PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

General Election June 8
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Government and Society
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fuzzy



Joined: 29 Nov 2013
Posts: 1141
Location: The Marches, UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Peter wrote:
Lord Beria3 wrote:
Worst case scenario, and we can't bring down the divorce bill to half that or less, then yes, because remaining a long-term member of the EU would mean yearly net contributions into the EU coffers of billions anyway.*



I'd be interested to see a costing of replicating all the regulatory bodies etc. which we get from our membership of the EU,


Peter.


If we did have to replicate the vast admin structure - which we don't, it would be spending British taxpayer money in Britain, supporting the local economy, not giving it away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 5032
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very true.

Remaining in the EU would also ensure that Corbyn would not be able to bring his socialism to the UK economy.

Under EU laws, it is illegal to provide state aid to a national industry. This is why Corbyn has always supported Brexit, he is after all a Bennite and hostile to the EU.

Surprising why his Remain supporting base of supporters never understand that.

Socialism in one country is incompatible with membership of the existing EU.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 10864
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Beria3 wrote:
Very true.

Remaining in the EU would also ensure that Corbyn would not be able to bring his socialism to the UK economy.


What planet are you living on?

You think remaining in the EU will stop Corbyn from raising corporation tax, aggressively going after tax avoiders, closing loopholes, renationalising the railways and post office, and investing in public services? How?

Quote:

Under EU laws, it is illegal to provide state aid to a national industry.


Eh? Where on earth are you getting your information from? The EU cannot stop the British government from nationalising the railways.

Quote:

Socialism in one country is incompatible with membership of the existing EU.


Total bullshit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7809
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is true that nationalising the railways and other key industries is possible under the EU. But, so far as I understand it, the new EU rules that came out in 2016 are open to interpretation on whether that is going to be in breach of the requirement to "liberalise" these markets.

In terms of the EU rules precluding individual governments subsidising their national industries. This is true.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/eu-cracks-down-subsidies-struggling-steelworks-belgium

Which leads onto the question of whether nationalising a specific industry, in EU regulatory terms, equates to subsidising it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 10864
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
It is true that nationalising the railways and other key industries is possible under the EU. But, so far as I understand it, the new EU rules that came out in 2016 are open to interpretation on whether that is going to be in breach of the requirement to "liberalise" these markets.

In terms of the EU rules precluding individual governments subsidising their national industries. This is true.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/eu-cracks-down-subsidies-struggling-steelworks-belgium

Which leads onto the question of whether nationalising a specific industry, in EU regulatory terms, equates to subsidising it?


The UK government already subsidises the rail industry. If it didn't, the thing would grind to a halt.

It is not an industry at all. It is a public service, like the NHS. Does the government "subsidise" the road network? Are roads an industry? What is the difference?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7809
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, there's a question.

My guess is anything that can make money for private investors will be deemed to be an "industry" and anything that just costs money will be deemed to be "infrastructure"

Just a guess
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1859

PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The privatization of the railways was a blatant heist. At the outset there are three distinct organisations .
1: Train Operating Companies TOCs - such as Southern who have the right to run the train service on the said franchise (certainly in the case of Southern they are incompetent at doing this)
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/train-operating-companies/
2: The Train Leasing Companies - TLCs. The TOCs do not own the rolling stock - the TLCs do. They charge the TOCs a set rate of interest for the "privilege" of using the rolling stock
http://www.orr.gov.uk/about-orr/who-we-work-with/industry-organisations/rolling-stock-companies
3: Network Rail - Railtrack was its previous incarnation.
A not-for-profit organisation that is responsible for all the track, stations, signalling tunnels, bridges, etc
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/

In short it is a complete farce. Many of the TOCs now operating in the UK are French, Dutch, German rail entities (there are others I'm fairly certain on that) that are milking the system for all it is worth.

http://actionforrail.org/the-four-big-myths-of-uk-rail-privatisation/

Quote:
Myth 4 UK rail privatisation is a better deal for the taxpayer
◾The cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation from 2.4bn per year (199091 to 199495) to approximately 5.4bn per year (200506 to 200910).
◾Official figures show that all but one of the private train operators in the UK receive more in subsidies than they return in the form of franchise payments to the government. In 201314, the government contributed 3.8bn to the UK rail industry.
◾The top five recipients of public subsidy alone received almost 3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of 504m over 90 per cent (466m) of which was paid to shareholders


A nationalisation would see a reduction in overall Govt subsidises but it would p*** off the European rail cos milking the system dry. Good.

The whole lot should be redone as a workers' cooperative not-for-profit organisation whereby everything - rolling stock, track etc is owned by them and that any profit generated is ploughed back into the infrastructure.
In the long run this will work out cheaper than the present fiasco
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7809
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not a fiasco if you are one of the one's milking it. And, since the purpose of the privatisation was in order to allow private concerns to milk it, on those terms it is a roaring success.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 10864
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
Well, there's a question.

My guess is anything that can make money for private investors will be deemed to be an "industry"...


See: M6 Toll

Very handy when you need to avoid the traffic in Birmingham to get on holiday on time....

And maybe, given this is powerswitch, we should talk about the canal network, which is where I was going when I paid to use the M6 toll to get to Shropshire on time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 2159

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nationalising a company can be considered to be state aid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Beria3



Joined: 25 Feb 2009
Posts: 5032
Location: Moscow Russia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly John.

Which is why Corbyn quite rightly has been very sceptical of the EU for decades.
_________________
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1859

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Little John wrote:
It's not a fiasco if you are one of the one's milking it. And, since the purpose of the privatisation was in order to allow private concerns to milk it, on those terms it is a roaring success.


It is a fiasco for the following:
1) Rail commuters - who are paying well over the odds for a rail service ( a not particularly good one at that in the case of Southern)
2) the taxpayer who is forking out well over the odds for such a service

It is not a fiasco for the parasitic companies sucking up all the cash.

The real issue here is that above said parasitic industries that have sprung up as part of a rentier economy would be wiped out if the railways were renationalised.

This rentier economy is a direct result of "Neoliberal" policies that the EU are vigorously pursuing. It will ultimately lead to the disintegration of the EU because its leaders have their heads stuck in the sand.

This disintegration process will lead to European conflict - the kind of war that the EU was designed to avoid (not NATO - a highly inefficient organisation that has no real meaning as a DEFENSE force )
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1859

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
Nationalising a company can be considered to be state aid.


Whereas the UK Govt shelling out for other nationalised rail companies to "run our railways" isn't?

Weird definitions involved there if that is the case.
Still wondering why Brexit happened?
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UndercoverElephant



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 10864
Location: south east England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

raspberry-blower wrote:

Still wondering why Brexit happened?


It hasn't happened, yet. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 2159

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

raspberry-blower wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:
Nationalising a company can be considered to be state aid.


Whereas the UK Govt shelling out for other nationalised rail companies to "run our railways" isn't?

Weird definitions involved there if that is the case.
Still wondering why Brexit happened?

If the government tenders out for something and various people apply and the government picks one of the tenderers on objective grounds then that is not selective.

If the government gives a grant to a specific organisation which is competing with other organisations then that is selective state aid.

It is, of course, possible for governments to go around subsidising specific organisations that they wish to subsidise other than through generally availables rules (taxation policy etc). However, as a general principle I would think most people would prefer that the government does not get involved in picking winners and losers.

The fact that the rules of this are established internationally as part of trade agreements is not surprising.

Here is an article about the limits established by the WTO, for example.

http://1exagu1grkmq3k572418odoooym-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AFTER-BREXIT.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Government and Society All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 29 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group