The economic consequences of Brexit
Poll: The economic consequences of Brexit
Total Members Polled: 732
Discussion
Yeah but at least we'll still have Motorsports in this country ///ajd, you're not a green activist are you?
http://www.politico.eu/article/how-a-slovenian-far...
Or is this ECJ Faked News?
Teresa May can have my internet browsing history I still want my motorsport! We could be the motorsports capital of Europe (outside of the EU) even if we are the motorsport capital inside it now! LOL!
http://www.politico.eu/article/how-a-slovenian-far...
Or is this ECJ Faked News?
Teresa May can have my internet browsing history I still want my motorsport! We could be the motorsports capital of Europe (outside of the EU) even if we are the motorsport capital inside it now! LOL!
///ajd said:
If you've looked it up it should already be obvious. How do you think the JAA worked?
You say you want it explaining, but you don't really do you? You'll never be convinced of any benefit of the EU or its agencies because you've already been brainwashed to think its all bad.
The JAA evolved into EASA because of an "evil repressive EU plan to do something stupid" is the way your mind appears to be working.
Your mocking style of a perfectly reasonable point made about (in this case EASA) is widespread amongst many hard core brexiteers who seem to have an unshakeable belief that the EU is bad, anything European is bad, and it all must be destroyed.
It's really quite bizarre.
Do you think we should abandon EASA then, and set up our own aviation regulator, duplicating and diverging?
It really is a wonderful example of how stupid some brexiteer logic is - "take back control of our laws! Yeehar! Who wouldn't think that sounds good!!" What, so we can force new and different rules on the aviation community and increase their costs which will then be passed onto us as consumers? Stupid on stilts.
Is there a plan yet? Still no?
Still no economic case? Nope! Quite the opposite.
As widely predicted, we're heading for something Norway like - what a total waste of time, resources and resulting in a badly divided Nation that is widely mocked around the world for doing something very stupid to just try and settle petty internal political party arguments.
You say you want it explaining, but you don't really do you? You'll never be convinced of any benefit of the EU or its agencies because you've already been brainwashed to think its all bad.
The JAA evolved into EASA because of an "evil repressive EU plan to do something stupid" is the way your mind appears to be working.
Your mocking style of a perfectly reasonable point made about (in this case EASA) is widespread amongst many hard core brexiteers who seem to have an unshakeable belief that the EU is bad, anything European is bad, and it all must be destroyed.
It's really quite bizarre.
Do you think we should abandon EASA then, and set up our own aviation regulator, duplicating and diverging?
It really is a wonderful example of how stupid some brexiteer logic is - "take back control of our laws! Yeehar! Who wouldn't think that sounds good!!" What, so we can force new and different rules on the aviation community and increase their costs which will then be passed onto us as consumers? Stupid on stilts.
Is there a plan yet? Still no?
Still no economic case? Nope! Quite the opposite.
As widely predicted, we're heading for something Norway like - what a total waste of time, resources and resulting in a badly divided Nation that is widely mocked around the world for doing something very stupid to just try and settle petty internal political party arguments.
Crazy!
I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
- Figures come from MCIA industry commissioned report."
///ajd said:
If you've looked it up it should already be obvious. How do you think the JAA worked?
...
I did try to find the differences/what wasn't working with the JAA and nothing whatsoever stood out....
The main difference I could see is that the EASA is now one body whereas the JAA was cooperation by the bodies of each member state agreeing on standards. However, what I have not been able to find out is what this saved.
Logic suggests that it may have saved some people, and hence money. But did it? Perhaps applying to the separate bodies was also more involved, but then if they all cooperated and hence agreed (one assumes) standards then surely that would have been a formality?
I see no evidence at all for it being more effective - the JAA ran until 2009 AIUI? At least until 2002. Have processes become materially more effective/efficient in the last decade? Maybe the have - genuine question.
///ajd said:
You say you want it explaining, but you don't really do you?
