Road charging answers question: what is Galileo for?

Mark Croucher · 06-06-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UKIP Press Office

For Immediate Release –16:00hrs 6th June 2005

Road charging answers question: what is €1.1bn EU Galileo satellite system for?

The U.K. Independence Party said today that the government’s plans to introduce road charging in the UK finally answered a long-standing question about what the EU’s Galileo satellite system was for.

Far from being a rival to the US GPS system, it is now clear that the EU’s very own spy in the sky would be used to extort ever larger sums of money from hard pressed motorists already labouring under the expense of the EU’s common transport policy.

UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass, a member of the European Parliament’s transport committee, said, “Road charging is covered in some detail in the EU’s white paper on the Common Transport Policy, which was published in 2001. Voters should not make the mistake of thinking this was something the government thought up all on its own, but rather it has been pushed INTO phpbb_it by one of the less well publicised EU common policies.

“The price of road user charging is that the government will be able to keep tabs on the entire motoring population through the ‘black boxes’ which it hopes to install in all cars. Combined with compulsory ID cards, big brother really will be watching.“

Mr Nattrass condemned the government for not being honest about the source of its ideas, particularly as the EU white paper which contained them was published in 2001.

“As usual, the government is presenting this as its own ‘big idea’, without mentioning the European dimension once, or the fact that if the EU goes ahead with it, it would have no option but to comply whether it wanted to or not; the Conservatives signed away the British veto in the Maastricht Treaty.

“Given the lengths the traditional parties went to to avoid discussing the EU in the recent general election, such an omission is hardly surprising. It does underline the depths to which they will sink to mislead the British electorate about the true source of power in Britain today.” ENDS

Notes to Editors:

The EU’s 2001 white paper (European Transport Policy 2010: time to decide (Com 2001:0370)) discusses the need for road user charging and the role of the Galileo satellite system in collecting and monitoring payments.

Transport policy within the European Union is a Commission responsibility. Decisions are reached under QMV, meaning that the UK no longer has a veto. The then Conservative government surrendered this right under the terms of the Maastricht treaty.

For further information, please contact:
Mike Nattrass MEP, UKIP Deputy Leader,
Mark Croucher, UKIP Press Office, 0207-222-9365 or 07960-584161

Roger Gough · 06-06-2005, 04:50 PM

If this scheme is as efficient as they think it will be, there will be an unmentioned spin-off. To be workable, there will have to be a fool-proof method of car registration which will ensure that no uninsured car is allowed on the road (Like freshly-minted number plates every year) This increased expense will be beyond the means of the 2 million currently uninsured drivers on the roads, a majority of whom are criminals who can't live without 'wheels'. So if they're denied a car of their own, they'll resort to other means which will probably mean car-jackings galore or increased crime to fund a new buggy; I can't think they'll go everywhere by public transport. Or will it be business as usual: 'the law abiding will cough up their charges, so we won't have to chase non-payers.'

Mark Croucher · 06-06-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gough

This increased expense will be beyond the means of the 2 million currently uninsured drivers on the roads, a majority of whom are criminals who can't live without 'wheels'.

Really?

I suspect you'll find the majority are people on low incomes who need a car simply to work and live but can't afford the ever more exorbitant insurance premiums which come with the current compensation culture.

My 4x4 blew up last weekend, and I bought a 1973 Vauxhall Viva for 114.10 off E-bay to keep me mobile while it was in the garage. Insurance cost for a year - with me aged 39 and full no claims bonus - 315.00.

My ex-girlfriend tried to insure a Metro a while ago - her aged 30, provisional license - 923.00 per year.

Is it any wonder that the young and the poor increasingly take their chances on not hitting anything?

I say this not to justify it, but simply to point out that if you're earning the minimum wage, the 923 a year for a 1.1 Metro works out at over 4.7 weeks gross income. With a family and kids, who can afford this? And yet how do you get a job which isn't 200 yards away with no car and ramshackle public transport?

Rgds

Mark

Roger Gough · 06-06-2005, 05:20 PM

True. A local letter writer to our rag protested that the Court fines that people were being hit with for no insurance, were 75% lower than the premiums which his daughters were paying annually. Why not chance it indeed? The Government are trying everything in their power to get Joe Public onto whatever public transport that is available; they've no doubt briefed the ins. companies to jack up premiums and be damned. Nobody loves a smart **** but I prophesied the 'charging' development in Evening Standard letters last Tuesday (not too difficult to predict)

- they declined to give me a UKIP tag though.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-06-2005, 04:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 706	If this scheme is as efficient as they think it will be, there will be an unmentioned spin-off. To be workable, there will have to be a fool-proof method of car registration which will ensure that no uninsured car is allowed on the road (Like freshly-minted number plates every year) This increased expense will be beyond the means of the 2 million currently uninsured drivers on the roads, a majority of whom are criminals who can't live without 'wheels'. So if they're denied a car of their own, they'll resort to other means which will probably mean car-jackings galore or increased crime to fund a new buggy; I can't think they'll go everywhere by public transport. Or will it be business as usual: 'the law abiding will cough up their charges, so we won't have to chase non-payers.'

06-06-2005, 05:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 706	True. A local letter writer to our rag protested that the Court fines that people were being hit with for no insurance, were 75% lower than the premiums which his daughters were paying annually. Why not chance it indeed? The Government are trying everything in their power to get Joe Public onto whatever public transport that is available; they've no doubt briefed the ins. companies to jack up premiums and be damned. Nobody loves a smart **** but I prophesied the 'charging' development in Evening Standard letters last Tuesday (not too difficult to predict) - they declined to give me a UKIP tag though.