This is true. The only competition is in the market for accidents that weren't your fault.
I think this might be a watershed for ECHR idiocy: start off with a predetermined notion of fairness, ignore all the empirical evidence to the contrary, and manipulate the law to try to realise the desired outcome. The entire concept of positive discrimination appals me-all discrimination is positive, depending on which side of it you happen to be on.
It's the ECJ rather than the ECHR. The case that resulted in the removal of the exemption was brought by "Test Achats' - the Belgian equivalent of Which? (who are doubtless moaning like hell about the decision right now).
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has some good information on ts website for thise who want the background rather than the knee-jerk rhetoric in the papers.
Yes, it's a silly idea and yes, it's cost tens of millions of pounds to comply, but it's a clasic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences running amock rather than some great EU conspiracy.
Incidentally, there is a second that affects some types of insurance much more than this one. This kicks in on January 1st and is as a result in a change of tax treatment but the papers can't blame the EU for that so you'll have read next to nothing about it.
|
