[lmm]

> How was the UK gov blocked from running trains?

The UK applied the state aid rules in a rigorous way, while other countries, uh, didn't.

> From what I read some lines actually did get nationalized again after how poorly Virgin & co run some of the lines.

That did happen (though I don't think it was Virgin, who were one of the better operators IME - they had sharp elbows in their dealings with the government, but they needed them), but the rules allowed that strictly on a temporary emergency basis (even though they ended up running a significantly better service than most operators).

[LatteLazy]

UK gov runs plenty of trains. Even before covid, TFL took over chunks of the overground and no one batted an eye lid. Where do people get this nonsense from?

And even if it were true, why not just apply the rules less strictly to ourselves like you say everyone else is!?

For decades British politicians have blamed Brussels for their own mistakes and dumb brits have swallowed it without question. That's our fault, no one else's. Brexit at least may price that when we aren't suddenly vastly more free and successful and socialist and capitalist and powerful on 01/01/21...

[lmm]

> UK gov runs plenty of trains. Even before covid, TFL took over chunks of the overground and no one batted an eye lid. Where do people get this nonsense from?

Overground is run by Arriva i.e. Deutsche Bahn who are fully owned by the German government. "TfL" Rail is run by MTR who are majority owned by the government of Hong Kong.

> And even if it were true, why not just apply the rules less strictly to ourselves like you say everyone else is!?

Because respect for the rule of law is one of the greatest strengths of the UK, both for our international reputation and for its own sake. If joining the EU means following rules that are written for Italian-style legal systems, staying out is a lesser evil than turning into Italy.

[LatteLazy]

That great except you haven't explained how TFL exists at all. Are all the lines privately owned and operated?

Also, as I've said before, the UK government does not care about the law. That's why we were so enthusiastic to get involved in Iraq 2. That's why we're still ignoring the ruling on prisoners voting (15 years later). The truth is, laws are just an excuse for governments about why they "can't" do things people want. Don't want to nationalise trains? Blame some obscure foreign law. Do want to play cowboy in the Middle East? Go for it!

And that's without getting into why we never bother to try and enforce all these laws ourself? If DB are an illegal state company, why not say so in court? Instead we give them contracts, because we're a law abiding country that ignores laws when awarding contracts to foreign entities but not domestic ones which is illegal!?

[lmm]

> That great except you haven't explained how TFL exists at all. Are all the lines privately owned and operated?

All national rail lines (including Overground and TfL Rail) are privately operated in general; they're only ever nationalised on a short term basis when something goes wrong with the privatised operations. London Underground falls under a different regulatory regime (as does Tyne & Wear Metro and, without checking, presumably the Glasgow Subway) and I believe they have a derogation to permit that.

> That's why we were so enthusiastic to get involved in Iraq 2.

I won't defend that war but I haven't seen any convincing argument that it was against English law. Royal prerogative is pretty broad, and Blair lying to parliament is not a crime as far as I know.

> The truth is, laws are just an excuse for governments about why they "can't" do things people want. Don't want to nationalise trains? Blame some obscure foreign law.

Even if that's the only effect of EU law, it's corrosive to democracy. Whether it's because of real EU laws or because they can lie about them and get away with it, EU membership has destroyed the accountability of British politicians. E.g. in the aftermath of the leave vote, there was a lot of reporting saying that the UK could have put restrictions on immigration from Romania and Bulgaria without leaving the EU. Which is true, but misses the fact that - despite it being what the majority of voters wanted - that was completely outside the Overton window of UK politics, because the UK political class wanted unrestricted immigration. So practically speaking, voting to leave the EU was actually the only way to achieve that.

> And that's without getting into why we never bother to try and enforce all these laws ourself? If DB are an illegal state company, why not say so in court? Instead we give them contracts, because we're a law abiding country that ignores laws when awarding contracts to foreign entities but not domestic ones which is illegal!?

The European Commission did pursue cases against Deutsche Bahn and others. Under the English law implementation of the same EU directive a structure like Deutsche Bahn's is illegal (because the Duck Test applies); the ECJ ruled it legal (while acknowledging that it was a loophole that was clearly against the intent of the law, and recommended that the next version of the directive should explicitly make it illegal, which was done). But in many ways all that is moot, because even where the ECJ ruled that there was illegal state aid to railway operators (e.g. Spain), there was no practical punishment.