Brexit

Political Debate
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 5363
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 months ago

I did give you the page number as a start point!

Regardless... the UK was always sovereign
I may be able to fix a forum but I can't fix a fuckwit
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23072
Joined: 6 years ago

5 months ago

FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
I'm pretty fucking sick of talking about this now tbh

Started something I can't finish tbf
tbf that sounds like a metaphor for the complete Brexit clusterfuck!
It does doesn't it. Shall we have an indicative vote on whether to carry on this debate?
User avatar
marlon
Legend
Posts: 5199
Joined: 6 years ago

5 months ago

FuB wrote:
5 months ago
I did give you the page number as a start point!

Regardless... the UK was always sovereign
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 120319.pdf

This was all I found and I wasn't sure it was what you were referring too? Don't really see the relevance.

My point on sovereignty, was with corbyn's deal, we'd have no say in eu decision making but be subject to their decisions. Maybe sovereignty is the wrong word?
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23072
Joined: 6 years ago

5 months ago

FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago


aren't you answering marlon there? i'm confused...

either way, and I will first state that I am ignorant as to the ins and out of whatever the EUs 4th rail package is but the rail system in Italy (Trenitalia) is state owned, as is the one in Spain (Renfe), France (SNCF) and Deutsche Bahn (Germany) is, effectively, state owned as well. In Italy (and Spain, I believe) there are private companies running rail services on the state owned infrastructure. Trenitalia is by far the de facto standard and biggest rail service here so, with the previously stated caveat of my ignorance on the matter, how can the EU be stopping nationalised public transport when the biggest players all have nationalised rail services?
The 4th rail package doesn't apply to some countries like France whose rail was nationalised before the package. But EU directive states "the proposed changes would make competitive tendering mandatory for public service contracts in the EU" - so it's coming, which is why Macron is already selling it off, hence the gilet jaunes protests. Macron doesn't need persuading of course, he's a neolib himself. France still has quite a few nationalised industries and decent workers rights comparatively, so he's being ruthless in attacking them, hence the ruthless violence in response.

But lots of EU countries have nationalised stuff, we just sold ours off a long time ago under Thatcher / Blair, hence neoliberalism being described as Thatcherism and modern neolibs like Chuka Umunna Blairites. That's why I don't get why people oppose thatcherism in the UK but support it in the EU?
OK. I follow your logic but, actually, I don't see how this precludes nationalising things. Is this not just making it so that there's some competition over contracts rather than brown envelope stuff and outright monopoly? So you can have a broadly nationalised rail operator but you have to allow other operators to provide competition.
It's naive to think it's not a prelude to full nationalisation. It starts small, "just to increase competition", then ends up consuming the whole thing. As people who are living in Thatcher / Blair's legacy we know that well. Competition is a capitalist thing (and it's a myth - the big dog ends up eating the rest), under socialism you'd have no need for it.

You can’t have private companies profiting off public services because they run it purely for profit and the service / people suffer. If you believe that Fub then we've a fundamental difference of opinion. In healthcare terms the results are deadly. Private companies like Branson’s Virgin Healthcare are buying up loads of NHS services, and ditching the non profitable ones, like a child heart unit near me because there's no profit in expensive complex long term heart treatments for kids. So the unit closed down and the kids were fucked. The NHS then wanted to shut it completely (it's been bankrupted by the tories) until pressure forced em to take it back in house and run it not for profit again. But eventually it will be put out to private tender by the neolib tories / blairites, and a company will take it on if they can see a way of making profit (cutting staff numbers, cheapening the service). That's basically neoliberalism in a nutshell. Branson is pro EU because he and his equivalents in europe want to get their teeth stuck into the public services that are left, and like I pointed out the EU allows them to do that, that's why Thatcher was pro EU and Tony Benn wasn't.

Call me an extremist, a marxist leninist stalinist, but what needs to happen is the NHS and public services in general should be run not for profit but to help people. And what profits they do make should be reinvested in better treatments, more staff, drugs, services etc not to line the pockets of the rich.
You've just turned the argument around here, Sid.

We were discussing whether the 4th rail package prevents nationalisation and now you're off on one about how privatisation of public services is a terrible thing. I don't disagree with that.

