European Union Attacks Red Diesel For Boaters.

[woodjam]

jUST to clarify

1 I only posted the petition/

2 The posting has stimulated discusion and a good debate.Thank you.

3 Is this tax the thin end of the wedge.

 

If the pettition is so far off the mark and iliterate what is the point that we can unite behind to try and stop the increase in tax and enforcement.

[Doorman]

If the pettition is so far off the mark and iliterate what is the point that we can unite behind to try and stop the increase in tax and enforcement.

Invest in a fancy yacht then mingle with the elitist bollocky bill sailors on the South coast and lobby them for support. As Ships Cat explains, they have friends in high places and ultimately they will have more sway than a few thousand narrow boaters.

 

Money talks!

[Higgs]

jUST to clarify

1 I only posted the petition/

2 The posting has stimulated discusion and a good debate.Thank you.

3 Is this tax the thin end of the wedge.

 

If the pettition is so far off the mark and iliterate what is the point that we can unite behind to try and stop the increase in tax and enforcement.

 

I think there is a definite increasing use of the system for liveaboards, and propulsion use of the engine is not necessarilly a primary one. Not all users of the canal are of pensionable age, but there are many. The word liesure cannot be applied as a catch all use of boating. Liesure is loaded and inaccurate. . At a time when business needs assistance, and so does the canal, the meagre returns on a change to white fuel will cause issues and costs to a struggling environment.

 

No one is going to be fooled by a token resistance by the government to the EU....., before capitulation.

 

If the yachties are on side, ok.

[mayalld]

Sorry, struggling with formatting, but here goes...

 

"(...all the petition proves to them is how many of them aren't bothering to think about it. )"

 

Please explain how this could be the case? I get the impression you haven't signed it but I know you've thought about it...

 

"We should be giving HMG sound information as to why this change isn't a good idea for them"

 

Silly me, I thought HMG was there to serve us all. I'm sure writing a little letter to my MEP will have more effect then..."

 

I recon the main reasons why people don't sign it are :

 

1) Can't be arsed (then give convoluted reasons for not doing so)

 

2) Feel aggrieved someone else thought of it first (then give convoluted reasons for not doing so)

 

3) Don't mind diesel becoming more expensive because they don't use it or money in no issue.

 

Yes, I have thought about it, and I haven't signed it. It is my opinion that those who have signed have done so without properly considering what it says. As such the signature count is representative of the number of boaters who aren't actually bothering to consider the issue.

 

And yes, HMG is there to serve us. That isn't the same as always doing what we want.

[bassplayer]

 

Yes, I have thought about it, and I haven't signed it. It is my opinion that those who have signed have done so without properly considering what it says. As such the signature count is representative of the number of boaters who aren't actually bothering to consider the issue.

 

And yes, HMG is there to serve us. That isn't the same as always doing what we want.

The issue is very simple, do we want to pay more tax on diesel? It's just that some people would rather whinge about the wording than do something constructive. You don't want to sign it...fine...but don't try to make out that all the people who did sign it are stupid. Maybe you have more intelligence than most of us...maybe not...

Edited August 14, 2013 by bassplayer

[bassplayer]

jUST to clarify1 I only posted the petition/2 The posting has stimulated discusion and a good debate.Thank you.3 Is this tax the thin end of the wedge.If the pettition is so far off the mark and iliterate what is the point that we can unite behind to try and stop the increase in tax and enforcement.

Nearly a 1000 people have signed the petition.

A few have sent letters to MP's/MEP's.

A few here just want to criticise, many more here, I suspect have signed it.

 

I think I know where the positivity and unity is.

 

I do agree though that (unfortunately) money talks more in this world, so lets hope the Sunseekers will influence the situation.

[mayalld]

The issue is very simple, do we want to pay more tax on diesel? It's just that some people would rather whinge about the wording than do something constructive. You don't want to sign it...fine...but don't try to make out that all the people who did sign it are stupid. Maybe you have more intelligence than most of us...maybe not...

