Off Topic So, what now?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Cliftonville said:
An irony is that the Germans remain in real control of their rail network, but run parts of the UK's, cream of the profit to invest in their state owned network and passengers here help to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Right. But you're essentially saying that the EU doesn't let us run our own. How does that work?

Red Alert said:
There is virtually bugger all left anyone wants to buy or run that's why.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not making an argument for whether it should/shouldn't. Just that it is possible.

oneforthebristolcity said:
Fact is, EU will never give us a decent deal as many of the other EU countries will follow suit....No deal will give us so much more to bargain with, it should never be taken off the table....my opinion for what it's worth!!!
Click to expand...

I would agree to some extent except that it is completely and utterly impossible. And both the UK and the EU know that, which gives the EU all of the power. Which is what we've been saying for 2 years and even now people can't work it out.

What's going to happen now? Well May will fail to get anything today and then god knows. Or May will get everything she wants today, the EU will reject it, and then god knows. At least it's interesting right?
 
I think May will fail to get anything from Brussels
Nothing will pass parliament
Deadlock in the House of Commons
Second referendum - which Remain wins
We don’t exit - citing the later result as the reason
Riots on the streets - martial law imposed
Armageddon
(Bristol City’s promotion to the prem goes unnoticed..!!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneforthebristolcity
BCFCRob said:
Right. But you're essentially saying that the EU doesn't let us run our own. How does that work?



Yeah I'm not making an argument for whether it should/shouldn't. Just that it is possible.



I would agree to some extent except that it is completely and utterly impossible. And both the UK and the EU know that, which gives the EU all of the power. Which is what we've been saying for 2 years and even now people can't work it out.

What's going to happen now? Well May will fail to get anything today and then god knows. Or May will get everything she wants today, the EU will reject it, and then god knows. At least it's interesting right?
Click to expand...
A no deal is awful for us , but even worse for Eire, if we go to the EU with an alternative to their version of the backstop, that’s backed by a large parliamentary vote I’m sure they will listen , the alternative is something no one wants. But we have to keep no deal as our backstop .
 
bcfcredandwhite said:
I think May will fail to get anything from Brussels
Nothing will pass parliament
Deadlock in the House of Commons
Second referendum - which Remain wins
We don’t exit - citing the later result as the reason
Riots on the streets - martial law imposed
Armageddon
(Bristol City’s promotion to the prem goes unnoticed..!!)
Click to expand...
Always better to be under the radar mate, look at last year we are the laughing stock as other fans expect us to fall. But under the radar they won’t snipe at us on Facebook.
Riots could be fun, I’ve my eye on a big TV that the Mrs says is too expensive, and not really needed. Can’t wait to see the look on her face when I get it. When’s the riots starting?
 
AshtonRed said:
A no deal is awful for us , but even worse for Eire, if we go to the EU with an alternative to their version of the backstop, that’s backed by a large parliamentary vote I’m sure they will listen , the alternative is something no one wants. But we have to keep no deal as our backstop .
Click to expand...

In what way is it even worse for Ireland?

Red Alert said:
Basically everything has been sold off and that's the way it will stay while in the EU.
Click to expand...

So why are most EU countries railways nationalised if that’s the case?
 
BCFCRob said:
Oh I’m not doubting it would be bad. But all things considered (economics and the rest) we will be screwed over more than them.
Click to expand...
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Without access to our market , or with limited access, they would be completely screwed.

It’s one of the reasons they are so opposed to a hard border, & it’s also paradoxically why come what may there will not be a no deal Brexit, when push comes to shove it’s not in their interest either.
 
Last edited:
AshtonRed said:
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Without access to our market , or with limited access, they would be completely screwed.

It’s one of the reasons they are so opposed to a hard border, & it’s also paradoxically why come what may there will not be a no deal Brexit, when push comes to shove it’s not in their interest either.
Click to expand...

But it is not the main reason, and we all know that. If there is a no deal Brexit regarding Ireland it will be to do with the border itself, the fact that we would have to accept unlimited illegal immigration, and the fact that it would almost certainly bring up the prospect of terrorism on our streets again. That is not scaremongering, that is just accurate recent history.

