As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we can't negotiate our own trade deals but have the EUs trade deals imposed on us without us having a say' or the mythical 'Corbyn customs union where uniquely we can negotiate our own trade deals and not comply with many of the rules' or who knows what the Tory rebels want customs union or a customs partnership or a ten mile NI buffer zone or who knows what.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
The plane service from Leamington to London is shocking.
Until and unless the ECJ gives a definitive ruling, no-one can know.
As an aside, but a related one, I'm not convinced that the PM (or anyone else) has the legal power to request a revocation of the A50 notice. The Act that granted her the power to send it *only* granted that power, not any equivalent one to back out. I suspect that parliament would need to pass a new law before any PM could do so.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
They are basically Corbyn lite
Indeed (well, I'd say more mini-Corbyn than Corbyn-lite: they're full strength, just a tiddly version). But that being so, why would anyone vote for them? They'd have much more fertile opportunities if they reverted to ecologism - but that would mean getting out of the cities.
Until and unless the ECJ gives a definitive ruling, no-one can know.
As an aside, but a related one, I'm not convinced that the PM (or anyone else) has the legal power to request a revocation of the A50 notice. The Act that granted her the power to send it *only* granted that power, not any equivalent one to back out. I suspect that parliament would need to pass a new law before any PM could do so.
Hahaha, the Golden rule of Brexit strikes again...
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
Nope. Cars not viable on commute into city. Zero competition.
There are a lot of commuter busses in the South East, Its £5 k per annum for a rail season ticket on many routes so you can halve that by taking the bus instead. (if you don't mind that it takes twice the time)
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
Nope. Cars not viable on commute into city. Zero competition.
There are a lot of commuter busses in the South East, Its £5 k per annum for a rail season ticket on many routes so you can halve that by taking the bus instead. (if you don't mind that it takes twice the time)
I had a friend who commuted from Cardiff to Greenwich by bus because it was cheaper, even though it meant the days he needed to be in Greenwich (three a week) lasted 22 hours.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
They are basically Corbyn lite
That's lazy - are the Tories UKIP lite?
Well the lazy equivalent of that is saying that Labour are Greens lite which may have been the case under Blair/Brown. The positions have been reversed if Greens are now the lighter version - nobody calls UKIP "Tories lite".
Monopolies don't rely on their being LITERALLY no other way of doing things. The reality is that for many people, the trains present the only realistic way of getting around.
That means introducing competition at the logically prior stage of who runs the service and keeping the government's beady eye on the chosen provider as watchman.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we can't negotiate our own trade deals but have the EUs trade deals imposed on us without us having a say' or the mythical 'Corbyn customs union where uniquely we can negotiate our own trade deals and not comply with many of the rules' or who knows what the Tory rebels want customs union or a customs partnership or a ten mile NI buffer zone or who knows what.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we can't negotiate our own trade deals but have the EUs trade deals imposed on us without us having a say' or the mythical 'Corbyn customs union where uniquely we can negotiate our own trade deals and not comply with many of the rules' or who knows what the Tory rebels want customs union or a customs partnership or a ten mile NI buffer zone or who knows what.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
Easy solution: Unilateral declaration of Free Trade -
No Tariffs. No silly rules on 'contrary of origin' and stuff like that. Almost no paperwork.
And Free Trade deals with any country or group of country's that want one, including the EU, that covers dispute resolution, intellectual property and stuff like that (also give the over nation the option of lowering tariffs on UK if they wish, but not if they don't what)
And watch the standard of living, productivity, and GDP all go up massively. Soon enough the rest of the would will catch on and we can all live in a rich and tariff free would.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
They are basically Corbyn lite
That's lazy - are the Tories UKIP lite?
UKIP grew under Cameron when the Tories were seen as too centrist and Europhile for rightwingers, just as the Greens grew under Blair and Brown when Labour were seen as too centrist for socialists.
At the last general election with the Tories committed to Brexit and Labour led by a socialist both UKIP and the Greens got about 1% each
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we can't negotiate our own trade deals but have the EUs trade deals imposed on us without us having a say' or the mythical 'Corbyn customs union where uniquely we can negotiate our own trade deals and not comply with many of the rules' or who knows what the Tory rebels want customs union or a customs partnership or a ten mile NI buffer zone or who knows what.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
No but it is cut off from the rest of its country - an EU member state - and is only bordered by another country - a country with which it has a customs union arrangement which is outside the EU customs union.
