Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[The39thStep]

That was 2015 though.

Here's a more recent one, unfortunately.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...data/file/652136/hate-crime-1617-hosb1717.pdf


A 29% increase in hate crimes. 'a genuine rise in hate crime' in case people argued about statistics

I dont think those attitudes will have changed in any significant manner what so ever over two years. Worth noting its a survey about attitudes not an attempt to measure hate crime or racially aggravated crime across Europe.The latter is hard to do becuase there isnt an EU standard in reporting or definition of crime.In those that have been done on that basis ,aside from the UK/Brexit spike, one of the commonalities is the spikes that relate to terrorist incidents.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I dont think those attitudes will have changed in any significant manner what so ever over two years. Worth noting its a survey about attitudes not an attempt to measure hate crime or racially aggravated crime across Europe.The latter is hard to do becuase there isnt an EU standard in reporting or definition of crime.In those that have been done on that basis ,aside from the UK/Brexit spike, one of the commonalities is the spikes that relate to terrorist incidents.

I'm sure they haven't. Those charts show that there's a racist rump in the least racist countries in Europe, such as the UK, Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden, of perhaps 15 per cent, while rather more than that may be amenable to anti-Muslim sentiments. That tallies pretty well with the top-end that racist political parties can achieve in elections in those countries, which tends to top out around 15 %.

Said racist rump was emboldened by the brexit vote, though. I think it's hard to deny that.

 

[The39thStep]

I'm sure they haven't. Those charts show that there's a racist rump in the least racist countries in Europe, such as the UK, Netherlands, Denmark or Sweden, of perhaps 15 per cent, while rather more than that may be amenable to anti-Muslim sentiments. That tallies pretty well with the top-end that racist political parties can achieve in elections in those countries, which tends to top out around 15 %.

Said racist rump was emboldened by the brexit vote, though. I think it's hard to deny that.

I'd be very surprised if there wasnt a racist rump in any of those countries and that would also include those from minorities who hold anti jewish, anti muslim and anti black prejudices.

Re the far right topping out at 15% ,heres a map of far right election results (just hover over different countries and their regions) that might help you.
How the Populist Right Is Redrawing the Map of Europe

 

[teuchter]

It would be good to hear a remainer/ pro eu view on this. I thought someone would pop in to shoot it down.

Actually it prompted me to do a lot of reading.

I wanted to find out what the actual change in legislation is. Because the article linked to suggested that the change is in the required proportion of trade union members voting *for* a strike. That is, that >50% of the union membership must vote in favour of a strike. But other articles I've found imply that the new requirement is that >50% of union members must vote in the ballot in order for it to be valid, which is different.

None of the articles I've been able to find go into much detail. And nowhere can I find the actual text of the reforms. In an IMF report I find the following statement:

In Greece, only 33 to 25 percent (at the second ballot) of first level union members need to be represented in the decision to call a strike.

That sounds to me to be saying we are talking about a threshold % of members voting, rather than threshold % of members voting in favour.

If that's true then the linked article is not correct.

Any clarifications welcome.

 

[Santino]

Actually it prompted me to do a lot of reading.

I wanted to find out what the actual change in legislation is. Because the article linked to suggested that the change is in the required proportion of trade union members voting *for* a strike. That is, that >50% of the union membership must vote in favour of a strike. But other articles I've found imply that the new requirement is that >50% of union members must vote in the ballot in order for it to be valid, which is different.

None of the articles I've been able to find go into much detail. And nowhere can I find the actual text of the reforms. In an IMF report I find the following statement:



That sounds to me to be saying we are talking about a threshold % of members voting, rather than threshold % of members voting in favour.

If that's true then the linked article is not correct.

Any clarifications welcome.

What is your opinion of the legislation, in either case?

 

[Raheem]

Actually it prompted me to do a lot of reading.

I wanted to find out what the actual change in legislation is. Because the article linked to suggested that the change is in the required proportion of trade union members voting *for* a strike. That is, that >50% of the union membership must vote in favour of a strike. But other articles I've found imply that the new requirement is that >50% of union members must vote in the ballot in order for it to be valid, which is different.

None of the articles I've been able to find go into much detail. And nowhere can I find the actual text of the reforms. In an IMF report I find the following statement:



That sounds to me to be saying we are talking about a threshold % of members voting, rather than threshold % of members voting in favour.

If that's true then the linked article is not correct.

Any clarifications welcome.

Seems like it's to do with increasing the participation thresholds, but it also seems like they have quite a complex arrangement in Greece, where local strikes have a higher threshold and the threshold also varies according to the result of the ballot (I'm joining the dots, but presumably very close votes require a higher level of participation to be valid). It seems like quite a substantial increase, where the threshold in many cases will be double what it was.

