Off Topic So, what now?

That report was using data between 2008 and 2017 wiz, so almost entirely pre-referendum. It's also in the Daily Express, which is only just behind the Daily Mail and The Sun in the amount of lies it prints.

 

ITS GREAT to watch PMQ's
again TM not only put JC in his place, but also another shadow front bencher woman sat about 5 places away from him that tried to interject when TM was answering a Q …. . when the camera panned on to her she had a face like a slapped horses a**… Blackford makes me sad to be half Scots … he was also made to look a t**t, not only by TM X3 but also by 2/3 other MPS especially the DUP one who was very vitriolic toward his comments.
and later the SNP/ leader took another hit from a Scots MP's Q when the answer by TM explained money is paid to Scotland part of the UK and his party ? via Nicola's [ "im keeping my head down!] lot doesn't do what should be done with it ….. THEN THE COUP DE GRACE …. independent figures out today show that Scotlands economy /trade /whatever EXPORTS 60% of its gross to other UK …3-4 TIMES MORE THAN TO WHOLE of EU, & 3 or more times to rest of the world … he didn't have time to leave the house quick enough, like he did last night before he could be responded to after his major BOOB about the Good Friday agreement …
my own question..
is JC and Blackford identical twins existing in opposite shaped bodies ?

 

I am well aware of the rules of staying in the customs union , which is why Labours suggestion to stay in doesn’t stack up. I’m suggesting we reach a deal to stay close , but not in , allowing the EU access to our market whilst we have access to theirs, it may mean limited tariffs on both sides. This would also mean we can also make deals with other countries.

 

Yeah that's the dream scenario of course, but how is that done? How do you only stay partly in without a border? If you're only partly in then some things would need checks. If you want Ireland to stay border-free then I'm afraid that means being in balls deep so to speak .

 

We’re going round and round Rob, the Irish are insisting if there’s a hard Brexit there won’t be a hard border , but if we want a soft Brexit there will have to be a backstop to avoid a hard border, that’s what doesn’t add up.

Well actually it does they will say anything to try to keep us from having a soft, or as I call it , a reasonable Brexit.

 

Yeah that's exactly the problem mate. But the issue is that it's mainly our fault. The EU suggested a border in the Irish Sea, we rejected it. We suggested the backstop, they accepted, now we're saying we don't want it. It's just our useless politicians, standard!

Don't really want any more arguments, I think it's healthy discussion in the main even if it is heated. I've got no problem with those who want Brexit and those who understand how we achieve it. But it's the whole 'we MUST go no deal Brexit' despite all of the obvious problems and impossibilities that I take issue with.

Also that video above is fecking brilliant.

 

The only thing that the new system will almost certainly rule out is state monopolies that do not have to compete with rivals to win franchises, renationalised or otherwise."

You posted that. nationalised industry works in the best interests of society not competitors and rivals fella. Look at the state of our trains??? profit goes to shareholders rather than benefit tax payers and society.

 

That is what the EU does - Greece. It is not dissimilar. The Greeks stood up to the EU and an example was made of them.

 

You can have a nationalised asset that still competes with rivals. In fact it's more likely to win contracts if it is under no obligation to make a profit.

 

I said I would not comment but there is a humorous element to this. No profit? Communism.

So you have finally conceded the point that the state cannot take universal control of utilities. You want devolved ownership. I move onto rail (again) where the state runs the elements that require the most resources to support them, lose money, make no profit but private enterprise takes the cream.

That devolved ownership loses the socio economic benefit of state ownership.

 

Where did I mention 'universal control' of utilities? Or do you just read what you want to read?

And if a state-owned company competed for contracts, won them on the basis that they don't actually need to deliver a profit, how on earth does that equal communism? Going by that logic, anything that is ever state-subsidised automatically equals communism! Laughable! I'm really beginning to think you're a troll because that is ridiculous.

I hope you guys have never got on a subsidised bus to Ashton Gate. You communist bastards!

 

Going by your logic (?) you were using a out there world where corporate interest bids for contracts they would make no money from as if they have altruistic nature.​

You again miss the point or fail to understand it. You are again are talking about devolved ownership. I initially posted about the nationalisation of utilities. The two are not the same. Nationalisation of utilities is universal control - there is no competition for control of contracts. You disagreed with the fact I had posted and then posted a link that highlighted it was correct - The people of this Country could vote to a man and women in the same direction, and this Isle under EU rule could not nationalise its railway network.

 

So if nothing is or even can be nationalised, and if nationalisation is 'communism', then what on earth are you moaning about?!

 

Again you missed, or could not understand the point. Nationalisation is not communism because in this case it would exist with a capitalist system. It was yourself who was attributing differing values to the concept.

Moaning is what you do … I answered your own question in regards to what I dislike about the EU. I used the example of nationalisation as an example of how if that was the wish of the populace the EU can deny democratic choice.

 

I always feel that we pay in one hell of a lot of money into the EU but seem to get very little out from it.....The amount of projects across Spain that I've seen have been built using EU funds..Barcelona was practically run down until funds were made available (Olympics era) .....I don't see too many projects in this country benefiting in the same way. I'm sure there has been, but all I see are rules and regulations that tend to restrict businesses trying to be successful.. Just my simple view!!!

 

why cant we run our water on our own? gas? electricity? trains? why must rivals be involved?

 

It's a fair point. Arguably, access to the single market and free trade is worth the amount of money we pay. But if you take a look at Google, there are all sorts of projects in the UK that the EU has contributed towards. The most prominent one in our local area might be the Science Park in Emersons Green.

And while you are right in that we pay 'one hell of a lot of money' in, I've just looked at the figures for 2016, and it's just 1.2% of what our country spends in a year. According to the ONS anyways. We waste a lot more on other things...

 

Because without competition, what's stopping the Government massively overcharging us? They would then set the prices and could choose what they want, fair or not, i.e. a monopoly, which the EU is trying to prevent. At least this way, the consumer (theoretically) shouldn't get shafted.