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we at.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
Easy solution: Unilateral declaration of Free Trade -
No Tariffs. No silly rules on 'contrary of origin' and stuff like that. Almost no paperwork.
And Free Trade deals with any country or group of country's that want one, including the EU, that covers dispute resolution, intellectual property and stuff like that (also give the over nation the option of lowering tariffs on UK if they wish, but not if they don't what)
And watch the standard of living, productivity, and GDP all go up massively. Soon enough the rest of the would will catch on and we can all live in a rich and tariff free would.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we can't negotiate our own trade deals but have the EUs trade deals imposed on us without us having a say' or the mythical 'Corbyn customs union where uniquely we can negotiate our own trade deals and not comply with many of the rules' or who knows what the Tory rebels want customs union or a customs partnership or a ten mile NI buffer zone or who knows what.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
Easy solution: Unilateral declaration of Free Trade -
No Tariffs. No silly rules on 'contrary of origin' and stuff like that. Almost no paperwork.
And Free Trade deals with any country or group of country's that want one, including the EU, that covers dispute resolution, intellectual property and stuff like that (also give the over nation the option of lowering tariffs on UK if they wish, but not if they don't what)
And watch the standard of living, productivity, and GDP all go up massively. Soon enough the rest of the would will catch on and we can all live in a rich and tariff free would.
If only people of intelligence and positivity like you were in charge, eh?
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
They are basically Corbyn lite
Indeed (well, I'd say more mini-Corbyn than Corbyn-lite: they're full strength, just a tiddly version). But that being so, why would anyone vote for them? They'd have much more fertile opportunities if they reverted to ecologism - but that would mean getting out of the cities.
I get the impression that many 'Greens' hate the countryside and the people who live there.
But there's certainly and electoral niche they could have which had previously been filled by the LibDems and then UKIP.
I would love to see them properly privatized, but I must also live in a would where there are other people who have other preferences. I don't see the same risks about monopoly in the industry. But many do, including people on here and therefor to move the discussion forward and to look at compromises that will account for that concerns over monopoly's. There is 'open Access' the opening of keeping the track and trains in separate organisations and having competition across the network, NR selling slots on its network like and airport sells slots on its runway. Lots of train operating company's on each line maybe just a few minuets behind each other.
At the time of privatization in 1995, the perception was that railways where on a long term decline and a system had to be built to account for them, since that time the number of passengers has gone up massively and most (all bar one in England IIRC) of the franchises are now profitable so the need to have a set minimum number of trains has gone away (in England at least)
Anybody interested, here is a good video about how open access works and the success it has had when tried:
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
The decline of traditional family structures has tended to benefit middle class children (where such structures remain the norm) at the expense of working class children.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
The biggest reason why Trump etc have imposed tariffs is cheap imports of manufactured goods, particularly from Asia and Mexico for example, undermining domestic producers. New Zealand has a strong exporting industry for New Zealand lamb while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
The plane service from Leamington to London is shocking.
Railways have a massive amount of competition: from busses, coaches, planes, taxis and cars.
And since when did any MP lose their jobs over BR's sometimes appalling service? Can you name one MP who did?
The sad thing is that railways will never be at the forefront of the public's minds, and only at politicians' when they go wrong, as at the moment. The priority will always be education, health, defence etc.
Point 1 is simply blinkered - there are lots of people who have no realistic alternative to the train service. Tell someone commuting from Godalming to London that they can take a plane or a taxi! They could at a pinch go by road but it will take significantly longer.
Your other point is, as I said earlier, a matter of democratic choice. If voters don't care as much about rail travel as they do about education, then it's right that public subsidies should go into education rather than railways, until such time as voter opinion changes.
Moreover, the question that we're discussing - whether the railway should be publicly owned or not - is also something that should be decided by popular choice. It appears that most people want public ownership, but we don't really know how strongly they want it. Let parties put it (or something else) into their manifestos and people will give it whatever weight they think appropriate.