 

Do I want to pay more tax on diesel?

 

No, of course I don't.

 

In fact, all things considered, I'd rather like to pay a whole lot less tax on a lot of things.

 

The point is that the government HAS to tax us, because if they didn't they wouldn't have any money to spend on stuff. Governments are always trying to balance what people want in terms of taxation with what they want in terms of spending. "I don't want to pay that tax" is, consequently a REALLY crap argument.

 

So, if you don't want to pay a tax, you need an argument that says "you don't want to charge this tax because..." rather than "I don't want to pay this tax"

[bassplayer]

Do I want to pay more tax on diesel? No, of course I don't. In fact, all things considered, I'd rather like to pay a whole lot less tax on a lot of things. The point is that the government HAS to tax us, because if they didn't they wouldn't have any money to spend on stuff. Governments are always trying to balance what people want in terms of taxation with what they want in terms of spending. "I don't want to pay that tax" is, consequently a REALLY crap argument. So, if you don't want to pay a tax, you need an argument that says "you don't want to charge this tax because..." rather than "I don't want to pay this tax"

Surely it's the people who are trying to change the rules who should justify it. It's quite reasonable for us to say 'leave things alone'.

 

Like a lot of other changes to our law, we are forced to accept steamrollered changes just to align ourselves with the EU. I'll hold my hands up and say I've never been pro Europe. I love different cultures but I think we should let them stay exactly as that, different cultures. It is quite acceptable to just say 'leave us alone' without having to justify why.

[fudd]

 

Do I want to pay more tax on diesel?

 

No, of course I don't.

 

In fact, all things considered, I'd rather like to pay a whole lot less tax on a lot of things.

 

The point is that the government HAS to tax us, because if they didn't they wouldn't have any money to spend on stuff. Governments are always trying to balance what people want in terms of taxation with what they want in terms of spending. "I don't want to pay that tax" is, consequently a REALLY crap argument.

 

So, if you don't want to pay a tax, you need an argument that says "you don't want to charge this tax because..." rather than "I don't want to pay this tax"

How about "the law says we can legally put red diesel in our tank and a load of interfering red tape flying money wasters on the great big European gravy train want the law changed just because they say so even though it would probably cost more to actually recover the tax all in the name of 'harmonisation' that doesn't work anyway" Pause for breath.

Steve P

[mayalld]

Surely it's the people who are trying to change the rules who should justify it. It's quite reasonable for us to say 'leave things alone'.

 

Like a lot of other changes to our law, we are forced to accept steamrollered changes just to align ourselves with the EU. I'll hold my hands up and say I've never been pro Europe. I love different cultures but I think we should let them stay exactly as that, different cultures. It is quite acceptable to just say 'leave us alone' without having to justify why.

 

Certainly you can say that.

 

However, it isn't an argument that is going anywhere.

 

If you want to sit in your bunker and say that they should leave things alone, feel free. They will ignore you.

 

If you want to actually win the argument, you have to do better than that.

[bassplayer]

Certainly you can say that. However, it isn't an argument that is going anywhere. If you want to sit in your bunker and say that they should leave things alone, feel free. They will ignore you. If you want to actually win the argument, you have to do better than that.

How do you argue with a steamroller? Moan about the way others are trying to do something about it and offer up weaker lines of defence. If the current petition is so far off the mark, then any alternative you produce will be sufficiently different to allow it's publishing. Come up with something better and I'll sign it, go on, I dare you...

[fudd]

 

Certainly you can say that.

 

However, it isn't an argument that is going anywhere.

 

If you want to sit in your bunker and say that they should leave things alone, feel free. They will ignore you.

 

If you want to actually win the argument, you have to do better than that.

It is a justifiable argument. There's just not enough people taking part. If there was 20,000,000 people making the same argument then they would have to listen. That's why I think a referendum over Europe will never happen.

