Brexit Negotiations

[Glyn_Wigley]

Herbert

That old canard keeps getting raised by Left supporters of Brexit.

It's wrong.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/30/experts-reject-labour-leavers-argument-brussels-nationalisation

I wonder why they keep banging on about it?

Billy

Under EU rules, the U.K. cannot fully nationalise the railways. It can part nationalise them, but not fully. The management of the infrastructure and the rail services have to be completely separate. This is why, in my original post I said that wholesale renationalisation of the railways is forbidden. Additionally, EU rules dictate that any rail route that has spare capacity or additional time slots for new services must be open to any rail operator to purchase.

These two rules mean that it’s impossible to create a unified and nationalised rail monopoly.

Interestingly, the EU has for sometime held up the UK’s private rail system as the perfect example of a nationwide private rail provision and has encouraged other member states to follow suit.

Also, I don’t believe anything that I read in the newspapers, whether it’s the Guardian or the Mail. They’ve all got their own agendas.

If you're talking about that survey they did way back in 2013 - which is all I can find - it was a measure of consumer satisfaction not of the business modelling, and it also predated the rail chaos we've had in Britain since.

Whatever it is you're referring to...doesn't the EU also have it's own agenda..but you believe them?

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

That old canard keeps getting raised by Left supporters of Brexit.

It's wrong.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/30/experts-reject-labour-leavers-argument-brussels-nationalisation

I wonder why they keep banging on about it?

Billy

Under EU rules, the U.K. cannot fully nationalise the railways. It can part nationalise them, but not fully. The management of the infrastructure and the rail services have to be completely separate. This is why, in my original post I said that wholesale renationalisation of the railways is forbidden. Additionally, EU rules dictate that any rail route that has spare capacity or additional time slots for new services must be open to any rail operator to purchase.

These two rules mean that it’s impossible to create a unified and nationalised rail monopoly.

Interestingly, the EU has for sometime held up the UK’s private rail system as the perfect example of a nationwide private rail provision and has encouraged other member states to follow suit.

Also, I don’t believe anything that I read in the newspapers, whether it’s the Guardian or the Mail. They’ve all got their own agendas.

If you're talking about that survey they did way back in 2013 - which is all I can find - it was a measure of consumer satisfaction not of the business modelling, and it also predated the rail chaos we've had in Britain since.

Whatever it is you're referring to...doesn't the EU also have it's own agenda..but you believe them?

Do I choose to believe who? The EU? Of course I know they have an agenda, however I’m more likely to trust them than a ‘news’paper

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

That old canard keeps getting raised by Left supporters of Brexit.

It's wrong.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/30/experts-reject-labour-leavers-argument-brussels-nationalisation

I wonder why they keep banging on about it?

Billy

Under EU rules, the U.K. cannot fully nationalise the railways. It can part nationalise them, but not fully. The management of the infrastructure and the rail services have to be completely separate. This is why, in my original post I said that wholesale renationalisation of the railways is forbidden. Additionally, EU rules dictate that any rail route that has spare capacity or additional time slots for new services must be open to any rail operator to purchase.

These two rules mean that it’s impossible to create a unified and nationalised rail monopoly.

Interestingly, the EU has for sometime held up the UK’s private rail system as the perfect example of a nationwide private rail provision and has encouraged other member states to follow suit.

Also, I don’t believe anything that I read in the newspapers, whether it’s the Guardian or the Mail. They’ve all got their own agendas.

Two words: Iarnród Éireann

I hold my hands up and admit that I’m not 100% certain on this, but I believe that Ireland, along with a number other smaller EU member states, have been arguing that their rail networks are so small in comparison to larger nations, and consequently should be exempt from EU regulations.

So, my argument still stands; as EU members the U.K. cannot fully nationalise it’s railway.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Herbert

That old canard keeps getting raised by Left supporters of Brexit.

It's wrong.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/30/experts-reject-labour-leavers-argument-brussels-nationalisation

I wonder why they keep banging on about it?

