The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[Trabi601]

chrispmartha said:

Do tell (paywall)

It's in the bit you can read without paying.

It's to do with fault - ie. if you're in a non-fault accident and hit by an uninsured driver, you will get an MIB payment even if you are found to be uninsured yourself.

Bit of an oddity, but not quite the raving lunacy it may first seem if you don't know that detail. It's such a ridiculously small probability that this situation will arise, and it appears to be clarification of some existing uninsured driver fund rules.

I assume that, if an insured driver is liable in an accident with an uninsured driver, a payment will be made.

[chrispmartha]

Trabi601 said:

chrispmartha said:

Do tell (paywall)

It's in the bit you can read without paying.

It's to do with fault - ie. if you're in a non-fault accident and hit by an uninsured driver, you will get an MIB payment even if you are found to be uninsured yourself.

Bit of an oddity, but not quite the raving lunacy it may first seem if you don't know that detail. It's such a ridiculously small probability that this situation will arise, and it appears to be clarification of some existing uninsured driver fund rules.

I assume that, if an insured driver is liable in an accident with an uninsured driver, a payment will be made.

Ahh so as I thought it isn't really 'lunacy' when you look at the actual detail, strange that the Mail, Sun and Chris Grayling want to make more out of it isn't it

[alfie2244]

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

[Trabi601]

alfie2244 said:

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't lead to a withdrawal of payments.

Edited by Trabi601 on Saturday 14th January 18:54

[sidicks]

Trabi601 said:

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't mean to a withdrawal of payments.

Who funds the MIB? That's a rhetorical question by the way...

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 18:51

[stongle]

kurt535 said:

Um, carving up the city of london financial spoils between various european financial centres could make up a lot of money and then some.....price of property in frankfurt has stormed up in value in anticipation of relocations lined up.

Just as Commerzbank pulls out of investment banking. Ummmm, if you were speculating on Brexit, their could be a glut of office space to hit the market! Especially as they can finally offload the deadweight left over from merging with Dresdner in 2008, something the workers council have been blocking.

Any business seriously considering FFT as sizeable base for staff is off their rocker. You might want trading there (minimal quality locally so not a great plan), but certainly not support staff (even if salary cheap its only a part of fully loaded headcount)- the fixed costs are enormous.

If they were courting the likes of Goldman (strong possibility), the Trump effect may reverse that as we'd see a pull back to NYC. The EC also got it in its head to go tit for tat Vs. US foreign bank rules (group level holding co's), this is looking increasingly dumb.

JP are looking at Barcelona (or were till Jamie got burned trying to help other peripheral countries banks). Whilst risk to Passporting prompts due diligence on relocation (I've done it, will be Dublin if we have to) - it's a very complex issue.

The problem with Brexit as a concept, is anyone with an IQ in excess of double digits should be 60:40 either way at worst. The noisy doomsayers and the very noisy Brexiteers (every time Don4l posts I have visions of Major King Kong at the end of Dr Strangelove riding the bomb, this time into Brussels), have missed the point that the wood is actually made of trees.

Edited by stongle on Saturday 14th January 18:59

[alfie2244]

Trabi601 said:

alfie2244 said:

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't lead to a withdrawal of payments.

Edited by Trabi601 on Saturday 14th January 18:54

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

eta even if I was speeding, as in your example, I would still have contributed to the scheme that was compensating me.

[Trabi601]

alfie2244 said:

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

Because to rule otherwise would open up the industry to blocking valid claims on the same grounds.

It's not morally right, but it actually makes legal sense.

[alfie2244]

Trabi601 said:

alfie2244 said:

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

Because to rule otherwise would open up the industry to blocking valid claims on the same grounds.

It's not morally right, but it actually makes legal sense.

Not that I agree but even if that was the case then the law is an arse and needs to be changed.

[sidicks]

Trabi601 said:

Because to rule otherwise would open up the industry to blocking valid claims on the same grounds.

It's not morally right, but it actually makes legal sense.

This isn't a valid claim - it's an invalid claim. The MIB is for insured motorists.

[Northern Munkee]

sidicks said:

Trabi601 said:

Because to rule otherwise would open up the industry to blocking valid claims on the same grounds.

