Martin

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <julian@negearth.co.uk> wrote:

>Can be found here
>http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_027786
>
>Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now i.e.
>we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier collect
>the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats propulsion system.

Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution here?
--

Martin

toad

On 2 Aug, 11:41, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <jul...@negearth.co.uk> wrote:
> >Can be found here
> >http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...dFile?contentI...
>
> >Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now i.e.
> >we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier collect
> >the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats propulsion system.
>
> Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution here?

It seems the most practical solution to me.

chrisR

"toad" <toad_oftoadhall@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1186051878.910289.210440@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
> On 2 Aug, 11:41, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <jul...@negearth.co.uk>
wrote:
> > >Can be found here
> >
>http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...dFile?contentI...
> >
> > >Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now
i.e.
> > >we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier
collect
> > >the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats propulsion
system.
> >
> > Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution
here?
>
> It seems the most practical solution to me.
>

You may be right but how do you detect and prevent reduced duty heating oil
being used?
The whole thing is an ill conceived rat's nest!
Who suddenly decides and says we have to accept that pleasure boats have to
pay for DERV (diesel engine road vehicles)?
I would have thought there were much more important and pressing issues for
the government to address rather accepting this insidious, pointless and
relentless decline into the abyss of mediocre EU legislation presumably for
the benefit of the legislature.

ChrisR

toad

On 2 Aug, 13:18, "chrisR" <ch...@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:
> "toad" <toad_oftoadh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1186051878.910289.210440@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Aug, 11:41, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <jul...@negearth.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > > >Can be found here
>
> >http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...dFile?contentI...
>
> > > >Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now
> i.e.
> > > >we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier
> collect
> > > >the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats propulsion
> system.
>
> > > Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution
> here?
>
> > It seems the most practical solution to me.
>
> You may be right but how do you detect and prevent reduced duty heating oil
> being used?

They can't. That's a good thing, n'est pas?

> The whole thing is an ill conceived rat's nest!

....but they've avoided the very real possibility that large numbers of
Yachtsmen in the UK who rely on commercial diesel would simply not be
able to source diesel.

Tony of Judicious

Martin wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <julian@negearth.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Can be found here
>>http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_027786
>>
>>Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now
>>i.e. we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier
>>collect the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats
>>propulsion system.
>
> Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution here?

Nice to see the Scottish islands and highlands get a specific mention.

Garry

I've just quickly read the document ( thanks origonal poster) , heres
afew thoughts & questions and opinions...not in any particular order.

When it all boils down i'ts a load of bollocks but our rulers in
brussels are going to force it down all our throats...

2.2. (snipped) use their engines to provide energy for heat, light and
other domestic
purposes, and a proportion will also be available for charter or hire
and thus fall into the criteria for commercial craft for part of the
time.

How about a workaround like this.. form a company (MyYacht Charter
Ltd.) and then rent my personally owned yacht to the company.
It's now a commercial vessel...
When not chartering ( basically all of the time ) I will still need to
test the vessel and it;s equipment at sea , train crew check out
anchorages and routes. I will be able to justify this on health and
safety, research and development ( big tax breaks there) grounds.
basically the boat would be a commercial craft all the time... I might
even be able to reclaim part of the VAT on the fuel making it even
cheaper.( just wild guessing) I could certainly claim vat back on
everthing spent on the boat.

It would be intersting to find out whether milking the system would be
cost effective against possible higher insurance cost , safety, admin
equipment etc.


Workaround 2..

I already buy red diesel in drums for use in steam cleaners &
heaters.. Granted I don't buy much so I don't get a big discount. So
currently it;s not worth the effort of lugging cans about when it's
about the same give or take a couple of pence at the marina. Those
cans are going to become very tempting come 2008 or whenever.
especially if they stick with red with tax on it.


Section 2.37
It is worth
noting, however, that in remote locations, (including the Channel
Islands),red diesel needs are met by marking ULSD, so some boat owners
are unknowingly already using ULSD.