Oooh, feisty.
Yes, there are some people for whom rail is vital, but then that's the case for everything: there are some people for whom a boat is a vital service. And if there is an alternative - even if it takes longer then it is not a monopoly, especially when the slower alternative is usually much cheaper. If there is that alternative, it becomes a choice - you may decide the extra time with your family is vital or, as an ex-colleague of mine did, use a cheaper bus service and use the time to read and escape the family.
" whether the railway should be publicly owned or not - is also something that should be decided by popular choice."
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
Hi HYDF, yes the smaller the unit is, the easy it is to 'see' Unilateral free trade working, Singapore as you say but also Hon Kong, are good examples of city states. but virtually Unilateral free trade also works in New Zealand which as I am sure you know is big agricultural exporter. and in the past the abolition of the Corn Laws was a big boost to the UK in the 1840s.
The economic 'Theory Of Competitive Advantage' holds true regardless of the size of the country involved. and in the 200 years since it was first explained by David Ricardo, has worked every time it has been implemented, to the extent that it has been implemented.
The problem is that it seems counter intuitive on first look, and more significantly is going to be opposed by small special interest groups. bigger country have more spechil interest groups.
Normally, the way to 'sell' the idea of free trad it to emphasis the resipricosaty of it, e.g. the Common market or other Free trade agreements. in reality there is very little additional advantage to the UK of other nations lowering there tariffs to us.
The unickness of our currant predicament means that, we could briefly at least get a majority for free trad, Remain supporters that have been saying how important it is that wee keep trading with the EU and leavers who say we can trade with the rest of the would.
Maybe I am deluding my self on getting a popular support, but the option of being a very rich coutary is there if, if we want it.
I think there are two issues to get right for running the railways well.
1. Appropriate performances measures and rewards for all involved in running the railways. Bonuses based on share price for top managers is not a good measure. Neither is votes for politicians. We need a structure that is neither traditional nationalisation nor traditional private enterprise.
2. Adequate funding for long term investment. Short term franchises frustrate that. So does Government prioritisation in annual budgets.
It needs some energetic non-ideological creative thinking. Grayling can't do it. Perhaps Gove?
On 2, I don't think that's true. A lot of new trains have been built recently.
What is more of a problem is renewing and upgrading the infrastructure. Until a couple of years ago NR was borrowing against the value of the network. Now it is nationalised, they are competing with schools and hospitals for money.
I haven't heard Labour talk about HS2 much, but I think they'd get a lot of support for cancelling HS2 and proposing to spend some of that money on the existing infrastructure.
On HS2 my understanding is we are reaching the limits of what can be done with the existing space available on current infrastructure. I’m sure there are ways to do it cheaper and better but fundamentally we need more (not just better) railways lines
That's it: and these recent troubles show exactly how hard and expensive it is to provide large enhancements on existing lines that are near capacity. Although the nationalised Network Rail's incompetence has had more than a little to do with that ...
Early on in the HS2 project there was a report (Atkins?) into the alternatives, and none were particularly realistic. And in the specific case of HS2 we went through the pain a year ago with the WCML modernisation - a scheme that was late, cost about ten times the cost, and delivered much less than planned.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
Hi HYDF, yes the smaller the unit is, the easy it is to 'see' Unilateral free trade working, Singapore as you say but also Hon Kong, are good examples of city states. but virtually Unilateral free trade also works in New Zealand which as I am sure you know is big agricultural exporter. and in the past the abolition of the Corn Laws was a big boost to the UK in the 1840s.
The economic 'Theory Of Competitive Advantage' holds true regardless of the size of the country involved. and in the 200 years since it was first explained by David Ricardo, has worked every time it has been implemented, to the extent that it has been implemented.
The problem is that it seems counter to us.
The unickness of our currant predicament means that, we could briefly at least get a majority for free trad, Remain supporters that have been saying how important it is that wee keep trading with the EU and leavers who say we can trade with the rest of the would.
Maybe I am deluding my self on getting a popular support, but the option of being a very rich coutary is there if, if we want it.
