EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[HSTEd]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eea-trade-michel-barnier-labour-a8395671.html

Barnier's offered a deal which the UK would be crazy not to accept, the ointment in the fly is that the UK IS crazy. If we would accepot the EEA option we could put Brexit to bed and concentrate on stuff that needs doing, from the NHS through to policing cuts, austerity, social care, the railways and sorlting really important stuff like Lancashires top orders miserable form.

So the UK would be crazy to not submit to eternal rule from Brussels with absolutely no say on a huge number of issues?

I can't fix the railways whilst the UK remains in the EU, or the single market generally, atleast not the way I believe it needs to be fixed.
Just like I can't fix high energy prices or any number of other major issues.

 

[pemma]

So the UK would be crazy to not submit to eternal rule from Brussels with absolutely no say on a huge number of issues?

I can't fix the railways whilst the UK remains in the EU, or the single market generally, atleast not the way I believe it needs to be fixed.
Just like I can't fix high energy prices or any number of other major issues.

Not sure what exactly you're trying to say by saying 'I' before 'can't'. Unless your name is Chris Grayling or Jo Johnson it's not your responsibility to fix the railways but if you are Chris Grayling or Jo Johnson you're spending a lot of time debating Brexit instead of working on your primary responsibility.

If you think the EU is stopping the railways from working then why it is stopping our railways from working effectively but railways in other EU countries operate much better? There's also a number of EU countries where the majority of services are run by a state owned operator and the majority of their rolling stock is manufactured domestically. So it can't be the EU stopping the railways working effectively, it must be decisions made in Westminster causing the problem which leaving the EU will make worse!

 

[AM9]

So the UK would be crazy to not submit to eternal rule from Brussels with absolutely no say on a huge number of issues?

I can't fix the railways whilst the UK remains in the EU, or the single market generally, atleast not the way I believe it needs to be fixed.
Just like I can't fix high energy prices or any number of other major issues.

That's a very high self-expectation on anybody to "fix the railways". Blaming your inability to perform so far on our membership of a group of states, (many of which have rail systems that are both successful by the criteria in some of your posts elsewhere and generally better received by their populations than those in the UK), is a bit of a pompous justification for removing us from the same rules that those countries operate under.
I'm currently on a short break in Copenhagen and today will be cruising about on some of the DSB lines here. I'll post here if I find that the system is falling behind our UK system and let you know if I'm badgered by poor downtrodden local passengers who tell me that being in the EU is holding back their railway experience.

 

[HSTEd]

Not sure what exactly you're trying to say by saying 'I' before 'can't'. Unless your name is Chris Grayling or Jo Johnson it's not your responsibility to fix the railways but if you are Chris Grayling or Jo Johnson you're spending a lot of time debating Brexit instead of working on your primary responsibility.

Ok, I did sound a bit pompous but I assume you all get what I actually meant.

If you think the EU is stopping the railways from working then why it is stopping our railways from working effectively but railways in other EU countries operate much better? There's also a number of EU countries where the majority of services are run by a state owned operator and the majority of their rolling stock is manufactured domestically. So it can't be the EU stopping the railways working effectively, it must be decisions made in Westminster causing the problem which leaving the EU will make worse!

Except those railways are operated on borrowed time because the EU has de-facto legislated to require everyone to adopt the British model.
There is no possibility of establishing such a system in the UK whilst we remain part of the EU.

That's a very high self-expectation on anybody to "fix the railways". Blaming your inability to perform so far on our membership of a group of states, (many of which have rail systems that are both successful by the criteria in some of your posts elsewhere and generally better received by their populations than those in the UK), is a bit of a pompous justification for removing us from the same rules that those countries operate under.

Well they did have better railway systems, until the EU legislated in the latest set of railway directives to require competitive tendering for all subsidised and public service services.
Which together iwth the other "reforms" essentially locks in the British model.

 

[pemma]

Except those railways are operated on borrowed time because the EU has de-facto legislated to require everyone to adopt the British model.
There is no possibility of establishing such a system in the UK whilst we remain part of the EU.

EU legislation wouldn't prevent the government setting up British Railways Limited and British Railways Limited taking over rail operations from private companies. Neither would it prevent local councils in the north setting up Rail North Limited and Rail North Limited operating what is currently operated by Arriva Rail North. If companies like British Railways Limited and Rail North Limited were set up there would be nothing to stop them running services outside 'their area' e.g. British Railways Limited operating services in Holland or even Rail North Limited operating Docklands Light Railway - as silly as that may sound*! What wouldn't be allowed within the EU would be the government saying British Railways Limited will operate all UK services and then not allowing any open access operations.