[bassplayer]

How about "the law says we can legally put red diesel in our tank and a load of interfering red tape flying money wasters on the great big European gravy train want the law changed just because they say so even though it would probably cost more to actually recover the tax all in the name of 'harmonisation' that doesn't work anyway" Pause for breath.Steve P

Lol..Turn that into a petition and I'll sign that too...

It is a justifiable argument. There's just not enough people taking part. If there was 20,000,000 people making the same argument then they would have to listen. That's why I think a referendum over Europe will never happen.

It's true that the bigger the State the harder it is for individuals to have a say. God knows what it will be like when we become part of the World State. The good news is that technology helps us unite, so we should use it. Petitions are a way forward. So is sending emails to MEP's. I'm not quite ready to lie in front of a tank yet (or Steamroller)..

[mayalld]

It is a justifiable argument. There's just not enough people taking part. If there was 20,000,000 people making the same argument then they would have to listen. That's why I think a referendum over Europe will never happen.

 

Exactly.

 

It is always the case that if enough people want something then that is a persuasive argument. From the outset, it was clear that this is a niche issue that could not be won on sheer numbers of people wanting it, so you have to pick your tactic to suit.

[fudd]

 

Exactly.

 

It is always the case that if enough people want something then that is a persuasive argument. From the outset, it was clear that this is a niche issue that could not be won on sheer numbers of people wanting it, so you have to pick your tactic to suit.

Come on then, out with it. What's your tactic then? Why don't you score a petition that would contain all the relevant pieces of information and facts that would succeed if enough, or the right, people signed it. I would certainly be interested to see your ideas Dave.

Steve P

 

Sorry. Reading that back it seems really aggressive. It wasn't meant to be. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

Edited August 15, 2013 by fudd

[nb Innisfree]

I suspect that by the time we lose red diesel (if) it might be cheaper anyway so we will be more or less where we are now financially. But no matter what HMG do or propose there will be some who disagree. It's quite simple really, if a dissenting group is too small to make enough waves then HMG put them towards the bottom of the list.

 

As for the rich and their yachts, losing red diesel is a trifling thing, a bit like us having to pay a few pence on a pint of beer.

[Jerra]

The problem I see with petitions (any petition) is numbers. 35,000 is often quoted as the number of CRT boat licenses so if we say 50,000 boats effected by the change (to include others not on CRT water and allowing for a proportion being petrol or not on the internet) then it would need every single owner plus one crew to sign before the government would be even vaguely interested.

 

Personally I feel letters to MPs and MEPs will have much more effect as each individual only knows they are getting "flak" for a reasonable number of there constituents.

[nb Innisfree]

It's true that the bigger the State the harder it is for individuals to have a say. God knows what it will be like when we become part of the World State. (or Steamroller)..

An individual can still have their say but if the majority don't agree or care then if the individual wants to live in a democratic society he/she must accept that. For stability it's neccessary to have a state steamroller, no point having cars whizzing about haphazardly, each driver choosing their own rules of the road.

[Higgs]

At the beginning of the thread members were asked to support the petition and sign it. If it is correct that another petition on the same subject can not be submitted due to the regulations, then, the bolt has been shot. It is clear that many more people would have backed an argument against the introduction of white than have signed the petition. However, the petition seems to have not been as well aimed as some think it should.

 

For some of us, the petition would have been the opportunity to add support. It's not the intention behind the petition that is awry, it is not up to the job. Easy for some one to say, sitting at a keyboard, I know. But, until another way to voice my thoughts avail itself, I still can't sign the petition.

 

Here only, for now.

[Doorman]

As for the rich and their yachts, losing red diesel is a trifling thing, a bit like us having to pay a few pence on a pint of beer.

Maybe so, but by way of the fact that they are rich they will wish to preserve what they've (stolen) earned. Even in their minority of numbers, they will have more sway with the old Etonians as inevitably they all pee in the same pot!

