No Brexit Extension

[Ldr]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

[Not Now Kato]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

[Herbert Anchovy]

This is all so pointless. We are creating a vast customs bureaucracy (with costs passed on to the consumer) to check goods which already meet the EU standards the UK has contributed to setting over the last four decades. Why?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/local-anger-over-plans-for-post-brexit-lorry-park-at-ashford
 
And this is likely to be the first of many!
 
Still waiting for one of you leavers to tell me how we're going to be better off leaving the EU!

NNK

I’ve given you an example before, so that’s not true. As I’ve commented on here numerous times before, one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will not need to sign up to the EU fourth rail package.

[Herbert Anchovy]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

Are members of the EU Commission, that has the sole right to propose EU legislation, democratically elected by the people’s of Europe?

[wilts rover]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

Are members of the EU Commission, that has the sole right to propose EU legislation, democratically elected by the people’s of Europe?

No. They are, like the Tory government advisors who appear to be doing more than proposing legislation, the chosen representatives of individual governments. Thus the elected representative of the government.

[Herbert Anchovy]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

Are members of the EU Commission, that has the sole right to propose EU legislation, democratically elected by the people’s of Europe?

No. They are, like the Tory government advisors who appear to be doing more than proposing legislation, the chosen representatives of individual governments. Thus the elected representative of the government.

Ah, ok cheers. So, I think I’ve heard about this. If memory serves me right, the members of the Commission are proposed by the EU Commission president after being nominated by member states. The MEP’s are then given the opportunity to reject or query the whole list rather than individuals.  So, they’re not given a choice as such. An individual member state could oppose the list but if the majority support it, then they’re in? So, I guess it’s democratic in a very broad way?

[wilts rover]

Sort of although the EU Parliament doesn't act on member state lines - as they are from different parties in that member state. I would have thought it rare the LibDem/Labour MEP's would ever vote the same way as the UKIP/BP ones.

The commissioners are the chosen representatives of an elected government. Like any government appointee they represent the interests of that government.

[Not Now Kato]

This is all so pointless. We are creating a vast customs bureaucracy (with costs passed on to the consumer) to check goods which already meet the EU standards the UK has contributed to setting over the last four decades. Why?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/local-anger-over-plans-for-post-brexit-lorry-park-at-ashford
 
And this is likely to be the first of many!
 
Still waiting for one of you leavers to tell me how we're going to be better off leaving the EU!

NNK

I’ve given you an example before, so that’s not true. As I’ve commented on here numerous times before, one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will not need to sign up to the EU fourth rail package.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the Guardian article is wrong? We're not going to build a lory park at Ashford?  There isn't going to be the increase in bureaucracy that the government says there's going to be?
 
As to the 4th rail package,  what are the disadvantages of standardisation?
 

[Not Now Kato]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

Are members of the EU Commission, that has the sole right to propose EU legislation, democratically elected by the people’s of Europe?

Of course they are. We elect MEPS to act on our behalf. The MEPS,  on our behalf, elect the members of the EU Comission. They vote,  on our behalf, on all legislative matters. Well, they did until we left! 
 
Now, tell me,  who voted for Dominic Cummings? Who voted for Baroness Evans?

[Herbert Anchovy]

This is all so pointless. We are creating a vast customs bureaucracy (with costs passed on to the consumer) to check goods which already meet the EU standards the UK has contributed to setting over the last four decades. Why?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/local-anger-over-plans-for-post-brexit-lorry-park-at-ashford
 
And this is likely to be the first of many!
 
Still waiting for one of you leavers to tell me how we're going to be better off leaving the EU!

NNK

I’ve given you an example before, so that’s not true. As I’ve commented on here numerous times before, one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will not need to sign up to the EU fourth rail package.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the Guardian article is wrong? We're not going to build a lory park at Ashford?  There isn't going to be the increase in bureaucracy that the government says there's going to be?
 
As to the 4th rail package,  what are the disadvantages of standardisation?

I wasn’t commenting on the Guardian article. I don’t disagree with the article.  I was commenting on your regular diatribe that nobody has ever provided you with an example of how we can be better off outside the EU.

