-
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
Oh and Rochdale not Peterborough
My bad.
An insignificant error which I will no doubt bring up at some time in the future in order to destroy an unrelated argument.
-
I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about the point that membership of EU was not high on the concern of the surveys until the connection between immigration and membership was highlighted.
The EU connection was made in many areas long before the referendum. Not difficult when you have UK companies advertising for workers in Poland and not in the UK. (There was this factory in Cornwall I can tell you about...)
You make a good point about immigration beyond the EU. Being in the EU meaning the UK can only control half of it's immigration policy. Some of smarter commentators (John Harris, Goodhart) have picked up that a key Brexit driver is UK control - people being less concerned about economics than about the UK making it's own decisions
-
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
The problem (immigration) was and still is a refusal to discuss the issue rationally,
This. A hundred times
-
Not only can you not spell Rochdale but you live in Cornwall. You do know that’s one down from being a Janner don’t you?
-
@Rembrandt said in Brexit:
I see EU Parliament has just voted in Article 13. Britain really needs to get the hell out of there deal or no deal.
Disgraceful law, there is another one coming hot on the heels of this.
Well mass censorship certainly fits the EU agenda perfectly. Good to see Youtube finally speak out against it, albeit a little too late. Consequences will be huge.
What's the next one?
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Rembrandt said in Brexit:
I see EU Parliament has just voted in Article 13. Britain really needs to get the hell out of there, deal or no deal.
Thats got nothing on this one ...
A few scenarios; you are rushing to hospital with your pregnant wife, can’t go above the speed limit and both die in your back seat.
You are being chased by criminals who obviously have disabled their limiter. No way to escape, get to watch your partner being raped.
Natural disaster occurs behind, can’t speed up to get away (like the Tsunami in Japan). You drown but at least you didn’t die in a car crash.
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Rembrandt said in Brexit:
I see EU Parliament has just voted in Article 13. Britain really needs to get the hell out of there, deal or no deal.
Thats got nothing on this one ...
sweet jaysus
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Rembrandt said in Brexit:
I see EU Parliament has just voted in Article 13. Britain really needs to get the hell out of there, deal or no deal.
Thats got nothing on this one ...
A few scenarios; you are rushing to hospital with your pregnant wife, can’t go above the speed limit and both die in your back seat.
You are being chased by criminals who obviously have disabled their limiter. No way to escape, get to watch your partner being raped.
Natural disaster occurs behind, can’t speed up to get away (like the Tsunami in Japan). You drown but at least you didn’t die in a car crash.
These are all of course, edge cases. But the point is the same. People have to be allowed to make their own decisions. When you try to take these decisions away from people, the same people who are "causing the issue", ignore them anyway. All you do is take away the freedom from those who weren't bothered anyway.
Which means, all you effectively do, is disallow people to escape the edge cases as you have put forward above.
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Rembrandt said in Brexit:
I see EU Parliament has just voted in Article 13. Britain really needs to get the hell out of there, deal or no deal.
Thats got nothing on this one ...
A few scenarios; you are rushing to hospital with your pregnant wife, can’t go above the speed limit and both die in your back seat.
You are being chased by criminals who obviously have disabled their limiter. No way to escape, get to watch your partner being raped.
Natural disaster occurs behind, can’t speed up to get away (like the Tsunami in Japan). You drown but at least you didn’t die in a car crash.
These are all of course, edge cases. But the point is the same. People have to be allowed to make their own decisions. When you try to take these decisions away from people, the same people who are "causing the issue", ignore them anyway. All you do is take away the freedom from those who weren't bothered anyway.
Which means, all you effectively do, is disallow people to escape the edge cases as you have put forward above.
Stop your moaning and get in your Caterham.
-
@MajorRage @Kirwan I'm happy to disagree with views on this. I think it's a good idea. It's always seemed odd to me that speed limiters on cars were north of 100mph when the legal limit was 70mph. I'd support fully limiting cars to no more than 20% over the speed limit at any time.
I'm much more likely to get killed by some kid driving like an idiot than I am having to outrun a tsunami. And the proposal is that it works as a warning system but can be overridden (at least until they change that part of it).
I disagree that people have a right to make their own decision when that decision is a deliberate choice to break a law that is in place for my safety.
In any event, once cars are autonomous there won't be any speeding anyway.
-
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
Not only can you not spell Rochdale but you live in Cornwall. You do know that’s one down from being a Janner don’t you?
Dyth da!
Hewel leun a brythel yw ow bysowek....
-
@Calf it’s a well intentioned law, but with likely unintended consequences. If I felt like it, I could spend the next ten mins coming up with more realistic valid reasons for speeding.
On principle, I find these sorts of nanny state laws tyranny by stealth.
-
@MajorRage @Kirwan I'm happy to disagree with views on this. I think it's a good idea. It's always seemed odd to me that speed limiters on cars were north of 100mph when the legal limit was 70mph. I'd support fully limiting cars to no more than 20% over the speed limit at any time.
I'm much more likely to get killed by some kid driving like an idiot than I am having to outrun a tsunami. And the proposal is that it works as a warning system but can be overridden (at least until they change that part of it).
> I disagree that people have a right to make their own decision when that decision is a deliberate choice to break a law that is in place for my safety.
In any event, once cars are autonomous there won't be any speeding anyway.
The point is that those who are going to break the rule, will break it anyway. A kid who wants to drive like a nutjob is going to, regardless of a speed limiter on a car.
Brexit