Brexit and its implications for British, HU and any other citizens

fluffy2560 wrote:

7 EUR application fee for a 3 year permission to visit the EU.

Meh.

IMHO, a tempest in a tea pot. Airlines now charge more for baggage or a sandwich in flight.

For years I worked on projects in Africa. I was paying a visa fee of $50 each time I entered one country. And in SE Asia there was an "exit fee", which I was warned about by my co-workers to have some local currency money ready at the airport to pay the fee. Advice I was grateful for as I normally change back all local currency before departing a country.

And let us not even start on the "green page" in the passport (with at least a picture of Jackson, but Grant will get you through faster) some immigration officers expect in some countries to process entrants (never happened to me, but did happen to some I worked with).

So 7 EUR really is nothing to worry about. Sure, another bureaucratic hurdle. But that is the modern world.

7 Euros isn't much but I guess it's just the idea that they nickel and dime everyone so much.
My bro told me over 20 years ago that the airlines were putting in more seats on flights and giving less leg room, I remember when one cold stretch their legs out in flight without having to get out of their seat to do so.
Luggage charges too, they are soon not going to allow anyone to even wear their own clothing, will sell us some sort of special flight suits to wear in route... Greed is going to kill everyone.
We all had to get visa's to enter HUngary in 78 and 86.
Forgot how much they cost, was over $50 each had to take photos etc,and it too some time to get them approved. Just a hassle.
Hope these new visas can be bought right there at the airport.
I personally do not plan on too many more trips, really hate to travel, love a good road trip but flying is not like it used to be.
My mum flew from Ca. to Conn in 1962.
Not too many people were flying back then, certainly not many housewives that were working class.
She bought a new suit, stockings, high heels and got a new perm and set for her hair.
It was like she turned into a movie star just to fly.
last flight some guy was wearing shorts and flip-flops, everyone should really wear stockings or socks, not bare feet on board, just gross.
After the movie before landing when everyone is heading to the WC, we all noticed who ever was in there was taking forever. It was Mr. flip-flop, he came out wearing a suit and tie. Odd.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

7 EUR application fee for a 3 year permission to visit the EU.

Meh.

IMHO, a tempest in a tea pot. Airlines now charge more for baggage or a sandwich in flight.

For years I worked on projects in Africa. I was paying a visa fee of $50 each time I entered one country. And in SE Asia there was an "exit fee", which I was warned about by my co-workers to have some local currency money ready at the airport to pay the fee. Advice I was grateful for as I normally change back all local currency before departing a country.

And let us not even start on the "green page" in the passport (with at least a picture of Jackson, but Grant will get you through faster) some immigration officers expect in some countries to process entrants (never happened to me, but did happen to some I worked with).

So 7 EUR really is nothing to worry about. Sure, another bureaucratic hurdle. But that is the modern world.

All good points but a bit annoying for us British folk who didn't need anything for 40+ years.  But it's not the money, it's the principle of smooth freedom to travel with no bureaucracy.   It's like a visa without the visa.  I just find it annoying.

Mrs Fluffy had a 10 year visa for the USA. Canada's system is 5 years, I think US is 3 years. 3 years seems to be a bit short to me.   

Not sure what the British will do for HU citizens visiting the UK.   I understood there will be no special conditions at all including no pre-registration requirement. 

I've never paid a bribe ...*cough*...I meant a facilitation fee at passports but I've paid plenty at Customs in African countries.  I've started getting annoyed about it - previously I used to just take it as a given and negotiated them down.  But I learnt from my French colleague's wife who wasn't having any of it and gave them a piece of her mind!  Worked fine for her and she was out the door a lot faster than me!

I just hope it doesn't end up with "invitation letters" being the norm.  That'd be really absurd.

fluffy2560 wrote:

All good points but a bit annoying for us British folk who didn't need anything for 40+ years..

Understandable. As an American, I have had visa free travel to Europe since I first came here. But people like my wife, as a Hungarian, did not have visa free travel to the USA when I first met her if she traveled on her Hungarian passport. Thus I told her to travel on her Swiss passport to avoid US bureaucracy.

Ergo, you and I are a bit spoiled. Our wives suffer more.

Oh well. The world is changing. Nationalism is on the rise*. A significant issue for Brexit was about "foreigners", so there you go then. Turn around is fair play. Leaving the EU, now UK residents are going to become foreigners to the EU. Such is the way the world now turns.