As for the fourth rail package, I have studied this in a fair amount of detail and to describe it as standardisation is missing the point completely.  One of the primary purposes of the package is to open up rail markets to both state and private ownership. As part of this package, the state cannot ‘own’ or ‘run’ the complete rail network, only part and all of this must be procured through a procurement and tender process. As a consequence, it will be virtually impossible for a member state to nationalise its complete rail infrastructure. As an advocate of railway nationalisation I consider this to be a bad thing. So, to answer your specific point again, one advantage of leaving the EU is that a future Labour government will be able to re-nationalise the railway network and infrastructure if it sees fit.

[Donnywolf]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

Are members of the EU Commission, that has the sole right to propose EU legislation, democratically elected by the people’s of Europe?

Of course they are. We elect MEPS to act on our behalf. The MEPS,  on our behalf, elect the members of the EU Comission. They vote,  on our behalf, on all legislative matters. Well, they did until we left! 
 
Now, tell me,  who voted for Dominic Cummings? Who voted for Baroness Evans?

Dont forget "I dont want to be an MP any more Nicky Morgan "

Morgan accepted the appointment by Boris Johnson of Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in July 2019, even though she had stated in 2018 she would not serve in a Johnson government. In October 2019, Morgan announced she would stand down as an MP at the 2019 general election but retained her cabinet post as part of the second Johnson ministry after being elevated to the House of Lords as a life peer.

Dont forget Zac Goldsmith (the opposer of new Runway at Heathrow) either

Goldsmith was made Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment and International Development on 27 July 2019 and was promoted to Minister of State with the right to attend Cabinet on 10 September 2019. He was defeated at the 2019 general election, again by Sarah Olney. After the election, Boris Johnson awarded Goldsmith with a life peerage, making him a member of the House of Lords and allowing him to retain his ministerial position. On 13 February 2020, he acquired the additional role of Minister of State for Foreign Affairs with responsibility for the Pacific.

Snouts in troughs - snouts in troughs simple as that. HOL should also be abolished to stop the "back door electing like these two" and I mean by all Parties

What is particularly ironic is that we are discussing on here unelected beauro's and it was cited it as a reason for voting Leave to (insert 3 word Mantra) " Take back control" yet Liar Johnson has already proved a master at doing the opposite with ths tactic

[Not Now Kato]

This is all so pointless. We are creating a vast customs bureaucracy (with costs passed on to the consumer) to check goods which already meet the EU standards the UK has contributed to setting over the last four decades. Why?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/local-anger-over-plans-for-post-brexit-lorry-park-at-ashford
 
And this is likely to be the first of many!
 
Still waiting for one of you leavers to tell me how we're going to be better off leaving the EU!

NNK

I’ve given you an example before, so that’s not true. As I’ve commented on here numerous times before, one advantage of leaving the EU is that the UK will not need to sign up to the EU fourth rail package.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that the Guardian article is wrong? We're not going to build a lory park at Ashford?  There isn't going to be the increase in bureaucracy that the government says there's going to be?
 
As to the 4th rail package,  what are the disadvantages of standardisation?

I wasn’t commenting on the Guardian article. I don’t disagree with the article.  I was commenting on your regular diatribe that nobody has ever provided you with an example of how we can be better off outside the EU.

As for the fourth rail package, I have studied this in a fair amount of detail and to describe it as standardisation is missing the point completely.  One of the primary purposes of the package is to open up rail markets to both state and private ownership. As part of this package, the state cannot ‘own’ or ‘run’ the complete rail network, only part and all of this must be procured through a procurement and tender process. As a consequence, it will be virtually impossible for a member state to nationalise its complete rail infrastructure. As an advocate of railway nationalisation I consider this to be a bad thing. So, to answer your specific point again, one advantage of leaving the EU is that a future Labour government will be able to re-nationalise the railway network and infrastructure if it sees fit.

'Can' isn't 'WILL'.  One could argue the we CAN be better off if we negotiate a better deal with Nigeria than the one the EU has - yes, it COULD be done, but WILL it?
 