The fact is that this legislation doesn't prevent a nationalised railway service. Having had a chance to briefly read up on it, it seems to me that it just prevents that nationalised service from being the ONLY service. It also prevents someone like Virgin being the ONLY service too.

If you want to bang on about how that can't possibly work then fine but a case in point whereby it DOES work is here in Italy. Pretty much all train services are Trenitalia. You can opt to pay a premium for an alternative carrier but at no point is that being forced upon you. One of those private train companies is called Italo and they're fairly comparable in service quality and price to the premium Trenitalia services (express trains called variously Freccia rossa, Freccia argento, etc). There is a tiered system here whereby "standard rail" (i.e. slower and less plush) services are way, way cheaper than the premium services (and so much cheaper than comparable services in the UK it's unreal) but they're pretty damned good and I've nearly always used them except when I've needed to go a LONG way as quickly as possible.
Because you seemed to defend "some competition", which is privatisation, which would put you in the tory camp. I'm talking about privatisation in general like with the NHS to give a relatable example, because privatisation is a principle of the EU like it was in the UK under Thatcher and Blair.

Your message is confused, on one hand you're saying privatisation is wrong because that puts you in the neolib/tory camp. Then on the other a bit is okay. But you can't have it both ways. If you agree with a bit of privatisation they come in and take the lot. And also you're still ethically in a bad place because you've got rich people profitting off vital services / peoples lives.

Italian train services will be fully privatised too, mark my words. They are/were protected in france but Macron is selling it off. It just happened in the UK first because Thatcher and Raegan were the pioneers of this new revised capitalist economics.

I think the liberal remainer bullshit about the EU has confused people. After causing over 5000 deaths via brutal austerity imposed on greece and causing a genocide in the med, liberals have changed the image of the EU as being the reason you can go skiing in northern italy and shop at Ikea. It's fucked up.
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 5363
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 months ago

Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago

The 4th rail package doesn't apply to some countries like France whose rail was nationalised before the package. But EU directive states "the proposed changes would make competitive tendering mandatory for public service contracts in the EU" - so it's coming, which is why Macron is already selling it off, hence the gilet jaunes protests. Macron doesn't need persuading of course, he's a neolib himself. France still has quite a few nationalised industries and decent workers rights comparatively, so he's being ruthless in attacking them, hence the ruthless violence in response.

But lots of EU countries have nationalised stuff, we just sold ours off a long time ago under Thatcher / Blair, hence neoliberalism being described as Thatcherism and modern neolibs like Chuka Umunna Blairites. That's why I don't get why people oppose thatcherism in the UK but support it in the EU?
OK. I follow your logic but, actually, I don't see how this precludes nationalising things. Is this not just making it so that there's some competition over contracts rather than brown envelope stuff and outright monopoly? So you can have a broadly nationalised rail operator but you have to allow other operators to provide competition.
It's naive to think it's not a prelude to full nationalisation. It starts small, "just to increase competition", then ends up consuming the whole thing. As people who are living in Thatcher / Blair's legacy we know that well. Competition is a capitalist thing (and it's a myth - the big dog ends up eating the rest), under socialism you'd have no need for it.

You can’t have private companies profiting off public services because they run it purely for profit and the service / people suffer. If you believe that Fub then we've a fundamental difference of opinion. In healthcare terms the results are deadly. Private companies like Branson’s Virgin Healthcare are buying up loads of NHS services, and ditching the non profitable ones, like a child heart unit near me because there's no profit in expensive complex long term heart treatments for kids. So the unit closed down and the kids were fucked. The NHS then wanted to shut it completely (it's been bankrupted by the tories) until pressure forced em to take it back in house and run it not for profit again. But eventually it will be put out to private tender by the neolib tories / blairites, and a company will take it on if they can see a way of making profit (cutting staff numbers, cheapening the service). That's basically neoliberalism in a nutshell. Branson is pro EU because he and his equivalents in europe want to get their teeth stuck into the public services that are left, and like I pointed out the EU allows them to do that, that's why Thatcher was pro EU and Tony Benn wasn't.

