The Politics Thread

[bobo the clown]

This collapse of the Euro.

Lets be clear here, the pound has almost halved in value against it since its inception.

If an inception exchange rate of 0.7074 in January 1999 and one of 0.8099 last week is halving then yes, I take your point.

http://www.freecurrencyrates.com/exchan ... R-GBP/2014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though that difference is exactly the point of not being in .... outside of it a country is free to set its own interest, exchange and other fiscal measures. Inside it you can't.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

For the first time ever in my life I've voted and not seen it wasted. I've always been a Labour voter and I've always lived in staunch Tory strongholds, so every vote so far has been a waste of time. But this time around my measly poxy vote managed to elevate the Greens by a few tenths of a percentage point in front of the Lib Dems thereby pushing them into 5th place.
I know it makes absolutely no difference to anything anywhere any time at all, except that it's given me a little warm glow of contentment. Up yours Cleggnuts.

[Hoboh]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

[Worthy4England]

Cheaper and Better Phone calls
The liberalisation of the telecommunication markets in 1998 and the ongoing development in the field of technology have resulted in a steady decrease in prices within the EU. This means that it is cheaper to call your friends and family and choose between different operators.
Really important


A Healthier Europe
The public health issues dealt with by the EU are numerous and cover a number of different areas. They concern both men and women, young and old. The EU has also introduced the European health insurance card that is your guarantee if you should fall ill when going abroad.
Why do you still need travel insurance then?

There is a lot here but wanted to discuss these two.

The cheaper calls isn't a small deal. It is quite a large one and recently broke the big mobile phone companies ability to charge ridiculous prices when abroad. One might ask though if the EU is irrelevant and everything would happen without it existing, why when I was in Mexico was I charged an absolute fortune for the two calls I had to make?

If the EU is redundant and all the deals are just as easy without it, why are foreign phone calls only cheap within the EU and not everywhere?

Secondly travel insurance. You do realise that travel insurance covers you for far more than emergency healthcare? Emergency transport back home for example. My friend had a skiing accident once and damaged her knee. The cost of getting back home ran into the thousands and the tens of thousands. It also covers things such as cancellations, delays, illness preventing you from going on holiday etc etc.

Indeed. I was going to pick up on these two as well, but couldn't be bothered.

The first one is hugely significant to businesses - probably around 40% of my business calls are to EU Countries - and yes we have a decent agreement with our provider. Then there's the roaming element - that's just been capped to zero by the EU, to come in force 2015. (iirc).

So from 2007 - outgoing calls €0.49 per min now €0.19 per min. Incoming €0.24, now €0.05 per minute.

Europeans made 886 billion minutes of mobile calls in 2011 (European Mobile Industry Observatory Report 2011) - which is a saving of around €4.3BN per annum between 2007 and now. Excluding SMS and Data.

I suspect the furthest Hoboh calls is Farnworth.

[thebish]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

hoboh - accusing someone of "name-calling"??? Lordy-Lorks-akimbo!

[Worthy4England]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

I might well have missed a very important bit at the bottom - that's the price you pay for putting 3 pages of shite in front of the important bit. I'll go have another look.

P.S I didn't name call - I said what you had posted was randomly spouted bollocks. The object is what you posted not you.

[Hoboh]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

I might well have missed a very important bit at the bottom - that's the price you pay for putting 3 pages of shite in front of the important bit. I'll go have another look.

I, unlike the Pro-EU document bish linked to, am only responsable for a few lines of the said shite, thank you!

[Hoboh]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

I might well have missed a very important bit at the bottom - that's the price you pay for putting 3 pages of shite in front of the important bit. I'll go have another look.

P.S I didn't name call - I said what you had posted was randomly spouted bollocks. The object is what you posted not you.

Let you off then

[Worthy4England]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

I might well have missed a very important bit at the bottom - that's the price you pay for putting 3 pages of shite in front of the important bit. I'll go have another look.

I, unlike the Pro-EU document bish linked to, am only responsable for a few lines of the said shite, thank you!

Which is the important bit at the bottom? The Eurosceptic Bruges Group document? Hardly independent...What's the point you want to make?

[Hoboh]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

hoboh - accusing someone of "name-calling"??? Lordy-Lorks-akimbo!

I'm having real problems with my floor boards at the moment!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

I was on the ERASMUS scheme for one academic year in the Netherlands.

It's true that there is no access to student loans in the host state, but everyone on the scheme gets all their tuition fees for that year paid as well as a pretty generous grant (a gift, not a loan) from the EU. I can't remember the amount, but it was thousands of Euros.

