Revealing game scenes: Believes Siv blurs aircraft seat fee – Dagbladet.no

(Dagbladet): – I have a high threshold to refer from what is happening around the negotiating table, but when representatives from FRP, both past and present leaders, paints a picture that is at best oversimplified, I have a need to correct. Progress Party must like Left and the other cooperating parties take responsibility for the tax, says Liberal finance spokesperson Terje Breivik, told Dagbladet.

Siv Jensen has previously said Dagbladet that FRP has “accepted” the fee as part of the budget compromise, and that it was not part of the government’s budget proposal.

But Breivik points out that it is wrong that the tax was put in place in 12 hours under budget negotiations, and refutes that it was the Liberals’ primary suggestions.

– the truth is that the model came from the government because FRP did not want higher taxes on fossil fuels. Then we must also expect that the model of government is thoughtful and quality assured. We even an environmental tax on flights in our alternative federal budget, but the government presented another option. Our model would neither have been potentially distortive or EEA unconstitutional and it would undoubtedly have been an environmental tax, says Breivik.

Ryanair cancels

Before Christmas the Government announced that they will introduce a flyeseteavgift on 80 million.

There is a special tax on flights that are passed by Parliament and planned introduced from 1 April 2016. the fee is levied on all departures from Norwegian airports.

Ryanair have since announced that they denounce the agreement with the airport at Rygge in Østfold, arguing that the reason is the controversial tax. Now the airport is in danger of being closed down.

Competition Authority wrote in a response to the consultation earlier this week that fee can provide unequal conditions of competition and therefore have to be postponed to be examined more closely.

Wanted Others option

Now wants Left to fight back against what they describe as “myths” about the fee. In an article in Dagbladet today writes Breivik including the following:

“The reason why there was a tax on flights and not on other significant sources of pollution such as emissions from oil and gas production or from vehicular traffic, is the Progress resistance against fee add these sectors. “

– But you have a responsibility for the tax that was adopted?

– Definitely. It came early in the negotiations, and we have gone several rounds on the model. Ideally, we would have started with other emissions, but it was not possible to achieve. The urgency of using the tax system to reduce emissions, and this charge has definitely an impact, answer Breivik.

– Could there be changes in light of the Competition Authority’s response?

-Hvorvidt government wants to make changes within the framework in the light of the consultation response, the government must respond to.

– We take responsibility

Dagbladet asked about comments from Jensen and got responses from state secretary Jørgen Næsje:

– the Government takes responsibility to implement air passenger tax Parliament has adopted, but Parliament must take responsibility for their decisions. I assume that Parliament ensures having adequate decisions. The government proposed no airline passenger fee when it presented its budget proposals in the fall, writes Næsje in an email, adding:

– Left had an air passenger tax with a different device in its alternative budget, but it would have to notified to the ESA, and one could not budget for it from 2016. Parliament therefore chose a simpler model . Once the consultation process is completed, the Ministry of Finance to go through the answers as usual.

Hans Andreas Limi, financial Polti athletic spokesperson for FRP, set in budget negotiations and confirms that the model that was adopted came as a proposal from the government parties.

– FRP take responsibility for the budget compromise. We would rather have seen a deal without an air passenger tax, but we stand behind the totality of the budget. Left would have a number of tax increases, but we landed on this model because it was workable in 2016.