We've got a little off the transport in London topic here. Yes, I know I
sort of started it, but my question was transport relevant.

Basil Jet wrote:

We've got a little off the transport in London topic here. Yes, I know I
sort of started it, but my question was transport relevant.

Coming back on topic, I wonder what effect Brexit will have on London?

- Government interest rates are even lower now, and the goal of a surplus
by 2020 has been dropped, so there's actually more scope for infrastructure
investment.

- Perhaps lower traffic growth rates? I don't think traffic will actually
fall, but if there's a recession, growth will be less. That could, indeed,
mean that CR2 is needed less urgently. But the need won't go away.

- Maybe a requirement that future Tube trains (ie, the huge NTfL order) be
built in the UK? Such a requirement would be legal if we're out of the EU.

- There's now little chance of Heathrow getting its third runway. May is MP
for Maidenhead, where more Heathrow flights would not be popular. But
she's not as virulent an opponent as Boris. And there may be an argument
that, more than ever, we need to be able to handle more long haul flights,
to help grow our non-EU exports.

- Will Eurostar's growth suffer? Certainly, there will be less Brussels
traffic once the exit negotiations are complete.

- EU air quality rules will no longer apply, but I doubt that Sadiq will
back off on his restrictions on dirty vehicles in central London.

- The drop in the £ will put fuel prices up. That may push a few more
people to use public transport, but I suspect that the effect will be
insignificant.

In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:

So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of
his money.

Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of people
trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?"

The one you claimed not to have seen.

why do you doubt that claim?

I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is
therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions
should be taken seriously.

you are being ridiculous

I didn't see the picture, so what?

I did see all the media coverage of it

how does that make me out of touch?

As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are clearly
vastly underestimating its impact on the vote.

Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at
Calais are illegals

Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told)
reducing legal immigrants,

Yeah, that's what I said

as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants.

Oh no it's not

See the poster dear Liza.

The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration

see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants"

Not what the poster said.

It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no
relationship to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have
you suddenly decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the
most flack) should be taken at face value just because it suits your
minuscule little debating point.

I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the
main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought
"leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave".
--
Roland Perry

On 04/07/16 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016,
tim... remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:10:48 on Fri, 1 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:

So Farage's infamous poster had no effect at all? What a waste of
his money.

Which of Farage's posters said "Vote leave and the queues of
people trying to *illegally* enter Britain will disappear?"

The one you claimed not to have seen.

why do you doubt that claim?

I don't doubt the claim, I'm just a bit surprised that someone who is
therefore so out of touch with current affairs feels his opinions
should be taken seriously.

you are being ridiculous

I didn't see the picture, so what?

I did see all the media coverage of it

how does that make me out of touch?

As I said before - one picture is worth 1000 words, and you are clearly
vastly underestimating its impact on the vote.

Brexit is all about legal immigrants, the people queuing up at
Calais are illegals

Er, no. Brexit is also about (or so the leave voters were told)
reducing legal immigrants,

Yeah, that's what I said

as well as being able to come down harder on illegal immigrants.

Oh no it's not

See the poster dear Liza.

The discussion was on Brexit's (expected) impact on immigration

see above "Brexit is all about legal immigrants"

Not what the poster said.

It has been claimed many times that some of the posters bore no
relationship to the (overall) argument (often with reason). Why have
you suddenly decided that one of the posters (and the one that got the
most flack) should be taken at face value just because it suits your
minuscule little debating point.

I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the
main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought
"leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave".
I met someone who thought it meant exactly that as well as the fact that
we had left the EU the moment the election was announced and they would
be rounded up and kicked out within days. He was already sadly
disillusion and probably even more so by now.

The problem is that there are so many divorce possibilities that no
leave person actually knew what they did vote for. It's a monumental
muddle created by the leave political people. The stay political people
are no better, they were just complacent.

In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.. It's an absolute muddle.

On 04/07/2016 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016,

I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the
main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought
"leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave".

Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul
2016, Martin Coffee remarked:
In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.

There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were
retracted the day after the referendum.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul
2016, Martin Coffee remarked:
In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.

There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were
retracted the day after the referendum.

Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for
choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the
favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by
a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and
the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won.

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek.

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 08:37:49 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.

There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were
retracted the day after the referendum.

Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for
choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the
favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by
a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and
the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won.

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek.

Sounds like the Conservative leadership contest, except with a smaller
electorate (the paid up party members).
--
Roland Perry

On 04/07/16 09:37, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek.

That's far too sensible for our political people.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 08:37:49 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016, Recliner
remarked:
In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.

There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were
retracted the day after the referendum.

Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for
choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the
favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by
a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and
the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won.

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to seek.

Sounds like the Conservative leadership contest, except with a smaller
electorate (the paid up party members).

Yes, similar, though it's to choose whether to change from an existing to a
new something. With something as irreversible as Brexit, it's more
important to get it right than a general election, which is inherently
reversible. Also the New Zealand approach was really three stages (the
first was the committee stage to get down to a handful out of many possible
options, which is effectively the MPs' part of the Tory leadership
contest), with the public voting on both the latter stages.