Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

I am most interested in the potential of driverless cars to reduce the number of cars on our roads. Why would you want to own a car if you can just call it up like a taxi?

Because it takes me where I want to go...on my own...and I enjoy driving.. Can pull up and have a nap if I,m in van...ask taxi to do that...
And I can tow boat or put windsurf kit on roof...or both..
Everyone hailing taxis, manned or unmanned, would mean more journeys not less. Taxi has to come to you, move you and then return to base or another pick up...Moving about empty most of its time.

 

[flecc]

Your argument is so totally bankrupt. Yes I gain from this - BUT SO DO THE POOR. You on the other hand want to hand money to the monopoly and the corrupt leaders. And you don't see it. You think I am the one being selfish. You have no idea.

The world is full of poor people, and many of them are within the EU. I can't help all of them so I don't understand your obsession with South African poor. It seems it really is only about price as you first said.

As for mentioning corrupt leaders, that's just silly in this context. Yes many of the EU leaders do well on their high incomes which are published, but when it comes to secret outright corruption, South African leaders are past masters. The soon to be outgoing president for example.
.

 

[Danidl]

What are you talking about? We are not planning to put tariffs on anybody. Especially not S. Africa who say they want a free trade agreement with us. Right now they can produce - AND DELIVER - perfectly good oranges (some might even say better) - FOR LESS MONEY.

Why is this so f***ing hard? 2+2=4. Look it up.

You are correct of course, post Brexit, the UK has not been planning on tarriffs from SA. This is consistent with their other actions. What is evident is that they have been not planning on anything ,good bad or indifferent. The "negotiations" with the EU remain a shambles, with significant numbers of the cabinet at odds with what they agreed before Christmas.
Regarding tarriff and customs duties, ask yourself what is the primary purpose of taxation.?. the conventional answer is to raise money for the public services and the defence of a state. Will the UK not need taxation, revenue, public services, including police, judiciary, hospitals, schools, government or defending post Brexit?. Is this conventional answer deficient?

 

[oldgroaner]

Simple, all the boats sail underneath it. Or you could have a giant copy of Tower Bridge in London which raises to let the boats through. What about a swing bridge like we used to have on the canals? The solutions are endless and not difficult, you just need a man in overalls to build it and they are cheap.

Naturally you will want to agree to additional taxes to pay for it?

 

[Zlatan]

Naturally you will want to agree to additional taxes to pay for it?

Nope, sell Hull to Chinese...that should give us £100 or so.
BTW OG how can anybody from Hull moan about useless bridges. That bridge of yours is only bridge in world that goes nowhere from nowhere.
Who in their right minds wants to travel between Hull and Grimsby..

 

[flecc]

Naturally you will want to agree to additional taxes to pay for it?

We could do a Trump:

"We're gonna build a bridge, and it's gonna be a bigly bridge, the best bridge ever. And we're gonna make the French pay for it".
.

 

[oldgroaner]

You too huh? F**k the African farmers who can supply the same product for less. And you call yourself a socialist. Shame on you.

As explained elsewhere they can't supply "the same product " only one degraded by the lengthy delivery times.
Shame on you for your lack of understanding of reality.

 

[oldgroaner]

Nope, sell Hull to Chinese...that should give us £100 or so

They turned it down last year.
they wanted us to pay them.

 

[oldgroaner]

We could do a Trump:

"We're gonna build a bridge, and it's gonna be a bigly bridge, the best bridge ever. And we're gonna make the French pay for it".
.

Next thing of course Boris will want to put a garden on it

 

[flecc]

Next thing of course Boris will want to put a garden on it

Growing French beans, as they'll be paying for it.
.

 

[tillson]

Naturally you will want to agree to additional taxes to pay for it?

Tolls OG.

Are you going to volunteer to sit underneath the bridge?

 

[Zlatan]

They turned it down last year.
they wanted us to pay them.

I stopped at paybooth to go over the Humber Bridge. They gave me a fiver.

 

[Zlatan]

Tolls OG.

Are you going to volunteer to sit underneath the bridge?

That's it Tillson...make me redundo.Thanks.

 

[SHAN]

some inventions (monorails, foil suits and personal flying cars) are not necessary.

I know they're not, but someone thought they would be in the 1960's and 70's. Video conferencing was going to "save the planet" because politicians would use it instead of jetting all over the place. That's working well, isn't it ? Like the George Bennie Railplane.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

What are you talking about? We are not planning to put tariffs on anybody. Especially not S. Africa who say they want a free trade agreement with us. Right now they can produce - AND DELIVER - perfectly good oranges (some might even say better) - FOR LESS MONEY.

Why is this so f***ing hard? 2+2=4. Look it up.

Where are you getting the cost price of oranges for South Africa and Spain from, and then the shipping costs.

If you can provide me with both of those details and prove that a shop can by oranges from SA cheaper than Spain, then I'll believe you.

Until then I think you're posting about stuff you don't understand.

 

[Danidl]

Because it takes me where I want to go...on my own...and I enjoy driving.. Can pull up and have a nap if I,m in van...ask taxi to do that...
And I can tow boat or put windsurf kit on roof...or both..
Everyone hailing taxis, manned or unmanned, would mean more journeys not less. Taxi has to come to you, move you and then return to base or another pick up...Moving about empty most of its time.

I recall having this exact conversation before whether on this thread or another on this forum. What is it one is seeking to maximize? Individual freedom, energy conservation, roadside width, ones finances, .. depending on which the answer will be different!.

 

[Danidl]

I know they're not, but someone thought they would be in the 1960's and 70's. Video conferencing was going to "save the planet" because politicians would use it instead of jetting all over the place. That's working well, isn't it ? Like the George Bennie Railplane.

I didn't realize that cigars were fashion accessories.Enon Musk eat your heart out...

 

[Woosh]

Everyone hailing taxis, manned or unmanned, would mean more journeys not less. Taxi has to come to you, move you and then return to base or another pick up...Moving about empty most of its time.

taxis are public transport. Without taxis, there will be more cars on our roads.

 

[Zlatan]

taxis are public transport. Without taxis, there will be more cars on our roads.

And what's your point ? If we relied totally on taxis there would have to be more journeys and if we didn't want delays ( waiting for one) more cars actually on the road at any one time, rather than parked up.
Taxi , even with best logistics available, must do empty journeys. As long as we are happy and capable of parking cars up, to get the fewest cars actually on the road ( at any particular time) we,d be better off with no taxis..
Taxis cant work for us all, especially on longer journeys.
By nature they are inefficient, driving to a place for a pick up is dead money for driver and wasted fuel and takes up a place that could be utilised by a valid journey.( even if its driver less)
Public transport should be about efficiency. In South Yorkshire we had subsidised public transport ( buses) for years. It was terribly inefficient . Most trips buses were empty, then at high demand..packed full. Used to amaze me to see a double decker bus driving into town with a sole old lady aboard going shopping. It was another socialist dream. ( Ironmonger's I believe)
Taxi is only marginally better.

 

[Woosh]

And what's your point ? If we relied I taxis there would have to bar far more journeys and if we didn't want delays more cars actually on the road at any one time, rather than parked up.
Taxi , even with best logistics available, must do empty journeys. As long as we are happy and capable of parking cars up, to get the fewest cars actually on the road ( at any particular time) we,d be better off with no taxis..
Taxis cant work for us all, especially on longer journeys.

driverless taxis are more like car share than current taxis. You don't need to locate the nearest shared car, don't have to go and get them. Just tell a car share company where and when you want it and hop in and hop off. The running cost would be low because it does not employ humans.