Stop EU banning red diesel use for Narrowboats. sign UGov petition here

[BargeeSpud]

Lol,

 

I wasn't sure how you would take that!

 

No problem, I can recognise a p*** take when I see one. Gawd knows I've been subjected to bucketloads in the past. HM Forces are rife with it, even in my day!

Edited July 18, 2013 by Spuds

[john6767]

 

Actually, there are three avenues to explore;

 

1) Convince the EU that it is talking crap

2) Convince HMG that it should stand up to the EU on this issue

3) Convince HMG that if we have to use white, they should introduce a self-declaration Fuel Duty Rebate scheme for boaters.

 

Not sure 3) could work, as it does not identify the diesel that has had the rebate, and therefore open to easy abuse with low chance of detection for road use, exactly why red diesel exists. Surely the UK government could fool the EU but introducing say "blue" diesel for leisure boat use then they can tax it how the feel fit .

 

Actually 2) is really what they should do, or even better of course is to pull out of the EU (but that's a personal thing, I never wanted to join in the first place).

[BargeeSpud]

 

Not sure 3) could work, as it does not identify the diesel that has had the rebate, and therefore open to easy abuse with low chance of detection for road use, exactly why red diesel exists. Surely the UK government could fool the EU but introducing say "blue" diesel for leisure boat use then they can tax it how the feel fit .

 

Actually 2) is really what they should do, or even better of course is to pull out of the EU (but that's a personal thing, I never wanted to join in the first place).

 

I don't see how option 3 is easily open to abuse. The fuel, is white diesel or DERV, so how would it be different? I would expect the duty is going to be the same at the point of sale, no matter who buys it & it would be the boater who has to obtain the rebate from HMRC.

 

Agree 100% with your thoughts on option 2, it's what any sensible government should do. The French have a long history of always ignoring what they don't like if it interferes with their way of life. Love or hate 'em, you have to admire that trait, just wish our governments had done the same over the years.

[mayalld]

 

Not sure 3) could work, as it does not identify the diesel that has had the rebate, and therefore open to easy abuse with low chance of detection for road use, exactly why red diesel exists. Surely the UK government could fool the EU but introducing say "blue" diesel for leisure boat use then they can tax it how the feel fit .

 

Option 3 (Fuel Duty Rebate) would involve the boater providing evidence that;

 

1) A particular amount of diesel had been supplied into the tanks of a boat (as I said, possibly they could allow up to 10% over and above that in fuel in jerrycans)

2) quantities of that fuel had been used for domestic purposes.

 

Yes, there is a risk that the boater could invent some domestic use, and actually remove the fuel from the boat tank into a diesel car.

 

However, the big advantage is that (unlike the current system, where the paperwork relating to sales to a particular boat is all over the place, and where ultimately the boater who has been under declaring propulsion can say "well, I also put some white in, so that was 100 litres at 100% propulsion"), HMRC will have a single claim for rebate that they can look at to see if it is reasonable.

 

Participation in the scheme could be made conditional upon giving CRT permission to share sighting data of your boat.

[Hawkmoth]

 

Actually, there are three avenues to explore;

 

1) Convince the EU that it is talking crap

2) Convince HMG that it should stand up to the EU on this issue

3) Convince HMG that if we have to use white, they should introduce a self-declaration Fuel Duty Rebate scheme for boaters.

Point 1: Can anyone actually see those self serving, over paid, bureaucrats admitting they're talking crap?

2: A great idea, we'd (most of us) love to see that happen.

3: Far too difficult to police. Getting a rebate could become a nightmare.

Bob

[john6767]

 

Option 3 (Fuel Duty Rebate) would involve the boater providing evidence that;

 

1) A particular amount of diesel had been supplied into the tanks of a boat (as I said, possibly they could allow up to 10% over and above that in fuel in jerrycans)

2) quantities of that fuel had been used for domestic purposes.

 

Yes, there is a risk that the boater could invent some domestic use, and actually remove the fuel from the boat tank into a diesel car.

 

However, the big advantage is that (unlike the current system, where the paperwork relating to sales to a particular boat is all over the place, and where ultimately the boater who has been under declaring propulsion can say "well, I also put some white in, so that was 100 litres at 100% propulsion"), HMRC will have a single claim for rebate that they can look at to see if it is reasonable.

 

Participation in the scheme could be made conditional upon giving CRT permission to share sighting data of your boat.

That is the point that I think makes that option a non starter, as that is not traceable as it is with red, and seems a backward step.

[Henhouse]

Whilst on an individual basis the savings on having a rebated fuel for domestic use may seem significant, in government terms the total tax revenue from all inland waterways craft fuel sales are probably negligible.

 

 

To create a system which would involve people claiming a rebate would involve another layer of bureaucracy. The admin costs would probably exceed the monies paid out.