And if you think Ireland will be more screwed than us you're kidding yourself. According to Trading Economics we make up 12% of their exports (far less than the US). While that would definitely drop massively, they still have free trade access to the biggest bloc on the planet.

Put it this way AshtonRed. 12% of Ireland's exports go to the UK. For the UK, 44% of our exports go to the EU. How does that equate to Ireland being more screwed than us? It's absolutely not the case.

Red Alert said:
Because some Countries have kept unified operators alongside private railways. Britain hasn't.
Click to expand...

But according to you guys, we were unable to do so anyway because of the EU. So why is it one rule for us and another rule for the rest of them? This stuff about EU law meaning we cannot nationalise business is just pure nonsense. And if you Google it, it is debunked time and time again.
 
BCFCRob said:
But according to you guys, we were unable to do so anyway because of the EU. So why is it one rule for us and another rule for the rest of them? This stuff about EU law meaning we cannot nationalise business is just pure nonsense. And if you Google it, it is debunked time and time again.
Click to expand...

So why is it one rule for us and another rule for the rest of them? Because there is not. You appear to be unable to understand there is a difference between a existing nationalised utility etc and one in the private sector (the UK). Existing nationalised utilities in Germany etc have part private ownership. The EU is also moving ever towards the cross country cross business liberalisation of state owned assets and Britain in regards to privatisation is unique - Thatcher started decades ago - The UK has been further liberalised by the EU, sold off more assets into the EU and won't be getting them back via the EU if it was the will of the people here.

In the UK if as the phrase goes the UK wanted to take back control of its railways the EU denies that ability as monopolies are against EU rules. Britain could have a hybrid state private but not total control of the railways as it once had. And you have had this explained to you before.
 
12%, compared to 44% isn’t accurate though is it , it isn’t comparing like for like, the EU, which is included in the 44% will want to trade with us or lose a % of their trade also.

My point is we are all reliant on trading with each other , barriers or tariffs would hinder every single nation. Which is why it’s in all our interests to come to an agreement we can all sign up to.

At present the EU are saying they won’t budge , but ultimately we have to find a solution we are all happy with. The solution they suggested isn’t acceptable to us , to simply suggest it isn’t negotiable is not a position they can sustain.

As I stated previously it’s brinkmanship, ultimately they will have to , I believe they know it also, but are holding out as long as possible as in their view the longer they hold out the less they will have to give, we have to do the same as it’s the only language they will listen to .
 
AshtonRed said:
12%, compared to 44% isn’t accurate though is it , it isn’t comparing like for like, the EU, which is included in the 44% will want to trade with us or lose a % of their trade also.

My point is we are all reliant on trading with each other , barriers or tariffs would hinder every single nation. Which is why it’s in all our interests to come to an agreement we can all sign up to.

At present the EU are saying they won’t budge , but ultimately we have to find a solution we are all happy with. The solution they suggested isn’t acceptable to us , to simply suggest it isn’t negotiable is not a position they can sustain.

As I stated previously it’s brinkmanship, ultimately they will have to , I believe they know it also, but are holding out as long as possible as in their view the longer they hold out the less they will have to give, we have to do the same as it’s the only language they will listen to .
Click to expand...

Right ignoring the first sentence, we totally agree here. Absolutely.

So if we all want tariff-free trade, that means we must stay in the Customs Union (which nearly every prominent Brexiter was in favour of pre-Referendum by the way). How else do we obtain tariff-free trade without that? Problem is, to stay in the Customs Union will mean that we need regulatory alignment - we need to accept their standards and laws but will have no say in making them. It will almost certainly mean accepting freedom of movement as it currently is as well.

Which all begs the question... what's the bloody point in leaving? We would still have to abide by most EU Law, we'd still have the same EU-immigration status. We almost certainly wouldn't be allowed to make trade deals with other countries - as you guys have said, giving us a good deal and allowing us to do that would encourage other countries to do the same.

