The EU,taxing,insuring and mot-ing a vehicle in any country ?

Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.

I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL  EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX  for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…

So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.

Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country )  as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him  a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.

Can anyone see my point  ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???

 

Why is this idea important?

Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.

I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL  EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX  for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…

So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.

Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country )  as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him  a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.

Can anyone see my point  ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???

 

remove the UK from the EUROPEAN UNION

 We pay millions for little return and the money saved will help clear our Countries deficit. how many business people do you know  who would invest vast sums of money in a company who haven't provided 'approved audited accounts''??? OUR GOVERNMENT DO JUST THAT!!!!

If you were a member of an expensive club and fell on hard times you would cancel your membership, so the obvious as we have fallen on hard times , as a Country, is to cancel our membership. How can we justify the millions we pay for the 'Tail to wag the dog'???

look at the expensesthe Euro MP'S claim, it makes Parlaments indiscretion look a small mistake in comparison. how many Kinnocks really work in europe for example????

Why is this idea important?

 We pay millions for little return and the money saved will help clear our Countries deficit. how many business people do you know  who would invest vast sums of money in a company who haven't provided 'approved audited accounts''??? OUR GOVERNMENT DO JUST THAT!!!!

If you were a member of an expensive club and fell on hard times you would cancel your membership, so the obvious as we have fallen on hard times , as a Country, is to cancel our membership. How can we justify the millions we pay for the 'Tail to wag the dog'???

look at the expensesthe Euro MP'S claim, it makes Parlaments indiscretion look a small mistake in comparison. how many Kinnocks really work in europe for example????

e Borders -the imposition on yachtsmen

E-Borders is going to require sailing yachts coming in from the near continent to advise HM e-borders, by email only, of their port of arrival, ETA, Number of persons on board, their passport numbers. Any change must be advised as soon as possible. I presume this is to alert E-Borders cutters of potential smuggling or carrying illegal immigrants.

Which self respecting smuggler is going to comply? 

 

Hope someone is actually reading this stuff.

 

C. L Daly

Why is this idea important?

E-Borders is going to require sailing yachts coming in from the near continent to advise HM e-borders, by email only, of their port of arrival, ETA, Number of persons on board, their passport numbers. Any change must be advised as soon as possible. I presume this is to alert E-Borders cutters of potential smuggling or carrying illegal immigrants.

Which self respecting smuggler is going to comply? 

 

Hope someone is actually reading this stuff.

 

C. L Daly

Apply time limits and judicial oversight to immigration detainees

 

At present the decision to detain someone is made by an immigration officer without any judicial oversight. There is no time limit on immigration detention, and detainees have great difficulty getting legal representation to apply for bail. Thus their access to a legal challenge to the deprivation of liberty is severely restricted. While the UK Border Agency(UKBA) claim that no-one is detained for ‘longer than is necessary’, there is no legal limit on detention.  Figures from the Home Office in February 2010 showed that 255 people had been held in immigration detention for more than a year in 2009 – and 45 for more than two years. In reality, since UKBA keeps no figures on cumulative detention, more people have been detained for longer than the figures suggest.  The Home Office has the power to detain someone either to examine their asylum claim if they deem that claim to be straightforward, or if they believe the person will abscond, or that their removal from the UK is imminent.In practice, for many detainees there are barriers to their removal, such as lack of documentation, or the destination country being unsafe, which means that hundreds of people are held for long periods without prospect of release.  There are just over 2500 detention spaces.

The mental toll of indefinite detention is manifested in many ways, not least in the amount of self-harming incidents among those held. In 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008, according to Home Office statistics.

The First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (currently operated separately from HM Court Services) often require a lower burden of proof from the Home Office than from the applicant. If the HO claims that a person will abscond no evidence is required. Immigration detainees have great difficulty securing release from detention through the courts.  Just 18% of applications for bail are successful.  Although under the law there is a presumption in favour of liberty, in practice many immigration judges put the emphasis on the detainee to prove why he or she should be released from detention, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Home Office to provide evidence as to why the deprivation of liberty is deemed necessary.

There are no written records of bail hearings.  Only the judge’s decision is recorded so it is impossible to provide evidence of errors or of the basis on which decision are made for future challenges. 

Why is this idea important?

 

At present the decision to detain someone is made by an immigration officer without any judicial oversight. There is no time limit on immigration detention, and detainees have great difficulty getting legal representation to apply for bail. Thus their access to a legal challenge to the deprivation of liberty is severely restricted. While the UK Border Agency(UKBA) claim that no-one is detained for ‘longer than is necessary’, there is no legal limit on detention.  Figures from the Home Office in February 2010 showed that 255 people had been held in immigration detention for more than a year in 2009 – and 45 for more than two years. In reality, since UKBA keeps no figures on cumulative detention, more people have been detained for longer than the figures suggest.  The Home Office has the power to detain someone either to examine their asylum claim if they deem that claim to be straightforward, or if they believe the person will abscond, or that their removal from the UK is imminent.In practice, for many detainees there are barriers to their removal, such as lack of documentation, or the destination country being unsafe, which means that hundreds of people are held for long periods without prospect of release.  There are just over 2500 detention spaces.