 

As much as we may delude ourselves that we live in a democracy, big business pull the strings and the parliamentary puppets obey. Murdock and his grandchild's godfather Tony Bliar are living proof of this.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Doorman

[fudd]

At the beginning of the thread members were asked to support the petition and sign it. If it is correct that another petition on the same subject can not be submitted due to the regulations, then, the bolt has been shot. It is clear that many more people would have backed an argument against the introduction of white than have signed the petition. However, the petition seems to have not been as well aimed as some think it should.

 

For some of us, the petition would have been the opportunity to add support. It's not the intention behind the petition that is awry, it is not up to the job. Easy for some one to say, sitting at a keyboard, I know. But, until another way to voice my thoughts avail itself, I still can't sign the petition.

 

Here only, for now.

I realise that but, I would like to know how Dave would have worded the petition. The idea would be the same I know. I may have signed it myself if it was worded differently. It shouldn't really make much difference how things are worded really. Ideas should be taken 'in the spirit of things'. A thing our politicians don't seem to be able to get to grips with. Expenses come to mind. God knows what goes on in Brussels. That's a different matter.

[Doorman]

God knows what goes on in Brussels. That's a different matter.

Not only God, but now the rest of the world knows what goes on in the Brussels gravy train, very little!

 

www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=58265&page=5

 

Post #84

Edited August 15, 2013 by Doorman

[Higgs]

I realise that but, I would like to know how Dave would have worded the petition. The idea would be the same I know. I may have signed it myself if it was worded differently. It shouldn't really make much difference how things are worded really. Ideas should be taken 'in the spirit of things'. A thing our politicians don't seem to be able to get to grips with. Expenses come to mind. God knows what goes on in Brussels. That's a different matter.

 

Words do matter. I think so. If petition is to be given weight, it has to be treated with more thought. And, there are inconsistencies in fair play, as I see it. Fair play doesn't work all round. When asked to play fair - I expect it to be reciprocated. If it isn't, they will be blanked. I won't play ball necessarily. And with this issue I have no sympathy for EU fairness. But, I also don't agree with the rationale of the leisure element.

 

Feelings of a lack of fair play do not wash, the argument has to be persuasive. To introduce white, as a fairplay condition, is to disregard the effect on those that use diesel as a source of heat and light, beyond liesure. Treated as a revenue stream is what most would expect. just for the coffers. To disappear without trace, for what in return.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Higgs

[fudd]

 

Words do matter. I think so. If petition is to be given weight, it has to be treated with more thought. And, there are inconsistencies in fair play, as I see it. Fair play doesn't work all round. When asked to play fair - I expect it to be reciprocated. If it isn't, they will be blanked. I won't play ball necessarily. And with this issue I have no sympathy for EU fairness. But, I also don't agree with the rationale of the leisure element.

 

Feelings of a lack of fair play do not wash, the argument has to be persuasive. To introduce white, as a fairplay condition, is to disregard the effect on those that use diesel as a source of heat and light, beyond liesure. Treated as a revenue stream is what most would expect. just for the coffers. To disappear without trace, for what in return.

To disappear without trace, for what in return.

 

To disappear without trace and take even more money with it. Probably.

[bassplayer]

At the beginning of the thread members were asked to support the petition and sign it. If it is correct that another petition on the same subject can not be submitted due to the regulations, then, the bolt has been shot. It is clear that many more people would have backed an argument against the introduction of white than have signed the petition. However, the petition seems to have not been as well aimed as some think it should. For some of us, the petition would have been the opportunity to add support. It's not the intention behind the petition that is awry, it is not up to the job. Easy for some one to say, sitting at a keyboard, I know. But, until another way to voice my thoughts avail itself, I still can't sign the petition. Here only, for now.

I'm not sure if Dave is right about not being able to start a petition on the same subject. Where did you read that Dave?