There would be a big majority for universal free trade and free movement in Remain areas of the UK like London and Manchester and Edinburgh and Oxford which are full of graduates and service industry based.
However there would be much more support for tariffs and protectionism in the industrial Midlands and Wales and the North East which have a relatively high proportion of workers still employed in manufacturing industry and which are concerned about cheap imports from Asia and lack of immigration controls, especially from Eastern Europe and which voted strongly Leave in the EU referendum.
Just as New York and LA and San Francisco, the heart of US financial services and tech voted heavily for Hillary in 2016 it was the industrial manufacturing heartlands of the Midwest and Pennsylvania which saw the biggest swings towards Trump and which won him the Presidency with his promise of tariffs on imports from China, Japan and Germany and to slash the number of Mexican immigrants.
"What happens if, as a result of that vote, parliament rejects whatever deal is on offer? The government says the only other option is to leave with no deal. That is simply constitutionally wrong. In the absence of parliamentary authority, the prime minister cannot take us out of the EU on any terms at all. That is what the rule of law means.
Were the government to attempt to take us out of the EU without a deal approved by parliament, it is likely that this would be subject to a further successful court challenge. As Hope put it, “It is all about respecting the sovereignty of parliament. The law will see to that, whatever the government think, as it always does.”
"What happens if, as a result of that vote, parliament rejects whatever deal is on offer? The government says the only other option is to leave with no deal. That is simply constitutionally wrong. In the absence of parliamentary authority, the prime minister cannot take us out of the EU on any terms at all. That is what the rule of law means.
Were the government to attempt to take us out of the EU without a deal approved by parliament, it is likely that this would be subject to a further successful court challenge. As Hope put it, “It is all about respecting the sovereignty of parliament. The law will see to that, whatever the government think, as it always does.”
The government isn't "taking us out", under the terms of the treaty two years after invoking Article 50 (as authorised by parliament) we cease to be a member, that isnt UK law or subject to UK law, its European Law, and ruled on by the CJEU,
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
Easy solution: Unilateral declaration of Free Trade -
No Tariffs. No silly rules on 'contrary of origin' and stuff like that. Almost no paperwork.
And Free Trade deals with any country or group of country's that want one, including the EU, that covers dispute resolution, intellectual property and stuff like that (also give the over nation the option of lowering tariffs on UK if they wish, but not if they don't what)
And watch the standard of living, productivity, and GDP all go up massively. Soon enough the rest of the would will catch on and we can all live in a rich and tariff free would.
If only people of intelligence and positivity like you were in charge, eh?
Good arfternoon Bromptonaut,
Thanks for the message, but I should emphasis I don't want to be in charge of anything but My live, my body and my property, hence the big A next to my name.
I also don't want anybody to be in charge of anybody else life. sadly there any many people who have these grate ideas that they can make things better if only they had the power to do this or that. 1) Their ideas never work (whether its tariffs or drug laws) 2) I just don't what there to be people who have that power over me. ( be it dictators politicians or bureaucrats)
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
The biggest reason why Trump etc have imposed tariffs is cheap imports of manufactured goods, particularly from Asia and Mexico for example, undermining domestic producers. New Zealand has a strong exporting industry for New Zealand lamb while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere.
Trumps mercantalism is pretty rubbish. The approach of taxing Steel and Aluminium imports increases raw material costs, while imported finished products are the competition for US industries.
The EU is much smarter in picking on finished goods like Jeans, Bourbon and Harley Davidsons. .
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
The biggest reason why Trump etc have imposed tariffs is cheap imports of manufactured goods, particularly from Asia and Mexico for example, undermining domestic producers. New Zealand has a strong exporting industry for New Zealand lamb while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere.
Trumps mercantalism is pretty rubbish. The approach of taxing Steel and Aluminium imports increases raw material costs, while imported finished products are the competition for US industries.
The EU is much smarter in picking on finished goods like Jeans, Bourbon and Harley Davidsons. .
Depends if you work in the Steel and Aluminium production industries or not.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
Hi HYDF, yes the smaller the unit is, the easy it is to 'see' Unilateral free trade working, Singapore as you say but also Hon Kong, are good examples of city states. but virtually Unilateral free trade also works in New Zealand which as I am sure you know is big agricultural exporter. and in the past the abolition of the Corn Laws was a big boost to the UK in the 1840s.
