JN

Thanks for this - I've been looking for pretty much the same too...

I have bought the following from Humbrol: Dunkel Grunn Matt - SKU: AA2253 Matt Orange - SKU: AA0905 Matt White - SKU: AA0374 Matt Yellow - SKU: AA0761 Metallic Black - SKU: AA6392 Some people might prefer other paints, but these are the paints that look right to me. I still have a couple of other kits to make and, I can repaint if the colour is massively wrong. Furthermore, other people, who are wondering about the colours for the livery etc might come across this post... What are the best transfers to use? This is much less urgent as I can put these on at the end.

I've just realised I should have asked, what colours should I be buying? I can name the general colours (black body and bogies, orange or red ends? with a white stripe, yellow bearing boxes), but if someone knows the accurate colour that would be appreciated.. http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/three.html http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/four.html http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/five.html http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/eight.html http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/ten.html I think the first photo on page 10 will be most useful for me, but . Given I've found that I have to buy new, I might as well get the right, or at least the closest possible, colours. I've decided to paint and then construct - there are parts that are too intricate to paint after construction. I've also decided to weather after painting.

Hi, Kind of excited now... My Cambrian BBA wagon kits (OO) have arrived, so I'm now able to make my first foray in to wagon kit building. I know they're plastic, but that's what was available for what I wanted (also most wagons are plastic, so I liked the idea of having similar textures on a layout). The idea of brass kits gets me even more nervous as the idea of soldering brass parts together frightens me a bit - I burnt myself on a soldering iron when I was at school. Also, I don't really have a special workbench at the moment, either, so soldering isn't really practical. I can deal with the fumes as I can open a window. Living in a one-bedroom and one lounge/dining room flat does mean the soldering fumes might stay in the furniture etc and, as I've said, I'm worried more about a soldering iron (more worried than a bottle of glue). They're cheaper than the RTR and give me something positive to do that isn't just sitting in front of a computer screen. Something I can tell my mates about in the pub when they ask, "what have you done with your time today?" That tells them a bit more about my personality than "I watched another Douglas Murray video on YouTube". I can also make my wagons whilst I listen to podcasts*, tv (I'm a bit of a Corrie fan and interested in current affairs) or listen to my music in the lounge. I don't know why I chose BBAs other than liking steel trains. I'll be able to run them on my Dad's Crewe/Chester/Shrewsbury layout with 37s, 56s and 60s as per http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/index.html (I like early 1990s BR too) whilst I sort out my garage and get it ready for a model railway - you'll see my general idea on Mr Pix's layout thread. I'm tempted to paint, fix transfers and weather (maybe I could paint on the weathered look?) before I put all the parts together. I painted and fixed transfers on after making the plane kits. What would you recommend - paint and transfers first or construction then paint and transfer first? Airbrushing, as with soldering, isn't really possible even if it is better. My garage is currently unattached to the mains and whilst I can get a non-fuelled generator (might be useful in power cuts too). I'm also having to get a new garage door due to the lock being broken (as well as probably having to get a new garage floor or at least have it tiled etc). Urgh, so what brushes would you recommend? I know, rather I believe, I will do okay even if I have 'first time in ages/something new' nerves. As well as railway modelling I made a couple of Airfix aircraft kits when I was younger and they went well especially the smaller planes (they were all 1:72). "It came, it finally came!" Hope you're well. Regards, Jonny *if anyone is interested Neil Oliver has a good podcast about the UK from ancient times to the present day - some the content is recycled, but I like history as well as steel trains...

I thought you might want some help with the locos etc (better for you to have it and not need it etc...) http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/three.html http://www.penmorfa.com/Wrexham/ten.html I've linked the pages with from/to Scotland steel traffic I'm waiting for my Cambrian BBAs to come through. I'm also going to be getting Bow Fell to be renamed and renumbered to Ben MacDui (I've climbed the mountain as well as that particular loco being more relevant to my interests). I did think of a steel works reception yard layout (the idea hasn't totally gone), but I'm starting to edge towards a Teeside 'tail chaser'. - I like history, so there's the appeal of the Stockton and Darlington - I like coal and steel trains - I inherited Mallard in BR Brunswick Green and a BR Two-Tone Deltic (as well as a few other locomotives) I'd like to give a run as 'railtour specials' Still, there's still quite a bit of work to do to get my garage ready (I frequently put the cart before the horse!), but this notion of coal/steel, especially around Teeside, seems to be sticking in my mind... Anyway, I like your layout. I look forward to seeing more and thanks for sharing too.

