Motoring legislation held up by Brexit Options

[Redivi]

Editorial in the new (March) edition of Classics magazine mentions some legislation that's been held up while Parliament is otherwise occupied

Graduated driving licences with P-plates for new drivers who will be limited to 45 mph (doesn't sound a great safety measure)
Limit to number of passengers carried by new drivers under age 24
Type approval of cameras to enforce ignoring motorway red 'X' lane closures
Provision to enforce offence of driving too closely to cyclists that comes into effect next month

Also speculates that rule changes will allow motoring cases to be dealt with by any court under SJP rules

Don't agree with the conclusion that defendants should be prepared to travel
Thought the whole point of SJP was that defendants didn't attend

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Also speculates that rule changes will allow motoring cases to be dealt with by any court under SJP rules

That's already the case, every mags court in England & Wales has jurisdiction over the whole of England & Wales AIUI.

[southpaw82]

Graduated driving licences with P-plates for new drivers who will be limited to 45 mph (doesn't sound a great safety measure)

Certain places already limit new drivers to 50mph. Not convinced it does much, as they often drive far faster than that.

Provision to enforce offence of driving too closely to cyclists that comes into effect next month

A specific offence? Will it be “x feet” (difficult to prove) or “too close” (already covered by due care/reasonable consideration)?

[typefish]

Considering how NI were to scrap graduated speed limits - yet never did, considering their assembly literally imploded into a pile of ash on the floor - why is it being considered here?

It's a nonsense.

Additionally, I've never really understood why NI introduced 45mph limits anyway - it isn't even necessarily that comparable to km/h!

[Glacier2]

The R plates and 45mph limit are down to direct rule ministers.

[m7891]

I can’t help but think that restrictions on new drivers will be ignored by those that they’re aimed at, and hit hardest those that they aren’t.

[DancingDad]

I can’t help but think that restrictions on new drivers will be ignored by those that they’re aimed at, and hit hardest those that they aren’t.

Isn't that the case with many laws, especially of the restrictive type?
Let's ban law abiding citizens from owning firearms.... only the outlaws can have them.
Let's ban sugar cos there are some idiots who live on fizzy drinks...to hell with the poor sods who are not obese but enjoy a full fat Irn Bru.
Let's make this area permit only so residents can park, guess who often cops the parking PCNs? It isn't the commuters that caused the original problem when a CEO wanders around at 9pm to check permits.
Let's clamp down on dangerous speeders. Now we can prosecute those doing 36 in a 30 when it isn't slightly dangerous but they have broken the LAW and we make loads of money from them.
Let's allow No Win No Fee so those who cause injury can be made to pay without the victim being unable to afford legal representation. So now a large portion of school or NHS budget are used to pay out for nonsense claims.
Let's ….ah, you get the gist, the law of unintended consequences, nanny state or encroachment on personal freedoms, depends on your viewpoint.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 17:08

[666]

Editorial in the new (March) edition of Classics magazine mentions some legislation that's been held up while Parliament is otherwise occupied

None of the proposals listed seem to be in the parliamentary timetable yet, so it's a bit fanciful to blame Brexit.

If they are indeed "official" proposals, then they're held up somewhere on a to-do list within Grayling's department.

[oldstoat]

what next, to blame brexit for. The lack of a law saying that it should be a specific offence for a male to use the word ANUS between the hours of 0901hrs and 1147hrs when wearing a top hat. The desperation of remainers to blame the end of civilisation on Brexit becomes more desperate by the hour

[Guest_Charlie1010_*]

£350m a week? Where’s that then?
Stoke the fires over the decisive victory of just over 50%!
Did Farage also say speeding fines would be abolished if we left Europe?
Ignorant mess.
Danny Dyer is right about Cameron.
Don’t get me wrong. I think brexit is great. My pension has lost 15% of its value just before retirement, there is some doubt continuity of my medication in the short term and that it may be disrupted and our business faces uncertainty over tariffs so the bank has stopped the existing credit.
But I sleep safe in the thought we can make our own laws.

This post has been edited by Charlie1010: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 07:58

[DancingDad]

And therein lies a common misconception.
That Brexit is causing many woes such as those detailed by Charlie.
Wrong, the uncertainty over Brexit is what is fueling many things, like pension funds losing value, like business tariffs, like investment.
And who are causing all the uncertainty?
Our bl33ding politicians mainly !!

There are hardline Leavers who want no deal.
There are soft leavers who want to keep the status quo while nominally leaving.
There are remainers that want to rerun the referendum, do anything to prevent Brexit.
Those who want to use the confusion for their own ambitions and those who want to coin political credit, for themselves or their party.
Cynical political manoeuvring which bears little resemblance to the will of the people.
Add in EU politics and their manoeuvring plus press pundits crying that the sky is falling.....

TBH, even if the sky does fall and we crash out, WTF is the big deal?
Yes we will likely have issues, possibly major ones while deals are done and solutions found.
But at least will have a known situation with known problems that can be sorted.
People, businesses, even politicians are good at sorting problems when they have to, at the moment, they can't.
Can't plan ahead, can't plan for the worse cos that keeps changing.....

For my money, take each and every politician out of the equation who is not following the will of their constituents, they are not doing what they should be doing so drop them in the Thames.
Then lock the rest into a room until it has been sorted, no pundits, no interference, no twitface or any contact with outside world. Don't care if it becomes last man (woman) standing, bare knuckles or SMGs, come to a resolution that all agree.
Then give that to EU with a simple note, take it or leave it.

[Churchmouse]

And therein lies a common misconception.
That Brexit is causing many woes such as those detailed by Charlie.
Wrong, the uncertainty over Brexit is what is fueling many things, like pension funds losing value, like business tariffs, like investment.
And who are causing all the uncertainty?
Our bl33ding politicians mainly !!

