IWA Campaign Against Threat To Red Diesel

Higgs · November 5, 2012

The EU is a group of countries with unequal abilities. The number of MEP's according to the population of each country. The EU is not a round table. Each country should have an equal number of MEP's for each department - I think.

Germany is top dog. Germany and France used to function as a duet. New members are looking for grants and access to markets and development.

For any country to be seeking the best for its own only is not really associating within the idea of some collective good. May as well stay out and do it. There is a logic in having the Euro. The UK is fond of its pound.

The money that is coming out of Germany I think requires, in part, that the borrowers buy German goods.

At best the EU is a group of countries that can throw its weight around the world markets. As a federal body, I think it's a non starter.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Higgs

Magic Potion · November 6, 2012

Dear Ross,

The latest situation is that the parliament's rapporteur, Malcolm

Harbour MEP, is leading a small delegation from our standing committee

on the Internal Market in negotiations with the other EU legislative

chamber, the Council of Ministers (in which the 27 national governments

are represented). When, and if, their joint negotiations reach a text

for the legislation which is acceptable to both chambers, and there is

no knowing when that will be, the agreed text will then be put to each

chamber separately. If both chambers vote to accept the joint text, then

it becomes law.

Toine Manders is an elected Dutch MEP and was entirely within his rights

to table amendments. But the UK's attempts to defeat it - apart from

your email and about half a dozen others - seem to be rather low key.

All good wishes

Bill

Magic Potion · November 8, 2012

Dear Ross,

Thank you for your correspondence, outlining your concerns with the

Dutch MEP Toine Manders proposed amendment (58) to the updated Directive

on Recreational Craft and Personal Watercraft, which went through the

IMCO committee according to the work plan, in June 2012, under the

rapporteurship of West Midlands MEP, Malcolm Harbour (Conservative).

Please find links below which may be of use in your personal interest in

tracking the progress of this Directive and the contentious amendment 58

(control-click to use the hyperlink):

"Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on recreational craft and personal watercraft"

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commissio

n_europeenne/com/2011/0456/COM_COM(2011)0456_EN.pdf

European Parliament Legislative Observatory Procedure File

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oei/popups/printficheglobal.pdf?id=593155&

l=en

Amendments document detailing the disputed item by Toine Manders, MEP

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/imco/am/898/8

98084/898084en.pdf

The background to this issue is that an old watercraft Directive is

being updated, and the disputed new amendment is a typical piece of

legislative inflation, otherwise known as 'gold plating', to which the

committees of the European 'Parliament' are prone. As you may know, only

the Commission can draft new legislation, the parliamentary committees

are largely talking shops which merely amend and vote on the reports,

including their lower-level votes on report sections and sub-sections.

Reports are only sent to the parliament once an off-the-record agreement

has been reached for safe steerage through to successful vote in plenary

sessions in Strasbourg or Brussels. It is not common for an amendment to

be inserted which calls for a whole new Directive from within an

updating Directive. Fortunately, this in itself makes it less likely

that this proposal will succeed through all the various legislative

stages through which it must go, and ensures that whatever degree of

success it has, this will be a lengthy procedure with many opportunities

to fight the case.

We do indeed agree with you that this proposed new legislation is

onerous and unnecessary, and that professional and amateur watercraft

owners are generally very responsible and not deserving of extra

regulation, checking, or bureaucracy, which always unfairly impacts

small and medium size businesses. The issue of red/agricultural diesel

is also unreasonably intrusive, onerous, and probably unworkable in real

life.

UKIP MEPs will oppose this amendment on the grounds already given, and

also on the grounds that the EU is not a legitimately constituted body

fit to govern a sovereign nation such as the UK. Furthermore, as the

amendment is an addition to the final report which will be voted on once

the documents have come back from scrutiny by the Council and

Commission, such an inflationary amendment, increasing the scope and

power of an unelected EU bureaucracy, would automatically be opposed by

anyone preparing a voting list for UKIP MEPs in committee or plenary.

It is therefore certain on a number of grounds that UKIP MEPs will all

oppose this amendment in plenary, whenever this date is set, which now

will not be before December this year, and will probably be next year.

Furthermore, we can request an RCV on this vote, to ensure that

individual members votes in the whole plenary proceedings can be

recorded on this item, which should enable highly accurate and informed

lobbying in the future against those who are trying to ram this through.

Best regards.

The Office of Roger Helmer, UKIP

www.rogerhelmer.com

ditchcrawler · November 8, 2012

I have had replies from 2 MEPs

Dear Mr Holt

Thank you for your email concerning the proposal for a Directive on recreational craft and personal watercraft.

The amendment which calls for EU watercraft licences, regular technical checks and discouraging the use of agricultural diesel, was made by a well known Dutch MEP who wanted to draw attention to these issues, and we are well aware of the problems this might cause, even if the proposed wording would have no legal force.