Maybe I am deluding my self on getting a popular support, but the option of being a very rich coutary is there if, if we want it.
There would be a big majority for universal free trade and free movement in Remain areas of the UK like London and Manchester and Edinburgh and Oxford which are full of graduates and service industry based.
However there would be much more support for tariffs and protectionism in the industrial Midlands and Wales and the North East which have a relatively high proportion of workers still employed in manufacturing industry and which are concerned about cheap imports from Asia and lack of immigration controls, especially from Eastern Europe and which voted strongly Leave in the EU referendum.
Just as New York and LA and San Francisco, the heart of US financial services and tech voted heavily for Hillary in 2016 it was the industrial manufacturing heartlands of the Midwest and Pennsylvania which saw the biggest swings towards Trump and which won him the Presidency with his promise of tariffs on imports from China, Japan and Germany and to slash the number of Mexican immigrants.
HYUDF, all good points, as your normally are.
However, I don't think that the leave vote is as pro ' Trade protectionism' as you assume, I constantly here leaves taking positively about Free Trade deals with Australia or USA in very positive terms, And I remember about 18 mouth ago, a 'Question Time' in Wackfield (I think) where the audience was very Pro - Leave and in answer to a question Kate Andrews of the IEA went and advocated for Unilateral free trade and got such a big appose almost a standing ovation (it was like a Wet-dream for a boarder line Anarco-Capitalist)
On immigration I do think you are right about the divide, but its trade we are talking about.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
The biggest reason why Trump etc have imposed tariffs is cheap imports of manufactured goods, particularly from Asia and Mexico for example, undermining domestic producers. New Zealand has a strong exporting industry for New Zealand lamb while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere.
Come on HYDUF you are better than that:
'while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere'
The size is irrelevant if it was profitable to export lamb to New Zealand somebody would do it, may by not the big company's, but somebody would, if they could make a profit.
The reason they don't is simple, if New Zealand can export there lamb it is the right combination of Price/quality that customer like, and therefor 'better' than the alternatives.
The problem I have with the populist approach to nationalisation (People want it! Do it!) and thus Corbyn's approach is not nationalisation per se (broadly in favour, as long as the model is right) but that it doesn't really address the problems with the current system. A huge complaint is ticket pricing and alleged profiteering, which isn't really the case if you look at the margins train companies make and the problems with underbidding for contracts. Just nationalising the rail companies wouldn't allow you to massively improve the service or cut prices without huge subsidies - which would amount to a massive bung to the South East.
The real problem is the lack of accountability of both the government and the rail companies due to the split between the network and the trains. Central government has only kicked the can down the road on major infrastructure projects until they become absolutely unavoidable - while rail company profits are focused on the life of the franchising arrangement so on working with what they've got rather than thinking long-term. It's no coincidence that the place that the organisation that has responded most effectively to changes in demand is Tfl - where successive mayors have known their job largely depends on keeping London moving. Obviously that's not entirely replicable outside it, as networks link different metropolitan areas but they could team up to run regional networks and give them a stake in national inter-city services. It would also provide an incentive to central government to pull their fingers out on improvements - as it would be their local politicians getting the blame if they didn't. Would probably mean devolving a lot of power on transport - but that would be no bad thing and has support from people in both parties.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
Hi HYDF, yes the smaller the unit is, the easy it is to 'see' Unilateral free trade working, Singapore as you say but also Hon Kong, are good examples of city states. but virtually Unilateral free trade also works in New Zealand which as I am sure you know is big agricultural exporter. and in the past the abolition of the Corn Laws was a big boost to the UK in the 1840s.
Maybe I am deluding my self on getting a popular support, but the option of being a very rich coutary is there if, if we want it.
There would be a big majority for universal free trade and free movement in Remain areas of the UK like London and Manchester and Edinburgh and Oxford which are full of graduates and service industry based.
However there would be much more support for tariffs and protectionism in the industrial Midlands and Wales and the North East which have a relatively high proportion of workers still employed in manufactugrants.
HYUDF, all good points, as your normally are.