As to the fourth rail package.  Standardisation, (the technical pillar), forms 50% of that 'package' but is where the majority of work across the EU has to happen.  The marketing pillar, which entails much less work, does not preclude state ownership, though it does make it somewhat difficult, though not impossible, to achieve. Also, the fourth rail package does not preclude state investment in rail infrastructure, nor does it require current ownership of that infrastructure to be relinquished.  In the UK, around 75% of the railway infrastructure, (the tracks, large stations and the signalling infrastructure), is already under public control.
 
By the way, the current government has, in effect, just nationalised the passenger part of the UK's railway service.
 
But notwithstanding all that, can you demonstrate that nationalisation of the remaining 25% of the UK's railways WILL be a benefit to people in the UK, IF it were to happen at all?

[Not Now Kato]

for me NNK its we won't be in the inevitable European state. You may disagree with my opinion but that's it

I'm not sure that a United States of Europe is inevitable, (and had we remained in the EU it wouldn't have happened as we had the power of veto).  But let's just say it does happen - then how is our being worse off, (we already are by the way), by our not being a part of it a benefit?
 
And before you throw in the 'unelected bureaucrats' myth, all positions in the EU are elected; unlike our home grown unelected bureaucrats such as Dominic Cummings and Baroness Evans.

Are members of the EU Commission, that has the sole right to propose EU legislation, democratically elected by the people’s of Europe?

Of course they are. We elect MEPS to act on our behalf. The MEPS,  on our behalf, elect the members of the EU Comission. They vote,  on our behalf, on all legislative matters. Well, they did until we left! 
 
Now, tell me,  who voted for Dominic Cummings? Who voted for Baroness Evans?

Dont forget "I dont want to be an MP any more Nicky Morgan "

Morgan accepted the appointment by Boris Johnson of Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in July 2019, even though she had stated in 2018 she would not serve in a Johnson government. In October 2019, Morgan announced she would stand down as an MP at the 2019 general election but retained her cabinet post as part of the second Johnson ministry after being elevated to the House of Lords as a life peer.

Dont forget Zac Goldsmith (the opposer of new Runway at Heathrow) either

Goldsmith was made Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment and International Development on 27 July 2019 and was promoted to Minister of State with the right to attend Cabinet on 10 September 2019. He was defeated at the 2019 general election, again by Sarah Olney. After the election, Boris Johnson awarded Goldsmith with a life peerage, making him a member of the House of Lords and allowing him to retain his ministerial position. On 13 February 2020, he acquired the additional role of Minister of State for Foreign Affairs with responsibility for the Pacific.

Snouts in troughs - snouts in troughs simple as that. HOL should also be abolished to stop the "back door electing like these two" and I mean by all Parties

What is particularly ironic is that we are discussing on here unelected beauro's and it was cited it as a reason for voting Leave to (insert 3 word Mantra) " Take back control" yet Liar Johnson has already proved a master at doing the opposite with ths tactic

You're absolutely right Woolfie, I only included the two in Johnson's cabinet as they have an immediate and profound impact on what happens in this country at the highest level, but there are indeed other 'unelected bureaucrats' as you rightly pointed out - something that Leavers were against, or so they said.  I don't hear them decrying it in our system, even though it doesn't actually happen in the EU infrastructure, only in the minds of those who read the Mail, Express, Sun etc etc!

[Not Now Kato]

More empty slogans to fool the gullible from Dominic Cummings....
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aO-YTQ94jA&feature=youtu.be
 
And you're paying for them!
 
Check Change Go, what does that even mean?

[Herbert Anchovy]

NNK

Of course I put ‘can’ rather than ‘will’ because who knows when and if we will renationalise the railways? The point is that we CAN do it if we wish. If we remained in the EU then it’s impossible.

I’m not sure where you’ve cut and past your references to the fourth rail package but you’re not painting the full picture here.
State ownership is allowed, however one organisation (state owned or otherwise) cannot own all aspects of the network! So, by default full state ownership cannot happen! Also, current ownership of part infrastructure can and will be relinquished in some areas. Some private and state owned routes in Europe are being forced through a procurement process for ownership.

