The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[smf]

Privatization of railways in Germany has gone absolutely horrible and it’s still a 100% state owned corporation, its logistics division has makes a lot of money but everything transport has gone to shit.

I'm not an expert on german railways, but it sounds like that is failure of a state owned corporation.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

I'm not an expert on german railways, but it sounds like that is failure of a state owned corporation.

It is a private corporation, the state just owns 100% of the shares at this point.
Basically it’s mandated to generate profit but gets to play with tax payer money.

 

[leon315]

Now the question is Will UK ever able to leave EU?

It's seems Mrs. May is in hard struggles.....

 

[notimp]

Privatization of railways in Germany has gone absolutely horrible and it’s still a 100% state owned corporation, its logistics division makes a lot of money but everything transport has gone to shit.

Privatization of railways kind of is something that - well mostly benefits the contract holder, because of one simple truth. They NEVER, and I mean ever are willing to pay for the track system. Those (and I dont just mean remote regions, but pretty much in general), are costs that always get put on the state and ultimately the tax payer. So whatever part of the railway system you can segment out and run privately - stands in direct conflict with the rest of the infrastructure system they are then suddenly competing against.

I believe what I've read about germany and railways was, that the part they segmented and had run more competitively then went to more short term business targets, which had all kinds of impacts on overall business performance, that werent foreseen. (The example I've read, I believe had to do with raising the average incline of tracks on newer builds, which the current set of trains could do, and saved cost, but long term wear and tear was higher, and some trains had to traverse them slower - which afair also raised wear and tear - so ... People in management simply didnt know what that percentage number meant for the long howl, they just decided to cut cost. Then were surprised by the results.. (Which they didnt have to answer for, because - look, our targets and projections are only ever 10 years out.) Privately owned isnt always better, especially for infrastructure-, and very long term oriented projects.

Hint - public/private partnerships on motorway segments. Same story - even more of a disaster. In Germany they got the state to guarantee them a road charge quota, that they had to pay even when traffic wasnt there anymore - all kinds of fun stuff. The state in the end then still sits on sunk costs. Thats kind of always the outcome with infrastructure projects. How curious. )

Now the question is Will UK ever able to leave EU?

It's seems Mrs. May is in hard struggles.....

Pro forma they have to. I mean, there is a vote. In actual fact, its still hard, economically, and politically. The entire thing kind of was designed in a way, that countries dont leave. So even part of your legal system runs on EU directives (that then get converted to local law), so... I'd understand anyone playing for time on the UK side. (I dont understand half a dozen of failed public votes in parliament on the issue though -- I mean.. If you want to, just do reelections already.. ).

 

[smf]

Pro forma they have to. I mean, there is a vote.

That isn't necessarily true https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rns-referendum-as-voters-were-poorly-informed

We'll see what happens with the result of https://www.theguardian.com/politic...d-be-challenged-in-court-on-brexit-vote-claim first.

At this point it's political suicide for the UK to leave or not leave.

This idea that winning a vote can justify doing anything is ludicrous, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

 

[notimp]

Thank you. I'll keep up on the outcome of that. But then if in the EU elections, a third of brits is voting Farage, I kind of have an idea where that is heading... I mean, talk about a public demonstration of intent..

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Privatization of railways kind of is something that - well mostly benefits the contract holder, because of one simple truth. They NEVER, and I mean ever are willing to pay for the track system. Those (and I dont just mean remote regions, but pretty much in general), are costs that always get put on the state and ultimately the tax payer. So whatever part of the railway system you can segment out and run privately - stands in direct conflict with the rest of the infrastructure system they are then suddenly competing against.