If part of the justification for this is pollution why not make all
diesel low sulpur ? it's been done for cars and trucks.


On the revenue gain even OUR government know it's going to cost more
than it will make for them . It would be cheaper just to set on a
couple of compliance officers for the entire country and pay them to
just sit around all day doing nothing and spin the whole operation for
the EU beuracrats.

I own a sailing yacht so it isn't really the cost of the fuel that
gets my goat. It's the crap...


Gaz






On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:41:52 +0200, Martin <me@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <julian@negearth.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Can be found here
>>http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_027786
>>
>>Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now i.e.
>>we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier collect
>>the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats propulsion system.
>
>Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution here?

Martin

>I have just read my post and apologise to all for wandering completely off
>topic and undoubtedly outside NG rules.

Time to change your newspaper, Chris?
--

Martin

chrisR

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:2d44b39qvhn7h76mm5jbro7i35v2i36mfj@4ax.com...
>
> >I have just read my post and apologise to all for wandering completely
off
> >topic and undoubtedly outside NG rules.
>
> Time to change your newspaper, Chris?
> --
>
> Martin
>

You are probably right. I stopped buying mine when its content deteriorated
after a change in ownership. So I now read a broad selection of on-line
papers :-)

Martin

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:33:45 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2d44b39qvhn7h76mm5jbro7i35v2i36mfj@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> >I have just read my post and apologise to all for wandering completely
>off
>> >topic and undoubtedly outside NG rules.
>>
>> Time to change your newspaper, Chris?

>You are probably right. I stopped buying mine when its content deteriorated
>after a change in ownership. So I now read a broad selection of on-line
>papers :-)
>

Me too. Today the Indy informed us that next week NASA will launch the first
shuttle since the disaster in 2003. I didn't believe that either.
Is the Indy the ultimate in cut and paste journalism?
--

Martin

chrisR

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:9o54b3945rjsultprhj1c3e98pjap5fn2d@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:33:45 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:2d44b39qvhn7h76mm5jbro7i35v2i36mfj@4ax.com.. .
> >>
> >> >I have just read my post and apologise to all for wandering completely
> >off
> >> >topic and undoubtedly outside NG rules.
> >>
> >> Time to change your newspaper, Chris?
>
> >You are probably right. I stopped buying mine when its content
deteriorated
> >after a change in ownership. So I now read a broad selection of on-line
> >papers :-)
> >
>
> Me too. Today the Indy informed us that next week NASA will launch the
first
> shuttle since the disaster in 2003. I didn't believe that either.
> Is the Indy the ultimate in cut and paste journalism?
> --
>
> Martin
>

I thought it was a form of modern music?

ChrisR

Martin

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:54:04 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>news:9o54b3945rjsultprhj1c3e98pjap5fn2d@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:33:45 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:2d44b39qvhn7h76mm5jbro7i35v2i36mfj@4ax.com.. .
>> >>
>> >> >I have just read my post and apologise to all for wandering completely
>> >off
>> >> >topic and undoubtedly outside NG rules.
>> >>
>> >> Time to change your newspaper, Chris?
>>
>> >You are probably right. I stopped buying mine when its content
>deteriorated
>> >after a change in ownership. So I now read a broad selection of on-line
>> >papers :-)
>> >
>>
>> Me too. Today the Indy informed us that next week NASA will launch the
>first
>> shuttle since the disaster in 2003. I didn't believe that either.
>> Is the Indy the ultimate in cut and paste journalism?

>I thought it was a form of modern music?

Independent or NASA?
--

Martin

TonyB

>>
>
> You may be right but how do you detect and prevent reduced duty heating
> oil
> being used?

Same as red - it contains chemical markers that you cannot see and a dye,
a sort of greenish/yellow.

