Paul Birch

First, even if your interpretation were correct it could still be linked to the congestion charge in the way I mentioned (Red Ken's getting his idea from it). Second, it is relevant to the congestion charge because it talks about urban charges and traffic congestion. The wording of Article 9.1 (b) and (c) is not limited to HGVs and motorways; there is nothing in the text of the directive that so limits it; I directly refuted your counter-arguments (by pointing out, for example, that, contrary to your implication, the term vehicle was not used in those sub-sections).

Every article means just what it says, except insofar as it refers back to other articles or previous articles define its terms. Article 9.1(a) employs such a defined term in its first clause (in the second clause there is some ambiguity and it is questionable whether or not the plural vehicles is meant in the restricted or general sense, but my argument does not rely upon either interpretation). Articles 9.1(b) and (c) do not; therefore they mean neither more nor less than they say. There is absolutely no requirement for each Article in a legal document of any kind to relate to the main subject of the document; legislation often includes peripheral matters in some of its clauses.

This particular article is of the very common "notwithstanding" type, that deliberately goes against the general thrust - the sort that says, notwithstanding the provisions of articles n to m, it is permissible to do x, y and z. They are used to indicates exceptions to a general rule, or to underline that a general rule does not apply in certain circumstances in which one might erroneously think it did. In this case it is clearly saying that urban congestion charges are not contrary to the provisions of the Directive, as, from reading the previous articles, one might mistakenly think they were (because some of the traffic is under 12 tonne and some of the streets aren't multi-lane highways).

Hitherto, I have always found you to be a stickler for pedantic accuracy, so I am at a loss to explain your refusal to accept what the directive plainly says. It is hardly as if you had to defend it from unreasonable attack; the clauses in question seem unobjectionable, neither mandating nor prohibiting, and I for one am not attacking them. Nor have I denied that UKIP's propaganda claim (while perhaps technically defensible, if they know things about Red Ken I can only surmise) is at best misleading.

Sheila

Whatever.

I still don't agree but if there was one thing I learned from our encounters on the prececessor to this Forum

(the Forum on the main UKIP website which so mysteriously disappeared a few years ago)

is that there comes a point where it is pointless to continue.