border as has EU.

Also a conundrum for EU as if ROI has minimal border checks with a third country operating on WTO terms they would have to allow the same concessions to all others trading with EU on WTO terms. Would that then lead to softening of borders on the Eastern edge of the EU? So EU may force ROI to have same type of borders between as exist between Eastern European member and non EU countries?

Your views seem to be based on the assumption that GFA forms part of EU law. I don’t think that is correct. Likewise the view that UK government are the only member of the British Irish Council I don’t think is correct and failure to follow GFA guidelines with reference to how changes by EU may effect either North or South is solely attributable to UK I don’t think is correct.

@MysteryTripAgain - your posts are getting more ridiculous as you search for someone other than the UK to blame for this mess.

Go through all the BIC meetings and annual reports uploaded onto the website before and after the referendum you will not even find the word border. Similarly the word border does not appear in the GFA.

This has been discussed previously on various threads. No, there is no mention of a border. However, the cross-border co-operation required under the GFA is not possible with a hard border.

Your views seem to be based on the assumption that GFA forms part of EU law. I don’t think that is correct.

That's not my assumption at all. The GFA is an international peace treaty lodged with the United Nations. It's a matter of international, not internal, law.

Likewise the view that UK government are the only member of the British Irish Council

Where on earth did you get the idea I believe that? The hint is in the name. As i have said previously, the Irish government assumed (erroneously as it turns out) that the UK would act with integrity and brexit in a manner that didn't interfere with their obligations under the GFA. Prior to the referendum there was no talk about a hard brexit. Most commentary was about staying in the SM etc.

No deal creates the ROI conundrum of how to comply with EU and GFA at the same time.

ROI should be able to expect a co-signatory of an international peace treaty to act with integrity and honour their obligations under that treaty. I guess we can always take the UK to International Court of Justice.

You have still not answered the question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Yes or no?

However, the cross-border co-operation required under the GFA is not possible with a hard border

So how will ROI comply with EU border regulations in the event of UK leaving EU without a deal.

Prior to the referendum there was no talk about a hard brexit. Most commentary was about staying in the SM etc.

Ballot paper was silent on deals. Question was an simple leave or remain. However, I would agree that no deal was not the initial intention.

@MysteryTripAgain - So how will ROI comply with EU border regulations in the event of UK leaving EU without a deal.

Perhaps by taking the UK to the international court of justice to force them to comply with the international peace treaty they signed.

Ballot paper was silent on deals.

Yes. But again, Ireland assumed integrity on the part of the UK.

You have still not answered the question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Yes or no?

I guess we can always take the UK to International Court of Justice

That would be an interesting case to follow. The legal people will love that as they will make a fortune as such case would last years.

Maybe take a look at the Vienna conventions on the law of treaties. Talks about unilateral withdrawal if circumstances arise that make it impossible for one of the parties to comply. Might provide ROI a way to solve the EU border regulations and GFA conundrum

@MysteryTripAgain - Talks about unilateral withdrawal if circumstances arise that make it impossible for one of the parties to comply.

Circumstances have not arisen that prevent the UK complying. They are choosing not to comply.

You can spin this any way you like but if the UK leave without a deal, they will break an international peace treaty. The US have already said there well be no deals if they do that (and no, Trump can't unilaterally make a deal). The UK will be seen as untrustworthy on the international stage, which again will not bode well for any international deals they attempt to make.

You have still not answered the question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Yes or no?

Circumstances have not arisen that prevent the UK complying

Was not referring to UK, but ROI because in a no deal scenario ROI has two rules books to follow which oppose each other. EU requires border controls between EU member countries and neighboring non EU countries. GFA, although silent on border, has been agreed between ROI and NI to mean no border.

Can't see how ROI compliance with EU regulations represents represents breach by UK? In the event of no deal GFA would become void as NI no longer an EU member and hence impossible to comply with GFA references to EU. So if no deal cancels the GFA then is no longer a treaty to break?

UK already has trade deals with US under the NAFTT that are not connected to EU. Export to US from UK are double those to Germany. The deals you are referring to are the free trade agreements. Mixed views on that. Seems to be abhorrent fear over the dreaded chlorine chicken and other US food products. So would a US free trade deal be welcome by people in the UK?

Since referendum UK has made deals with many non EU countries. GFA obviously did not phase them.

Look on BBC news 10 April 1998. Young people in NI as young as 18 were not sure what the good Friday agreement was?