* For a similar comparison Manchester Airport Group is owned by the local councils of Greater Manchester, Manchester Airport Group owns East Midlands Airport so effectively Greater Manchester owns East Midlands Airport!

 

[HSTEd]

EU legislation wouldn't prevent the government setting up British Railways Limited and British Railways Limited taking over rail operations from private companies. Neither would it prevent local councils in the north setting up Rail North Limited and Rail North Limited operating what is currently operated by Arriva Rail North.

If, and only if, they were to win the franchises on the same terms that private bidders would have to win.
And since the private sector likes to overbid to ensure they win - it is inevitable that the private bidders would win out.

The whole system is designed to destroy the idea of state owned, or operated, railways in the EU.

What wouldn't be allowed within the EU would be the government saying British Railways Limited will operate all UK services and then not allowing any open access operations.

That was the case until the latest set of rail directives, which now mandate competitive tendering for all subsidised services.

 

[pemma]

And since the private sector likes to overbid to ensure they win - it is inevitable that the private bidders would win out.

The whole system is designed to destroy the idea of state owned, or operated, railways in the EU.

The government chooses what rating to give to cost and what rating to give to quality for the bidding process. It could be the highest quality bid wins, the lowest cost bid wins or a more compromised bid wins. There's a good reason why the likes of Stagecoach and Virgin don't bid for certain franchises and why Kelios supports a Go-Ahead bid for some franchises and want to bid alone for other franchises.

That was the case until the latest set of rail directives, which now mandate competitive tendering for all subsidised services.

The definition of a subsided service could be changed quite substantially if the government gave more direct support to Network Rail, instead of supporting TOCs which wouldn't need support if track access charges were lowered.

 

[HSTEd]

The government chooses what rating to give to cost and what rating to give to quality for the bidding process. It could be the highest quality bid wins, the lowest cost bid wins or a more compromised bid wins. There's a good reason why the likes of Stagecoach and Virgin don't bid for certain franchises and why Kelios supports a Go-Ahead bid for some franchises and want to bid alone for other franchises.

Unfortunately attempting to alter the bid process to favour government owned companies will lead to massive litigation.
And the private sector will be far more likely to overpromise, and then litigate when governments fail to believe their claims.

The definition of a subsided service could be changed quite substantially if the government gave more direct support to Network Rail, instead of supporting TOCs which wouldn't need support if track access charges were lowered.

Thus subsidising spoiling services operated by private companies to abstract income.

 

[pemma]

Unfortunately attempting to alter the bid process to favour government owned companies will lead to massive litigation.
And the private sector will be far more likely to overpromise, and then litigate when governments fail to believe their claims.

Thus subsidising spoiling services operated by private companies to abstract income.

If DfT gave money directly to Network Rail instead of through Network Grants the following franchises would not have to go out-to-tender if what you say is correct: c2c, Chiltern, CrossCountry, EMT, GTR, GWR, Greater Anglia, South West, Southern, West Coast and East Coast. Already you've lost all the franchises the likes of Stagecoach, Virgin and Kelios (not including Govia) are interested in bidding on.

London Midland, TPE, Wales & Borders, Scotrail, Northern, Southeastern and LO would still not be profitable but that doesn't mean the whole franchise area has to go out to tender e.g. people claim HS1 services is what makes Southeastern loss making so it might be putting HS1 services out to tender is enough. Then the more fragmented the services going to tender are the less attractive they'll be to the other bid companies like Arriva, Govia and First.

 

[HSTEd]

If DfT gave money directly to Network Rail instead of through Network Grants the following franchises would not have to go out-to-tender if what you say is correct: c2c, Chiltern, CrossCountry, EMT, GTR, GWR, Greater Anglia, South West, Southern, West Coast and East Coast. Already you've lost all the franchises the likes of Stagecoach, Virgin and Kelios (not including Govia) are interested in bidding on.

But artificially depressing network access costs would just promote pointless spoiling services operated by open access operators - as we see in buses, in an attempt to abstract some income, either through tickets or by an ORCATS Raid.

London Midland, TPE, Wales & Borders, Scotrail, Northern, Southeastern and LO would still not be profitable but that doesn't mean the whole franchise area has to go out to tender e.g. people claim HS1 services is what makes Southeastern loss making so it might be putting HS1 services out to tender is enough. Then the more fragmented the services going to tender are the less attractive they'll be to the other bid companies like Arriva, Govia and First.

