Brexit.

Tigger

not on speaking terms with the voices in my head
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
801
No, I really think you're misunderstanding the nature of the problem with the Irish Border.

Quite apart from the very real risk of restarting the violence, there's the simple logistical problem of having two separate customs regimes and product standards for foodstuffs and goods.

That is unavoidable. What effect do you think border checks are going to have on moving cattle between England and Scotland? How is Scotland going to collect tariffs on goods coming from England if they're subject to EU import duties?

It would be a complete nightmare.
Not in the least. I've been keeping as up to date as I can on the issues being reported. Creating a new border is bound to come with issues but how badly they impact business and people is going to depend a lot on how it's managed and brexit has been about as badly managed as it could possibly be.

Knowing the end state in advance and having time to prepare for it would make things less fraught. Hence why even May's deal came with a transition period. Naturally even if well managed unplanned issues occur and could have negative consequences but I would expect independence to be better planned than brexit.
 

Tigger

not on speaking terms with the voices in my head
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
801
Other countries bordering the EU are part of the European Economic Area, which involves being part of a customs union, and that's a very sensible thing to be if you're not part of the EU.
Russia is in the EEA? Id better go and read up on the EEA again. What about Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia? All in the EEA?

Because all of them have borders with EU countries. The border between Finland and Russia is longer than mainland UK.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Sid

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,979
SLU Posts
18459
Russia is in the EEA? Id better go and read up on the EEA again. What about Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia? All in the EEA?

Because all of them have borders with EU countries. The border between Finland and Russia is longer than mainland UK.
You're right, of course.

I was thinking of the Leave argument -- with which you must be familiar -- that you don't have to be a member of the EU to enjoy reasonably friction-free trade and minimal border controls, because "just look at Monaco".

The other countries all have more or less hard borders with the EU, which necessitate more or less lengthy delays at the border for customs checks.

Similar delays and customs checks would, it seems to me, be a logical consequence of an independent Scotland being part of the EU and the RoUK being outside it.
 
  • 2Agree
Reactions: Tigger and Sid

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,979
SLU Posts
18459
Not in the least. I've been keeping as up to date as I can on the issues being reported. Creating a new border is bound to come with issues but how badly they impact business and people is going to depend a lot on how it's managed and brexit has been about as badly managed as it could possibly be.

Knowing the end state in advance and having time to prepare for it would make things less fraught. Hence why even May's deal came with a transition period. Naturally even if well managed unplanned issues occur and could have negative consequences but I would expect independence to be better planned than brexit.
As you will recall, the reason May's Withdrawal Agreement was unacceptable to her party and the DUP was, if (when) the two year transition period came to an end, the UK would have to remain in a customs union with the EU precisely in order to avoid customs checks at the border between the RoI and NI.

Certainly, in the event of an independent Scotland joining the EU while the remainder of the UK remains outside, no one is going to be trying to blow up customs posts on the newly created border (or, at least, it is to be hoped they won't) but the issue of delays and customs checks will, nevertheless, be a huge issue.

For example, let's try to imagine a situation some years hence (please God, let it remain imaginary) in which the UK has left the EU and signed trade agreements with the USA and various other American countries to cover, among other things, imports of meat, poultry, and electronic goods.

This means that these imports are significantly cheaper in British supermarkets and electronics stores than they are in the EU.

It also means that, at least in some cases, meat and poultry is being offered for sale here that it would be illegal to sell in the EU because it fails to meet EU health standards (GM foods, growth enhancers, chlorine-washed chicken and so on).

Scotland, meanwhile, has voted for independence and seeks to join the EU an independent state (assuming Spain hasn't vetoed the proposal, in case it gives the Catalans and Basques the wrong idea).

How, in the subsequent arrangements, are the EU and Scottish authorities to ensure that lorries heading north across the border delivering goods to Scottish supermarkets do not contain foodstuffs banned under EU law and that the appropriate customs duties are paid on electronic goods that attract higher tariffs in the EU than do they in the UK?

