British government seeks permission to cut 5p off fuel prices

[alexxxxx]

I thought that was the supposed benefit of the 'free market' that we could apparently look for lower prices around the European Union. As I said before, if country A's government wants to rip its people off and the people refuse to pay it, then shame on country A for attempting to rip its people off and good on country B for taking advantage (you know, the free market?) and giving the over-taxed citizens of country A a chance to pay less for their fuel.

But of course that can't happen thanks to the EU and its supposed 'free' market, which is anything but free.

That's what does happen. People used to go abroad to buy cars in Belgium and France cause it was cheaper. UK car sales dropped, they dropped prices and now that rarely happens anymore. When I'm abroad i take the opportunity to buy things that are cheaper. The thing you have to realise is that they are governments and not businesses, they have to be fair. It's not quite fair if they rip off the people who live far from the border is it? Brussels doesn't stop countries from dropping taxes on fuel/items (apart from VAT), it just has to be FAIR. This of course benefits Luxembourg quite a lot as they can choose to charge very little tax on anything and therefore people drive over the border to buy fuel/****/alcohol.

How unfair would it be if the government decided to raise fuel duty in more populous areas because they know people don't have the time to drive 50km to the cheaper zone?

Why is it neccessary to rip everyone off equally? if a country wishes to charge its citizens less for fuel, then what exactly is wrong with that?

Because you aren't ripping off people, you're ripping off the other country's finances.

& undertaker in response to your edit why "give it 5 years," when luxembourg has historically always had low indirect taxation and have been in the EC/EU for a long time? :S Paranoia...

[Eoin247]

Hang on a second, whats wrong with people crossing a 'free border' in order to save themselves a bit of money? If governments do not like people crossing borders for lower priced fuel because their own fuel is ridiculously over-taxed, then they should lower the tax on the fuel. As the video above states, its a sort of 'thieves cartel' in order to make sure no government steals too little tax from its people.

Yet again, hurting who? the people - the little guys.

To the added part,

Where did ridiculously over taxed come from? What if a country has average fuel prices and then the next country decides to reduce prices or even compensate for fuel (as they do in African and Asian countries as people are too poor to pay). A country might not be able to reduce their taxes, governments don't put tax on things for the heck of it. They all have to get their money from somewhere.

I thought that was the supposed benefit of the 'free market' that we could apparently look for lower prices around the European Union. As I said before, if country A's government wants to rip its people off and the people refuse to pay it, then shame on country A for attempting to rip its people off and good on country B for taking advantage (you know, the free market?) and giving the over-taxed citizens of country A a chance to pay less for their fuel. But of course that can't happen thanks to the EU and its supposed 'free' market, which is anything but free.

And as for ciggies and drink - i'll give it 5 years.



Why is it neccessary to rip everyone off equally? if a country wishes to charge its citizens less for fuel, then what exactly is wrong with that?

I meant to say understandable as to why they do it rather than neccesary. But it can also be said (see earlier in my post) that it's neccesary. There isn't anything wrong with a country charging less for fuel unless it's going to affect another area badly, and i think that that is understandable.

Going a tad bit off topic when i say this. But it think that the main problem with the EU these days is a lack of vision and leadership. The people who started off the idea of European unity, they had vision and true leadership.

[Mathew]

By the time this crap goes through parliament and the EU, fuel will have risen another 20p so it won't make much difference anyway.. :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's what does happen. People used to go abroad to buy cars in Belgium and France cause it was cheaper. UK car sales dropped, they dropped prices and now that rarely happens anymore. When I'm abroad i take the opportunity to buy things that are cheaper. The thing you have to realise is that they are governments and not businesses, they have to be fair. It's not quite fair if they rip off the people who live far from the border is it? Brussels doesn't stop countries from dropping taxes on fuel/items (apart from VAT), it just has to be FAIR. This of course benefits Luxembourg quite a lot as they can choose to charge very little tax on anything and therefore people drive over the border to buy fuel/****/alcohol.