Billy

Under EU rules, the U.K. cannot fully nationalise the railways. It can part nationalise them, but not fully. The management of the infrastructure and the rail services have to be completely separate. This is why, in my original post I said that wholesale renationalisation of the railways is forbidden. Additionally, EU rules dictate that any rail route that has spare capacity or additional time slots for new services must be open to any rail operator to purchase.

These two rules mean that it’s impossible to create a unified and nationalised rail monopoly.

Interestingly, the EU has for sometime held up the UK’s private rail system as the perfect example of a nationwide private rail provision and has encouraged other member states to follow suit.

Also, I don’t believe anything that I read in the newspapers, whether it’s the Guardian or the Mail. They’ve all got their own agendas.

Two words: Iarnród Éireann

I hold my hands up and admit that I’m not 100% certain on this, but I believe that Ireland, along with a number other smaller EU member states, have been arguing that their rail networks are so small in comparison to larger nations, and consequently should be exempt from EU regulations.

So, my argument still stands; as EU members the U.K. cannot fully nationalise it’s railway.

They can if they win all the tenders in open competition.

[bpoolrover]

I couldn't Sydney no but I'm sure someone could, but a petition means nothing really does it and all the marches they have had mean nothing either, nothing has changed unless I'm missing something

[BillyStubbsTears]

Herbert

I'm happy to take your life e that EU membership precludes us from "fully" nationalising our rail network.

So, are you saying that because we cannot fully nationalise our rail network, we should get a half-setter on a big long steel chain and repeatedly smash ourselves in the rest-of-the-economy b*llocks with it?

Because that is precisely what leaving the SM and CU is going to feel like for the rest of the economy.

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

I'm happy to take your life e that EU membership precludes us from "fully" nationalising our rail network.

So, are you saying that because we cannot fully nationalise our rail network, we should get a half-setter on a big long steel chain and repeatedly smash ourselves in the rest-of-the-economy b*llocks with it?

Because that is precisely what leaving the SM and CU is going to feel like for the rest of the economy.

Billy

The question that was asked was “what are the advantages of leaving the EU?” and I’ve shared one. There are others and, depending on your own personal points of view, there will be many more.

However, there is a much wider point here. The Argument for or against membership has become so aggressive and polarised. Fundamentally we now have two groups of people with opposing views shouting and screaming at each other without actually listening to the arguments of the other side. Consequently we find ourselves in the George W Bush scenario of “you’re either with us or against us”.

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that EU membership brings advantages and disadvantages, yet because of the referendum and the rhetoric from BOTH sides, we now have one side claiming that membership is a golden ticket for the UK (it isn’t) while the other half claim leaving will deliver utopia (it won’t).


On a radio phone in last week regarding Brexit a lady called in to say that she really doesn’t understand the full implications of membership and yet the debate seems to have turned people into experts on the EU, who before June 2016 couldn’t name one member of the EU council! It’s now become an argument between middle class liberals and champagne socialists on one side and right wing little Englanders on the other, with both telling the rest of the population that they’re stupid! I have some sympathy with that point of view.

Regarding your specific point, I feel that close economic ties with the EU are vital and if that means remaining within the SM and CU then I’ve no problem with that.

[RedJ]

Herbert

I'm happy to take your life e that EU membership precludes us from "fully" nationalising our rail network.

So, are you saying that because we cannot fully nationalise our rail network, we should get a half-setter on a big long steel chain and repeatedly smash ourselves in the rest-of-the-economy b*llocks with it?

Because that is precisely what leaving the SM and CU is going to feel like for the rest of the economy.

Billy

The question that was asked was “what are the advantages of leaving the EU?” and I’ve shared one.

But you haven't really, because we CAN nationalise our railways and anything we like under EU regulations...

