EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Howardh]

The forced use of white diesel (or paying white price) for propulsion purposes in inland canal vessels in the UK.

Not wanted by the government. Certainly not wanted by boaters who now pay £100s pa in extra tax. Forced by the EU on the altar of "harmonisation".

Not a big item and of no concern to non boaters but don't worry, the next EU tax will probably apply to houses but not boats!

Yes, you have mentioned that before and I sympathise, although as you allude to it's only a small % of the population it affects and no doubt many might argue that why should a boat owner have the advantage of lower tax over a lorry driver or car owner?
As for housing, I am not aware of any plans for the EU to tax houses, although if they "forced" taxes on second-homes (especially in areas where there is shortage of affordable homes for locals) I would give that four cheers. It's something OUR government should do!!

 

[Howardh]

https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/eligibility

Thanks; so you can get the WFA but not where it's warm. Today's lesson learned!!

Note, it can be bloody cold in some parts of the afore-mentioned countries in winter; even outside mountanous regions. Northern Spain isn't the warmest winter destination on earth.

 

[AlterEgo]

retired ex-pats taking up housing, benefits, doctor's/hospital space (and eventually care homes no doubt) and taking their pensions, winter fuel allowances*, free TV licences, bus passes etc and contributing little back.

If that's really the case then I'm sure the EU countries who took the feckless, unproductive leeches you allude to will now be glad to be rid of them, right?

Do retirees to Spain and the like fail to contribute to the country that took them in?

 

[Aictos]

But after the Brexit date, UK workers can't freely move to the EU for work, and vice versa.
So the right that all EU citizens have enjoyed will be removed.

BUT from what the Govt said, there was nothing said that what you are proposing will happen - all they said is the agreement will protect the rights of UK workers working in the EU and vice versa.

There was NO mention that this will only last until D Day and that came from the Brexit Department themselves so you would hope they have some idea of what's happening especially as they were being grilled on it by SNP and Labour MPs.

 

[radamfi]

BUT from what the Govt said, there was nothing said that what you are proposing will happen - all they said is the agreement will protect the rights of UK workers working in the EU and vice versa.

There was NO mention that this will only last until D Day and that came from the Brexit Department themselves so you would hope they have some idea of what's happening especially as they were being grilled on it by SNP and Labour MPs.

But there was no need to mention it as the context of this discussion in the media has usually been about people currently taking advantage of the free movement. The prime minister has repeated stated that free movement will end.

 

[Howardh]

If that's really the case then I'm sure the EU countries who took the feckless, unproductive leeches you allude to will now be glad to be rid of them, right?

Do retirees to Spain and the like fail to contribute to the country that took them in?

You mean the ones with UK pensions paying taxes into the Spanish system and buying their goods?

 

[AlterEgo]

You mean the ones with UK pensions paying taxes into the Spanish system and buying their goods?

The ones who will therefore I assume be paying taxes back in Britain and buying our goods? Make up your mind if it’s a good thing or not.

 

[EM2]

BUT from what the Govt said, there was nothing said that what you are proposing will happen - all they said is the agreement will protect the rights of UK workers working in the EU and vice versa.

There was NO mention that this will only last until D Day and that came from the Brexit Department themselves so you would hope they have some idea of what's happening especially as they were being grilled on it by SNP and Labour MPs.

Protect the rights of those working in the EU and vice versa *now*.
What about those that might want to in the future?

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, you have mentioned that before and I sympathise, although as you allude to it's only a small % of the population it affects and no doubt many might argue that why should a boat owner have the advantage of lower tax over a lorry driver or car owner?
As for housing, I am not aware of any plans for the EU to tax houses, although if they "forced" taxes on second-homes (especially in areas where there is shortage of affordable homes for locals) I would give that four cheers. It's something OUR government should do!!

Same thing happens in another forum I write in. I am asked for an example of EU interference. I give one and immediately it is thrown back as a good thing done by the EU.

As it happens the white diesel thing is more complicated than it appears. It is annoying that uniquely amongst permanent off road users of diesel, boaters have been selected for this punishment beating. ALL other users, private as well as commercial, can still use red.

Probably a test by the EU. See how much support boaters get from others (none) so move on to bigger targets.

 

[NSEFAN]

actually, I’d say freedom of movement is more a privilege than a “right”.

Strictly speaking, all rights are privileges when the situation is dire enough.

 

[EM2]

The forced use of white diesel (or paying white price) for propulsion purposes in inland canal vessels in the UK.

Not wanted by the government. Certainly not wanted by boaters who now pay £100s pa in extra tax. Forced by the EU on the altar of "harmonisation".

Not a big item and of no concern to non boaters but don't worry, the next EU tax will probably apply to houses but not boats!

So if it wasn't wanted by the government, did they have the option of a veto?

 

[Howardh]

The ones who will therefore I assume be paying taxes back in Britain and buying our goods? Make up your mind if it’s a good thing or not.