I wasn't sure whether to 'agree' or 'like' because I both agree with and like. I like because of the reference to Private Eye which I liked.

"EU membership underpinned the Good Friday Agreement, as it meant NI citizens who distrusted the British state could take out Irish citizenship and not have anything to do with the British state." I was actually meaning that the EU helped with the negociations between the UK Government, the Irish government and both the Loyalist and Nationalist representatives. The meaning of the sentence is a bit cloudy. Whether someone is an Irish citizen or they have to deal with the UK government/state on some level. Its just not true to say being a citizen of a different country (lets say Ireland) means you don't have to deal with country (lets say the UK). For a start, you still have to observe its laws. If you didn't the UK State would then have the absolute legitimacy to use its monopoly of violence to stop you doing what the laws define as illegal (I'm not aware of any European state having any interest in stopping anyone from doing anything which is legal in/with its territory). That Irish people could live and work in the UK was true in 1997 as in 1999. Your last point I could talk about, but again, this is more European history. I understand what you're trying to say, but I might argue something different. The question doesn't ask about whether the EU is bad or good for Europe. The question doesn't even ask whether Brexit was bad or good for the UK (and/or Europe if you want to ask that question). However, the question does ask about Brexit being caused by the Beeching cuts. You almost got me in to discussing about the EU being a bad or good thing, but I decided to make my response a little kinder than 'so what?' (it took me a little while to find reasonable words). There are lots of forums in which we can talk about Brexit/EU membership. We can talk about how railways and railway modelling has been affected/influenced (or unaffected/not influenced) by the EU, but I'm not sure we can really talk about EU membership in the abstract. When you say "Now Poland and the Czech Republic are EU members any German who wishes to return to the city or village of their grandparents can. Few do, but that is not the point, the fact they can removes the issue as one to cause division" you're talking about the morality of borders. I will also make the point that this is not the case as citizenship can be claimed by lineage, certainly in some cases, but that is not to do with the EU. Maybe it helps where that law in the EU doesn't already exist, but that it soley is the case even for the EU is just not so. Anyway, I thought people. Its certainly the case in the UK when we were in both and not in the EU.