However, I don't think that the leave vote is as pro ' Trade protectionism' as you assume, I constantly here leaves taking positively about Free Trade deals with Australia or USA in very positive terms, And I remember about 18 mouth ago, a 'Question Time' in Wackfield (I think) where the audience was very Pro - Leave and in answer to a question Kate Andrews of the IEA went and advocated for Unilateral free trade and got such a big appose almost a standing ovation (it was like a Wet-dream for a boarder line Anarco-Capitalist)
On immigration I do think you are right about the divide, but its trade we are talking about.
Thankyou.
In the South East which voted about 51% Leave I grant you most Leavers were anti EU regulation and external protectionism and pro sovereignty above all and would be very happy with global free trade.
However in the North and Midlands which voted nearer 60% Leave it was concern about immigration and protectionist feeling which was paramount in the Leave victory there.
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
The biggest reason why Trump etc have imposed tariffs is cheap imports of manufactured goods, particularly from Asia and Mexico for example, undermining domestic producers. New Zealand has a strong exporting industry for New Zealand lamb while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere.
Come on HYDUF you are better than that:
'while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere'
The size is irrelevant if it was profitable to export lamb to New Zealand somebody would do it, may by not the big company's, but somebody would, if they could make a profit.
The reason they don't is simple, if New Zealand can export there lamb it is the right combination of Price/quality that customer like, and therefor 'better' than the alternatives.
New Zealand certainly has amongst the highest quality lamb in the world, hence they have less need to fear universal free trade
Until and unless the ECJ gives a definitive ruling, no-one can know.
As an aside, but a related one, I'm not convinced that the PM (or anyone else) has the legal power to request a revocation of the A50 notice. The Act that granted her the power to send it *only* granted that power, not any equivalent one to back out. I suspect that parliament would need to pass a new law before any PM could do so.
Hahaha, the Golden rule of Brexit strikes again...
Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
Hi HYDF, yes the smaller the unit is, the easy it is to 'see' Unilateral free trade working, Singapore as you say but also Hon Kong, are good examples of city states. but virtually Unilateral free trade also works in New Zealand which as I am sure you know is big agricultural exporter. and in the past the abolition of the Corn Laws was a big boost to the UK in the 1840s.
The economic 'Theory Of Competitive Advantage' holds true regardless of the size of the country involved. and in the 200 years since it was first explained by David Ricardo, has worked every time it has been implemented, to the extent that it has been implemented.
The problem is that it seems counter intuitive on first look, and more significantly is going to be opposed by small special interest groups. bigger country have more spechil interest groups.
Normally, the way to 'sell' the idea of free trad it to emphasis the resipricosaty of it, e.g. the Common market or other Free trade agreements. in reality there is very little additional advantage to the UK of other nations lowering there tariffs to us.
The unickness of our currant predicament means that, we could briefly at least get a majority for free trad, Remain supporters that have been saying how important it is that wee keep trading with the EU and leavers who say we can trade with the rest of the would.
Maybe I am deluding my self on getting a popular support, but the option of being a very rich coutary is there if, if we want it.
Do people advocating a NZ style slashing of tariffs really know what they’re talking about?
Our unilateral tariff (and non-tariff barrier) reduction of the mid-80s had the effect of destroying various domestic industries. These were damned at the time as inefficient and uncompetitive and there were few tears shed - unless of course you happened to lose your job.
On the plus side - clothing, electronics, and cars immediately became much cheaper. We were able to import all sorts of tat from China and still do. Our largest national retail chain - “The Warehouse” - expanded massively in this era.
On the downside, the price drop obviously didn’t extend to any quality, branded goods. In fact, quality is quite hard to find. The abundance of tat crowds out local producers, and the small size of our domestic market means it’s often not worth bothering with for quality international brands.
And, we have a persistent trade deficit - one of the largest in the OECD - and pretty much produce nothing apart from dairy and lamb, which admittedly we do very well.
Britain’s problems, which include a large trade deficit of its own, and struggling, ex-industrial regions, would not be solved by unilateral tariff reduction. There would presumably be an income effect - as in NZ - but it would make the underlying problems worse, not better.