Fair? what is fair about governments all keeping the tax on fuel at ridiculous levels in order to meet an EU directive in the name of 'harmonisation'? absolute nonsense, there is nothing fair about ripping people off under the banner of, ironically, fairness!

How unfair would it be if the government decided to raise fuel duty in more populous areas because they know people don't have the time to drive 50km to the cheaper zone?

Unfair but down to that country. A country decides itself, not a foreign organisation which it trying to make every government harmonise its tax rates and thus rid themselves of economic advantage which benefits their people.

The difference is, with that - that could happen to a few countries granted. With this however, everybody suffers.

& undertaker in response to your edit why "give it 5 years," when luxembourg has historically always had low indirect taxation and have been in the EC/EU for a long time? :S Paranoia...

Tax harmonisation has been a recent move by the European Union, with moves to attempt to harmonise taxes in relation to financial districts which sent the City of London into panic not that long ago. The French are very eager for this, as they've long envied our financial sector and the money it brings into the United Kingdom - once thats gone, the French can grab a slice of the pie. Good for the French, bad for us.

Paranoia maybe, but this is from an organisation which regulates everything right down to tractor seats.

To the added part,

Where did ridiculously over taxed come from? What if a country has average fuel prices and then the next country decides to reduce prices or even compensate for fuel (as they do in African and Asian countries as people are too poor to pay). A country might not be able to reduce their taxes, governments don't put tax on things for the heck of it. They all have to get their money from somewhere.

Then government will have to sort that out, its not the problem of other governments i'm afraid. We all know governments tax fuel to ridiculous prices and its about time they started coming down and how could that be done? by countries having competition between one another. Its like suggesting that, because ASDA are cash strapped - Tesco shouldn't lower its prices on apples to lower than ASDA's price because it'll hurt ASDA. Well i'm sorry, but that only hurts the cash strapped guy at the bottom.

I can't for the life of me believe you two are defending high fuel prices.

I meant to say understandable as to why they do it rather than neccesary. But it can also be said (see earlier in my post) that it's neccesary. There isn't anything wrong with a country charging less for fuel unless it's going to affect another area badly, and i think that that is understandable.

It is not necessary at all.

Why should British drivers/businesses suffer for example because the French government is greedy? and vice versa.

Going a tad bit off topic when i say this. But it think that the main problem with the EU these days is a lack of vision and leadership. The people who started off the idea of European unity, they had vision and true leadership.

You mean Jean Monnet who decided to implement the project using lies and deception?

Ask yourself this, have we ever really been asked if we even want this purposely vague concept of European unity (whatever that means)? I know you Irish were, and you gave the wrong answer - so they made you vote again. I guess thats another 'shared value' of the EU yeah, democracy? :rolleyes:

How about this idea, keep our nation states and be friendly and trade with one another??

[alexxxxx]

Fair? what is fair about governments all keeping the tax on fuel at ridiculous levels in order to meet an EU directive in the name of 'harmonisation'? absolute nonsense, there is nothing fair about ripping people off under the banner of, ironically, fairness!

there is nothing to say countries can't drop their indirect taxes!

Unfair but down to that country. A country decides itself, not a foreign organisation which it trying to make every government harmonise its tax rates and thus rid themselves of economic advantage which benefits their people.

The difference is, with that - that could happen to a few countries granted. With this however, everybody suffers.

A country decides which international organisations and treaties it signs. this legislation does not really affect us that much. as we live on an island it costs us to go places to pick up any advantage in taxes, so only in certain circumstances will this be effective. the only thing that is questionable is the length in time it takes for these measures to go through, though we can't be sure it'd be much faster if all power was just in the UK either.

Tax harmonisation has been a recent move by the European Union, with moves to attempt to harmonise taxes in relation to financial districts which sent the City of London into panic not that long ago. The French are very eager for this, as they've long envied our financial sector and the money it brings into the United Kingdom - once thats gone, the French can grab a slice of the pie. Good for the French, bad for us.

