Freedom!

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A remainer speaks.

 

I dont recall it ever being claimed that if we left then all regulation and rules would go out of the window. In fact ISTR quite the opposite and where possible and required eg export ours would mirror EU ones. Not only is this sensible from a bureaucratic perspective it is also from a marketing perspective.

 

The suggestion that this was not the case shows not everybody was paying attention.

What was the implication of the "Bonfire of EU red tape" then?

[Alan de Enfield]

47 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Narrowboats are built on a production line!!!!!    WOW

All the above might be true if we weren't on an canal forum.    Which canal boat producers run a production line in the sense of it being difficult to change individual boats etc?

 

You seem to be struggling.

 

You are suggesting that NB's become exempt from the RCR, but GRP cruisers that use the canals are not ?

 

Are there not instances of UK built canal boats being used in the EU (Belgium, France, Eire etc)

How many occasions do we have questions about taking using a UK boat in the European canals ?

What happens when they buy one then suddenly find that they have to not only pay VAT on the importation, but £5000 on having a PCA and all the necessary additional work that the non RCD builders have skimped on.

 

UK builders have been building to the RCD requirements since 1998, there are probably very few actual employees left who have built under non-RCD rules.

The RCD is the Norm, why change it.

 

What is your reasoning ? Do you think it'll reduce the price ?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

What was the implication of the "Bonfire of EU red tape" then?

 

In the process of being converted and adapted, some adopted, some discarded. 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Higgs

[Jerra]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You seem to be struggling.

 

You are suggesting that NB's become exempt from the RCR, but GRP cruisers that use the canals are not ?

Why should that not be the case?   I doubt many (any?) narrowboats are sold abroad and if it were to be going abroad boats built like narrowboats are could be specified to fit the required regulations.

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are there not instances of UK built canal boats being used in the EU (Belgium, France, Eire etc)

So they would be built to whatever our requirements or more likely the requirements of the purchaser were.   Alternatively they would be built to the local specifications but would be acceptable in the UK.

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

How many occasions do we have quaestions about taking using a UK boat in the European canals ?

So people who want to do that specify when the boat is built or buy from those you mention above.  

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

What happens when they buy one then suddenly find that they have to not only pay VAT on the importation, but £5000 on havind a PCA and all the necessary additioanl work that the non RCD builders have skimped on.

They buy the boat that fits their needs as I suggest above.  It really isn't rocket science.  It wouldn't be coming as a sudden shock they would know the situation unlike it seems the situation over VAT currently.

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

UK builders have been building to the RCD requirements since 1998, there are probably very few actual employees left who have built under non-RCD rules.

The RCD is the Norm, why change it.

Why not?

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

What is your reasoning ? Do you think it'll reduce the price ?

My reasoning is to try to understand why we were promised "a bonfire of EU red tape" many Brexiteers supported Brexit because it would reduce red tape and suddenly they support maintaining lots of EU red tape virtually word for word.    That isn't logical.

[David Mack]

15 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I dont recall it ever being claimed that if we left then all regulation and rules would go out of the window. In fact ISTR quite the opposite and where possible and required eg export ours would mirror EU ones. Not only is this sensible from a bureaucratic perspective it is also from a marketing perspective.

 

Regardless of whether we like the EU rules and regulations or not, we simply do not have the resources to write new rules for the UK across all areas of business, industry and every other activity. So we had to transfer the EU rules into UK law en masse at the point of Brexit. Presumably we now have scope to tweak the rules to diverge from the EU equivalent, although as has been pointed out there are strong commercial reasons to continue to mirror EU practice in some areas. On the other hand the pressure to do a trade deal with the US is going to mean a watering down of standards in other areas.

 

I heard recently that McDonalds fries sold in UK and Europe have only 4 ingredients, whereas those sold in the US have 19, many of which are banned in Europe. Anyone for chlorinated chicken?

[Jerra]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

In the process of being converted and adapted, some adopted, some discarded. 