UK election process works best for the two larger parties, conservative and labour. So if you support either of those parties the the current system is best.

If majority vote prevails and is acted upon by government then that sounds democratic to me.

In the event of no deal GFA would become void as NI no longer an EU member and hence impossible to comply with GFA references to EU.

There is nothing stopping the UK from complying with EU rules post brexit so it will not become void. Choosing to exit without a deal is a deliberate contravention of the GFA.

EU requires border controls between EU member countries and neighboring non EU countries.

And, while WTO does not explicitly require borders, it does have the most favoured nation clause so if the UK don't put up a border with Ireland, they must do the same for everyone else.

Since referendum UK has made deals with many non EU countries. GFA obviously did not phase them.

UK has not yet broken the GFA. You might find that it does "phase" (sic) potential partners if they do break the treaty. Also, the UK has thus far signed continuity agreements with minor trading partners. It will be interesting to see what happens to them when UK standards slip.

The deals you are referring to are the free trade agreements. Yes, I know that. Surely the whole point of brexit was to take back control and make deals that were not possible while in the EU?

Look on BBC news 10 April 1998. Young people in NI as young as 18 were not sure what the good Friday agreement was? What is your point? Young people 20 odd years ago had not yet heard the name of the agreement that had just been signed? So what. Young people are not renowned for their in depth knowledge of current affairs.

If majority vote prevails and is acted upon by government then that sounds democratic to me.

So does that mean that you think the UK electoral system is undemocratic as the majority vote does not always prevail?

There is nothing stopping the UK from complying with EU rules post brexit so it will not become void

Why would anyone be bound by rules of a club they have left? The divorce settlement of £39 Billion is what UK owes EU as a result of leaving the EU.

If EU has to follow EU rules after leaving what does UK get in return for the £39 Billion? On your logic I would say the £39 Billion should not be paid.

Would not be difficult to amend the GFA by removing references to North having to take EU rules into account. If not amended then it would become void if UK leaves with no deal. Then there is no treaty to break either by ROI or UK, but as a member of EU the ROI still has to follow EU rules and perform checks at borders between ROI and third non eu countries.

Also remember it has been established in the supreme courts that GFA is not part of UK constitution. So Article 50 reference to member leave in accordance with their constitution can not be applied to prevent UK from leaving the EU.

Article 50 does not state that members are not permitted to leave until a deal has been made that everyone is happy with. Indeed Article 50 states that if Agreement is not made then all laws and treaties between EU and member who has left cease to exist.

Choosing to exit without a deal is a deliberate contravention of the GFA

Departure terms have to be negotiated between EU and UK. If negotiations fail then UK leaves without a deal by default in accordance with Article 50. Again Article 50 does not specify GFA. Also as EU is not a signatory to the GFA they are not permitted to use GFA during negotiations.

As pointed out on another post the EU makes reference to the border in Ireland with respect to protection of their single market and revenues. GFA is not mentioned by EU.

This is where I have sympathy for the island of Ireland. EU makes indirect reference to GFA during negotiations, but,never quotes any laws. So I don’t trust EU pretence they care about GFA. Just a way of trying to get a better deal for themselves.

WTO is silent on borders, but EU is not. However, as you state WTO requires equal treatment. So if UK does not perform checks on goods entering NI from ROI they must do same for others. If ROI wish to follow EU rules then they install a border or accept that anything entering ROI from NI would not be checked and could then find its way into other EU countries. NI then becomes smugglers paradise as goods arrive from all over the world in the knowledge there an unprotected land border into EU.

Can’t see EU wanting that to happen. So ROI will have to install a border like those that exist in Eastern Europe.

Under the UK seats system it often happens that those get in with less than 50%

@MysteryTripAgain - Why would anyone be bound by rules of a club they have left?

It's called integrity. Complying with an international peace treaty will generally include some costs. Again I cite the example of Ireland and Schengen.

Article 50 does not state that members are not permitted to leave until a deal has been made that everyone is happy with.

The WA is not a deal. It is an agreement on how to go about making the deals.

Also as EU is not a signatory to the GFA they are not permitted to use GFA during negotiations.

Ireland is a signatory and, as a member of the EU, their position is represented by the EU.

So I don’t trust EU pretence they care about GFA. Just a way of trying to get a better deal for themselves.

It would be an awful lot easier for the EU if the GFA did not exist. Ireland is the country that has insisted from the start that the GFA must be considered.