Paranoia maybe, but this is from an organisation which regulates everything right down to tractor seats.

Then you fight it back for our interests! That's the problem with our governments - they aren't prepared to lay down ultimatums or challenge or barter significantly, or at least not in public.

[Eoin247]

Fair? what is fair about governments all keeping the tax on fuel at ridiculous levels in order to meet an EU directive in the name of 'harmonisation'? absolute nonsense, there is nothing fair about ripping people off under the banner of, ironically, fairness!



Unfair but down to that country. A country decides itself, not a foreign organisation which it trying to make every government harmonise its tax rates and thus rid themselves of economic advantage which benefits their people.

The difference is, with that - that could happen to a few countries granted. With this however, everybody suffers.



Tax harmonisation has been a recent move by the European Union, with moves to attempt to harmonise taxes in relation to financial districts which sent the City of London into panic not that long ago. The French are very eager for this, as they've long envied our financial sector and the money it brings into the United Kingdom - once thats gone, the French can grab a slice of the pie. Good for the French, bad for us.

Paranoia maybe, but this is from an organisation which regulates everything right down to tractor seats.



Then government will have to sort that out, its not the problem of other governments i'm afraid. We all know governments tax fuel to ridiculous prices and its about time they started coming down and how could that be done? by countries having competition between one another. Its like suggesting that, because ASDA are cash strapped - Tesco shouldn't lower its prices on apples to lower than ASDA's price because it'll hurt ASDA. Well i'm sorry, but that only hurts the cash strapped guy at the bottom.

I can't for the life of me believe you two are defending high fuel prices.



It is not necessary at all.

Why should British drivers/businesses suffer for example because the French government is greedy? and vice versa.



You mean Jean Monnet who decided to implement the project using lies and deception?

Ask yourself this, have we ever really been asked if we even want this purposely vague concept of European unity (whatever that means)? I know you Irish were, and you gave the wrong answer - so they made you vote again. I guess thats another 'shared value' of the EU yeah, democracy? :rolleyes:

How about this idea, keep our nation states and be friendly and trade with one another??

As i said they don't just make taxes for the heck of it. If they don't tax fuel they'll have to increase taxes somewhere else.

With regards to the Lisbon treaty, there was a no vote originally was due to two main reasons.

There was a hell of a lot of Sinn Fein fear propaganda. I don't know if you are familiar with their policies, but they pretty much go against everything the government does and says no matter what it is. They had posters around saying things like "Your children will be sent to fight to Iraq!" ,which is absolute nonsense. They mysteriously got a lot of funding during this time, and even though all other parties supported it, there seemed to be just as many and in some places more ''vote no'' posters from Sinn Fein.

The second reason was that our government did a fairly poor job of explaining it properly to the people. The average person wouldn't sit down, read and understand the treaty in it's raw form. They however laid it out much clearer the next time around, with independant bodies coming in to help explain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

there is nothing to say countries can't drop their indirect taxes!

So why does the British government have to ask the unelected Commission for permission?

A country decides which international organisations and treaties it signs. this legislation does not really affect us that much. as we live on an island it costs us to go places to pick up any advantage in taxes, so only in certain circumstances will this be effective. the only thing that is questionable is the length in time it takes for these measures to go through, though we can't be sure it'd be much faster if all power was just in the UK either.

Of course it would be much faster, as the British government would not be relying then upon the European commission until autumn for the permission to lower fuel duty. And if the EU Commission then came back and said "no you are not taking 5p off fuel duty" what then? that is fundementally undemocratic and not acceptable.

Then you fight it back for our interests! That's the problem with our governments - they aren't prepared to lay down ultimatums or challenge or barter significantly, or at least not in public.

The whole point of being in the European Union is to ignore national interests and help progress the union itself, members are expected to vote not in national interest but in the vague concept of 'European interests' all of which greatly stand against British interests in a number of fields such as fisheries, agriculture, finance and so forth.

