Belgian customs at it again

[hellosailor]

"Well, not many countries still use cash to pay for tolls. I would by stymied too"
Stymied? Why, weren't you driving and paying tolls before electronic payment systems were implemented?
Their problem was that the toll both said $### and that's what they were offering it. Exactly what it asked for. That it needed coinage or presold tokens, not paper currency, was pretty much just a matter of local knowledge.

Then there's a quirk of our laws in the US which may only be local to us. Our federal republic was founded for several specific and limited reasons, among them to provide for "a common currency". And as part of that, our federal laws require the acceptance of the federal currency for pretty much all transactions (payment of "all debts"). That's been an issue for some time now.

Very generous of the Brits to let this go through formal resolution, instead of counterattacking.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't know why I'm spending time on this, but both you guys are wrong. EU law is -- law. Some EU laws and regulations have direct effect; some only have effect when implemented by the member states. The EU has certain legislative and administrative powers delegated by the member states, and as such has the power to implement laws and regulations which have direct effect without any implementing legislation of the member states. The EU even has certain judicial powers and even has a whole system of courts. If your government told you, as many EU member state governments did, that the EU is not a state, they lied to you -- the EU has many attributes of statehood and the ultimate goal of the EU project is to create a European federated state, with the members no longer fully sovereign. The EU is already more than half way there.

....

Confusing what really is simple.

We are talking about the prohibition of dyed fuel for propulsion. That is a directive and it is as I said, it is mandatory in a given period of time and it has to be put in each country's law in a satisfactory way. On the case of dyed full prohibition it was not done satisfactorily on the British law, according to the EU:

"On 14 July 2014, the European Commission announced it was referring the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice over the use of red-diesel in propelling private pleasure craft on water. It believes the UK is not properly applying EU regulations for the fiscal marking of fuels."

"A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to devise their own laws on how to reach these goals. "

Then you have regulations that "are a binding legislative act. It must be applied in its entirety across the EU. For example, when the EU wanted to make sure that there are common safeguards on goods imported from outside the EU, the Council adopted a regulation."

Then you have Decisions that are only binding to whom they are addressed:
"A "decision" is binding on those to whom it is addressed (e.g. an EU country or an individual company) and is directly applicable. For example, the Commission issued a decision on the EU participating in the work of various counter-terrorism organisations. The decision related to these organisations only."

And of course, the base of the EU are treaties (at the lack of a constitution) that are just short of that and are on the basis of EU:

The European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved voluntarily and democratically by all EU member countries. For example, if a policy area is not cited in a treaty, the Commission cannot propose a law in that area.

"A treaty is a binding agreement between EU member countries. It sets out EU objectives, rules for EU institutions, how decisions are made and the relationship between the EU and its member countries.

Treaties are amended to make the EU more efficient and transparent, to prepare for new member countries and to introduce new areas of cooperation – such as the single currency.

Under the treaties, EU institutions can adopt legislation, which the member countries then implement."

Regarding the aim of the EU to be the creation of a federal state it is not true, at least right now. In what regards European parliament there are some parties that are in favor, some against. Due to the diversity of opinions there is nothing on the EU treaties that says it is aimed to form a federal state.

Here a good description of what is now the EU. That does not mean that, if the majority will agree, the EU would not become in the future a Federal State.

https://europa.eu/european-union/abo...eu-in-brief_en

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"Well, not many countries still use cash to pay for tolls. I would by stymied too"
Stymied? Why, weren't you driving and paying tolls before electronic payment systems were implemented?

Well, we had manned booths. I have never encountered a toll booth in Europe that required exact change.

Very generous of the Brits to let this go through formal resolution, instead of counterattacking.

So suppose the federal government in the US found that the state of California was in breach of a federal statute, it would be generous of California not to counterattack?

The UK has signed a treaty, and that treaty comes with consequences. It now wants out of that treaty. Fine. (Although I still expect them to chicken out once the ramifications really hit)
But as long as they are "in", they are still bound by it.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

So suppose the federal government in the US found that the state of California was in breach of a federal statute, it would be generous of California not to counterattack?

Probably that is not the best example. This is exactly what is going on. States and cities in the US are violating Federal rules and the states are trying to punish the Federal government for enforcing them. It's madness.

Just because a regulation exists does not make it just. And common sense should not go out the window just because some regulation is written. It is this blind literal obedience to nonsense regulations that mystifies everyone outside the EU. Member states feel that they have no power to effect any change in senseless rules.

The intent of this rule is obviously to only have properly taxed fuel used for transportation. A worthy goal to be sure. Coloring fuel is just a means to that end. Surely common sense would allow there are other ways to achieve the original intent without spending billions on infrastructure changes just to collect a few million in taxes. If the irony of that is lost on central Europeans then they deserve the government they get.

