Whirlwind wrote:
Clegg could be considered as a good Leader but a poor manager.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Not having a go at you, but IMO, there seems to be a myth about the Lib Dems and their alliance with the Tories in 2010.

Clegg said it was in the national interest, stability, recession, blah blah blah.

But the truth is, the Lib Dems didn't have to go into government with Dave, and if it was really in the national interest (getting a budget or important bill through) they could have supported a minority Tory government on an issue by issue basis.

They got a whiff of power, and sold the nation down the river, and rightfully paid the price for being a bunch of treacherous

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Clegg could be considered as a good Leader but a poor manager.

A good leader wouldn't consign his party to irrelevency when he had little support from his party nor membership.

ScotRail are about to introduce trains that are so old, the engine has been on display in a museum.

A fleet of 40-year-old diesel high-speed engines are due to start operating in 2018 in a bid to increase passenger capacity. They will be the oldest trains in ScotRail’s stock .

The InterCity 125 is used by Great Western Railway in England but is being replaced with electric stock.

One of the first made went on display at the National Railway Museum in York in October to mark its 40th anniversary.

Scottish ministers promised a “rail revolution” when they awarded Dutch operators Abellio the contract to run Scotland’s trains.

But Abellio now risk being stripped of their £7billion, 10-year contract if delays and cancellations get worse .

The firm have vowed to improve the capacity and frequency of services by introducing 70 electric trains on the main Edinburgh-Glasgow line and other key routes by next autumn.

A fleet of 26 InterCity 125 trains will come into service in 2018 on routes from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Inverness and Aberdeen. The trains were first introduced in 1976.

Before going into service in Scotland under a 12-year lease, they will get new seats, tables, carpets, better lighting and wifi and power sockets.

Gordon Martin, Scottish organiser of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, said: “Bringing in 40-year-old rolling stock may be a short-term solution.

“But at a time when maintenance fitter jobs are being cut, it’s a potential recipe for disaster if they’re not maintained to the proper standard.”

Scottish Labour transport spokesman Neil Bibby said services on the routes had been in desperate need of an upgrade for years.

He said: “I hope these refurbished trains provide that necessary improvement. But many passengers are demanding improvements within weeks, not months.”

The Sunday Mail is demanding a fairer deal for rail passengers and last week ScotRail published a 249-point plan for improving performance.

It followed the Sunday Mail quizzing Transport Minister Humza Yousaf over Abellio’s dismal service which has angered commuters.

More than 20,000 people have signed a petition calling for the Abellio contract to be binned unless train services improve.

A ScotRail Alliance spokeswoman said refurbishing the high-speed train fleet will cost £54million.

She added: “It will transform long-distance rail travel in Scotland by providing more seats and a much improved on-board environment.”

Transport Scotland said: “Re-engineering rolling stock of the quality of high speed trains is a proven means of delivering top-class trains in a sustainable and efficient manner.

“We are confident passengers will enjoy travelling on these extensively renewed trains.”

 reds8n wrote:


40 year old trains.

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/jordanjryan/status/805742704491692032


...been a strange year really eh ?

 welshhoppo wrote:
As we are the nearest thread to Italy, what do people think of Italy? Is the end of the EU nigh?

 reds8n wrote:
On that subject :

How swish are Italian ballot papers eh ?

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/jordanjryan/status/805742704491692032


...been a strange year really eh ?

I get the feeling he's new to this whole protest thing, if his placard slogans are anything to go by. Not exactly snappy are they?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
As we are the nearest thread to Italy, what do people think of Italy? Is the end of the EU nigh?

Why would it be? The Italian referendum was on constitutional reform, not the EU.

 reds8n wrote:
On that subject :

How swish are Italian ballot papers eh ?

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

 reds8n wrote:
On that subject :

How swish are Italian ballot papers eh ?

Spoiler:

 Whirlwind wrote:

It really shows the flaw in the referendum process. Constitutional reform was railroaded by a populist movement. You'd have to wonder about the conversations people have given they voted in a young prime minister who wanted to change how Italy worked; and yet 2.5 years later when he actually proposed the changes the populace decided to say 'no' and keep the system that they are so opposed to and wanted changing, all because of the mantra of "Eurozone, we hates it!"

The United Kingdom is a founding member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In addition to the general obligations of membership, all WTO members undertake specific commitments in their goods and services schedules: WTO members’ goods schedules set out upper limits for tariffs and detail any tariff rate quotas, and WTO members’ services schedules set out commitments and reservations across all sectors and list specific sectoral commitments and reservations.
The UK’s WTO commitments currently form part of the European Union’s schedules. When we leave the EU we will need UK-specific schedules. In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the Government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations. The Government will undertake this process in dialogue with the WTO membership. This work is a necessary part of our leaving the EU. It does not prejudge the outcome of the eventual UK-EU trading arrangements.

