Rayvin

Because of Northern Ireland specifically I guess. I mean I can't see much of a problem with having the border checks (they'd be an EU problem more than a UK one anyway I suspect) apart from the consequence for NI. Is that the issue?

Presumably CT's argument is that we wouldn't have to match the EU's trade deals with other countries. And I'm curious on this too, why in your view would we be compelled to? Is it an underpinning agreement of the customs union? I'm just trying to accelerate the conversation.

Indeed. To think they're an ally...

The losing face comes from losing the referendum I think...

I think what might stand against us in a re-run is the pride issue many leavers will feel about being on the wrong side of this decision. Many (CT) will know that it's stupid and will be going along with it so as not to lose face. Those people are militant about their delusions (CT).

I was done. Fully disillusioned and resigned to apathy. So, where you are now really. I'm much the same except it's more Brexit that has caused it. I still back the majority of Labour's domestic policies.

I still don't think it would have gone any better with anyone else in charge tbh. Not from the centrist camp anyway. I know I was done with them, and I'd imagine I wasn't the only one.

What?

Why did i just watch a baby giraffe being killed? I accept that it happens but ffs Hardly worthy pray for a 'lions rule' sentiment!

He won't care about the boycott beyond the fact that it's a financial hit. And it isn't a big one even at that. I honestly think the stadium could be completely empty and he wouldn't give a shit beyond missing the revenues. We make something like £25m in matchday revenue - so he's not going to spend more than that trying to keep fans happy. I really do think he's that cynical. I suspect he has valued Rafa as an asset to the club in the same way, and won't exceed that cost.

But Northern Ireland is saved, presumably. So it's the absolute bare minimum.

If it does happen, is that good for us? On the spectrum of catastrophic outcomes, is it Canada?

There is no way a British fanbase would be creative enough to do what those Milan fans have done. That's inspired I'd fully support a boycott if we got something like that going, it'd definitely get coverage.

I'm starting to think we'll get what is essentially no deal with a bit of disaster management masquerading as a 'deal'. I still doubt the government will be stupid enough to let us get to the planes dropping out of the sky scenario, but anything up to that, who knows.

Who doesn't know and what difference does them knowing actually make? All the fans know and I've read several articles about the dire state of things across probably all the major papers. Sky debated it recently even if they took Ashleys side. It's not like people don't know. I'm not saying dont boycott, just not sure that awareness raising is a realistic reason.

Why are we 'bad' at this sort of thing? If we are, we should just get good. It's not like it isn't possible. We could hire most of the people already working there for one thing. And if all 600m a year goes on better wages for the same employees it's still better than rich fat cats getting it. I dont see why it would have to cost us more. At all. How we did it in the 70s is irrelevant to how it could be done now. Your claim is ultimately baseless. At least i can point to a notional saving of 600m a year. I dont get why you are so determined to believe that we cant do things when it's stuff like this, but that we can do things when its stuff like Brexit.

So you're saying we shouldn't subsidise it at all - and presumably that the higher costs should be passed on to the people. Even if you think that, it's still a lower fee for commuters if its state owned versus the same model (fully self sustaining, which seems to be what you're saying) in the private sector - principally thanks to the need to make profit. It still doesn't really make sense mate.

It's just a funny post, I'm more interested in whether I've overlooked something in the other thing I posted or if you were just wrong in what you wrote? If I've missed something I'm genuinely keen to understand it even if I look stupid.

As an aside, this was doing the rounds on facebook and made me smile: LEAVER: I want an omelette. REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs. LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE] REMAINER: They’re in the cake. LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please. REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake. LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it. REMAINER: Icing is good. LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote. DAVID CAMERON ENTERS. DAVID CAMERON: OK. DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS. LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette? REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake. LEAVER: Well, get them out. EU: It’s our cake. JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now. REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out? LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette. REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought? LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now. THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it. REMAINER: How? THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake. REMAINER: Yeah, but… LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like. EU: It’s our cake. REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake. LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible. REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens. LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it. REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake? LEAVER: You lost, get over it. THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this. REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan? THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election. REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out? JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe. EU: It’s our cake. LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette. REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like. LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT. REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there. LEAVER: You can’t. We’ve taken your freedom of movement.

Sorry, run this by me again. The subsidising is a constant either way. If we need to pay in £10bn a year now, we continue to meet that obligation going forward. The only difference would be that arguably we could subsidise it to a lesser degree if the profits were reinvested. You're talking as if we can ignore that we're paying it now, but only count it when they're publicly owned. So for anything you've said here to make sense, you need to demonstrate that the private sector is paying for things over and above their turnover, and if they're making profit then they can't be. Otherwise we're effectively paying public money to put into the hands of already wealthy people. This is such a ridiculous post that it's made me unsure if I'm overlooking something really basic and making an idiot of myself. Am I?

Well the environmental thing is one feather in its cap. And I'm really not sure how much it would actually cost. I guess the hardware costs, so the trains and other assets... but they wouldn't have to reimburse any companies for the business in general as far as I can see. Your point about how much of a saving the government could really offer is a fair one if there were large upfront costs associated with it - less so without them. As far as I can tell, the revenues for the rail providers was about £19bn a couple of years ago. So assuming that's more or less consistent, we're probably talking a yearly profit of £6-700m. Yeah it's not a lot, but the government could put that into something better than the pockets of already wealthy people. Plus, as I said, they can encourage uptake of rail usage to improve the difference. Fewer cars on the roads also means fewer costs for councils, etc. I think there's a strong knock on effect if a government really embraced rail usage after implementing nationalisation.

I am actually trying to imagine the fallout if the government didn't renew the licenses these companies get at the moment, and their business models cease to be. Shareholders go ballistic I guess and the right wing press tries to argue that this is a warning shot for all industries, sending the markets into a tumble. Amusing thought, and certainly not a long term problem. If the government clearly set out the industries it was targeting then it would be able to limit the damage I think.

The tax code thing or nationalisation in general? I'm actually more convinced about the latter following this discussion. And upon checking up that 90% of the population will live in cities by 2030, I'm actually more inclined to embrace Renton's view on the problems it causes. Also as I set out in my original post and KCG has since echoed, there's a strong environmental argument for reducing car usage.

I'm talking about targeting the areas that make sense. Yes, a very large number of people don't live and work within walking distance of a train station (overlooking buses for a moment) and if the 'postcode lottery' judged this to be the case then they would be on a different tax code. I'm confused ewerk, you've just repeated back to me what I thought we'd already settled. Is this another one of those occasions where you're winding me up and I don't get it? I cited cities specifically since they would be clear cut examples of areas in which the tax could be applied. They also constitute about 90% of the population. There will be other areas too, since there are plenty of stations in the arse end of nowhere.

Why am I assuming that? I think there's a part of your argument that you're implying but that I'm not picking up. Which services? You mean direct trips to every other station in the country? Maybe you mean that people will live near some stations but will have to travel to places that aren't near one, thus meaning they will have to drive. Ok, those people lose out. How many people can that possibly cover though? How many city dwellers regularly make trips into the country often enough for this to really be an issue? The only ones it should affect in any meaningful sense would be those that need to do so for work. And there just can't be too many of those. Certainly not those at the poorer end of the scale as far as I can imagine, since they would likely be living near to work.