[SydneyRover]

HA:
''However, there is a much wider point here. The Argument for or against membership has become so aggressive and polarised. Fundamentally we now have two groups of people with opposing views shouting and screaming at each other without actually listening to the arguments of the other side. Consequently we find ourselves in the George W Bush scenario of “you’re either with us or against us”. ''

All that is needed is two lists of verifiable facts and predictions from experts and those with cred about the pros and cons of staying or leaving. Leave out the personal reasons.

I put my money on the staying list being infinitely longer, the not having government owned trains argument has already been lost.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Herbert

I agree that the level of debate these days is frighteningly polarised.

I don't accept that the blame lies equally on both sides.

There has been a generation-long process on the Right to move away from evidence-based discussion towards where we are now, which is normalisation of outrageous lies.

Yes the other side is not perfect, but there is no equivalence here. There is no one on the Left who comes remotely close to Bannon, or Trump, or Orban, or Farage or The Mail for constant, vicious lying.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And talking about nasty, lying bas**rds on the Right...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46056337

What timing.

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA:
''However, there is a much wider point here. The Argument for or against membership has become so aggressive and polarised. Fundamentally we now have two groups of people with opposing views shouting and screaming at each other without actually listening to the arguments of the other side. Consequently we find ourselves in the George W Bush scenario of “you’re either with us or against us”. ''

All that is needed is two lists of verifiable facts and predictions from experts and those with cred about the pros and cons of staying or leaving. Leave out the personal reasons.

I put my money on the staying list being infinitely longer, the not having government owned trains argument has already been lost.

The "staying list" may be infinitely longer Sydney, that's not the point that I'm making. The point is that the debate (if you can call it that) has descended into a petulant tit for tat screaming match with BOTH sides responsible. In my lifetime I've never seen political debate reduced to such childish petulance. For a country who's mantra is 'Keep Calm and Carry on' we don't seem to be doing a particularly good job of that. Divide and Conquer eh?

BTW, I'm very interested to know why you feel the nationalisation of the railways argument has been lost?

[BillyStubbsTears]

f**k me.

Look what he's being referred for.

https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1057969796552314880

No evidence that the money he put into the Leave campaign was his. Allegations of criminal behaviour.

This has massive implications for the Brexit situation. 

[Boomstick]

Why? We're leaving get over it

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

I agree that the level of debate these days is frighteningly polarised.

I don't accept that the blame lies equally on both sides.

There has been a generation-long process on the Right to move away from evidence-based discussion towards where we are now, which is normalisation of outrageous lies.

Yes the other side is not perfect, but there is no equivalence here. There is no one on the Left who comes remotely close to Bannon, or Trump, or Orban, or Farage or The Mail for constant, vicious lying.

Billy,

I do agree with much of what you say - the right has long taken a more 'populist' approach to achieve its aims. However, specifically within the Brexit debate, my personal experience has been that both sides of the argument have resorted to lies (or misleading information if I were to be charitable). If anyone could be arsed I'm sure that they could find some whoppers; the Nick Clegg description as a 'dangerous fantasy' the claim that Junker wanted to create a European Army. Some months later Junker (with the backing of Germany) called for the EU to push ahead with an EU army. Then of course, you've got the outrageous lies about Turkish membership of the EU. Tory MP, and Brexit supporter Penny Moudaunt claimed that the UK did not have a veto on Turkey joining the EU. This was completely wrong.

You could argue which sides lies caused the most damage but that's a but thats not really the point. They are both guilty of, at best spinning, and at worst lying, to the British people.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Herbert

You chose a spectacularly bad example there. I suggest you go back and look specifically at what Clegg said.

He wasn't calling CLAIMS that Juncker wanted an EU army "dangerous fantasies". He was calling Juncker's call for an EU army a dangerous fantasy.

That is a perfect example of the political zeitgeist. The original meaning gets deliberately turned round to mean the precise opposite. And people buy it. And  that approach comes I overwhelmingly from the Right.

