0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: The Red Baron on November 06, 2018, 09:09:32 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on November 06, 2018, 08:53:37 pmBut that's a useless negotiating strategy. Because no one believes that the Govt would go for No Deal. If Parliament votes down the sham that's coming, the alternative isn't No Deal. The alternative is the end of May and probably a General Election. I think they will emphasise the lack of time and the risk of No Deal by default. There was a school of thought that WW1 started because no-one could agree on an alternative. Ditto a No Deal Brexit.That analogy doesn't work. There is a clear majority in Parliament against a No Deal Brexit. There is absolutely no reason why we should stumble into a No Deal outcome. If it looked as though the Govt was taking us down that route (which itself would be beyond idiotic, since it would secure the historical position if Teresa May as THE most catastrophic PM ever) then there would be a vote of No Confidence in the Govt, which would pass easily. May has been trying to pass of No Deal as an outcine that should be taken seriously, in an attempt to bolster her negotiating position. But it's stupid and it's inconceivable. It's the equivalent of saying "Give me what I demand or I'll...or I'll...or I'll blow my head off.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on November 06, 2018, 08:53:37 pmBut that's a useless negotiating strategy. Because no one believes that the Govt would go for No Deal. If Parliament votes down the sham that's coming, the alternative isn't No Deal. The alternative is the end of May and probably a General Election. I think they will emphasise the lack of time and the risk of No Deal by default. There was a school of thought that WW1 started because no-one could agree on an alternative. Ditto a No Deal Brexit.
But that's a useless negotiating strategy. Because no one believes that the Govt would go for No Deal. If Parliament votes down the sham that's coming, the alternative isn't No Deal. The alternative is the end of May and probably a General Election.
... and one of the Architects Cameron is eyeing a comeback as if he aint done enough damageLet him suffer like the rest of us. After all he kept telling people that Sam Cam was from a working class Town (Scunthorpe) and apparantly has a "field" there somewhereYeah Normanby Park no less !
Our Brexit Secretary says he “hadn’t quite understood” the importance of cross-Channel trade to the UK economy. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-dominic-raab-trade-eu-france-calais-dover-economy-finance-deal-a8624036.html And I though David Davis was bad You just couldn't make this up!
Quote from: selby on November 01, 2018, 07:47:53 pm 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....
I think Cameron and Osborne should be tried for treason, or should it be for idiocy.
Quote from: Herbert Anchovy on November 02, 2018, 12:49:18 amQuote from: SydneyRover on November 01, 2018, 11:57:34 pm96 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.SydneyI’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-61180Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claimshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.htmlhttps://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640
Quote from: SydneyRover on November 01, 2018, 11:57:34 pm96 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.SydneyI’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.
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.
HerbertThat was the problem. Remain didn't have a Jerusalem to sell. They WERE right that things WILL be bloody awful when we leave. By inference, that means that things would be significantly better if we stayed in. That was effectively the Remain pitch. Highlighting the very serious problems that WILL come from leaving.Leave, on the other hand were free to promise golden sunlit uplands if we left, with everyone getting a pay rise and a free blowjob on demand. It was all utter b*llocks of course, but it's a much easier pitch to sell.In a nutshell. Remain had a realistic (and correct) story of a pessimistic outcome if we changed the status quo. Leave had an unrealistic (and wrong) story of an optimistic outcome. Add to the mix that fact that you had shark oil salesmen like Farage and Johnson who have flexible relationships with truth and morals, and it was far easier for them to play to the crowd.
Quote from: SydneyRover on November 02, 2018, 03:08:50 amQuote from: Herbert Anchovy on November 02, 2018, 12:49:18 amQuote from: SydneyRover on November 01, 2018, 11:57:34 pm96 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.SydneyI’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-61180Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claimshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.htmlhttps://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640Sydney, The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways. The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU! So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands. However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.
Quote from: Herbert Anchovy on November 09, 2018, 01:52:28 pmQuote from: SydneyRover on November 02, 2018, 03:08:50 amQuote from: Herbert Anchovy on November 02, 2018, 12:49:18 amQuote from: SydneyRover on November 01, 2018, 11:57:34 pm96 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.SydneyI’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-61180Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claimshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.htmlhttps://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640Sydney, The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways. The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU! So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands. However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.''Germany. The earliest railways in the German states were often run by private entrepreneurs. ... After German reunification, DB and DR became Deutsche Bahn AG in 1994. Whilst DB AG is a public limited company, all its shares are presently owned by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany''Where there's a will?
Quote from: SydneyRover on November 10, 2018, 08:12:08 amQuote from: Herbert Anchovy on November 09, 2018, 01:52:28 pmQuote from: SydneyRover on November 02, 2018, 03:08:50 amQuote from: Herbert Anchovy on November 02, 2018, 12:49:18 amQuote from: SydneyRover on November 01, 2018, 11:57:34 pm96 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.SydneyI’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-61180Labour 'could nationalise railways in five years', John McDonnell claimshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nationalise-railways-labour-john-mcdonnell-renationalise-public-transport-a8549921.htmlhttps://www.ft.com/content/90c0f8e8-17fd-11e8-9e9c-25c814761640Sydney, The UK Government, nor the Government of any member state, is able to pledge or guarantee a wholesale nationalisation of its railways. The delivery of railway services must go through a commercial tendering process which is open to all parties. Additionally, EU rules dictate that the same organisation cannot deliver the services to the Network, Trains Services and Infrastructure. As a consequence, it is impossible for the Government to renationalise the whole rail structure in the UK. It could nationalise part of it (if it won the contract) but not the whole. So, if there was a GE tomorrow and Corbyn became PM he couldn't renationalise the railways. The comment that you've made regarding John Mcdonnel's comments are slightly misleading. Labour COULD renationlise the railways within a first term in Goverment because, when and if they do come into power we will have left (or be very close to) the EU! So, my original comment that an advantage of leaving the EU is that we will be able to fully nationalise the railways still stands. However, what I also find interesting about the EU stance on railway ownership is that the EU actually promote the UK railway ownership system as an example for other member countries to follow! Their original aim was for all railways within the Union to be managed under private ownership. It was only at the intervention of the Germans and, to a lesser extent the French, that this policy was watered down to allow the possibility of some public ownership. The EU seem to be fundamentaly opposed to any form of public ownership, which is why you'll rarely see the UK arguing about this. For anyone who uses the railways regularly in the UK this must be a baffling policy.''Germany. The earliest railways in the German states were often run by private entrepreneurs. ... After German reunification, DB and DR became Deutsche Bahn AG in 1994. Whilst DB AG is a public limited company, all its shares are presently owned by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany''Where there's a will?Sydney, The services of the railways in Germany are owned by the state Government, however rail contracts for local and regional rail services have to be awarded through competitive tendering on the open market meaning the private sector often provide these franchises. The trains and drivers are owned by the private sector organisation. This is hardly a nationalised, publicly owned railway.