Fight against VRT...

rowanh

Interesting argument and the http://www.irishdrivers.org/ site looks good too. A body for motorists rights in ireland would be great, the goverment do kind of take the piss with all aspects of transport.

surfmaster

kbannon wrote:

Out of curiosity, how have they helped.
Given some of the statements made in this thread that seem to originate from the 'IDA', they are not legally correct.

Please can you be a bit more specific re "statements made in this thread that seem to originate from the 'IDA', they are not legally correct"

whippet

surfmaster wrote:

Regarding the cases against the Guardai you should discuss with the people in the irish drivers association as they have helped their members to file these cases.

and what has been the out come of these cases? only then can you decide if you did them a favour by 'helping' them file their cases!!

It is very easy to initiate legal proceedings, but winning them is a whold different ball game.

As said by kbannon some of the claims made on your website have a some what shakey foundation and are based on your interpretation of the law ... a judge or other counsel may well have a different interpertation than you !! and if that is the case I would like to hear the opinions then of those people who you 'helped' !!

Seth Brundle

surfmaster wrote:

Please can you be a bit more specific re "statements made in this thread that seem to originate from the 'IDA', they are not legally correct"

Start with the first post and then follow through. The OP made several statements based on info he seems to have picked up from it and most has been shot down as being factually directly or otherwise incorrect, e.g.

Mickk wrote:

One of the things I found interesting is the european law of proportionallity:
Basically by european law they cannot legally take anything over your proposed debt. So they cant take you car because they claim you owe them a max of 30% (for cars over a 1.8litre). Same as if you didn't pay stamp duty or rates on a building, could they take the building? If they want the money they can bring you to court.

surfmaster

kbannon wrote:

Start with the first post and then follow through. The OP made several statements based on info he seems to have picked up from it and most has been shot down as being factually directly or otherwise incorrect, e.g.

Not sure if your're too lazy to check this out yourself or if you are anyway familiar with EU Legislation but please don't make assumptions that the treads are suspect unless you pitch a reason why!!

To help you on your way here is some info for you:

Like the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality regulates the exercise of powers by the European Union, seeking to set within specified bounds the action taken by the institutions of the Union. Under this rule, the institutions' involvement must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties. In other words, the extent of the action must be in keeping with the aim pursued.

This means that when various forms of intervention are available to the Union, it must, where the effect is the same, opt for the approach which leaves the greatest freedom to the Member States and individuals.

The principle of proportionality is clearly laid down in primary law under Article 5, third paragraph, of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). A Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the TEC by the Treaty of Amsterdam, sets out the criteria for applying both these principles.

smash

On thisr homepage..

"Irish car prices are at least 30% higher than most other EU states."

So what can they do about that?

"A speeding offence results in a fine and penalty points. A further penalty may be imposed by insurance companies, effectively punishing a driver three times for the same offence."

Points are there to effect your insurace... what do they want to do about this...

A lot of their point just seem to be written by people who maon about whatever they can.

Mickk

kbannon wrote:

Start with the first post and then follow through. The OP made several statements based on info he seems to have picked up from it and most has been shot down as being factually directly or otherwise incorrect, e.g.

I did say I am not representing the IDA and my knowledge of the law is very limited thats why I am glad to be a part of an organisation who have the legal understanding and are gaining the numbers to start being listened to.

Honestly I hate to say it but it now looks to me like VRT is legal under european law even though it conflicts with Article 25. They EU have made decisions on it and it is only illegal if you don't apply it to cars made in the state or if it is applied inproportionately to older cars vrs newer ones. That is what Poland and Finland is in trouble for at the moment. Ireland have sort of jumped through a legal loop hole as there are no cars produced here (bring back Heinkel )

The fact of the matter still remains it is a wrong tax and should be fought against. It is against the principle and spirit of the EU. The more people who join the IDA the more of a voice we will have and also the more say we will have when they try and implement it elsewhere when it is abolished.

Seth Brundle

Mickk wrote:

I did say I am not representing the IDA and my knowledge of the law is very limited thats why I am glad to be a part of an organisation who have the legal understanding and are gaining the numbers to start being listened to.

Honestly I hate to say it but it now looks to me like VRT is legal under european law even though it conflicts with Article 25. They EU have made decisions on it and it is only illegal if you don't apply it to cars made in the state or if it is applied inproportionately to older cars vrs newer ones. That is what Poland and Finland is in trouble for at the moment. Ireland have sort of jumped through a legal loop hole as there are no cars produced here (bring back Heinkel )

The fact of the matter still remains it is a wrong tax and should be fought against. It is against the principle and spirit of the EU. The more people who join the IDA the more of a voice we will have and also the more say we will have when they try and implement it elsewhere when it is abolished.

So in other words, although you had no idea whether or not the stuff you post is accurate, you posted it anyway? If you are not sure about the law how do you know then that you can fight it? How do you know that if everyone joined the IDA, they could fight it?