Call me an extremist, a marxist leninist stalinist, but what needs to happen is the NHS and public services in general should be run not for profit but to help people. And what profits they do make should be reinvested in better treatments, more staff, drugs, services etc not to line the pockets of the rich.
You've just turned the argument around here, Sid.

We were discussing whether the 4th rail package prevents nationalisation and now you're off on one about how privatisation of public services is a terrible thing. I don't disagree with that.

The fact is that this legislation doesn't prevent a nationalised railway service. Having had a chance to briefly read up on it, it seems to me that it just prevents that nationalised service from being the ONLY service. It also prevents someone like Virgin being the ONLY service too.

If you want to bang on about how that can't possibly work then fine but a case in point whereby it DOES work is here in Italy. Pretty much all train services are Trenitalia. You can opt to pay a premium for an alternative carrier but at no point is that being forced upon you. One of those private train companies is called Italo and they're fairly comparable in service quality and price to the premium Trenitalia services (express trains called variously Freccia rossa, Freccia argento, etc). There is a tiered system here whereby "standard rail" (i.e. slower and less plush) services are way, way cheaper than the premium services (and so much cheaper than comparable services in the UK it's unreal) but they're pretty damned good and I've nearly always used them except when I've needed to go a LONG way as quickly as possible.
Because you seemed to defend "some competition", which is privatisation, which would put you in the tory camp. I'm talking about privatisation in general like with the NHS to give a relatable example, because privatisation is a principle of the EU like it was in the UK under Thatcher and Blair.

Your message is confused, on one hand you're saying privatisation is wrong because that puts you in the neolib/tory camp. Then on the other a bit is okay. But you can't have it both ways. If you agree with a bit of privatisation they come in and take the lot. And also you're still ethically in a bad place because you've got rich people profitting off vital services / peoples lives.

Italian train services will be fully privatised too, mark my words. They are/were protected in france but Macron is selling it off. It just happened in the UK first because Thatcher and Raegan were the pioneers of this new revised capitalist economics.

I think the liberal remainer bullshit about the EU has confused people. After causing over 5000 deaths via brutal austerity imposed on greece and causing a genocide in the med, liberals have changed the image of the EU as being the reason you can go skiing in northern italy and shop at Ikea. It's fucked up.
Again, I think you are missing the point of the legislation. It doesn't seem to me that it is pushing for privatisation INSTEAD OF a public-owned service. Just making sure that there are opportunities to compete with one. The privatisation of the railways in the UK is the former whereas the model in Italy is not. They just let a private company run a competing, similar service on the same routes. It's the consumer's choice whether they want to support that and, given both services seem to be running ok and generally on time, it would suggest that there is a demand for both. As I say, i almost always use the state-owned services and I want them to persist. They don't appear to be having a problem doing so and, if someone wants to pay more for a premium, private service that doesn't impede or damage the public one (and that's a fucking key point!), then I don't have an issue with it.

If all this makes me a tory or a liberal and therefore someone who you no longer have any respect for then I'll just have to suck that up. Sorry.
I may be able to fix a forum but I can't fix a fuckwit
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 15453
Joined: 6 years ago

5 months ago

Labour/Tory, Capitalism/Communism/Socialism, Private/Public, EU/GB, the issue with all these are money, power, greed, control, corruption. In other words people. Share holders are a big problem, the quest for more, more, more. There is always another piglet pushing to get on the teat.

We're all just along for the ride.....
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 5363
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 months ago

marlon wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago
I did give you the page number as a start point!

Regardless... the UK was always sovereign
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 120319.pdf

This was all I found and I wasn't sure it was what you were referring too? Don't really see the relevance.

My point on sovereignty, was with corbyn's deal, we'd have no say in eu decision making but be subject to their decisions. Maybe sovereignty is the wrong word?
I mean this one: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... EU_Web.pdf (again, page 13)

The whole "we'll take control of our own laws"... er… but we always were. That was the key concept of "sovereignty" that Johnson and co bullshitted the vote on.... and pretty much what you're saying here, i.e. Brexit actually makes it more difficult instead of easier.
I may be able to fix a forum but I can't fix a fuckwit
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 15453
Joined: 6 years ago

5 months ago

"If all this makes me a tory or a liberal and therefore someone who you no longer have any respect for then I'll just have to suck that up. Sorry." :((

