The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[Blueangel]

Oops, meant Labour's renationalisation policy.

Funny thing about renationalising the trains is that even if it were to work (which it wouldn’t) it wouldn’t help “the most vulnerable” just wealthy commuters, mainly in the South East.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Funny thing about renationalising the trains is that even if it were to work (which it wouldn’t) it wouldn’t help “the most vulnerable” just wealthy commuters, mainly in the South East.

That then begs the question; how are "the most vulnerable" benefiting from the system as it stands now?

You imply that they would be worse off under a re-nationalised rail link.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	That then begs the question; how are "the most vulnerable" benefiting from the system as it stands now? You imply that they would be worse off under a re-nationalised rail link.

Well the trains were unusable before de-nationalisation, Strikes, Dirty & rarely even ran.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Well the trains were unusable before de-nationalisation, Strikes, Dirty & rarely even ran.

Doesn't really answer the question, though.

Given my friends' frequent spitting-angry posts on FB as well as being able to view their almost daily posts to Southwestern's site, it would seem the conditions you describe above are very much still there, except you pay through the nose for it.

[Uncle Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	No need to import from the EU, unless they cut prices to match whats available in the open market.

	Quote:	Uncle Max
	Are there likely to be fewer horse meat scandals sourcing food from the broader, open market? If standards are going to equal or be better than what we currently tolerate, will costs also be lower? Curious to connect the dots.

Still curious.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Well the trains were unusable before de-nationalisation, Strikes, Dirty & rarely even ran.

There was a reason Maggie, Major and Co allowed that to happen. It's not been seen as a good thing.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Uncle Max
	There was a reason Maggie, Major and Co allowed that to happen. It's not been seen as a good thing.

I disagree, what Maggie did was amazing, she turned the UK around. Poor people paid 34% base rate tax on income above £720 a year when she came into office.
Major was wet & never achieved anything.

	Quote:
	That then begs the question; how are "the most vulnerable" benefiting from the system as it stands now? You imply that they would be worse off under a re-nationalised rail link.

They don't benefit from the system as it stands now for the simple reason that poor people tend not to use the train regularly.

I didn't imply they'd be worse off. I'm stating any policy change regarding trains will have little to no effect on those worse off.

[Uncle Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I disagree, what Maggie did was amazing, she turned the UK around. Poor people paid 34% base rate tax on income above £720 a year when she came into office. Major was wet & never achieved anything.

Privatisation worked out well for Railtrack and the London Underground Privatisation is the worst thing to do for railways, but selling the fambly silver for a quick buck provided only benefits to shareholders at the expense of the nation... and cost the lives of many. Be wary of triumphing free market economics at the expense of national interest.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Uncle Max
	Privatisation worked out well for Railtrack and the London Underground Privatisation is the worst thing to do for railways, but selling the fambly silver for a quick buck provided only benefits to shareholders at the expense of the nation... and cost the lives of many. Be wary of triumphing free market economics at the expense of national interest.

Those train lines were not an asset but a huge liability, far better to sell it off to mugs.

[Uncle Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Those train lines were not an asset but a huge liability, far better to sell it off to mugs.

Well, if the only motivation is short term self interest, I suppose you have a point. Bit tough on those who lost their lives due to such attitudes, but who cares?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Uncle Max
	Well, if the only motivation is short term self interest, I suppose you have a point. Bit tough on those who lost their lives due to such attitudes, but who cares?

It's not short term at all, it's in the countries long term interest that the government does not operate everything. Remember communism?
Who lost their lives due to the sale of the railways

[Uncle Max]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	It's not short term at all, it's in the countries long term interest that the government does not operate everything. Remember communism? Who lost their lives due to the sale of the railways

I agree the government shouldn't operate everything. Referring to Communism is a red herring.

Many hundreds of people lost their lives due to negligence of the privatised infrastructure stakeholders. It's the precise reason Railtrack became nationalised not-for-dividend Network Rail. Would it change your mind if I went to the trouble of linking news reports, or can you take care of that bit yourself?

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I disagree, what Maggie did was amazing, she turned the UK around. Poor people paid 34% base rate tax on income above £720 a year when she came into office. Major was wet & never achieved anything.

Ah yes, Maggie. One of the main architects of the Single Market.

[marton]

Britain will pay £44.5m for extra security measures in France to prevent another refugee camp forming in Calais or any other Channel port, Theresa May is to announce.

Source

Another Brexit cost; likely the UK will also likely pay France to increase British border checks that are carried out in France to avoid impossible handling of post Brexit goods imports in British ports.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Uncle Max
	I agree the government shouldn't operate everything. Referring to Communism is a red herring. Many hundreds of people lost their lives due to negligence of the privatised infrastructure stakeholders. It's the precise reason Railtrack became nationalised not-for-dividend Network Rail. Would it change your mind if I went to the trouble of linking news reports, or can you take care of that bit yourself?

Your saying the safety record was better before which I think is a red herring

Of course driverless trains will make it so much safer in the future.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Of course driverless trains will make it so much safer in the future.

Our railways are massively outdated compared to most of our "peer" nations. Bringing railways up to the spec required for driverless operation would cost an astronomical amount. Private companies aren't going to fund this.

Whilst not all industry is best served by nationalisation, the current state of our railways - massive underinvestment, managed decline, bailing out failing franchises with taxpayer money whilst watching profits sail abroad to Germany, the Netherlands and Hong Kong really points to the fact that even in the worst case scenario, nationalisation would be of benefit.

[Chuff]

	Quote:	marton
	Britain will pay £44.5m for extra security measures in France to prevent another refugee camp forming in Calais or any other Channel port, Theresa May is to announce. Source Another Brexit cost; likely the UK will also likely pay France to increase British border checks that are carried out in France to avoid impossible handling of post Brexit goods imports in British ports.

£45m is preferable to the long-term cost of processing and paying for thousands of opportunistic migrants once they reach the UK would be far higher.

	Quote:	Chuff
	£45m is preferable to the long-term cost of processing and paying for thousands of opportunistic migrants once they reach the UK would be far higher.

Maybe the opportunistic ones are few and far between though (is there such a thing as an opportunistic migrant who has parted with most of his life-savings to give to traffickers, travelled from, say, Africa in a leaky rubber dinghy over rough seas with dozens of others, then trekked across a thousand miles of mainland Europe?).

More likely they are "determined" and "purposeful", in which case border patrols in Calais isn't going to really stop them.

	Quote:
	Our railways are massively outdated compared to most of our "peer" nations. Bringing railways up to the spec required for driverless operation would cost an astronomical amount. Private companies aren't going to fund this. Whilst not all industry is best served by nationalisation, the current state of our railways - massive underinvestment, managed decline, bailing out failing franchises with taxpayer money whilst watching profits sail abroad to Germany, the Netherlands and Hong Kong really points to the fact that even in the worst case scenario, nationalisation would be of benefit.

Please google "Network Rail". The company responsible for bringing the railways up to spec is already nationalised