Increasing further the bureaucracy associated with bidding, increasing costs and squandering vast numbers of man hours.
The whole point of state ownership would be to dispose of most of this stuff that serves no useful purpose but to make lawyers money.

 

[pemma]

Increasing further the bureaucracy associated with bidding, increasing costs and squandering vast numbers of man hours.
The whole point of state ownership would be to dispose of most of this stuff that serves no useful purpose but to make lawyers money.

There would be huge costs associated with moving the railways fully to state ownership. I presume you also want a national bus company operating all bus services, given putting some individual unprofitable train routes out to tender would be more similar to local councils putting bus routes out to tender, than the current rail franchising. There's a simple way of reducing tendering costs - long term contracts e.g. 25 years.

Also don't forget if the likes of Govia suspend a highly paid director on full pay Govia would pick up the tab, if a public sector company does it then the taxpayer picks up the tab.

 

[HSTEd]

There would be huge costs associated with moving the railways fully to state ownership. I presume you also want a national bus company operating all bus services, given putting some individual unprofitable train routes out to tender would be more similar to local councils putting bus routes out to tender, than the current rail franchising.

Leaving aside that the bus industery is absolutely nothing like the rail industry (setting up a bus company is far easier than a rail company and there is no tight integration between the infrastructure and operation), I would prefer public ownership of buses under control of appropriate transport bodies. Be they local authorities or national or subnational government.

Rail operations cannot just appear to take up a tender overnight like a bus operation can, meaning that any attempt to create competition through private bodies in an almost entirely public sector system is going to be dysfunctional in almost all circumstances.
The barrier to entry is just far too high.

There's a simple way of reducing tendering costs - long term contracts e.g. 25 years.

So if a private sector body wins then no service changes or improvements can happen for 25 years, unless the operator recieves huge piles of money to bribe them into not litigating?
Its just a giant mess.

Also don't forget if the likes of Govia suspend a highly paid director on full pay Govia would pick up the tab, if a public sector company does it then the taxpayer picks up the tab.

Is this an issue? How many highly paid directors ever get suspended these days?

 

[pemma]

Rail operations cannot just appear to take up a tender overnight like a bus operation can, meaning that any attempt to create competition through private bodies in an almost entirely public sector system is going to be dysfunctional in almost all circumstances.

Exactly. So you'll end up with almost 100% of rail services operated by the state (because private companies won't want little individual losing making lines) and you'll meet EU requirements at the same time.

Is this an issue? How many highly paid directors ever get suspended these days?

Read about the mismanagement at Cheshire East Council (or any other badly managed council or police force or NHS trust for that matter.)

 

[HSTEd]

Exactly. So you'll end up with almost 100% of rail services operated by the state (because private companies won't want little individual losing making lines) and you'll meet EU requirements at the same time.

The problem is that you still have to maintain a bid infrastructure, which could cost a substantial amount of money, unless you were able to pare it back drastically from the current infrastructure.
And even then the Open Access types are likely to cause substantial additional costs. Because that requires you actually create an infrastructure to price access costs, which is not something that would have to exist otherwise.

Read about the mismanagement at Cheshire East Council (or any other badly managed council or police force or NHS trust for that matter.)

My understanding is that directors like to pretend everything is fine right up until the moment they are forced to resign these days.

 

[AM9]

As I'm travelling at the moment, I might have missed a nuanced comment on this point but if the government stood back when a TOC suffered from bidding too high with the threat that the parent companies (a la Virgin, Stagecoach, National Express, Sea Containers etc, commercial bidders wouldn't dare to take the gamble.

 

[pemma]

The problem is that you still have to maintain a bid infrastructure, which could cost a substantial amount of money, unless you were able to pare it back drastically from the current infrastructure.

You can shortlist bidders before the ITT is published. If there's only one bidder to shortlist (British Railways Limited) then a lot of time and money is saved.

So if a private sector body wins then no service changes or improvements can happen for 25 years

Really? You better tell the RMT that Merseyrail will have to keep guards and 507s and 508s until 2028 as they have a 25 contract from 2003 to 2028. Also while you're at it tell Metrolink they can't change their services until 2024. You're thinking every contract has to be like the 'no growth' ones the SRA awarded, they don't.

 

[HSTEd]

Really? You better tell the RMT that Merseyrail will have to keep guards and 507s and 508s until 2028 as they have a 25 contract from 2003 to 2028. Also while you're at it tell Metrolink they can't change their services until 2024. You're thinking every contract has to be like the 'no growth' ones the SRA awarded, they don't.