Regarding Brexit, I think Europe underestimate the willpower of the British. And Europe overestimates their ability to do without the UK. Not for the first time either.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Polux

"On 14 July 2014, the European Commission announced it was referring the United Kingdom to the European Court of Justice over the use of red-diesel in propelling private pleasure craft on water. It believes the UK is not properly applying EU regulations for the fiscal marking of fuels."

Until the court makes a decision and all appeals are done, it is not 100% official who's interpretation of the EU regulation is correct.

Originally Posted by K_V_B

(Although I still expect them to chicken out once the ramifications really hit)

Never going to happen. Chickening out would 100% ensure that the Tory's lose the next election for showing weakness.Taking a strong negotiating position and scoring wins against the EU, plus signing FTA's with "traditional" trading partners like India, Australia etc. will give the British public and markets confidence for the future and give the Tory's a chance to stay in power.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Regarding Brexit, I think Europe underestimate the willpower of the British. And Europe overestimates their ability to do without the UK. Not for the first time either.

Frankfurt and other EU financial centres will suffer when the UK makes it attractive for companies to move their HQ's and market listings to London.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Frankfurt and other EU financial centres will suffer when the UK makes it attractive for companies to move their HQ's and market listings to London.

Actually a movement in the opposite direction is already happening. When Corbeyn becomes next PM (and keeps digging the hole the UK is in even deeper) that will even accelerate

[spearfish3]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Actually a movement in the opposite direction is already happening. When Corbeyn becomes next PM (and keeps digging the hole the UK is in even deeper) that will even accelerate

From a US perspective, this whole thing is interesting. Economically, Europe still has a lot of problems to solve. Banks still have a tremendous amount of non- performing loans and they are less capitalized than their US counterparts, especially in terms of equity financing. It is going to be ugly when this credit cycle ends. You also have banks taking different routes depending on their country when they are failing. Look at Banco Popular vs the two Italian banks this summer. Italy's "bending" of the rules put their already massively indebted country further on the hook. In the topic of this thread, Italy mixed their clear and red fuel with their bank bailout.

The UK has its own problems economically. Residential real estate values in London are very high, much of which is thanks to foreign capital bidding up prices. This won't end well either. And, you are right. Some financial firms are shifting some jobs to other countries. This will put pressure on real estate prices in London. But, the UK is more than banks and insurance. The country will move on.

Trade wars and tariffs are big talk today, but I do not see it happening in the end. Germany is in the power seat today, but 20 years ago it was a much different situation. It could be argued that they have benefited the most from the weaknesses of the periphery by having an artificially low Euro to help their exports. If a core Euro country leaves the monetary union, the knock on effects could be interesting. Is Poland next?

To be clear, I am not hating on just the European Union. The US has plenty of issues. Yield chasing behavior has bid up almost all asset values here and credit is flowing freely. The only difference today versus 10 years ago is that the housing boom is more localized vs national and banks are much better capitalized. The rest of the economy is as levered or worse.

Personally, my money is on China setting off the next recession, but that is too much drift for this thread.

Anyways, Europe has issues well beyond the interpretation of laws or regulations (or directives). These issues will surface in time and the balance of power will not be status quo.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Until the court makes a decision and all appeals are done, it is not 100% official who's interpretation of the EU regulation is correct.
.....

I don't know if there is already a rule on that or not but that regards UK to comply with EU dyed diesel rules. The country while a member of EU cannot escape or evade EU ruling on that.

That has to do with not only the use of red diesel by UK boats in EU waters but also with the prohibition of using red diesel in UK waters for propulsion of pleasure boats.

Regarding using red diesel for propulsion of pleasure boats out of UK waters and in EU waters the subject is clear as stated by the UK government. I find UK sailors not to be aware of that:

"Chloe Smith The Economic Secretary to the Treasury:

I am today announcing that from 1 April 2012 the use of red diesel to propel private pleasure craft will be allowed only within United Kingdom waters.

From 1 April anyone purchasing red diesel for use as fuel for propelling private pleasure craft will be required to make a declaration that the fuel will be used only within UK waters. The declaration will include an acknowledgement that the UK procedures do not affect any restrictions or prohibitions under the national laws of other European member states regarding fuel used for propelling private pleasure craft."
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?...-02-20a.61WS.0

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Just because a regulation exists does not make it just. And common sense should not go out the window just because some regulation is written. It is this blind literal obedience to nonsense regulations that mystifies everyone outside the EU. Member states feel that they have no power to effect any change in senseless rules.

I remember an introductury course in law, where my professor said that in coming to a decision a judge first looks at the letter of the law. Then he looks at jurisprudence.

Only at a last resort will things like "common sense" and "justice" be considered...

The law is an ass. Just aks those EU citizens now living in the UK. Some have been living there for decades, and they are all now living in the uncertainty whether they will be able to stay...

The intent of this rule is obviously to only have properly taxed fuel used for transportation. A worthy goal to be sure. Coloring fuel is just a means to that end. Surely common sense would allow there are other ways to achieve the original intent without spending billions on infrastructure changes just to collect a few million in taxes. If the irony of that is lost on central Europeans then they deserve the government they get.