You think it's been disruptive up to now? Brexit is a guarantee of uncertainty, not only for now, but for many years to come. Leaving with a deal or none, the UK can look forward to many years of negotiations on future trading arrangements, not only with the EU (every single member state will have to agree to any deal--as well as any relevant "regional assemblies" (remember what the Belgian region of Wallonia did with the CTA?)), but with every other nation we trade with. No one operates in a modern world without trade agreements, and despite the absurd claims of people like Liam Fox, we have almost none of them in place now. So, better get used to uncertainty, if Brexit happens.

The only way to remove the uncertainty, of course, is to revoke the UK's Article 50 notice and continue with what has largely worked just fine for this country for the last 40+ years.

--Churchmouse

[Fredd]

No one operates in a modern world without trade agreements, and despite the absurd claims of people like Liam Fox, we have almost none of them in place now.

Yeah, right.

How many FTAs does the US have? 20.
Australia? 10.
Canada? 40.
The EU? 36.

The norm in the world is trading on WTO rules, just as the EU has with Canada and Japan, for example, until very recently. Short-term pain aside, there's no reason the UK couldn't trade successfully as an independent nation, much as all but 28 (the EU states) of the 195 countries in the world currently can. The most enlightening aspect of the Brexit fiasco (and god knows there's been little else that qualifies) is what it's revealed about the pitiful lack of national self-confidence that 45 years under the EEC/EC/EU's skirts has engendered, particularly in our political class.

[DancingDad]

.........You think it's been disruptive up to now? Brexit is a guarantee of uncertainty, not only for now, but for many years to come. Leaving with a deal or none, the UK can look forward to many years of negotiations on future trading arrangements, not only with the EU (every single member state will have to agree to any deal--as well as any relevant "regional assemblies" (remember what the Belgian region of Wallonia did with the CTA?)), but with every other nation we trade with. No one operates in a modern world without trade agreements, and despite the absurd claims of people like Liam Fox, we have almost none of them in place now. So, better get used to uncertainty, if Brexit happens.
………...

I just don't agree.
A large percentage of our current exports go outside the EU, depending on which figures you take, just under or just over 50%
A large percentage of those go to countries like the USA where there is no trade agreement.... WTO rules.
Similar with imports though the figures are under 50% for non EU imports.

That's fully half of our international trade done without EU rules, trade deals or anything special apart from a desire to trade.
Usually a desire that is the result of companies, often small ones who identify a niche or a product that is wanted and set out to provide that.
I've worked for or with those sort of companies for a good proportion of my working life. Sorted projects out in Russia, China, India, USA, Venezuala, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan..... list goes on and on.

Chaos if it happens will be with the EU. Promoted by politics, here and in EU, politicians who will put up false obstacles, objections and the like.

Yes a trade deal with EU would be good.
Yes, free trade within a customs union would be good and has served us well.
That was what EU originally was, The Common Market.
It is not that now.

[Churchmouse]

No one operates in a modern world without trade agreements, and despite the absurd claims of people like Liam Fox, we have almost none of them in place now.

Yeah, right.

Well, it is right, as in factually correct. My point was about the "uncertainty" relating to Brexit being just beginning, and I was assuming that we would want to operate like a modern trading nation and negotiate our own trade deals (isn't that one of TM's infamous "red lines"?) If you are saying that we actually don't need any trade deals, please let the Prime Minister know ASAP, because she seems to be operating under a serious misunderstanding.

No comment about the negotiations with the EU after the WA, then? I'm sure the temptation for Spain to try and get something out of us re Gibraltar will be interesting. Fishing rights? Which other countries have an axe to grind? The Wallonian CETA concessions related to the ISDS provision--which objection could be raised by any "progressive" legislative body at any time--and to specific farming-related protections for Belgian farmers. There's no question we could eventually get a trade deal with the EU, but it will come at a price.

"Britain’s secretary of state for trade, Liam Fox, told MPs on Wednesday that the difficulties over Ceta underscored the importance of the UK signing a trade deal before it leaves the EU.

The UK would only face a procedure similar to Ceta, he said, if it failed to conclude a trade agreement before the end of two years of divorce negotiations under the EU’s article 50.

“That sort of procedure would only be undertaken were we to leave the European Union after our article 50 period without any agreement whatsoever and were looking to seek a new FTA [free-trade agreement] from outside,” he said."

Oops.

--Churchmouse

[666]

I just don't agree.
A large percentage of our current exports go outside the EU, depending on which figures you take, just under or just over 50%
A large percentage of those go to countries like the USA where there is no trade agreement.... WTO rules.
Similar with imports though the figures are under 50% for non EU imports.

That's fully half of our international trade done without EU rules, trade deals or anything special apart from a desire to trade.

But our exports outside the EU are indeed subject to EU rules. Our exports to the USA etc. are covered by the EU's trade agreements with the US, not the WTO.

[Fredd]

Our exports to the USA etc. are covered by the EU's trade agreements with the US, not the WTO.

And what trade agreements would they be, then?

[typefish]

Our exports to the USA etc. are covered by the EU's trade agreements with the US, not the WTO.

And what trade agreements would they be, then?

Is TTIP actually dead?

[Fredd]

Our exports to the USA etc. are covered by the EU's trade agreements with the US, not the WTO.

And what trade agreements would they be, then?

Is TTIP actually dead?

With the current incumbent in the White House, almost certainly so. However it's never been agreed anyway, let alone come into effect.

[Churchmouse]

As this appears to be the de facto Brexit thread, I will just say, "Ohhhh, Jeremy Corbyn..."

--Churchmouse