 

We would all end up paying for more civil servants, and their costly pensions. Just about the worst possible outcome !

 

Best we tell the EU to stick it and leave things as they are.

[mayalld]

That is the point that I think makes that option a non starter, as that is not traceable as it is with red, and seems a backward step.

 

The point is that removing it to a car doesn't help very much, because when you claim you still have to justify what domestic use you have made of the fuel.

 

If it was unworkable, then how do bus companies manage?

[matty40s]

Put the bus ticket prices up again...

[alan_fincher]

[:tongue_in_cheek:]

 

Perhaps the EU have got wind of the degree to which many boaters have decided to stick two fingers up at self declaration.

 

Having added my entry to many a "self declaration" book where I can see the previous entries, you would need to believe that many boats never go anywhere, (and that in some cases are poled to the fuel retailer, to avoid any use of "propulsion" diesel).

 

Mind you I have several times last year had my own declaration amended by the supplier. "I assume you didn't mean 60% "propulsion", 40% "other", sir - I have reversed those numbers for you, but that is still far more than most other people are declaring!....."

 

[:end_of_tongue_in_cheek:]

[Doorman]

 

Best we tell the EU to stick it and leave things as they are.

Please, please sir, can I be the one to tell them?

[BargeeSpud]

Please, please sir, can I be the one to tell them?

 

I bet you're one of these oldies that barge their way to the front of the queue. Well you're going to have a tough time if you want to beat me on this one!

[Steilsteven]

Whilst on an individual basis the savings on having a rebated fuel for domestic use may seem significant, in government terms the total tax revenue from all inland waterways craft fuel sales are probably negligible.

 

 

To create a system which would involve people claiming a rebate would involve another layer of bureaucracy. The admin costs would probably exceed the monies paid out.

 

We would all end up paying for more civil servants, and their costly pensions. Just about the worst possible outcome !

 

Best we tell the EU to stick it and leave things as they are.

I think it best that we all stop squirming and accept the fact that the use of red diesel for propulsion is coming to an end.

All that can be done is to find ways to soften the blow by either adapting/changing your boats equipment or changing your cruising habits, so that it isn't necessary to sit tied up with the engine running for hours on end to provide hot water and/or electricity.

 

I'm afraid that those whose idea of a boating holiday is to travel very little and spend the majority of it stood still, will need to get used to spending a lot more on fuel if their boat isn't

suitably equipped.

 

And let's be honest now, leisure boating is something we do for fun and not because we have to and the cost of fuel ( for narrow boats ) is pretty minimal when set against all the other costs of boat ownership.

 

Keith

[Doorman]

I bet you're one of these oldies that barge their way to the front of the queue. Well you're going to have a tough time if you want to beat me on this one!

Not me sir, but Mrs Doorman will beat anyone in a sack race to the front of any queue!

Edited July 19, 2013 by Doorman

[BargeeSpud]

Not me sir, but Mrs Doorman will beat anyone in a sack race to the front of any queue!

 

Watch out for my elbows then, they're vicous!

 

Right, I'm done now, back Monday. Have a good weekend everyone.

 

[Dominic M]

I would like to see a measure of historical accuracy injected into this debate. It was not some bunch of foreign Eurocrats who foist this red diesel issue upon the UK, unless John Major's government was made up of such people. Taxation cannot be imposed on an EU member state without unanimous agreement, obviously including that member state. The specific issue of reduced duty and tax rated fuel for private pleasure craft was raised at an EU Commission meeting in 1994, and the UK civil servants representing us agreed to its abolition, subject to the derogation which expired in 2006. So the UK created this problem, when it could have said, "No." Not the EU.

 

I know the desire to dump the EU is popular with a good number of UK citizens, and I agree the EU needs reform. But whilst I understand the sentiment I fear it is seriously misguided and that to leave will be a mistake we may live to regret, should it happen. I certainly will not be voting for potentially large job losses, potential economic decline, loss of political influence within the world's most important economic zone should it come to a referendum.

 

Still, we're hammering the Ozzie's in the cricket and we have summer for the first time in a good number of years, and the countryside is beautiful. Have a great weekend one and all.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Dominic M

[Chris Pink]

 

And let's be honest now, leisure boating is something we do for fun and not because we have to and the cost of fuel ( for narrow boats ) is pretty minimal when set against all the other costs of boat ownership.

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

And there is no valid argument why boats should not pay the full duty on fuel other than 'they never have'.

 

I always laugh at these threads.

 

They provoke a great deal of agreement that tax evasion is a good thing from, usually, the same people who are ready to jump down other's throats for perceived "getting something for nothing" or "getting away" with something.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Last time I filled up my camper I pointed out that I was using 10% for the fridge, 5% for the lights, 10% for the stereo and computer so I shouldn't pay all the tax.

