HMRC loses case regarding duty on red diesel for boats

[Tanglewood]

Laws are blunt instruments.  They are catch-all and cannot be nuanced, except by precedent.  The law about used rebated fuel oil (red diesel) for propulsion has been discussed for at least 10 years.  Whether you have a yacht or a narrow-boat, or more significantly for some, a private plane (even if you are using the plane to transport staff) it has been illegal to use red diesel for some time.  The UK secured, what could be described as an implementation period, which ran out in 2008.  Since then the UK has tried to argue the case, and has now failed.  If you propel your boat with petrol you already pay the full amount of fuel tax.

 

The issue is that the use of red-diesel has been one of the factors which has artificially kept down the costs of owning a boat - which in all except the cases of live-aboards, is considered a luxury.  A luxury which is used for leisure purposes.  For a few thousand folk the boat is home.  Take out those who legitimately reside on a residential mooring and the hardship will be felt most by those who live on their boats but  claim the entitlement not to have a home mooring and actually cruise hundreds of miles every year.  Not those who claim the entitlement and do not cruise.

 

We should get real - this is a law - made by an organisation we chose to be part of.  Laws made by the EU are proposed by the European Commission, and they can only even be proposed if all 28 member States  agree to the proposal.  Then they have to be decided, and the decision is taken after full discussion in the European Parliament.  This is nothing to do with something being imposed on us by others - its something we signed up for.  As is so often the case with us UK citizens we agree to something before we really understand the implications - I'm thinking Iraq war and Brexit as two recent examples.

[Gareth E]

12 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

Laws are blunt instruments.  They are catch-all and cannot be nuanced, except by precedent.  The law about used rebated fuel oil (red diesel) for propulsion has been discussed for at least 10 years.  Whether you have a yacht or a narrow-boat, or more significantly for some, a private plane (even if you are using the plane to transport staff) it has been illegal to use red diesel for some time.  The UK secured, what could be described as an implementation period, which ran out in 2008.  Since then the UK has tried to argue the case, and has now failed.  If you propel your boat with petrol you already pay the full amount of fuel tax.

 

The issue is that the use of red-diesel has been one of the factors which has artificially kept down the costs of owning a boat - which in all except the cases of live-aboards, is considered a luxury.  A luxury which is used for leisure purposes.  For a few thousand folk the boat is home.  Take out those who legitimately reside on a residential mooring and the hardship will be felt most by those who live on their boats but  claim the entitlement not to have a home mooring and actually cruise hundreds of miles every year.  Not those who claim the entitlement and do not cruise.

 

We should get real - this is a law - made by an organisation we chose to be part of.  Laws made by the EU are proposed by the European Commission, and they can only even be proposed if all 28 member States  agree to the proposal.  Then they have to be decided, and the decision is taken after full discussion in the European Parliament.  This is nothing to do with something being imposed on us by others - its something we signed up for.  As is so often the case with us UK citizens we agree to something before we really understand the implications - I'm thinking Iraq war and Brexit as two recent examples.

Indeed, let's get real. We, the citizens of this country, did not choose to be part of this organisation. We chose to be part of its predecessor, which did not have law making powers. We also voted to leave this organisation, but we now appear to be denied the outcome we chose.  

Edited October 19, 2018 by Gareth E

[Tanglewood]

2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

We chose to be part of its predecessor, which did not have law making powers.

I repeat, nothing was imposed - how did we become part of the EU as opposed to the common market - by 67% of people deciding in 1973 that we should remain.  It is a more historic example of us Brits not fully appreciating the consequences.

[Jess--]

15 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

Laws are blunt instruments.  They are catch-all and cannot be nuanced, except by precedent.  The law about used rebated fuel oil (red diesel) for propulsion has been discussed for at least 10 years.  Whether you have a yacht or a narrow-boat, or more significantly for some, a private plane (even if you are using the plane to transport staff) it has been illegal to use red diesel for some time.  The UK secured, what could be described as an implementation period, which ran out in 2008.  Since then the UK has tried to argue the case, and has now failed.  If you propel your boat with petrol you already pay the full amount of fuel tax.

 

The issue is that the use of red-diesel has been one of the factors which has artificially kept down the costs of owning a boat - which in all except the cases of live-aboards, is considered a luxury.  A luxury which is used for leisure purposes.  For a few thousand folk the boat is home.  Take out those who legitimately reside on a residential mooring and the hardship will be felt most by those who live on their boats but  claim the entitlement not to have a home mooring and actually cruise hundreds of miles every year.  Not those who claim the entitlement and do not cruise.

surely the group highlighted above will see little increase, since if they actually cruise a lot the vast majority of their fuel will be being used for propulsion (with power and hot water as a nice side effect) and will have been declared accordingly.