Yes. I wouldn't have asked otherwise. Though if all you can do is resort to your snide tone, don't bother - I'm all too familiar with that 
///ajd said:
You'll never be convinced of any benefit of the EU or its agencies because you've already been brainwashed to think its all bad.
I can see some good things.The Single Market, for example, in isolation is a good thing. It is spoilt by the strings attached.
"Automatic" health insurance across member states is OK (though not really what it seems IME owing to the discrepancies in service across the EU).
Harmonised driving licenses has its benefits. Probably doesn't go far enough though.
I can see the potential good in much of the EU. But too often it's trivial in relation to what has to be ceded and the really useful elements are hamstrung with caveats that are only there because the EU elite want us to forgo national identity and become a superstate.
///ajd said:
Your mocking style of a perfectly reasonable point made about (in this case EASA) is widespread amongst many hard core brexiteers who seem to have an unshakeable belief that the EU is bad, anything European is bad, and it all must be destroyed.
I asked a perfectly reasonable question about your reasonable point - what does the EASA give that the JAA did not that has material benefit to us?Here's another - if unification of standards is a good thing (I'm not saying it isn't), why don't we all just consolidate to FAA standards and strictures?
Why did the EU feel the need to "destroy" the JAA? Or persist with an alternative to the FAA?
These, to me, are equally reasonable questions. I strongly suspect that the reasons are underpinned by the EU's desire to be a state in its own right. It's about control. I've found nothing/very little to dissuade me from that view. But that is not to say it does not exist.
///ajd said:
Do you think we should abandon EASA then, and set up our own aviation regulator, duplicating and diverging?
Not unless it also comes with strings attached that are unacceptable. I don't know if it does or not (as an example, does it have implications on airspace control? I don't believe so at present. But do not know). If it does, perhaps we could leverage the FAA?Having two of something does not automatically mean divergence. The JAA covered that, didn't it?
Also, we already still have our own regulator. As do lots of countries that manage to cooperate with wider bodies.
///ajd said:
It really is a wonderful example of how stupid some brexiteer logic is - "take back control of our laws! Yeehar! Who wouldn't think that sounds good!!" What, so we can force new and different rules on the aviation community and increase their costs which will then be passed onto us as consumers? Stupid on stilts.
And there you go with your hysteria again. I have said none of that. But presumably the JAA wasn't doing any of the things you mentioned?
///ajd said:
Is there a plan yet? Still no?
The plan is to invoke Article 50 by the end of March. The plan before that being to get each government department to set out it's requirements ahead of heading into the negotiations that our colleagues in the EU refuse to even discuss until Article 50 is issued, going as far as freezing our PM out of dinner (FFS).Beyond that, the plan will need to be fluid depending on the progress of the negotiations. If we can come to a happy middle ground immediately, then we'll be done immediately. If not, we won't.
The biggest sticking points will be freedom of movement, recovery of sovereignty (principally that our legal system is absolute on our matters on top of things like border control etc), access to the EU market and vice versa and any expectation of continued contributions either way.
If we fail to reach an agreement then the backstop is WTO. If there is no agreement to do otherwise, we cease being an EU member 2yrs from March.
All of this has been said at various times, none of it seems illogical or difficult to fathom.
It is full of uncertainties (save for the backstop), but such is the nature of a negotiation like this and expecting anything different is, to use your vernacular, "stupid".
///ajd said:
Still no economic case? Nope! Quite the opposite.
There is no economic case either way. I said this in the run up, I stick to that view. If there was one, it would have been made. It never has.///ajd said:
As widely predicted, we're heading for something Norway like - what a total waste of time, resources and resulting in a badly divided Nation that is widely mocked around the world for doing something very stupid to just try and settle petty internal political party arguments.
Who says we are heading the way of Norway? We will get a UK deal.And who are we widely mocked by? I believe you live in France, so I can understand your viewpoint. But I'd suggest it's pretty...biased.
