Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

Tea Shock wrote: »

The inner house making a ruling tomorrow that it should exercise its nobile officium would in a sense be a victory for Johnson. It's a get stay out of jail card. The UK gets an extension and he goes into a November / early December election saving face by getting to say "it wasn't me - give me a majority if you want thins thing done"!

I don't think it is a viable option to pass the buck to the courts and act like he has done nothing wrong. He would still have broken the law.

Kermit.de.frog

Good post by Neale Richmond.

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1181173132901662720

BJ claims none of these issues have been properly explained to the UK side.

GM228

prawnsambo wrote: »

There's also the Nob Off petition which would allow the court to send the letter on the government's behalf. That's to be decided tomorrow. On the face of it, I don't think it should fail, because it's a kind of 'break glass in case of emergency' situation. It just sits there until it's needed and if it's not, it just withers away. We'll see soon enough.

Don't be so sure of that, it could really go anyway, the power has never been used in this way and there's the question of how it would sit it with the separation of powers.

GM228

robinph wrote: »

It's a bit of a strange one that case and was right to be dismissed as I think it is beyond the scope of a court. The court can't force you to do anything, any more than they can force you not to drive faster than 70mph on a motorway. It's illegal and there are consequences for not following the rules, but can't think of a situation where you are forced to do something legal.

You are penalised for doing something illegal, not forced to do something legal.

Injunctions are issued fairly regularly requiring you to comply with the law.

robinph

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think it is a viable option to pass the buck to the courts and act like he has done nothing wrong. He would still have broken the law.

Exactly, Johnson would still have broken the law, it's just the courts would have prevented the country from suffering the consequences of him doing so. The very next thing that whatever judge signs the letter does is charge Johnson with having made them do so.

robinph

GM228 wrote: »

Injunctions are issue fairly regularly requiring you to comply with the law.

The injunction still doesn't make the thing happen though, it just increases the jeopardy for not doing the thing.

GM228

robinph wrote: »

I still don't think they could do anything though until he's not done what the Benn Act requires of him. Until then he's done nothing wrong.

They could issue warnings about the consequences of not following the law, but they can't make him do something before he's had a chance to not do it.

Yes they can, it was argued by the Government the petition was premature, and that was answered specifically in today's judgement:-

In my opinion, the petition is not premature. The petitioners advance a case based on reasonable apprehension that the requirements of section 1(4) of the 2019 Act will not be met. I see no reason in principle why an application under section 45(b) of the 1988 Act and for interdict should not be brought before the court on the basis of averments of reasonable apprehension that a statutory duty will not be performed as and when the time arrives for it to be performed. It would make little sense to have to wait until the breach had actually occurred in circumstances where a reasonable apprehension of breach could be made out on the facts of the case.

Leroy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Good post by Neale Richmond.

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1181173132901662720

BJ claims none of these issues have been properly explained to the UK side.

It brings to mind TM continually claiming that the EU need to explain exactly what they didn't like about Chequers.

When they tried to it was ignored as bullying or the like.

dePeatrick

VinLieger wrote: »

I wouldnt trust Johnson for a second to sign the letter, he is the embodiment of as mark francois proudly coined "Perfidious Albion on speed"


Honestly i don't think francois knows what that phrase means beyond others use it as an insult so he's trying to wear it as a badge of honour.

I had not known Francois said that...bizarre...

GM228

robinph wrote: »

The injunction still doesn't make the thing happen though, it just increases the jeopardy for not doing the thing.

That is true, but failure to abide by it brings criminal contempt.

robinph

GM228 wrote: »

Yes they can, it was argued by the Government the petition was premature, and that was answered specifically in today's judgement:-

They then essentially retracted the "rather be dead in a ditch" by saying they would send the letter so it was nothing more than a thought crime that has been committed so far. If Johnson had stated to the court that he wasn't going to send the letter then there would be something to go on, but the court has to take him at his word for now (however worthless that is).

GM228

robinph wrote: »

They then essentially retracted the "rather be dead in a ditch" by saying they would send the letter so it was nothing more than a thought crime that has been committed so far. If Johnson had stated to the court that he wasn't going to send the letter then there would be something to go on, but the court has to take him at his word for now (however worthless that is).

The court does not have to take him at his word, it has chosen to, in fact even me saying that is wrong in law.

The reason why the petition was refused was actually because the request for the petition wording was not sufficiently precise and clear and because the petitioners did not make out their case based on reasonable apprehension of breach of statutory duty, in other words the petitioners failed to make a reasonable case that Johnson would not follow the Act, not that Johnson made a reasonable case he would.

