EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Please accept my most sincere apologies, I didn't realise I couldn't critique a debating practice if I'm not in the Oxford Union. I shall bear that in mind for future reference.

I'm interested in your theory that small government is a good thing though. For instance, there is a strong amount of support on this forum for government intervention in current transport practices. Particularly there's interest in the government adopting a policy of regulation around the development of the road transport network to incorporate infrastructure that supports and protects cyclists. Are we wrong to want that form of bureacratic intervention in society and if so, why?

I find this argument astounding and as if you have no imagination.

I understand people don't like burocracy but by cooperation you eliminate a whole load of duplication. A lot of burocracy exists in moving between systems/standards. Fewer and more refined systems/standards reduce burocracy.

Are you aware how 'direct' democracy actualy pans out in practice? Can you point to nation or state that's found it working well for them? Do you like being able to elect a local police chief and town jester mayor? I feel it's a layer of personality politics distracting us from thorough examination of the real challenges and what sort of policies would help.

I am referencing our expat community who currently receive free medical care in Spain due to the Spanish hospitals etc claiming the cash from the NHS, an agreement that is in jeopardy once (or, rather if) article 50 is deployed.

our 'privatised' transport network is run by the dutch, french and german government agencies (DB, Abelio, RATP etc..), who use eu 'competition' laws to keep them in place. Temporary regulation from westminster is required in this instance, and regulations imposed by westminster will never surpass the labyrinthine maze of eu regulations and directives. Future westminster regulation in this sphere, no matter how much it appears to be 'nationalisation' would be a step down in regulation from the status quo in the eu

One piece of evidence for you to suck on

One sec, let me just check this in my dictionary

evidence
[ev-i-duh ns]
noun

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
   
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
   His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
   
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
   
4. Unsubstantiated utter bollocks, spattered onto an incoherent argument, like spittle onto a turd.
   
   
   

Huh - you live and learn, eh.

we have a non-left wing government whose ideology is entirely based upon small government

Except when it benefits their chums, c.f. grouse moors, military spending, banks.

One piece of evidence for you to suck on is May's wonderful decision to axe the Department for energy and climate change

because we've seen how caring for individual welfare corporations are when unshackled from the overburdonsome regulation by mother government.
Also, she didn't axe it, but rather rolled it into the responsibilities of the business minister, which is lolz. Lets have more VW plz and thnx

/sarc (in case it was necessary)

Sure, currently this isn't a burden financially on those national health budgets because the nhs doesn't claim it. It might be a strain on a local level i guess... lots of after aftersun etc.

if RATP, DB or Abelio get fucked in one way or another, they have german, dutch and french taxpayers ready to bail them out. A true private operator would collapse into bankruptcy if they did not drastically slash ticket prices and/or improved services.

Yes, apologies for being unclear there. When I was talking about the road transport network and infrastructure that supports and protects cyclists, I was refering to the public roads that we travel on and the introduction of segregated cycle lanes. DB, Abelio, RATP etc aren't involved in those above stakeholder level. This isn't about nationalisation but about making changes to the manner in which we develop those public roads. We're directly asking for an increase in policy and bureacracy that will direct planning and implementation which is contrary to the ideals of small government and in no way will be a "step down" from EU regulation. Perhaps ironically, current practices of other member states of the EU are cited as best practice and models on which we would like British policy and bureacracy to be based.

So to repeat, are we wrong to want this and, if so, why?

This only works (in an idealised world) if there is actual competition. Since any sane adult can see why you cant have two competing trains running at the same times on the same lines, it is pretty clear why a single nationalised provider provides the best VFM for the user, as opposed to private operators running effectively guaranteed monopolies.
(This is before we even get into the fact that the brunt of the cost of setting up these services was borne by the British taxpayer, with the profits now lining the costs of buisnessmen)

I am not personally in favour of using the government to fund cycling infrastructure - the government has vastly more important issues to sort out before pandering to cyclists (many who secretly love the thrill of weaving through traffic, watch macaframa with their mates in fakenger attire). Only when our government balances the books will I be in favour of spending the hard-earned money of others on the endless demands of the cyclist community

That makes sense if your brain Government can only focus on one thing at a time.

Top trolling. Would read again.

Yeah - the powerful cycling lobby has co-opted government for its own ends and is imposing tyrannical demands on the tax payer.

The only solution is LIBERTARIAN ANARCHISM!

Do you even pay road tax bro?

Only when our government balances the books

lels

"who use eu 'competition' laws to keep them in place."

This crap started long before the EU. And it may not stop there, if the UK bends over to something like TTIP or CETA (Canada) it will be worse.

Is there sometimes too much and inflexible EU regulation? Yes! Fishing and quota are some of them.

But outsourcing and off-selling started decades ago and the French happily ignore some of this (they saved some industry even though it's against EU rules)

I dunno. I remember the good old days when trolls were witty and insightful, capricious and thought-provoking. @mouldy-wart is just incoherent and inconsistent, which does not make a particularly good read.

I think it's time for a Campaign for Better Quality Trolling. Perhaps we could get an EU grant for it?

True but they don't exist.

Let us see: Royal mail. Takes all infrastructure, paid for by us, gets the profit bit but we keep the tax bill.
Train companies: Again take the infrastructure...get sponsor money...but...
Electricity/water: Again, and again.

But we can't go without these things. And ultimately waters needs purified and pipes maintained. You can't make a profit on health either. A dual system with SOME parts staying with the government (like those) and some not may be the best of both worlds.

And for that some trade agreements never should have been signed. But...maybe there are ways around that.

OK, but I wasn't talking about funding but about the level of bureacracy that we're looking for. I realise that bureacracy and the funding are inherently linked but your economic argument isn't as sound as you present it to be.

Maybe I'm getting a bit Paxman here but again, are we wrong to want more bureacracy and policy, which you've identified that you're not in favour of, and, if so, why? While a I admire you efforts to reparse the question before answering it, will you answer the actual question?

As an aside, are you in favour of spending the hard-earned money of others on the endless demands of the driver community? Afterall they are demonstrably solely responsible for the majority of deaths and injuries on the road which in turn has a high onward cost on the public sector but utterly fail to underwrite that regardless of the balancing of the government books.

What about health and the NHS?

Your profile pic should be anikin, not chewy. Anikin was the moral young boy who turned into darth vader - the ruler of some nuts intergalactic superstate, much like the 'moral' eco and workers' rights concerned minds behind the eu project, who end up becoming the morbid corporate deathstar that they are. Chewy and Hans solo are the grassroots fighters who helped save the universe from the overbearing forces of the dark side.

Seldom Killer might as well have yoda as his profile pic, in reflection of his humble, eloquent, professor-like nature.

Ah I see, you are an idiot. Very good.

Disapointing in a way. I'm still waiting. I want to find a libertarian who can give an example of a nation, state or just an organisation doing it (in their eyes) right.

(no point in having a debate with an individual who retrospectively edits his comments)

I suspected idiot troll a while ago, and only didn't ban (despite 90% of the posts being deranged and in this thread) because once upon a time there were actually cycle-related posts (even they were just wanted adverts in classifieds).

The death star was a classic piece of Keynesian economic stimulus via infrastructure and I won't hear a word against it. Think of all the high-end engineering skills that would have been lost if they hadn't renewed the project each time it failed.