There was a perfect example in the US the other day. Nancy Pelosi was explainung how the Republican party works in partnership with right wing media to spread malicious false stories. Part of the video was taken deliberately out of context in a way that made it sound like she was explaining what SHE did to spread false stories. And it went viral with gullible people on social media being taken in and horrified that the Democrats could be so brazen.

And as I say, it comes overwhelmingly from the Right. I'm sick of this "both sides are as bad as each other" argument. They aren't.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This is what the Farages and the Trumps and The Mails have done.

They lie and they lie and they lie and they normalised lying. And then they spin it around and say, "of course EVERYONE on the other side is lying to you".

They are evil, corrupting people. And if you swallow it and repeat it, you're being played by them.

[Herbert Anchovy]

Herbert

You chose a spectacularly bad example there. I suggest you go back and look specifically at what Clegg said.

He wasn't calling CLAIMS that Juncker wanted an EU army "dangerous fantasies". He was calling Juncker's call for an EU army a dangerous fantasy.

That is a perfect example of the political zeitgeist. The original meaning gets deliberately turned round to mean the precise opposite. And people buy it. And  that approach comes I overwhelmingly from the Right.

There was a perfect example in the US the other day. Nancy Pelosi was explainung how the Republican party works in partnership with right wing media to spread malicious false stories. Part of the video was taken deliberately out of context in a way that made it sound like she was explaining what SHE did to spread false stories. And it went viral with gullible people on social media being taken in and horrified that the Democrats could be so brazen.

And as I say, it comes overwhelmingly from the Right. I'm sick of this "both sides are as bad as each other" argument. They aren't.

Billy,

Not such a spectacularly bad example.

During a TV debate with Farage in 2014, this is what was said in response to a question regarding UK influence on EU foreign policy:

Farage: The whole point of this debate is that 40 years on it was a Common Market, now its a European Union that wants an Army, an Air Force, a Navy to intervene in foreign policy, indeed one of your senior MEP's wanted missile strikes against Syria.

Clegg: This is a dangerous fantasy. The idea that there is going to be a European Air Force, a European Army, this is simply not true. The problem with people like Nigel Farage is they swing at windmills, they see conspracies everywhere. I wouldn't be suprised if he told us that the moon landings were a fake, that Barak Obama isn't American or that Elvis isn't dead! It is not going to happen!

No mention of Junker.It seems to me that he was being quite clear; Farage claimed the EU wants a collective Armed Force, Clegg said that wasn't true. Now, you could be right that this isn't what he meant but if so, it's a pretty bad gaff for someone who, at the time, was Deputy PM.

Again, I stand by my point that neither side are whiter than white.

NB - though looking at the news headlines this afternoon, it seems that there's been some extremely dodgy dealings within the leave campaign

[BillyStubbsTears]

Herbert.

My apologies. I overstepped that one. I was going on what Clegg said a year later.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/71123/nick-clegg-eu-army-dangerous-fantas

The core of the issue is still correct though. The EU will never have an army because it would take support from all states to initiate it. It doesn't matter what Juncker says. No way is an Orban or a Tsipras going to vote for that, nevermind Britain. So Farage was and continues to peddle something that he knows there is no substance to.

As for today's news. Well that's a different order of magnitude. When it comes out that Banks's £8m actually came from a hostile foreign power to pay for him peddling lies about the EU in order to clinch the Leave vote, then there'll be fun and games. There's a word for that. Treason.

[MachoMadness]

Why? We're leaving get over it

So you don't care that our country's democracy was bought by a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign power because you get to thumb your nose at the other side. I thought it was the lefties that were supposed to hate Britain?

[selby]

  I think Cameron and Osborne should be tried for treason, or should it be for idiocy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Why? We're leaving get over it

So you don't care that our country's democracy was bought by a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign power because you get to thumb your nose at the other side. I thought it was the lefties that were supposed to hate Britain?

Quite amazing isn't it? These self-coloured patriots don't give a flying f**k about the evidence that a hostile power poured money into Leave.EU to get the specific result they wanted.