So ROI will have to install a border like those that exist in Eastern Europe.

But only because the UK has taken action that has broken a international peace treaty. And we're back to integrity again.

All your replies area doing is continuing to show that the UK is acting without integrity because they believe they can bully Ireland in the way they have done in the past. You are grasping at straws to try and transfer the blame to Ireland and the EU.

It's all very simple. The UK signed an international peace treaty. They have a choice: comply with it or not. No deal is breaking the treaty no matter what way you spin it and it is happening because of British arrogance whereby your elected representatives and many of your population have this childish notion that if the UK wants something then it should get it in exactly the form it wants it, regardless if consequences. Mind you, it would be helpful if you could even agree amongst yourselves as to what that form is.

Under the UK seats system it often happens that those get in with less than 50%

That still doesn't answer the question: Do you consider the UK electoral system to be a democratic system? Yes or no? Although I suppose we should be grateful this question seems to have stopped you spouting your nonsense about numbers of Irish / NI votes in 1998 vs UK referendum votes in 2016.

Michael Barnier has been in Copenhagen and Warsaw and is saying that the EU are waiting for legally operative solutions from the UK that are compatible with the WA and that the EU will continue to protect the interests of its citizens and companies, as well as the conditions for peace and stability on the island of Ireland.

@Parker231

Copenhagen visit was in March 2019 when T May was the UK PM. Warsaw visit was only a few days after Johnson took over as PM.

Article 50 which was passed in 2009 anticipated the possibility of any member could leave the EU without an agreement if negotiations failed. If so then all laws and treaties that previously existed between the EU and the member that exercised its right to leave lapse instantly.

Error has been made by the British Irish Council by not following their duties specified in the Good Friday Agreement. Both the Irish and UK governments made the assumption that neither ROI nor UK would leave.

As of 2009 ROI had been a net taker from the EU for 36 years. So ROI would obviously not want to leave as they would lose the free money from the EU. UK, however, is a net contributor to the EU and has a trade deficit with the EU of £64 Billion. So obviously UK would want to leave the EU as being a net contributor to the EU of £10 Billion per year in return for a £64 Billion trade deficit is not sustainable.

Michael Barnier was in Copenhagen and Warsaw last week when he made the comments in my earlier post.

It's called integrity. Complying with an international peace treaty will generally include some costs

Club I referred to was the EU.

The WA is not a deal. It is an agreement on how to go about making the deals

WA rejected three times. Mostly by DUP and ERG. DUP reason was that the WA contradicts the GFA as it changes the status of NI and that can only be done by mutual consent.

Ireland is a signatory and, as a member of the EU, their position is represented by the EU

Article 50 signed by Ireland anticipates the possibility that a member could leave without a deal and all laws and treaties between the EU and the member that leaves lapse instantly. This then makes the GFA void as it is not possible for the North to comply with EU laws and rules that no longer apply to the North.

The British Irish Council need to get their skates on and prepare a new GFA to cover for a no deal scenario. Wouldn’t be difficult to redraft and could have the caveat that the new version only takes effect if UK leaves without a deal.

But only because the UK has taken action that has broken a international peace treaty

If the GFA is not revised before a no deal happens it will lapse instantly on the basis of it creates an impossible situation of the North being required to follow EU laws that are no longer applicable to the North. The Vienna convention known as the “treaty of treaties” is clear on the point of treaties becoming void if circumstances have arisen that make it impossible for one of the parties to comply.

Population of ROI is about 5 Million. Vote to leave was 17.4 Million and that includes those in NI who also voted leave. Those in NI who voted leave obviously think differently to yourself.

If you look back to your earlier post to Namenic on 25 August you confirmed that Brexit was not the issue, but difference of opinion between terrorist groups on the island of Ireland as to whether or not North and South should reunite was the actual problem.

Should 17.4 million people be told they can’t have what they voted for because there is disagreement between minority terrorist groups over reunification?

If yes then how is that democratic?

It's not £39 bln any more. The divorce bill is Down to £33 bln-ish.
Reduction is not BJ's achievement, but rather is due to the Brexit delay since 29 March.

The UK will be on tremendously weak grounds for negotiations with EU, in a post-crash out environment. Keeping "No Deal" on the table is such a terrible strategy.

news.sky.com/story/rory-stewart-dozen-tory-mps-could-back-labour-move-to-stop-no-deal-brexit-11799341

It looks like there will be enough Tory MP’s to vote against their party to stop a no deal