EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[AM9]

OK, so Brexit means Brexit! Now what does Brexit actually mean? The leavers were so keen to spin their dream of a UK with all our benefits intact but with no responsibilities to any of our neighbours. They can't even tell us what they want now.
The silence is deafening.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would the Brexit supporters have been reassuring about how matters would turn out in the Calais camp area known as "The Jungle" if their campaign was successful?

 

[radamfi]

I am living up Britain as a European country by focussing most of my bus & rail enthusiast travels in Remain areas and cutting back on local travels in Leave areas.

I had already virtually eliminated most UK local travel in favour of travelling in mainland Europe, because of better integration, better quality buses, no bus deregulation, cheaper fares etc. but now I boycott the UK on principle.

 

[J-2739]

I had already virtually eliminated most UK local travel in favour of travelling in mainland Europe, because of better integration, better quality buses, no bus deregulation, cheaper fares etc. but now I boycott the UK on principle.

...help.

 

[radamfi]

...help.

So you think it is right to support British local transport when there is a better attitude to transport integration and public transport in general on the continent?

 

[EM2]

OK, so Brexit means Brexit! Now what does Brexit actually mean?

It means Brexit. Weren't you paying attention?

 

[AM9]

It means Brexit. Weren't you paying attention?

If that is the case, i.e. Brexit means that the UK exit's the EU. All that takes is to action Article 50. Then what, just sit there deciding what to do with the (approx.) £160m we've saved? It brings to mind the scene in Finding Nemo where the dentist's aquarium fish escape in a plastic bag accross the road and into the harbour.

 

[Howardh]

It means Brexit. Weren't you paying attention?

I've worked it out . It stands for former information technology from British Rail.

So if anyone asks what "BR ex-I.T. is, we have it sorted

 

[J-2739]

BREAKING NEWS

(Please note, my family were generally Brexiters, so don't get the wrong idea with this post but...)

Japan are already screaming at Britain due to 'unsatisfying negotiations' and are warning that companies could leave soon:
More here-http://news.sky.com/

At the start of the G20 Summit, the Japanese government has taken the unprecedented step of warning of a series of corporate exits, "great turmoil" and harmful effects if Brexit leads to the loss of single market privileges.


An official Japanese government task force on Brexit, has collated views of big Japanese companies from car companies to banks and pharmaceutical companies that invest in the UK.

It has produced a 15-page list titled "Japan's message to the UK and the EU", detailing requirements from Brexit negotiations.

It lists the consequences if the requirements are not delivered.

Half of Japanese investment in the EU comes to the UK including companies such as Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, Nomura and Daiwa.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you think it is right to support British local transport when there is a better attitude to transport integration and public transport in general on the continent?

Can't you ever be happy for Britain?

 

[radamfi]

Can't you ever be happy for Britain?

Why should I be happy for Britain? Britain has long had the power to change itself so that it has local public transport and cycling facilities on a par with the best in Europe. But it has consistently chosen poor integration, expensive fares and poor cycling, and now wants to prevent me from living somewhere with decent transport in the future.

Switzerland is in grave danger of losing freedom of movement very soon, but at least if you are stuck in Switzerland you have the best public transport in the world.

 

[Hornet]

and now wants to prevent me from living somewhere with decent transport in the future.

Didn't realise that the UK was to become a giant penal colony. You really are a 24 carat plonker Farmaid.

 

[J-2739]

Why should I be happy for Britain? Britain has long had the power to change itself so that it has local public transport and cycling facilities on a par with the best in Europe. But it has consistently chosen poor integration, expensive fares and poor cycling, and now wants to prevent me from living somewhere with decent transport in the future.

Switzerland is in grave danger of losing freedom of movement very soon, but at least if you are stuck in Switzerland you have the best public transport in the world.

You should be lucky we even have public transport in the first place, lucky that we have the basic infrastructure to get commuters to work. Many countries around the world lack the developed railways and bus networks we have, and yet we take ours for granted. Like I explained for you in the Olympic thread, there is no demand for cycling, which is probably down to different landscape layout, population densities, etc.. For example, the Netherlands high use of bikes is down to those two factors: Flat landscape and high population densities, perfect for cycling. It's going to take a few generations to start an encouragement program, but will that work?

I know a lot of people who like to disown the British public transport system and compare it to Continental Europe, but you'd be surprised at how we are lucky to even get adequate public transport in rural areas: France for example have had many rural lines closed due to declining demands and the open ones will be lucky to receive the total we get; Spain has overbuilt numerous useless AVE lines which has had very low usages. Those two are less dense than us though.

And about expensive fares, you can actually get some of the cheapest fares in Europe if you book in advance. £11.50 for return journey Sheff- Man Picc. Not that expensive, isn't it? Keep in mind, this is without subsidy.