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-12-05/HCWS316/

The United Kingdom is a founding member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In addition to the general obligations of membership, all WTO members undertake specific commitments in their goods and services schedules: WTO members’ goods schedules set out upper limits for tariffs and detail any tariff rate quotas, and WTO members’ services schedules set out commitments and reservations across all sectors and list specific sectoral commitments and reservations.
The UK’s WTO commitments currently form part of the European Union’s schedules. When we leave the EU we will need UK-specific schedules. In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the Government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations. The Government will undertake this process in dialogue with the WTO membership. This work is a necessary part of our leaving the EU. It does not prejudge the outcome of the eventual UK-EU trading arrangements.

Slipped that one out quietly eh ?

Whilst everyone was staring at the courts.

Jo Moore would be proud.

Stranger83 wrote:
Or does it just show that the getting out of the EU is more important to them?

If my house was on fire and I could save the Kids or the wedding album I'd chose the kids - it doesn't mean I don't like the wedding album, I just value the kids more.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what the Italy referendum was all about, or that I understand the political arena over there, but from what I have gathered is that apparently people did attempt to change this to a referendum on the EU as opposed to what it was actually meant to be (much like the recent Heathrow election). Clearly the people of Italy want a say in that much more than a say in some government reforms, so let 'em have a say.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nothing to lose sleep over IMO. I was somewhat expecting something like this.

Liam Fox released a very revealing written statement yesterday. His department has started to do the preliminary work at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) required for when Britain leaves the EU.

Members of the WTO have things called schedules, these are basically a description of your trading relationship with the world. They list things like your tariffs and your services commitments. Britain's are currently held under an EU umbrella and they'll need to be extracted ahead of leaving.

This should be the chance to create that confident, independent, global trading nation Fox and the other Brexiters are always talking about. Finally Britain can construct a trading arrangement which suits it, not the continent.

For instance, we can get rid of the special rule on oranges, which we don't grow but have to labour under because of the Mediterranean states in the EU which do. We can prioritise the sugar cane that Tate & Lyle uses in their sugar, rather than the sugar beet which is used in Europe. We can finally create a customised trading arrangement for this country, rather than one for a continent with which we sometimes share very few economic interests. This is exactly what Brexit was all about.

Except Fox isn't going to do any of that.

"In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations."

It is a startling admission. The UK's extracted WTO schedules will "replicate as far as possible" it's current status. So we'll keep the special rule for oranges, even though we don't grow them. We will continue to protect a sugar process designed for Europe and continue failing to protect one used by one of our major companies, despite its years of lobbying to change the system.

In short, despite all the sound and the fury, despite all the attacks against immigrants and the threats against EU citizens in the UK, despite all the Brexit votes and the Richmond rebellions and the sudden change in this country's political dynamic, the government is not aiming to change anything of any substance. Britain will keep the exact EU tariff system which Brexiters for so long said was strangling it.

Why? Because to do otherwise would be suicide. The WTO has been presented by Brexiters as a safety net, a place to go if no deal is possible with the EU. They keep on saying that they have no concern about falling back on their rules. This is because they don't know what they are.

Any member state at the WTO can trigger a trade dispute with the UK if they feel they have been unfairly treated by a change in its arrangements. And Britain is about to change its arrangement with everyone. It is a major economy extracting itself from a massive trading block. Those disputes are likely to either be resolved by sanctions or concessions on tariffs. If Britain were to lose several of them it would basically be trading under the conditions of injured foreign parties.

So instead Britain will try to rock the boat as little as possible. It will copy and paste all the EU tariffs, whether they suit us or not. It will protect produce it has no intention of making and leave many it does make without protections.

Then it will have to figure out what it'll do with tariff rate quotas, which can't be replicated like tariffs are. Quotas mean that importers pay one tariff for a set amount of a product - say 100,000 tonnes of chicken - and then another tariff for anything above that amount. But this is calculated across the EU, so when Britain takes its tariff rate quota out, it is calculating what slice of the pie it is entitled to. You can't replicate quotas, you have to calculate them.

Tariff rate quotas are so devilishly complicated that they are almost never touched. The EU still operates under quotas from two expansions ago. But Britain is pressed for time, so it will probably take the last three years' trade flows and claim that as the basis for them going forward.

This is as close to a tolerable solution as the UK is likely to find, but look at the incentives on the other side. Brazil exports 480,000 tonnes of chicken to the EU a year, of which about 40,000 goes to Britain. Let's say the British deal on these tariff quotas is unfair. They will trigger a trade dispute. Fine, that's to be expected.