What are they going to do about people living in Scotland who may wish to take advantage of lower prices on certain goods south of the border driving down to buy their new laptops and phones in Durham and Newcastle in the hope of avoiding import duties on these goods? And if they decide to buy them on eBay from English suppliers, how are the authorities going to ensure that import duties are collected and paid?

It could be done, certainly, but there's no way it could be anything like as seamless as it is them moment, while we're all one country, and it's going to be a horrible complicating factor in all negotiations over Scottish independence, since Scotland would have to be in two sets of negotiations simultaneously, one with the EU and one with the UK.
 
  • 1Eye Roll
Reactions: Amalia Illios

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,979
SLU Posts
18459

Basically, they've adjourned the case until October 21, to see what happens on October 19, the date the Benn Act stipulates that Johnson must write to the EU requesting an extension if he has not by that time secured parliamentary approval for a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the EU/

In an unusual move, [Lord] Carloway said the issues were so significant and time-sensitive that the court could not make a definitive ruling on whether the prime minister had broken the Benn act until 19 October had passed.

He said the judges would suspend a final ruling on whether to order Johnson to comply, or send the Benn act letter to the EU itself, until Monday 21 October. Then, he said, “the court will expect to be addressed on the facts that present themselves”.

They had also asked the court to use their unique powers, known as nobile officium, to write that letter on his behalf if he failed to do so. Carloway said they would also postpone a decision on that until 21 October.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,970
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289

Basically, they've adjourned the case until October 21, to see what happens on October 19, the date the Benn Act stipulates that Johnson must write to the EU requesting an extension if he has not by that time secured parliamentary approval for a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the EU/



The 21st? Why not reconvene at 12:01 AM on the 20th? If bojo does not sign it on the 19th surely every second will count to fix his mess? Is Sunday *that* important over there that they would risk it?
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,979
SLU Posts
18459
The 21st? Why not reconvene at 12:01 AM on the 20th? If bojo does not sign it on the 19th surely every second will count to fix his mess? Is Sunday *that* important over there that they would risk it?
If you re-read the article, you will see that the petitioners had
asked the court to use their unique powers, known as nobile officium, to write that letter on his behalf if he failed to do so. Carloway said they would also postpone a decision on that until 21 October.

Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, had signalled on Tuesday he was likely to order a delay after Lord Pentland, a judge sitting in the outer house of the court of session, had ruled on Monday that the prime minister’s promises to obey the Benn act had to be taken seriously.

Carloway, Brodie and Drummond Young’s ruling broadly supported Pentland’s view that since the prime minister had not yet broken the law it was difficult to issue an interdict, or injunction, forcing him to obey it.
If Johnson fails to comply with the law, then the court will, on the 21st, doubtless use its power of nobile officium (generally shortened to "nob off" by Scots lawyers, I am delighted to learn) to write the letter on his behalf as well as to visit upon him the full weight of its judicial ire, backed up with appropriate penalties.

If he's foolish enough to renege on the assurances he has, through the government's legal representatives, given the court, it's difficult to overstate the gravity of the political and legal consequences he'll immediately face.

The court has plenty of time to deal with him if he gives them reason to.

ETA: This, commenting on yesterday's judgment by the lower court, which was today upheld: The 128 chilling words in the Scottish case
 
Last edited:

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,970
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
If you re-read the article, you will see that the petitioners had


If Johnson fails to comply with the law, then the court will, on the 21st, doubtless use its power of nobile officium (generally shortened to "nob off" by Scots lawyers, I am delighted to learn) to write the letter on his behalf as well as to visit upon him the full weight of its judicial ire, backed up with appropriate penalties.

If he's foolish enough to renege on the assurances he has, through the government's legal representatives, given the court, it's difficult to overstate the gravity of the political and legal consequences he'll immediately face.

The court has plenty of time to deal with him if he gives them reason to.