 

[radamfi]

Didn't realise that the UK was to become a giant penal colony. You really are a 24 carat plonker Farmaid.

You clearly have no idea how difficult it is to immigrate to an EU country if you aren't from the EU/EEA.

You should be lucky we even have public transport in the first place, lucky that we have the basic infrastructure to get commuters to work. Many countries around the world lack the developed railways and bus networks we have, and yet we take ours for granted. Like I explained for you in the Olympic thread, there is no demand for cycling, which is probably down to different landscape layout, population densities, etc.. For example, the Netherlands high use of bikes is down to those two factors: Flat landscape and high population densities, perfect for cycling. It's going to take a few generations to start an encouragement program, but will that work?

I know a lot of people who like to disown the British public transport system and compare it to Continental Europe, but you'd be surprised at how we are lucky to even get adequate public transport in rural areas: France for example have had many rural lines closed due to declining demands and the open ones will be lucky to receive the total we get; Spain has overbuilt numerous useless AVE lines which has had very low usages. Those two are less dense than us though.

And about expensive fares, you can actually get some of the cheapest fares in Europe if you book in advance. £11.50 for return journey Sheff- Man Picc. Not that expensive, isn't it? Keep in mind, this is without subsidy.

It is typically British to make excuses why Britain isn't as good as other countries, and you do the same here. England has a very high population density, comparable to the Netherlands, and has a similar mild climate. East Anglia is particularly flat, has less rain than the Netherlands, but does it have mass cycling? No, because the infrastructure is not there. Most people are too scared to cycle. Britain has a particularly low cycle rate, much lower than Germany, Sweden or Finland, countries not particularly well known for mass cycling.

Public transport plays a relatively small role in rural areas and urban and inter-urban is where public transport's main strength is, and Britain does not even compare. Most of Britain's major cities still have buses as the dominant mode of transport on major corridors when similar sized cities on the continent would generally be metro or tram orientated with buses feeding into the trams/metros. Buses don't necessarily stop near rail stations in Britain, buses compete with trams and it is usual for single fares to only apply to one vehicle.

 

[J-2739]

It is typically British to make excuses why Britain isn't as good as other countries, and you do the same here. England has a very high population density, comparable to the Netherlands, and has a similar mild climate. East Anglia is particularly flat, has less rain than the Netherlands, but does it have mass cycling? No, because the infrastructure is not there. Most people are too scared to cycle. Britain has a particularly low cycle rate, much lower than Germany, Sweden or Finland, countries not particularly well known for mass cycling.

Public transport plays a relatively small role in rural areas and urban and inter-urban is where public transport's main strength is, and Britain does not even compare. Most of Britain's major cities still have buses as the dominant mode of transport on major corridors when similar sized cities on the continent would generally be metro or tram orientated with buses feeding into the trams/metros. Buses don't necessarily stop near rail stations in Britain, buses compete with trams and it is usual for single fares to only apply to one vehicle.

Why is it so typical of you to take the negative points of Britain and paintbrush that on the British general public, even though every country has its ups and downs?

I might have forgot to mention, Britain doesn't share the same history as the other countries you've mentioned: the Netherlands had the notable problem of school child car killings, with over 500 killed every year; Countries like France was hit badly in the oil crisis of '73, thus the change of demography. Before you start whining about why the UK has low bike usage rates, you've got to look at history and then you'd start reaping your answers. I do agree with you though that the UK Gov. should start looking at cycling infrastructure now to tackle the obesity crisis.

What do you mean, "similar sized cities on the continent would generally be metro or tram orientated with buses feeding into the trams/metros."? Again you've got to check your history. While the UKs public transit system has generally been a mish mash of different corporations historically, continental transit has generally been designed more efficiently so for example buses would feed into rail/tram networks.

 

[radamfi]

Why is it so typical of you to take the negative points of Britain and paintbrush that on the British general public, even though every country has its ups and downs?

I might have forgot to mention, Britain doesn't share the same history as the other countries you've mentioned: the Netherlands had the notable problem of school child car killings, with over 500 killed every year; Countries like France was hit badly in the oil crisis of '73, thus the change of demography. Before you start whining about why the UK has low bike usage rates, you've got to look at history and then you'd start reaping your answers. I do agree with you though that the UK Gov. should start looking at cycling infrastructure now to tackle the obesity crisis.

What do you mean, "similar sized cities on the continent would generally be metro or tram orientated with buses feeding into the trams/metros."? Again you've got to check your history. While the UKs public transit system has generally been a mish mash of different corporations historically, continental transit has generally been designed more efficiently so for example buses would feed into rail/tram networks.