TonyB

chrisR

"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:hk64b311c0sb8i13fgav0njtc5bpbblsk5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:54:04 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:9o54b3945rjsultprhj1c3e98pjap5fn2d@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 18:33:45 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Martin" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> >> >news:2d44b39qvhn7h76mm5jbro7i35v2i36mfj@4ax.com.. .
> >> >>
> >> >> >I have just read my post and apologise to all for wandering
completely
> >> >off
> >> >> >topic and undoubtedly outside NG rules.
> >> >>
> >> >> Time to change your newspaper, Chris?
> >>
> >> >You are probably right. I stopped buying mine when its content
> >deteriorated
> >> >after a change in ownership. So I now read a broad selection of
on-line
> >> >papers :-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Me too. Today the Indy informed us that next week NASA will launch the
> >first
> >> shuttle since the disaster in 2003. I didn't believe that either.
> >> Is the Indy the ultimate in cut and paste journalism?
>
> >I thought it was a form of modern music?
>
> Independent or NASA?
> --
>
> Martin
>
Indie of course :-)

chrisR

"TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett@tesco.net> wrote in message
newsOCdnR9Gwryp1y_bRVnyuQA@bt.com...
> >>
> >
> > You may be right but how do you detect and prevent reduced duty heating
> > oil
> > being used?
>
> Same as red - it contains chemical markers that you cannot see and a dye,
> a sort of greenish/yellow.
>
> TonyB
>

But it doesn't and isn't in the proposals

Tony of Judicious

Martin wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 18:25:51 +0100, "Julian" <julian@negearth.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Can be found here
>>http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_027786
>>
>>Interesting to note their preferred option is to keep the supply as now
>>i.e. we can still use red for propulsion but they will make the supplier
>>collect the extra tax when selling to be used in a pleasure boats
>>propulsion system.
>
> Other than not paying tax at all, wasn't this the preferred solution here?


The impact statement referred makes interesting reading. It was prepared as
part of the UK Gov's request to extend derogation (which, of course,
failed). To, me it looks as if UK Gov is on our side.

Took a bit of poking around to find it:

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_025356

PyroJames

On Aug 2, 6:11 pm, "Ric" <frayben...@tincan.ra> wrote:
> "Garry" <kestrelt...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>
> news:irl3b3pij2trlbhais73gc7bg7poad2a7u@4ax.com...
>
> > I've just quickly read the document ( thanks origonal poster) , heres
> > afew thoughts & questions and opinions...not in any particular order.
>
> > When it all boils down i'ts a load of bollocks but our rulers in
> > brussels are going to force it down all our throats...
>
> It is not a load of bollocks. It is a simple, fair and easily administered
> system. Commercial boats and yachts can buy fuel tax free. Private yachts
> pay VAT. Doing it like this is good economic sense - not the place to
> discuss it here but buy a book on macroeconomics and read up the adavantages
> of a value added tax system to an economy.

But we are not talking VAT are we. We are talking road tax on fuel not
used on the road.

PyroJames.
Doesn't buy red diesel anyway.

chrisR

"PyroJames" <DrPyroJames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186132075.555803.321130@l70g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Aug 2, 6:11 pm, "Ric" <frayben...@tincan.ra> wrote:
> > "Garry" <kestrelt...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:irl3b3pij2trlbhais73gc7bg7poad2a7u@4ax.com...
> >

>
> But we are not talking VAT are we. We are talking road tax on fuel not
> used on the road.
>
> PyroJames.
> Doesn't buy red diesel anyway.
>

Exactly Pyro, the Gov't have decided it is right for them to charge derv
prices.

Tony's well found Gov't impact pdf document may have a supportive tone, but
gov. reports are designed to mollify voters aren't they. Of course this is
one of the many unpalatable but documented policy features to which we
agreed when we signed our soul away to the EU devil. I do not see that
our Government has to do something it doesn't wish to, unless we have
already lost our power to determine such a minor matter and that would be
seriously worrying.
I still want duty free diesel even though I hardly use any.

