Or future of UK rail
Commission has an intense dislike of the staterun railways, which it sees as inefficient monopolies. This is by no means an unfair criticism - many state-run railways across the continent, especially in the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe, have been fantastically inefficient and have failed to modernise or take advantage of the opportunity that congested and often inadequate roads offer them.
However, it is also fair to stress that the EU has by no means been an unequivocally prorailway force. Quite the opposite. It has tended to take the view that mobility per se is a good thing, but has in no way sufficiently stressed the environmental advantages of railways. It has therefore funded huge road projects even where there is a rail alternative. A reader recently wrote to me about a project funded by the EU with more than £500 million to build a motorway through the stunning and unique Kresna Valley in Bulgaria, even though there is a parallel rail line that has been allowed to deteriorate through lack of investment.
The other theme is to encourage competition. The EU is obsessed with stimulating competition, and again that is partly motivated by the dissatisfaction with state-owned railways. The whole project of separating the infrastructure from operations was born out of a desire to stimulate rival companies into competing against one another, principally as a challenge to the entrenched state railways.
In the UK, however, given that the railways have been privatised and there is a measure of open access, the impact of further legislation will be limited (although Northern Ireland, state-run and integrated, may be forced down a different path unless its special circumstances can earn a derogation).
As a result of this emphasis on competition in the Fourth Railway Package, the two main rail unions - the RMT and ASLEF - have come out for Brexit (although the TSSA supports Remain). But in fact, much of what they argue against has already happened in the UK, which is far further down the line of privatisation and the encouragement of competition in its railways than any of its European counterparts. Brexit would therefore make little difference to the railways, although a future Labour government might have a bit more leeway in reversing some of the emphasis on competition enshrined in European legislation.
Two caveats, however. Firstly, as I mentioned in RAIL 800, the future of HS2 might be more uncertain if there is a Leave vote. Secondly, the general chaos that would arise from Brexit could lead to all kinds of unexpected consequences.
My view is that no one has any idea of what will happen if the electorate plump for Brexit, except that there will be a long period of uncertainty which is bound to be damaging to the economy and consequently to the railway. So to keep us on the train, vote Remain! c/o RAIL, Bauer Media, Media House, Lynchwood, Peterborough Business Park, Peterborough,PE2 6EA. Christian Wolmar can be contacted via his website www.christianwolmar.co.uk.