 

those who claim CC but are really CM will be hit the hardest (if they are honest about their usage) since they would have been buying fuel at 100% domestic

 

[Gareth E]

7 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

I repeat, nothing was imposed - how did we become part of the EU as opposed to the common market - by 67% of people deciding in 1973 that we should remain.  It is a more historic example of us Brits not fully appreciating the consequences.

Sorry, no. That vote was to remain or leave the common market which latter was known as the EEC, European Economic Community. This was a trading bloc, it did not have law making powers. John Major took Britain into the EU as we know it, without troubling the people of Britain for their consent.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Gareth E

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Indeed, let's get real. We, the citizens of this country,

Are we ?

The consensus appears to be that we are 'subjects' as we have no legally binding constitution and rights.

[Jerra]

15 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Indeed, let's get real. We, the citizens of this country, did not choose to be part of this organisation. We chose to be part of its predecessor, which did not have law making powers. We also voted to leave this organisation, but we now appear to be denied the outcome we chose.  

Which nicely skips over the fact it would never have happened if our government hadn't agreed to the proposal.  So it is our government to blame but that doesn't suit the Brexit view.

[Gareth E]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Are we ?

The consensus appears to be that we are 'subjects' as we have no legally binding constitution and rights.

I accept that, but it makes no practical difference to anything. That's unless you're suggesting that because we're subjects, we shouldn't expect democracy and should accept tyrannical ruling?

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

 John Major took Britain into the EU as we know it, without troubling the people of Britain for their consent.

Being a democracy which works by representation he had no need to ask the people for their consent.  

[Gareth E]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Which nicely skips over the fact it would never have happened if our government hadn't agreed to the proposal.  So it is our government to blame but that doesn't suit the Brexit view.

Yes, the government chose to incorporate Britain within the EU without referring to it's citizens. Sorry, subjects. This differs from a common remainer view that we voted to join the EU which of course we didn't, not at any stage.

[Jerra]

Just now, Gareth E said:

Yes, the government chose to incorporate Britain within the EU without referring to it's citizens. Sorry, subjects. This differs from a common remainer view that we voted to join the EU which of course we didn't, not at any stage.

Personally I have never said it did and as I have pointed out it didn't need to owing to our method of implementing democracy.

[Gareth E]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Being a democracy which works by representation he had no need to ask the people for their consent.  

And an important part of democracy is to refer important decision to the populace by way of referendum. You might have thought that the passing of law making powers from a national base to an overseas base with ambitions of federalism might be seen to be a pretty important matter. But no, it suited the elite of the time, as it appears to suit them today. And so we have it. 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

And an important part of democracy is to refer important decision to the populace by way of referendum. 

Referenda have never been a major part of the UK democracy.  In fact there have I think only been 3 in the whole of our history.  Until recently (well on in the 20th C) the view was they were "unconstitutional" or "alien."

[Gareth E]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Personally I have never said it did and as I have pointed out it didn't need to owing to our method of implementing democracy.

Well have a word with your brother Tanglewood from further up the page. He followed up his previous long and seemingly pretty well thought out post by stating that we had a referendum whether to leave or remain in the EU in 1973 

Just now, Jerra said:

Referenda have never been a major part of the UK democracy.  In fact there have I think only been 3 in the whole of our history.  Until recently (well on in the 20th C) the view was they were "unconstitutional" or "alien."

I see. The elite can convince vast swathes of the voting population that their opinion isn't needed, trust us, the elite, we know what's best for you. Just add a few negative words, job done.

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Well have a word with your brother Tanglewood from further up the page. He followed up his previous long and seemingly pretty well thought out post by stating that we had a referendum whether to leave or remain in the EU in 1973 

I am afraid as far as I remember the first ever UK referendum was 1975 on staying in or leaving the Common Market.

 

Which doesn't alter the fact as I said a few minutes ago I I never said we did.

 

EDIT To clarify I never said we voted to enter the CM we didn't need to the government are mandated to take such decisions.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Jerra

[Gareth E]

You might have thought the fact that a referendum was held in 1975 regarding a trading bloc might have set a precedent. We might be told that referenda are bad by the elite but they love precedents, much of our law is based on them. I hope you'd agree that continued membership (or not) of a trading bloc is a trivial matter indeed, when compared to handing over law making powers and superior justice to an overseas force. One that we are part of, but do not have control over. On this basis and any other basis including common sense, there should have been a referendum before Britain joined the EU. However many bad, dark nasty words the elite might want to band about in the attempt to manipulate people's minds into supporting the establishment's dislike of referenda, John Major should not have signed up for EU membership without referring to the people. 

[doratheexplorer]

32 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Sorry, no. That vote was to remain or leave the common market which latter was known as the EEC, European Economic Community. This was a trading bloc, it did not have law making powers. John Major took Britain into the EU as we know it, without troubling the people of Britain for their consent.

