Europe --- In or Out

[Renton 21295]

21 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Mots almost as though we are in a negogiation

 

Macron, already a very unpopular president, would absolutely shit himself if there was no deal.

 

Honestly, it’s all theatrics for the next 4 weeks and then lots of heroes when it’s finally signed.

 

I'd feel more optimistic if you weren't always wrong about virtually everything. Didn't someone (ewerk?) bump a post the other week where you said we'd have a cracking deal within 6 months of the referendum?

[ewerk 30262]

He definitely said not so long ago that we'd have a trade deal outlined by October.

[Alex 34839]

I was thinking the same. Moves the goalposts more often than the party he betrayed at the last election

[Dr Gloom 21812]

good opinion piece in the gruaniad from john major

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/16/false-promises-brexit-john-major?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Rayvin 5176]

36 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Youre talking nonsense, the railways are still subsidised. Even if all the profits were reinvested it would still need subsidising. That’s money from other things like the NHS. That’s before we get on to the extra wages, perks, staff, rolling stock etc that would follow.

 

So forget lowering fares. 

 

All to for what? 

 

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?

[Alex 34839]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

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?

He's going to be telling himself he's had another great day on here at this rate

[Rayvin 5176]

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.

[Christmas Tree 4687]

34 minutes ago, ewerk said:

He definitely said not so long ago that we'd have a trade deal outlined by October.

 

We do.

[Renton 21295]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

i just read that - there is no way on earth any of that is going to be allowed to happen. imagine being the PM who oversaw no deal man, no one wants to put their name to it and parliament won't allow it to happen. it's about salvaging as much as we can from this shit show

 

Thing is Gloom, a lot of that isn't specific to a no deal deal. Outside the SM there will be major non-tariff frictions. You only have to look at the borders the EU has with other third countries, this is exactly what will happen here. Given the volume of goods traffic at Dover and folkstone it's always going to be a major ball ache. A lot of industry and our agricultural exports will be wiped out. Getting the WA will buy more time via the transition but it doesn't solve the problem.

[Renton 21295]

1 minute ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

We do.

What?

[Christmas Tree 4687]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

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.

 

Has rings of .....

 

UK: We are not going to install a hard border in Ireland

 

Ireland: We are not going to install a hard border in Ireland

 

Yet 1 year spent discussing how to prevent a hard border in Ireland

[Rayvin 5176]

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.

[Christmas Tree 4687]

Just now, Rayvin said:

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.

 

Read it again.

[Christmas Tree 4687]

Bomb scare currently ongoing in parliament

[Alex 34839]

2 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

Bomb scare currently ongoing in parliament

Stop deflecting

[Meenzer 15401]

5 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

If you believe this to be true, why did you vote for it?

 

Because he's a stupendous idiot, a stupendous liar, or both.

 

 

[Dr Gloom 21812]

50 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Thing is Gloom, a lot of that isn't specific to a no deal deal. Outside the SM there will be major non-tariff frictions. You only have to look at the borders the EU has with other third countries, this is exactly what will happen here. Given the volume of goods traffic at Dover and folkstone it's always going to be a major ball ache. A lot of industry and our agricultural exports will be wiped out. Getting the WA will buy more time via the transition but it doesn't solve the problem.

this is why i'm convinced we'll remain in the SM and CU. it'll be the softest of soft brexits for all the reasons cited in this thread by everyone other than CT who, like most leavers, is on another planet.

the EU have us where they want us and, once the willy waving finally subsides, we will cave, cap in hand. all they need to do is deliver some fudge when it comes to an emergency brake, which in truth will never be used, and we'll just piss away a few billion instead of seeing our entire economy collapse.

cracking! 

[Rayvin 5176]

38 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Read it again.

 

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.

[ewerk 30262]

On 6/28/2018 at 16:16, Christmas Tree said:

 

Dont know but the one with Australia looks promising

 

Nice breaking news

Here's what the Australians think about that trade deal.

 

[Christmas Tree 4687]

1 hour ago, Rayvin said:

 

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.

 

You’ve said if nationalised it will make money for the government and the various things we can do with that money.

 

Im saying that there would be no profit, only money redirected from other essential services such as the NHS to help keep it running because we are not good at running these sort of things. Labour (and unions) would want more staff, better wages, more rolling stock and lower fares.

 

The taxpayer would end up paying more money for no benefit and that money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

Since privatisation, rail journeys have doubled, it’s one of the safest networks in Europe, thousands of more carriages have been bought and thousands of more services introduced.

 

Underpinning all of this, the railway system in the 70’s / 80’s was a disaster.

 

Much more important things to spend money and time on such as social care than dabbling with a system that works a million times better than it used to.

[Renton 21295]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

Here's what the Australians think about that trade deal.

 

I read that on another forum I frequent. Absolutely nails the issues we will have going forward. Australia know they are dealing with a distressed country and will fully capitalise on that fact. Australia for God's sake! Fucking Australia!! 

 

They have no illusions of the British empire when it comes to trade deals, they know the score. As for the US, we'd better butter our cheeks now. 

[Renton 21295]

22 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

You’ve said if nationalised it will make money for the government and the various things we can do with that money.

 

Im saying that there would be no profit, only money redirected from other essential services such as the NHS to help keep it running because we are not good at running these sort of things. Labour (and unions) would want more staff, better wages, more rolling stock and lower fares.

 

The taxpayer would end up paying more money for no benefit and that money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

Since privatisation, rail journeys have doubled, it’s one of the safest networks in Europe, thousands of more carriages have been bought and thousands of more services introduced.

 

Underpinning all of this, the railway system in the 70’s / 80’s was a disaster.

 

Much more important things to spend money and time on such as social care than dabbling with a system that works a million times better than it used to.

 

Fuck me, you can tell you don't use the train. It's terrible compared with what it used to be like, experience wise at least. I think most the increase in demand is down to the fact there's often no feasible alternative. Also, other state operators like SNCF and DB seem to do Okay, so not sure privatisation has improved things. 

[Christmas Tree 4687]

[Tom 14011]

4 hours ago, Rayvin said:

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.

Referendum : Cake or Sandwich 

People : We Vote Sandwich 

Government : Congratulations, here is your sandwich. Hold this bread while we slowly curl one out. 

*Audience Noise/Racism*

 

[Rayvin 5176]

2 hours ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

You’ve said if nationalised it will make money for the government and the various things we can do with that money.

 

Im saying that there would be no profit, only money redirected from other essential services such as the NHS to help keep it running because we are not good at running these sort of things. Labour (and unions) would want more staff, better wages, more rolling stock and lower fares.

 

The taxpayer would end up paying more money for no benefit and that money would be better spent elsewhere.

 

Since privatisation, rail journeys have doubled, it’s one of the safest networks in Europe, thousands of more carriages have been bought and thousands of more services introduced.

 

Underpinning all of this, the railway system in the 70’s / 80’s was a disaster.

 

Much more important things to spend money and time on such as social care than dabbling with a system that works a million times better than it used to.

 

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.