Loire

Dr Mike Johnston CEO of Dairy Council NI (DCNI) said that current trade tariffs for exporting both raw milk and finished product would be in excess of £300m

“This tariff represents 25% of the value of our entire industry. In a sector where the margin is, at best, 3% or 4%, trade tariffs of that magnitude would wipe out the industry.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/certain-doomsday-scenario-norths-dairy-processors-issue-stark-warning-on-nodeal-brexit-38569485.html

"F*ck business" eh Boris?

prawnsambo

Loire wrote: »

Dr Mike Johnston CEO of Dairy Council NI (DCNI) said that current trade tariffs for exporting both raw milk and finished product would be in excess of £300m

“This tariff represents 25% of the value of our entire industry. In a sector where the margin is, at best, 3% or 4%, trade tariffs of that magnitude would wipe out the industry.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/certain-doomsday-scenario-norths-dairy-processors-issue-stark-warning-on-nodeal-brexit-38569485.html

"F*ck business" eh Boris?

I think I posted before on this thread (or an earlier incarnation) that Baileys crosses the border seven times during its production cycle. You'd imagine that the accumulated tariffs would completely wipe that process out.

Tariffs on beef, chicken, bacon etc. are also eye-wateringly high. That's pretty much the entire NI agri-food industry gone. How the DUP could support something that would have such a negative effect on the industry is mind boggling.

GM228

The Government answers offered for the Outer House case is here for anyone interested:-

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dxuf4hr1u4846zq/Final Answers - Vince %26 Ors.PDF?dl=0

Today's judgement by the way is here:-

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=993771a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Infini

prawnsambo wrote: »

Tariffs on beef, chicken, bacon etc. are also eye-wateringly high. That's pretty much the entire NI agri-food industry gone. How the DUP could support something that would have such a negative effect on the industry is mind boggling.

Because the DUP are prime examples of Human Stupidity being the cancer of existence. Flegs before logic and peoples wellbeing and all that. Lets face it though they've been stupid since day 1 in all of this and I honestly hope their fall is epic and they're evicerated in a hard brexit.

United Ireland will be the next step after that if Boris gets his hard Brexit because the Union will be finished in that scenario, Scotland is gone and the swing to reunification is guaranteed in those circumstances because by screwing over NI for ideology the DUP has basically blown the foundations for people remaining in the union post Brexit.

Nody

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think I posted before on this thread (or an earlier incarnation) that Baileys crosses the border seven times during its production cycle. You'd imagine that the accumulated tariffs would completely wipe that process out.

Tariffs on beef, chicken, bacon etc. are also eye-wateringly high. That's pretty much the entire NI agri-food industry gone. How the DUP could support something that would have such a negative effect on the industry is mind boggling.

You'd get the credit back for that most likely; as an example the company I work for export A LOT of stuff and import it back as well. Usually if you export milk (or sugar) you'll get a credit for the amount you exported to offset an import back as you're not increasing the actual volume in country. So if we ship off 20 tons of cookies to Canada (which we do); we need to calculate exactly how much of said 20 tons of cookies are fat, sugar etc. as we get a credit for said amount to import back tariff free. However and in the case of Baileys (and other products) the problem will be that different tariffs will apply at different times as the product (raw milk) starts to change through out the process; this will be a nightmare to deal with in general as you might end up getting a credit for Milk @25%; then pay taxes for alcohol import @50% for example one leg and then the final product comes in @0% import. And in such a scenario you can't offset the 25% milk credit with the 50% alcohol credit because they are not the same thing anymore. This is why running raw milk from NI to Ireland (through multiple controls) if there are approved seals after the initial check may not be the biggest issue but if you change it to butter, cream and cheese to return you may be in trouble.

jimmycrackcorm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Dublin and London agreed the CTA stays in place back in March I think it was?

I think London has absolutely no problem with the CTA in any case. Even when the IRA bombed it they never shirked and said we'll introduce passport controls.

But they don't have a choice regardless because they could never put those controls on the border and how could they distinguish anyone from Northern Ireland traveling across the sea.

Stop moaning ffs

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think London has absolutely no problem with the CTA in any case. Even when the IRA bombed it they never shirked and said we'll introduce passport controls.

But they don't have a choice regardless because they could never put those controls on the border and how could they distinguish anyone from Northern Ireland traveling across the sea.