Over the past couple of years a number of European countries have been fined by the EU for ‘back door’ state ownership. This is where state ownership hides behind a private organisation. Despite what you may think, the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures and the primary purpose of the package is to, at best dissuade and at worst prevent, railway nationalisation.

Can I demonstrate that rail nationalisation benefits the people of the UK? Do I really need to answer that? Have you used trains since privatisation?

[selby]

 The Irish have found out to their cost just what they can and can't do in their own country. It has just cost them 13 billion euro.
  At the risk of being called biased, I think if this had happened in the UK, Apple would be accused of having friends in high places.

[Not Now Kato]

NNK

Of course I put ‘can’ rather than ‘will’ because who knows when and if we will renationalise the railways? The point is that we CAN do it if we wish. If we remained in the EU then it’s impossible.

I’m not sure where you’ve cut and past your references to the fourth rail package but you’re not painting the full picture here.
State ownership is allowed, however one organisation (state owned or otherwise) cannot own all aspects of the network! So, by default full state ownership cannot happen! Also, current ownership of part infrastructure can and will be relinquished in some areas. Some private and state owned routes in Europe are being forced through a procurement process for ownership.

Over the past couple of years a number of European countries have been fined by the EU for ‘back door’ state ownership. This is where state ownership hides behind a private organisation. Despite what you may think, the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures and the primary purpose of the package is to, at best dissuade and at worst prevent, railway nationalisation.

Can I demonstrate that rail nationalisation benefits the people of the UK? Do I really need to answer that? Have you used trains since privatisation?

I haven't cut or pasted a single thing in my reply HA.  Whenever I have done that in any post I have always inserted my C&P inside a quote box, followed by an attribution link below it.  What I have posted above is from my own understanding, neither more nor less.
 
I would disagree with your statement that the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures though I understand what you're saying.  Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the EU would prefer to see an open competitive marketplace for the benefit of customers. The 'state' is completely free to compete with private enterprise if it can.
 
As to your last question, I've been a regular rail traveller since 1965 so have experienced both 'nationalised' and 'privatised over a nationalised backbone' rail travel.  The former was fair at best, (poor and degenerating rolling stock, poor timekeeping, (largely due to the technology in use at the time), the latter started off well but degenerated to as bad a level as the former.  In both cases this was down to cut backs, (Dr Beeching anyone?), and lack of investment.  Re-nationalisation, in itself, will lead to no tangible benefits.  It will require significant investment from government to improve, and this is true for all forms of public and private transport.
 
At the end of the day we live in a country which now does things down to a price rather than up to a standard, and I can't see that changing any time soon.

[Herbert Anchovy]

NNK

Of course I put ‘can’ rather than ‘will’ because who knows when and if we will renationalise the railways? The point is that we CAN do it if we wish. If we remained in the EU then it’s impossible.

I’m not sure where you’ve cut and past your references to the fourth rail package but you’re not painting the full picture here.
State ownership is allowed, however one organisation (state owned or otherwise) cannot own all aspects of the network! So, by default full state ownership cannot happen! Also, current ownership of part infrastructure can and will be relinquished in some areas. Some private and state owned routes in Europe are being forced through a procurement process for ownership.

Over the past couple of years a number of European countries have been fined by the EU for ‘back door’ state ownership. This is where state ownership hides behind a private organisation. Despite what you may think, the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures and the primary purpose of the package is to, at best dissuade and at worst prevent, railway nationalisation.

Can I demonstrate that rail nationalisation benefits the people of the UK? Do I really need to answer that? Have you used trains since privatisation?

I haven't cut or pasted a single thing in my reply HA.  Whenever I have done that in any post I have always inserted my C&P inside a quote box, followed by an attribution link below it.  What I have posted above is from my own understanding, neither more nor less.
 
I would disagree with your statement that the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures though I understand what you're saying.  Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the EU would prefer to see an open competitive marketplace for the benefit of customers. The 'state' is completely free to compete with private enterprise if it can.
 