The mental toll of indefinite detention is manifested in many ways, not least in the amount of self-harming incidents among those held. In 2009, 215 people needed medical treatment for self-inflicted injuries, a rise of 20 per cent on 2008, according to Home Office statistics.

The First Tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (currently operated separately from HM Court Services) often require a lower burden of proof from the Home Office than from the applicant. If the HO claims that a person will abscond no evidence is required. Immigration detainees have great difficulty securing release from detention through the courts.  Just 18% of applications for bail are successful.  Although under the law there is a presumption in favour of liberty, in practice many immigration judges put the emphasis on the detainee to prove why he or she should be released from detention, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Home Office to provide evidence as to why the deprivation of liberty is deemed necessary.

There are no written records of bail hearings.  Only the judge’s decision is recorded so it is impossible to provide evidence of errors or of the basis on which decision are made for future challenges. 

Scrap eBorders before it goes ‘live’ in 2014

The eBorders huge database computer system has been declared ILLEGAL under European Law, for EU Citizens. So it cannot be used LEGALLY as originally planned by the Blair/Brown Government.

The Blair/Brown Government said they would now make it a 'voluntary" way to jump the Border queues at the UK's Airports & Ports. By being 'pre-checked" before you travel, you can then walk through the fast track when you arrive.

Why didn't they realise it is ILLEGAL under EU Law? What a waste of money!

Costing £1.2bn it should be scrapped.

The EU has stated that it is illegal to hinder, check, or hassle EU citizens at EU borders.

So this system which the Brown Labour Government pretended was a counter terrorism tool, but was really a Tax and Court Fine enforcing tool.( Brown's people envisiged that if UK Citizens were stopped from travelling abroad if the owed Tax or Court fines, this would encourage UK citizens to pay on time.)

All the terrorists captured todate in the UK would have passed all checks, having clean records and in some cases being NHS Doctors. So eBorders would have been useless in these cases.

David Cameron stated during the Election Campaign that he wants to scrap all Labour's planned huge Databases.  Well this has got to be the biggest one, bigger than the ID Cards would have been.

Let's bite the bullet, and scrap it now.

___________________________________________

If the the Blair/Brown Government have signed a binding contract with the American suppliers of the system; then perhaps the system could be modified to make the Visa application system more efficient for the UK Embassies around the World. This could lead to fewer Staff being employed in our Foreign Embassies?

 

Why is this idea important?

The eBorders huge database computer system has been declared ILLEGAL under European Law, for EU Citizens. So it cannot be used LEGALLY as originally planned by the Blair/Brown Government.

The Blair/Brown Government said they would now make it a 'voluntary" way to jump the Border queues at the UK's Airports & Ports. By being 'pre-checked" before you travel, you can then walk through the fast track when you arrive.

Why didn't they realise it is ILLEGAL under EU Law? What a waste of money!

Costing £1.2bn it should be scrapped.

The EU has stated that it is illegal to hinder, check, or hassle EU citizens at EU borders.

So this system which the Brown Labour Government pretended was a counter terrorism tool, but was really a Tax and Court Fine enforcing tool.( Brown's people envisiged that if UK Citizens were stopped from travelling abroad if the owed Tax or Court fines, this would encourage UK citizens to pay on time.)

All the terrorists captured todate in the UK would have passed all checks, having clean records and in some cases being NHS Doctors. So eBorders would have been useless in these cases.

David Cameron stated during the Election Campaign that he wants to scrap all Labour's planned huge Databases.  Well this has got to be the biggest one, bigger than the ID Cards would have been.

Let's bite the bullet, and scrap it now.

___________________________________________

If the the Blair/Brown Government have signed a binding contract with the American suppliers of the system; then perhaps the system could be modified to make the Visa application system more efficient for the UK Embassies around the World. This could lead to fewer Staff being employed in our Foreign Embassies?

 

Inability to Deport Foreign Criminals and Terrorist Operatives

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

Why is this idea important?

The British government is prevented at present by a host of statutes, precedents and European court rulings from deporting foreign nationals and immigrants who are convicted of serious crimes or found to be members of proscribed, often terrorist organisations back to their countries of origin where those countries are thought not to place the same emphasis on so-called "human rights" as we do. We need not necessarily be talking about North Korea; quite often these "unsafe" nations are members of the Commonwealth, and objections can even be raised when deporting someone to the United States on grounds that the Americans retain the death sentence.

