In a flexing of its federal muscle the European Union (EU) is reported as drawing up plans for its first direct tax with proposals expected to be announced next month that will provide the United States of Europe with its first funding derived from direct taxation.

Although many people are ignorant of the fact the EU has appointed a “commissioner for taxation” who is said to be planning a “minimum rate of tax on carbon” to be imposed across the federal union.

How will the citizens of the EU be taxed?

“We should have a mechanism which would serve to exploit the possibility, in a progressive way, to lead to direct funding of the EU”.

The proposed federal tax will lead directly to rises in petrol and energy bills and indirectly to price increases relating to the production and distribution of goods.

The think-tank Open Europe has calculated, on the basis of the shelved 2005 proposal, that based on a £9 levy on a tonne of CO2, that the cost of the new tax to British businesses and consumers would be at least £3 billion.

And what do the member nations of the EU think about this?  We don’t know about the rest, but France and Sweden are are enthusiastic supporters of an EU carbon tax “as a part of Europe’s fight against climate change.”

I have a feeling that European citizens are becoming less “progressive” than their governments, and are not ready to join the New Green Order.  How do you say Tea Party in Eurospeak?

Source:  The British National Party blog

UK Independence Party Members of the European Parliament see through the global warming hoax and warn others of the true agenda of Al Gore, the United Nations and the rest of the global governance crowd.

No one tells it like it is as well as the Brits.

We learn the details from WattsUpWithThat.com, where Lord Monckton (he’s kind of like Superman isn’t he? showing up whereever we need him) assisted them in deciphering the meaning of the ruling (English translation of press release here):

In France, if at least 60 Deputies of the House and 60 Senators appeal to the Constitutional Council, it has the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a proposed law – in the present case, the 2010 national budget of France, which contained enabling provisions (loi deferee) for a carbon levy. The Council found that these enabling provisions were unconstitutional on two grounds: that the exemptions contained within the provisions for a carbon levy vitiated the primary declared purpose of the levy, to combat carbon emissions and hence “global warming”; and that the exemptions would cause the levy to fall disproportionately on gasoline and heating oils and not on other carbon emissions, thereby breaching the principle that taxation should be evenly and fairly borne.

The New York Times now has a piece on the story. Here are some of the highlights:

The [French Constitutional] council ruled late Tuesday that the bill contained too many exemptions for polluters, broke with past practices and threatened to make tax collection unfair.

Members of opposition Socialist party, many of whom said the tax would damage citizens’ purchasing power, said the defeat was personal one for Mr. Sarkozy because he had cultivated an image of aggressively on fighting emissions on the international stage but was unable to put in place workable policies at home.

Members of the French Green party said the defeat would force the government to come forward with a bill that would be more effective in helping to curb France’s contribution to global warming.

A number of Scandinavian countries already have similar taxes, which raise the cost of fuel for motorists and for household heating.

But in its ruling, the French council said the tax was flawed because it would have primarily raised the cost of fuel for vehicles and heating even though there are many other sources of emissions.

Sometimes the French know what they are doing. Hell, they have the highest percentage of energy derived by nuclear power of any country in the world.