I was also able to get my UK student loan for that year.

In short, I have never felt better off in my life, which is why I was able to watch Bolton in Madrid, Belgrade etc that year.

[Worthy4England]

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

I was on the ERASMUS scheme for one academic year in the Netherlands.

It's true that there is no access to student loans in the host state, but everyone on the scheme gets all their tuition fees for that year paid as well as a pretty generous grant (a gift, not a loan) from the EU. I can't remember the amount, but it was thousands of Euros.

I was also able to get my UK student loan for that year.

In short, I have never felt better off in my life, which is why I was able to watch Bolton in Madrid, Belgrade etc that year.

That's as I understood it. So my view is, if we're already paying into the ERASMUS grant scheme, our young folk should make best use of it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Hoboh I don't think you'll find one person on here who isn't to an extent uncomfortable with some aspect of the EU. Not one. I certainly don't think anyone would suggest it is free from criticism.

The problem is that you and the party you've just voted for want to discuss it without dealing in facts. And the facts presented are all highly dubious and presented in a very inflammatory nature.

When counter stats are produced you decide to reel off a list of inaccurate responses to them to try and negate them.

Like I said before if we had a truly independent academic study into the EU and how it benefits the UK or not to be members across all the different sectors we could all make a more informed decision. IF it truly did turn out to be economically non-beneficial and the impact on security and education etc was low of coming out I'd be voting to come out along with I suspect most people.

As it stands we are looking in on a highly polarised argument with data that is twisted to suit a purpose.

It is definitely worthy of proper analysis and debate but I find that I become more entrenched when people are just quoting inflammatory data and headlines rather than taking a proper evidence led approach to the matter.

I genuinely don't know or pretend to understand the full ramifications of being in/out and neither do you. I'm prepared to be led by genuine data that provides a complete and comprehensive picture, if such data was ever made available.

But your trite responses to aspects of the debate only serve to make me (and I assume others) think that this is all about some nationalistic little Englander thing than it is about genuinely taking the best decision based upon relevant facts and evidence.

[Hoboh]

1) go look at the deregulation bill. I'm not hopeful but you might understand.

2) Not true. ERASMUS stoodies are in the host country for 3 months to one year. They don't qualify for Student Loans

3) I thought you wanted to go live in France?

4) They did. Time's moved on see DMCA etc for further information. See also Unitary Patent. If you want you could do a UKIP style calculation of the savings of 1 patent vs one in each Country.

I lost interest in your randomly spouted bollocks at this point...

So you missed the important bit at the bottom then? typical, put the Pro Eu point until you run out of ideas then resort to name calling bollocks!
I kind of get an inkling your company is one of those that play the EU system to it's own end, the Euro version of starbucks, google etc.

I might well have missed a very important bit at the bottom - that's the price you pay for putting 3 pages of shite in front of the important bit. I'll go have another look.

I, unlike the Pro-EU document bish linked to, am only responsable for a few lines of the said shite, thank you!

Which is the important bit at the bottom? The Eurosceptic Bruges Group document? Hardly independent...What's the point you want to make?

Point being, nor was the link bish posted independent either.
It is easier to make the anti EU point than any Pro one, the anti you can see before your eyes and everyday, Pro? where? I supose folk believe in God, the invisible man and a host of other things.

[Hoboh]

Hoboh I don't think you'll find one person on here who isn't to an extent uncomfortable with some aspect of the EU. Not one. I certainly don't think anyone would suggest it is free from criticism.

The problem is that you and the party you've just voted for want to discuss it without dealing in facts. And the facts presented are all highly dubious and presented in a very inflammatory nature.

When counter stats are produced you decide to reel off a list of inaccurate responses to them to try and negate them.

Like I said before if we had a truly independent academic study into the EU and how it benefits the UK or not to be members across all the different sectors we could all make a more informed decision. IF it truly did turn out to be economically non-beneficial and the impact on security and education etc was low of coming out I'd be voting to come out along with I suspect most people.

As it stands we are looking in on a highly polarised argument with data that is twisted to suit a purpose.

It is definitely worthy of proper analysis and debate but I find that I become more entrenched when people are just quoting inflammatory data and headlines rather than taking a proper evidence led approach to the matter.

I genuinely don't know or pretend to understand the full ramifications of being in/out and neither do you. I'm prepared to be led by genuine data that provides a complete and comprehensive picture, if such data was ever made available.