"Likewise the borders are open in the Schengen zone, but if you drive from Bruges to Sluis, you start off under Belgian law and a couple of miles out from Sluis you are under Dutch law. Sluis has a number of shops you'd not expect to find in a small conservative country town as a result." I'm not sure what this has to do with the question of the thread. However, I suppose that would buttress the argument for Brexit if you think as a consequence that the UK is different to the continental countries and therefore should leave the EU. If that is your point of view its hard to see how the Beeching Report not happening would have convinced people to change their vote from leave to remain given, as I've said, that the fundamental reason for there being a Brexit campaign (whether in 1975 or 2016) is to do with (at least for some - Tony Been, Michael Foot and others might have agreed with Enoch Powell in their conclusions, but had different reasons for reaching that same conclusion) a valuing of the different legal and political traditions which not only exist in the EU, but throughout Europe too. I don't know what you mean by 'Sluis has a number of shops you'd not expect to find in a small conservative country town as a result' - what shops should anyone expect to find in a 'small conservative country town'? Perhaps 'conservative' in Holland means something less 'conservative' in a more conservative country like Belgium. Labels like left-wing, right-wing, progressive, reactionary, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist are more to do with either political parties or how a person's politics generally relates to the French Revolution rather than a place's ideology (a place can't have an ideology because a place isn't a sentient living creature with ideas). "The EU has internal borders, people accept those borders exist and they do so because they are loose, Violence in Northern Ireland waned when the border was opened and people in NI could choose for themselves whether they wanted to be Irish or British. The threat of violence returning is because Brexit is tightening borders again. Likewise Spain joining France in the EU meant the Basque country was de facto re-united as the border down the middle was opened. The post-Franco devolution of powers from Madrid also helped of course." Well, I've discussed the Northern Ireland case specifically. I'm not sure if the rest is true and I can see the case for it being true and not true. I just haven't studied Spanish and ETA history in enough detail to pose even a reasonable case for the reason(s) ETA laid down their arms. I'm not sure how this point about the violence in Northern Ireland or Spain relates to Brexit being caused or not caused by the Beeching cuts. "Another snippet from the history of passports - and this does have a railway connection. Before 1914 the possession of a first class ticket on the SECR Boat Train from Dover or Folkestone was enough to get you in the country. A second or third class passenger needed a passport." I don't know what your point is, or rather, I'm not sure how this point relates to Brexit being caused or not caused by the Beeching cuts. "Other railway-related connections. In most of the Netherlands the steam tram lines that weren't standard gauge were mostly Cape gauge, 3'6" or 1067mm. Except in Dutch Flanders where metre gauge was the norm. Why? Because the Belgians had standardised on metre gauge and the lines were operated as cross border lines. The city tram of Enschede ran across the border to Gronau in Germany. Before 1914 without any border controls." I don't know what your point is, or rather, I'm not sure how this point relates to Brexit being caused or not caused by the Beeching cuts. "As far as West European borders are concerned the period from 1914 to 1957 was an aberration. That needs to be understood." I've studied history and have a Master's degree in the subject, so I'm aware that history is of both change and continuity. Perhaps you're right about 'As far as West European (what about Eastern Europe?) borders are concerned the period from 1914 to 1957 was an aberration'. We'll know what is and what isn't an aberration at 'the end'. The UK isn't an aberration to itself, but is in comparison to England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is an aberration of the UK (with it being created in 1922 from the six counties of Ulster after the independence of the non-Ulster counties). The UK's membership of the EU could be an aberration, but there's a possibility that the UK could rejoin the EU which might make Brexit an aberration. I don't think Marx was right about history being inevitable and I think that's possibly the reason the Soviet Union became a dogmatic and totalitarian state (the question that couldn't be asked is 'What if history isn't inevitable?'). I'm not sure how this point about aberrations relates to Brexit being caused or not caused by the Beeching cuts.

The question posed by the article, in my view, is 'To what extent was Brexit caused by the Beeching report?' This means I would have to consider other possible motivations. Typing helps me to 'think out loud'. I don't mind talking about the EU either.

I've actually only created a new account to apologise to you. I get I don't need to be a knight in shining armour, but I took some of the comments personally. I was struggling to make sense of things, so lashed out and in retrospect I didn't make a whole lot of sense. I then behaved in a childish way. However, after reflecting I started to realise I had got things wrong. I can't defend my behaviour. I don't know if this is good enough, but I hope this is good enough and I'd rather forget about it. Anyway, I thought Dundrange might be interested in reading https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/files/18161511/RailwayCrisis.pdf.

Just not true. Post-1922 there was a common travel area created between the UK and Ireland. It's the case that some people in Ireland used that common travel area to come to Britain to get an abortion (when abortion was legalised in Britain). In the late 1960s British Soldiers were 'greeted with open arms' by the Catholic Community when the soldiers were first sent there to protect the Catholic Community from Loyalist violence. I don't know what prompted that Loyalist violence, but it wasn't Brexit. Also, the Nationalists murdered Airey Neave (1979), Lord Mountbatten (1979), Sir Anthony Berry (1984), Eric Taylor (1984), Lady MacLean (1984) and Roberta Wakeham (1984) as well as 21 people in Birmingham (1974), five people in Guilford (1974), 29 people in Omagh (1998) and two people in Warrington (1993). The IRA also attacked a school bus in Northern Ireland and attacked UK soldiers, prison guards in Northern Ireland and members of the RUC. People escaped immediate harm caused by the 1992 bombing in London and the 1996 bombing in Manchester (my Nana, who was in Manchester city centre that day, wouldn't go back there for years). The IRA tried to murder members of the UK cabinet in 1991. This all happened whilst both the UK and Ireland were both members of the EU. The Loyalist violence at the moment is at least in part because of the weird arrangement that now exist between Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain. However, that reason, that grievance and the other grievances aren't an excuse to start bombing anyone. I also grew up in a household of violence which wasn't caused by borders. I thought it was the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace in Northern Ireland, not EU membership (I understand that the EU helped, as did Clinton, with the negotiations), but hostilities ramped-up post-1973 (might Bloody Sunday have been a factor? Grievances aren't often based on nothing) and ended, largely, in 1998 and is now coming back. The common travel area between the UK and Ireland hasn't ended, so far as I'm aware.

