[ingliz]

To force a company to sell up to the government is another.

He will not be forcing the railways to sell up to the government. He will wait until their franchises expire and then take them over - This costs nothing.

If the companies start playing silly buggers in the meantime, and fail to meet the terms specified in their contracts, he can nationalise without compensation - This costs nothing.

[B0ycey]

He will not be forcing the railways to sell up to the government. He will wait until their franchises expire and then take them over - This costs nothing.

If the companies start playing silly buggers in the meantime, and fail to meet the terms specified in their contracts, he can nationalise without compensation - This costs nothing.

Do trains cost money?

The government already owns the network.

[ingliz]

Do trains cost money?

Not that much it seems. The companies have only spent £1.95 billion on rolling stock since privatisation in 1994.

The government is subsidising the rail companies to the tune of £3.8 billion per annum.

[B0ycey]

As I said, cutting subsides and forcing a company to sell up are two seperate things. But you will need to borrow a further 2bn nonetheless.

But just to clarify, I don't think the trains should have been privatised to begin with. But once you do, to maintain foriegn investment within your nation you shouldn't neglect on commitments. But Corbyn falls short on other things. So I will not bother you on this issue further.

[Decky]

It costs nothing to nationalise trains, we are already paying for the army, that is a sunk cost. We might as well have them do something useful for a change and bring them home to seize the property of the rich foreigners who own everything (thanks to the Tories giving it to them) for the British people instead of bayoneting brown babies in johnyforeignerland.

[Zag Note: Use of triple parenthesis is not allowed]

[Beren]

Update.

May 'willing to pay' £53BILLION Brexit bill: PM to buckle to Brussels to kickstart trade

The Government has indicated it is willing to meet Brussels’ demands for a £53 billion Brexit bill in a bid to move negotiations on to trade, it is claimed.

By MARK CHANDLER
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Mon, Nov 6, 2017 | UPDATED: 10:30, Mon, Nov 6, 2017

Theresa May has signalled her willingness to pay the huge sum, which equates to €60 billion, via officials, the Sunday Times reported.

It is hoped that, by accepting the demand, talks can finally progress to Britain’s future relationship with the bloc in December.

The figure is around three times higher than previously offered to cover a two-year transition period.

But EU negotiators think Mrs May will hand over the money to claim a victory by starting stalled Brexit trade talks before Christmas.

And a Government source told the paper: “The value of getting a smoother process of transition and a smoother process of trade in the end game is worth quite a lot.

“These are sums that make any lubrication of the process look like small change.”

EU negotiators have called for the €60 billion bill to cover the cost of Britain’s budget commitments alongside costs of MEP pensions and aid.

But, if the offer is made, Mrs May could face fierce criticism at home for paying over the odds.

Senior figures in her own party have repeatedly urged her to walk away if Brussels demands an exorbitant divorce fee.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox last week warned it was “unreasonable” for the EU to insist on such a high figure before trade was discussed.

He said: “We need, before we make any offer on any financial settlement, to know what we are getting in that end state," he told the committee.

"We have said to the EU: 'Show us what the end state looks like and we can then talk about the financial disaggregation'.

“The idea that the UK would actually agree to a sum on money before we know what the end state looks like or what any future potential would be, I think is a non-starter.

"I think it is unreasonable, given the business interests across the European Union and given the interests of international investors, not to want to start the next phase, given that I think substantial progress has been made on issues like European citizens' rights and basic agreements on positions over Ireland.”

During her landmark Florence speech, Mrs May offered to pay £18 billion.

But the offer was immediately slapped down by Antonio Tajani, former President of the European Parliament, who said the sum was “peanuts”.

[Vanasalus]

May 'willing to pay' £53BILLION Brexit bill: PM to buckle to Brussels to kickstart trade

Ahahaha!

As an outsider, I have the feeling that when Tories say they won't do something, they generally do it. When Labour say they might do something, they generally don't do it at all.

In the election campaign, the prospect of this Brexit Bill was a big argument, I recall. The phrase of "No deal is better than bad deal" was pronounced by Theresa May in the context of possibility of tens of billions of Pounds Brexit Bill. Tories were claiming Labor would yield to all demands coming from Brussels.

And here we go. 53 billion pounds at once to kick-start trade negotiations.

[Beren]

The Tories should let Labour take over business before they get consumed by Brexit. May has run out of steam and nobody wants to replace her from the party, right? Corbyn could make a fresh start just in time and show his merits (or lack of them).