 

The nice man in the petrol station completely agreed with me and rebated the cost of my tankful.

[Higgs]

And let's be honest now, leisure boating is something we do for fun and not because we have to and the cost of fuel ( for narrow boats ) is pretty minimal when set against all the other costs of boat ownership.

 

Keith

 

WeYou.

 

 

The (my) engine is not a piece of leisure equipment, and neither is the (my) boat.

[Doorman]

I would like to see a measure of historical accuracy injected into this debate. It was not some bunch of foreign Eurocrats who foist this red diesel issue upon the UK, unless John Major's government was made up of such people. Taxation cannot be imposed on an EU member state without unanimous agreement, obviously including that member state. The specific issue of reduced duty and tax rated fuel for private pleasure craft was raised at an EU Commission meeting in 1994, and the UK civil servants representing us agreed to its abolition, subject to the derogation which expired in 2006. So the UK created this problem, when it could have said, "No." Not the EU.

I know the desire to dump the EU is popular with a good number of UK citizens, and I agree the EU needs reform.

 

Another well informed reply from Mr M.

 

Let's hope that it takes another nine years before they implement this ruling, especially as it has been suggested that the bureaucracy costs would outweigh the revenue gained, therefore making it a pretty useless derogation in the first place. I agree with your concerns regarding opting out of the EU but sympathise with the Eurosceptics given all of the adverse publicity surrounding many of the rulings.

 

Perhaps in this age of freedom of information, there should be a list of pros and cons based upon past performance of the Brussels dictatorship and from those results, the British people would then be able to make an educated decision should a long awaited referendum ever materialise.

 

Bring on the football, a new era of fair play should now follow since the retirement of Sir Bloody Angry!

Edited July 19, 2013 by Doorman

[Steilsteven]

 

WeYou.

 

 

The (my) engine is not a piece of leisure equipment, and neither is the (my) boat.

Then you never go leisure boating, every trip you make must have a purpose other than leisure.

 

I guess you're saying that you live on your boat, well guess what, so do I but I went to the trouble, about seven years ago, to properly equip my boat for that purpose.

From time to time, we go cruising with our boat OK?

 

Your engine and boat may not be pieces of leisure equipment but then, neither is a car or it's engine but people have been known to have holidays using them.

 

Keith

[Higgs]

Then you never go leisure boating, every trip you make must have a purpose other than leisure.

 

 

 

Your engine and boat may not be pieces of leisure equipment but then, neither is a car or it's engine but people have been known to have holidays using them.

 

Keith

 

I do go leisure cruising. Had a week, last year.

 

Point two: You don't live in a car. Cars go from A to B and then left empty until trip C to D to E..........

 

To be frank, I don't really fancy living in the car. Can't see how the boat and the car can be compared. If the boat was used only for transport, I could agree, but the boat is home and the car is transport..

[Paul C]

Then you never go leisure boating, every trip use of the boat you make must have a purpose other than leisure.

 

I guess you're saying that you live on your boat, well guess what, so do I but I went to the trouble, about seven years ago, to properly equip my boat for that purpose.

From time to time, we go cruising with our boat OK?

 

Your engine and boat may not be pieces of leisure equipment but then, neither is a car or it's engine but people have been known to have holidays using them.

 

Keith

 

People use boats in different ways than you imagine. Anyway, cross-posted as above.

[carlt]

 

 

To be frank, I don't really fancy living in the car. Can't see how the boat and the car can be compared. If the boat was used only for transport, I could agree, but the boat is home and the car is transport..

The vast majority of boat owners don't fancy living on their boats either.

 

Those few that do can be compared to the small minority of motorhome owners who choose to live in their vehicles, just like you, with the exception that they are obliged to pay the full rate for fuel, if they want to use their propulsion engine for domestic services.

 

They, like you, are also free to install alternative forms of generating heat and electricity, if they don't wish to take advantage of the byproducts of their propulsion engine.

[Paul C]

The vast majority of boat owners don't fancy living on their boats either.

 

Those few that do can be compared to the small minority of motorhome owners who choose to live in their vehicles, just like you, with the exception that they are obliged to pay the full rate for fuel, if they want to use their propulsion engine for domestic services.

 

They, like you, are also free to install alternative forms of generating heat and electricity, if they don't wish to take advantage of the byproducts of their propulsion engine.

 

Are you saying that people who live aboard narrowboats are a sufficiently small minority that don't need to be considered?

[carlt]

 

Are you saying that people who live aboard narrowboats are a sufficiently small minority that don't need to be considered?

No I'm not.

 

Putting words in my mouth doesn't lessen my case.

 

They should be considered just as much as others who choose to use the byproducts of their propulsion engine rather than seek alternatives.

 

Motorhome "liveaboards" and people who live on petrol engined vessels for example.