Comments
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-governments-brexit-stance-is-riddled-with-legal-confusion
As an aside, but a related one, I'm not convinced that the PM (or anyone else) has the legal power to request a revocation of the A50 notice. The Act that granted her the power to send it *only* granted that power, not any equivalent one to back out. I suspect that parliament would need to pass a new law before any PM could do so.
Matthew Parris
I’d have voted for change but the lack of respect shown to those arguing for different moral choices is a growing trend"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/abortion-triumphalism-is-deeply-troubling-bmv9xxsdd
Monopolies don't rely on their being LITERALLY no other way of doing things. The reality is that for many people, the trains present the only realistic way of getting around.
That means introducing competition at the logically prior stage of who runs the service and keeping the government's beady eye on the chosen provider as watchman.
No Tariffs.
No silly rules on 'contrary of origin' and stuff like that.
Almost no paperwork.
And Free Trade deals with any country or group of country's that want one, including the EU, that covers dispute resolution, intellectual property and stuff like that (also give the over nation the option of lowering tariffs on UK if they wish, but not if they don't what)
And watch the standard of living, productivity, and GDP all go up massively. Soon enough the rest of the would will catch on and we can all live in a rich and tariff free would.
At the last general election with the Tories committed to Brexit and Labour led by a socialist both UKIP and the Greens got about 1% each
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/01/should-applaud-end-nuclear-family-says-top-judge/
But there's certainly and electoral niche they could have which had previously been filled by the LibDems and then UKIP.
I would love to see them properly privatized, but I must also live in a would where there are other people who have other preferences. I don't see the same risks about monopoly in the industry. But many do, including people on here and therefor to move the discussion forward and to look at compromises that will account for that concerns over monopoly's. There is 'open Access' the opening of keeping the track and trains in separate organisations and having competition across the network, NR selling slots on its network like and airport sells slots on its runway. Lots of train operating company's on each line maybe just a few minuets behind each other.
At the time of privatization in 1995, the perception was that railways where on a long term decline and a system had to be built to account for them, since that time the number of passengers has gone up massively and most (all bar one in England IIRC) of the franchises are now profitable so the need to have a set minimum number of trains has gone away (in England at least)
Anybody interested, here is a good video about how open access works and the success it has had when tried:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_IORzvFwA&t=7s
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-43259340
Still, at least it's now open.
Yes, there are some people for whom rail is vital, but then that's the case for everything: there are some people for whom a boat is a vital service. And if there is an alternative - even if it takes longer then it is not a monopoly, especially when the slower alternative is usually much cheaper. If there is that alternative, it becomes a choice - you may decide the extra time with your family is vital or, as an ex-colleague of mine did, use a cheaper bus service and use the time to read and escape the family.
" whether the railway should be publicly owned or not - is also something that should be decided by popular choice."
Remember "Education, education, education." ?
The economic 'Theory Of Competitive Advantage' holds true regardless of the size of the country involved. and in the 200 years since it was first explained by David Ricardo, has worked every time it has been implemented, to the extent that it has been implemented.
The problem is that it seems counter intuitive on first look, and more significantly is going to be opposed by small special interest groups. bigger country have more spechil interest groups.
Normally, the way to 'sell' the idea of free trad it to emphasis the resipricosaty of it, e.g. the Common market or other Free trade agreements. in reality there is very little additional advantage to the UK of other nations lowering there tariffs to us.
The unickness of our currant predicament means that, we could briefly at least get a majority for free trad, Remain supporters that have been saying how important it is that wee keep trading with the EU and leavers who say we can trade with the rest of the would.
Maybe I am deluding my self on getting a popular support, but the option of being a very rich coutary is there if, if we want it.
Early on in the HS2 project there was a report (Atkins?) into the alternatives, and none were particularly realistic. And in the specific case of HS2 we went through the pain a year ago with the WCML modernisation - a scheme that was late, cost about ten times the cost, and delivered much less than planned.
Edit: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253456/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf
However there would be much more support for tariffs and protectionism in the industrial Midlands and Wales and the North East which have a relatively high proportion of workers still employed in manufacturing industry and which are concerned about cheap imports from Asia and lack of immigration controls, especially from Eastern Europe and which voted strongly Leave in the EU referendum.