I believe what I've read about germany and railways was, that the part they segmented and had run more competitively then went to more short term business targets, which had all kinds of impacts on overall business performance, that werent foreseen. (The example I've read, I believe had to do with raising the average incline of tracks on newer builds, which the current set of trains could do, and saved cost, but long term wear and tear was higher, and some trains had to traverse them slower - which afair also raised wear and tear - so ... People in management simply didnt know what that percentage number meant for the long howl, they just decided to cut cost. Then were surprised by the results.. (Which they didnt have to answer for, because - look, our targets and projections are only ever 10 years out.) Privately owned isnt always better, especially for infrastructure-, and very long term oriented projects.

Hint - public/private partnerships on motorway segments. Same story - even more of a disaster. In Germany they got the state to guarantee them a road charge quota, that they had to pay even when traffic wasnt there anymore - all kinds of fun stuff. The state in the end then still sits on sunk costs. Thats kind of always the outcome with infrastructure projects. How curious. )

Pro forma they have to. I mean, there is a vote. In actual fact, its still hard, economically, and politically. The entire thing kind of was designed in a way, that countries dont leave. So even part of your legal system runs on EU directives (that then get converted to local law), so... I'd understand anyone playing for time on the UK side. (I dont understand half a dozen of failed public votes in parliament on the issue though -- I mean.. If you want to, just do reelections already.. ).

AFAIK it is correct that a lot of newer tracks have steeper inclines which I understand is cheaper to build. The problem with steep inclines is that there’s only limited friction between metal rails and metal wheels so heavier trains like cargo trains aren’t able to use these tracks which in turn means less cargo on environmentally friendly rails more cargo on environmentally unfriendly semi trucks.

 

[notimp]

So the new management saved cost and lost more business contracts. Great. (I'm pretty sure there also was a wear and tear angle on it, but I doubt I'd find sources right now.. ).

The main differences between private and publicly owned to think about are those two though. So shorter business cycles/plans (5 years in private businesses usually). (Which you might not want to have in industries like drink water supplies, railways... because those guys are then gone. They think exactly into the future up to the end of their personal involvement and not a second more.)

And the second one is sunk costs, that still get pinned on the state. (You cant build a railroad proficiently without kind of building 100 year plans around it - upfront costs are that high. So in the end, its always taxpayers money that builds them - nowadays. Go ask the chinese (belt and road.. ).).

Those are pretty quick shortcuts to think about when someone tells you "private is always better". On some things the state always gets stuck with the costs - eventually. And infrastructure kind of is an enabler for so many other industries, that you can afford inefficiencies (state always getting played there), but you cant afford "busts"".

 

[supersonicwaffle]

So the new management saved cost and lost more business contracts. Great. (I'm pretty sure there also was a wear and tear angle on it, but I doubt I'd find sources right now.. ).

The main differences between private and publicly owned to think about are those two though. So shorter business cycles/plans (5 years in private businesses usually). (Which you might not want to have in industries like drink water supplies, railways... because those guys are then gone. They think exactly into the future up to the end of their personal involvement and not a second more.)

And the second one is sunk costs, that still get pinned on the state. (You cant build a railroad proficiently without kind of building 100 year plans around it - upfront costs are that high. So in the end, its always taxpayers money that builds them - nowadays. Go ask the chinese (belt and road.. ).).

Those are pretty quick shortcuts to think about when someone tells you "private is always better". On some things the state always gets stuck with the costs - eventually. And infrastructure kind of is an enabler for so many other industries, that you can afford inefficiencies (state always getting played there), but you cant afford "busts"".

Although I would consider myself liberal I will agree that private isn’t always better and markets fail often enough to require intervention.
German telecom is an utter joke, small and medium businesses are struggling with costs for what should be considered reasonable internet connections outside of the largest cities.

 

[zomborg]

I am dubious of a lot of those.

1. The UK gov outsources endless amounts of stuff to the home grown outfit Capita, usually dubbed Crapita as they are so awful (they do must of the gov IT infrastructure). The benefits of a smaller pool then remain to be seen.