I haven't been able to find out by what mechanism the Greek government has been forced into this or whether or not it was the EU doing the forcing. Obviously, it can't be considered a good thing in any event.

Lesson closer to home: Don't rely on Counterpunch for accuracy.

 

[teuchter]

It's a condition of the bailout stuff, isn't it? That's the mechanism, if you want the cash accept our terms.

 

[teuchter]

What is your opinion of the legislation, in either case?

I don't like the principle of messing with peoples' right to take industrial action. That said, I'd like to understand more of the context. What's your opinion? Opaque, I assume.

 

[Santino]

I don't like the principle of messing with peoples' right to take industrial action. That said, I'd like to understand more of the context. What's your opinion? Opaque, I assume.

My opinion is that it is bad.

 

[Santino]

It's a condition of the bailout stuff, isn't it? That's the mechanism, if you want the cash accept our terms.

What is your opinion of an EU country being made to accept changes to employment law as a condition of accepting 'bailout' money?

 

[teuchter]

What is your opinion of an EU country being made to accept changes to employment law as a condition of accepting 'bailout' money?

It depends on a hugely complicated context which I make no pretence at fully understanding.

 

[teuchter]

My opinion is that it is bad.

How does the revised Greek leglislation compare with its equivalents in other EU countries which have been enacted by national sovereign governments?

 

[Raheem]

It's a condition of the bailout stuff, isn't it? That's the mechanism, if you want the cash accept our terms.

Yes, I understand that it's to do with the bailout. But was this specific measure stipulated by the loan agreement? Is it an attempt by the Greek government to meet some objective they're required to? Is it the result of some process they were forced to undertake? And, beyond that, is it the EU, IMF, both or someone else who is behind the underlying requirement?

 

[Santino]

How does the revised Greek leglislation compare with its equivalents in other EU countries which have been enacted by national sovereign governments?

Is that relevant to whether it is or is not bad?

 

[teuchter]

Is that relevant to whether it is or is not bad?

It depends what you mean by "bad". What do you mean by "bad"? Is your "bad" absolute?

 

[teuchter]

Yes, I understand that it's to do with the bailout. But was this specific measure stipulated by the loan agreement? Is it an attempt by the Greek government to meet some objective they're required to? Is it the result of some process they were forced to undertake? And, beyond that, is it the EU, IMF, both or someone else who is behind the underlying requirement?

It's not something I'm very clear about. The answers may be in here

Financial assistance to Greece

 

[J Ed]

Not that the argument is made in good faith, but a frequent argument made by remain dead-enders who in reality would fight nationalisation tooth and nail is that of course nationalisation would be possible inside the EU since France has nationalised rail. Well...

Spinetta report urges SNCF to prepare for competition

FRANCE: The national railway must refocus on ‘the areas where it has greatest relevance’: transporting large numbers of passengers within urban areas, and providing high speed connectivity between France’s principal cities.

This mission statement is at the heart of a landmark report handed to Prime Minister Edouard Philippe on February 15 by former Air France Chief Executive Jean-Cyril Spinetta. The report was commissioned in October last year by Transport Secretary Elisabeth Borne, and Spinetta was given a wide-ranging remit to assess the future of the French rail sector in the context of SNCF’s ongoing indebtedness, and the requirement under the EU’s Fourth Railway Package to liberalise the domestic passenger market.

 

[Raheem]

Not that the argument is made in good faith, but a frequent argument made by remain dead-enders who in reality would fight nationalisation tooth and nail is that of course nationalisation would be possible inside the EU since France has nationalised rail. Well...

Spinetta report urges SNCF to prepare for competition

Does this article mention any sort of privatisation?

 

[stethoscope]

'Liberalise the market'.

(I'm sure you know this)

 

[teuchter]

There's no new news here.

Except for inftastructure which I think should remain in state ownership I'm not that bothered about whether our rail services are nationalised or not. I'm more interested in them being organised and regulated effectively and funded properly. And I've more faith in the EU making that happen than any UK government.

I feel that most people who bang on about nationalisation being the magic solution to our railway problems probably spend much of their time driving around in privately owned cars and simply aren't interested in thinking about some of the good reasons for the changes to the structuring of Europe's railways in an era of cheap flights and of roads excessively clogged with freight that should be on the rails.

As for the question of whether the liberalisation process is an obstruction to nationalisation, that was discussed at some length in the document posted a few pages back.

 

[Raheem]

'Liberalise the market'.

(I'm sure you know this)

No I don't know it at all. The Fourth Package basically requires administrative separation between track and rolling stock. One effect of this will be to make it easier in countries that have state-owned train companies and don't currently have such a separation for future governments to privatise parts of their train network. So, don't be in any doubt that it is a bad thing from that perspective.