ChrisR

..

Richard

> The impact statement referred makes interesting reading. It was prepared
> as
> part of the UK Gov's request to extend derogation (which, of course,
> failed). To, me it looks as if UK Gov is on our side.
>
> Took a bit of poking around to find it:
>
> http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_025356

Thanks for the link

What a good document
both because it's easily readable
and
because I agree with its recommendations
(i.e. extend the current status for a further 5 years)



Let's hope that's what actually happens

Tony of Judicious

Richard wrote:

>
>
>> The impact statement referred makes interesting reading. It was prepared
>> as
>> part of the UK Gov's request to extend derogation (which, of course,
>> failed). To, me it looks as if UK Gov is on our side.
>>
>> Took a bit of poking around to find it:
>>
>>
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsP...E_PROD1_025356
>
> Thanks for the link
>
> What a good document
> both because it's easily readable
> and
> because I agree with its recommendations
> (i.e. extend the current status for a further 5 years)
>
>
>
> Let's hope that's what actually happens

Sadly, no. The EU has already ruled out an extension of the derogation. If
the Gov doesn't do something it will be hauled before the EU courts.

In my professionsal work I get involved slightly in EU legislation on the
environment. In my opinion the Italians ignore things, the French sort of
comply, the Germans do things their own way which is generally rather
sensible, but we in the UK insist on dotting the i's and crossing the t's
which causes no end of trouble.

Gain to the Exchequer is likely to be less than £10M which is peanuts and is
hardly worth the bother.

But Brussels says do it, so we do it.

Garry

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:46:42 +0100, Tony of Judicious
<tony@deletethis.thoward.plus.com> wrote:
Snip
>
>But Brussels says do it, so we do it.


did anyone on this newsgroup actually vote for this ? I think not!

How much of what our government's have done on our behalf (London &
Brussels ) have any of us voted for ?

Take the EEC ,, I was only in my teens at the time but didn't Ted
Heath take us into a common market ?... Part of the problem is the
level of taxation on fuel in the UK.. Notice the EU only says member
states must collect the tax but not how much! the end of red diesel in
the UK will not "harmonise" the tax levels we pay it will only shift
the balance to our detriment and to the advantage of the bloody
french!

but if levels of taxation were "harmonised" we wouldn't be paying
punitive taxes on road fuel booze and ciggies. The black market
wouldn't be worth the effort. Why is economical for truck drivers or
(potentially) floating gin palaces to cross the channel to fill up
with diesel ? i't not what we are taxed on it's how much and the level
of contempt with which it's spent. ie wars , assylum seekers, gay
outreach workers, domes , protecting our freedoms by taking them of
us.



you could go on forever !!

Stop the bloody world and let me off !

Gaz

Keith

In message <f8vf8p$58f$1@aioe.org>, Tony of Judicious
<tony@deletethis.thoward.plus.com> writes
>
>
>But Brussels says do it, so we do it.
>
.... and keeps another 3,000 civil servants on the UK idiots'^w
taxpayers' payroll.

What a nonsense. Not just the DERV proposals - the whole of the EEC. We
are the *only* country which even attempts to follow their guidelines -
and when it comes to our UK farmers our own civil servants are so fscked
up they can't/won't pay out legitimate subsidies..

Kick arse, I say. Let's mob/barricade every EU port and stage a protest.
It'll get more publicity than a wimpy walk to Downing Street.

Nothing out, nothing in. RORO, cargo, tankers. From Rotterdam to Lisbon.
"Zese bloody Rosbifs! Merde!. Zey are deztroying our economie..!"

They did it to us (French fishermen) - let's give 'em a taste of their
own back yard.
--
Keith replace nospam with ilf0rd

Steve Firth

Tony of Judicious <tony@deletethis.thoward.plus.com> wrote:

>
> But Brussels says do it, so we do it.