* Meanwhile, a fence designed to keeps out the "undesirable" human immigrants for mostly political purposes does nothing to prevent another immigrant to Europe: species of mosquitoes that can carry all sorts of diseases (in other words, politicians are idiots).

fluffy2560 wrote:

But it's not the money, it's the principle of smooth freedom to travel with no bureaucracy.   It's like a visa without the visa.  I just find it annoying.

Well, since the UK got a special exception with an opt-out when entering the EU that mean it needed not to fully implement, Schengen, I don't think UK residents can really complain too much today what the EU will do to them. The UK always wanted free movement of capital -- to help with their banking sector -- without the full commitment to free movement of people. Quite frankly, that is a tiny-itsy-bitsy bit elitist. And represents not a full UK commitment to the "European experiment"**. So maybe better the UK leaves. Maybe the Scots will consider again the need to break free from the English and enter the EU.

** Do note, some experiments, especially volatile ones, can explode. While others without proper support structures, can implode.

Have you still got your UK driving license Mr Fluffy?

fluffy2560 wrote:

I've never paid a bribe ...*cough*...

FWIIW, there is a difference between a bride and grease money. Having a US company, and as an American citizen, bribes were a huge no-no. I could get heavily fined and face legal action back in the USA. But grease money was allowed. A bribe is something given to have someone do something they would not normally do or to get a guaranteed outcome from that person regardless of what they are suppose to do by law. Grease money is money given to simply speed up or have done a process that a person would normally do as per required by their job. Often without specific deference to expecting a special favor or different outcome from what would otherwise be normally expected.

For example, when I hired a driver in Africa, I often "over paid" for the service. Grease money. I was buying loyalty. And it works very well. I knew others who tried to pay the "going rate" and their drivers would often not show up on time, or at all. As just one example.

fluffy2560 wrote:

But I learnt from my French colleague's wife who wasn't having any of it and gave them a piece of her mind!  Worked fine for her and she was out the door a lot faster than me!

I knew a fellow who tried that once in a West Africa country (to not be named), and ended up cooling his heals for many hours on a side bench. Hate to say this, but gender may matter. Us guys need to be careful about getting into a testosterone contest with other guys in "authority". Women can sometimes get away with more -- even crooks have at times weird sense of chivalry in such places.

klsallee wrote:

there is a difference between a bride and grease money.

LOL!!! 

I just noticed my typo. Pretty funny. Because, ironically, even if not PC in any way shape or form, in some societies a "bride" and "grease money" may actually be similar. Some people and societies call it a "dowry"... 

Of course, I meant to write "bribe" not "bride".

klsallee wrote:

....Maybe the Scots will consider again the need to break free from the English and enter the EU. ....

That idea is as dead as a duck can be - probably for a generation or two.

klsallee wrote:

.....Having a US company, and as an American citizen, bribes were a huge no-no. I could get heavily fined and face legal action back in the USA. But grease money was allowed. A bribe is something given to have someone do something they would not normally do or to get a guaranteed outcome from that person regardless of what they are suppose to do by law. Grease money is money given to simply speed up or have done a process that a person would normally do as per required by their job. Often without specific deference to expecting a special favor or different outcome from what would otherwise be normally expected.

For example, when I hired a driver in Africa, I often "over paid" for the service. Grease money. I was buying loyalty. And it works very well. I knew others who tried to pay the "going rate" and their drivers would often not show up on time, or at all. As just one example.
...... Us guys need to be careful about getting into a testosterone contest with other guys in "authority". Women can sometimes get away with more -- even crooks have at times weird sense of chivalry in such places.

It's the same in most countries - bribes not permissible.  US has Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act and the UK, the Bribery Act.  I think both allow for prosecution regardless of where the offence takes place and nationality is not the only indicator for potential prosecution.  All the people prosecuted in the UK that I know of have only been small fish which is interesting in itself.

In any case, it's usual to refer to facilitation fees.  I've even seen a form which describes facilitation fees for obtaining business.  It used to be the case in the UK that these fees were claimable as expenses.  I think that's no longer the case.   Moreover, if there's some bribery and there's some material gain, the gain can be  seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.  So it's a bit of a closed loop.

