BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

tailwindhome

The Scottish Courts have released a short version of their judgement, which was in itself an appeal against an earlier judgement in a lower court

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/ ... ial-Review

bobmcstuff

TailWindHome wrote:

The Scottish Courts have released a short version of their judgement, which was in itself an appeal against an earlier judgement in a lower court

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/ ... ial-Review

A key thing in there is this:

"Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful."

So the difference in decision from the earlier case is not necessarily a difference of opinion - they're saying the situation has changed.

rick_chasey

Re all the fish chat - the legislation that was being drafted to assist the fishing industry in the event of a no deal Brexit had to be dropped as a result of the prorogation.

Of course.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

bompington

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

British fuel for British cars, what's not to like?
Apart from the fact that the refineries will lose all their export income, so they'll close down.

tailwindhome

Adam Fleming
@adamfleming
·
47m
Note that the European Parliament’s new draft #Brexit resolution suggests “avoiding a no deal exit” is a good enough reason for granting an extension. So not just for an election, a referendum or a massive rethink then...

bobmcstuff

bompington wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

British fuel for British cars, what's not to like?
Apart from the fact that the refineries will lose all their export income, so they'll close down.

Urwin also said that the only difference between the document that has just been released and the one in August is that the title has changed from "Base Case" to "Worst Case Scenario"...

It's funny that in August they said the document was out of date and rubbish, but now they have released exactly the same thing as their current document.

Sturgeon also saying that the version the Scottish government was given also said base case.

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

British fuel for British cars, what's not to like?

I admire your positivity. We can take the same approach with Airbus.

rolf_f

bobmcstuff wrote:

bompington wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

British fuel for British cars, what's not to like?
Apart from the fact that the refineries will lose all their export income, so they'll close down.

Urwin also said that the only difference between the document that has just been released and the one in August is that the title has changed from "Base Case" to "Worst Case Scenario"...

It's funny that in August they said the document was out of date and rubbish, but now they have released exactly the same thing as their current document.

I think that the justification for it being out of date and rubbish was all the stuff they've done since. Which, of course, we know is absolutely nothing.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

And then explain why petrol prices have gone up. I think they'd rather lose our own refining capability than have to do that.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

I'm sure it could. The point (including the 0% tariff on imports) was part of the government's document, not my argument.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

I'm sure it could. The point (including the 0% tariff on imports) was part of the government's document, not my argument.

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

I'm sure it could. The point (including the 0% tariff on imports) was part of the government's document, not my argument.

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

I've a feeling this may be another area where this forum might not be a 100% representative sample of the entire population. I'm all for increased petrol prices.

veronese68

Makes me laugh how those that bang on about democracy most don't like the idea of an independent judiciary. Anyone that simple can't be expected to understand very much.

Pross

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

I'm sure it could. The point (including the 0% tariff on imports) was part of the government's document, not my argument.

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

I've a feeling this may be another area where this forum might not be a 100% representative sample of the entire population. I'm all for increased petrol prices.

It's not as simple as increased fuel prices making people think about travel choices though is it (even if you ignore those parts of the country where travelling by car is often the only realistic option)? Increased fuel prices will increase the cost of goods that are already likely to increase in price as a result of Brexit anyway which in turn is likely to lead to inflation.

Subsidising renewables would be great but it doesn't solve our short term requirements.

kingstongraham

There might be a few bumps on the road etc etc

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

Wonderful how Brexit can be all things to all people. Most Brexiteers have been arguing about escaping from the overbearing EU environmental legislation, but it turns out that we're going to be greener than them too!

Still, at least the UK has been taking the lead within these appalling EU constraints:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission
Oh, hang on a minute...

Didn't put TBB down for a subsidy junkie TBH. Contrarian going on troll - that's another matter...

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

Wonderful how Brexit can be all things to all people. Most Brexiteers have been arguing about escaping from the overbearing EU environmental legislation, but it turns out that we're going to be greener than them too!

Brexit - a universal panacea. Solves all known problems..... Doesn't cause any of them. :roll:

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

Wonderful how Brexit can be all things to all people. Most Brexiteers have been arguing about escaping from the overbearing EU environmental legislation, but it turns out that we're going to be greener than them too!

Still, at least the UK has been taking the lead within these appalling EU constraints:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission
Oh, hang on a minute...

Didn't put TBB down for a subsidy junkie TBH. Contrarian going on troll - that's another matter...

Bloody hell! I know I enjoy an argument but I was just posting what is supposed to be the redacted section of the report. I wasn't making a comment on whether it was a good or bad policy.

rjsterry

Meanwhile in Downing Street...

"Why don't you mention that bridge over the Irish Sea again? That'll through them off all this Prorogation court case stuff."

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Meanwhile in Downing Street...

"Why don't you mention that bridge over the Irish Sea again? That'll through them off all this Prorogation court case stuff."

Trumps Mini-me.......

TheBigBean

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

I'm sure it could. The point (including the 0% tariff on imports) was part of the government's document, not my argument.

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

I've a feeling this may be another area where this forum might not be a 100% representative sample of the entire population. I'm all for increased petrol prices.

My suspicion is that we may be in a minority on this point and that the forum is actually more representative. There's usually outcry whenever petrol prices increase.

john80

TheBigBean wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

I'm sure it could. The point (including the 0% tariff on imports) was part of the government's document, not my argument.