I would make up my mind if I had half a clue as to what you are going on about!

 

[HH]

Okay how about inhibiting EU citizens from coming here in the first place, which is what most people think of when wishing to end free movement?

This argument would have greater traction if the government actually inhibited non-EU citizens from coming here. But then Bojo wouldn't have his Nanny or get his palace cleaned.

The forced use of white diesel (or paying white price) for propulsion purposes in inland canal vessels in the UK.

You clearly have no understanding of how the EU works. Worryingly, neither does our government. A couple of years ago I went to an event about the EU hosted at one of the leading London Lawyers; it was discussing the rules around Utilities. I found myself a little confused, as while the rules apparently applied to the Railways, they didn't to Electricity. So I asked the top man why that was - he said France & Italy (I think it was) had objected, because it disadvantaged them. We also have this power, but it seems we very rarely exercise it. Now, I ask you, is that the EU's fault?

All of these rules are dreamt up by bureaucrats, but every country has a chance to get them amended. That's a lot more democratic than this country. Sorry if that bursts one of your prejudices.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would make up my mind if I had half a clue as to what you are going on about!

Your point was that we would now be getting back a load of pensioners you said would be taking up housing, hospital beds and all the rest.

I assume you’re okay with them doing so in Spain, a country the vast majority of them will never have contributed to in any significant way.

 

[furnessvale]

So if it wasn't wanted by the government, did they have the option of a veto?

No. As you are aware, in many areas the veto has been replaced by majority voting. The UK government has recently been put before the ECJ, by Belgium I believe, for not implementing the directive satisfactorily and has been given, I think, 3 months to sort it out or face a fine.

Being good boys no doubt we will pay any fine promptly. Did Italy EVER pay the fines imposed over milk quotas all those years ago? I seem to remember they were quietly lost in those all so perfect EU accounts.

 

[fowler9]

Your point was that we would now be getting back a load of pensioners you said would be taking up housing, hospital beds and all the rest.

I assume you’re okay with them doing so in Spain, a country the vast majority of them will never have contributed to in any significant way.

The English people I know who live in Spain are ex forces have contributed to the Spanish forces since moving there. The Spanish people I know living in the UK work for Spanish companies giving jobs to people from the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

The English people I know who live in Spain are ex forces have contributed to the Spanish forces since moving there. The Spanish people I know living in the UK work for Spanish companies giving jobs to people from the UK.

We were talking about people who specifically retire abroad.

 

[Howardh]

Your point was that we would now be getting back a load of pensioners you said would be taking up housing, hospital beds and all the rest.
I assume you’re okay with them doing so in Spain, a country the vast majority of them will never have contributed to in any significant way.

Still not 100% sure I know what you mean.
If UK nationals return to the UK they are still UK nationals, they will be putting back their state and private pensions into our economy (which is good), but the chances are the majority will be taking more out than they put in - especially if they need care which is state paid-for. Whereas if they stayed in Spain their paid-for insurance should cover them in those circumstances, meaning they would technically be self-funding whereas here they would be a burden to the tax-payer.
And on return they would be taking up housing stock which I'm told - on here - we are desperately short of.
Alternatively if we stayed in the EU and they stayed there....yes they would be putting our pensions into the Spanish economy, but they have released housing and medical space here and could be in better health than they would be in the UK (I'm convinced if my old man had lived in Spain he wouldn't have died of pneumonia) where they could need costly treatment.

So being in the EU and allowing our expats to live in the sun is a win-win for us and them, even if their state pensions boost the Spanish economy.

 

[bramling]

There aren't any associated benefits though. If there was I may accept it as an necessary step.

No benefits your opinion. Others evidently see benefit in keeping EU citizens (and non-EU citizens) out.

 

[Howardh]

No benefits your opinion. Others evidently see benefit in keeping EU citizens (and non-EU citizens) out.

In their opinion.

 

[EM2]

No.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-03-1456_en.htm?locale=en

The European Commission has welcomed the unanimous adoption by the EU's Council of Ministers of a Directive which widens the scope of the EU's minimum rate system, previously limited to mineral oils, to all energy products including coal, natural gas and electricity.

(my emphasis)

Taxation is one of the areas of policy where unanimity is required in voting.

 

[Basher]

I understand; correct me if I have this wrong. That the goverment was proposing that if you leave the UK for more than 6 months, you do not qualify for our NHS imeadiatly on your return.

 

[furnessvale]

The document you have raised refers to a different thing which is the harmonisation of rates and differentials for commercial and non commercial use of fuels other than mineral oils. Before this directive, mineral oils were at a commercial disadvantage compared to coal, electricity and natural gas.

The requirement for UK private boats to use white (or pay white duty) was a specific directive aimed at the UK because only UK boats traditionally used red diesel. Thus in the interests of harmonisation this was ordered by the EU. The point being that canal boats cruising around UK canals is surely a matter for the UK to sort for itself. I was asked to provide an example of where EU interference has disadvantaged an individual UK citizen and I have done so. The merits or otherwise of EU harmonisation is a separate issue.