3. I have not gone fully into GDPR and the cookies thing annoys me but most of what I have seen has been fairly common sense data protection/handling stuff, not entirely unlike the data protection act that such people would have been familiar with.
" take employees out of the office for training on the new legislation,"
They are accountants -- that shit happens every 5 months anyway. Such people tend to go on more courses than IT people.

4. Yes UK gov take care of my internet access... oh wait porn blocks incoming and ISP level blocks on all sorts of weird and wonderful things for many years now ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_Kingdom )... yay such confidence that they know what they are doing.

5. Yet when the Royal Bank of Scotland was after some money look how quickly that got unarsed, and the results of that one https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45500384

6. I know MPs are not typically engineers (though this one is supposed to be a mathematician) but hahahahahahaha. Classic. We have had multiple sets of competing standards for multiple countries for... about as long as we have had standards (there is a reason I have a BSW/BSF/BSWS spanner set, a metric spanner set and a SAE/AF imperial sized spanner set). There is a reason why my lovely US DOT certified motorbike helmet is dubious to use on UK roads despite probably being able to handle worse impacts in some cases. The UK might once have been able to dictate a worldwide engineering standard but no chance today so it will be same shit, different face on it though if this does come to pass. Would also count for that other one where they could not be bothered to go beyond the UK only certs, and most EU certs are not that much harder to sort than those seen in US+ commonwealth countries (not to mention what I have seen has been pretty sane too).

7."Post Office closures"
Was that the directive or that nobody uses post any more so you don't need one on every estate? I am sure they will trot out some village somewhere that lost theirs and some rickety old grandma that suffered a bit as a result. Most were said duplicates (one in a town I used to live in had one on an estate, one maybe 600m away in a town, another a few hundred metres after that, and not far beyond that the main sorting office).
Directory enquires is an interesting thing to ponder here. I don't know enough to argue any which way here, however I am drawn to wonder if that is a cherry picked example as most such things would go under very fast should they go in for those kind of pricings.


On VAT. They are not going to kick their third biggest earner in the head -- taxes never get lowered, at best they change shape and more commonly inflation takes care of the raises, and all that. One that has been working for decades, longer if you count its precursor.

Nice to see a bit more effort than soundbites but still came up a bit short from where I sit.

I think you are probably correct that these ideas are not as solid and may not work out as solid as he makes it sound. You know better than I because you are from the UK and I'm from the US so maybe I'm not qualified to weigh in on this but allow me to ask you a question if I may.
There seem to be a few different arguments going around concerning the possible negative effects of mass immigration in the EU, US and other parts of the world. There also seem to be several different view points as to why the migrant crisis occurred. There is of course the official story that they were fleeing their poor, wartorn land and seeking refuge and shelter in the EU and of course there are opposing view points of which some are considered conspiracy theories.
But let's just suppose for a moment or pretend (for the sake of argument) that one of the theories were actually true. What if, the poor migrants were not coming seeking shelter, jobs, peace and a place where they and their families will be secure? What if the migrants flooding across your borders were not migrant families of men, women, children and the elderly but were instead, young military age men?
What if their goal is to flood the EU with so many of them that the end result is to transform European countries into poor 3rd world countries? Or, worse yet, what if, for example in the UK, they have not come to be good model UK citizens who are thankful to be there and only want to embrace your way of life as their own but instead have come to transform the UK into a muslim country and institute sharia law as the law of the land?
With that hypothetical situation in mind, what would you do if you wanted to close your own borders to try to stem the tide but you couldn't because you don't have national sovereignty because you are a member of the EU?

Example

 

[FAST6191]

I am not entirely sure what that hypothetical is supposed to illustrate or get us to contemplate. Were we doing more general computer security it would probably be a so called movie plot scenario.