Sorry, no.  Political union with Europe was already a very well established ambition of the UK Government by 1975.   The referrendum was clearly understood by those who had done their homework, to be a stepping stone to far closer political integration.  In fact, 1975 was the culmination of a process which had been in motion since the end of the war.  If those who voted to join in 1975 did not understand this, then they were voting in ignorance.  Similar to those who voted in ignorance 2 years ago.

31 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

This differs from a common remainer view that we voted to join the EU which of course we didn't, not at any stage.

I know an awful lot of remainers, and I've yet to hear this argument put forward.  Is it really a common view?

[doratheexplorer]

29 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

And an important part of democracy is to refer important decision to the populace by way of referendum. You might have thought that the passing of law making powers from a national base to an overseas base with ambitions of federalism might be seen to be a pretty important matter. But no, it suited the elite of the time, as it appears to suit them today. And so we have it. 

Depends on who you define as the 'elite'.  Specific media moguls and business leaders are very keen to leave.  Usually a bit of digging reveals that they have outsourced their production to the far east or have their money tied up in various tax avoidance schemes and would benefit greatly from a very low regulation economy.

[Gareth E]

8 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Sorry, no.  Political union with Europe was already a very well established ambition of the UK Government by 1975.   The referrendum was clearly understood by those who had done their homework, to be a stepping stone to far closer political integration.  In fact, 1975 was the culmination of a process which had been in motion since the end of the war.  If those who voted to join in 1975 did not understand this, then they were voting in ignorance.  Similar to those who voted in ignorance 2 years ago.

I know an awful lot of remainers, and I've yet to hear this argument put forward.  Is it really a common view?

There may have been ignorance to the processes of leaving the EU, the complexities but ultimately, these things don't matter. People do not want a United States of Europe, and voted accordingly.

[doratheexplorer]

9 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

John Major should not have signed up for EU membership without referring to the people. 

I actually agree with this.  Not because it was democratically necessary but because by then many people were distinctly uncomfortable with what was going on and had realised their lack of understanding of the consequences of their vote in 1975.  Not getting a referendum in 1992(?) led to a deep resentment that the older generation have held onto for 25 years.  Then in 2016 they all marched out to the polling stations and registered their protest.

[Jerra]

9 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

You might have thought the fact that a referendum was held in 1975 regarding a trading bloc might have set a precedent. We might be told that referenda are bad by the elite but they love precedents, much of our law is based on them. I hope you'd agree that continued membership (or not) of a trading bloc is a trivial matter indeed, when compared to handing over law making powers and superior justice to an overseas force. One that we are part of, but do not have control over. On this basis and any other basis including common sense, there should have been a referendum before Britain joined the EU. However many bad, dark nasty words the elite might want to band about in the attempt to manipulate people's minds into supporting the establishment's dislike of referenda, John Major should not have signed up for EU membership without referring to the people. 

Two points.

First your point above is slightly (well a lot in my opinion) different from the "And an important part of democracy is to refer important decision to the populace by way of referendum"  now you realise they are a very modern phenomena.

 

Second Major had no need to refer to the people by being elected the government had the mandate to make the decisions.  We keep getting told by Brexiteers they are sovereign and they can be replaced at the next GE.

[doratheexplorer]

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

There may have been ignorance to the processes of leaving the EU, the complexities but ultimately, these things don't matter. People do not want a United States of Europe, and voted accordingly.

Some do, some don't.  Of those who don't, did they fully realise what the alternative to staying in the EU would be? because a lot of people don't seem to like that either.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I actually agree with this.  Not because it was democratically necessary but because by then many people were distinctly uncomfortable with what was going on and had realised their lack of understanding of the consequences of their vote in 1975.  Not getting a referendum in 1992(?) led to a deep resentment that the older generation have held onto for 25 years.  Then in 2016 they all marched out to the polling stations and registered their protest.

The ones uncomfortable must have been a minority if I remember correctly it was an over 2/3 majority.

 

Being one of the older generation I have no resentment and I know nobody my age who has.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, pearley said:

 

So will have to drink less wine! 

Surely  not a realistic option.

[Gareth E]

11 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Some do, some don't.  Of those who don't, did they fully realise what the alternative to staying in the EU would be? because a lot of people don't seem to like that either.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter. The establishment will block any meaningful Brexit. It will be business as usual apart from Britain being poorer, both financially and perhaps more importantly, in spirit.

 

It's not all doom and gloom though. The United States of Europe project surely can't go ahead now. There's too much opposition, growing opposition. All around the world the kind of politics that are the very ethos of the EU's philosophy are being rejected. It may be a fire fight for the EU, just to keep what it has.