And you're right, my French colleague's wife was able to get away with it but I had to argue and come to an arrangement.  It was a majority Muslim country so I believe they didn't want to have that confrontation with her, but I was considered fair game.  I asked the Customs guy why I was targeted (I knew anyway) and the reason was my suitcases were "too nice", i.e. I looked like I had money and I wasn't on holiday.

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

....Maybe the Scots will consider again the need to break free from the English and enter the EU. ....

That idea is as dead as a duck can be - probably for a generation or two.

I thought so too, pre-Brexit. But this is now post Brexit times. From the below article, it seems the wheels are already in motion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/worl … union.html

But of course, I don't keep fully up on this topic and where things stand over a year later.

Even if Scotland went independent it would take years for it to join the EU.

Must be a bit frustrating for some people in Scotland to be "ruled" by England.
For the Irish and Welsh as well I suppose.
I feel for them, my paternal side is Ruysn and in the last 150 or so years they were independent for only about 20 years with their own country.
Always over run by bigger stronger countries.
The Ruyns are either citizens of Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia  or even as far away as Serbia.
No one even knows what a Rysn is exactly these days. Aside from their Easter Eggs and wood churches most people have no clue, some even say they are Russians.
I say freedom for the Ruysns! They need their own country, without outsiders telling them what's what.
Never going to happen just like sadly Scotland will probably always be under the rule of the UK.
Andy Warhol was a Ruysn.

SimCityAT wrote:

Even if Scotland went independent it would take years for it to join the EU.

EU membership talks take so long because new countries need to agree to EU law and terms and their governments need to often make significant reforms, and pass a lot of legislation to conform to EU standards. But Scotland already has most or all of those in place. So even if full membership talks took a while, agreements could be signed rather quickly giving Scotland essentially "EU like member status" that may be so negligibly different from full membership as to not to matter much, while the full membership process progressed.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Must be a bit frustrating for some people in Scotland to be "ruled" by England.
For the Irish and Welsh as well I suppose.
..... like sadly Scotland will probably always be under the rule of the UK....

oh, you guys know how to stir it up.  And sadly misinformed.  Must be a slow Wednesday.

All the countries in the Union are voluntary participants as the referendum on Scottish independence showed.   It's a Union and it's been that way for 300+ years! Scotland is not ruled by the English - they and others  have their own Parliaments and are represented in the national parliament as well. The constituent nations have responsibility for many of their own affairs.  Northern Ireland is the same.  The only group that does NOT have a parliament of their own are the English.

Many people are inter-married with the other country groups including my own relatives. Sure we have different cultures of a sort but essentially we're more or less the same and that includes the Irish.  We're much more linked than we are separated.  There's much to be proud about for how we are together and what we have culturally as nations. 

At this point,  I should mention the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.  All independent in their own way with their own parliaments and legal systems.   Isle of Man parliament -Tynwald - is the oldest in the world continuously  in operation for over a 1000 years! No English overseers are ruling anyone there either!

klsallee wrote:

SimCityAT wrote:

Even if Scotland went independent it would take years for it to join the EU.

EU membership talks take so long because new countries need to agree to EU law and terms and their governments need to often make significant reforms, and pass a lot of legislation to conform to EU standards. But Scotland already has most or all of those in place. So even if full membership talks took a while, agreements could be signed rather quickly giving Scotland essentially "EU like member status" that may be so negligibly different from full membership as to not to matter much, while the full membership process progressed.

Very true, but every EU member state has to agree on Scotland joining the EU. Some have said they would not in the past.

fluffy2560 wrote:

All the countries in the Union are voluntary participants as the referendum on Scottish independence showed.

I thought that Scotland had to get "permission" from the UK government to hold their referendum. If so, that is not really true independence. I don't think, but may be wrong, that the UK had to ask the EU to do their Brexit vote, for example.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The only group that does NOT have a parliament of their own are the English.

Well, some may say that actually proves who is really "in charge" of the whole thing. Top dogs don't need their own kennel, if all other kennels are actually theirs to control..... 

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

....Maybe the Scots will consider again the need to break free from the English and enter the EU. ....

That idea is as dead as a duck can be - probably for a generation or two.

I thought so too, pre-Brexit. But this is now post Brexit times. From the below article, it seems the wheels are already in motion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/worl … union.html

But of course, I don't keep fully up on this topic and where things stand over a year later.

It's a fast moving subject. 2017 might as well be several centuries ago. 

There's no chance of a 2nd referendum on Scottish independence for maybe 30+ years. It's just Scottish Nationalist politicking.  The SNP (Scottish Nationalists) are actually in decline as their leader Nicola Sturgeonis considered to be just a poison dwarf (no insult to people with dwarfism, I was referring to the one in Dallas).  Stirs it up and causes nothing but trouble.  And hasn't actually delivered very much either.

SimCityAT wrote:

Very true, but every EU member state has to agree on Scotland joining the EU. Some have said they would not in the past.

Very true.

But I am growing an opinion that some of those countries should rather be better candidates to just leave the EU...... 

fluffy2560 wrote:

Stirs it up and causes nothing but trouble.

Yep.

Like that annoying Boston Tea Party thing......

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's a fast moving subject. 2017 might as well be several centuries ago. 

There's no chance of a 2nd referendum on Scottish independence for maybe 30+ years.

I agree. It is all very fast moving. Which is why *I* think 30 year predictions are suspect. Next month, anything can happen. We live in uncertain times.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

All the countries in the Union are voluntary participants as the referendum on Scottish independence showed.

I thought that Scotland had to get "permission" from the UK government to hold their referendum. If so, that is not really true independence. I don't think, but may be wrong, that the UK had to ask the EU to do their Brexit vote, for example.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The only group that does NOT have a parliament of their own are the English.

Well, some may say that actually proves who is really "in charge" of the whole thing. Top dogs don't need their own kennel, if all other kennels are actually theirs to control..... 

Haha, funny.

Scotland does have to ask the UK government for permission as that's not a devolved power and the UK government is responsible for foreign affairs (and defence for example).   

I don't think the EU needed to give permission on Brexit as it's not within their (in)competence.  It's internal infernal affairs.

There has been talk of an English parliament or even regional assemblies.  The idea was rejected as being an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. 

The UK has always been keen to encourage cultural matters in the other nations - own TV in multiple languages (Welsh, Gaelic etc), mainstream teaching in local language schools, distribution of government services in multiple languages.  Everyone is indifferently "happy" about it, no-one is complaining much.

BTW, the Scottish for example, receive more tax spending per capita than the English do.  In other words, they get a subsidy and quite a bit.

I should also point out that many  of our PMs and Ministers have actually been Scottish - Tony Blair, Gordon Brown etc.  I don't think it's ever been a serious argument that they were nationally biased in some way.  Sure, they were misguided, even criminal politically, but biased nationally, nope.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Stirs it up and causes nothing but trouble.

Yep.

Like that annoying Boston Tea Party thing......

Anyone can make a mistake.  Can we have our tea back?

At least our Queen ain't bonkers, unlike Donald Toadstool Trump!

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's a fast moving subject. 2017 might as well be several centuries ago. 

There's no chance of a 2nd referendum on Scottish independence for maybe 30+ years.

I agree. It is all very fast moving. Which is why *I* think 30 year predictions are suspect. Next month, anything can happen. We live in uncertain times.

No, I think nothing will happen for ages.  Westminster controls that agenda.  It may even be 50 years. By then I'll be in my stasis tube awaiting reanimation as we enter orbit over planet Wolf-1061c

fluffy2560 wrote:

[
No, I think nothing will happen for ages.  Westminster controls that agenda.  It may even be 50 years.

How about an gentelmen's bet on that?

Say, 1 GBP?

I say another referendum will happen sooner.

If it takes more than 49 years 11 months, the amount goes to our heirs.

Or to me, as I plan to live a long life..... And I am rarely wrong.

I guess when the Oil and Gas run out, the SNP will finally stop going on about wanting to be free.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Must be a bit frustrating for some people in Scotland to be "ruled" by England.
For the Irish and Welsh as well I suppose.
..... like sadly Scotland will probably always be under the rule of the UK....

oh, you guys know how to stir it up.  And sadly misinformed.  Must be a slow Wednesday.

All the countries in the Union are voluntary participants as the referendum on Scottish independence showed.   It's a Union and it's been that way for 300+ years! Scotland is not ruled by the English - they and others  have their own Parliaments and are represented in the national parliament as well. The constituent nations have responsibility for many of their own affairs.  Northern Ireland is the same.  The only group that does NOT have a parliament of their own are the English.

Many people are inter-married with the other country groups including my own relatives. Sure we have different cultures of a sort but essentially we're more or less the same and that includes the Irish.  We're much more linked than we are separated.  There's much to be proud about for how we are together and what we have culturally as nations. 

At this point,  I should mention the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.  All independent in their own way with their own parliaments and legal systems.   Isle of Man parliament -Tynwald - is the oldest in the world continuously  in operation for over a 1000 years! No English overseers are ruling anyone there either!

Ooops, see that's just how little we know about the UK.
Well then , I stand corrected. I know the Ruysn's wanted to be independent but guess not everyone wants to venture off by themselves.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
Ooops, see that's just how little we know about the UK.
Well then , I stand corrected. I know the Ruysn's wanted to be independent but guess not everyone wants to venture off by themselves.

People complain about each other in the UK but mostly it's just good humoured  or might even be called banter. 

If interested, read up on the Acts of Union from 1700s.  These Acts were voted on by parliaments both countries as they shared a common crown.  Turned out economically to be a superb result for all sides!

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
Ooops, see that's just how little we know about the UK.
Well then , I stand corrected. I know the Ruysn's wanted to be independent but guess not everyone wants to venture off by themselves.

People complain about each other in the UK but mostly it's just good humoured  or might even be called banter. 

If interested, read up on the Acts of Union from 1700s.  These Acts were voted on by parliaments both countries as they shared a common crown.  Turned out economically to be a superb result for all sides!

Well, if all parties agree then all is well.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
Ooops, see that's just how little we know about the UK.
Well then , I stand corrected. I know the Ruysn's wanted to be independent but guess not everyone wants to venture off by themselves.

People complain about each other in the UK but mostly it's just good humoured  or might even be called banter. 

If interested, read up on the Acts of Union from 1700s.  These Acts were voted on by parliaments both countries as they shared a common crown.  Turned out economically to be a superb result for all sides!

Well, if all parties agree then all is well.

Yes, they agreed back then, both parliaments voted on the same legislation.  The common crown had existed for many years before then so it was a natural progression.  The superb result turned out to be the British Empire.  Scotland still maintains its own laws as does Northern Ireland (Wales is different, closer to England).   

The Crown Dependencies (Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc) also maintain their own laws and parliaments.   That's the same for any UK territories like St Helena or the Cayman Islands.  Different to the French who have territories that send representatives to the national parliament in France - i.e. territories are considered part of France.

Re Brexit, things are possibly going in a flexible direction.   It's looking more like a BRINO (BRexit In Name Only).  The main thing I'm thinking about is retaining freedom of movement.  I quite like this open border idea with Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Maybe the end game is to put everyone in compact cities where we will need a pass to see nature or travel between "stations" .
Like a true life sci-fi drama.
Hope not.
They are gearing up for the national ID in 2020 in the US, that is really a huge wake up call because the states prized itself on freedom of movement.
Not even sure it is still America, maybe in name only.
I know it seems unlikely but things that seemed unlikely 50 years ago are everyday now.
I am seriously concerned about the 5G systems , think next year they will roll it out in a few US cities, N. Ca. S. Ca, Las Vegas and another city.These are so strong and not enough research about health risks have been done.
My son tells me all the time on his way to work in Vegas he sees trucks doing something on poles everywhere.
I honestly do not think it is going to be good, many people already are sensitive to electric signals and micro waves in the air just doesn't sound healthy at all.
I am thinking we should hard wire our flat and not use wifi.
This will be introduced world wide sooner or later.Probably sooner then we think, already conditioning people who can't live without checking their phone every 2 mins.
Everyone is hooked on technologies that I personally think are not normal, the human brain and society doesn't need to know the weather in Timbuktu when most people can't even screw in a light bulb. Too much unimportant info and not enough common sense.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Maybe the end game is to put everyone in compact cities where we will need a pass to see nature or travel between "stations" .
Like a true life sci-fi drama.
Hope not.
They are gearing up for the national ID in 2020 in the US, that is really a huge wake up call because the states prized itself on freedom of movement.
Not even sure it is still America, maybe in name only.
I know it seems unlikely but things that seemed unlikely 50 years ago are everyday now.
.....
I honestly do not think it is going to be good, many people already are sensitive to electric signals and micro waves in the air just doesn't sound healthy at all.
I am thinking we should hard wire our flat and not use wifi.
This will be introduced world wide sooner or later.Probably sooner then we think, already conditioning people who can't live without checking their phone every 2 mins.
Everyone is hooked on technologies that I personally think are not normal, the human brain and society doesn't need to know the weather in Timbuktu when most people can't even screw in a light bulb. Too much unimportant info and not enough common sense.

Yes, well, the Real ID thing is just a defacto ID card.  Next thing for US persons is producing it when you visit McDonalds or just walk around in the street.   We had attempts like that in the UK and it was scrapped in the end as people just couldn't take that level of potential state interference.  Been a long standing idea the politicians work for us and police are there by consent, not imposed.  ID cards brings back that idea shown in Nazi war films, "Ausweis bitte" and so on.   

In the US, it makes one wonder how persons without DLs or passports will manage to live their lives?  There's always going to be scope creep that it'll be required more and more.

5G is nothing to worry about.   Everyone is being bombarded by radio signals everywhere anyway.  Has been like that forever, even back to the dinosaurs.  Even if you hard wired your flat, you'd still be bombarded by the neighbours and just whatever is going on in the street or even your TV.  The only way you might manage to get rid of all that is build a metal cage inside your place and sit in it.  You could always move to West Virginia.

As for  not being able to screw in a light bulb, jeez, really?  I think they should do this in school - change a car wheel, basic first aid incl. CPR, put a plug on, fix a leaking tap,  put a bike chain on (I had to help someone in the street fix that issue last week), read a bus/train timetable, put a shelf up, ride a bike, drive a car.   Basic life skills!

They used to have classes in public schools way back when that taught metal, wood working, homemaking, sewing, even had a class that taught us to drive a car. We even went on the roads with the instructor.
It was some sort of special driving car with a teachers side steering wheel and brake, they could over ride the student if they need to.
Used to mostly be the American football coaches who doubled as driving instructors. Mine was a real "hoot" said I had a lead foot and everytime it was my turn to drive on the st. he would go to the boot/truck of the car and pull out his football helmet for his own safety, ha, ha. I'm a very good driver really I am, only crashed a few times and hit a few poles...No one was every hurt to my credit, only the cars.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

They used to have classes in public schools way back when that taught metal, wood working, homemaking, sewing, even had a class that taught us to drive a car. We even went on the roads with the instructor.
It was some sort of special driving car with a teachers side steering wheel and brake, they could over ride the student if they need to.
Used to mostly be the American football coaches who doubled as driving instructors. Mine was a real "hoot" said I had a lead foot and everytime it was my turn to drive on the st. he would go to the boot/truck of the car and pull out his football helmet for his own safety, ha, ha. I'm a very good driver really I am, only crashed a few times and hit a few poles...No one was every hurt to my credit, only the cars.

I think teaching kids to drive is a great idea.  In the UK, anyone with a full license can take another driver out to teach them how to drive.  The car needs special L(earner) plates and they cannot drive on motorways (freeways perhaps).   Not the same here.

I used to take my own kids out driving from about the age of 13 - it's permissible in the UK on private land. Presumably it's permissible here too (on private land).  Never looked into it.

My Dad used to take me driving and we'd go around in a big  loop - perhaps 100 miles - where I would drive and he'd offer advice.  By about 30 miles he was nodding off so I just used to drive along myself without him assisting.   I had road sense anyway - at school we usually had a cycling proficiency test so we knew how to negotiate traffic, signal and so forth.  They don't do that any more but they should.  But I also had motorbikes which you could drive around on when you were 16 or 17, so I was quite used to driving those.

I've had a couple of car accidents but nothing serious - a dent here and a dent there.   Last one was about 35 years ago!   These days people run into us - often without us moving.  Someone ran into Mrs Fluffy a year ago in  a car park - caused about 500K HUF damage!  Smashed all the wing in and broke our headlight!  Insurance paid out.  Caused us a lot of inconvenience.

Yes, if I remember correctly we had to have a cycling proficiency test too when I was a kid,  if I remember I did it in Scouts. Had to know the road, how to signal before turning show you were about to slow down or stop etc.
Really really something that seriously needs to be used here in Hungary.I think I may of seen someone signal once here on a bike.