The people in the US who matter now don't seem to mind our stance. The increasing support for parties disliking the EU in other member states suggests were not alone. Interviews like that with the Australian High Commissioner equally suggest acceptance and acknowledgement that the decision is fine either way.
The nation was already divided on this issue. Had it not been, the referendum would never have happened. Trying to hide it/shy away from it was unhealthy. Hopefully we can address the division like adults.
If there was a strong enough case to convince everyone, which there really should have been after 40yrs, we would not be having this discussion. The experiment has failed. Time to move on and try something else.
Murph7355 said:
....Why did the EU feel the need to "destroy" the JAA? Or persist with an alternative to the FAA?
These, to me, are equally reasonable questions. I strongly suspect that the reasons are underpinned by the EU's desire to be a state in its own right. It's about control. I've found nothing/very little to dissuade me from that view.....
There we go again. Evil EU. Destroying stuff. You think the JAA was "destroyed".These, to me, are equally reasonable questions. I strongly suspect that the reasons are underpinned by the EU's desire to be a state in its own right. It's about control. I've found nothing/very little to dissuade me from that view.....
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?
Where has the common sense gone?
Why would I lie about that? If I lived in France, I'd admit it. I've lived in several different countries before, quite happily, and made no secret of it.
The amount of total s
t that people believe and take at face value is off the scale these days. Post truth world indeed.
sidicks said:
walm said:
I think (and I may have skim read) that the consensus has agreed that our membership UP TO NOW has been a good thing.
Isn't that comparing 'being in the EU ' with 'not being in the EU (in isolation)', not comparing being in the EU with a variety of alternatives that would have been possible instead? walm - I read Professor Crafts' paper but think a number of the conclusions are odd. As an example, here - http://voxeu.org/article/brexit-lessons-history - he uses a table to note how our performance has done well cf France and Germany since joining...what it seems to show to me is that everyone's performance has tailed off (a natural side effect of highly developed economies?). France and Germany more so, which is what evened the gap rather than us doing "better" per se.
And the big drop off for Germany seems to have coincided with them taking on board East Germany.
To the more cynically disposed, both these things suggest that taking on economically weaker nations into the "cooperative" doesn't necessarily make everyone stronger!
There are plenty of other areas in his paper that seem weak to me, and far from scientifically explored in a neutral manner. But the economics is not an exact science.
The fact is it is impossible to say with any neutrality where we might have been had we spent the last 40yrs outside the EU. Or had the EU remained just a common market. Or had we forged closer ties with the US and/or Commonwealth nations. Equally we cannot do the same with the future.
Yes, trading with EU nations is simpler these days. But then trade with the EU has been declining for years, and that simplicity comes at a price. It all ends up being circular. Moot.
///ajd said:
There we go again. Evil EU. Destroying stuff. You think the JAA was "destroyed".
I used quotes deliberately as you used the word, not me. Did the EU not replace the JAA?///ajd said:
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?
I'd asked you the question before, I don't recall seeing an answer. Apologies if you had.///ajd said:
Where has the common sense gone?
...
The amount of total st that people believe and take at face value is off the scale these days.
Post truth world indeed.
Isn't it just....
The amount of total s
t that people believe and take at face value is off the scale these days. Post truth world indeed.
Northern Munkee said:
Crazy!
I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
As the idiots are still arguing among themselves about trivialities rather than real issues....I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
- Figures come from MCIA industry commissioned report."
I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
Jonesy23 said:
As the idiots are still arguing among themselves about trivialities rather than real issues....
I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
most likely the home grown civil servants gold plating that would make it a major issue here. that is one of the main reasons i voted leave . the gold platers will no longer have anywhere to hide or anyone else to blame. opeople may think they will carry on as before, but they are in for a shock .I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
wc98 said:
Jonesy23 said:
As the idiots are still arguing among themselves about trivialities rather than real issues....