 

[bramling]

Still not 100% sure I know what you mean.
If UK nationals return to the UK they are still UK nationals, they will be putting back their state and private pensions into our economy (which is good), but the chances are the majority will be taking more out than they put in - especially if they need care which is state paid-for. Whereas if they stayed in Spain their paid-for insurance should cover them in those circumstances, meaning they would technically be self-funding whereas here they would be a burden to the tax-payer.
And on return they would be taking up housing stock which I'm told - on here - we are desperately short of.
Alternatively if we stayed in the EU and they stayed there....yes they would be putting our pensions into the Spanish economy, but they have released housing and medical space here and could be in better health than they would be in the UK (I'm convinced if my old man had lived in Spain he wouldn't have died of pneumonia) where they could need costly treatment.

So being in the EU and allowing our expats to live in the sun is a win-win for us and them, even if their state pensions boost the Spanish economy.

So by this logic the win-win is for the number of incoming EU citizens to roughly equal the number choosing to retire in Spain, as opposed to opening a floodgate to unlimited and uncontrollable numbers. Unfortunately this is non-practicable thanks to the EU’s ideological attachment to someone’s dream half a century ago.

 

[EM2]

The document you have raised refers to a different thing which is the harmonisation of rates and differentials for commercial and non commercial use of fuels other than mineral oils. Before this directive, mineral oils were at a commercial disadvantage compared to coal, electricity and natural gas.

The requirement for UK private boats to use white (or pay white duty) was a specific directive aimed at the UK because only UK boats traditionally used red diesel. Thus in the interests of harmonisation this was ordered by the EU. The point being that canal boats cruising around UK canals is surely a matter for the UK to sort for itself. I was asked to provide an example of where EU interference has disadvantaged an individual UK citizen and I have done so. The merits or otherwise of EU harmonisation is a separate issue.

And I asked you if the UK had a veto on that.
The document which enforces duty rates on diesel for pleasure craft in the UK is Excise Notice 554 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...leasure-craft-and-for-private-pleasure-flying

The UK held derogations from the Energy Products Directive (EPD) (2003/96) which permitted the use of reduced and exempt rates of duty for fuel used in private pleasure craft and for fuel used in private pleasure flying. These derogations expired on 31 December 2006. These changes were required in order to comply with European legislation.

2003/96 is the document referred to in my earlier post, which the Council Of Ministers agreed unanimously.
Taxation is an area of policy where unanimity is required.
Therefore, if the directive was accepted into law, the UK did not veto it.

 

[furnessvale]

And I asked you if the UK had a veto on that.
The document which enforces duty rates on diesel for pleasure craft in the UK is Excise Notice 554 - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...leasure-craft-and-for-private-pleasure-flying

2003/96 is the document referred to in my earlier post, which the Council Of Ministers agreed unanimously.
Taxation is an area of policy where unanimity is required.
Therefore, if the directive was accepted into law, the UK did not veto it.

Correct. The UK did not veto the 2003 directive because it obtained a derogation in respect of pleasure boat use. The UK applied for an extension to this derogation but the Commission refused. There is no veto or appeal against this subsequent decision. Perhaps the UK was naive in not vetoing the directive until the provision for UK leisure boats was incorporated into the body of the document, instead relying on a derogation and the goodwill of the EU. We live and learn.

 

[Howardh]

So by this logic the win-win is for the number of incoming EU citizens to roughly equal the number choosing to retire in Spain, as opposed to opening a floodgate to unlimited and uncontrollable numbers. Unfortunately this is non-practicable thanks to the EU’s ideological attachment to someone’s dream half a century ago.

Missed a bit. In addition to UKs retiring in the EU, we would also have leaving all those wanting to work or study in the EU which, thanks to the vote, won't be possible for all of them. Ok, some would return at some point, some won't, but those returnig would be replaced by those leaving etc.

 

[birchesgreen]

Interesting Norway ruled out an EFTA Norway model yesterday, though they did months ago too. But people like Rudd are still going on about Norway models, they just never listen do they?

 

[EM2]

The UK applied for an extension to this derogation but the Commission refused.

There were sixteen derogations refused, two from the UK, so it's not like we were being picked on.

 

[HH]

Correct. The UK did not veto the 2003 directive because it obtained a derogation in respect of pleasure boat use. The UK applied for an extension to this derogation but the Commission refused. There is no veto or appeal against this subsequent decision. Perhaps the UK was naive in not vetoing the directive until the provision for UK leisure boats was incorporated into the body of the document, instead relying on a derogation and the goodwill of the EU. We live and learn.

Firstly, there is no perhaps. The UK has been consistently naive (or is it lazy?) in its approach to EU legislation. There is no evidence that we learn; instead, we blame others.