 

 

A bonfire suggests huge amounts being discarded can you quote any boating ones which have been discarded?

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

A bonfire suggests huge amounts being discarded can you quote any boating ones which have been discarded?

 

It's also a figure of speech. 

 

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

It's also a figure of speech. 

 

 

I have yet to find any regulation/specification which has been removed/reduced or even slightly changed, not so much a bonfire as (another figure of speech) a damp squib.

 

Incidentally its use as a figure of speech it still implies large amounts, you don't call a couple of burning sticks a bonfire.

[Higgs]

Just now, Jerra said:

I have yet to find any regulation/specification which has been removed/reduced or even slightly changed, not so much a bonfire as (another figure of speech) a damp squib.

 

Incidentally its use as a figure of speech it still implies large amounts, you don't call a couple of burning sticks a bonfire.

 

Would that be a garden-sized bonfire?

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I have yet to find any regulation/specification which has been removed/reduced or even slightly changed,

 

Red diesel for boats - I'd have thought would be high up the 'selfish list'.

[restlessnomad]

freedom as in free to choose and face the consequence... I am free to choose a higher tariff energy provider because I like them and am lazy... and nobody can force me not to.

 

we are free to follow the EU rules that makes sense or beneficial to us... for example I would hate if govt dilutes environment related EU laws or worker's right related.

just because we are out of EU does not mean we will throw them away, that will be madness.

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

The thrust was about the fact we are now free of EU "restrictions" but choose to continue to be restricted against what has been suggested would happen and against some people's expectations.

Alan, (de Enfield), seems to confirm that we are rule takers, rather than rule makers, but uses the fact to support the debacle that is Brexit.

 

Its a bit like his posting of the deceitful article in which a few piddling business deals with India were stated to be a 1) a trade deal, and 2), one which takes us close to replacing what has been lost by leaving the EU...

 

that is: bollox!!!  

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Jerra said:

What was the implication of the "Bonfire of EU red tape" then?

 

Quite simple really.

 

But not if you lack the intelligence to grasp the complexities and of course don't understand the over simplification of the language used by politicians.

 

I used my brain to look past the latter.

 

You appear to be making the mistake that everybody took everything they said at face value but didn't have the intelligence to see (on both sides) there was lot's of BS flying around.

28 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Regardless of whether we like the EU rules and regulations or not, we simply do not have the resources to write new rules for the UK across all areas of business, industry and every other activity. So we had to transfer the EU rules into UK law en masse at the point of Brexit. Presumably we now have scope to tweak the rules to diverge from the EU equivalent, although as has been pointed out there are strong commercial reasons to continue to mirror EU practice in some areas. On the other hand the pressure to do a trade deal with the US is going to mean a watering down of standards in other areas.

 

I heard recently that McDonalds fries sold in UK and Europe have only 4 ingredients, whereas those sold in the US have 19, many of which are banned in Europe. Anyone for chlorinated chicken?

 

That is exactly my understanding too.

[Richard10002]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

All of this is true, as I distinctly remember Remainers arguing when pointing out we'd end up following European regulations anyway, but would be sacrificing any influence in making them...

Yes.. but the Brexiteers lies conned enough of Phil’s numpties to get their Brexit done.

 

They have been unable to tell us why they wanted to leave the EU, and now they are using those remain arguments to support the consequences.

[Ex Brummie]

Change is going to be slow, acceptance of new rules will be optional. Perhaps one cataclysmic example of advantages of being ourselves is VACCINES.

[Jerra]

41 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Would that be a garden-sized bonfire?

 

 

tThat wouldn't even be a boy scout cooking fire.  (Cooking food not boy scouts)

[Jerra]

27 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

Quite simple really.

 

But not if you lack the intelligence to grasp the complexities and of course don't understand the over simplification of the language used by politicians.

 

I used my brain to look past the latter.

 

You appear to be making the mistake that everybody took everything they said at face value but didn't have the intelligence to see (on both sides) there was lot's of BS flying around.