Sorry, but that's a consignment of aged shoemenders. This government and
indeed every government since we entered the EEC/EU has hidden behind
the skirts of Brussels but the fact is that this government wants to tax
all diesel but finds it convenient to blame someone else.

Also I suspect that unlike other EU countries that this government will
carefully "forget" to enact the legislation necessary to permit
commercial users of diesel to reclaim duty. Although I pay duty on
diesel purchased in Italy for farming, as a registered farmer I can
reclaim that duty at the end of the year, or rahter offset it against
tax payments.

I can see no reason whey the owners of pleasure boats should be exempted
from taxation on fuel.

Anyway, what are you whining about? My boat fuel bills for the last five
years don't amount to much more than £200 in total.

TonyB

>
> What a nonsense. Not just the DERV proposals - the whole of the EEC. We
> are the *only* country which even attempts to follow their guidelines -
> and when it comes to our UK farmers our own civil servants are so fscked
> up they can't/won't pay out legitimate subsidies..
>
> Kick arse, I say. Let's mob/barricade every EU port and stage a protest.
> It'll get more publicity than a wimpy walk to Downing Street.
>
> Nothing out, nothing in. RORO, cargo, tankers. From Rotterdam to Lisbon.
> "Zese bloody Rosbifs! Merde!. Zey are deztroying our economie..!"
>
> They did it to us (French fishermen) - let's give 'em a taste of their
> own back yard.


No need for all that. Simply vote at every opportunity for the
UK's fourth largest party - the UK Independence Party. I am
unashamed to say I'm a member. They will whip us out of Europe
but still encourage trade with Europe. "In Europe but not
run by Europe" I think the slogan is. There will be a net benefit
in billions of cash that we can spend here at home
on schools, police, hospitals, even farmers. ;-)

TonyB

Martin

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:07:55 -0000, PyroJames <DrPyroJames@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 2, 6:11 pm, "Ric" <frayben...@tincan.ra> wrote:
>> "Garry" <kestrelt...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:irl3b3pij2trlbhais73gc7bg7poad2a7u@4ax.com...
>>
>> > I've just quickly read the document ( thanks origonal poster) , heres
>> > afew thoughts & questions and opinions...not in any particular order.
>>
>> > When it all boils down i'ts a load of bollocks but our rulers in
>> > brussels are going to force it down all our throats...
>>
>> It is not a load of bollocks. It is a simple, fair and easily administered
>> system. Commercial boats and yachts can buy fuel tax free. Private yachts
>> pay VAT. Doing it like this is good economic sense - not the place to
>> discuss it here but buy a book on macroeconomics and read up the adavantages
>> of a value added tax system to an economy.
>
>But we are not talking VAT are we. We are talking road tax on fuel not
>used on the road.

It hasn't been called road tax for decades.
--

Martin

Martin

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:13:56 +0100, "chrisR" <chris@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"PyroJames" <DrPyroJames@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1186132075.555803.321130@l70g2000hse.googleg roups.com...
>> On Aug 2, 6:11 pm, "Ric" <frayben...@tincan.ra> wrote:
>> > "Garry" <kestrelt...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:irl3b3pij2trlbhais73gc7bg7poad2a7u@4ax.com...
>> >
>
>>
>> But we are not talking VAT are we. We are talking road tax on fuel not
>> used on the road.
>>
>> PyroJames.
>> Doesn't buy red diesel anyway.
>>
>
>Exactly Pyro, the Gov't have decided it is right for them to charge derv
>prices.
>
>Tony's well found Gov't impact pdf document may have a supportive tone, but
>gov. reports are designed to mollify voters aren't they. Of course this is
>one of the many unpalatable but documented policy features to which we
>agreed when we signed our soul away to the EU devil.

Would you like to turn the clock back to the pre-EU days?