So your argument is that things are better outside the UK because history has dealt them a better hand? Sorry, Britain still has had plenty of chances to sort things out. Britain has had plenty of reasons to sort out local transport, for example severe traffic congestion and poor urban air quality, but has actively chosen contrary policies. For example, there's no excuse for the continued existence of bus deregulation or for buses to compete with new tram lines.

I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph. From what I can make out, you think that Britain has an excuse to be bad because it was not organised from the start whereas other countries had better foresight? So if that's the case, how about fixing it? I've known about this deficiency since I was a kid in the 80s, so presumably others have known about it before that.

In any case, it is irrelevant what the reasons are for Britain to be worse. The fact is that Britain IS worse.

 

[Steveman]

In any case, it is irrelevant what the reasons are for Britain to be worse. The fact is that Britain IS worse.

Britain is a hell hole we all know quite well, you state it on a very regular basis, in fact you rarely say anything else you really are taking victimhood to new levels.

 

[J-2739]

So your argument is that things are better outside the UK because history has dealt them a better hand? Sorry, Britain still has had plenty of chances to sort things out. Britain has had plenty of reasons to sort out local transport, for example severe traffic congestion and poor urban air quality, but has actively chosen contrary policies. For example, there's no excuse for the continued existence of bus deregulation or for buses to compete with new tram lines.

I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph. From what I can make out, you think that Britain has an excuse to be bad because it was not organised from the start whereas other countries had better foresight? So if that's the case, how about fixing it? I've known about this deficiency since I was a kid in the 80s, so presumably others have known about it before that.

In any case, it is irrelevant what the reasons are for Britain to be worse. The fact is that Britain IS worse.

History has dealt with them better because they learned from our mistakes. For example, we created the railways, but had the misfortune of not having it under state control, starting the construction of many pointlessly competing railways. Countries like France has learnt from that and built theirs under a plan (a dodgy one though). Other countries built their railways with straighter track, larger loading gauge envelope, etc..

Yes, I do wish some areas were better than they are now (loading gauge), but it isn't, and that's the way they are staying for the foreseeable future. Modifications like what you have in mind could be expensive and disruptive, and cause chaos to the British economy.

 

[radamfi]

History has dealt with them better because they learned from our mistakes. For example, we created the railways, but had the misfortune of not having it under state control, starting the construction of many pointlessly competing railways. Countries like France has learnt from that and built theirs under a plan (a dodgy one though). Other countries built their railways with straighter track, larger loading gauge envelope, etc..

Yes, I do wish some areas were better than they are now (loading gauge), but it isn't, and that's the way they are staying for the foreseeable future. Modifications like what you have in mind could be expensive and disruptive, and cause chaos to the British economy.

I'm talking about local transport and you are now talking about loading gauge. I actually have less beef with mainline trains. Infrastructure improvements always cause disruption but that hasn't stopped tram line construction. Removing bus deregulation can be done at any time but successive governments of different colours have chosen to not to do that. Indeed, it needn't had been done in the first place and was undertaken within living memory, so there is no "history" excuse there. By 1986, the benefits of integrated transport in other countries were readily visible, but the government of the day chose a totally different direction. Integrating bus and tram networks with a unified fare system would not cause "chaos to the British economy".

 

[J-2739]

I'm talking about local transport and you are now talking about loading gauge. I actually have less beef with mainline trains. Infrastructure improvements always cause disruption but that hasn't stopped tram line construction. Removing bus deregulation can be done at any time but successive governments of different colours have chosen to not to do that. Indeed, it needn't had been done in the first place and was undertaken within living memory, so there is no "history" excuse there. By 1986, the benefits of integrated transport in other countries were readily visible, but the government of the day chose a totally different direction. Integrating bus and tram networks with a unified fare system would not cause "chaos to the British economy".

Regulating the bus network is like nationalising the rail network; it looks like heaven at first, but then you start to see the bad sides skin deep. Someone stated an excellent point in the Rail Re-Nationalising thread that people don't like the current system, so choose over the alternative, not as if they have an opinion on option 2. What don't you like about the current system then?

Price- Who says deregulation brings up costs? A competitive bus scene is always good: it provides people with an option on what services they want to travel instead of being stuck to one operating body; increased competition leads to the operating bodies changing something to make their services more attractive such as reducing costs, which in turn makes the other operator make their services even more attractive than the competitor. Only one body, and they can do whatever they want with the price, and the general public wouldn't make a noise, because there is nothing to do about it.

Tram- I agree with you about the trams. However, you can't just change a tram network just so the buses feed into them. If a tram network was built around to compete with buses, then that's the way it's going to stay. But then again, what's wrong with that? Couldn't you just accept the modal of transport is just different here than Continental Europe due to having different transport history.

It's all like saying we should adopt the Iberian Gauge for the railways when they actually had a reason for it.