I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
most likely the home grown civil servants gold plating that would make it a major issue here. that is one of the main reasons i voted leave . the gold platers will no longer have anywhere to hide or anyone else to blame. opeople may think they will carry on as before, but they are in for a shock .I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
Too many noses in too many troughs I reckon
///ajd said:
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?
So where do you live then?I am happy to say that I live in Camberley.
It's a nice part of the world without too many immigrants.
I'm the only immigrant who lives in our street.
don4l said:
///ajd said:
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?
So where do you live then?I am happy to say that I live in Camberley.
It's a nice part of the world without too many immigrants.
I'm the only immigrant who lives in our street.
You are never gonna get tired of using that line are you?B'stard Child said:
don4l said:
///ajd said:
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?
So where do you live then?I am happy to say that I live in Camberley.
It's a nice part of the world without too many immigrants.
I'm the only immigrant who lives in our street.
You are never gonna get tired of using that line are you?Life is too short to take things seriously.
///ajd said:
Murph7355 said:
....Why did the EU feel the need to "destroy" the JAA? Or persist with an alternative to the FAA?
These, to me, are equally reasonable questions. I strongly suspect that the reasons are underpinned by the EU's desire to be a state in its own right. It's about control. I've found nothing/very little to dissuade me from that view.....
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?These, to me, are equally reasonable questions. I strongly suspect that the reasons are underpinned by the EU's desire to be a state in its own right. It's about control. I've found nothing/very little to dissuade me from that view.....
Jonesy23 said:
Northern Munkee said:
Crazy!
I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
As the idiots are still arguing among themselves about trivialities rather than real issues....I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
- Figures come from MCIA industry commissioned report."
I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
Try this the govts consultation doc https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
As to our cousins it's one or two Tory MEPs leading the charge, but presumably the Europeans are trying not to care about anything we say, at the moment.
Anyway I realise it's a lot to read and I've only skimmed, so here's one page from the impact assessment of a modified version of it, that if I read correctly, is HMG preferred amended option, if it can get the Europeans to agree, if not you'll be glad we're leaving U.K. And ECJ, sooner rather than later.
Remember read it all. Para 4 and 5 particularly (and this our govt impact assessment on a watered down version of the implementation of the ruling if others will agree
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 22 December 01:59
Northern Munkee said:
Jonesy23 said:
Northern Munkee said:
Crazy!
I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
As the idiots are still arguing among themselves about trivialities rather than real issues....I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
- Figures come from MCIA industry commissioned report."
I've seen this mentioned, also the suggestion that there could be a sunset clause added to any legislation to kill it on leaving the EU.
The thing is there are two questions I need answering:
a) Why not just ignore this completely, kicking any implementation down the road? Enforcement would take years if it ever happened at all.
b) What is the rest of the EU doing about this? Do they have the same problems or (more likely) is it the typical UK gold plated implementation that's actually the problem?
Try this the govts consultation doc https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
As to our cousins it's one or two Tory MEPs leading the charge, but presumably the Europeans are trying not to care about anything we say, at the moment.
Anyway I realise it's a lot to read and I've only skimmed, so here's one page from the impact assessment of a modified version of it, that if I read correctly, is HMG preferred amended option, if it can get the Europeans to agree, if not you'll be glad we're leaving U.K. And ECJ, sooner rather than later.
Remember read it all. Para 4 and 5 particularly (and this our govt impact assessment on a watered down version of the implementation of the ruling if others will agree
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 22 December 01:59
don4l said:
///ajd said:
Why do you think I live in France when I keep saying I don't? Because some random poster - who happens to be brexiteer - keeps joking that I do? So you believe him? Why?
So where do you live then?I am happy to say that I live in Camberley.
It's a nice part of the world without too many immigrants.
I'm the only immigrant who lives in our street.
He must do, he professes to know more about it than most locals and was probably one of the 20-odd percent who voted to remain.
Northern Munkee said:
Hmmm... I wondered about gold or is it boilerplating civil servants, we do like to do things "properly" and it is as much a curse, then again that's why foreigners like our legal system. It can be trusted...