--

Martin

Martin

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:53:07 +0100, Keith <keith@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <f8vf8p$58f$1@aioe.org>, Tony of Judicious
><tony@deletethis.thoward.plus.com> writes
>>
>>
>>But Brussels says do it, so we do it.
>>
>... and keeps another 3,000 civil servants on the UK idiots'^w
>taxpayers' payroll.
>
>What a nonsense. Not just the DERV proposals - the whole of the EEC. We
>are the *only* country which even attempts to follow their guidelines -

Please don't quote rubbish from the Daily Mail on a sailing newsgroup.
--

Martin

Martin

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:21:48 +0100, "TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett@tesco.net> wrote:

>>
>> What a nonsense. Not just the DERV proposals - the whole of the EEC. We
>> are the *only* country which even attempts to follow their guidelines -
>> and when it comes to our UK farmers our own civil servants are so fscked
>> up they can't/won't pay out legitimate subsidies..
>>
>> Kick arse, I say. Let's mob/barricade every EU port and stage a protest.
>> It'll get more publicity than a wimpy walk to Downing Street.
>>
>> Nothing out, nothing in. RORO, cargo, tankers. From Rotterdam to Lisbon.
>> "Zese bloody Rosbifs! Merde!. Zey are deztroying our economie..!"
>>
>> They did it to us (French fishermen) - let's give 'em a taste of their
>> own back yard.
>
>
>No need for all that. Simply vote at every opportunity for the
>UK's fourth largest party - the UK Independence Party. I am
>unashamed to say I'm a member.

If UK leaves the EU where then?

The Monster Raving Looney Party have better thought out policies
--

Martin

Ric

> But we are not talking VAT are we. We are talking road tax on fuel not
> used on the road.

"road tax" is now just a name for a value added tax, whatever its origins.
Private fuel usage should be value added taxed (whatever the nomenclature)
as private fuel use is unproductive to the economy. Commercial fuel use is
productive to the economy, which is why it is not taxed. That is what VAT is
about - but beyond the remit of this NG. If you want to argue the merits or
not of VAT, go to another NG!

Andy Champ

Martin wrote:
>
> If UK leaves the EU where then?
>
How about NAFTA?

Andy

Martin

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:22:26 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:

>Martin wrote:
>>
>> If UK leaves the EU where then?
>>
>How about NAFTA?

NAAFI?
--

Martin

Andy Champ

Martin wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:22:26 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Martin wrote:
>>> If UK leaves the EU where then?
>>>
>> How about NAFTA?
>
> NAAFI?

I was being serious.

NAFTA is a trade organisation covering Canada, Mexico and the USA.

http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index.html

"Unlike the European Union, NAFTA does not create a set of supranational
governmental bodies, nor does it create a body of law superior to
national law." [Wikipedia]

Andy

Martin

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:43:15 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:

>Martin wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:22:26 +0100, Andy Champ <no.way@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin wrote:
>>>> If UK leaves the EU where then?
>>>>
>>> How about NAFTA?
>>
>> NAAFI?
>
>I was being serious.
>
>NAFTA is a trade organisation covering Canada, Mexico and the USA.

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Since when has UK been in North America?
--

Martin

Ian

On 3 Aug, 17:21, "TonyB" <hatt.j.benn...@tesco.net> wrote:

> No need for all that. Simply vote at every opportunity for the
> UK's fourth largest party - the UK Independence Party.

UKIP seems very cagey about revealing it's membership figures, but
"around 11,000" seems the generally accepted figure. The SNP has about
12,500 ... and MPs ... and MEPs ... and many councils ... and runs
Scotland. I'm not an SNP member myself, but I don't think there is
much doubt that they a significantly bigger and more important
political party than UKIP.

> I am
> unashamed to say I'm a member. They will whip us out of Europe
> but still encourage trade with Europe.

Which assumes, of course, that the rest of Europe would want to play
in those circumstances.

Ian

Ian

On 3 Aug, 12:13, "chrisR" <ch...@yachtsmen.co.uk> wrote:

> I still want duty free diesel even though I hardly use any.

For boating or driving?

Ian