I would say that this is a reasonable & fair summary. Irrespective of what the legislation states, it was never intended to apply to this situation.
Depends what you mean by never intended to apply to “this situation”, it was originally legislation that actually supported/enabled “free” trade in Europe. Its intention WAS to stop boats from ourside that market being imported whilst local producers were jumping through hoops. The issue is they redefined the market without much thought but we don’t know if it was intended or not. It may have been a negotiating point that if we are no longer allowed to flog our old boats in your market, you can no longer flog yours in ours.
No it is not. It might seem logical and sensible, but the law says differently. It is a deliberate act to require all imports to meet current standards. That is exactly what the EU did when it set up its standards effective in 1998. Anything coming in from outside the ne regulatory area required certification to the current standard. The 2021 UK regulatory regime does exactly the same.
Unfortunately some people do seem to believe him. No idea if they believe him because they think he’s actually right or because they don’t like to think their new found sovereignty could actually have made things worse.
It would take only a cursory reading of the contents page to see they apply to boats made in the U.K., boats made overseas and imported into the U.K. (eg by a dealer) and to boats imported by individuals for their own use.
That’s never been in dispute - but the issue is the throw away words “correct standard” means the RCD2013.
That (and boats which were built to the RCD1994 are the nub of the problem. There was no harmonised standard pre RCD1994. It’s quite clear in the legislation that any import has to meet the RCD2013. End of story. The trading standard letter doesn’t contradict this “applicable standard”. It suits some people to misinterpret those words. Good luck to them.
by that logic since in the pre 1998 world when there were no CE marks required on boats, pre 98 American boats would be fine to import and we all know that is not the case.
Unfortunately the legislators drafted a badly written law that at the time was not given sufficient time to ensure every eventuality would be covered. Most new laws have someone or group leading the drafting, usually with some purpose that gives them preference over competitors. I am happy to provide more examples whilst we were in the EU - the most notable was not allowing bent bananas. It has been quoted it was due to the EU but reality was the UK government was protecting Commonwealth Carribean producers from South American producers whose bananas were highly curved.
Sad, you just can't leave it alone can you?
he went out of his way to lie about me - he must have some agenda, I have no idea what. He is like a flat earth conspiracy theorist - show him the facts and he’ll quote back only the small section that suits the argument he is trying to win ignoring everything else. A “trusted source” comes along and says what others have been saying and he gaslights their response by adding meaning that was not there when he paraphrases it to suit his agenda, rather than simply quote the source and let people interpret it. He started a new thread… failing to respond to that would be allowing his misinformation to spread. But I’m not sure what your contribution was meant to bring?
The same as your contribution, nothing.
No I was making clear the “alternative” (I would say correct) interpretation of the rules and highlighting that Nevis is not a lone warrior here but seems to have a following of people who would also like his version of reality to be right. You on the other hand seem to be telling me I shouldn’t post.
The law is there for anyone who wants to read it to do so.
The government department responsible provide a guide which does exactly that. Nevis even went and asked Trading Standards - and there answer (albeit to a question we haven’t actually seen) is consistent with both the legislation and the guidance.
I’m not trying to import a boat or encouraging others to do so. Anyone doing so should be sure they understand the rules and the risks if the break those rules (POTENTIAL perhaps small but non zero risk of vessel impounded, insurer finding an excuse not to pay, prosecution being unlikely although not impossible if they believe you were intentionally doing it).
You see, there you have it, wrong interpretation of my post.
What did “sad you just can’t leave it alone can you” mean then, if it was not telling me to stop talking?
Indeed that is the case.
Correct
What you have to remember is the U.K. gov in 2017 just turned the the EU directive into U.K. law. That was fine there wasn’t really a supply/demand issue in the EU and boats could freely move anywhere inside the EU without triggering the Import rules - so it was keeping outside EU boats out, either for safety/environmental/economic/political reasons. The same thing had happened in 1998 with the original RCD.
I am not sure it happens in reverse, partly because there have been reports here of people successfully buying boats here (from memory one was a Contessa 26) and importing into the EU (Holland in this case) and partly because I think the original RCD rules from 1998 are still in place. I have already raised this point - the original exemptions were for any boat built in the EEA/EU or any boat in the EU/EEA on the qualifying date. The first category is the one that some would like to be in the UK rules, but that is illogical because the UK is no longer in the EU/EEA so why should boats built under a different regulatory regime be exempt? If there was a need for an exemption then surely it would be for earlier boats built in the UK?
No about 15 yrs too modern! I think almost anything in GRP is too new for that.
The design is from 1966. It is the design date which counts. Not the date your "replica" was constructed.