Try this the govts consultation doc https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
As to our cousins it's one or two Tory MEPs leading the charge, but presumably the Europeans are trying not to care about anything we say, at the moment...
Don't worry, we have vetos. Try this the govts consultation doc https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
As to our cousins it's one or two Tory MEPs leading the charge, but presumably the Europeans are trying not to care about anything we say, at the moment...
I didn't realise motorsports add so much to our bottom line. I wonder what it adds to every other country in the EU.
I also wonder where this legislation originated from.
Northern Munkee said:
Crazy!
I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
Even if this doesn't happen its still conformation to me that the leave vote was 100% the right thing ,I think I'd rather have the snoopers charter than this possibility http://www.mcia.co.uk/Press-and-Statistics/Press-R...
Article says
"The outcome of a government consultation on a piece of EU insurance legislation could end motorsport in the UK.
Yesterday, the government issued a document for public consultation, which gives an option of implementing the European Court decision known as the ‘Vnuk judgment’. The ruling makes it compulsory for anyone using any form of motorised transport to have third party damage and injury insurance. This will affect all participants in all forms of motorsport.
The insurance industry has made it clear to government that third party risks for motorsport activities are uninsurable, not least because of the sheer number of potential vehicle damage claims that would arise. Therefore, if implemented, the Vnuk judgment would wipe out all legal motor and motorcycle sport activity.
In the UK, the motorsport industry employs over 50,000 people, generates a total of £11 billion of sales each year and is backed up by a world-leading high performance engineering industry.
Motorcycle competition is a popular UK Sport and generates much needed income in rural areas, with over 1.9 million spectators watching around 58,000 riders attend an average of over 4000 off-road and track events each year. These range from junior motocross to the British Superbikes, which would all end without the required insurance under the ECJ ruling.*
MCIA, ACU and AMCA call on the government to exempt motor and motorcycle sport from any changes to insurance law which arise from the ECJ judgment. While the UK remains in the EU, even a temporary implementation of the ruling, as suggested by the Department for Transport in its consultation document, would be fatally damaging to what is an important industry and net contributor to the UK economy.
Speaking for the ACU, AMCA and MCIA, Steve Kenward, CEO of MCIA says:
“At a stroke, this would wipe out a successful industry and all the jobs that go with it, as well as eliminating a popular leisure pursuit for 1.9 million people, along with the boost that this gives to both local and national economies.
“If the government implements the Vnuk judgment un-amended, British motorcycle sport would end in the UK. Given that we are coming out of the EU, we are astonished that the government is even considering an option to implement Vnuk. We call on ministers to end uncertainty and put a stop to Vnuk in the UK.”
Background:
The Vnuk judgment imposes compulsory third party injury and damage insurance to all vehicles of any kind when used on any type of land. As well as affecting all motorsport vehicles, it could affect electric bicycles, sit-on lawnmowers, golf buggies, mobility scooters and even uninsured vehicles parked on private property under the Statutory Off-Road Notification scheme. The ruling stems from a case involving a Slovenian farm worker, Damijan Vnuk, who was hurt falling from a ladder, which was hit by a reversing tractor.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
You can read the consultation document here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-...
The original judgement arises from Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav C-162/13. See: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/1...
- Figures come from MCIA industry commissioned report."
It might have a short term negative affect on the economy , but when hobbies and quality of life are at risk from mad unelected pen pushers and judges , then Id rather be poor and happy !!!
wc98 said:
most likely the home grown civil servants gold plating that would make it a major issue here. that is one of the main reasons i voted leave . the gold platers will no longer have anywhere to hide or anyone else to blame. opeople may think they will carry on as before, but they are in for a shock .
Hopefully, and maybe Brexit will keep the pen pushers busy and they won't need to look for ways of generating more red tape , otherwise maybe a civll war might be the only way !! so much for the
"bonfire of the quangos"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff