Disgraceful as the video is, it just shows how corrupt political figures are in this country. Do I really want to be turning total control over to these people?

But then, politicians are just a reflection on the population that elected them. It's more of the same in Europe too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well yes XS904, they wouldn't be economic from the point of the unfortunate owner...but they'd probably be good for the UK economy as there would be tons of replacement parts and spares being imported and sold! lol

Work head on for this one, so only able to comment on brakes, suspension, gearbox bits etc about which I have active knowledge. They use the same component families as the ones used inside the EU. My colleagues at WABCO China have the same options I do in supporting their customers, the suppliers are global. The truck builder will type approve to the same standard. You can do this with any technical body that proves it is qualified to do this, the TUV’s, VCA etc. have offices in China to do just that. There is no technical/legislative barrier IF they meet the standards.

The markets in the map have subtle differences. Some don’t differentiate years of production. Basically if you have been making Bedford TK’s since 1955 you can carry on and will only ever have to meet the 1955 regs. Some only adopted part of the EU regs. Some will not have EU required features like ESC because their infrastructure cannot support it.

We have Chinese made bus manufacturers importing into the UK, so it can be done.

How the market perceives them is a commercial matter and the tax man will what his share, but I aren’t qualified to comment on that. These Chinese trucks BTW cannot be sold in the USA or Canada because they do not meet operator expectations there, so cannot be supported. The manufacturer could do an FMVSS self certification, but the barrier to market entry would remain their use of electronics.

Much as I support one side of this debate, the truck market does not seem to drive either argument very well.

Andy

Well said. We shall have no more truck-talk then chaps. :nono:

Andy knows about this stuff and we don't :thumbup1:

You make assumptions.

For a start, were the 'stands' authorised? Was there a need for them to be authorised and for licenses to be obtained? Being there before sets no precedent. Perhaps they weren't noticed. As the guy says, the police don't go there.

If they were official, then you're right. If they were not, quite right they should be taken down.

Yes, there's a right to campaign. That does not mean you can set up camp in two locations in the local town without appropriate permissions.

Non-story. Again.

Him above... ^^^^ yip, up there ^^^^

He makes some very valid points :thumbup1:

After the ‘08 crash we went to China looking for opportunities, heavy trucks being one of the emerging ones. By ~ 2013 there were around 20 new truck brands and we spoke to most of them. Whilst it was possible to import semi-officially and the export managers were very keen they said it would have to be done through the EU. We quickly learned that the EU were not going to allow heavy trucks from China into the EU. The EU itself has its own type approval facilities in China and the makers build to EU standards. It’s a long story! The Chinese were sanguine as they could not meet domestic demand at that point. One company simply bought Volvo.


The situation has changed somewhat, the Chinese are rationalising and now need to export. Good evidence for this is Ferrari F1, sponsored by Weichai. They are softening up the Europeans. The motor lobby in the EU is the most powerful so you still do not see Chinese heavy trucks here, apart from show trucks at motor shows.


I am old enough to remember the exact same thing said about Datsun s. We know what happened subsequently. One thing we did discover was that parts logistics was not great but not in ways you might think. These are state of the art designs made in (German designed) state of the art factories. To walk around them was a revelation! Dunno about your 1955 Bedford point?


In determining whether you would choose the £30k Donfeng over £130 Merc you (wilfully) miss the important point here – we are being denied choice. Moreover, we are being denied the choice in order to protect the vested interests. As I’ve said before, the Merc truck that takes your cheap goods to the ship in China costs £30k – the Merc truck that picks up your now tariffed goods from the ship in the EU cost £130k. Says it all really...

...but - people see what they want to see.

Gosh that is desperate stuff. People should watch the video again and make up their own minds what went on there. It is what it is. And then vote accordingly...

Vote Leave

http://img2.demotywatoryfb.pl/upload...y8vf9q_600.jpg

Maybe why they're not imported to some of the big markets (EU, USA)

That's what I did.

We voted LEAVE today. We were provided with a nice International Postage Paid envelope, and our votes are on their way to the UK.

I was talking to some ex-pats over coffee and I commented that the difference between 'remain' and 'leave' was that 'leave' would make the effort to vote, and 'remain' often wouldn't.

It turns out they were 'remain' supporters and hadn't bothered to apply for a postal vote.

QED.

Apathy could lose it for Remain, that's for sure.

Back to fundamentals
 

It has been a while since UK law has been mentioned herein.
The recent discussion about permits for being on the streets of the UK led me to lift from elsewhere the summary given below – it is fully in accord with the fundamentals of why I wish to be rid of the EU (but I still love Europe and it's peoples).


“Corpus Juris” is the name for the EU’s system of justice, providing one European Legal Area, a European Public Prosecutor and a European Criminal Code and in my view it’s one of the principle reasons to vote for Brexit.
Apart from doing away with jury trials it abolishes habeus corpus, i.e. the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. Criminal investigations make no distinction between imprisonment for prosecution purposes or investigative purposes.
It transcends British law when a British person is under investigation by the European Public Prosecutor (EPP) who can request his remand in custody. . .for a period of up to 6 months, renewable for 3 months where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the accused has committed one of the offences defined, or good reasons for believing it necessary to stop him committing such an offence. . .” (Page 90, Article 20 of the EU’s own book, Corpus Juris).
The EPP can incarcerate someone for months without charge and it appears there’s no limit to the number of 3-month extensions. For instance, the case of Andrew Symeou from Enfield, who was extradited to Greece and languished in jail there, based on the signature of a magistrate that no UK judge could overturn despite the evidence against him being obtained under duress. He was in a Greek prison for almost a year and denied bail until the trial was adjourned.
It turns out he was wrongly arrested and framed for a crime he didn’t commit whilst on holiday in Greece.
According to :- Brits at their Best EU-Style Justice Corpus Juris Copyright 2008 David Rowlands, Catherine Glass and David Abbott – Corpus Juris makes very clear the implications for our legal system and individual rights:- “What we propose is a set of penal rules. . .designed to ensure. . .a more efficient means of repression” (CJ, Page 40) (sic). Just google “how many Brits have been wrongly arrested by EU police”.
Then we have the EU Arrest Warrant, where a national judicial authority, such as a court or police force can issue an EAW to get a suspect extradited. There are examples of our own police forces “misusing” this mechanism for justice, as in the Ashya King case. When the Kings sought treatment abroad for their five-year old son’s brain tumour, they were subject to an EAW, then jailed in a Spanish cell, leaving Ashya alone in a Malaga hospital. All because they didn’t fill in the right forms at Southampton hospital.
Although our own judicial system is also often open to question, Corpus Juris seems like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

The differences in spec used to be trotted out years ago as an excuse for higher UK prices when there was a bit of a fashion for importing cars cheaper in europe. There was a big market importing them from Holland. In actual fact, the exact same spec car still cost less from Europe, full UK spec, lights, RHD everything. That was a few years back so I don't know how it sits now, but one thing worthy of consideration is that the average wage in Switzerland is 2.5-3 times higher than the UK and in America, in my job, I would earn around 10k more with a significantly reduced cost of living.

Attachment 17778


.....ALL of it