What other means do you suggest to that end? Because marking the fuel is for sure the most common sense way to achieve the end of distinguishing between two different fuels...
That is why everybody does it like that.
The most common sense aproach would be for the UK to mimic the continent. Only sell white diesel to pleasure boaters, but lower the tax on it.
At one time boaters could fill up with red diesel in the Netherlands or Belgium as well, and so could for example farmers. When those countries changed the rules that did not lead to huge investment in infrastructure.

Regarding Brexit, I think Europe underestimate the willpower of the British. And Europe overestimates their ability to do without the UK. Not for the first time either.

Don't confuse "stubborness" with "willpower". The Brits are headed for hard times. Something better can come out of it, but right now the main problem is that you seem to have completely run out of people competent to run a country.

So what is likely going to happen in the next decade is a hard Brexit, Labour sweeping to power at the next election, with PM Corbeyn then proceeding with making matters much worse...

[PhiSig1071]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

At one time boaters could fill up with red diesel in the Netherlands or Belgium as well, and so could for example farmers. When those countries changed the rules that did not lead to huge investment in infrastructure.

You absolutely have to be trolling at this point. The comment about Belgium and the Netherlands is so disingenuous that it is frankly insulting.

According to the World Resources Institute, the Netherlands has 1,914 KM of coastline, and Belgium has 76 KM. The UK has 19,717 KM.

Are you actually going to tell me that having ten times the combined coastline length would not correspond to a higher number of marinas and a greater cost in infrastructure to equip all those marinas with new fuel systems?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...h_of_coastline

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071

You absolutely have to be trolling at this point. The comment about Belgium and the Netherlands is so disingenuous that it is frankly insulting.



According to the World Resources Institute, the Netherlands has 1,914 KM of coastline, and Belgium has 76 KM. The UK has 19,717 KM.



Are you actually going to tell me that having ten times the combined coastline length would not correspond to a higher number of marinas and a greater cost in infrastructure to equip all those marinas with new fuel systems?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...h_of_coastline

So 3 fuel tanks was all that Belgium needed and perhaps a dozen in the Netherlands covers all pleasure craft along the coast.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by PhiSig1071

You absolutely have to be trolling at this point. The comment about Belgium and the Netherlands is so disingenuous that it is frankly insulting.

According to the World Resources Institute, the Netherlands has 1,914 KM of coastline, and Belgium has 76 KM. The UK has 19,717 KM.

Are you actually going to tell me that having ten times the combined coastline length would not correspond to a higher number of marinas and a greater cost in infrastructure to equip all those marinas with new fuel systems?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...h_of_coastline

I am telling you that replacing the red diesel with white diesel once stocks run out would not require you to install new tanks.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by hoppy

So 3 fuel tanks was all that Belgium needed and perhaps a dozen in the Netherlands covers all pleasure craft along the coast.

You vastly underestimate the number of waterside fuel stations in the Netherlands. There are probably more in The Netherlands than in Australia even, in spite of the huge differences in coast line... (Hint: it is not coastline that matters, it is number of pleasure craft...)

But that is beside the issue. The reason I said that the changeover did not require huge investments had nothing to do with numbers, and everything to do with nobody having to install a second tank. All waterside fuel stations now only sell white diesel. Simple really. It doesn't matter whether it is 10, 100 or 10000 sites that do not have to make any investments...

In the Netherlands there are btw, quite a few waterside gas stations that serve both cars and boats...

[PhiSig1071]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

I am telling you that replacing the red diesel with white diesel once stocks run out would not require you to install new tanks.

So now you just want to cripple the British maritime economy by forcing all commercial vessels to buy taxed diesel along with pleasure boaters?

Have you actually retained anything at all that was said in this thread? The dye stays in the fuel system for a long time, it's not as simple as just filling up the tanks once they run out of red diesel. You also must have never worked at any kind of commercial enterprise dealing with fuel, marina or otherwise. Ever if it were as simple as refilling the tanks with taxed diesel, it's pretty much logistically impossible to let the diesel "run out" without causing significant problems. Is the fuel tanker with taxed diesel going to just wait around the marina for the tanks to run dry? All the while the fuel is sitting unused, taking up valuable tankage that could be used to haul fuel to a paying, waiting customer, and the lorry driver collecting a paycheck to sit at the marina and watch the birds? What about the boaters, if you're planning a visit to the continent you have to wait until they fuel up all the boats that aren't going first? Where is the dye introduced into the fuel? The entire supply chain might change. Sorry to break it to you, but this isn't exactly topping off a 5 gal jerry can.

All this talk about if this is or isn't a law and what has or hasn't been decided is irrelevant. For a significant number of yachtsmen in the UK they have no choice but to buy red diesel. They pay the tax and have reasonable proof that they have paid it, and for every other country in the EU that is sufficient. They are caught in the middle, and the Belgian Customs Service is giving them no option other than skipping Belgium altogether. That is extremely shortsighted and unfair.