came from a world run by an economics movement which invited regulators to focus on a rather narrow set of consumer welfare, doing rather detailed economic modelling of what might happen to prices as far as consumers were concerned. and certainly the effect, and i am inclined to believe the intention of all of that, was to emasculate anti competition policy and that is what happened in the us, which undermined it somewhat in the uk. we need a new intellectual framework. and for the sectors like water and rail, in which there can be no effective competition, are regulators inevitably going to struggle to prevent abuses? in the case of quite a lot of the privatisations of the 805 we actually managed to create competitive market5 actually managed to create competitive markets to some degree in other utilities in areas like
from the european union. some of them do, and some of them don t. and you don t have to repeal them if you don t want to. it s the government that is repealing them, not the fact that we left the european union. the government, or a government, can go further than the laws we ve got now, if they wish, because now they re sovereign. what we believe the european union was about, and the question of principle on which we made our decision, is the fact that privatisation seems to be, to us, to be a constitutional matter now in the european union. they call it liberalisation, and the railways all over europe are now having to open themselves up to competition. we believe that would have gone into the health service and further into education and all our public sector. the difference between privatisations we ve had and what will go on in the european union with the so called four freedoms is that those are constitutional matters and you cannot avoid them. and i believe, and we believe, that
More privatisations of public assets are in store for New South Wales as Premier Dominic Perrottet refuses to rule out more sell-offs. Jim McIlroy reports.
them if you don t want to. it s the government that is repealing them, not the fact that we left the european union. the government, or a government, can go further than the laws we ve got now, if they wish, because now they re sovereign. what we believe the european union was about, and the question of principle on which we made our decision, is the fact that privatisation seems to be, to us, to be a constitutional matter now in the european union. they call it liberalisation, and the railways all over europe are now having to open themselves up to competition. we believe that would have gone into the health service and further into education and all our public sector. the difference between privatisations we ve had and what will go on in the european union with the so called four freedoms is that those are constitutional matters and you cannot avoid them. and i believe, and we believe, that the corbyn manifesto would probably have been illegal in large parts if we d stayed in the eur
they re sovereign. what we believe the european union was about, and the question of principle on which we made our decision, is the fact that privatisation seems to be, to us, to be a constitutional matter now in the european union. they call it liberalisation, and the railways all over europe are now having to open themselves up to competition. we believe that would have gone into the health service and further into education and all our public sector. the difference between privatisations we ve had and what will go on in the european union with the so called four freedoms is that those are constitutional matters and you cannot avoid them. and i believe, and we believe, that the corbyn manifesto would probably have been illegal in large parts if we d stayed in the european union. now, he didn t win that election, so it s academic. it s a moot point, but also the idea that you can t