 

[radamfi]

Couldn't you just accept the modal of transport is just different here than Continental Europe due to having different transport history.

The whole point is to maximise public transport modal share and reduce dependence on the private car. If bus deregulation and poor integration improved patronage then I would say Britain was right and the rest of Europe is wrong, but the reverse is the case.

 

[yorksrob]

Price- Who says deregulation brings up costs? A competitive bus scene is always good: it provides people with an option on what services they want to travel instead of being stuck to one operating body; increased competition leads to the operating bodies changing something to make their services more attractive such as reducing costs, which in turn makes the other operator make their services even more attractive than the competitor. Only one body, and they can do whatever they want with the price, and the general public wouldn't make a noise, because there is nothing to do about it.

If de-regulation has worked so well, how comes they haven't let it anywhere near London (which is the only place to see consistently increasing bus usage for some time)?

If you allow companies to cherry-pick the profitable routes and cream off the profit, the taxpayer has to spend more to fund non-profitable routes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you allow companies to cherry-pick the profitable routes and cream off the profit, the taxpayer has to spend more to fund non-profitable routes.

Unless these non-profitable routes "go to the wall". Some local authorities are said to use this option.

 

[yorksrob]

Unless these non-profitable routes "go to the wall". Some local authorities are said to use this option.

Well, local authorities have a lot of responsibilities, including social services which understandably take priority. Ideally bus networks should be self-funded as much as possible through cross-subsidies, rather than requiring subsidies from outside.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Price- Who says deregulation brings up costs? A competitive bus scene is always good: it provides people with an option on what services they want to travel instead of being stuck to one operating body

I can't think of many places where there is a genuinely competitive bus operation. In most places the incumbent operator in 1985 is still the incumbent operator today. Nothing has changed, just instead of the council or the NBC saying where the routes go, the private bus operator does.

Take Tyne and Wear, a county which wants more bus regulation, as an example. The three main companies are Stagecoach, who own the ex-PTE company, Go-Ahead, who are the management buyout of Northern General, and Arriva, who own what was United. They don't compete with each other- indeed Arriva and Go made a secret deal a few years ago to ensure they didn't compete with each other- and they don't tread on each other's territory.

So what benefit do they bring?

And about expensive fares, you can actually get some of the cheapest fares in Europe if you book in advance. £11.50 for return journey Sheff- Man Picc. Not that expensive, isn't it? Keep in mind, this is without subsidy.

Huh?

There are three companies you could choose to ride from Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly. Northern receive a subsidy of 34.2p/passenger mile, TPE receive a subsidy of 13.3p/pm, EMT receive a subsidy of 4.6p/pm.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Britain is a hell hole we all know quite well, you state it on a very regular basis, in fact you rarely say anything else you really are taking victimhood to new levels.

I know you're obsessed with painting everyone who opposes you as having victim-complexes (whilst constantly victimising yourself), but it really makes no sense here.

 

[radamfi]

Can we read anything into today's rejection of an immigration points system?

 

[DarloRich]

I do find it odd that the kippers, whose entire raison d'être ( see how I used dirty foreign french there ) was complaining about a democratically reached decision are now complaining about other people complaining about a democratically reached decision!

 

[Railops]

I know you're obsessed with painting everyone who opposes you as having victim-complexes (whilst constantly victimising yourself), but it really makes no sense here.

I seem to remember you having the most massive and hilarious meltdown on Brexit morning, you and others are in no position to lecture others.

Your postings on the 24th of June showed a perfect example of a sulking loser with one hell of a massive victim complex.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do find it odd that the kippers, whose entire raison d'être ( see how I used dirty foreign french there ) was complaining about a democratically reached decision are now complaining about other people complaining about a democratically reached decision!

How have the smokies in Arbroath reacted...

 

[J-2739]

Nope, I think that would be entirely in your imagination. Unless you consider worrying about the future of this country and not tolerating childish imbeciles such as yourself a "meltdown".

The fact that you see this as a competition is worrying, given it's about the future of the country and not a football game, and this "victim complex" mentality is entirely projection by certain old, white men like yourself who don't like the fact that their old privileges are being challenged. They then cry and whine, and assume that others who complain about genuine issues such as Islamophobia are coming from the same pathetic place of entitlement. See your temper tantrum over that Brexit poster with the see-saw: you were outraged and determined to see racial discrimination where there was none.

It's not like we're worried about the future of this country. It's just that we are in a period of uncertainty; who knows when Article 50 is triggered.

It's a tad bit unfair that you're calling Brexiteers 'old, white men'. I can name many young people around me who would have voted out. I don't think anyone wanted to see racial discrimination, but more of a tight control on the immigration policies. It was Labours job to convince people over wise, but what did they do?