I like, a lot, the 'night' shots.

Fair shout, but I didn't realise that anyone used "I will".

Sorry, Arun, I thought I'd got the vow quote wrong and so I quote posted the correction. I hadn't got it wrong, but it didn't feel right. I've just realised, I thought it was "...for as long as we both shall live". I remembered the quote from my step-sister's wedding at some hotel, so it might be different for different styles for different types of places. I don't remember the 'forsake all others', but that too seems to have disappeared from wedding vows as well (https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/wedding-vows/). Things do change or, as I say, it might be a 'tomayto/tomarto' thing. I also in think the inflation target for the Bank of England might be 2% as well. Anyway...

“It's more accurate to say that the advocates of neo-liberalism used - and stoked up - fear of the Soviet Union to build support for their approach to the economy. A carrot and stick approach. Also the fundamentals of the Soviet system were already under pressure and showing the cracks that would cause its collapse before Thatcher and Reagan came to power. If you are going to link neo-liberalism and the Soviet collapse then the dates suggest the relationship is the other way about, that the Soviet collapse removed the social needs in countries like France and West Germany to resist Anglo-American pressure to roll back the state.” Well, that’s one interpretation of one example. I chose those dates because of the broad continuity of economic policies from three parties who were in government during that era. The policies have been successful. Despite three recessions, the UK is richer etc today than the UK was in 1979. However, success (the fulfilling of objectives) never comes cost-free. Look at the lockdowns - by exclusively trying to mitigate transmissibility of Covid-19 means we’ve made the economy suffer as well as people. ‘Debate’ would imply that there is reasonable disagreement (reasonable in the sense that the disagreement is not ‘disagreement for the sake of disagreement’), perhaps that means interpretations and values aren’t universally held. “People have feelings about what they think are facts.” “The further example of not being able to restrict steel tenders on government contracts to UK producers does go to the heart of what the EU is about” is a fact (perhaps ‘does go to the heart of what the EU is about’ is an opinion). Well, some people find objectionable in a moral sense is what I meant by “Whilst facts don't have feelings people have feelings about facts.” “Facts don’t have feelings” means that facts are external o the self (feelings, opinions, being internal to the self). “Borders do not fit peoples and making people fit borders results in resentment and violence. Look at Northern Ireland.” One of two places in the EU where violence was used for political purposes. The other place being Spain in its dispute with ETA. Normally when non-state organisation use violence for political objectives, especially when violence is directed at civilians, we call that terrorism. Also, in the case of Northern Ireland, there were terrorists (the UDA and UVF) in support of the border between the UK and Ireland, who unlike the IRA and other Nationalist splinter groups, supported ’The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Most people in the EU seem to accept the borders that do exist. Also, we should remember that borders are not just a restriction on people. They are a restriction on law (a limit on how far a central authority can stretch its power). I think it’s interesting how you use the accurate history of passports - I imagine people were as restricted by custom duties as by passports (if one didn't have the money then, presumably, one couldn't enter). “However Cameron never said Brexit would lead to World War Three, that was the spin put on it by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, in my opinion two politicians who outdo Cameron and Osborne for deceit and general sliminess by a huge margin.” Now that I’ve refreshed my memory of the precise wording of what Cameron said, you’re right. He did say Brexit could lead to moments like Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, WWI and WWII. Using the examples which he did, the examples in which Britain/the UK won in the face of French or German aggression (if not to us then our allies) shows his lack in understanding of history. I would have used the battles of the ‘100 Years War’ as bloodshed, in part, caused by trade disputes. England defending Antwerp due to French incursions and how institutional union is better than treaties (for the French went against the Treaty of Troyes by opposing King Henry VI of England being King of France too). However, Brexit was about leaving the EU and not about the UK leaving NATO as well. However, any conflict can happen for any reason at any point in the future. How many people in 1152 would have predicted a conflict