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

I've a feeling this may be another area where this forum might not be a 100% representative sample of the entire population. I'm all for increased petrol prices.

My suspicion is that we may be in a minority on this point and that the forum is actually more representative. There's usually outcry whenever petrol prices increase.

Generally the outcry was more in the days of the tax escalator where the view was that we should price it higher due to tax increases but not provide over 50% of the country that is not a city and alternative option. If it is related to oil prices then consumers are a bit more relaxed in my experience.

fenix

TheBigBean wrote:

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

With WHAT will we be able to subsidise renewables ?

We will be closing the car and aerospace industry and refineries.

Oh and the sheep farmers too.

And anything that relies on a supply chain across Europe.

We won't have two brass farthings to rub together. Let alone subsidise renewables.

PhilipPirrip

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this but an intersting piece from the Scottish court case;

The Petitioners wrote to Johnson earlier this week asking him to give a formal undertaking to the Court that he would comply with his obligation to send a letter to the European Union asking for an extension – but no such undertaking was given.

The proceedings have been issued in Scotland because the Inner House has a power not possessed by the English Courts – its nobile officium – which would allow it to sign the letter mandated by the Benn Act if the Prime Minister refuses to do so.

Jolyon Maugham QC said:

“The Inner House of the Court of Session has a special and versatile jurisdiction – its nobile officium – which it can use to, in effect, per procurationem (ie ‘pp’) any letter that the Prime Minister refuses to send.

https://goodlawproject.org/rule-law-not ... -minister/

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Is everyone pro petrol now? Life outside the EU will make subsidising renewables much easier.

Wonderful how Brexit can be all things to all people. Most Brexiteers have been arguing about escaping from the overbearing EU environmental legislation, but it turns out that we're going to be greener than them too!

Still, at least the UK has been taking the lead within these appalling EU constraints:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... commission
Oh, hang on a minute...

Didn't put TBB down for a subsidy junkie TBH. Contrarian going on troll - that's another matter...

A significant part of the UK fossil fuel subsidies identified by the commission is the 5% rate of VAT on domestic gas and electricity, cut from the standard 20%. The UK government did not dispute the data but denied that it provided any subsidies for fossil fuels under its own definition and that of the International Energy Agency.

There are also subsidies for the capacity market (currently suspended by EU) which is a mechanism to keep the lights on, but ultimately it takes money from renewables and gives it to other generators.

Economists vary in the degree to which they accept market intervention, but one on which almost all agree it is required is for environmental reasons. This is the reason that the EU agrees to some state aid for renewables.

If the UK is to be net zero by 2050 (as per legislation) it is highly likely to require subsidies.

And, as I said before, doctor heal thyself.

sungod

the known and proven liar johnson has denied lying to the queen

yeah, sure

rjsterry

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this but an intersting piece from the Scottish court case;

The Petitioners wrote to Johnson earlier this week asking him to give a formal undertaking to the Court that he would comply with his obligation to send a letter to the European Union asking for an extension – but no such undertaking was given.

The proceedings have been issued in Scotland because the Inner House has a power not possessed by the English Courts – its nobile officium – which would allow it to sign the letter mandated by the Benn Act if the Prime Minister refuses to do so.

Jolyon Maugham QC said:

“The Inner House of the Court of Session has a special and versatile jurisdiction – its nobile officium – which it can use to, in effect, per procurationem (ie ‘pp’) any letter that the Prime Minister refuses to send.

https://goodlawproject.org/rule-law-not ... -minister/

That is interesting.

darkhairedlord

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Don't know if anyone's mentioned this but an intersting piece from the Scottish court case;

The Petitioners wrote to Johnson earlier this week asking him to give a formal undertaking to the Court that he would comply with his obligation to send a letter to the European Union asking for an extension – but no such undertaking was given.

The proceedings have been issued in Scotland because the Inner House has a power not possessed by the English Courts – its nobile officium – which would allow it to sign the letter mandated by the Benn Act if the Prime Minister refuses to do so.

Jolyon Maugham QC said:

“The Inner House of the Court of Session has a special and versatile jurisdiction – its nobile officium – which it can use to, in effect, per procurationem (ie ‘pp’) any letter that the Prime Minister refuses to send.

https://goodlawproject.org/rule-law-not ... -minister/

So if he refuses to send a request for extension the Scottish court can send it. Would that make bj as pm untenable?

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

By the way, Rosamund Urwin who reported the leaked version in August, has tweeted that the redacted section is that ND will render UK refined petrol uncompetitive for export. The plan for 0% tariff on imports will mean that they undercut UK refineries. In other words UK refineries will go the way of sheep farmers.

Exactly like a couple of days of snow.

This has got lost a few pages back given the pace of posting on here, but clearly in a No Deal situation, the UK could if it wanted selectively impose tariffs on imports of certain products or classes of products to protect things like refineries. Provided it treats all such products equally regardless of source, should not be in breach of WTO regs etc.

British fuel for British cars, what's not to like?
Apart from the fact that the refineries will lose all their export income, so they'll close down.

Relevant part that I was referring to is highlighted. We can always match any EU tariffs on our exports with the same level of tariff on he same product/product class that is imported. Then it's a question of who imports or exports more of the stuff.