BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…18421843184518471848…2102

Comments

  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    edited October 2021
    Brexit boys working hard to find benefits
    _
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    rick_chasey said:

    Brexit boys working hard to find benefits

    This one seems a reasonable change. Small beans, but fair enough.

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,794
    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Brexit boys working hard to find benefits

    This one seems a reasonable change. Small beans, but fair enough.

    Micro beans I'd say.
    What percentage of drivers would benefit from this? Those with private estates?
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    pblakeney said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Brexit boys working hard to find benefits

    This one seems a reasonable change. Small beans, but fair enough.

    Micro beans I'd say.
    What percentage of drivers would benefit from this? Those with private estates?
    Everyone. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vnuk-decision-the-effect-on-domestic-motor-insurance
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    I can't get it to £50 per car though, even at the top estimate.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,639
    kingstongraham said:

    I didn't understand this, so read the bill and the background. The only way it saves the average motorist money is by stopping the Motor Insurers Bureau being responsible for incidents caused by uninsured drivers away from "roads and public places". Supermarket carparks are public places, so insurance would still apply. https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/

    Thanks for doing the research. I had assumed the rule would just apply to those with enough land that they could have a car and never leave the land. There are definitely some examples in the list where I could imagine the law change will be a pain for some.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I didn't understand this, so read the bill and the background. The only way it saves the average motorist money is by stopping the Motor Insurers Bureau being responsible for incidents caused by uninsured drivers away from "roads and public places". Supermarket carparks are public places, so insurance would still apply. https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/

    Thanks for doing the research. I had assumed the rule would just apply to those with enough land that they could have a car and never leave the land. There are definitely some examples in the list where I could imagine the law change will be a pain for some.
    I think not changing the law would be a pain for more. Karting and motorsport for one example.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,639
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I didn't understand this, so read the bill and the background. The only way it saves the average motorist money is by stopping the Motor Insurers Bureau being responsible for incidents caused by uninsured drivers away from "roads and public places". Supermarket carparks are public places, so insurance would still apply. https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/

    Thanks for doing the research. I had assumed the rule would just apply to those with enough land that they could have a car and never leave the land. There are definitely some examples in the list where I could imagine the law change will be a pain for some.
    I think not changing the law would be a pain for more. Karting and motorsport for one example.
    You've lost me there. Are you supporting the proposed change? I would have thought legally obliging cars on track days to be insured would simplify things.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I didn't understand this, so read the bill and the background. The only way it saves the average motorist money is by stopping the Motor Insurers Bureau being responsible for incidents caused by uninsured drivers away from "roads and public places". Supermarket carparks are public places, so insurance would still apply. https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/

    Thanks for doing the research. I had assumed the rule would just apply to those with enough land that they could have a car and never leave the land. There are definitely some examples in the list where I could imagine the law change will be a pain for some.
    I think not changing the law would be a pain for more. Karting and motorsport for one example.
    You've lost me there. Are you supporting the proposed change? I would have thought legally obliging cars on track days to be insured would simplify things.
    Without the change, I think that incidents on a track day would have been treated the same as incidents on the road, so insurance would have to cover it.

    On a wide interpretation, would also have included karts which are not road legal (and e-bikes that are only legal off road).
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,794
    kingstongraham said:

    pblakeney said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Brexit boys working hard to find benefits

    This one seems a reasonable change. Small beans, but fair enough.

    Micro beans I'd say.
    What percentage of drivers would benefit from this? Those with private estates?
    Everyone. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vnuk-decision-the-effect-on-domestic-motor-insurance
    I'm willing to bet that my premium still increases year on year.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • jimmyjams
    jimmyjams Posts: 709
    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I didn't understand this, so read the bill and the background. The only way it saves the average motorist money is by stopping the Motor Insurers Bureau being responsible for incidents caused by uninsured drivers away from "roads and public places". Supermarket carparks are public places, so insurance would still apply. https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/

    Thanks for doing the research. I had assumed the rule would just apply to those with enough land that they could have a car and never leave the land. There are definitely some examples in the list where I could imagine the law change will be a pain for some.
    I think not changing the law would be a pain for more. Karting and motorsport for one example.
    You've lost me there. Are you supporting the proposed change? I would have thought legally obliging cars on track days to be insured would simplify things.
    Without the change, I think that incidents on a track day would have been treated the same as incidents on the road, so insurance would have to cover it.

    On a wide interpretation, would also have included karts which are not road legal (and e-bikes that are only legal off road).
    Are you sure your (highlighted) statement is true? As far as I understand, e-bikes are legal anywhere cycling is normally allowed to the general public (if one is 14 years old or more).

