www.ditl.org

Petrol prices in the UK are set to soar to a new record high thanks to the French blockade that has increased wholesale prices across the continent.

The RAC warned consumers yesterday that soaring oil prices, allied with a 1p increase in fuel duty, could see the cost of fuel breach the 121.61p record set in May this year.

The French have been forced to import fuel after a month-long blockade at the docks in Marseilles by disgruntled workers. The rise in demand has helped the price of oil climb by $10 a barrel.

According to the RAC, British motorists could be about to see the cost of unleaded hit 124p - a staggering increase considering the recent low of 85.98p was only recorded in January of last year.

With no end in sight for the blockade, a rise in prices on the forecourt seems inevitable. Even if the cost of a litre of fuel doesn't break the record before Christmas, the forthcoming VAT hike will almost certainly guarantee it does in the New Year.

Mikey wrote:Is this going to affect the continent as well? From what I was led to believe, most of Europe (Germany and east, anyway) gets its oil overland from Russia.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:Is this going to affect the continent as well? From what I was led to believe, most of Europe (Germany and east, anyway) gets its oil overland from Russia.

Maybe the British's definition of the continent is "what we see from over the Channel"?

IanKennedy wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:Is this going to affect the continent as well? From what I was led to believe, most of Europe (Germany and east, anyway) gets its oil overland from Russia.

Maybe the British's definition of the continent is "what we see from over the Channel"?

Seriously, you are correct. The continent is the rest of Europe, not the UK. At least that's the common British usage..

Mikey wrote:Don't be silly. The British refer to the part of France that can be seen over the Channel as "used to be ours."

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:Don't be silly. The British refer to the part of France that can be seen over the Channel as "used to be ours."

that's the thing. Since it was the only part of the Continent they ever really owned, they flatter themselves by restricting the definition of "the Continent" to it.

you know, it's easy to say "I conquered the Relevant World!" when I define the Relevant World to be Deep's backyard.

IanKennedy wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:Don't be silly. The British refer to the part of France that can be seen over the Channel as "used to be ours."

that's the thing. Since it was the only part of the Continent they ever really owned, they flatter themselves by restricting the definition of "the Continent" to it.

you know, it's easy to say "I conquered the Relevant World!" when I define the Relevant World to be Deep's backyard.

King of England = King of France

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Indeed. But I think you misrepresent something important. France wasn't England's vassal. France (or parts of it, anyway) was simply one additional land under the rule of the King of England, meaning it was an equal to England under the King's rule. Proof is the change of these king's coat of arms that included France Fleur-de-Lys.

Hell, you could even claim that, at some point, France was more important than England to many of these "King of England and France", as some of those didn't even bothered to speak English and spent most of their ruling time in France. But the ruling dynasties of the time were so intertwined, I am sure you can find "claims" of many nobles on almost any land. Ye know, like Spain is supposed to be French King's Kingdom.

IanKennedy wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Indeed. But I think you misrepresent something important. France wasn't England's vassal. France (or parts of it, anyway) was simply one additional land under the rule of the King of England, meaning it was an equal to England under the King's rule. Proof is the change of these king's coat of arms that included France Fleur-de-Lys.

Hell, you could even claim that, at some point, France was more important than England to many of these "King of England and France", as some of those didn't even bothered to speak English and spent most of their ruling time in France. But the ruling dynasties of the time were so intertwined, I am sure you can find "claims" of many nobles on almost any land. Ye know, like Spain is supposed to be French King's Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Thus is how a claim is enforced. You can read at the beginning of the article that this battle led to the marriage of the daughter of the Kind of France to England's Prince, allowing the two Kingdoms to be united under a single ruler, but Two crowns.

You are right, the union had been effectively forced by the English kind of the time, using English armies. But France hadn't been annexed to become English territory. And as far as I know, the King of England's property isn't by definition exactly England's property. France was the King's of England and France's property, not England's.

IanKennedy wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Thus is how a claim is enforced. You can read at the beginning of the article that this battle led to the marriage of the daughter of the Kind of France to England's Prince, allowing the two Kingdoms to be united under a single ruler, but Two crowns.

You are right, the union had been effectively forced by the English kind of the time, using English armies. But France hadn't been annexed to become English territory. And as far as I know, the King of England's property isn't by definition exactly England's property. France was the King's of England and France's property, not England's.

I never claimed it was, I simply pointed out that France was ruled by the King of England, who was English and from England. What he puts on his head isn't that important.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:you know, it's easy to say "I conquered the Relevant World!" when I define the Relevant World to be Deep's backyard.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Thus is how a claim is enforced. You can read at the beginning of the article that this battle led to the marriage of the daughter of the Kind of France to England's Prince, allowing the two Kingdoms to be united under a single ruler, but Two crowns.

You are right, the union had been effectively forced by the English kind of the time, using English armies. But France hadn't been annexed to become English territory. And as far as I know, the King of England's property isn't by definition exactly England's property. France was the King's of England and France's property, not England's.

I never claimed it was, I simply pointed out that France was ruled by the King of England, who was English and from England. What he puts on his head isn't that important.

Point enough

But what if the successors were of France, born there, raised there, and immersed in French culture/court. Can you still claim that it was an English King ruling over France, or was it a French King ruling over England?