What's the RYA's response to British boats being BANNED from Belgium?

Sooner or later you are going to end up paying full tax on your fuel - when that day comes, we can start sailing to Belgium again.

This completely sums up the issue.

In common with most yotties, use a couple of tanks of fuel a year - circa 100 litres - and much of that on heating and leccy generation. I'd be more than happy to use white diesel if only it was more easily available.

It's a complete pain that the mobos and big yachts seem to think that they should be subsidised by the rest of the country. Sorry, but in which universe did the thousand litre fuel tank look OK? Struth, I use around 2000 litres a year to heat my house!
 
Last edited:
Without reading the small print of all of the posts in this thread, it seems to me that everyone has missed the point.

According to Belgium, the act that is "illegal" is the use of marked fuel. It has nothing to do with duty whatsoever.

Yes. There have been other threads on the subject and that point is always made. It is also made very clear in the information provided by both the RYA and the government on the subject.

However,some people seem not to be able to understand this, or prefer to construct their own account of what is going on - usually as a basis for "get out of EU" type arguments! (Well not really arguments, just rants).

The reality is that the government believes that the current arrangements are legal and are prepared to fight the EU over this. All the other EU states (apparently) with the exception of Belgium accept this - or at least do not seem to want to make an issue of it. As individuals we can do nothing about the outcome of the case, and await the decision with interest.
 
Without reading the small print of all of the posts in this thread, it seems to me that everyone has missed the point.

According to Belgium, the act that is "illegal" is the use of marked fuel. It has nothing to do with duty whatsoever.

Yes, you are right, nothing to do with tax, as even with the 60-40 split we pay the same or more tax on diesel than most if not all other E.U. countries.
Do not have any idea why Belgium is being so silly about this, as others have said no action should be taken until the matter is resolved legally at Government level.
 
They have never forgiven us...

Yes, you are right, nothing to do with tax, as even with the 60-40 split we pay the same or more tax on diesel than most if not all other E.U. countries.
Do not have any idea why Belgium is being so silly about this, as others have said no action should be taken until the matter is resolved legally at Government level.

... for trying to help them in two wars, and they do seem an awkward 'nation' themselves-
perhaps they may be a harbinger of what the seemingly inevitable fragmentation of these Isles of ours may bring to us- even more pettifogging, nitpicking, jobsworths everywhere, politicos and public servants, trying to justify their jobs, instead of serving their citizens well.
The big multi nationals will just drive over us all.
 
Without reading the small print of all of the posts in this thread, it seems to me that everyone has missed the point.

According to Belgium, the act that is "illegal" is the use of marked fuel. It has nothing to do with duty whatsoever.

OK so the pragmatic approach is to unmark your red diesel with this: www.dyedepot.com this will work, provided the visual inspection is sufficient to dissuade a chemical marker check, which will be the case 99.9% of the time.
 
... for trying to help them in two wars, and they do seem an awkward 'nation' themselves-
perhaps they may be a harbinger of what the seemingly inevitable fragmentation of these Isles of ours may bring to us- even more pettifogging, nitpicking, jobsworths everywhere, politicos and public servants, trying to justify their jobs, instead of serving their citizens well.
The big multi nationals will just drive over us all.

Surely the real reason is that we, with the other European powers after the fall of Napoleon, invented Belgium solely as a convenient place to hold future wars without risking laying waste to our own countries?

oh, and bureaucracy is a disease which comes to all countries with socialism. At its height the whole of the British Empire was well administered by fewer civil servants than now work (sorry, draw their pay) in the DWP.
 
Last edited:
Surely the real reason is that we, with the other European powers after the fall of Napoleon, invented Belgium solely as a convenient place to hold future wars without risking laying waste to our own countries?

oh, and bureaucracy is a disease which comes to all countries with socialism. At its height the whole of the British Empire was well administered by fewer civil servants than now work (sorry, draw their pay) in the DWP.

