The Brexit Thread

[Alsty]

The regulations make no mention of amplified equipment. Being noisy without such equipment could still be a breach of the law. I've seen plenty of protests with loudhailers, whistles and people chanting.

Protests by their definition are meant to be seen and heard otherwise what's the point?

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[tayspru]

“I’m alright Jack” is the apt phrase here

Womens rights, interracial marriage, lgbtq+ rights, abortion rights. Any law that didn’t automatically favour the straight white man had to be protested and fought for, often in a very loud and very annoying manner. If protests weren’t loud and annoying they wouldn’t work - they have to be disruptive or the powers that be don’t listen.

Taking away any right to protest is extremely concerning

 

[GaryH]

Well here’s one benefit of not being in the EU. No speed limiting on cars

New EU vehicles will be fitted with speed-limiting tech from 6 July

Motoring experts warn that while the same rules are yet to be given the green light by the Government, drivers may have little choice in the matter if manufacturers fit the tech.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And before people moan about speed, try overtaking a lorry or tractor with a speed limiter on and feeling it kick in stopping you getting past. It’s scary.

While not mandatory yet I wouldn’t like to have such tech on the car - it’s only a matter of time.

 

[Matt N]

Well here’s one benefit of not being in the EU. No speed limiting on cars

New EU vehicles will be fitted with speed-limiting tech from 6 July

Motoring experts warn that while the same rules are yet to be given the green light by the Government, drivers may have little choice in the matter if manufacturers fit the tech.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And before people moan about speed, try overtaking a lorry or tractor with a speed limiter on and feeling it kick in stopping you getting past. It’s scary.

While not mandatory yet I wouldn’t like to have such tech on the car - it’s only a matter of time.

You can turn such features off, I think. I seem to remember my dad saying that his car had it, and he simply turned it off.

With that in mind, I’m assuming that the EU legislation only mandates their installation rather than them needing to be constantly on.

 

[jon81uk]

Well here’s one benefit of not being in the EU. No speed limiting on cars

New EU vehicles will be fitted with speed-limiting tech from 6 July

Motoring experts warn that while the same rules are yet to be given the green light by the Government, drivers may have little choice in the matter if manufacturers fit the tech.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And before people moan about speed, try overtaking a lorry or tractor with a speed limiter on and feeling it kick in stopping you getting past. It’s scary.

While not mandatory yet I wouldn’t like to have such tech on the car - it’s only a matter of time.

Even if your car does have ISA it can be overridden if needed by pushing hard on the accelerator. So if you are in a situation when you really need to drive over the speed limit it will be possible.
Although if you are on a non-motorway road and cannot overtake without going significantly over the speed limit, you shouldn't be overtaking.

 

[Alsty]

How many cars are manufactured in the UK? And those that are, presumably they will wish to export to the EU market so will need to comply with the relevant EU directives anyway.

This is just the Apple connector again... products in the UK will still be made to the EU standards. No big corporations are going to spend money making special cases just for the UK. Your article even says "drivers may have little choice in the matter if manufacturers fit the tech", which manufacturers will do if required to sell into the European market.

As an aside, if you cannot overtake a vehicle without exceeding the speed limit then perhaps your overtake was not appropriate in the first place.

 

[GaryH]

And this is the flawed thinking these days when it comes to speed. There may be times when you do temporarily need to exceed the limit to safely pass a slow moving vehicle.

Around Devon you do come across a lot of tractors doing 20mph along what might be a 30mph road. You have to safely pass the vehicle in as little time as possible, so yes it would be safe to put your foot down, overtake as quickly as possible even if that does god forbid mean doing 31mph and then pull back in and observe the limit again.

The whole speed kills mantra is flawed anyway. I did a lot of research on it a while ago when I belonged to a motoring group. It’s around 7% of accidents where speed is a sole cause. The biggest causes were driving while under the influence (drink or drugs), or being distracted- i.e using a mobile phone but these are much harder to police and harder to prosecute.

Anyway, slightly going off topic!

 

[jon81uk]

And this is the flawed thinking these days when it comes to speed. There may be times when you do temporarily need to exceed the limit to safely pass a slow moving vehicle.

Around Devon you do come across a lot of tractors doing 20mph along what might be a 30mph road. You have to safely pass the vehicle in as little time as possible, so yes it would be safe to put your foot down, overtake as quickly as possible even if that does god forbid mean doing 31mph and then pull back in and observe the limit again.

The whole speed kills mantra is flawed anyway. I did a lot of research on it a while ago when I belonged to a motoring group. It’s around 7% of accidents where speed is a sole cause. The biggest causes were driving while under the influence (drink or drugs), or being distracted- i.e using a mobile phone but these are much harder to police and harder to prosecute.

Anyway, slightly going off topic!

If the limit is 30 then I don't think there is a need to overtake any vehicle that is also moving. Wait to get to a faster bit of road, the limit is there for a reason.

If the limit is 40 or higher and in order to safely overtake you need to go over the speed limit that is fine and the speed limit adviser system will allow you if you put your foot down.

 

[Matt N]

The whole speed kills mantra is flawed anyway. I did a lot of research on it a while ago when I belonged to a motoring group. It’s around 7% of accidents where speed is a sole cause. The biggest causes were driving while under the influence (drink or drugs), or being distracted- i.e using a mobile phone but these are much harder to police and harder to prosecute.

Funny you should say this, because I saw not that long ago that Volvo are designing new tech to put breathalysers into their cars to sense the alcohol levels in the driver’s blood. If they’re over the legal limit, then the car won’t start. So that will hopefully reduce accidents if it’s widely adopted.

