EU about to cost us even more £, They just can't resist poking a stick at UK can they! Options

[gel]

'The European Commission has asked the United Kingdom to amend its legislation on its VAT rate, currently 5%, on residential energy saving and heating products to the standard rate of 20%.'

The LabDems will automatically agree with it we can assume as it's from EU Central, though it will counter their green credentials.

Hope Camerloon tells em where to stuff it, but I have my doubts.
Non compliance will lead to us being dragged into Court, which will no doubt, not be stacked in our favour.

[Timbo]

All in favour for leaving the EU, move to Greece.

*packs my bags*

Bye guys.

[On the edge]

Given the likely outcome of LibDem meddling with energy subsidies it would be more appropriate to call them the LibDims.

[JeffG]

Sorry, without a reference I don't believe you. I searched the BBC News and HMRC web sites and found no mention of this.

[Andy Capp]

Sorry, without a reference I don't believe you. I searched the BBC News and HMRC web sites and found no mention of this.

Not authorative, but:

http://www.tmf-vat.com/tmf-in-the-media/eu...gy-savings.html

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/21864...s-energy-saving


Saying I don't believe you is a bit strong when there is evidence he is right.

[On the edge]

Europe has always been 'anti' our VAT policy on fuel,food etc. To the market purist, they are right, it does distort free market perfection. However, put VAT on fuel and remove the LibDem green subsidies and I suspect you'd come out quits.

[gel]

Wrong again JeffG.
I am not in habit of posting incorrect info, and dreaming it up.
True I detest the EU and what it stands for.

It's strange that France gets away with a Hotel VAT % rate of similar level apparently;
will anyone poke a stick there.?
Of course not, they're one of main puppet masters, and benefit hugely € wise.

[Newbelly]

I like a level playing field.

So how about some tolls on the M2 and M20 to collect money from foreign haulage firms for using our motorway network.

[JeffG]

Saying I don't believe you is a bit strong when there is evidence he is right.

No evidence had been posted to support the original statement.

Wrong again JeffG.
I am not in habit of posting incorrect info, and dreaming it up.

Where was I wrong in what I posted? I said I searched the BBC and HMRC web sites and found nothing. If you had posted some evidence to back up your statement I could have formed an opinion.

[On the edge]

Wrong again JeffG.
I am not in habit of posting incorrect info, and dreaming it up.
True I detest the EU and what it stands for.

It's strange that France gets away with a Hotel VAT % rate of similar level apparently;
will anyone poke a stick there.?
Of course not, they're one of main puppet masters, and benefit hugely € wise.

France is the exception to prove the rule. To the French definition of free trade is something we are free to do for them. That's why it is necessary to have competition in energy throughout Europe except in France - where the nationalised French Electricity Board wqs permitted to buy its private sector UK competitors! Someone has to pay French pensions - at levels that would make a bank CEO blush.

Getting our own back? Newbelly's idea of 'toll roads' is a start

[Andy Capp]

No evidence had been posted to support the original statement.

I found links easy enough.

Where was I wrong in what I posted? I said I searched the BBC and HMRC web sites and found nothing. If you had posted some evidence to back up your statement I could have formed an opinion.

The wording was regrettable.

You said 'I don't believe you (the person)', which implies the person is lying, or making it up. Had you said 'I don't believe it (the story)', then it could be the story that is inaccurate, rather than the person reporting it.

[gel]

I found links easy enough.


The wording was regrettable.

You said 'I don't believe you (the person)', which implies the person is lying, or making it up. Had you said 'I don't believe it (the story)', then it could be the story that is inaccurate, rather than the person reporting it.

[JeffG]

I found links easy enough.

OK, I have now had a chance to read the linked articles (no time last night due to unmissable BBC4 film due to start - now I have to get this in before the tennis).

I'd be interested to know what search term you used - I couldn't find anything, and found nothing on the BBC News or HMRC web sites which is where I would expect to find at least a passing reference.

When I asked "where was I wrong?", I meant "where was my post inaccurate?".

Wrong again JeffG.

And why "again"?

The wording was regrettable.

You said 'I don't believe you (the person)', which implies the person is lying, or making it up. Had you said 'I don't believe it (the story)', then it could be the story that is inaccurate, rather than the person reporting it.

Yes, of course that's what I should have said and meant to say. Another case of DJE's ad hominem, I fear.

Just posting a bald statement as though it were fact without any reference to back it up is inviting the comment "sez who?". People with an agenda have been known to misunderstand something because it suits their cause. (I am not saying that applies in this case, of course.)

I also see that the specific links quoted mention only energy-saving improvements, not the reduced rate on fuel itself, which is how I misread the original post. I could live with that.

[Andy Capp]

I'd be interested to know what search term you used - I couldn't find anything, and found nothing on the BBC News or HMRC web sites which is where I would expect to find at least a passing reference.

I put 'VAT rate residential energy saving EU' in to Google. I posted the third and fifth link returned.

[On the edge]

However the base story is spot on EU do want to harmonise VAT throughout Europe - which most nation states add to electricity. This is dragged up every budget time. Not likely to copy us are they!