In the US you also can drive with a person who is legally licensed but you need a learning permit to go on the roads. Have to pass a written test before you are allowed to practice on the road, no one else is allowed in the car except the other driver.
I really only crashed my car once, when I rear ended a slow moving car on the freeway after I had a drink or two at my sisters house.
All other crashes were done to me, I have rubbed the fender once in awhile on a pole in a parking lot but that was ages ago.
I was at a complete stop at a stop sign in my neighborhood when 2 Mexican gardeners slammed into the back of my car. I did sue because it was a co. truck they were using.
Between my husband and I there have been 4 accidents that caused us minor bodily injury.
Once my husband was on the 101 freeway on his way home from work in stop and go traffic. Thankfully he was driving a heavy Volvo that day.
A guy in a truck admitted he was messing around with his radio and not looking at the road. He crashed into the back of the Volvo at about 55 MPH. The drivers seat was hit so hard that the seat broke and my husband found himself in the back seat of the car, seat belt on the back of the Volvo was like an accordian, the trunk was up over the back window. Straight off to the hospital for him and the junk yard with the car. He really got a bad whip lash and was out of work for a few weeks. I decided we had to " Better Call Saul" well worth it too. If he was driving his little Honda that day, well, don't even want to think about it.
If he wasn't such a good driver he might of hit the car in front of him on impact.
He was in the far left lane and tried to keep his distance from the car in front of him. He managed somehow to steer the car into the space on the side of the lane and avoided hitting the next car when he was rear ended. May be one reason he hurt his neck so badly after his seat bolts broke he had to strain to try to hold onto the steering wheel. He knew he might really hurt the people in the next car if he lost control of his car. Their lucky day that he went out of his way to not cause further damages.
Freak accident, never heard of the bolts that hold the seat in place snapping. The Volvo was maybe only 7 or 8 years old at that time.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

.....
All other crashes were done to me, I have rubbed the fender once in awhile on a pole in a parking lot but that was ages ago.
I was at a complete stop at a stop sign in my neighborhood when 2 Mexican gardeners slammed into the back of my car. I did sue because it was a co. truck they were using.
Between my husband and I there have been 4 accidents that caused us minor bodily injury.
Once my husband was on the 101 freeway on his way home from work in stop and go traffic. Thankfully he was driving a heavy Volvo that day.
A guy in a truck admitted he was messing around with his radio and not looking at the road. He crashed into the back of the Volvo at about 55 MPH. The drivers seat was hit so hard that the seat broke and my husband found himself in the back seat of the car, seat belt on the back of the Volvo was like an accordian, the trunk was up over the back window. Straight off to the hospital for him and the junk yard with the car. He really got a bad whip lash and was out of work for a few weeks. I decided we had to " Better Call Saul" well worth it too. If he was driving his little Honda that day, well, don't even want to think about it.

That sounds really bad.  Whiplash can be really serious.  Someone I know got about $10K some years ago for that injury in a rear end in the UK.  Wore a neck brace for a month or so and had some physio or something. Forgotten the details.

I am thinking we should go to Absolutely Anything Else as it's not very Brexit and Hungary related. 

BCS (Better Call Saul) has to be one of the best TV shows around at the moment.

Yes. Yes. I know. The source is the NY Times. Not Fox News or The Sun. But still interesting read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/worl … party.html

fluffy2560 wrote:

SimCityAT wrote:

SimonTrew wrote:

But the British cheated even more. They introduced the Fixed Terns Parliament Act 2011 and lo and behold after one go at it reneged on it..

I am not sure how they cheated, they did everything by the book.

A vote of no confidence in the government, or a two-thirds majority vote in the House of Commons, can still trigger a general election at any time.

On 18 April 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May announced her intention to call a general election for 8 June 2017, bringing the United Kingdom's 56th Parliament to an end after two years and 32 days. She required two thirds of the Commons (at least 434 MPs) to support the motion to allow it to pass.Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party indicated he was in support of an election. The motion was passed the following day by 522 votes to 13 votes.

There might be another election soon to test the theory again.

The Conservative Party conference is going on now and Boris is making very challenging noises over Brexit. If there's a leadership contest, then inevitably there's going to have to be another election prior to Brexit next year.  It makes sense for Boris to do that to secure a mandate after March 2019.  Might be Brexit has to be postponed if there's an election
 
Corbyn hasn't got a serious chance even though the polls indicate a split. 

Maybe it'd be a hung parliament?

The whole is a mess. Boris has pissed more people off in the party. I don't think he has a chance of being leader.

Good question a general election on the cards? Possibly.... and more than likely it would be a coalition again. Corbyn just hasn't got the amount to win a majority.

May seems to have lost the plot... wanting a Brexit festival? What's this going to achieve? Apart from pissing more people off.