Jump to content

European Union Attacks Red Diesel For Boaters.


woodjam

Featured Posts

More bad news for boaters.

The petition says.

We want the British Government to stand up for the British People and over-rule the EU over the attempt to stop boaters on Britain's Canal and Inland Waterways network lawfully using Red Diesel. Ultimately we want the right to use Red Diesel for propulsion on leisure boats restored.

 

Join the campaign.

Have you signed this petition? So far more than 750 people have, including us here at Towpath Talk.
It’s aimed at preventing the EU from taking away the right to use red diesel from leisure boaters on the inland waterways: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52421

 

What is your opinion on the European Union attacking Live aboard boaters.

Are we being victimised.

Edited by woodjam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Carl. Why should boats be different? Campers run on white diesel.

 

And the farmers comparison doesn't work either. Farmers use red diesel for their business. Not in their road going range rover. Fishing boats are exempt too. As are canal based working boats. It is only the play things that are an exemption in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the argument for using red to fuel a propulsion engine stood up (which I don't believe it does) then it still isn't "victimisation" or "attacking" liveaboards.

 

People are living on boats all over Europe and are using white to fuel their propulsion engine with no reports of "victimisation" or "attacks".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the argument for using red to fuel a propulsion engine stood up (which I don't believe it does) then it still isn't "victimisation" or "attacking" liveaboards.

 

People are living on boats all over Europe and are using white to fuel their propulsion engine with no reports of "victimisation" or "attacks".

Indeed. In my 'day job' there has been a distinction for many years, where red diesel is allowed for fridge engines, which means there need to be two seperate tanks, fuel lines, filters, etc.

You pays your money, you makes your choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was red diesel first introduced for use on the inland waterways. Does anyone know.

 

Darren

 

Probably from its very inception, which probably goes back to the introduction of DERV (Diesel Engine Road Vehicle) with its higher tax rates.

Diesel engines started to become properly established for road use in the mid-1930s

Certainly well before my time on the waterways (mid-1960s).

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More bad news for boaters.

The petition says.

We want the British Government to stand up for the British People and over-rule the EU over the attempt to stop boaters on Britain's Canal and Inland Waterways network lawfully using Red Diesel. Ultimately we want the right to use Red Diesel for propulsion on leisure boats restored.

 

Join the campaign.

Have you signed this petition? So far more than 750 people have, including us here at Towpath Talk.

It’s aimed at preventing the EU from taking away the right to use red diesel from leisure boaters on the inland waterways: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52421

 

What is your opinion on the European Union attacking Live aboard boaters.

Are we being victimised.

 

There is already a longish thread on the subject of this petition.

 

To summarise my position;

 

Whilst I oppose the removal of the facility to self-declare, and would like to go back to fully rebated, I accept that the latter isn't going to happen.

 

As such, the fact that the petition fails to separate the already decided point on fully rebated diesel from the new issue, and doesn't bother to make any comprehensible point on the new issue (anti-EU rhetoric doesn't count) makes this a petition that I will not sign.

 

Whoever composed this semi-literate tripe has probably done a huge amount to damage the case for retention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is already a longish thread on the subject of this petition.

 

To summarise my position;

 

Whilst I oppose the removal of the facility to self-declare, and would like to go back to fully rebated, I accept that the latter isn't going to happen.

 

As such, the fact that the petition fails to separate the already decided point on fully rebated diesel from the new issue, and doesn't bother to make any comprehensible point on the new issue (anti-EU rhetoric doesn't count) makes this a petition that I will not sign.

 

Whoever composed this semi-literate tripe has probably done a huge amount to damage the case for retention.

Could you perhaps explain the reasoning behind the ultimate sentence in your post? Especially where the term "semi-literate" applies.

 

I have never understood why private boats should not use red diesel. It makes no difference to the EU what colour diesel we use, does it? The fact that boaters all over Europe use white diesel is of no consequence. And, from talking to people about membership of the EU it may well be that come the general election anti-EU rhetoric may well count, 'cus a lot of people are getting very p'd off with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you perhaps explain the reasoning behind the ultimate sentence in your post? Especially where the term "semi-literate" applies.

 

I have never understood why private boats should not use red diesel. It makes no difference to the EU what colour diesel we use, does it? The fact that boaters all over Europe use white diesel is of no consequence. And, from talking to people about membership of the EU it may well be that come the general election anti-EU rhetoric may well count, 'cus a lot of people are getting very p'd off with it.

 

With Pleasure!

 

Let us consider what the petition says. I hope you will forgive me decomposing the text into its component parts

 

We want the British Government to stand up for the British People and over-rule the EU

 

There we go, straight in with the fist sentence with a good dose of tub thumping anti-EU sloganeering that says absolutely nothing.

 

over the attempt to stop boaters on Britain's Canal and Inland Waterways network lawfully using Red Diesel.

 

Could the petition writer not spare enough time to actually explain what the EU is trying to do?

Does the petition writer actually understand this himself?

As far as I can see, the EU is NOT attempting to stop anybody from LAWFULLY using red diesel. It is seeking to push the UK government to make use of marked but duty paid diesel unlawful.