 

 

A rather pathetic attempt to be politely insulting if I may say so.   Surely you can do better.    To revert to my past life 3/10 Must try harder.

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

tThat wouldn't even be a boy scout cooking fire.  (Cooking food not boy scouts)

 

A couple or three pallets should do it. 

 

 

[Bee]

How anybody can still think we have gained anything from the brexit fraud is a mystery.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A rather pathetic attempt to be politely insulting if I may say so.   Surely you can do better.    To revert to my past life 3/10 Must try harder.

 

It was a generalised comment aimed at people who couldn't grasp the point rather than specifically aimed at you, but if the cap fits feel free to wear it.

[MoominPapa]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

Moomin mentions that these regulations don't seem to have changed since the previous edition. But in recent months we have seen the government act in the interestsbof boaters by allowing the continued use of red diesel for boat propulsion, so it is not inconceivable that they will alter other regulations too.

If you recall, boaters used to be able to use red diesel for everything, the self-declaration, pay more for propulsion, less for heating, arrangement was brought in at the behest of the EU, or at least to attempt to conform with EU law. I was expecting our newly-freed government to take us back to the status-quo ante on this. Also to remove the prohibition on  vintage engines in new boats, and the general  one-size-fits all construction rules which don't sit well on English vernacular narrowboats. In fact I expected those changes to be just a small subset of all the "quick wins" we were  assured would happen once we were freed from evil Brussels rule.

 

I'm starting to worry that the government is not actually on our side with this. Maybe they've headed off EU tax avoidance rules, and got the ability to revoke EU employment rights, and used crude nationalism to destroy the Labour Party, and they're not so interested in helping us little people anymore? Maybe that Bullingdon club photo shows reality, and not students doing cosplay?

 

Ah well, at least they've stopped immigration. Well, apart from 3 million Hong-King Chinese, and however many visas for Indians they're exchanging for the new trade agreement to replace the EIU-India agreement.

 

MP.

 

MP.

[matty40s]

I just want Comastic back.

[MoominPapa]

10 minutes ago, matty40s said:

I just want Comastic back.

Another entry in the List of Disappointments.

 

MP.

[Athy]

59 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

If you recall, boaters used to be able to use red diesel for everything, the self-declaration, pay more for propulsion, less for heating, arrangement was brought in at the behest of the EU, or at least to attempt to conform with EU law. I was expecting our newly-freed government to take us back to the status-quo ante on this. Also to remove the prohibition on  vintage engines in new boats, and the general  one-size-fits all construction rules which don't sit well on English vernacular narrowboats. In fact I expected those changes to be just a small subset of all the "quick wins" we were  assured would happen once we were freed from evil Brussels rule.

 

I'm starting to worry that the government is not actually on our side with this. Maybe they've headed off EU tax avoidance rules, and got the ability to revoke EU employment rights, and used crude nationalism to destroy the Labour Party, and they're not so interested in helping us little people anymore? Maybe that Bullingdon club photo shows reality, and not students doing cosplay?

 

Ah well, at least they've stopped immigration. Well, apart from 3 million Hong-King Chinese, and however many visas for Indians they're exchanging for the new trade agreement to replace the EIU-India agreement.

 

MP.

 

MP.

As you say, there has been some progress. But, to be fair, the country has been preoccupied with conquering the corona virus over the last year or so, so other matters have assumed a lower priority - in which case, we should be grateful for the change in the red diesel regulations., or rather the rescinding of their impending change.

[MoominPapa]

14 minutes ago, Athy said:

As you say, there has been some progress. But, to be fair, the country has been preoccupied with conquering the corona virus over the last year or so, so other matters have assumed a lower priority - in which case, we should be grateful for the change in the red diesel regulations., or rather the rescinding of their impending change.

The chancellor found enough time and attention to attempt to push through a change in the opposite direction. I don't think he's on our side. Do you?

 

MP.