between two branches of the same dynasty for control of the English Crown? Blaming Cameron and Osborne is a bit unfair - Diane Abbot, Ed and Yvette Balls, Natalie Bennett, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Vince Cable, Ken Clarke, Nick Clegg, Alistair Darling, Ruth Davidson, Sajid Javid, Caroline Lucas, Alan Johnson, Martin McGuinness, John Major, Theresa May, David and Ed Miliband, Barack Obama, Gloria di Piero, Amber Rudd*, Alex Salmond, Will Straw, Wes Streeting, Nicola Sturgeon, not forgetting the CBI and Institute of Directors, as well as the many others advocated for Remain. Maybe take responsibility for the message rather than blaming the message or the recipients of the message. As to the ‘sliminess’ of the people involved, I’ll leave that to another to judge. One of the people I’ve mentioned above having admitted to being a leader of the IRA. Ken Clarke also went on a trade jaunt for BA Tobacco, to allow them to sell cigarettes to children, in Vietnam - Gove’s cocaine use, or Johnson’s philandering, doesn’t look quite so bad in comparison. You’ll see from what I’ve previously said in this thread that Gove and Johnson didn’t lie about sovereignty nor did they lie about the possibility of the UK’s EU ‘membership fee’ being spent on other things other than as a membership fee for an international legal authority which cedes sovereignty above the UK (the previous institution that did so being the Roman Catholic Church). As the campaign said ‘vote leave, take control’ not ‘vote leave, take back control and have the Beeching cuts reversed’. The amount was de jure true and de facto not true. I think the UK’s role in Europe has been as a sort of neutral arbiter in disputes (due the UK holding the balance of power) - be that between France and Germany or Spain and other countries - since the 1518 Treaty of London. “When I read of young Europeans having their relationships broken up by Brexit then my reaction to that old man is "you stupid, selfish old git”” Christian marriage vows are; “For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death us do part”. Most people respond with “I do” and not with “I do, but if international trading arrangements change then I’ll change my relationship too.” Well, sure, he might be selfish. I speak of ‘my family’. My sister also speaks of her family (from my perspective its “her family” and from her perspective its “my family”). I can sit here all day and happily play language games. However, might that he was weeping indicate that the UK has some meaning to him? I don’t know, but it’s possible. You know, it’s possible that all the Remain Campaign’s warnings can be true, but people voted to leave because they wanted British political sovereignty regardless of costs. Perhaps people have had enough of their views being dismissed or ignored because inflation might creep up over 2.5% on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Price measurement. The UK means something to Theresa May. They disagree where that love and that meaning and that patriotism takes them, but they can at least agree on ‘the UK’. Patriotism, after all this, is underpinned by a sense of gratitude. Anyway, I don’t know if I should be making these points here. Other than making a broad point about he irrelevance of railway stations in the issue of Brexit, which I’ve already said, twice now, I don’t know what the relevance is. That we’re seeing people argue at a personal level is precisely the reason I’ve tried to be academic because whilst I’m going to be honest in my thoughts I also wanted to be a bit more sensitive on this highly contentious issue. Maybe I’ve learned from very nearly losing a friend after brazenly sharing a New York Times article. That said, from what I’ve listened to and read over the last few years I’m not sure I would vote to Remain. Maybe I would, but perhaps I would be a little more respectful of other people’s opinions. To be honest, I’m in the unsure camp, so being ‘academic’ suits me fine. I just wouldn’t be swayed by a railway station closure. That said, everyone has their ‘breaking’ point and maybe the closure of a railway changed their mind to Brexit from being unsure. *British railway wagon name!

Sorry for the second quote post, but I remembered I left something out... I am also impressed with your coal loader, too. I remember inheriting a few Railway Modeller issues from my Uncle and in one of the issues they had a feature about such constructions and spent my post-GCSE summer looking at that feature and listening to The Rolling Stones on my CD player (I think my Dad chucked the magazines out when I moved home). Regardless of that, its good to see something built. Like I say, its good and look forward to seeing updates!

I was impressed how you used your space as well. I like Northern England, BR Sectorisation, coal and steel trains as well as your trackplan, so your layout 'tickled my fancy' (lol - 'tickled my fancy' more playful than 'ticked all my boxes').