It's like staying but giving us less power over our own laws, which is the irony. I just can't see it. I don't understand the benefit.
 
Cliftonville said:
In the UK if as the phrase goes the UK wanted to take back control of its railways the EU denies that ability as monopolies are against EU rules. Britain could have a hybrid state private but not total control of the railways as it once had. And you have had this explained to you before.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't make you right. If the law is with regard to monopolies then why would there be a distinction between existing nationalised assets and re-nationalising assets? They're still subject to the same issue. You say we can't nationalise the railways. But if Germany have part-private ownership then why can't we? You say monopolies are banned so we cannot nationalise the railways. But why can't we set up a state company that has to compete via the standard tender process? None of that is anti-competitive nor a monopoly.

Given the above I'll choose to believe the dozens of sources online which completely disagree with you if I may.
 
Totally different angle, why would the EU want it's own army, how much would we have to contribute, how many of our people would have to participate, who would give the order for UK people to die in battle, would we have to opt out of NATO, what proportion of our national defence budget would we lose to compensate our EU defence contribution, could we trust all EU member states to contribute their share of people to die and to the budget as they mostly failed to do with NATO.

All of this is a nonsense we like to believe, go and ask Macron and his cohorts.
https://www.forces.net/news/what-european-army-and-could-it-become-reality
 
Last edited:
BCFCRob said:
But it doesn't make you right. If the law is with regard to monopolies then why would there be a distinction between existing nationalised assets and re-nationalising assets? They're still subject to the same issue. You say we can't nationalise the railways. But if Germany have part-private ownership then why can't we? You say monopolies are banned so we cannot nationalise the railways. But why can't we set up a state company that has to compete via the standard tender process? None of that is anti-competitive nor a monopoly.

Given the above I'll choose to believe the dozens of sources online which completely disagree with you if I may.
Click to expand...

Your questions have been previously answered. For the last time.

But why can't we set up a state company that has to compete via the standard tender process? That is now a differing point. As previously pointed out the UK has a railways act that does not allow the state to bid for franchises, that can be overturned by Parliament, democracy but the state even it had enough money in its coffers and the voting will of the people behind it cannot take back full control of its entire railways system. EU rules mean rolling stock and tracks and further infra structure have to be owned separately to prevent monopolies - In the Private sector there is obvious good reason for this.

Labour want the state to bid for franchises in the EU but recognise it cannot return to BR under the EU. This is not nationalisation - devolved ownership is not nationalisation. What you see in Europe is devolved ownership and the EU seeks to devolve ownership further across states = Its not nationalisation. Nowhere is more Internationally devolved than the UK and the British tax payer is lining the pockets of foreign private enterprise abroad through its rail subsidies.

Earlier in the thread I posted a link to the late great Tony Benn. Benn and members of the left wing of the Labour party wanted the UK as a fully democratic nation to leave the EU, and to have the ability again, the choice if the populace desired it to nationalise what is truly important to a Country. Its a choice we can't have in it.

You provided a link earlier that confirmed what I have posted … Devolved yes, truly nationalised no.
 
wizered said:
Totally different angle, why would the EU want it's own army, how much would we have to contribute, how many of our people would have to participate, who would give the order for UK people to die in battle, would we have to opt out of NATO, what proportion of our national defence budget would we lose to compensate our EU defence contribution, could we trust all EU member states to contribute their share of people to die and to the budget as they mostly failed to do with NATO.

All of this is a nonsense we like to believe, go and ask Macron and his cohorts.
https://www.forces.net/news/what-european-army-and-could-it-become-reality
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't really like this either. I can see the logic - with Russia to the east and the US to the west becoming more and more erratic and unpredictable I can see why they'd want to pool resources. You can probably get more for your money that way. But I don't really like the idea - what happens if/when there's an internal fallout and as you say, who'd make the ultimate choices?

I would have to say though, we'd almost certainly have a veto on this. Even if we were in the EU, I'd strongly suspect we wouldn't be required to join this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back