Why should an elected government have to fight for something it wishes to do?

As i said they don't just make taxes for the heck of it. If they don't tax fuel they'll have to increase taxes somewhere else.

Who said taxes have to increase? if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries.

With regards to the Lisobon treaty, the main reason there was a no vote originally was due to two main reasons.

There was a hell of a lot of Sinn Fein fear propaganda. I don't know if you are familiar with their policies, but they pretty much go against everything the government does and says no matter what it is. They had posters around saying things like "Your children will be sent to fight to Iraq!" ,which is absolute nonsense. They mysteriously got a lot of funding during this time, and even though all other parties supported it, there seemed to be just as many and in some places more ''vote no'' posters from Sinn Fein.

Just like companies such as RyanAir (who were originally against the treaty) suddenly changed tune and got behind the campaign and funded the yes campaign coincidently when they had a buyout case pending with the European commission? I remember reading about one of the corporations which helped fund the yes campaign and the yes campaign campained on "we need to stay in for jobs" - ironically the day after the treaty was passed that same company (lost the name) laid off a few hundred to a thousand employees.

The second reason was that our government did a fairly poor job of explaining it properly to the people. The average person wouldn't sit down, read and understand the treaty in it's raw form. They however laid it out much clearer the next time around, with independant bodies coming in to help explain.

Ahh yes, so thats why the broadcasting commission in Ireland dropped all impartiality rules before the treaty in order to 'make it fair' (which tilted it onto the side of the yes campaign) - sorry but you were stitched up like a kipper and now you are paying the price for it thanks in part to the disasterous currency you joined upto. I have to ask, if a political party lost an election and refused to resign by saying "oh but you were wrong, here have a read of our manifesto again and vote the correct way next time" is that democracy to you? its far from it.

I remember before the referendums you faced threats and arrogance from EU officals and European politicians (the same of which President Klaus in the Czech Republic faced when he attempted to hold out from signing the treaty), its such a shame that you caved in as a country because had you held out, the British people would have had their referendum. This might interest you which mentions the funding for the yes campaign of which came from the European commission itself;

[Eoin247]

Who said taxes have to increase? if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries.

Well if you take away revenue then you're going to have to get it from somewhere else or else cut expenditure. So either way it's going to affect people in a negative way. I'm not too sure what you mean here "if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries." ?

Just like companies such as RyanAir (who were originally against the treaty) suddenly changed tune and got behind the campaign and funded the yes campaign coincidently when they had a buyout case pending with the European commission? I remember reading about one of the corporations which helped fund the yes campaign and the yes campaign campained on "we need to stay in for jobs" - ironically the day after the treaty was passed that same company (lost the name) laid off a few hundred to a thousand employees.

I'm not familiar with that unnamed corporation you're talking about. Funding wasn't the main point i was trying to make out in that quote. Most unbiased Irish people would tell you what Sinn Fein are really like. Their propaganda was everywhere and for the most part had very little truth in it. I don't think many people actualy believed that Sinn Fein went for no because they really actualy believed there should be no Lisbon treaty. As i said no matter what the subject, they always go against the government to try and pick up people who dislike government decisions.

Ahh yes, so thats why the broadcasting commission in Ireland dropped all impartiality rules before the treaty in order to 'make it fair' (which tilted it onto the side of the yes campaign) - sorry but you were stitched up like a kipper and now you are paying the price for it thanks in part to the disasterous currency you joined upto. I have to ask, if a political party lost an election and refused to resign by saying "oh but you were wrong, here have a read of our manifesto again and vote the correct way next time" is that democracy to you? its far from it.

I remember before the referendums you faced threats and arrogance from EU officals and European politicians (the same of which President Klaus in the Czech Republic faced when he attempted to hold out from signing the treaty), its such a shame that you caved in as a country because had you held out, the British people would have had their referendum. This might interest you which mentions the funding for the yes campaign of which came from the European commission itself;

I'm merely telling you what i experienced during that campaign. You're saying it was tilted on the side of the yes campaign? I can tell you that was most certainly not the case in the first campaign. This fear propaganda from Sinn Fein was everywhere and you'd swear that the EU was going to eat our children and murder our families by the way the treaty was portrayed.