It's not morally right, but it actually makes legal sense.

This isn't a valid claim - it's an invalid claim. The MIB is for insured motorists.

No, it was for insured motorists.

They seem to be pandering to those doing the wrong thing at the extra expense, literally, of those that have done the right thing ->> be insured. It's probably "progressive", but is regressive.

[chrispmartha]

alfie2244 said:

Trabi601 said:

alfie2244 said:

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't lead to a withdrawal of payments.

Edited by Trabi601 on Saturday 14th January 18:54

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

eta even if I was speeding, as in your example, I would still have contributed to the scheme that was compensating me.

Why do you presume the uninisured driver hasn't paid in, that person could have paid more into the system than you or I

[alfie2244]

chrispmartha said:

alfie2244 said:

Trabi601 said:

alfie2244 said:

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't lead to a withdrawal of payments.

Edited by Trabi601 on Saturday 14th January 18:54

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

eta even if I was speeding, as in your example, I would still have contributed to the scheme that was compensating me.

Why do you presume the uninisured driver hasn't paid in, that person could have paid more into the system than you or I

Yeh right ok then.

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

Why do you presume the uninisured driver hasn't paid in, that person could have paid more into the system than you or I

The uninsured person has paid into the MIB that is funded from payments made by insured motorists?

I wonder why he thinks that, maybe you can work it out?!

[chrispmartha]

alfie2244 said:

chrispmartha said:

alfie2244 said:

Trabi601 said:

alfie2244 said:

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't lead to a withdrawal of payments.

Edited by Trabi601 on Saturday 14th January 18:54

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

eta even if I was speeding, as in your example, I would still have contributed to the scheme that was compensating me.

Why do you presume the uninisured driver hasn't paid in, that person could have paid more into the system than you or I

Yeh right ok then.

Think about it

Not all people who ate uninsured are scumbag criminals who have never had insurance

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

Think about it

Not all people who ate uninsured are scumbag criminals who have never had insurance

Irrelevant.

Paying into an insurance 'pot' at a previous point in time doesn't give you any right to that pot in the future!!

[Northern Munkee]

This an authoritative source ?

https://mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/january/...

[alfie2244]

chrispmartha said:

alfie2244 said:

chrispmartha said:

alfie2244 said:

Trabi601 said:

alfie2244 said:

Not sure if I am missing something but as I see it:

Uninsured driver hit by another uninsured driver - tough titty regardless who's at fault IMO.

Unless it it now legal to drive uninsured as far as I can see both are doing something illegal.

I think I'd be a little more worried if the ruling was to clarify that you can't claim against an uninsured driver if you are yourself uninsured, as you're driving illegally.

That would open up the doors to a move by the insurance industry to say that if you were doing anything technically illegal and involved in an accident, you wouldn't qualify for a payment.

eg. have a prang at 70mph on a single-carriageway road. No payout, as you were breaking the law.

I'm kind of more comfortable with the clarification that illegal actions don't lead to a withdrawal of payments.

Edited by Trabi601 on Saturday 14th January 18:54

So you don't pay into something but get the same benefits as someone that does....not withstanding the legalities, how on earth is that ever right?

eta even if I was speeding, as in your example, I would still have contributed to the scheme that was compensating me.

Why do you presume the uninisured driver hasn't paid in, that person could have paid more into the system than you or I

Yeh right ok then.

Think about it

ok then "current contributor" or are you saying ex contributors not just current, should be able claim on insurances? I'll have to dig out all my lapsed policies.

[chrispmartha]

sidicks said:

chrispmartha said:

Think about it

Not all people who ate uninsured are scumbag criminals who have never had insurance

Irrelevant.

Paying into an insurance 'pot' at a previous point in time doesn't give you any right to that pot in the future!!

A person forgets to renue insurance for one day, gets totalled by a car thief and is severely injured, man has paid into the pot for as long has its been going - tough titty?

[sidicks]

alfie2244 said:

ok then "current contributor" or are you saying ex contributors not just current, should be able claim on insurances? I'll have to dig out all my lapsed policies.

A point I've already made above!

That will save me a fortune, as my renewal comes through shortly. I'll simply not bother this time and claim based on the premiums i paid in previous years!