However, even if it will make it easier to privatise, the reverse isn't true. There's nothing about it that will make it harder to nationalise, or that will force governments into privatisation against their will.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

No I don't know it at all. The Fourth Package basically requires administrative separation between track and rolling stock. One effect of this will be to make it easier in countries that have state-owned train companies and don't currently have such a separation for future governments to privatise parts of their train network. So, don't be in any doubt that it is a bad thing from that perspective.

However, even if it will make it easier to privatise, the reverse isn't true. There's nothing about it that will make it harder to nationalise, or that will force governments into privatisation against their will.

And why risk getting into an argument re the complexities of nationalising where there is now mandatory competitive tendering when you can just neglect to mention it altogether!

I feel that most people who bang on about nationalisation being the magic solution to our railway problems probably spend much of their time driving around in privately owned cars

Working class people are always chomping at the bit for privatisation, aren't they. Listen to the ones on these boards "PRIVATISE THE LOT!"

 

[kabbes]

I feel that most people who bang on about nationalisation being the magic solution to our railway problems probably spend much of their time driving around in privately owned cars and simply aren't interested in thinking about some of the good reasons for the changes to the structuring of Europe's railways in an era of cheap flights and of roads excessively clogged with freight that should be on the rails.

With all due respect to your magic feels, most of the time I hear people “banging on” about it, it’s from people standing on platforms waiting for delayed trains, or people stuffed dangerously into overcrowded carriages because the previous train was cancelled and so two already overfull trains’ worth are being pushed into one train.

I don’t really hear anybody “banging on” about it who goes around in private cars all the time. They don’t tend to give a shit.

But hey, you have your feels. You commute on the rail network at rush hour every day though, right? To get those feels? Feels are pretty important.

 

[stethoscope]

Teuchter's really showing his political colours these days.

 

[J Ed]

Privatisation's not so bad since we Brits are irreedeeambly bad anyway we deserve what we are getting and more. Let's face it, inside or out of the EU there is no way that we can get to heaven and anyway all the people who use trains are posh unlike the salt of the earth car users so privatisation is good because it punishes those hypothetical posh people. What's a bus?

 

[DexterTCN]

Teuchter's really showing his political colours these days.

 

[teuchter]

Commuters understandably complain about overcrowded and unreliable services because many of our commuter routes are at capacity, yes. And when people tell them that these problems could be solved by nationalisation many seem to buy it. I don't.

Commuting by rail doesn't preclude people from privately owning a car and using it for other journeys or indeed to and from the station. It also doesn't make them interested in or knowledgable about aspects of rail or indeed public transport outside of their commute.

Britain is a nation of car drivers and so far that's how Britain seems to have voted.

I just wish that the apparent enthusiasm for rail nationalisation - which I don't think will solve our transport problems - could instead be spent on deeper changes to transport policy that could.

You lot feel free to spin that desire into whatever sinister agenda you like. Or alternatively, instead of feeble snidey comments about "political colours" and so on feel free to discuss the actual points.

One of the aims of the EU policy is to encourage transnational freight, which can currently move freely, by private road hauliers, across borders but which faces certain obstacles by rail. Maybe there are better ways to improve this, than the EU open access approach. More than happy to hear them.

 

[teuchter]

Privatisation's not so bad since we Brits are irreedeeambly bad anyway we deserve what we are getting and more. Let's face it, inside or out of the EU there is no way that we can get to heaven and anyway all the people who use trains are posh unlike the salt of the earth car users so privatisation is good because it punishes those hypothetical posh people. What's a bus?

You've got your parody all the wrong way round I'm afraid.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Not that the argument is made in good faith, but a frequent argument made by remain dead-enders who in reality would fight nationalisation tooth and nail is that of course nationalisation would be possible inside the EU since France has nationalised rail. Well...

Spinetta report urges SNCF to prepare for competition

It's a bit or a straw man though, isn't it. We don't have nationalised rail in this country and a Tory Brexit will not make this more likely, in fact the trade deals we will be offered outside the EU will make it even less likely.

 

[kabbes]

Commuters understandably complain about overcrowded and unreliable services because many of our commuter routes are at capacity, yes. And when people tell them that these problems could be solved by nationalisation many seem to buy it. I don't.

But you don’t actually experience it, do you? You don’t get caught in the system of everybody blaming everybody else with no apparent accountability at all. You don’t get told you can’t use a train because your ticket isn’t applicable for that rail operating company. You don’t get the daily frustration of the consequences of privatisation.

Commuting by rail doesn't preclude people from privately owning a car and using it for other journeys or indeed to and from the station. It also doesn't make them interested in or knowledgable about aspects of rail or indeed public transport outside of their commute.

Yeah, fuck people who actually spend ten hours a week using the trains. What do they know? They probably even also have a car!