:ymblushing:
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 23072
Joined: 6 years ago

5 months ago

FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago


OK. I follow your logic but, actually, I don't see how this precludes nationalising things. Is this not just making it so that there's some competition over contracts rather than brown envelope stuff and outright monopoly? So you can have a broadly nationalised rail operator but you have to allow other operators to provide competition.
It's naive to think it's not a prelude to full nationalisation. It starts small, "just to increase competition", then ends up consuming the whole thing. As people who are living in Thatcher / Blair's legacy we know that well. Competition is a capitalist thing (and it's a myth - the big dog ends up eating the rest), under socialism you'd have no need for it.

You can’t have private companies profiting off public services because they run it purely for profit and the service / people suffer. If you believe that Fub then we've a fundamental difference of opinion. In healthcare terms the results are deadly. Private companies like Branson’s Virgin Healthcare are buying up loads of NHS services, and ditching the non profitable ones, like a child heart unit near me because there's no profit in expensive complex long term heart treatments for kids. So the unit closed down and the kids were fucked. The NHS then wanted to shut it completely (it's been bankrupted by the tories) until pressure forced em to take it back in house and run it not for profit again. But eventually it will be put out to private tender by the neolib tories / blairites, and a company will take it on if they can see a way of making profit (cutting staff numbers, cheapening the service). That's basically neoliberalism in a nutshell. Branson is pro EU because he and his equivalents in europe want to get their teeth stuck into the public services that are left, and like I pointed out the EU allows them to do that, that's why Thatcher was pro EU and Tony Benn wasn't.

Call me an extremist, a marxist leninist stalinist, but what needs to happen is the NHS and public services in general should be run not for profit but to help people. And what profits they do make should be reinvested in better treatments, more staff, drugs, services etc not to line the pockets of the rich.
You've just turned the argument around here, Sid.

We were discussing whether the 4th rail package prevents nationalisation and now you're off on one about how privatisation of public services is a terrible thing. I don't disagree with that.

The fact is that this legislation doesn't prevent a nationalised railway service. Having had a chance to briefly read up on it, it seems to me that it just prevents that nationalised service from being the ONLY service. It also prevents someone like Virgin being the ONLY service too.

If you want to bang on about how that can't possibly work then fine but a case in point whereby it DOES work is here in Italy. Pretty much all train services are Trenitalia. You can opt to pay a premium for an alternative carrier but at no point is that being forced upon you. One of those private train companies is called Italo and they're fairly comparable in service quality and price to the premium Trenitalia services (express trains called variously Freccia rossa, Freccia argento, etc). There is a tiered system here whereby "standard rail" (i.e. slower and less plush) services are way, way cheaper than the premium services (and so much cheaper than comparable services in the UK it's unreal) but they're pretty damned good and I've nearly always used them except when I've needed to go a LONG way as quickly as possible.
Because you seemed to defend "some competition", which is privatisation, which would put you in the tory camp. I'm talking about privatisation in general like with the NHS to give a relatable example, because privatisation is a principle of the EU like it was in the UK under Thatcher and Blair.

Your message is confused, on one hand you're saying privatisation is wrong because that puts you in the neolib/tory camp. Then on the other a bit is okay. But you can't have it both ways. If you agree with a bit of privatisation they come in and take the lot. And also you're still ethically in a bad place because you've got rich people profitting off vital services / peoples lives.

Italian train services will be fully privatised too, mark my words. They are/were protected in france but Macron is selling it off. It just happened in the UK first because Thatcher and Raegan were the pioneers of this new revised capitalist economics.

I think the liberal remainer bullshit about the EU has confused people. After causing over 5000 deaths via brutal austerity imposed on greece and causing a genocide in the med, liberals have changed the image of the EU as being the reason you can go skiing in northern italy and shop at Ikea. It's fucked up.
Again, I think you are missing the point of the legislation. It doesn't seem to me that it is pushing for privatisation INSTEAD OF a public-owned service. Just making sure that there are opportunities to compete with one. The privatisation of the railways in the UK is the former whereas the model in Italy is not. They just let a private company run a competing, similar service on the same routes. It's the consumer's choice whether they want to support that and, given both services seem to be running ok and generally on time, it would suggest that there is a demand for both. As I say, i almost always use the state-owned services and I want them to persist. They don't appear to be having a problem doing so and, if someone wants to pay more for a premium, private service that doesn't impede or damage the public one (and that's a fucking key point!), then I don't have an issue with it.