But your trite responses to aspects of the debate only serve to make me (and I assume others) think that this is all about some nationalistic little Englander thing than it is about genuinely taking the best decision based upon relevant facts and evidence.

Where? The bloody EU and it's suporters usually end up retracting their 'stats' when proved wrong aka Clegg and the millions of jobs fiasco.

[BWFC_Insane]

Hoboh I don't think you'll find one person on here who isn't to an extent uncomfortable with some aspect of the EU. Not one. I certainly don't think anyone would suggest it is free from criticism.

The problem is that you and the party you've just voted for want to discuss it without dealing in facts. And the facts presented are all highly dubious and presented in a very inflammatory nature.

When counter stats are produced you decide to reel off a list of inaccurate responses to them to try and negate them.

Like I said before if we had a truly independent academic study into the EU and how it benefits the UK or not to be members across all the different sectors we could all make a more informed decision. IF it truly did turn out to be economically non-beneficial and the impact on security and education etc was low of coming out I'd be voting to come out along with I suspect most people.

As it stands we are looking in on a highly polarised argument with data that is twisted to suit a purpose.

It is definitely worthy of proper analysis and debate but I find that I become more entrenched when people are just quoting inflammatory data and headlines rather than taking a proper evidence led approach to the matter.

I genuinely don't know or pretend to understand the full ramifications of being in/out and neither do you. I'm prepared to be led by genuine data that provides a complete and comprehensive picture, if such data was ever made available.

But your trite responses to aspects of the debate only serve to make me (and I assume others) think that this is all about some nationalistic little Englander thing than it is about genuinely taking the best decision based upon relevant facts and evidence.

Where? The bloody EU and it's suporters usually end up retracting their 'stats' when proved wrong aka Clegg and the millions of jobs fiasco.

But there you go again. There are millions of jobs linked directly and indirectly to our membership of the EU. Clegg actually undersold the figure by using older data.

The argument is whether those jobs would exist outside of the EU. The direct ones wouldn't but could potentially be replaced. The indirect ones is where the debate is.

Continuing to try and brush things aside that don't suit you doesn't help your argument. A more balanced look would be better.

[Worthy4England]

Point being, nor was the link bish posted independent either.
It is easier to make the anti EU point than any Pro one, the anti you can see before your eyes and everyday, Pro? where? I supose folk believe in God, the invisible man and a host of other things.

Of course it's easier - that's why a muppet like Farage is garnering support. But as BWFCi says - what we'll need to move from prior to a referendum, is facts rather than sound bites. So whoever suggests there's a benefit to the UK people should need to quantify that benefit, rather than saying it's 4k per person (or whatever was the figure mentioned). Those who say it's a cost need a better articulation than 70% is a punt based on volume of legislation passed and 20% is another punt based on a static baseline relating to CAP and CFP.

What can I see before my eyes that's anti, every day?

[Hoboh]

Point being, nor was the link bish posted independent either.
It is easier to make the anti EU point than any Pro one, the anti you can see before your eyes and everyday, Pro? where? I supose folk believe in God, the invisible man and a host of other things.

Of course it's easier - that's why a muppet like Farage is garnering support. But as BWFCi says - what we'll need to move from prior to a referendum, is facts rather than sound bites. So whoever suggests there's a benefit to the UK people should need to quantify that benefit, rather than saying it's 4k per person (or whatever was the figure mentioned). Those who say it's a cost need a better articulation than 70% is a punt based on volume of legislation passed and 20% is another punt based on a static baseline relating to CAP and CFP.

What can I see before my eyes that's anti, every day?

Walk through Bolton town centre any day of the week
Read court judgements
dodge the oversized lorries
Take a 'cheap' flight