Not sure what the numbers required for that would be (there is a difference between groundwork and highly trained agents able to infiltrate organisations and positions of power), and would be significant percentages of population in many countries if so. Would also have to overcome decades/centuries of UK law and EU law and tradition -- such legal frameworks would not only be unpopular but antithetical to general law making principles of those countries, and go against the vested interest of a lot of powerful and monied people, probably also likely to be defied by the remainder of the population. You also get the "actually this place is pretty swish" thing wherein good food, clean water, roads, building standards, parties and police all combine to make people that wandered over with a vague ideas planted in their heads about recreating a shithole they might have come from -- well funded true believe sleeper agents is pushing feasibility here far too much. Acting as a drag on the economy is hard when you are not in it, and the baseline benefits package is not enough to do much, and invariably geared towards getting people to actually do stuff.

Still the UK is an island so there is that, but for hypotheticals we will assume relatively porous borders seen elsewhere. If the UK raised the middle finger to the EU, perhaps in a manner similar to Hungary, then the EU would not invade to establish some kind of control wherein it is allowed again, sanctions might be levied but there is only so far that goes (long term it would be pretty neutral but short term many businesses with political power in those EU states do roaring trade with the UK so you get the cutting off your nose to spite your face thing). Within the UK then presumably they would probably make access to services harder (it is not as fun as Germany post Baader–Meinhof but I would say it is considerably harder to get by in the UK without tickets than it is to get by in the US without a green card, even those places that aren't "sanctuary" cities/counties/states), and probably make use of the rather decent intelligence services (assuming there were not already working at a seriously high capacity already/throughout it all).

 

[zomborg]

I am not entirely sure what that hypothetical is supposed to illustrate or get us to contemplate. Were we doing more general computer security it would probably be a so called movie plot scenario.

Not sure what the numbers required for that would be (there is a difference between groundwork and highly trained agents able to infiltrate organisations and positions of power), and would be significant percentages of population in many countries if so. Would also have to overcome decades/centuries of UK law and EU law and tradition -- such legal frameworks would not only be unpopular but antithetical to general law making principles of those countries, and go against the vested interest of a lot of powerful and monied people, probably also likely to be defied by the remainder of the population. You also get the "actually this place is pretty swish" thing wherein good food, clean water, roads, building standards, parties and police all combine to make people that wandered over with a vague ideas planted in their heads about recreating a shithole they might have come from -- well funded true believe sleeper agents is pushing feasibility here far too much. Acting as a drag on the economy is hard when you are not in it, and the baseline benefits package is not enough to do much, and invariably geared towards getting people to actually do stuff.

Still the UK is an island so there is that, but for hypotheticals we will assume relatively porous borders seen elsewhere. If the UK raised the middle finger to the EU, perhaps in a manner similar to Hungary, then the EU would not invade to establish some kind of control wherein it is allowed again, sanctions might be levied but there is only so far that goes (long term it would be pretty neutral but short term many businesses with political power in those EU states do roaring trade with the UK so you get the cutting off your nose to spite your face thing). Within the UK then presumably they would probably make access to services harder (it is not as fun as Germany post Baader–Meinhof but I would say it is considerably harder to get by in the UK without tickets than it is to get by in the US without a green card, even those places that aren't "sanctuary" cities/counties/states), and probably make use of the rather decent intelligence services (assuming there were not already working at a seriously high capacity already/throughout it all).

I'm sure you are right. I'm sure there's nothing to be concerned about.
However, here in the states, Americans have a potentially fatal flaw that I'm sure at least 80% of them do not even recognize. I know because not many years ago I had the same frame of mind. You see, we've lived in comfort and luxury for so long. We've been at ease for so long and felt so safe and secure that we have let our guard down. We have become complacent. This life of ease and contentment has made the average citizen soft and weak. Also because we for several decades, have felt arrogant and the average mindset as a whole is that we are better than they are. Who are they? Any other country around the world.
With that smug mindset, whenever a news report comes up or even if another citizen comes and tries to tell you : "Hey! We need to be on guard! We need to prepare ourselves and be ready because I have recently learned that radicals have a plan for America. They plan to move here, inbed themselves deeply into our society and even if it takes 50 to 100 years they plan to supplant us. When they have sufficient numbers they plan to rise up and overthrow us, make us submit, convert or kill us! " How does our average citizen respond to that? They are either cynical or with our smug confidence and feelings of safety and superiority, they reply with :" oh that will never happen. Not here, not in America, the land of the free and home of the brave. Maybe in a 3rd world country like Lebanon but never here."