But now imagine the British deal is perfectly fair. What is their incentive? They have the opportunity to open up further market access for their poultry exporters. So they may wish to trigger a trade dispute anyway. Britain will be walking a tightrope, hoping thousands of these disputes don't erupt at a uniquely vulnerable time for it economically. That makes it open to making the changes the other side demands.

This is the case not just for Brazil, but for every single country on earth which exports to the UK. Failure at the WTO level can trigger a global avalanche of trade disputes against us, just as we cut ourselves off from our largest market.

And all of this doesn't even include the EU, which is an independent actor at the WTO, as well as the representative body for 27 of its other member states. They get to present their schedules to the WTO first, because they are much larger. If they disagree with anything we've done, they have a stronger voice in winning that battle. Britain’s extracted schedules will need to be accepted by the EU for it to have any hope of making a seamless transition.

None of this will be mentioned by the Brexiters, of course. In public they puff out their chests and accuse critics of not believing in Britain and thumb their nose at their European counterparts. But in private, well away from prying eyes, they delicately and loyally replicate all of the EU's trading arrangements, just so they stand a chance of setting themselves up in a viable manner at the WTO.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
Or does it just show that the getting out of the EU is more important to them?

If my house was on fire and I could save the Kids or the wedding album I'd chose the kids - it doesn't mean I don't like the wedding album, I just value the kids more.

I'm not going to pretend that I understand what the Italy referendum was all about, or that I understand the political arena over there, but from what I have gathered is that apparently people did attempt to change this to a referendum on the EU as opposed to what it was actually meant to be (much like the recent Heathrow election). Clearly the people of Italy want a say in that much more than a say in some government reforms, so let 'em have a say.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the matter either but it seems to me that Renzi is seen by a large section of Italy as an EU stooge who'll do whatever they tell him to do, whilst at the same time publicly decrying them in order to appear on the side of the Italian voter. A bit like an Italian version of David Cameron then.

And these reforms would have given him more power, which if I had to guess, he'd use to push through a pro EU agenda with less resistance. This is only my hypothesis of course.

I couldn't tell you how much Italy is against the EU at the moment but my instincts tell me it's quite a lot more than the EU would like to admit. And probably growing too.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
EU Law only requires that the companies managing Rail Infrastructure (track maintenance, signalling, etc.) and Operations (carrying the passeengers, freight, etc.) are separate in their running and accounting and that private companies can apply for use of the tracks.

Public ownership of gas and electricity is destined to become a cherished aim of the Labour Party. For years under privatisation, the swindling of the consumer has gone hand-in-hand with outrageous profit-taking by the corporate giants, to the loss of the public purse. Far from helping customers through keen competition, the main effect of energy privatisation has been – like austerity – a redistribution of wealth from the have-nots to the well-to-do.

What a pity, therefore, that Labour cannot renationalise it! Britain is a member of the European Union (EU) and as such bound by the EU Treaties. Indeed, every British court is duty-bound to enforce every EU law in preference to any conflicting British statute. Under Article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition. Nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed by the judiciary for their “necessity”. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to scupper programmes of public ownership.

The fact that EU law has this effect may seem astonishing. Many on the Left seem unaware of it. Those fond of the EU tend to go into denial over it. Despite Greece, there is a tendency to displace the EU’s neoliberalism onto the nascent Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: “EU good, TTIP bad”, so the chorus goes.

Yet the consensus that EU law really does preclude renationalisation is pretty overwhelming. Legal scholars regard the jurisprudence surrounding Article 106 as “revolutionary”, since it reverses “the decades-old presumption…that Member States are free in principle to determine their preferred system of property ownership”. Even Polly Toynbee endlessly reiterated that EU competition law would make NHS privatisation irreversible, though curiously this didn’t dampen her pro-EU ardour in the long term.

Furthermore there is scant prospect of Article 106 ever being repealed. To do so would require the common accord of all the governments of the EU Member States. You’d only need a single neoliberal government to veto such a Treaty change.

For good measure, from the 1990s onwards there was a surge of EU liberalisation directives opening up gas, electricity, transport, telecommunications etc to private sector involvement. Fat chance of a Labour Britain getting these repealed either: to do so would require a “qualified majority” of Member States.

Labour therefore faces a choice: dump the EU or dump renationalisation. Whatever choice it makes, the fact that EU membership outlaws renationalisation needs to be fully understood throughout the Party and labour movement.

Danny Nicol is Professor of Public Law at the University of Westminster

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Liam Fox mucking things up is hardly a newsflash on this forum

I have no problem with a 2-3 years transitional period where the UK keeps EU and WTO rules/quotas/regulations whatever, the way they are.