This is the thing I don’t get. Taking back control of our borders. Except the one actual border we have. To let anyone simply travel Dublin to Belfast and on to U.K.

They really haven’t thought about this at all

threeball

Loire wrote: »

Dr Mike Johnston CEO of Dairy Council NI (DCNI) said that current trade tariffs for exporting both raw milk and finished product would be in excess of £300m

“This tariff represents 25% of the value of our entire industry. In a sector where the margin is, at best, 3% or 4%, trade tariffs of that magnitude would wipe out the industry.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/agri-business/certain-doomsday-scenario-norths-dairy-processors-issue-stark-warning-on-nodeal-brexit-38569485.html

"F*ck business" eh Boris?

That hasn't reduced the amount of DUP voting idiot farmers in the north though so they're unlikely to change. There was a guy on a brexit documentary on RTE one night. DUP to the core. Ex RUC. Used to live in fear of being shot driving down the lane of his farm yet was an ardent Brexiteer and was happy to see his farm go under if thats what it took. Thats the kind of simpleton you're dealing with here. The North and even the UK is full of lads like that.

J Mysterio

DUP losing support from even the most extreme types.

The Times described Mr Spence as having been "jailed during the Troubles for a crime he is not keen to talk about".

He told the newspaper that he was normally a DUP voter but felt let down over Brexit.

"We are in trouble. I voted Brexit, I voted for the DUP. But how has it benefited us?" he asked.

"The country is in turmoil. We've gone back to where we were in the past.

"If the borders go up the terrorism will come back. We don't want to go back to that."

Heather McCracken comes from a unionist background but told the Times that Arlene Foster was ignoring the views of the business community.

The 44-year-old spent time living outside Northern Ireland but has returned and now runs a gift shop.

"Arlene Foster is not speaking for Northern Ireland," she said.

"She is not speaking about what business needs. She appears blind to that.

"If there is a no-deal Brexit my prices will go up. How will I get goods from my European suppliers? It is very frustrating."

Mrs McCracken said she was envious of progress being made in the Republic of Ireland.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/exloyalist-prisoner-i-can-foresee-a-united-ireland-and-terrorism-could-return-38567878.html

fash

Interesting idea on customs union concern from UK:
NI within EU CU, however NI citizens under UK CU - to be precise, entitled to rebates from UK government where UK CU lower.
"where its own future tariffs were lower, it would rebate the difference for Northern Irish consumers — on the model of VAT refunds for travellers — or for re-exports back to Great Britain. Such tariff rebates could be managed via the tax system for individuals, so only Northern Irish residents would benefit, and via VAT tracking for re-exports."
https://twitter.com/MESandbu/status/1181169391431487488

CelticRambler

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think London has absolutely no problem with the CTA in any case. Even when the IRA bombed it they never shirked and said we'll introduce passport controls.

Incorrect: the CTA was effectively suspended during the troubles. From a link I provided a couple of days ago:

trellheim

I see they have submitted a new legal text that no-ones allowed to see

BonnieSituation

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think London has absolutely no problem with the CTA in any case. Even when the IRA bombed it they never shirked and said we'll introduce passport controls.

But they don't have a choice regardless because they could never put those controls on the border and how could they distinguish anyone from Northern Ireland traveling across the sea.

Several times they have tried to introduce ID checks between NI and GB only to cancel the plan in the face of Unionist uproar.

fash

https://twitter.com/BrigidLaffan/status/1181234233047687169

And another reason why Johnson can't go no deal: major land owners would never forgive Tories for loss of land and the consequent change in owner profile of land across UK.

(Would add that apparently UK has the most unchanged land ownership in Europe- with ownership continuing from Norman times in many cases).

jimmycrackcorm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Several times they have tried to introduce ID checks between NI and GB only to cancel the plan in the face of Unionist uproar.

I got asked to show my flight ticket the last time I arrived in Birmingham airport

CelticRambler

fash wrote: »

And another reason why Johnson can't go no deal: major land owners would never forgive Tories for loss of land and the consequent change in owner profile of land across UK.

Yeah, but "would never forgive" until after it's happened. The Tory heartland is still heavily populated by ostriches.

fash

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah, but "would never forgive" until after it's happened. The Tory heartland is still heavily populated by ostriches.

Fully accept that- more something that a Tory will need to consider the consequences of his actions - and the consequences could be quite severe.

Kermit.de.frog

Guardian has obtained details of EU objections to UK plan. They are not even close to what is needed!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/07/revealed-the-eus-point-by-point-rejection-of-johnsons-brexit-plan