Talk:St Andrews Agreement

Wikipedia asleep on Northern Ireland revolution

For the first time in modern history an agreement has the backing of all sides in Northern Ireland which looks likely to settle the Northern Ireland question permanently. Nobody on Wikipedia has noticed. Why is this? Perhaps peace is less interesting than war.--File Éireann 22:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems a bit unfair, Wikipedia is not a news service and this article was created within hours of the talks in St. Andrews ending. -- IslaySolomon 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good news, even when important, is relatively boring to many. This news story, which points to permanent peace in Northern Ireland, seems no less important than the Jyland Mohammed Cartoons controversy, yet few of our Irish contributors seem interested. This is more than a news story, it represents the first time that the DUP have bought into a permanent settlement. It is worthy of much greater attention.--File Éireann 11:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is, and I'm observing it with a lot of interest from Austria. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is good news.Perhaps the reason people aren't interested is because it is not bad news.

Trivia?

Does this sentence really deserve inclusion?

• "Ian Paisley left St Andrews quickly after attending the Press Conference in order to be with his family for his fiftieth wedding anniversary."

How sweet... but relevant?--Mais oui! 09:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have relegated that sentence to a footnote. Scolaire 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruption of talks at Stormont by Michael Stone 24/11

I have added a brief summary of the event which took place 24 November 2006 (today), there is more information such as the speculation that Stone will be sent back to prison to serve his life sentence but this has yet to be verified. Angryafghan 20:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made this a footnote as well. Strictly speaking, it is not relevant to the agreement itself, though it probably should be dealt with in History of Northern Ireland. Scolaire 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit of 28 November

I have updated the article to reflect the progress of the agreement through the various deadlines.
I have left the "Reaction" section alone, but it is in need of a major re-write. Firstly, only the first three (short) paragraphs are actually "reaction". The remainder is a newspaper-type account of a parliamentary debate. Secondly, it is entirely one-sided — there is no reference to either of the nationalist parties, to the Irish Government or to reaction from abroad (The United States, Europe etc.). I'm not sure the section even needs to be there.
Scolaire 14:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done the re-write to "Reaction." Not great but I think an improvement. Feel free to edit it / remove it as you see fit. Scolaire 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the status of Irish in NI after St Andrews Agreement

I have written a line or two in the aricle "[Irish Language]]" about the Irish Language Act discussed these days following the St Andrews Agreement but maybe there is more to be written in this article or in aticles specialised in North Ireland. Because I follow the news considering language policy, but I do not have the time to write something more myself about something I don't know enough, I am listing some links for the issue to be used by someone interested:

• a BBC news article
• a comprehensive report from the Irish Times
• the views of POBAL, the umbrella organisation for the Irish language community in Belfast: 8 principles (they are circulating also a www.petitiononline.com/acht online petition supporting it). Also a lengthy Proposed Legislation - The Irish Language Act NI, published before the agreement.
• Sinn Fein's view
• SDLP's view
• DUP's view

--Michkalas 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Plan B?

There has been great talk over this 'Plan B', is it something similar to 'Joint Sovereignty' or something like that - the article doesn't make it at all clear. 86.148.34.13 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither the British nor the Irish Government has made it clear what 'Plan B' is. It seems to be on the lines of Direct Rule, but with increased involvement by the Republic, rather than joint sovereignty. Scolaire 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And where does Wogan stand?

It would be nice if the article had a little bit on Terry Wogan's take on the subject. I don't know anything about it but I'm curious. Kinser 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? Scolaire 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Taoiseach

The involvement of the Taoiseach is illegal as Northern Ireland is Part of the UK it has never belonged to Ireland as it was always Northern Ireland and Ulster before that for more than 400+ years.

And what was it before that? Hmm? Sulmac 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Following that logic, the involvement of the UK and unionists is illegal, as Ireland was stolen from the Irish by the English. This is the kind of crap you would expect to hear from the likes of UVF gangsters, not from rational human beings83.109.90.218 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Anglo Irish Agreement in the late 80s/early 90s agreed there was an 'Irish dimension' to all discussions on Northern Ireland, hence the inclusion of the Taoiseach and Irish Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:11C7:AD58:6DC2:4546:5719:35E0 (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2020 (UT

)

