If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not buying it though. They've said that tractors with a speed limit above 60km/h already have ABS in place, so the technology is already in place. This is moving it down to cover 40-60km/h, which is still relatively fast for a tractor, so not going to affect the bottom end of the market.

I also don't see how having ABS can cause more accidents on a road, or how it'll affect off-road behaviour. They don't affect traction and only improve braking when you're expecting the ground to block up the wheels, like with deep snow. It'll never trigger in normal tractor usage.

Tractors are currently alarmingly unregulated; You need a Class 2 license to drive an HGV with trailer, with an 90km/h speed limit, but you don't need any similar licensing (or insurance) to drive a similar sized tractor/trailer combo, albeit at a slightly lower speed.

The article reads largely like a complaint that regulation is being introduced, than a genuine issue with what the regulation is trying to do. There's a bit saying that safety would be better improved with signalling and lighting on tractors, but I don't see why they can't do both.

Bear in mind the tractors in question could potentially weigh in at almost 40 tons, with tyres that aren't intended to provide grip on tarmac.

Do you drive a tractor or indeed buy tractors?
Your responses suggest not.
Because that is certainly not what EU farmers say, as my link shows.
The safety benefits - just for example, taking statistically over 20 years to prevent the first accident - would substantiate the view that this regulation is uneccesary.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the EU needs to be spending lord only knows how much time and money regulating tractors and especially with seemingly superfluous things things like ABS?
Instead of using the man-hours and funding on what matters - think migration; banking; employment; poverty; ............. well, there is a long list of things far more deserving of the EU's time and expenditure TBH.

Daft regulations like this one (and responses like yours) are a prime reason so many decided they want to leave the EU.
Feelings evident in numbers within much of the EU too, it would appear.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh what's this, is it a Brexiter justifying Brexit based on actual facts?

Oh no, it's an ad hominem diatribe of nonsense.

Just for a change.

The irony is almost too real.

Until you stop spouting hate about boomers, leave voters and conservative voters I'll continue to call you out on it.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Do you drive a tractor or indeed buy tractors?
Your responses suggest not.
Because that is certainly not what EU farmers say, as my link shows.
The safety benefits - just for example, taking statistically over 20 years to prevent the first accident - would substantiate the view that this regulation is uneccesary.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that the EU needs to be spending lord only knows how much time and money regulating tractors and especially with seemingly superfluous things things like ABS?
Instead of using the man-hours and funding on what matters - think migration; banking; employment; poverty; ............. well, there is a long list of things far more deserving of the EU's time and expenditure TBH.

Daft regulations like this one (and responses like yours) are a prime reason so many decided they want to leave the EU.
Feelings evident in numbers within much of the EU too, it would appear.

No I don't drive a tractor, but I understand how ABS, and tyres work. I also don't entirely belief the propaganda piece, but I don't have time to research it further.

There's lots of things the EU could be trying to improve, and I'm sure if they weren't about to waste thousands of man hours on Brexit, we'd be able to get a lot more done.

Conrad wrote: »

£28 million in club fees a day saved

Which May has said we might still pay.

and we will trade with Europe, and like Japan and the rest we will abide by trading reg

Which still won't be as good as our current set-up. Have you tried trading with Japan?

Independence frees our spirit to better ourslves.

It'll free our spirits, I guess, but it isn't going to make us any better off here, at least not for a long time (by that I mean generations).

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

There's lots of things the EU could be trying to improve, and I'm sure if they weren't about to waste thousands of man hours on Brexit, we'd be able to get a lot more done.

And I'm sure that if the EU had not proven itself to be so incompetent and untrustworthy there would BE no Brexit to waste these man-hours on.

Rinoa

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A good trade deal is very easy to define.

It's a deal with zero tariffs and zero non-tariff barriers on all goods and services sold to and bought from our biggest trading partner Europe.

A deal where there is no customs obstacles and senseless bureaucratic red tape to the continued and highly complex supply chain interactions with our biggest trading partner.... Europe.

Europe will still be our biggest trading partner after brexit. But we'll have trade deals with others on top which we currently aren't able to negotiate.

I can't think of any other trade deal in the world where one party demands exclusivity.

If our current EU trade deal is that good, why are they afraid of us negotiating with others?

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The political union that Cameron already got an exemption to for ever closer union.

The union where 90%+ of rules and regulations concern trade, and that we''d have to abide by regardless of staying or leaving to trade with them...

Just.... Oh never mind.

:mad:

The political union which had gone too far even before Cameron had that legally binding (:rotfl:) agreement, I don't recall being asked what I thought about the Lisbon treaty. I'm very happy the political union will be reversed.

Where 100% of our economy is subject to EU rules rather than just the industry that wants to sell into it.

Neither would we be bound by the customs union which would stop us from trading freely with other countries with whom the EU seem unable to ratify free trade deals after years of negotiations.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

And I'm sure that if the EU had not proven itself to be so incompetent and untrustworthy there would BE no Brexit to waste these man-hours on.

I'm also sure that if the leave campaign hadn't lied about pretty much everything we wouldn't have to waste time on a Brexit too :beer:

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm also sure that if the leave campaign hadn't lied about pretty much everything we wouldn't have to waste time on a Brexit too :beer:

Now you're suggesting that the remain campaign did not also lie?
Also about pretty much everything?
Incredible!
Methinks you need to face reality.

The_Last_Username

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm also sure that if the leave campaign hadn't lied about pretty much everything we wouldn't have to waste time on a Brexit too :beer:

You're trying to defend the indefensible.
Remember all the "remain" camp's threats?
Many within the EU itself accept their problems including Tusk and Junckers.
Why can't you?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Besides the obvious (from the title) there are a few interesting bits in here:

The EU is in crisis, and its leaders know that Britain's departure could be the bloc's breaking point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/brexit-could-pull-the-pin-out-of-the-eu-grenade-thats-why-the-eu/