European Union Attacks Red Diesel For Boaters.

[Higgs]

for what in return.

 

 

 

You could start with Red diesel. That is a for-what, for me. Got to get something I need out of them. They obviously think money grows on trees.

[fudd]

 

You could start with Red diesel. That is a for-what, for me. Got to get something I need out of them. They obviously think money grows on trees.

Yes Higgs but, why? Our government don't want to do it. I bet the thought never occurred to you before Brussels started causing a fuss.

[Higgs]

Yes Higgs but, why? Our government don't want to do it. I bet the thought never occurred to you before Brussels started causing a fuss.

 

Don't trouble trouble 'till trouble troubles you. Bit like an ostrich.

 

Think this has been going on since 2008. I don't expect anything from the government. Always hopeful of a surprise.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Higgs

[Doorman]

 

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.

Like care for the elderly?

 

My eighty four year old mother requires 24 hour care in a residential home due to the effects of dementia. It costs both her and us £420 per week to accommodate her needs. Mum has worked and paid both tax & NI for the best part of forty one years, yet here she is, having to sell her home in order to fund what she's already paid for in tax etc.,

 

Perhaps if the parliamentary puppets spent less on overseas aid and looked after their own, we wouldn't have this shambolic situation. Incidentally, one of the few questions that she actually got right in her cognitive ability assessment was; "Who is David Cameron?" To which she promptly replied; "One of many other tossers who have mismanaged our country!"

 

She always tells the truth.

[Cheshire cat]

£420 a week for five years? ten years? How much tax would it take to generate that much capital?

I know you're feeling sore because those who squander their earnings get looked after by the state for free. It's the next time bomb after the pensions one is defused. What do you do with people who can't pay.

 

I thought we were doing well only paying £500. My Mum doesn't know who the prime minister is.

[Higgs]

£420 a week for five years? ten years? How much tax would it take to generate that much capital?

I know you're feeling sore because those who squander their earnings get looked after by the state for free. It's the next time bomb after the pensions one is defused. What do you do with people who can't pay.

 

I thought we were doing well only paying £500. My Mum doesn't know who the prime minister is.

 

You didn't have to use the word squander, you could have used the word poor. A means to pay is where we're heading, welfare and planning is out the door.

[Doorman]

£420 a week for five years? ten years? How much tax would it take to generate that much capital?

 

About as much and billions more that is spent on foreign aid! Aid to countries like India who are planning their space projects, probably with help from British tax payers.

 

Aid to African countries where their tin pot governments use it to their own ends instead of helping the needy population.

 

Need I continue........?

 

 

You didn't have to use the word squander, you could have used the word poor.

I'm sorry Higgs but on that count I believe Cheshire Cat got it right. The welfare state is meant to look after the poor and needy and I wouldn't begrudge a penny if it was spent in that direction, but sadly there is an element in society who squander their money then expect the taxpayer to haul them out of the mire.

 

Governments and banks are a typical example of this!

Edited August 15, 2013 by Doorman

[mayalld]

I realise that but, I would like to know how Dave would have worded the petition.

 

 

I thought that I'd already made this clear.

 

There is no prospect that any petition on this subject could ever garner enough support to win the argument on numbers.

 

Unless you can win on numbers, any petition is a waste of time

[nb Innisfree]

 

I thought that I'd already made this clear.

 

There is no prospect that any petition on this subject could ever garner enough support to win the argument on numbers.

 

Unless you can win on numbers, any petition is a waste of time

Some are not interested in what you said but what they think you said.

[bassplayer]

 

I thought that I'd already made this clear.

 

There is no prospect that any petition on this subject could ever garner enough support to win the argument on numbers.

 

Unless you can win on numbers, any petition is a waste of time

So you would criticise any petition on the subject. So why bother criticising the wording? Did you find out where you read that you can't start a petition on a similar subject? I would have been interested in how you would have worded it but I suppose that would be a waste of time.

[nb Innisfree]

This petition has probably scuppered any possible future actions by boaters, not that there was much chance anyway.

 

Loose canons.

[Sir Nibble]

I read in the Daily Mail the other day that over 500,000 council houses had gone to immigrants in the last decade so clearly the previous governments didnt sell enough off. You may not agree but you dont live in Rotherham where english isnt the spoken word. Also just think that would have saved the taxpayer.

 

Peter

The Daily Mail, well well. That's authoritative isn't it.

[bassplayer]

This petition has probably scuppered any possible future actions by boaters, not that there was much chance anyway.

 

Loose canons.

How so? Proof?

[bozlite]

Was everyone aware that the government is challenging the EU on this? See Ray T's post from (I think) page 2 of this thread:

 

From the RYA:

 

http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/UKtochallengeeuropeancomissionoverreddiesel.aspx?utm_source=InBrief&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=aug13-inbrief

By the way - for those of you who were wondering what a good argument in a petition would look like - the argument advanced by the RYA and BMF (and supported by the government, it seems) is a reasonable and persuasive one:

 

The principal reason why the BMF and the RYA consider that private pleasure craft should be able to continue to use red diesel is to secure the continued availability of diesel fuel for recreational boaters.