Irish and Ulster Scots

What is the reason for these agreements to be translated into the local languages? This an english language encyclopedia and the agreement is never referred to in either of the local languages. - 86.42.248.19 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. You've listened to every conversation in Irish or Ulster Scots since 2006 and you've never heard the agreement referred to? Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tense

Am I correct in understanding that this agreement is still in place? If so, shouldn't it be in present tense rather than past? Hairy Dude (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

dodgy Daily Record link

Greetings, The Daily Record link is now a Questia members-only link. Kind Regards, M.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There are two pages on the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 and Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2007. While I think it makes sense for Wikipedia to have content on the implementing legislation for this sort of agreement, "Section 5(1) inserts section 20(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998." and "Section 5(2) inserts section 28A of that Act." is very difficult to read without knowing what the St Andrews Agreement includes. I would therefore suggest that a merger into this article would be a positive step. I think this merger would allow for explanation on which parts of the agreement were implemented in which act. Landpin (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree In their current form, they don't really provide useful information out of context, and they ultimately are just the enabling acts of the agreement. They could be added as sections where they fit in the "timeline" of the current article with more plain language explanations of what elements they implemented. Penguin1737 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2007 has been merged. Although this Act has significant coverage in Current Law Statutes Annotated and Halsbury's Statutes, the article was so underdeveloped that merger was more practical than attempting an expansion.
• Oppose merger into this article Both of these Acts satisfy GNG, with significant coverage in Current Law Statutes Annotated and Halsbury's Statutes and many other sources in Google Books, Google Scholar and the Internet Archive. Legislation by reference is used so extensively that if we merged these Acts because they amend other Acts, we probably end up having to merge every Act ever passed into a single article. Frankly, if we were to merge into this article, we would just add confusion. Further, the context of most of Parts 2 and 3 of the 2006 Act is not the Agreement. The actual context of most of Part 2 is the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is what the 2006 Act is amending. So merger here would be merger to the wrong parent topic. The idea that the Acts are "just the enabling Acts" is based on a profound misunderstanding of how UK law actually works. James500 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've written a table on the agreement page of how each commitment of the agreement was implemented.

  I would like to do a similar thing for the 2006 act, but I am quite sure it would largely duplicate the agreement page. Landpin (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  I have no objection to the table you have added to this article.

  If we are going to have an article on the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, it should in theory be firstly based on sources, such as Current Law Statutes Annotated and Halsbury's Statutes, that are actually primarily about that Act. This does not, of course, preclude the use of other sources.

  The effect of WP:SUMMARY is that duplication is not completely forbidden, and that a certain amount is expected in some cases. If you want to insert the table you describe into the article on the 2006 Act, I do not object. Nor I do not object to the insertion of other additional referenced content that is about the Act. James500 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Why must the sources be Current Law Statutes Annotated and Halsbury's Statutes rather than the sources cited in the table? Landpin (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  The main test for inclusion is WP:PROPORTION, the gist of which is that the amount of space that an article gives to an aspect of a topic should be proportional to the amount of space given to that aspect in reliable sources. Those two books each contain an entire chapter of detailed commentary on the Act; that is entirely about the Act; that covers the whole of the Act; and that covers each part of the Act proportionately. They, and other sources with those characteristics, are going to carry more weight than, at the other extreme, brief oblique passing mentions of some minor aspect of the Act in sources that are not primarily about the Act, but are instead primarily about some other topic. I am not saying that those two books are the only two sources that carry that kind of weight, but they are obvious ones that I happen to be aware of. As for the sources in the table, I do not have time to examine or comment on all them, but some of them do not seem to mention the Act at all, and others only contain brief passing mentions. For example, "Updating the Ministerial Code" seems to contain one sentence about the Act on page 10, and that only covers the ministerial code, and not the whole Act. That report is mostly about a proposal for a new code for the UK (and not NI), rather than commentary on the Act. I do not think that can be given the same weight as an entire book chapter that is entirely about the whole Act. I am not saying that source cannot be used at all, but I do say that it should not be given more weight than the two books. (Caveat: I ran a search for mentions of the Act in the pdf, as I don't have time to read the whole of 27 pages of text, when I have not been given page numbers. If I have missed something in the report, please let me know.) James500 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Caveat: At the time when I wrote the comment above, I was not aware of this edit, and my comments should not be taken to refer to that edit. James500 (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Why must the sources be Current Law Statutes Annotated and Halsbury's Statutes rather than the sources cited in the table? Landpin (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. Error. Landpin (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)