As for being listened to, the government (FF!) after going through several scandals in the lead up to an election, didn't really give anything away apart from 1st time buyers stamp duty, why do you think they will listen to you right after an election? VRT is here to stay in one form or another, especially with the greens sitting beside them trying to looks as if they are of any use in power!

OKenora

Honestly I hate to say it but it now looks to me like VRT is legal under european law even though it conflicts with Article 25. They EU have made decisions on it

FFS, Will you go and read, VRT has been judged by the EU to be restrictive, causing double taxation and encouraging evasion. They have told the Irish government (and others too) to abolish their VRT type taxes as they contravene the spirit and laws of the free market. Ireland has until 2015 to get rid of it. Who cares if it is legal or not, its going....

Lets worry about its replacement, commonly known as "carbon tax".

Mickk

OKenora wrote:

FFS, Will you go and read, VRT has been judged by the EU to be restrictive, causing double taxation and encouraging evasion. They have told the Irish government (and others too) to abolish their VRT type taxes as they contravene the spirit and laws of the free market. Ireland has until 2015 to get rid of it. Who cares if it is legal or not, its going....

Lets worry about its replacement, commonly known as "carbon tax".

FFS I have gone and read, I completely agree that it is wrong and against the spirit and will be phased out with in 10 years but anyone who brings it infront of the European Courts of Justice will care if it is legal or not.

OKenora

Anyone who brings it in front of a European court of Justice will be wasting their time, the parliament has already ruled on the status of VRT (and similar higher taxes in other countries) and agreed it is illegal, for many reasons but significantly not because it is an import tax in disguise.

Trying to get something ruled as illegal or unfair when it already has been is kind of a pointless battle imo.

Mickk

kbannon wrote:

So in other words, although you had no idea whether or not the stuff you post is accurate, you posted it anyway? If you are not sure about the law how do you know then that you can fight it? How do you know that if everyone joined the IDA, they could fight it?

As for being listened to, the government (FF!) after going through several scandals in the lead up to an election, didn't really give anything away apart from 1st time buyers stamp duty, why do you think they will listen to you right after an election? VRT is here to stay in one form or another, especially with the greens sitting beside them trying to looks as if they are of any use in power!

Jumping down my throat in one breath and in the next proclaiming that VRT is here to stay? I never made this personal to you but I think you should listen to your own advice before you open your ignorant mouth.

I still believe what I posted is accurate and the laws still apply as wider principles but I have now found instances in more detailed cases and specific laws which look like they slightly contradict article 25. So in terms of legality it will probably hold up but in terms of being inline with the principles and directives of the EU.

ninty9er

Anyhow, I have a distinct feeling that the tightening of the free trade arrangements secured by the French negotiators last month will probably have ended up with article 25 being re-written. We won't know until we see the new draft.

I have a feeling the Danes had a similar landmark case heard in Strasbourg about 2 years ago. The government won!!

We've had the whole what's going to replace VRT thread on here and in fact the Dept. of Finance accepted a lot of late submissions from boards members in this regard before someone goes trying to re-cover old ground

We all agree...VRT bad, but VRT = law

Also...EU Directives are just that...for direction and are not necessarily binding on any member state. Or I could be mixing directives and regulation up!! damn memory...ask a Leaving Cert Business student. I've given all my books away...And I knwe they'd have come in handy. Feck sake

surfmaster

Here's another issue to consider.

In 1972 the people of Ireland voted to become part of the EC. In 1973 The Irish Government then went behind the peoples back and got a derogation from Brussels to apply customs duties on products from other member states until 1991 (as we were a struggling country and the government needed to get as much funds from the people of Ireland as possible) - This is in complete contrast with the spirit of the EC. On January 1st 1992 as this tax was obolished and VRT was introduced. A coincidence I think not.

34 years on and people are still trying to justify why the government can take an "a-la-carte" approach to EC Legislation.

Look at what happened to the illegal nursing home fees taken by the government. At least those that are still alive have received some benefit from the Government cover up for 30 years of fraud.

surfmaster

ninty9er wrote:

Anyhow, I have a distinct feeling that the tightening of the free trade arrangements secured by the French negotiators last month will probably have ended up with article 25 being re-written. We won't know until we see the new draft.

I have a feeling the Danes had a similar landmark case heard in Strasbourg about 2 years ago. The government won!!

We've had the whole what's going to replace VRT thread on here and in fact the Dept. of Finance accepted a lot of late submissions from boards members in this regard before someone goes trying to re-cover old ground

We all agree...VRT bad, but VRT = law

Also...EU Directives are just that...for direction and are not necessarily binding on any member state. Or I could be mixing directives and regulation up!! damn memory...ask a Leaving Cert Business student. I've given all my books away...And I knwe they'd have come in handy. Feck sake

Either you are being facetious or you didn't really read those books now did you...o/j

Anyhows I will try to clarify:

Article 10: "Member states shall (meaning mandatory) take all appropriate measures, wether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. they shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty"

maidhc

There is so much misinformation in this thread I'm just going to flag it. I can't be bothered correcting people and entering into circular arguments.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. People here are making the strangest pronouncements on EU law, and passing them off as fact.