 

If suppliers were obliged to supply only white diesel to private pleasure craft, this would result in many fuel suppliers having to incur significant costs in converting their equipment and it would have a significant impact on the availability of diesel for leisure boaters along the coast in more remote parts of the country, especially where harbours cater mainly for commercial (e.g. fishing) vessels.

 

The converse is the case for the inland waterways, where this would reduce significantly the availability of diesel at the rebated rate of duty for those narrowboats and barges (many of which are peoples homes) that are entitled to use it for providing heating and electricity.

[bassplayer]

Was everyone aware that the government is challenging the EU on this? See Ray T's post from (I think) page 2 of this thread:

 

By the way - for those of you who were wondering what a good argument in a petition would look like - the argument advanced by the RYA and BMF (and supported by the government, it seems) is a reasonable and persuasive one:

 

 

Thanks for that. Interesting. Sorry if I've missed a trick though, why does equipment have to be converted if there is only white diesel? They might have to change the price signs but diesel is diesel surely...sorry me and my big mouth....

[Ships Cat]

The rich like to hang onto their pennies - that's how they're rich. You don't get rich by giving it away.

 

(oh ok well if you're names Peter Soros, maybe ...)

 

They are upset about it, I know loads of sail boat owners who use minimal diesel but who are still hacked off by it, and I think our Govt knows full well how we feel, either way, they're on the point of being taken to court by the EU for non-compliance so I suspect they feel the same way ...

 

Anti-EU feeling is growing, bit by bit. If we had a government which could do the job properly I'd say stuff the EU too but there's no sign of a quality government for us on the horizon for the next five years or so. No party has an adequate leader - not charismatic, trustworthy, personable and capable.

 

Tall order? well, we have had such in the past ...

 

As to which they are I will not be drawn.

[nb Innisfree]

How so? Proof?

Just my opinion.

[bassplayer]

Just my opinion.

Fair enough Any ideas what you would do about it?

[woodjam]

 

UK to challenge European Commission over red diesel

 

Thank YOU rya and bmf now thats how to lobby the goverment.

 

 

 

 

[nb Innisfree]

Fair enough Any ideas what you would do about it?

No,

[mayalld]

So you would criticise any petition on the subject. So why bother criticising the wording? Did you find out where you read that you can't start a petition on a similar subject? I would have been interested in how you would have worded it but I suppose that would be a waste of time.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions

 

Given that I don't think any petition would achieve anything, why criticise the wording?

 

I criticise the wording, because the wording ensures that it actually damages the cause that it seeks to promote

[bassplayer]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions

 

Given that I don't think any petition would achieve anything, why criticise the wording?

 

I criticise the wording, because the wording ensures that it actually damages the cause that it seeks to promote

What damages the cause, is people actively trying to undermine anything positive. What's your motive? Have you found out where you read that you can't start a petition on a similar subject yet?

[bassplayer]

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/terms-and-conditions

 

Given that I don't think any petition would achieve anything, why criticise the wording?

 

I criticise the wording, because the wording ensures that it actually damages the cause that it seeks to promote

I'll give you a clue:

 

"do not SUBSTANTIALLY duplicate an existing open e-petition"

 

So seeing as the petition was way off the mark you now have an opportunity.to come up with something better.

 

Sorry, forgot, it's a waste of time...

[Tam & Di]

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've tried to skip-read some 8 pages of this, but can someone tell me what tax increase this is? My understanding is that the EC is simply saying that red fuel cannot be used for propulsion by pleasure craft. In the UK you already pay the tax, it is simply that the fuel has a red dye. If the EC was successful it would mean having separate tanks for propulsion (white) and for domestic (red) use. This could be an expensive modification, but that is a totally different argument and nothing to do with tax. Also, and has been noted here at least twice now, the UK government/HMRC ARE contesting this, prompted largely by RYA and BMF.

 

What am I missing? What does this petition add?

 

Tam

Edited August 16, 2013 by Tam & Di

[bozlite]

I've tried to skip-read some 8 pages of this, but can someone tell me what tax increase this is? My understanding is that the EC is simply saying that red fuel cannot be used for propulsion by pleasure craft. In the UK you already pay the tax, it is simply that the fuel has a red dye. If the EC was successful it would mean having separate tanks for propulsion (white) and for domestic (red) use. This could be an expensive modification, but that is a totally different argument and nothing to do with tax. Also, and has been noted here at least twice now, the UK government/HMRC ARE contesting this, prompted largely by RYA and BMF.

 

What am I missing? What does this petition add?

 

Tam

You're not missing anything - though others might be, I think. The petition originally referred to was - as some here have pointed out - not at all clear about what it was demanding. The only persuasive argument for challenging the change proposed by the EU is that already put forward by the RYA and the BMF. The government seems to have accepted the persuasiveness of this argument and is taking it back to the EU. There is no suggestion that boaters will need to pay more tax than they currently do (unless they're being less than scrupulously honest in declaring the proportion of fuel they use for propulsion), but there are serious implications for the supply of red diesel on the inland waterways (as pointed out by the RYA and the BMF) and serious implications for individual boaters who would have to meet significant costs in adding an additional tank to their boats if they want to avoid using white diesel for all their domestic needs.