That reminds me, rather than saying "'burden of proof' is on the status quo" I should have said "'the presumption'..." with the burden of proof being on 'the change'. "The Port Talbot example though should be provided with the caveat that the EU recognised the danger to European steel industries posed by Chinese dumping their excess production and proposed heavy tariffs. It was the British government that vetoed them." Yes, you are right about the then Conservative government were more interested in the International steel market than the jobs (in the present and future) of steel workers in Port Talbot and the future of the wider community (or so it seemed). The 'community' is what Lexiteers (and Brexiteers too, but perhaps in a different way) care more about. Although, there were wider issues involved than just the application of tariffs on steel - the UK's fiscal situation connected to the construction of Hinkley Point B (the latter reason can also be seen as an environmental policy). The Port Talbot situation was similar to the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty's Social Chapter - the then Conservative government got an opt out from the Social Chapter, but Labour implemented the Social Chapter (with the Conservatives accepting its implementation by 2010) albeit in a slightly watered down form (Labour then went on to take credit for things like the minimum wage which is both true and not true - their responsibility, but not their idea). However, I'm not convinced a Labour if they had been in power could/would have dealt with the Port Talbot situation any differently. There are debates in Economic History about whether domestic policy drives foreign policy or vice versa. An example might be did fear of the Soviet Union drive the Neo-Liberalism of the 1979-2016? era (at the cost of the Western Nation-State? Trump tried, but seems to have failed, to reassert the Nation-State as a valid political entity) or did the domestic liberalisation of the economies of France, (West) Germany, the UK and US drive the fall of the Soviet Union? Both of these can be true as well as the Soviet Union collapsing after four leaders (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev) in three years. "The further example of not being able to restrict steel tenders on government contracts to UK producers does go to the heart of what the EU is about." Well, sure. Whilst facts don't have feelings people have feelings about facts. However, the foundational principle of the EU was about tying France and Germany together after the wars between the two countries from 1870 to 1945. Alsace-Loraine, changed from France and Germany four times in 31 years (from France to Germany back to France back to Germany back to France). Alsace is probably the most contested part of Western Europe and has been In dispute since the foundation of the Frankish Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire. It's also worth having a look at Robert Schuman's biography. "The EU, as a Danish politician observed, is an alliance of small nations and nations yet to recognise they are small, and thus its aim is to provide a larger market than national markets can ever be. Britain, through voting for Brexit, is not prepared to accept they are relatively small on the global stage." If nothing else I think the vaccine rollout shows that the UK, post-Brexit, is not going to be as bad as some members of the Remain campaign had us believe - Cameron even went as far as to say Brexit would lead to WW3. As Matthew Goodwin often explains there are academic debates about the extent to which culture (identity rather music or sport) and/or economics are driving politics in the UK and US at the moment (over the last 20 years or so). I remember at the start of the referendum a Remainer said "Well, whatever the result, it's neither going to be the apocalypse or paradise." Contrast that with the end credits of the Newsnight referendum result show there’s footage of an old man weeping , in to his pint, saying "I've got my country back."