If all this makes me a tory or a liberal and therefore someone who you no longer have any respect for then I'll just have to suck that up. Sorry.
Then why are EU countries privatising the fuck out of everything? Why is Macron selling off france to the highest bidders and his mates like Thatcher did? Once you change that bit of legislation that lets private companies in, they take the lot - the water, communications, healthcare, transport. No one but the most naive are daft enough to think the neolibs are not going to sell off the NHS in its entirity, and replace it with private healthcare like in america. The only committment they've ever given is that treatment will be "free at the point of service"... yeah, because your bill is in the post.

You're just on dodgy ground if you reject privatisation / profiteering off public services in the UK but not in the EU

The question isn't whether that is right or wrong - it's wrong. It's more how can it be changed within the EU when you have so many neolib capitalist states like germany and france all pushing in the same direction. Not only would it challenge the founding principles of the EU but like Varoufakis said when he tried to negotiate with them in Syriza, "the Eu don't negotiate". In meetings with finance ministers he said they absolutely will not talk about finance. It's their way of the highway, which is why he quit. But then he's also an EU reformist. I've just not heard his arguments for reforming it.
User avatar
FuB
Legend
Posts: 5363
Joined: 3 years ago
Location: Littlewoods Data Entry Department

5 months ago

<chopped some bits for brevity>
Sid wrote:
5 months ago
FuB wrote:
5 months ago

Again, I think you are missing the point of the legislation. It doesn't seem to me that it is pushing for privatisation INSTEAD OF a public-owned service. Just making sure that there are opportunities to compete with one. The privatisation of the railways in the UK is the former whereas the model in Italy is not. They just let a private company run a competing, similar service on the same routes. It's the consumer's choice whether they want to support that and, given both services seem to be running ok and generally on time, it would suggest that there is a demand for both. As I say, i almost always use the state-owned services and I want them to persist. They don't appear to be having a problem doing so and, if someone wants to pay more for a premium, private service that doesn't impede or damage the public one (and that's a fucking key point!), then I don't have an issue with it.

If all this makes me a tory or a liberal and therefore someone who you no longer have any respect for then I'll just have to suck that up. Sorry.
Then why are EU countries privatising the fuck out of everything? Why is Macron selling off france to the highest bidders and his mates like Thatcher did? Once you change that bit of legislation that lets private companies in, they take the lot - the water, communications, healthcare, transport. No one but the most naive are daft enough to think the neolibs are not going to sell off the NHS in its entirity, and replace it with private healthcare like in america. The only committment they've ever given is that treatment will be "free at the point of service"... yeah, because your bill is in the post.

You're just on dodgy ground if you reject privatisation / profiteering off public services in the UK but not in the EU

The question isn't whether that is right or wrong - it's wrong. It's more how can it be changed within the EU when you have so many neolib capitalist states like germany and france all pushing in the same direction. Not only would it challenge the founding principles of the EU but like Varoufakis said when he tried to negotiate with them in Syriza, "the Eu don't negotiate". In meetings with finance ministers he said they absolutely will not talk about finance. It's their way of the highway, which is why he quit. But then he's also an EU reformist. I've just not heard his arguments for reforming it.
Yeah, ok. I do broadly agree with you on most of that. There's always the possibility that legislation isn't created with the intention of doing what people manage to do with it. You levelled "naivety" on me earlier and i'll also have to take that on the chin because I suffer from this general wish to not see the worst in everyone. I appreciate that it's naïve but all this cynicism is just making me feel tired and depressed.

Anyway, I think my point is that you can't necessarily blame the legislation nor, in the odd case, those who make it for the evils it, in turn, allows for. I'll caveat that with the obvious fact that we're long past the point of putting people in the position to create legislation with a cynical intention... so, sadly, you're more than likely right. I just wish you weren't.
I may be able to fix a forum but I can't fix a fuckwit
Post Reply