So I sincerely hope you are right and that your island could never fall prey to things of that nature.

Article situations that have already occurred

Article grand design for USA

 

[Doran754]

Some good news today finally, the worst PM of my lifetime is finally going out the door. This will make a WTO more likely. Hopefully a brexiteer will become PM and the EU might finally take us seriously and work towards a FTA instead of trying to turn us into a colony. If not then WTO is fine with me but the most important step is getting someone who actually believes in brexit in number ten. Boris will probably be favourite but personally I'd like to see Esther McVey get the job.

 

[Taleweaver]

I just read the same thing. 't wasn't much of a surprise, but still...I'm honestly curious what will happen now. Will Boris Johnson become prime minister? Will someone whom he'll rely on (like Michael Gove earlier) drop his support all of a sudden? Will Dominique Raab have learned something of the last three years? And what will Farage do?

Oh, and of course: will the EU budge even an inch at the upcoming new season of political screwballing?

 

[Flame]

so May quit in May, good times ahead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48395905


the bitch cried. Did she cry for Grenfell, Windrush generation, NHS cuts, homeless people dying on the streets, record food bank use. children in poverty in one of the richest countries?

 

[FAST6191]

Wonder what that means for her "new" deal that was floated the other day.

 

[emigre]

I loathe May but I just know I'm going to 'miss' her when the new person takes charge. The modern Tory parliamentary party is full of self-serving cunts.

 

[SG854]

Some good news today finally, the worst PM of my lifetime is finally going out the door. This will make a WTO more likely. Hopefully a brexiteer will become PM and the EU might finally take us seriously and work towards a FTA instead of trying to turn us into a colony. If not then WTO is fine with me but the most important step is getting someone who actually believes in brexit in number ten. Boris will probably be favourite but personally I'd like to see Esther McVey get the job.

The Trump victory was not a fluke, Right Wing Populism is on the rise. He won 2,626 counties and Hillary won 487. This should put into perspective how Trump won even though Hillary got the popular vote. Trump overwhelmingly won the popular vote in counties.


Narendra Modi’s party just won India elections. A right wing nationalist victory.

Australia right wing party won also, even though polls showed they were going to loose. Similar to how polls in the U.S. said Trump was going to loose. They keep underestimating how popular right wing nationalism is. The media is so out of touch of what people want. The media keeps thinking the left wing is extremely popular but it’s not. And Nationalism keeps on winning and winning.


Brexit is leading polls (might also be an underestimate), polling higher almost double of labor party and they are projected to win.

These victories keeps happening over and over.

 

[FAST6191]

I loathe May but I just know I'm going to 'miss' her when the new person takes charge. The modern Tory parliamentary party is full of self-serving cunts.

I am only lightly keeping track of potentials here but of all those I have seen I don't think any particularly have the pull/juice to tie it all together, and if they do then it is only going to be under threat of the lash and that is seldom a good long term plan. Probably not going to be as weak and ineffectual as May is/was but the ability to decisively lead... nah, especially if the Tory party is also doing a bit of an ideological split (not as much as Labour or the US democrats but there if you go looking).

 

[smf]

I loathe May but I just know I'm going to 'miss' her when the new person takes charge. The modern Tory parliamentary party is full of self-serving cunts.

I agree, I expect the next leader will either face the same struggle as May or will be a brexiter who wants to start a suicide cult.

It'll be interesting to see if Boris Johnson's alleged misconduct in a public office case goes anywhere. http://www.brexitjustice.com/

It could at least put paid to his disastrous attempt at becoming leader, although that would probably put an end to leaving the eu