Just as New York and LA and San Francisco, the heart of US financial services and tech voted heavily for Hillary in 2016 it was the industrial manufacturing heartlands of the Midwest and Pennsylvania which saw the biggest swings towards Trump and which won him the Presidency with his promise of tariffs on imports from China, Japan and Germany and to slash the number of Mexican immigrants.
"What happens if, as a result of that vote, parliament rejects whatever deal is on offer? The government says the only other option is to leave with no deal. That is simply constitutionally wrong. In the absence of parliamentary authority, the prime minister cannot take us out of the EU on any terms at all. That is what the rule of law means.
Were the government to attempt to take us out of the EU without a deal approved by parliament, it is likely that this would be subject to a further successful court challenge. As Hope put it, “It is all about respecting the sovereignty of parliament. The law will see to that, whatever the government think, as it always does.”
https://twitter.com/maxkeiser/status/1002931662194401284
My dad saw a 'blue' fire engine in Derby recently. The reason for it is rather tosserific:
https://www.peakfm.co.uk/news/local/why-do-derbyshire-fire-and-rescue-have-a-purple-and-turquoise-fire-engine/
Thanks for the message, but I should emphasis I don't want to be in charge of anything but My live, my body and my property, hence the big A next to my name.
I also don't want anybody to be in charge of anybody else life. sadly there any many people who have these grate ideas that they can make things better if only they had the power to do this or that. 1) Their ideas never work (whether its tariffs or drug laws) 2) I just don't what there to be people who have that power over me. ( be it dictators politicians or bureaucrats)
The EU is much smarter in picking on finished goods like Jeans, Bourbon and Harley Davidsons. .
Team to play Nigeria: Pickford, Walker, Stones, Cahill, Trippier, Young, Dier, Alli, Lingard, Kane, Sterling.
Subs: Rose, Butland, Maguire, Delph, Livermore, Lofus-Cheek, Lallana, Vardy, Rashford, Welbeck, Pope, Heaton.
However, I don't think that the leave vote is as pro ' Trade protectionism' as you assume, I constantly here leaves taking positively about Free Trade deals with Australia or USA in very positive terms, And I remember about 18 mouth ago, a 'Question Time' in Wackfield (I think) where the audience was very Pro - Leave and in answer to a question Kate Andrews of the IEA went and advocated for Unilateral free trade and got such a big appose almost a standing ovation (it was like a Wet-dream for a boarder line Anarco-Capitalist)
On immigration I do think you are right about the divide, but its trade we are talking about.
NEW THREAD
'while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere'
The size is irrelevant if it was profitable to export lamb to New Zealand somebody would do it, may by not the big company's, but somebody would, if they could make a profit.
The reason they don't is simple, if New Zealand can export there lamb it is the right combination of Price/quality that customer like, and therefor 'better' than the alternatives.
In the South East which voted about 51% Leave I grant you most Leavers were anti EU regulation and external protectionism and pro sovereignty above all and would be very happy with global free trade.
However in the North and Midlands which voted nearer 60% Leave it was concern about immigration and protectionist feeling which was paramount in the Leave victory there.
Our unilateral tariff (and non-tariff barrier) reduction of the mid-80s had the effect of destroying various domestic industries. These were damned at the time as inefficient and uncompetitive and there were few tears shed - unless of course you happened to lose your job.
On the plus side - clothing, electronics, and cars immediately became much cheaper. We were able to import all sorts of tat from China and still do. Our largest national retail chain - “The Warehouse” - expanded massively in this era.
On the downside, the price drop obviously didn’t extend to any quality, branded goods. In fact, quality is quite hard to find. The abundance of tat crowds out local producers, and the small size of our domestic market means it’s often not worth bothering with for quality international brands.
And, we have a persistent trade deficit - one of the largest in the OECD - and pretty much produce nothing apart from dairy and lamb, which admittedly we do very well.
Britain’s problems, which include a large trade deficit of its own, and struggling, ex-industrial regions, would not be solved by unilateral tariff reduction. There would presumably be an income effect - as in NZ - but it would make the underlying problems worse, not better.