Ah, but you are overlooking all the Colonial Service bods=DO's, Circuit Judges, etc,their local employed Clerks- babu's etc, Askari's/ body guards, river mail steamer/gunboat crews and civil engineers, Forestry Service Officers, etc, all of whom were on the payroll of Queen Victoria one way or another, just 'off the books' at Budget time:D

If you look at a copy of the Boy's Own Paper Annual pre WW1, there are recruiting Ads and Careers advice for bucket loads of Indian and Colonial Civil Service posts- all thats happened now is they've all been transferred Home:D
 
Ah, but you are overlooking all the Colonial Service bods=DO's, Circuit Judges, etc,their local employed Clerks- babu's etc, Askari's/ body guards, river mail steamer/gunboat crews and civil engineers, Forestry Service Officers, etc, all of whom were on the payroll of Queen Victoria one way or another, just 'off the books' at Budget time:D

If you look at a copy of the Boy's Own Paper Annual pre WW1, there are recruiting Ads and Careers advice for bucket loads of Indian and Colonial Civil Service posts- all thats happened now is they've all been transferred Home:D

Those extra bods were indeed there, but I had excluded from my rant all the extra hangers on we have today who work for agencies, quangos, consultants etc - also off the books! to say nothing off the senior people who have wangled rolling short term contracts so they can evade tax and NI by selling their services through one man companies based in offshore tax havens. Grrrrrrrrrr! public service ethos forsooth.
 
Those extra bods were indeed there, but I had excluded from my rant all the extra hangers on we have today who work for agencies, quangos, consultants etc - also off the books! to say nothing off the senior people who have wangled rolling short term contracts so they can evade tax and NI by selling their services through one man companies based in offshore tax havens. Grrrrrrrrrr! public service ethos forsooth.

Ah, but most of those you mention above are bringing 'lean, mean private sector thinking and practices' into the sluggish, idle public sector, hence the dilution of the Public Service Ethos;
This Ethos for the majority of old style Civil Servants went something like this
'My pay is 1/3 less than the private sector, Inflation is rampant again, I've been passed over again despite another promo report,and twice as much of the difficult work as anyone else, but if I keeping doing a good job
{two bad reports would have the P45 looming within 6 months in our lot, and Gods help you if the Petty Cash was out an old one pence},
the pension is 1/2 final pay if I carry on till 60, when they throw me out with a whip round prezzie from my colleagues' so I won't leave with my highly transferable and saleable skills to the private sector, but will serve my Country, as best I can, as my Parents & School brought me up to do.

Stodgy, dull, boring very old fashioned thinking, but so was the work:D:D:D:D
 
Parliament Group

I was looking up information for another purpose and came across the following:

All-Party Parliamentary Sailing and Marine Leisure Group

Purpose: To promote and maintain parliamentary knowledge and partnership with sailing, boating, canoeing and marine leisure interests.

Chair: Sir Peter Bottomley MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

This group has members from all parties and if people wish to take up the red deisel issue a letter to the Chairman may have effect. It is no good us grousing on here if we do not contact those who could have some influence.

Maybe there are other issues we should raise with them.
 
I was looking up information for another purpose and came across the following:

All-Party Parliamentary Sailing and Marine Leisure Group

Purpose: To promote and maintain parliamentary knowledge and partnership with sailing, boating, canoeing and marine leisure interests.

Chair: Sir Peter Bottomley MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

This group has members from all parties and if people wish to take up the red deisel issue a letter to the Chairman may have effect. It is no good us grousing on here if we do not contact those who could have some influence.

Maybe there are other issues we should raise with them.

Well spotted. Bottomley is MP for Worthing West (poor sod) so would probably be glad of something to take his mind off constituency matters.
 
...mobos and big yachts seem to think that they should be subsidised by the rest of the country. Sorry, but in which universe did the thousand litre fuel tank look OK? Struth, I use around 2000 litres a year to heat my house!
How is someone who pays £450 in tax on 1000L of fuel being subsidised by anyone?
 
Had the 60/40 rate not been in place, the tax would have been £690.
So, there has been a £240 'subsidy' - for want of a better word.

How can somebody who pays tax at a rate acceptable to HMRC be said to be subsidising anyone? Fuel, especially for road vehicles, has been an easy target for the taxman for years, with no discernible impact on oil consumption or the environment, but a very real impact on food costs in particular and inflation in general.

Mind you, The chairman of HMRC seems to be happy to let outfits like Vodafone off their tax bill for as little as a few agreeable lunches or dinners........
 
Top