General Election June 8

What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

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.
User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Post by Lord Beria3 »

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
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11256
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

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?
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.
Socialism in one country is incompatible with membership of the existing EU.
Total bullshit.
Little John
Posts: 8702
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

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/20 ... ks-belgium

Which leads onto the question of whether nationalising a specific industry, in EU regulatory terms, equates to subsidising it?
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11256
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

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/20 ... ks-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?
Little John
Posts: 8702
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

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
raspberry-blower
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:26 am

Post by raspberry-blower »

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-t ... 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- ... -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-m ... atisation/
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 (1990–91 to 1994–95) to approximately £5.4bn per year (2005–06 to 2009–10).
◾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 2013–14, 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.
Little John
Posts: 8702
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:07 am
Location: UK

Post by Little John »

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.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11256
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

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.
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

Nationalising a company can be considered to be state aid.
User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5064
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Post by Lord Beria3 »

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
raspberry-blower
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:26 am

Post by raspberry-blower »

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.
raspberry-blower
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 11:26 am

Post by raspberry-blower »

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.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11256
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Post by UndercoverElephant »

raspberry-blower wrote: Still wondering why Brexit happened?
It hasn't happened, yet. :D
johnhemming2
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm

Post by johnhemming2 »

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-wpen ... BREXIT.pdf
Post Reply