As to your last question, I've been a regular rail traveller since 1965 so have experienced both 'nationalised' and 'privatised over a nationalised backbone' rail travel.  The former was fair at best, (poor and degenerating rolling stock, poor timekeeping, (largely due to the technology in use at the time), the latter started off well but degenerated to as bad a level as the former.  In both cases this was down to cut backs, (Dr Beeching anyone?), and lack of investment.  Re-nationalisation, in itself, will lead to no tangible benefits.  It will require significant investment from government to improve, and this is true for all forms of public and private transport.
 
At the end of the day we live in a country which now does things down to a price rather than up to a standard, and I can't see that changing any time soon.

NNK

Ok, I apologise & I’ll take the first bit back.

The question is, is it a free and competitive market? One entity will not be able to manage more than one feature of the rail network. So, the state could own track management but can’t own the train management for example. Consequently, state ownership (how most people understand it) could never happen under EU law! A sovereign state cannot make the decision to renationalise. As I’ve said before, countries have received huge fines for attempting to covertly install state control and this is going to make it more difficult. What the fourth package is looking to do is to install free market principles in railways by fragmenting ownership, similar to our own railway system in the UK. While a nationalised rail network isn’t perfect, it’s certainly preferential than a free market solution.

So, to answer your original point, the freedom to completely renationalise the rail network is one advantage of leaving the EU.

[Not Now Kato]

The Irish have found out to their cost just what they can and can't do in their own country. It has just cost them 13 billion euro.
  At the risk of being called biased, I think if this had happened in the UK, Apple would be accused of having friends in high places.

I've realised now why you make statements without attributing links selby....
 

Apple and Ireland have won their appeal against the European Commission over a 13 billion euro (£11.6 billion) tax bill.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/apple-and-ireland-win-13-billion-euro-tax-appeal-39369773.html
 

Ireland wins appeal in €13 billion Apple tax case

“The outcome vindicates Ireland’s adherence, not just to Irish but also European rules, when levying taxation,” said Brian Keegan, director of public policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland. “While the amounts of money are vast and the additional tax ... would be welcome, particularly now as we struggle to pay for the cost of the pandemic, it would have been wrong to claim money that is not rightfully ours.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-wins-appeal-in-13-billion-apple-tax-case-1.4305044
 

[Glyn_Wigley]

The Irish have found out to their cost just what they can and can't do in their own country. It has just cost them 13 billion euro.
  At the risk of being called biased, I think if this had happened in the UK, Apple would be accused of having friends in high places.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53416206

It is a blow for the European Commission, which brought the case.

I can't think why you never bother to post links!

[Not Now Kato]

NNK

Of course I put ‘can’ rather than ‘will’ because who knows when and if we will renationalise the railways? The point is that we CAN do it if we wish. If we remained in the EU then it’s impossible.

I’m not sure where you’ve cut and past your references to the fourth rail package but you’re not painting the full picture here.
State ownership is allowed, however one organisation (state owned or otherwise) cannot own all aspects of the network! So, by default full state ownership cannot happen! Also, current ownership of part infrastructure can and will be relinquished in some areas. Some private and state owned routes in Europe are being forced through a procurement process for ownership.

Over the past couple of years a number of European countries have been fined by the EU for ‘back door’ state ownership. This is where state ownership hides behind a private organisation. Despite what you may think, the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures and the primary purpose of the package is to, at best dissuade and at worst prevent, railway nationalisation.

Can I demonstrate that rail nationalisation benefits the people of the UK? Do I really need to answer that? Have you used trains since privatisation?

I haven't cut or pasted a single thing in my reply HA.  Whenever I have done that in any post I have always inserted my C&P inside a quote box, followed by an attribution link below it.  What I have posted above is from my own understanding, neither more nor less.
 
I would disagree with your statement that the EU are fundamentally opposed to nationalised railway infrastructures though I understand what you're saying.  Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the EU would prefer to see an open competitive marketplace for the benefit of customers. The 'state' is completely free to compete with private enterprise if it can.
 
As to your last question, I've been a regular rail traveller since 1965 so have experienced both 'nationalised' and 'privatised over a nationalised backbone' rail travel.  The former was fair at best, (poor and degenerating rolling stock, poor timekeeping, (largely due to the technology in use at the time), the latter started off well but degenerated to as bad a level as the former.  In both cases this was down to cut backs, (Dr Beeching anyone?), and lack of investment.  Re-nationalisation, in itself, will lead to no tangible benefits.  It will require significant investment from government to improve, and this is true for all forms of public and private transport.
 