Well, Corbyn is on record as giving the EU seven out of 10 - what that means precisely I don't know (other than "the EU isn't perfect"), but its better than three or five out of 10. I couldn't tell if he meant that or was just advocating that as a way of preventing (more) splits in the Labour Party - he was known for his anti-European stance, but people are allowed to change their minds. Nor do I have a window in to a person's soul. However, a prevention of state aid and other associated policies was the reason John Mann argued for Brexit/'Lexit' and was exemplified by the Port Talbot crisis during the referendum campaign and the Longbridge crisis in 2000. The Lexit argument, as with 'the big red bus campaign', the operative word is 'could' (there was no 'must' or 'shall'). Stare Decius is not strictly only about, as I understand it, legal precedent, but also includes 'investment' in the law as it stands and that the 'burden of proof' is on the status quo (another way to express in a related field might be 'political consensus'). The primary function of Stare Decius is not to 'entrench' law (or special interests), but to prevent the public being messed about. The problem for a domestic government is that the EU's legal jurisdiction is international. Taking the Longbridge example (simply because its easier) this would mean that in order to save Longbridge the then Labour government would have had to either make an equivalent rescue act of all similar car plants in the EU (which they couldn't do as then they would have to be in power forever) or give an equivalent investment to all other car plants in the EU (which itself would be contentious and expensive) just to remain within the EU rules of fair competition (fair in the sense of the same practices, rules etc). That said, Gordon Brown bailed out the banks in 2008. I'm not sure of the legal case, but the economic justification was that if he and others didn't act the economy (nationally and internationally) would come crashing down due to payments and receiving of payments as well as multiple bank runs and multiple banks collapsing all at the same time. The action was also co-ordinated internationally, at the G7, so the action Brown took was about the UK portion of the global effort. A legal case might not have been required as there was such an overwhelming economic case for doing so - I'm not sure of the ECJ's powers, but usually a case has to be presented and found in favour of rather than have policies 'abstractly' struck down (this is certainly the case in UK and US courts). There are justified reasons for letting a business or industry 'fail', but explaining it leads me off-topic. Sorry if I've overcomplicated hinges, but it's a complicated subject. I'm whilst I'm not an expert I wanted to explain things from an 'academic' point of view then I can keep my political opinions off the forum and let people make up their own minds from the facts as I see them (I'm also trying to make 'good faith' points rather writing anyone's press release).

I like this layout as well as your Mulberry Junction (http://www.mulberryjunction.co.uk/index.html) layout. I hope things are well with you.

Maybe Larry Elliot does have a bit of a point, but Beeching happened in 1963 and the UK joined the EEC in 1973. I understood his argument (I'm assuming a good faith argument, but a bad faith interpretation might be 'Brexiteers being capricious, fickle and simple people who can be bought off for our agenda'), but I'd dispute it on the grounds that about 40% of the London electorate voted to leave the EU too. That would mean places like Bacup, Ramsbottom and Rawtenstall didn't vote 100% to leave. I lived very close to a Beeching cut, but even with the awareness of the cut, the cut wasn't my motivation for voting the way I did. Nor did it motivate my neighbours to vote the way they did. If it did play a part in people's motivation, I imagine it would be further down the list than other national concerns. The State-Aid rules of the EU prevent a Government from giving preferential treatment for investment in a particular area. The Dutch government found this out a couple of years ago. If you extended a line over a previous cut, that new journey would have to be open to competitive tender and could very easily seen as a state subsidy to a company if that journey was just given to the local franchise. Also, a car manufacturer or a coach operator might argue this government investment cuts against competition for its product/service. This is the case even if the purpose was just to connect two previously unconnected and 'underdeveloped' places. Stare Decius (basically, agreeing to that which has been decided before) means a government can continue an anti-competitive policy (a state-run health service, a state-run railway, that existed as a state-run organisation before membership), but can't introduce or reintroduce an anti-competitive policy (like nationalising or renationalising previously privatised industries). Chiltern Railways had to build its new connection to Oxford via Bicester because they had the money as well as having a long-term franchise. In the UK Deutsche Bahn, who own Chiltern Railways, operate as a private firm rather than as a state-run entity. The only defence for state-aid within the EU is that of national security. The UK didn't have to competitively tender firms to build a new warship, but the government couldn't force the shipbuilder to buy steel made in the UK. The point about sovereignty is to do with EU law taking precedence over UK law and not just in terms of legislation - that the rulings of the European Court of Justice took precedence over UK Court rulings (also, there are the different legal traditions to contend with - Common and Roman law). For Brexiteers, there is an inseparability of National (the Crown, not the Nation) and Parliamentary Sovereignty. Parliamentary Sovereignty is about the UK's supreme legal authority being the Crown in Parliament - no law can bind the Crown for it is Crown that all law came and comes to be made and from where all courts in the UK get their authority from to make rulings on the law. Therefore since the Crown exists in Parliament, Parliament also cannot be bound by any law.

Brexit was a result of EU membership and I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that the UK should join the EEC (as was) because of Beeching. I understand there were other factors or reasons to 'Vote Leave Take Control', but sovereignty was the point of Brexit rather than having new railway lines and stations - 'What stopped railway lines etc being built whilst the UK was a member of the EU?' being the obvious question. The railway closures carried on as the UK economy reoriented from a largely manufacturing economy to a largely service economy during its time as an EU member with help from Government.