 

Ultimately we want the right to use Red Diesel for propulsion on leisure boats restored

 

Does the petition writer know what the current position is? We currently have a right to use red. In the last sentence he says that he wants to carry on using red, now he suddenly seems to think that it has already gone and needs to be restored. Oh, I see, what he means is that he wants to use fully rebated diesel for propulsion, but again he seems to have been too busy to actually write that.

 

The petition, once we get through the fact that somebody wrote it as a rush job, rather than getting it right is actually asking trying to oppose something that is happening now, then tagging on a second aim that is inevitably going to mean that people who support the main aim but not the secodary aim aren't going to sign.

 

I hope that helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you perhaps explain the reasoning behind the ultimate sentence in your post? Especially where the term "semi-literate" applies.

 

I have never understood why private boats should not use red diesel. It makI don't often agree with Carltes no difference to the EU what colour diesel we use, does it? The fact that boaters all over Europe use white diesel is of no consequence. And, from talking to people about membership of the EU it may well be that come the general election anti-EU rhetoric may well count, 'cus a lot of people are getting very p'd off with it.

I don't often agree with carlt on this subject, but I do on the point of this petition. It isn't well phrased, it could have been a lot better in making its point.

However, on the subject of red on our tanks, I still don't agree with that group who feel that it would be 'fair' for us be use white diesel on our boats.

 

Very few boats have separate tanks installed, and the fitting of these is an expense we could all do without.

 

How many retailers on the canal system will go to the expense of fitting new tanks? If they don't, where will we get the red diesel from to run our heating and generating. BTW that generating assumes that those of us who went to the expense of fitting big generators to our main engines will now go to more expense to get a stand alone gen set to make up for it in order use red.

 

I believe that red for heating and generating will become almost unobtainable on the canals. This will leave a lucky few who have a home address with the ability to put in a tank at home and buy heating fuel for use in the boat.

 

There are some on this forum who feel that this latter won't happen, but be assured it will in some cases. Some years ago when I was permanently moored in a marina, a friend offered me the use of his redundant tank, and the cost saving was excellent. It will be worth it for some(usually the better off among us) to do this.

Where do the EU come off telling the British government what tax to levy on purely inland craft? Those that go overseas are a different case, but we don't. Of course with some very notable exceptions.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The petition isn't very focused. But, I reserve the right to be opposed to the introduction of white diesel. Don't care how many Europeans are using white diesel. There are more than enough domestic needs on a boat to warrant working with the present split, used with red.

 

And,...........and,...(deep breath).....,I just feel like being contrary, because I'm in that kind of a mood. Stuff the EU...., really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I hope that helps

Not really, but I didn't expect it to. Sadly some of us didn't have the benefit of the superior education that you so obviously had. We have to muddle along the best wot we can. Nevertheless, I rather think that the majority of people on this forum knew exactly what the petitioner was aiming for.

 

I stand by my comment of a while back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no objection to using white diesel providing we don't have to pay over inflated duty rates. A price more in keeping with the rest of you EU wouldn't go amiss.

While I do object to using the white. You've made a fairly good point about the discrepancy between EU and British tax.

Where do they come off telling us to tax inland craft diesel, but then not telling our government that the fuel tax is too high.

BTW, anyone mention tax on jet fuel.......

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, but I didn't expect it to. Sadly some of us didn't have the benefit of the superior education that you so obviously had. We have to muddle along the best wot we can. Nevertheless, I rather think that the majority of people on this forum knew exactly what the petitioner was aiming for.

 

I stand by my comment of a while back.

It isn't the forum they have to convince though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't the forum they have to convince though!

Quite, but I don't see the point of needless sniping. Sadly it is what some do best on here.

 

ETA missing letters

Edited by Rich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our previous British government had a tax and spend philosophy. They were voted out of course.

 

Unfortunately we still have the European Union, a tax and spend outfit if there ever was one. Does the union really believe that the way to maintain/ increases people's standard of living is to apply more taxes? Maybe this could be a good thing in a 'closed' country, it could enable the poor and disadvantaged to have better lives. But when the developed world is under serious economic attack from the developing world, countries whose citizens pay very low taxes and exist with zero welfare, how can increasing taxes/ costs possibly be the way forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our previous British government had a tax and spend philosophy. They were voted out of course.

 

Unfortunately we still have the European Union, a tax and spend outfit if there ever was one. Does the union really believe that the way to maintain/ increases people's standard of living is to apply more taxes? Maybe this could be a good thing in a 'closed' country, it could enable the poor and disadvantaged to have better lives. But when the developed world is under serious economic attack from the developing world, countries whose citizens pay very low taxes and exist with zero welfare, how can increasing taxes/ costs possibly be the way forward?

If I thought that applying more taxes would actually benefit those who really needed/deserved it then I wouldn't mind mind so much paying a fair share. The trouble is that government, of any colour, is inefficient and/or corrupt to so degree.

We can't set the world straight on here, but we can make a noise, if only to get it off our chests and have a rant.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.