With patriots like this, who needs enemies?

[Pancho Regan]

Why? We're leaving get over it

Unbelievable, but also scary

[wilts rover]

  I think Cameron and Osborne should be tried for treason, or should it be for idiocy.

If you haven't already read it then 'All Out War', Tim Shipman's book on the referendum campaign is a great read and a good insight into what most of the major players were thinking about during the campaign.

Cameron had his own polling company the running during the campaign. When the national polls were showing a very tight race and reports from campaigners on the doorsteps came back saying there was a lot of support for leave, Cameron was never worried, or changed his campaign tactics, as his polling showed remain well ahead. He was even more confident on referendum night as his poll showed remain with an 11 point lead....

[Glyn_Wigley]

Why? We're leaving get over it

So you don't care that our country's democracy was bought by a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign power because you get to thumb your nose at the other side. I thought it was the lefties that were supposed to hate Britain?

Quite amazing isn't it? These self-coloured patriots don't give a flying f**k about the evidence that a hostile power poured money into Leave.EU to get the specific result they wanted.

With patriots like this, who needs enemies?

What's even more ridiculous is those that were voting Leave because they wanted to 'stick it to the establishment' did so by - so they think - giving them more control over their lives!

[BillyStubbsTears]

f**k me.

Look what he's being referred for.

https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1057969796552314880

No evidence that the money he put into the Leave campaign was his. Allegations of criminal behaviour.

This has massive implications for the Brexit situation. 

.

Strange. I'd have expected Corbyn to be all over this story. Given that he was in favour of us Remaining, and campaigned so vigorously for us to Remain, I'd have expected him to.be incandescent to learn that a prominent Leave funder is facing a criminal investigation over that funding.

But not a dickie bird from him. How odd.

[SydneyRover]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

[Herbert Anchovy]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

Sydney

I’ve already stated that one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will be able to nationalise the railways. Does this meet your criteria of “a single credible reason” for leaving?

BTW, I’m not claiming to be Remain or Brexit, however claiming that there’s no positives to leaving is simply wrong. Whether they outweigh the advantages of remaining Areca different matter.

[SydneyRover]

96 pages and counting, look back and see if any leavers actually want to discuss facts or just want to distract and ignore direct questions, I think as the stayers have been supported by most if no all experts and business leaders with examinations of the leave case its myths and distortions that the leavers can have first go.

Name a single credible reason for leaving that would advantage the majority (leave out your personal feelings/reasons puleeese)

When that has been achieved it's the stayers turn.

Sydney

I’ve already stated that one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will be able to nationalise the railways. Does this meet your criteria of “a single credible reason” for leaving?

BTW, I’m not claiming to be Remain or Brexit, however claiming that there’s no positives to leaving is simply wrong. Whether they outweigh the advantages of remaining Areca different matter.

I'm afraid not HA as many have challenged this to say that being in the EU does not preclude the government owning railway assets, it depends on how its done.

The new EU regulations promote competition for the market between rail operators irrespective of ownership structure, but not privatisation. As far as renationalisation is concerned the reality is that, unless the rules are interpreted in an extreme way, they do not make it any easier or more difficult than the structure in place at the moment. The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-do-new-eu-rules-make-it-impossible-to-renationalise-railways-61180

Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.html

https://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640

[Boomstick]

f**k me.

Look what he's being referred for.

https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1057969796552314880

No evidence that the money he put into the Leave campaign was his. Allegations of criminal behaviour.

This has massive implications for the Brexit situation. 

.

Strange. I'd have expected Corbyn to be all over this story. Given that he was in favour of us Remaining, and campaigned so vigorously for us to Remain, I'd have expected him to.be incandescent to learn that a prominent Leave funder is facing a criminal investigation over that funding.

But not a dickie bird from him. How odd.

Not completely Sure if your being sarcastic there . Are you ?