Outsourcing contracts are inevitably written that a deviation from the activities laid out in the contract will be met with enormous fines/additional charges.
If they do not contain such charges, it is inevitable that the contracts will be far more highly priced - at which point we will get into arguments about whether the government-operator is deliberately low balling the costs of such uncertainty to ensure it wins the contract - and yet more litigation will occur.

 

[pemma]

Outsourcing contracts are inevitably written that a deviation from the activities laid out in the contract will be met with enormous fines/additional charges.
If they do not contain such charges, it is inevitable that the contracts will be far more highly priced - at which point we will get into arguments about whether the government-operator is deliberately low balling the costs of such uncertainty to ensure it wins the contract - and yet more litigation will occur.

You're either deliberately going off on a tangent because it doesn't suit your anti-EU agenda or you fail to understand something very basic. There can be clauses in contracts which allow an increase or decrease in service provision if passenger numbers change, it is not automatically fixed at a certain number for the entire duration of the contract and even if it is that's a minimum number and it wouldn't be a 'breach of contract' for the operator to choose to add in additional services.

 

[HSTEd]

You're either deliberately going off on a tangent because it doesn't suit your anti-EU agenda or you fail to understand something very basic. There can be clauses in contracts which allow an increase or decrease in service provision if passenger numbers change, it is not automatically fixed at a certain number for the entire duration of the contract and even if it is that's a minimum number and it wouldn't be a 'breach of contract' for the operator to choose to add in additional services.

I fully understand you can write such things into the contract (to enable an increase or decrease in services at a later date).
Just that this will cost money - people will not take on contracts with such provisions unless they will improve their profit margin in virtually all of the circumstances detailed in such contracts.

If there is a risk that some set of circumstances will made the position of the operator less favourable, this risk will be priced into the contract, making it more expensive.
The problem is that these contracts are inherently complicated, hard to understand, and tend to lead to madness like we see in PFI in the NHS.

You are suggesting that we attempt to rules-lawyer our way out of the thing the EU very clearly intended when it wrote the rail directive, and hope that noone brings a case against it that leads to the entire system being ruled to be illegitimate. And this system will be inevitably far more expensive than the traditional model because you still have to maintain a giant open access pricing infrastructure and all the interfaces current in the privatised railway.

And since we will no longer have any way to veto any further changes to the railway directive package - we will be helpless when the EU inevitably changes the rules to make waht you are attempting outright illegal.

The whole point of the railway package is to destroy state-associated railways.

 

[Senex]

So May clearly thinks her arch-Remainers are much less of a threat than her arch-Brexiteers. Where does this farce go next?

 

[nlogax]

So May clearly thinks her arch-Remainers are much less of a threat than her arch-Brexiteers. Where does this farce go next?

Right to the wire, possibly beyond.

 

[pemma]

While not directly Brexit related, if one MP shouting 'object' in the House of Parliament is enough to delay a bill without even giving a reason for objecting, shouldn't we fix our own system before we attempt to 'take back control'?

A bill to make upskirting a specific criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison has been blocked in the House of Commons after a single Conservative MP objected to it.

The voyeurism (offences) bill on upskirting – the taking of surreptitious, sexually intrusive images – was put forward by the Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse after a campaign by Gina Martin. Police have declined to prosecute a man Martin accused of taking underskirt pictures of her on his phone at a music festival in London last summer.

As a private member’s bill it would normally have little chance of becoming law. But early on Friday the justice minister Lucy Frazer said the government would back it.

However, when the deputy speaker Lindsay Hoyle read out the name of the bill later that day, the Tory MP Christopher Chope shouted: “Object”. Without sufficient time in the session for a proper vote it was sent back for another try on 6 July.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pher-chope-blocks-progress-of-upskirting-bill

 

[Senex]

While not directly Brexit related, if one MP shouting 'object' in the House of Parliament is enough to delay a bill without even giving a reason for objecting, shouldn't we fix our own system before we attempt to 'take back control'?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pher-chope-blocks-progress-of-upskirting-bill

I don't think you quite understand — our own system is perfect and is the model all the rest of the world should follow.

 

[Bromley boy]

While not directly Brexit related, if one MP shouting 'object' in the House of Parliament is enough to delay a bill without even giving a reason for objecting, shouldn't we fix our own system before we attempt to 'take back control'?



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pher-chope-blocks-progress-of-upskirting-bill

Sounds good to me, bills should be subjected to proper scrutiny.

I don't think you quite understand — our own system is perfect and is the model all the rest of the world should follow.