The Conservative position is that the Directive should not include any such recommendations, because addressing these issues does not fall within the EU's responsibilities.

We will be working with the UK Government to ensure that this text is removed from the recreational crafts Directive during final negotiations.

Kind regards,

Vicky Ford MEP

Dear Mr Holt

Thank you for your recent email.

I can confirm that I will be voting against both the proposed directive and

the amendment you quote.

As a UKIP MEP elected on a platform of withdrawal from the EU, I have no

mandate for either promoting or supporting new EU legislation. Indeed, I am

very strongly opposed to the EU taking over control of the issuing of

watercraft licenses.

The unelected European Commission has taken more than enough powers away

from our democratically elected Government at Westminster and from British

institutions.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Agnew MEP

Rick Spleen · November 8, 2012

I too have written to my MEP's (six of them) and I have had replies from two which appear encouraging. I'm not bettting my pension on a good outcome though. To me, the unintended consequences of being forced to use white diesel are too catastrophic to contemplate. In any event, how long will it take to get all traces of red diesel out of our boat tanks and the all the marinas' storage tanks? How would we get round the unfairness of having to use white diesel for central heating. Home dwellers don't have to so why should we? No doubt all these points have been made before during this long lasting thread, but I needed to have my rant.

November 8, 2012

A further response,

Dear Mr. Gxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email concerning the proposal for a Directive on

recreational craft and personal watercraft.

The amendment which calls for EU watercraft licences and regular

technical checks and which discourages the use of agricultural diesel,

was made by a well known Dutch MEP who wanted to draw attention to these

issues, and we are well aware of the problems this might cause, even if

the proposed wording would have no legal force.

The Conservative position is that the Directive should not include any

such recommendations, because addressing these issues does not fall

within the EU's responsibilities.

We will be working with the UK Government to ensure that this text is

removed from the recreational crafts Directive during final

negotiations.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Callanan MEP

Leader, European Conservatives and Reformists Group

davidc · November 8, 2012

A further response,

Dear Mr. Gxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email concerning the proposal for a Directive on

recreational craft and personal watercraft.

The amendment which calls for EU watercraft licences and regular

technical checks and which discourages the use of agricultural diesel,

was made by a well known Dutch MEP who wanted to draw attention to these

issues, and we are well aware of the problems this might cause, even if

the proposed wording would have no legal force.

The Conservative position is that the Directive should not include any

such recommendations, because addressing these issues does not fall

within the EU's responsibilities.

We will be working with the UK Government to ensure that this text is

removed from the recreational crafts Directive during final

negotiations.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Callanan MEP

Leader, European Conservatives and Reformists Group

snap

recived the same email today 1 down 2 MEP to go

by'eck · November 8, 2012

I have now had five replies from the seven MEP's in my area I wrote to.

They appear unanimous in objecting to the draught amendment made by a well known Dutch MEP, a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. They also agree that even if the amendment were adopted, it would carry no legal bearing since it falls outside EU responsibilities.

Nevertheless to protect the future they intend having the UK government lobby their European counterparts to have it removed.

Gratifying to note that more than one mentions keeping red tape to a minimum on EU legislation.

Giggetty · November 12, 2012

I have now had five replies from the seven MEP's in my area I wrote to.

They appear unanimous in objecting to the draught amendment made by a well known Dutch MEP, a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. They also agree that even if the amendment were adopted, it would carry no legal bearing since it falls outside EU responsibilities.

Nevertheless to protect the future they intend having the UK government lobby their European counterparts to have it removed.

Gratifying to note that more than one mentions keeping red tape to a minimum on EU legislation.

Have had response from Michael Cashman MEP (Labour, W Midlands-always very helpful) who has had 'hundreds of letters' which he is now passing on to Cahterine Stilher MEP. She is a member of the Internal Markets and Consumer Protection Committee in the European Parliament. She will look into this.

churchward · November 12, 2012

Although still puzzled by the fact when I searched for my local MEP from the usual website I managed to come up with 5 names! It's a gravey train alright.

However, it is at least pleasing to report that all 5 have responded and are oppossed to the proposed amendments. The UKIP representative as one might guess was particularly full an frank.

..................

Thank you for your correspondence on this important issue. The amendment

in question concerns the Dutch MEP Toine Manders, who is proposing an

amendment (58) to the updated Directive on Recreational Craft and

Personal Watercraft- which went through the IMCO committee according, in

June 2012, under the rapporteurship of West Midlands MEP, Malcolm

Harbour (Conservative).

Please find links below, which may be of use in your personal interest

in tracking the progress of this Directive and the contentious amendment

58 (control-click to use the hyperlink):