Code: Select all

A green tax imposed by Brussels will cost a family of four £80 more to holiday in the U.S. The controversial levy comes into force on January 1.
A ruling yesterday by the European Court of Justice means any airline using any EU airport will be subject to the environmental charge.
This will add an estimated £21 to the price of a return flight to America.
Higher costs? An American Airlines flight leaves Dallas Forth Worth airport. The company will now face paying for an emissions trading scheme when aircraft land at EU airports
It comes on top of charges to be introduced in April by the UK Treasury which will add to the burden faced by British holidaymakers. In all, the cost to a family of four of a return flight to Florida will rise by a daunting £344.
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is designed to curb emissions from aircraft jet engines of carbon dioxide.
From January 1, all airlines will be required to buy a ‘permit to pollute’ to cover the cost of their carbon emissions plus extra costs if they exceed their emissions limit.
The court yesterday rejected a challenge from the U.S. and other non-EU nations that the levy infringes their national sovereignty and violates international aviation treaties.
The cost will almost inevitably be passed on to passengers, and the EU calculates the cost will be £10.50 on a one-way transatlantic flight – or £21 return. For many shorter flights it will be up to £1.75 each way.
The EU does not have power to raise direct taxes but can impose expensive regulations on businesses in member states, which have a similar effect.
The money raised each year by the sale to airlines of the ‘pollution permits’ will go back to the country in which the airline is based, rather than to Brussels.
The ECJ rejected an American challenge that the scheme violates the Open Skies treaty prohibition against unilateral taxation or discriminatory treatment.
It is especially bad news for British passengers, who will be forced to pay twice over because the Government also imposes the Air Passenger Duty departure levy, known as ‘the poll tax of the skies.’
Chancellor George Osborne announced in his recent Autumn Statement that he was increasing the cost of APD from April by an inflation-busting eight per cent. The Treasury insists the Government needs the extra cash to pay off its debts. Under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme each airline is  allocated pollution ‘permits’ allowing it to emit around 20 per cent less carbon than its past average. 
Airlines exceeding their limit can buy more permits from other airlines which have emitted less than their quota. The aim is to persuade or force airlines to emit less carbon by upgrading their fleets or becoming more efficient.
Last month the Daily Mail revealed how Mr Osborne had finally abandoned all previous Government pretence of using Air Passenger Duty as a ‘green tax’ and admitted in a letter to European airport bosses that it was now ‘fundamentally a revenue-raising duty’ which provides Treasury coffers with £2.5billion a year. 
Yesterday’s decision sparked fury from countries outside the EU and threatened to ignite a transatlantic and worldwide trade war with Britain and the rest of the European Union. The rejected lawsuit was brought by U.S. and Canadian airlines acting through the trade organisation Airlines for America and backed by Russia, China and other non-EU countries.
They object strongly on ‘sovereignty’ grounds to being forced to pay ‘green’ taxes to foreign governments. A Bill currently going through the U.S. Congress will even make it illegal for airlines to pay them.
Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It’s unacceptable. The last thing people need at this time of year is the EU sticking extra taxes on us. Families are struggling to make ends meet as it is.’
From April, families flying to destinations in Air Passenger Duty Band B, which include New York, California and Florida, will see APD alone increase by £5 to £65 per person in economy and by £10 to £130 in all other classes.
Mid-level long-distance destinations (4,000 to 6,000 miles Band C), such as the Caribbean or Cape Town, will see the tax rise in economy  by £6 to £81 per person – and by £12 to £162 in all other classes.
For a trip to Australia – three times as far as New York – the ‘green’ EU emissions tax could be as much as £30 per flight – or £60 per return journey. For a family of four that could add up to £240 emissions charge for a round trip. From April 1, the existing APD on economy flights to Australia  will rise by £7 to £92 per person – or £368 tax for a family of four.

[Hoboh]

Point being, nor was the link bish posted independent either.
It is easier to make the anti EU point than any Pro one, the anti you can see before your eyes and everyday, Pro? where? I supose folk believe in God, the invisible man and a host of other things.

Of course it's easier - that's why a muppet like Farage is garnering support. But as BWFCi says - what we'll need to move from prior to a referendum, is facts rather than sound bites. So whoever suggests there's a benefit to the UK people should need to quantify that benefit, rather than saying it's 4k per person (or whatever was the figure mentioned). Those who say it's a cost need a better articulation than 70% is a punt based on volume of legislation passed and 20% is another punt based on a static baseline relating to CAP and CFP.

What can I see before my eyes that's anti, every day?

Don't start about CAP I'm old enough to remember the butter and grain mountins, farmers are still pouring milk away because of EU quotas, fish, dead, are still being thrown back in the sea because of EU quotas, yet half the world is starving
Please stop trying to say the EU is not impacting on everyday life with a negative influence

[Worthy4England]

Point being, nor was the link bish posted independent either.
It is easier to make the anti EU point than any Pro one, the anti you can see before your eyes and everyday, Pro? where? I supose folk believe in God, the invisible man and a host of other things.

Of course it's easier - that's why a muppet like Farage is garnering support. But as BWFCi says - what we'll need to move from prior to a referendum, is facts rather than sound bites. So whoever suggests there's a benefit to the UK people should need to quantify that benefit, rather than saying it's 4k per person (or whatever was the figure mentioned). Those who say it's a cost need a better articulation than 70% is a punt based on volume of legislation passed and 20% is another punt based on a static baseline relating to CAP and CFP.