It might not have been breathalysers, but I definitely remember some sort of tech announcement where the objective was to try and prevent drink driving.

 

[rob666]

That tech has been about for decades Matt, it is simply no manufacturer has been brave enough to fit it yet.
I think it was first on Tomorrows World back in the eighties!

 

[pluk]

Like freedom of speech, freedom to protest does not mean a freedom to act without consequences. They are not absolute rights.

One persons protest is another persons riot. There have been rules governing protest since we became a civilised society and these are occasionally reviewed as the world, and technology, changes. This is nothing new or scary and it takes some willful misinterpretation to say that these changes stop or remove the right to protest.

How many cars are manufactured in the UK? And those that are, presumably they will wish to export to the EU market so will need to comply with the relevant EU directives anyway.

That manufactures make both left and right hand drive cars in the UK and abroad to suit differing markets suggests that they would absolutely build to local specification, especially where they can simply omit something and save money.

 

[Dave]

Well here’s one benefit of not being in the EU. No speed limiting on cars

New EU vehicles will be fitted with speed-limiting tech from 6 July

Motoring experts warn that while the same rules are yet to be given the green light by the Government, drivers may have little choice in the matter if manufacturers fit the tech.

www.dailymail.co.uk

And before people moan about speed, try overtaking a lorry or tractor with a speed limiter on and feeling it kick in stopping you getting past. It’s scary.

While not mandatory yet I wouldn’t like to have such tech on the car - it’s only a matter of time.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the car manufacturers are not going to make a different car for the UK market so your future cars will almost certainly have speed limiters on them. But as is the case in the EU they can be overridden. The UK will be taking a standard it had no say in

I mean Germany has roads without speed limits so it’s not exactly a stretch to assume these don’t have to be active at all times…

 

[AstroDan]

This is hilarious.

 

[Alsty]

The government have a strange definition of "taking back control of our borders".

 

[Benzin]

The government have a strange definition of "taking back control of our borders".

BrExIt WaSn'T gOInG tO bE iNsTaNt!

 

[JAperson]

BrExIt WaSn'T gOInG tO bE iNsTaNt!

No instead we had about 3 extensions. 2 general elections and 2 prime ministers non of which could deliver something they told he British people they could, mainly because it was a massive lie. A hard line Brexit was never going to work and as the vote didn’t ask what Brexit actually meant everybody was voting for different things. Like we could’ve left and become part of EFTA or the EEA we would have still left (and actually that seems to be the best route back in as I don’t think we would have to run a referendum to join it). It’s still frustrating how the media, particulate the Daily Fail managed to corrupt people into thinking this was a great idea with very clever rhetoric.

 

[Matt N]

The thing I find interesting is the hardness of Brexit we pursued. We’ve gone for a pretty hard Brexit.

However, only 52% of people voted to Leave. That means that nearly half still voted to Remain. With that in mind, surely a softer Brexit might have worked better and satisfied more people, what with how slim the majority was?

Had 52% voted to Remain, would we be seeking deeper integration with the EU and adopting the Euro, entering the Schengen Zone etc? Probably not. In fact, I’d wager that there may well have been a second referendum on the issue by now had Remain won, because the issue would never really have been solved in the first one had Remain won, and there would still have been sizeable discontent had we remained in the EU.

 

[Benzin]

If there'd be a Remain win, nothing would've really changed.

If the result was as close though, the Eurosceptics would've been all guns blazing, because that's what most of them have as their political career. Farage practically vanished after winning, being the snake oil salesman he is, but if he'd had lost we'd have never gotten rid of him.

The hardness of the Brexit came purely because it would benefit those in charge. The likes of Rees-Mogg and other disaster capitalists made bank off it, and of course when you consider the links to Putin, a hard Brexit was ideal in an attempt to weaken the EU and increase interest in right wing political across Europe (and the world what with Trump coming in as well).

The effects are still around mind. The increase in right wing politics is very high at the moment. Le Pen in France, Hungary and Poland are prime examples of this. Not necessarily completely linked to Brexit but certainly shown an increase as a result. Its concerning for a number of people and whether or not it improves anytime soon is anyone's guess.

That the nation was driven to those choices and agreements (which we are currently also looking at ripping up in terms of Northern Ireland) not through a desire of bettering the country but rather those in power wanting to keep more power (and money) is a disgrace that may never be repaired. No chance we ever return at the same level we were at, but the decisions that were made at the top were nothing short of idiocy.

Reminder, didn't have to trigger Article 50 immediately. Could've gone through the options and then perhaps put them forward to the public. But that wasn't in the interests of those behind this. Instead we activated the ticking time bomb with zero idea of what anyone actually wanted and when May came up with an agreement that a number of other MPs didn't like she got the boot.

The country has been turned into a laughing stock, and the whole mess has probably made the EU far more stronger if others look to us and think "well they made a mess of it didn't they?".

 

[pluk]

The thing I find interesting is the hardness of Brexit we pursued. We’ve gone for a pretty hard Brexit.

Not so much what we've gone for, more like what European exit is by definition. Leaving and keeping the perks of membership was broadly not on the table, so to leave cannot really result any anything significantly different to what we have ended up with.

 

[Matt N]

Not so much what we've gone for, more like what European exit is by definition. Leaving and keeping the perks of membership was broadly not on the table, so to leave cannot really result any anything significantly different to what we have ended up with.

I was more meaning that before we left, certain things like a Norway-style agreement, where we did things like stayed in the single market, were talked about. I was intrigued to know why this wasn’t pursued as opposed to the more hardline option we went for.

There was definitely talk of a softer Brexit than what we ultimately went for before we actually left the EU.