ETA: This, commenting on yesterday's judgment by the lower court, which was today upheld: The 128 chilling words in the Scottish case
Sorry, but that does not make it clearer to me. They are sending the letter on the 21st but not the 20th?
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,979
SLU Posts
18459
Sorry, but that does not make it clearer to me. They are sending the letter on the 21st but not the 20th?
The court ruled that, since Johnson, through the government's law officers, has given solemn assurances that will carry very severe legal penalties for him, and professional sanctions for the law officers, if he breaks them, the court cannot reasonably assume he intends to do anything but abide by his legal obligations and comply with the requirement he request an extension from the EU in the terms required by law.

Therefore, there is no need to take any unusual measures, such as sitting on a Sunday.

However, because of the nature of the case, the court will, on the first subsequent sitting day, Monday, require both sides to attend, advise the court on whether Mr Johnson has honoured his binding commitments and obligations, and to make submissions as to what should happen next.

If Johnson has kept his word to the court, then end of story.

If, however, the court is not satisfied he has fulfilled his obligations and honoured the assurances he gave the court, then the court has the power, which it is invited to use, to submit a fully effective application for an extension on Johnson's behalf, thus resolving the immediate issue, and then to decide how best to deal with Mr Johnson (which could involve severe financial penalties or even prison).

So, one way or another, unless parliament either approves a deal acceptable to the EU27, or approves the proposition that we leave without a deal, an application for an extension will be submitted to the EU no later than the 21st, whether by Johnson himself or the court on Johnson's behalf.

Where's the problem?
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Sid

Boooooh!!!
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,082
Location
NL
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
2009
Sorry, but that does not make it clearer to me. They are sending the letter on the 21st but not the 20th?
Nah. Plenty of time to waist left.
Still 10 whole days of 24 hours each remaining by then.
 

Sid

Boooooh!!!
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,082
Location
NL
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
2009
Okay........ and thanks.

I will make that mistake most likely again in the future, I guess. If the spell checker doesn't ring the alarm bell, I'll think it's okay.
Than and then, to and too are in the same league for me.
 
  • 1Beer
Reactions: Kamilah Hauptmann
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
1,163
Location
NJ near Philly
SL Rez
2003
SLU Posts
4494
Okay........ and thanks.

I will make that mistake most likely again in the future, I guess. If the spell checker doesn't ring the alarm bell, I'll think it's okay.
Than and then, to and too are in the same league for me.
To, two and too aren't that hard. Two is always a number. If a sentence sounds fine replacing too with "also" then too is the word.

Affect and effect are more complicated. Generally effect is a noun but there are exceptions.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Sid

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
2,970
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
The court ruled that, since Johnson, through the government's law officers, has given solemn assurances that will carry very severe legal penalties for him, and professional sanctions for the law officers, if he breaks them, the court cannot reasonably assume he intends to do anything but abide by his legal obligations and comply with the requirement he request an extension from the EU in the terms required by law.

Therefore, there is no need to take any unusual measures, such as sitting on a Sunday.

However, because of the nature of the case, the court will, on the first subsequent sitting day, Monday, require both sides to attend, advise the court on whether Mr Johnson has honoured his binding commitments and obligations, and to make submissions as to what should happen next.

If Johnson has kept his word to the court, then end of story.

If, however, the court is not satisfied he has fulfilled his obligations and honoured the assurances he gave the court, then the court has the power, which it is invited to use, to submit a fully effective application for an extension on Johnson's behalf, thus resolving the immediate issue, and then to decide how best to deal with Mr Johnson (which could involve severe financial penalties or even prison).

So, one way or another, unless parliament either approves a deal acceptable to the EU27, or approves the proposition that we leave without a deal, an application for an extension will be submitted to the EU no later than the 21st, whether by Johnson himself or the court on Johnson's behalf.

Where's the problem?
The problem is they are juggling hand grenades. If bojo does not sign it on the 19th (which there is good reason to suspect he will not do) there is not much time to go to plan B. Sorry, but it still does not make much sense to me to waste the 20th.