What can I see before my eyes that's anti, every day?

Walk through Bolton town centre any day of the week
Read court judgements
dodge the oversized lorries
Take a 'cheap' flight

Code: Select all

A green tax imposed by Brussels will cost a family of four £80 more to holiday in the U.S. The controversial levy comes into force on January 1.
A ruling yesterday by the European Court of Justice means any airline using any EU airport will be subject to the environmental charge.
This will add an estimated £21 to the price of a return flight to America.
Higher costs? An American Airlines flight leaves Dallas Forth Worth airport. The company will now face paying for an emissions trading scheme when aircraft land at EU airports
It comes on top of charges to be introduced in April by the UK Treasury which will add to the burden faced by British holidaymakers. In all, the cost to a family of four of a return flight to Florida will rise by a daunting £344.
The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is designed to curb emissions from aircraft jet engines of carbon dioxide.
From January 1, all airlines will be required to buy a ‘permit to pollute’ to cover the cost of their carbon emissions plus extra costs if they exceed their emissions limit.
The court yesterday rejected a challenge from the U.S. and other non-EU nations that the levy infringes their national sovereignty and violates international aviation treaties.
The cost will almost inevitably be passed on to passengers, and the EU calculates the cost will be £10.50 on a one-way transatlantic flight – or £21 return. For many shorter flights it will be up to £1.75 each way.
The EU does not have power to raise direct taxes but can impose expensive regulations on businesses in member states, which have a similar effect.
The money raised each year by the sale to airlines of the ‘pollution permits’ will go back to the country in which the airline is based, rather than to Brussels.
The ECJ rejected an American challenge that the scheme violates the Open Skies treaty prohibition against unilateral taxation or discriminatory treatment.
It is especially bad news for British passengers, who will be forced to pay twice over because the Government also imposes the Air Passenger Duty departure levy, known as ‘the poll tax of the skies.’
Chancellor George Osborne announced in his recent Autumn Statement that he was increasing the cost of APD from April by an inflation-busting eight per cent. The Treasury insists the Government needs the extra cash to pay off its debts. Under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme each airline is  allocated pollution ‘permits’ allowing it to emit around 20 per cent less carbon than its past average. 
Airlines exceeding their limit can buy more permits from other airlines which have emitted less than their quota. The aim is to persuade or force airlines to emit less carbon by upgrading their fleets or becoming more efficient.
Last month the Daily Mail revealed how Mr Osborne had finally abandoned all previous Government pretence of using Air Passenger Duty as a ‘green tax’ and admitted in a letter to European airport bosses that it was now ‘fundamentally a revenue-raising duty’ which provides Treasury coffers with £2.5billion a year. 
Yesterday’s decision sparked fury from countries outside the EU and threatened to ignite a transatlantic and worldwide trade war with Britain and the rest of the European Union. The rejected lawsuit was brought by U.S. and Canadian airlines acting through the trade organisation Airlines for America and backed by Russia, China and other non-EU countries.
They object strongly on ‘sovereignty’ grounds to being forced to pay ‘green’ taxes to foreign governments. A Bill currently going through the U.S. Congress will even make it illegal for airlines to pay them.
Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It’s unacceptable. The last thing people need at this time of year is the EU sticking extra taxes on us. Families are struggling to make ends meet as it is.’
From April, families flying to destinations in Air Passenger Duty Band B, which include New York, California and Florida, will see APD alone increase by £5 to £65 per person in economy and by £10 to £130 in all other classes.
Mid-level long-distance destinations (4,000 to 6,000 miles Band C), such as the Caribbean or Cape Town, will see the tax rise in economy  by £6 to £81 per person – and by £12 to £162 in all other classes.
For a trip to Australia – three times as far as New York – the ‘green’ EU emissions tax could be as much as £30 per flight – or £60 per return journey. For a family of four that could add up to £240 emissions charge for a round trip. From April 1, the existing APD on economy flights to Australia  will rise by £7 to £92 per person – or £368 tax for a family of four.

So what exactly would I see if I walked through Bolton any day of the week?

What am I looking for in Court Judgements?

What are you rabbiting on about regarding oversize lorries?

On your last point, you may have missed the bit that said the EU increase (£80) was on top of the UK Treasury increase which totalled together makes £344. If my simple maths are correct, then the UK Treasury must've added £264 in APD. Three times the EU bit. That's what happens when you allow muppets to control the finances.