Exit from Europe potential impact on the railway?

[Gadfly]

Norway and Switzerland are in the EEA - this means they implement EU directives even though they are not full members. They do so because they get the benefits of trade without the cost of full membership. But it does mean they don't have a say in these policies.

Re engine emissions isn't that down to the engine makers to produce something that will fit. Or we can extend our knitting and use electrics.

Countries such as Mexico have negotiated free trade arrangements with the EU without having to comply with EU rules. The UK can negotiate its own trade agreements with the EU, the USA and the rest of the world.

 

[The Ham]

Countries such as Mexico have negotiated free trade arrangements with the EU without having to comply with EU rules. The UK can negotiate its own trade agreements with the EU, the USA and the rest of the world.

As the UK has a free trade agreement with Ireland then there is no need for the UK to arrange an agreement with the EU, as all trade could just pass through another country such as Ireland.

If companies didn't want to use a third party in Ireland all they would need to do is set up a subsidiary which was run via a serviced office which passed all communications back to the head office. The accountancy would be set up so that it cost as little as possible, probably making a loss so as to pay minimal taxes. Yes, there would be some extra costs but very few.

Welcome to the joys of a global market

 

[LateThanNever]

As the UK has a free trade agreement with Ireland then there is no need for the UK to arrange an agreement with the EU, as all trade could just pass through another country such as Ireland.

If companies didn't want to use a third party in Ireland all they would need to do is set up a subsidiary which was run via a serviced office which passed all communications back to the head office. The accountancy would be set up so that it cost as little as possible, probably making a loss so as to pay minimal taxes. Yes, there would be some extra costs but very few.

Welcome to the joys of a global market

A very interesting idea. But if the EU decided to make life difficult for a UK exiting their club their remaining members could be instructed not to run these schemes. The UK would then take up its position of a minority of one outside the EU which, I fear, would be even more lonely than a minority of one inside it...

 

[deltic]

As the UK has a free trade agreement with Ireland then there is no need for the UK to arrange an agreement with the EU, as all trade could just pass through another country such as Ireland.

If companies didn't want to use a third party in Ireland all they would need to do is set up a subsidiary which was run via a serviced office which passed all communications back to the head office. The accountancy would be set up so that it cost as little as possible, probably making a loss so as to pay minimal taxes. Yes, there would be some extra costs but very few.

Welcome to the joys of a global market

I am intrigued by reference to the free trade agreement with Ireland. Is this the 1965 agreement? Has it not been subsumed by our entry into the EEC along with all of the UK's former bilateral trade agreements?

 

[Olaf]

Many rail improvement projects are co-financed through the EU's ERDF and TEN-T programmes. This money would go meaning any short fall would have to be found elsewhere or investment cut. And if anyone thinks the money saved on EU membership (although it's debatable if there are any savings to be had) would be reinvested in the railways, then they place more faith in HM Treasury and central government than I do.

Those grants are only made where the UK Government has also made a matching commitment. So in terms of commitment to projects, I see it making no difference.

I am guessing that the principle potential beneficiary projects in the coming years will be the ETRMS roll-out and HS rail, but they are also committed to by the Government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Privisation is how we chose to implement the EU Directive but I think you will find is that the EU Directive is meant to allow other operators to be allowed to use the network. So we could have done it the way France and to a lesser extent Germany did it which is just split the infrastructure from the operator and leave it at that. Instead we chose to have many franchised operators.

Possible; but then look at the state the railways have gotten into in France and Germany and you can see why it was not a good idea for the usual reasons.