Admittedly there seemed to be a lot less no adverts during the next campaign (surprise,surprise. once they have proved they are against the treaty they need do no more).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well if you take away revenue then you're going to have to get it from somewhere else or else cut expenditure. So either way it's going to affect people in a negative way. I'm not too sure what you mean here "if you want big government in your country (look where that landed you lot in Ireland) then thats your problem to deal with and fund, not the problem of neighbouring countries." ?

By the fact that, say in France they want to cut government back and want lower taxes and thus lower fuel duty. Now due to the tax harmonisation of the EU (and what you are arguing for, higher taxes across the board) that would mean that France wouldn't be able to do that even if its people wanted it because say, neighbouring Germany had to have high tax rates in order to fund big government.

That i'm afraid is not fair, not democratic and is not right. If the people of Germany regardless wanted to cross the border into France for cheaper fuel, why the hell should they not? its a free market is it not supposed to be?

I'm not familiar with that unnamed corporation you're talking about. Funding wasn't the main point i was trying to make out in that quote. Most unbiased Irish people would tell you what Sinn Fein are really like. Their propaganda was everywhere and for the most part had very little truth in it. I don't think many people actualy believed that Sinn Fein went for no because they really actualy believed there should be no Lisbon treaty. As i said no matter what the subject, they always go against the government to try and pick up people who dislike government decisions.

Just because the ghastly Sinn Fein may make things up doesn't mean its a good idea, and anyway - why would you believe your political class especially now after the mess all the main parties got Ireland into including its humilating bailout from the IMF. If in doubt you simply vote against it. If you are told to jump into a hole in the floor of which you cannot see the bottom, you do not jump do you? the same for the Lisbon Treaty.

You Irish should value independence after fighting for it, next time you have the chance - do not sign it away again.

[alexxxxx]

{QUOTE]So why does the British government have to ask the unelected Commission for permission?[/QUOTE]
Because this current move contravenes a rule whereby you have to have a single rate of tax across your country, not differing from region to region! If you read the BBC Article you posted you'd know this!

By the fact that, say in France they want to cut government back and want lower taxes and thus lower fuel duty. Now due to the tax harmonisation of the EU (and what you are arguing for, higher taxes across the board) that would mean that France wouldn't be able to do that even if its people wanted it because say, neighbouring Germany had to have high tax rates in order to fund big government.

That i'm afraid is not fair, not democratic and is not right. If the people of Germany regardless wanted to cross the border into France for cheaper fuel, why the hell should they not? its a free market is it not supposed to be?

FRANCE CAN LOWER ITS FUEL DUTY. IT JUST HAS TO LOWER ITS FUEL DUTY EVERYWHERE. French people go to Germany to shop. Italians go to Switzerland to shop. The Irish come to the UK to shop, the British go to France/Belgium to shop! :frust:

Of course it would be much faster, as the British government would not be relying then upon the European commission until autumn for the permission to lower fuel duty. And if the EU Commission then came back and said "no you are not taking 5p off fuel duty" what then? that is fundementally undemocratic and not acceptable.

Yeah but they won't say no because they've said yes before to a similar thing in Corsica. So unlikely.

The whole point of being in the European Union is to ignore national interests and help progress the union itself, members are expected to vote not in national interest but in the vague concept of 'European interests' all of which greatly stand against British interests in a number of fields such as fisheries, agriculture, finance and so forth.

Why should an elected government have to fight for something it wishes to do?

No, it is not. You obviously have a very basic idea of how the EU works.

The Council of Ministers (and European Council) are where the fighting for your own country takes place and the bartering etc. In the Commission and the parliament everyone works in a more 'european' way.