Nobody has said our system is perfect, but your solution appears to be to give up on it and hand over governance of the U.K. to the EU.

No thanks!

 

[fowler9]

i replied to the wrong person.

 

[fowler9]

While not directly Brexit related, if one MP shouting 'object' in the House of Parliament is enough to delay a bill without even giving a reason for objecting, shouldn't we fix our own system before we attempt to 'take back control'?



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...pher-chope-blocks-progress-of-upskirting-bill

i would love to hear his reasons. Ha ha.

 

[Bromley boy]

i would love to hear his reasons. Ha ha.

Maybe he thinks it’s bad law. If so, as an MP, he’s well within his rights to object. I couldn’t possibly comment. I haven’t read the draft bill myself. Have you?

Surely it’s a good thing that an elected MP can delay the passage of a private members bill?! All that will happen is that parliament will debate it at a later date and then pass it into law if duly voted.

What’s wrong with that, exactly?

It’s very strange indeed to me that members of this forum criticise the workings of our mature parliamentary democracy, yet are apparently happy to hand over our sovereignty and governance to the EU.

 

[pemma]

Maybe he thinks it’s bad law. If so, as an MP, he’s well within his rights to object. I couldn’t possibly comment. I haven’t read the draft bill myself. Have you?

Surely it’s a good thing that an elected MP can delay the passage of a private members bill?! All that will happen is that parliament will debate it at a later date and then pass it into law if duly voted.

What’s wrong with that, exactly?

I'm sure if there was a private members bill on something related to Brexit and a pro-EU MP shouted 'object' and then refused to give any reasons for objecting you wouldn't have the same stance then.

I fail to see how anyone could think the system as it is works. If private members bills are a good idea, surely those who object should be made to give reasons why, while if they are a bad idea and shouting 'object' is always a good idea to stop private members bills being passed without a proper debate and vote then they should be replaced by a better system.

It’s very strange indeed to me that members of this forum criticise the workings of our mature parliamentary democracy, yet are apparently happy to hand over our sovereignty and governance to the EU.

Have you forgotten that we have MEPs who negotiate on our behalf (or get paid for jobs they don't bother to do if they are UKIP MEPs) and that if we had the right to veto EU legislation we don't like (a right which we lost by voting to leave)?

Anyway if you haven't realised, you won we're leaving. It's not our problem to make the EU parliament fit for purpose, but we do need to ensure the UK parliament is fit to take on even more power and responsibility.

 

[pemma]

Theresa May said on Marr on Sunday that there will be £4bn extra a year going to the NHS for the next 5 years, some of which will be funded by a 'Brexit dividend' and the rest by tax increases. She refused to say how much of the £4bn a 'Brexit dividend' would provide. If it's £35 per year and the rest comes from tax increases then she'll have met her vague promise!

 

[Howardh]

Theresa May said on Marr on Sunday that there will be £4bn extra a year going to the NHS for the next 5 years, some of which will be funded by a 'Brexit dividend' and the rest by tax increases. She refused to say how much of the £4bn a 'Brexit dividend' would provide. If it's £35 per year and the rest comes from tax increases then she'll have met her vague promise!

Brexit will probably bring in next-to-nothing until the divorce bill is paid off - and that doesn't include any more bills we have to pay for access. So the bulk will have to come in tax increases. Should business, retail and industry fail to bring in revenue for the treasury post-Brexit then those tax increases will have to be even greater to make up the difference. I can't see any way our economy will improve after Brexit save for a very soft landing and virtual EU-membership so it could boil down to "yes, you can have Brexit but we will have to put 5-10p per £ more on tax". Or part/fully-privatise the NHS and start "forcing" us to have insurance.

In an ideal world may would scrap Brexit and then we could have some idea of how much revenue is coming in over the next decade and could tax with more certainty, rather than this "yes, let's give the NHS more and worry about how to pay for it later". The amount we give currently to the EU is about 5% of the amount we spend on health so there ain't much coming even if there was no divorce bill.

https://www.statista.com/chart/4520/where-do-uk-taxes-go/

The UK government spent £711 billion of taxpayers' money last year, but where did it all go? The largest share, at almost a quarter, went on 'welfare', with a total sum of £173 billion. Next up was 'health' with £144 billion being spent. For those concerned about the cost of EU membership, the figure at the bottom of the chart will be interesting. £4.7 billion pounds went towards maintaining the Union budget. Although this sounds like a large amount, it only actually accounted for 0.7 percent of the total spend.

It would make more financial sense to stay in the EU and leave "Culture", way more cash for the NHS!!!!