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,261
    jimmyjams said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    TheBigBean said:

    kingstongraham said:

    I didn't understand this, so read the bill and the background. The only way it saves the average motorist money is by stopping the Motor Insurers Bureau being responsible for incidents caused by uninsured drivers away from "roads and public places". Supermarket carparks are public places, so insurance would still apply. https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2019/03/11/road-or-other-public-place-where-do-driving-laws-apply/

    Thanks for doing the research. I had assumed the rule would just apply to those with enough land that they could have a car and never leave the land. There are definitely some examples in the list where I could imagine the law change will be a pain for some.
    I think not changing the law would be a pain for more. Karting and motorsport for one example.
    You've lost me there. Are you supporting the proposed change? I would have thought legally obliging cars on track days to be insured would simplify things.
    Without the change, I think that incidents on a track day would have been treated the same as incidents on the road, so insurance would have to cover it.

    On a wide interpretation, would also have included karts which are not road legal (and e-bikes that are only legal off road).
    Are you sure your (highlighted) statement is true? As far as I understand, e-bikes are legal anywhere cycling is normally allowed to the general public (if one is 14 years old or more).

    Unrestricted e-bikes are not legal except on private property.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,923
    edited October 2021
    Wrecker Frost gets caught mistranslating and omitting crucial bits of a sentence:



    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    Moronic.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    JFC

    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,582
    Another Brexit win, EU and US sort out steel tariffs whilst the UK go it alone, we'll get better deals approach means British steel exports are at a disadvantage.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,687
    rick_chasey said:

    JFC

    I mean, this is way down the list of his greatest ever BS. It's ahistorical nonsense but that hardly distinguishes it from anything else he's said.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    edited October 2021
    A) I don’t approve of “pricing in a lying sh!t” and b) blaming the fall of an empire on mass immigration is a fair bit more sinister
    _
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,923
    As I've been suggesting...


    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,794
    rick_chasey said:

    A) I don’t approve of “pricing in a lying sh!t” and b) blaming the fall of an empire on mass immigration is a fair bit more sinister

    It is a (huge, massive) stretch but someone could claim that the Goths, Huns and Barbarians were illegal immigrants who got a bit greedy.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,923
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    A) I don’t approve of “pricing in a lying sh!t” and b) blaming the fall of an empire on mass immigration is a fair bit more sinister

    It is a (huge, massive) stretch but someone could claim that the Goths, Huns and Barbarians were illegal immigrants who got a bit greedy.

    Give 'em HGV licences, and let 'em in!
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    A) I don’t approve of “pricing in a lying sh!t” and b) blaming the fall of an empire on mass immigration is a fair bit more sinister

    It is a (huge, massive) stretch but someone could claim that the Goths, Huns and Barbarians were illegal immigrants who got a bit greedy.
    It’s nonsense but I am more concerned with why he said it
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,794
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    A) I don’t approve of “pricing in a lying sh!t” and b) blaming the fall of an empire on mass immigration is a fair bit more sinister

    It is a (huge, massive) stretch but someone could claim that the Goths, Huns and Barbarians were illegal immigrants who got a bit greedy.
    It’s nonsense but I am more concerned with why he said it
    I thought it was obvious. He is in favour of closed borders, and against immigration.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    But whhhhhhy
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,794
    Little Englander, innit.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,923
    Votes
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    Yikes, do you lot think I am this stupid?
    _
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 17,923
    rick_chasey said:

    Yikes, do you lot think I am this stupid?


    No, but why ask the question?
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,794
    rick_chasey said:

    Yikes, do you lot think I am this stupid?

    If you want to make a point then simply make it instead of trying to draw it out of people.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,730
    edited November 2021
    briantrumpet said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Yikes, do you lot think I am this stupid?


    No, but why ask the question?
    a) it is a shift from previously states positions. This is not the first time he's done that but it is still notable. I refer to you his time as London mayor, his letter post-Brexit, etc, let alone all his chat about his 'mongrel' background. He has previously let others in his party push the hard line

    b) it is a further slide down the very populist policies, and it's the first time i've heard him refer to immigration as something that is damaging. In this instance, he isn't just saying it's damaging but existential.

    c) This goes against the fact that with current birth rates in the west and current demographics, Britain or indeed any Western European country cannot sustain its level of prosperity and future growth without immigration. So not only is the historical answer wrong, but to apply it to now would only hasten a decline.

    d) as an immigrant I do struggle to not take this stuff personally.
    _

Categories