The state's first duty being to protect the law-abiding in general and its own citizens in particular, these impediments to the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorist operatives should all be swept away and the individuals concerned compelled to lie in the beds they have made for themselves.  I thought we weren't supposed to pass judgements on the cultures of others anymore, anyway?

taxation ideas

I know that the main purpose of this site is to suggest laws for removal,but i do want to suggest a brilliant little money -earner to contribute towards reducing the deficit.Having just returned from about my 6th visit to Turkey,i have now contributed £60 towards their exchequer.All aliens arriving in Turkey apart from Germans due to some separate arrangement,have to hand over a £10 note in return for a stamp in their passport.Ostensibly it is a 'visa' but it is just a stamp.(No change given,and must be cash.if you only have a £20 note that's tough!!) So why don't we do the same?All non-EU arrivals could pay say £20 as they enter.I have no idea how many people this would involve,but it would soon add up to a sizeable amount of cash,as thousands come in every day.No £20 no entry.No delays.you have to put the money in your passport in the photograph page,and they just remove the money and stamp your passport.Talk about money for old rope!! But it's a great idea.

MOTORING TAX

Foreign juggernauts don't pay tax to use and damage our roads.Road tax should be included in fuel tax.

Advantages:

1. No dodging of road tax Every road user pays,and it cuts down on Police time and Court costs etc..

2. Those who drive the most and use most fuel pay more in line. with usage.

3.Foreign drivers contribute which is fair as we have to do in France and probably many other countries.

4,Cuts out administration which is costly

Why is this idea important?

I know that the main purpose of this site is to suggest laws for removal,but i do want to suggest a brilliant little money -earner to contribute towards reducing the deficit.Having just returned from about my 6th visit to Turkey,i have now contributed £60 towards their exchequer.All aliens arriving in Turkey apart from Germans due to some separate arrangement,have to hand over a £10 note in return for a stamp in their passport.Ostensibly it is a 'visa' but it is just a stamp.(No change given,and must be cash.if you only have a £20 note that's tough!!) So why don't we do the same?All non-EU arrivals could pay say £20 as they enter.I have no idea how many people this would involve,but it would soon add up to a sizeable amount of cash,as thousands come in every day.No £20 no entry.No delays.you have to put the money in your passport in the photograph page,and they just remove the money and stamp your passport.Talk about money for old rope!! But it's a great idea.

MOTORING TAX

Foreign juggernauts don't pay tax to use and damage our roads.Road tax should be included in fuel tax.

Advantages:

1. No dodging of road tax Every road user pays,and it cuts down on Police time and Court costs etc..

2. Those who drive the most and use most fuel pay more in line. with usage.

3.Foreign drivers contribute which is fair as we have to do in France and probably many other countries.

4,Cuts out administration which is costly

All immigration controls

Repeal these laws:

 

 

# Borders, citizenship and immigration Act 2009

 

# Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

 

# UK Borders Act 2007

 

# Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006

 

# Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004

 

# Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

 

#British Overseas Territories Act 2002

 

#Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

 

# Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

 

# Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993

 

# Dublin Convention 1990

 

# Carriers' Liability Act 1987

 

# British Nationality Act 1981

 

# Immigration Act 1971 

Why is this idea important?

Repeal these laws:

 

 

# Borders, citizenship and immigration Act 2009

 

# Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

 

# UK Borders Act 2007

 

# Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006

 

# Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004

 

# Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

 

#British Overseas Territories Act 2002

 

#Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

 

# Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

 

# Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993

 

# Dublin Convention 1990

 

# Carriers' Liability Act 1987

 

# British Nationality Act 1981

 

# Immigration Act 1971 

Passport “Control”

I believe that, as in the rest of Europe, UK citizens should be able to cross EU borders without being stopped by Customs/Passport Control.

When I drive from one country to another, in mainland Europe, I am never stopped and so why, when I leave, or return via UK airports am I expected to go through this procedure.

Stansted airport cannot cope with the volume of people leaving/arriving and so hold ups of up to an hour are not unusual. (Despite this they request a second runway allowing even greater traffic)

Is this a united Europe, or not…and if so, why are UK citizens treated differently?

Why is this idea important?

I believe that, as in the rest of Europe, UK citizens should be able to cross EU borders without being stopped by Customs/Passport Control.

When I drive from one country to another, in mainland Europe, I am never stopped and so why, when I leave, or return via UK airports am I expected to go through this procedure.

Stansted airport cannot cope with the volume of people leaving/arriving and so hold ups of up to an hour are not unusual. (Despite this they request a second runway allowing even greater traffic)

Is this a united Europe, or not…and if so, why are UK citizens treated differently?