At the end of the day we live in a country which now does things down to a price rather than up to a standard, and I can't see that changing any time soon.

NNK

Ok, I apologise & I’ll take the first bit back.

The question is, is it a free and competitive market? One entity will not be able to manage more than one feature of the rail network. So, the state could own track management but can’t own the train management for example. Consequently, state ownership (how most people understand it) could never happen under EU law! A sovereign state cannot make the decision to renationalise. As I’ve said before, countries have received huge fines for attempting to covertly install state control and this is going to make it more difficult. What the fourth package is looking to do is to install free market principles in railways by fragmenting ownership, similar to our own railway system in the UK. While a nationalised rail network isn’t perfect, it’s certainly preferential than a free market solution.

So, to answer your original point, the freedom to completely renationalise the rail network is one advantage of leaving the EU.

Thank you HA. 
 
I think that the EU's principal objective here is to seek to find the best form of integration across the rail networks of member states and the major part of that are the technical compliances. That is more relative to the rail networks on mainland Europe as these are either directly interconnected or are planned to be so; our direct rail links to Europe are significantly limited and are now likely to be so for some considerable time.  In terms of open competition, the EU does not prevent a 'state' competing against private business so long as it is able to show that it is competing on a fair and level playing field; and to this end the EU is right to fine any 'state' which is trying to covertly compete illegally via a back door route.
 
I'm not sure why you say "While a nationalised rail network isn’t perfect, it’s certainly preferential than a free market solution".  It may be appealing to socialist principles, (it certainly is to mine), but for it to be a benefit of Brexit you would need to show how it will work better, (from both a financial and an operational perspective), than the model the EU is adopting.  For either to work here to our benefit would require the abandonment of vanity projects such as Cross Rail and HS2 alongside a well though out development program and serious investment.  Is that investment more likely from 'state' or from 'private enterprise'?

[SydneyRover]

More empty slogans to fool the gullible from Dominic Cummings....
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aO-YTQ94jA&feature=youtu.be
 
And you're paying for them!
 
Check Change Go, what does that even mean?

Check Change Go

Why is everything about underpants with this lot 

[IDM]

Seen the ads on the telly.  They don’t actually tell us anything practical do they.?

So what’s the point.?

[Not Now Kato]

Seen the ads on the telly.  They don’t actually tell us anything practical do they.?

So what’s the point.?

I suspect it's to be seen to be doing something to pacify the gullible whilst actually doing nothing at all!

[BillyStubbsTears]

I suspect Dominic is losing his mojo if he can't come up with owt better than Check Change Go.

That sound like someone with onset dementia going through their list before going to the shop.

[Herbert Anchovy]

I suspect Dominic is losing his mojo if he can't come up with owt better than Check Change Go.

That sound like someone with onset dementia going through their list before going to the shop.

Cummings will be gone within the next 12 months. The Tory backbenchers are beginning to flex their muscles a little.

[SydneyRover]

the Guardian live

''Michael Gove has confirmed that up to five sites in Kent will be used as Brexit border facilities as the government confirms purchase of the vast Kent site for customs clearance and a lorry park.

Just days after the Cabinet Office minister said it was not the intent to use it as a lorry park, the Department for Transport has written to residents in Ashford to confirm the move, first revealed by the Guardian on Friday''

[Not Now Kato]

Up to 12 apparently....
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-customs-centres-kent-lorry-park-eu-exit-ashford-a9616486.html

[wilts rover]

Up to 12 apparently....
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-customs-centres-kent-lorry-park-eu-exit-ashford-a9616486.html

When Cummings/Johnson said his government was all about jobs, jobs, jobs, who knew he meant tarmacers and car park attendents!

[wilts rover]

Certainly not in the banking and finance sector.

Major international banks cutting their staff in London due to fears of No Deal & UK recession. 20% less staff expected to be employed than in 2019.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-06/banks-are-ditching-london-offices-and-not-just-because-of-covid?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB