Red Robbo

[carryfast]

dieseldave:
Blimey, this is even easier than I thought… and you still don’t give up… OK, let’s carry on.

You’ve sneaked in the word “historically,” so do you have a credible reference for that please?

Another failed attempt to deflect attention.

Third country work needed a special permit for third country work, historical examples of such a permit would be an EEC permit (blue book) or an ECMT permit (green book.) TO PERMIT THIRD COUNTRY WORK.

Cabotage (being a completely DIFFERENT operation) needs a cabotage permit, which is a different permit altogether.

Or another way of saying it… Cabotage and Third Country Work are mutually exclusive, and those two terms are not interchangeable.

Cabotage is the act of collecting and delivering a load in the same country by use of a vehicle registered in a different country, which is clearly VERY different to third country work.

I wrote this post slowly so that you might take your time reading it.

And it’s my contention that third country operations ‘were’ seen as a ‘form’ of cabotage by a loosely based meaning of the word.Which is why they needed a ‘special’ permit.Not being to provide a blanket ‘permit’ for such operations but to control them in the form of quotas to avoid the situation we’ve got now of the East Euro third country operations having effectively slaughtered the UK international fleet.IE we reserved the right to refuse such permits if it wasn’t deemed in our national interest to issue them if we weren’t getting our fair share of the available work.

All of which seems relevant to the issues concerning Brit workers supposedly being to blame for the loss of their own jobs,by them not joining in,or even being able to afford to join in,that race to the bottom,by trying to under cut their impossibly cheaper foreign counterparts.Which was the point.Not the pedantic hair splitting as to whether third country operations perfectly fit the definition of ‘cabotage’.When they fact is they are closer to that description than not.

[carryfast]

ChrisArbon:

Carryfast:
I might be wrong.But I think a Mexican based operator and reg truck would be stopped from hauling a load from the US to Canada and a backload from Canada to the US and that would be seen as a form of cabotage involving those two countries for all intents and purposes.Or at least the Canadians had better hope that I’m right. While I think the idea of what I mean’t,regarding Brit jobs for Brit workers ( or Canadian/US ones ),is clear enough regardless.With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?. To stop the type of situation we’ve got now of the West Euro,especially UK,international fleet being taken out by East Euro third country operations ?.

I don’t know what North American regulations have got to do with a thread about Red Robbo but as I am sitting in Laredo waiting for a trailer load of Mexican goods to be transhipped onto my Canadian trailer; I’ll tell you how it works.

I do three trips a month from Canada down to the Mexican border. Sometimes the trailer goes into Mexico pulled by Mexican unit. Sometimes I unload at a transhipping facility and the stuff goes in a Mexican trailer. This is big business at the border towns and not likely to change any time soon. I can only load back to Canada and either get a transhipped load or one of our own trailers ready loaded and brought back across by a Mexican unit. There are plenty of Mexican units running about in the US but only in the border zone. They could run up to Canada if they wanted and there is scheme for them to have US government trackers fitted at the US government’s expense. The only Mexican registered trucks that I have seen outside the border zone have been owned and operated by Mexican Mennonites.

Everybody seems happy with the way things are. It was minus 13 when I left Winnipeg and plus 30 when I got to Laredo. Why would any Mexican want to run US-Canada? Mexico is prosperous enough for them not to need international haulage work in the Tundra.

The example of import/export loads originating in/destined for the UK,being taken by under cutting third country operations,fits the discussion raised as part of the topic,that Brit workers are supposedly to blame for the loss of their own jobs,for not joining in the race to the bottom,whether it’s seamen or truck drivers.

While it seems that the examples you’re referring to don’t fit the description of Mexican trucks hauling loads ‘originating’ in the US and destined for Canada and vice versa ?.Such third country operations obviously having as much potential to saturate and take over the more lucrative ( for them ) Canadian-US haulage market,by under cutting,as East Euro third country operations have wrecked ours.

[ramone]

ChrisArbon:

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
As for cabotage.We’ve already got it in the form of East Euro tramping operations doing third country haulage between UK and Western Europe.

Third country work is NOT cabotage.

The part I’ve quoted makes no sense whatsoever, therefore I submit that it’s NONsense.

I might be wrong.But I think a Mexican based operator and reg truck would be stopped from hauling a load from the US to Canada and a backload from Canada to the US and that would be seen as a form of cabotage involving those two countries for all intents and purposes.Or at least the Canadians had better hope that I’m right. While I think the idea of what I mean’t,regarding Brit jobs for Brit workers ( or Canadian/US ones ),is clear enough regardless.With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?. To stop the type of situation we’ve got now of the West Euro,especially UK,international fleet being taken out by East Euro third country operations ?.

I don’t know what North American regulations have got to do with a thread about Red Robbo but as I am sitting in Laredo waiting for a trailer load of Mexican goods to be transhipped onto my Canadian trailer; I’ll tell you how it works.

I do three trips a month from Canada down to the Mexican border. Sometimes the trailer goes into Mexico pulled by Mexican unit. Sometimes I unload at a transhipping facility and the stuff goes in a Mexican trailer. This is big business at the border towns and not likely to change any time soon. I can only load back to Canada and either get a transhipped load or one of our own trailers ready loaded and brought back across by a Mexican unit. There are plenty of Mexican units running about in the US but only in the border zone. They could run up to Canada if they wanted and there is scheme for them to have US government trackers fitted at the US government’s expense. The only Mexican registered trucks that I have seen outside the border zone have been owned and operated by Mexican Mennonites.

Everybody seems happy with the way things are. It was minus 13 when I left Winnipeg and plus 30 when I got to Laredo. Why would any Mexican want to run US-Canada? Mexico is prosperous enough for them not to need international haulage work in the Tundra.

Totally off topic Chris ,but how long does it take to get from Canada to the Mexican border ,maybe a new thread here ?

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:
And it’s my contention that third country operations ‘were’ seen as a ‘form’ of cabotage by a loosely based meaning of the word.

Here’s the nub of this issue Carryfast… You have your own set of definitions for things and therefore twist what is being said (by wiser people) into a form that makes sense to you.

Add your deeply flawed sense of logic and penchant for the use of the irrelevant to that, and then anybody who tries to help you to understand something ends up feeling very frustrated by your inertia in accepting that somebody knows more than you do.

Your choice though.

Carryfast:
Not the pedantic hair splitting as to whether third country operations perfectly fit the definition of ‘cabotage’.When they fact is they are closer to that description than not.

Carryfast, it’s neither pedantic, nor hair splitting.

The fact is that third country work is a completely separate notion to cabotage. (Special permits were/are required for both.)

Your foolish ability to argue the unarguable is legendary, but a neutral observer would probably notice this from a couple of posts ago:

Carryfast:
With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?.

For a SECOND time, I’m asking you for any credible independent reference for this please.

The alternative is to admit that YOU are the only one doing the ‘historical seeing.’

Checkmate looms large…

[david_miller]

Looms Dave? It arrived at full loom a while ago.

However I feel that we should really cherish this new form of reasoning the C/F is showing us. For example

Historically Christianity is exactly the same as a Steamed Tripe Pudding because both are connected with the use of special buildings.

There! Now lets hear somebody argue with that one.

David

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?.

For a SECOND time, I’m asking you for any credible independent reference for this please.

Blimey leave it out you said it yourself.Third country operations needed a ‘special’ third country operations permit ?.IE a Brit truck running loads between Germany and Italy wasn’t classed as the same thing as UK-Germany-UK or UK-Italy-UK.As I said rightly being seen as closer to cabotage in that regard than not.Unlike the disadvantageous free for all we’ve got now which has decimated the UK international fleet.

Or have I missed something.

[carryfast]

David Miller:
Looms Dave? It arrived at full loom a while ago.

However I feel that we should really cherish this new form of reasoning the C/F is showing us. For example

No fine I was wrong.

It would all have been so much better if we’d have disbanded the union movement and joined in the race to the bottom by trying to undercut the foreign competition.Whether in the case of the shipping industry,or manufacturing industry,or road transport industry.The removal of what remains of ‘restrictive’ cabotage ‘protectionist’ policies obviously being part of that.

[dieseldave]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
With third country operations being seen historically as a form of cabotage that needed special permits ?.

For a SECOND time, I’m asking you for any credible independent reference for this please.

Still no reference, here’s your THIRD opportunity.

Three strikes and you’re outed as a waffler, so get googling!!

Third country work and cabotage BOTH need/needed special permits.
Those permits are DIFFERENT because third country work is DIFFERENT to cabotage.

The transport ministries of the member countries of the EU and the wider ECMT all work to the same definitions, except the minister for Carryfastland who has written his own dictionary of transport definitions and then failed to share it with anybody.

Carryfast:
Blimey leave it out you said it yourself.Third country operations needed a ‘special’ third country operations permit ?.IE a Brit truck running loads between Germany and Italy wasn’t classed as the same thing as UK-Germany-UK or UK-Italy-UK.

Correct at last, but now you’re cherrypicking or not reading the whole of what was written.

Now we just need to get this next bit right, then we’ve got you there…

Carryfast:
As I said VERY WRONGLY being seen as closer to cabotage in that regard than not.

You seem to accept that third country work is international by its name and definition, which is great!!

Do you accept that cabotage (by name and definition) takes place within the SAME country, which is therefore NOT international?
A straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do for that one because it doesn’t need any clarification.

Now do you see how fundamentally different the notion of cabotage is to the notion of third country work?

Carryfast:
Or have I missed something.

Yes, but I’ve tried to help you to understand it above.

[fodenway]

Carryfast:

fodenway:

Carryfast:
At what point does the excuse of ‘unsustainable wage rises’ become some employers under cutting higher paying employers by lumbering their workforces with lower wages for more hours.

While it’s naive in the extreme to think that the interests of the working class can be totally seperated from the government process just as the Conservatives are first and foremost all about looking after the interests of the CBI.That based on a corrupted version of so called ‘Capitalism’ which is all about the antithesis of Keynesian economics and makes China’s Communist ruling elite richer at our expense.The problem in this case being the issue of Socialism having hijacked that agenda on the basis that only their solutions are the correct and valid ones and only they have the god given right to speak for the working class.Ironically that anti nation state agenda being closer to the interests of that corrupted agenda of the employers,than the interests of Brit workers.

CF, in one case in the 1970’s, I worked at the largest carpet factory in Europe, if not the world. Britain had just been admitted to the Common Market (without asking the electorate first) on the promise of ever-expanding business opportunities and a level playing field for exporters. In reality, our previously healthy European sales, particularly in the Low Countries, declined rapidly. At home, we were deluged with poor quality Italian-made carpet at rock-bottom prices. Sadly for the company, most people chose to buy on price rather than quality or any sense of loyalty towards British-made goods. Because the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers had negotiated (i.e. bullied) very high rates of pay for us, the workers, although we were getting fat paypackets we could see that the writing was on the wall. Redundancies and contraction soon followed, with eventual closure inevitable. A scenario repeated many times throughout manufacturing industries, with a knock-on effect on others such as transport that served them. Unions had become too powerful, and managements were in a catch 22 situation whereby if they met the unions demands costs would be crippling, and if they stood fast, the ensuing work-to-rules and strikes would cause massive harm to the company. I don’t ever recall being at a union meeting where politics or idealism were mentioned, just disputes over demarcation where men had been called out because someone pushed a barrow or did some other little thing that “wasn’t his job”, or to push for a wage hike because some other company had got one. Commonsense and reason had gone out of the window. As I have said before, I fully support the Trade Union cause when it is justifiable and reasonable, like currently with the dispute over driver-only trains.

Hopefully Rjan will read that.So let’s get this right joining the EEC opened the floodgates to under cutting imports thereby weakening the position of Brit workers.To which your solution is obviously join in the race to the bottom rather than closing the doors to maintain the better terms and conditions won by the Brits.How is that good for the working class of this country.

As for demarcation yes that’s all part of the agenda of maximising employment opportunities, therefore less money being paid in benefits and more money being spent in the economy,which means more employment.What’s wrong with that.Oh wait it doesn’t help our ‘competitiveness’ in the race to the bottom free markets model that you obviously support.

You’ve got my point completely wrong. I definitely don’t support the “race to the bottom free markets model” at all, I wish that the barriers and import duties had been left in place to protect British Industry and keep us as a manufacturing nation. Even if our home-built goods weren’t quite as good as the stuff Johnny Foreigner made, they would be cheaper without the extra import duty, and we’d be keeping British workers in a job. Those that wanted to buy foreign could pay a bit more and do so, they had the choice. The gist of my post was that unions had become too powerful, and needed to take a reality check. Ordering “Down tools” for very petty things, some as ridiculous as someone turning off a light or closing a door outside of their own department was nothing to do with “better terms and conditions” or demarcation, just muscle-flexing, and for a while it appeared to work and they became intoxicated with their power. Sadly that self-imposed reality check didn’t happen, and led to Thatchers union-smashing campaign. Read my post again and you will see that I support Trade Unionism when it is reasonable and sensible.

[carryfast]

dieseldave:
Still no reference, here’s your THIRD opportunity.

Three strikes and you’re outed as a waffler, so get googling!!

Third country work and cabotage BOTH need/needed special permits.
Those permits are DIFFERENT because third country work is DIFFERENT to cabotage.

The transport ministries of the member countries of the EU and the wider ECMT all work to the same definitions, except the minister for Carryfastland who has written his own dictionary of transport definitions and then failed to share it with anybody.

Carryfast:
Blimey leave it out you said it yourself.Third country operations needed a ‘special’ third country operations permit ?.IE a Brit truck running loads between Germany and Italy wasn’t classed as the same thing as UK-Germany-UK or UK-Italy-UK.

Correct at last, but now you’re cherrypicking or not reading the whole of what was written.

Now we just need to get this next bit right, then we’ve got you there…

Carryfast:
As I said VERY WRONGLY being seen as closer to cabotage in that regard than not.

You seem to accept that third country work is international by its name and definition, which is great!!

Do you accept that cabotage (by name and definition) takes place within the SAME country, which is therefore NOT international?
A straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do for that one because it doesn’t need any clarification.

Now do you see how fundamentally different the notion of cabotage is to the notion of third country work?

Carryfast:
Or have I missed something.

Yes, but I’ve tried to help you to understand it above.

So if third country work was supposedly the same thing as ‘INNTERNATIONAL’ work then why did it need a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to ‘INTERNATIONAL’ work.It seems a bit selective that you only chose to refer to the example of full on cabotage v international as opposed to international v third country.So on that note no I don’t agree that third country work is the same thing as ‘INTERNATIONAL’.Which as I said is why it needed a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to INTERNATIONAL work and as you’ve admitted yourself.

Which SHOULD logically translate today as applying strict quota limits to,if not total withdrawal from,allowing East Euro third country operations engaged in UK - West Euro - UK freight journeys on the grounds of it being an unacceptable threat to the interests of the UK road transport industry.Along with,as I also said,the existing unfit for purpose cabotage get outs.THAT bit is definitely Carryfast law not unfortunately EU law.Which I thought was the point.

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:
Still no reference, here’s your THIRD opportunity.

Three strikes and you’re outed as a waffler, so get googling!!

Third country work and cabotage BOTH need/needed special permits.
Those permits are DIFFERENT because third country work is DIFFERENT to cabotage.

The transport ministries of the member countries of the EU and the wider ECMT all work to the same definitions, except the minister for Carryfastland who has written his own dictionary of transport definitions and then failed to share it with anybody.

Carryfast:
Blimey leave it out you said it yourself.Third country operations needed a ‘special’ third country operations permit ?.IE a Brit truck running loads between Germany and Italy wasn’t classed as the same thing as UK-Germany-UK or UK-Italy-UK.

Correct at last, but now you’re cherrypicking or not reading the whole of what was written.

Now we just need to get this next bit right, then we’ve got you there…

Carryfast:
As I said VERY WRONGLY being seen as closer to cabotage in that regard than not.

You seem to accept that third country work is international by its name and definition, which is great!!

Do you accept that cabotage (by name and definition) takes place within the SAME country, which is therefore NOT international?
A straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do for that one because it doesn’t need any clarification.

Now do you see how fundamentally different the notion of cabotage is to the notion of third country work?

Carryfast:
Or have I missed something.

Yes, but I’ve tried to help you to understand it above.

So if third country work was supposedly the same thing as ‘INNTERNATIONAL’ work then why did it need a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to ‘INTERNATIONAL’ work.It seems a bit selective that you only chose to refer to the example of full on cabotage v international as opposed to international v third country.So on that note no I don’t agree that third country work is the same thing as ‘INTERNATIONAL’.Which as I said is why it needed a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to INTERNATIONAL work and as you’ve admitted yourself.

Carryfast, you’re getting yourself into a tangle of your own making!

Let’s keep it simple… An international journey is a journey from one country to another ( = it crosses borders.)

UK-Italy-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)
UK-Germany-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)

Let’s look at a couple of special journeys…

We’re driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #1: We load in the UK and deliver that load to Germany, then we reload in Germany and take that load to Italy.
It’s an international journey ( = it crosses borders) but is NOT bi-lateral, so a third country permit would be needed.

We’re still driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #2: We load in the UK and deliver to (let’s say) Dusseldorf, then we run empty to Cologne and reload for delivery to Munich.

In the case of journey #2, the load was taken by a foreign registered (= not German) vehicle, from one place to another in Germany, which is NOT an international journey, which makes it a cabotage journey, for which a German cabotage permit would be needed.

Another way to look at cabotage is that a foreign registered vehicle is doing national transport in a country other than its country of registration.

As I said earlier, the terms ‘third country work’ and ‘cabotage’ are mutually exclusive, hence the need for special (and quite different) permits for those two completely different operations.

I did a mix of bi-lateral, third country and cabotage for about 12 years of my life (80s and early 90s) which equates to roughly half of my total LGV driving career.

None of which has very much to do with Red Robbo.

[gingerfold]

I know that we go off on some tangents on threads, but by gum, this tangent takes the honours to date.

[zb_anorak]

Juddian:
On the other hand, i’ve been in TGWU, now Unite, for many years, most of my working life has been on car transporters and latterly tankers with various bits of general and some specialised before and the odd bit of agency thrown in when i packed the transporters in.

In every case the unionised jobs have, and still have, class leading terms and conditions, whilst the jobs with poor terms have usually (but not always) been non unionised.

IIRC, car transporter and tanker drivers were on about £35,000 per annum in the 1990s, IE 2 or 3 times what an “ordinary” driver would get, and considerably more than someone who had served a 7 year apprenticeship or studied for an academic qualification (when those things were only handed out to those who truly qualified for them). In the 1970s, Mr. Robinson and his cohorts’ antics in the car industry gave unskilled assembly workers better wages than those of skilled people in small firms. No wonder the political will to fight the unions materialised- as well as the banks/ruling classes, unions were despised by the majority of the people they were intended to champion.

Juddian:
The most important choice a union member can make is who to elect as shop steward for your dept or company, choose well and by decent negotiation all parties can come to agreement.
It doesn’t have to be loggerheads and strikes, if things have got that bad then both management and the union have failed in their purpose.

Good unions at places also act as a bit of unofficial discipline to keep the more stupid in line, ie its no good having full sick pay in the agreement if your less intelligent members take the ■■■■ out of it, similarly a days work for a fair days pay works well, the status quo won’t last indefinately if productivity isn’t reasonable, hence why the bloody box ticking logistics mobs have taken over.

Its not the unions that have closed so many of the old lucrative contracts, it was half wits who thought they lived in a money tree orchard lala land, where they were paid highly but couldn’t help themselves taking the ■■■■ via sickies and idleness…that’s why so many of the own account decent jobs have gone west, these half wits would have been half wits whatever industry they worked in, you cannot educate pork…this attitude still rife in the public sector.

I’m luckily in one of the last decent own account jobs out there, and yes i’m active in the union, and no we haven’t needed industrial action, we’ve had a pay rise every year through the down turn and a bloody good pay rise this year too.
Most of us appreciate what we have, the job is more customer service than purely transport, so most of us bend over backwards to service the customer, who after all pays all of our wages.

Long may this happy situation last, but getting difficult to find young home grown drivers with the nous aptitude and attitude to replace us old 'uns as we retire, the few east european lads we have can’t believe what a job they’ve landed, they work bloody hard and have the right ethos, no sickies no shirking, good luck to 'em too.
Our home grown youngsters had better buck their bloody ideas up, or union or not, they are going to be replaced by the east europeans in the surviving good jobs.

Yes. Sensible words, but those people from low-cost economies are depressing the market too far. I have been told that, to compete for, and win, a job as a lorry driver in Europe, 15 hour days are necessary (loading done with the tacho on “rest”). Things have gone full circle, and nobody who wants to do a good job for fair pay wins. A Derek Robinson-type character, kicking the backsides of those making the rules, is just what we need, maybe.

[dieseldave]

gingerfold:
I know that we go off on some tangents on threads, but by gum, this tangent takes the honours to date.

Quite right mate, a very fair point.

[carryfast]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
So if third country work was supposedly the same thing as ‘INNTERNATIONAL’ work then why did it need a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to ‘INTERNATIONAL’ work.It seems a bit selective that you only chose to refer to the example of full on cabotage v international as opposed to international v third country.So on that note no I don’t agree that third country work is the same thing as ‘INTERNATIONAL’.Which as I said is why it needed a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to INTERNATIONAL work and as you’ve admitted yourself.

Carryfast, you’re getting yourself into a tangle of your own making!

Let’s keep it simple… An international journey is a journey from one country to another ( = it crosses borders.)

UK-Italy-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)
UK-Germany-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)

Let’s look at a couple of special journeys…

We’re driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #1: We load in the UK and deliver that load to Germany, then we reload in Germany and take that load to Italy.
It’s an international journey ( = it crosses borders) but is NOT bi-lateral, so a third country permit would be needed.

We’re still driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #2: We load in the UK and deliver to (let’s say) Dusseldorf, then we run empty to Cologne and reload for delivery to Munich.

In the case of journey #2, the load was taken by a foreign registered (= not German) vehicle, from one place to another in Germany, which is NOT an international journey, which makes it a cabotage journey, for which a German cabotage permit would be needed.

Another way to look at cabotage is that a foreign registered vehicle is doing national transport in a country other than its country of registration.

As I said earlier, the terms ‘third country work’ and ‘cabotage’ are mutually exclusive, hence the need for special (and quite different) permits for those two completely different operations.

I did a mix of bi-lateral, third country and cabotage for about 12 years of my life (80s and early 90s) which equates to roughly half of my total LGV driving career.

None of which has very much to do with Red Robbo.

But it is to do with someone using the example of the similar demise of the Brit merchant Navy fleet,to that of the UK international road transport industry,to somehow jump to the conclusion that was the fault of Robbo type ‘militant’ trade unionism.When ironically Robbo’s anti nation state redistributive ideology would actually support the transfer of Brit jobs to ‘less advantaged’ foreign workers.

While for the purposes of this argument the relevant comparison is,as you describe it,‘Bi Lateral’ operations v ‘Third Country’.Third Country work effectively being the same thing as Cabotage from the point of view of our own transport industry and its workers losing out on the economic activety generated by our own trade.Whether that trade is between Bristol and Manchester or anywhere in the UK and anywhere in Italy.It should go on a Brit truck in the case of the former.Or a Brit or Italian truck in the case of the latter controlled by ‘Bi Lateral’ quota permits to ensure that the runs are shared out on a 50/50 basis.

IE what’s the point of UK trade if it doesn’t benefit our own transport workers and therefore our own economy and instead benefits a third country which isn’t involved in that trade.Note that I’m not going to defend your own involvement in such operations as part of that.In that I see both cabotage and third country work as being wrong and indefensible,or at the very least counterproductive to the respective country’s economies,regardless of who is doing it and if it ain’t Bi Lateral transport,to the exclusive benefit of both the importing and exporting countries economies,then it’s effectively just a parasitic foreign aid scam at the expense of those countries and their workers.Especially when it’s allowed to reach the levels which the EU single transport market has created or that which decimated our Merchant Naval fleet.

[pv83]

dieseldave:

Carryfast:

dieseldave:
Still no reference, here’s your THIRD opportunity.

Three strikes and you’re outed as a waffler, so get googling!!

Third country work and cabotage BOTH need/needed special permits.
Those permits are DIFFERENT because third country work is DIFFERENT to cabotage.

The transport ministries of the member countries of the EU and the wider ECMT all work to the same definitions, except the minister for Carryfastland who has written his own dictionary of transport definitions and then failed to share it with anybody.

Carryfast:
Blimey leave it out you said it yourself.Third country operations needed a ‘special’ third country operations permit ?.IE a Brit truck running loads between Germany and Italy wasn’t classed as the same thing as UK-Germany-UK or UK-Italy-UK.

Correct at last, but now you’re cherrypicking or not reading the whole of what was written.

Now we just need to get this next bit right, then we’ve got you there…

Carryfast:
As I said VERY WRONGLY being seen as closer to cabotage in that regard than not.

You seem to accept that third country work is international by its name and definition, which is great!!

Do you accept that cabotage (by name and definition) takes place within the SAME country, which is therefore NOT international?
A straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will do for that one because it doesn’t need any clarification.

Now do you see how fundamentally different the notion of cabotage is to the notion of third country work?

Carryfast:
Or have I missed something.

Yes, but I’ve tried to help you to understand it above.

So if third country work was supposedly the same thing as ‘INNTERNATIONAL’ work then why did it need a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to ‘INTERNATIONAL’ work.It seems a bit selective that you only chose to refer to the example of full on cabotage v international as opposed to international v third country.So on that note no I don’t agree that third country work is the same thing as ‘INTERNATIONAL’.Which as I said is why it needed a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to INTERNATIONAL work and as you’ve admitted yourself.

Carryfast, you’re getting yourself into a tangle of your own making!

Let’s keep it simple… An international journey is a journey from one country to another ( = it crosses borders.)

UK-Italy-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)
UK-Germany-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)

Let’s look at a couple of special journeys…

We’re driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #1: We load in the UK and deliver that load to Germany, then we reload in Germany and take that load to Italy.
It’s an international journey ( = it crosses borders) but is NOT bi-lateral, so a third country permit would be needed.

We’re still driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #2: We load in the UK and deliver to (let’s say) Dusseldorf, then we run empty to Cologne and reload for delivery to Munich.

In the case of journey #2, the load was taken by a foreign registered (= not German) vehicle, from one place to another in Germany, which is NOT an international journey, which makes it a cabotage journey, for which a German cabotage permit would be needed.

Another way to look at cabotage is that a foreign registered vehicle is doing national transport in a country other than its country of registration.

As I said earlier, the terms ‘third country work’ and ‘cabotage’ are mutually exclusive, hence the need for special (and quite different) permits for those two completely different operations.

I did a mix of bi-lateral, third country and cabotage for about 12 years of my life (80s and early 90s) which equates to roughly half of my total LGV driving career.

None of which has very much to do with Red Robbo.

Ta for explaining that all Dave, even I (being the whippersnapper, wet behind the ears and such…) knew how that worked or still works… there seem to be some stubborn posters on here who just don’t get it though it seems… would said posters have had to do owt with the industry in the first place one wonders…? I know everyone is entitled of having an opinion, but honestly, some people should be banned
Anyway, who was Red Robbo again…?

[dieseldave]

Carryfast:

dieseldave:

Carryfast:
So if third country work was supposedly the same thing as ‘INNTERNATIONAL’ work then why did it need a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to ‘INTERNATIONAL’ work.It seems a bit selective that you only chose to refer to the example of full on cabotage v international as opposed to international v third country.So on that note no I don’t agree that third country work is the same thing as ‘INTERNATIONAL’.Which as I said is why it needed a ‘DIFFERENT’ permit to INTERNATIONAL work and as you’ve admitted yourself.

Carryfast, you’re getting yourself into a tangle of your own making!

Let’s keep it simple… An international journey is a journey from one country to another ( = it crosses borders.)

UK-Italy-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)
UK-Germany-UK is international. ( = it crosses borders and historically needed a bi-lateral permit.)

Let’s look at a couple of special journeys…

We’re driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #1: We load in the UK and deliver that load to Germany, then we reload in Germany and take that load to Italy.
It’s an international journey ( = it crosses borders) but is NOT bi-lateral, so a third country permit would be needed.

We’re still driving a UK registered vehicle…
Journey #2: We load in the UK and deliver to (let’s say) Dusseldorf, then we run empty to Cologne and reload for delivery to Munich.

In the case of journey #2, the load was taken by a foreign registered (= not German) vehicle, from one place to another in Germany, which is NOT an international journey, which makes it a cabotage journey, for which a German cabotage permit would be needed.

Another way to look at cabotage is that a foreign registered vehicle is doing national transport in a country other than its country of registration.

As I said earlier, the terms ‘third country work’ and ‘cabotage’ are mutually exclusive, hence the need for special (and quite different) permits for those two completely different operations.

I did a mix of bi-lateral, third country and cabotage for about 12 years of my life (80s and early 90s) which equates to roughly half of my total LGV driving career.

None of which has very much to do with Red Robbo.

Carryfast:
Third Country work effectively being the same thing as Cabotage

Carryfast, I’ve subtracted the waffle, which leaves us with the nonsense.

You’re entitled to your opinion though.

[dieseldave]

pv83:
Ta for explaining that all Dave, even I (being the whippersnapper, wet behind the ears and such…) knew how that worked or still works… there seem to be some stubborn posters on here who just don’t get it though it seems… would said posters have had to do owt with the industry in the first place one wonders…? I know everyone is entitled of having an opinion, but honestly, some people should be banned
Anyway, who was Red Robbo again…?

Carryfast is clearly out of his depth, but he’ll continue to spout crap every day that there’s a sunrise.

He still didn’t manage to come up with a reference to anything that supports his contention in spite of THREE clear opportunities to do so.

In my book, that makes him a waffler, so I’m done here.

[david_miller]

Patrick my friend you may be a whippersnapper but you’ve got that right!

Of course everybody has a right to an opinion and for some a lack of knowledge is no obstacle to expressing them. For myself I would not choose to express an opinion on, for instance, Council waste disposal though I do know that it is required to have a wet, abandoned teddy bear wired to the grill of the rubbish truck.

We had both pink and green books on Grangewood and used them correctly. I was never happier than being given the green one and dispatched to a World of European adventures. Because I am now both old and smelly I can no longer remember exactly the difference between the two. Didnt the green one let you go to more Countries and stay out longer? Does such a system still exist or in this wonderful European dream can you just trundle around as you please?

And as to this Red bloke I was hoping you could tell me. I do remember how, in those years, British labour relations were such a cause of merryment to every German you spoke to. Perhaps that was our purpose in life - to make the Germans happy?

David

[dieseldave]

David Miller:
We had both pink and green books on Grangewood and used them correctly. I was never happier than being given the green one and dispatched to a World of European adventures. Because I am now both old and smelly I can no longer remember exactly the difference between the two. Didnt the green one let you go to more Countries and stay out longer?

Hi David,

Sorry, but I don’t remember a pink book.

I remember a pale blue EEC permit, which allowed third country work, but kept you within the EEC (as was) .

I also remember the green ECMT permit, which did exactly the same as the EEC book, but gave access to quite a few other countries for third country work that were (at that time) outside the then EEC.

To use the blue book, you had to fill in the to/from journey details and get a stamp on the back of the page.
IIRC, each page had space for 6 journeys.

Using the green book was similar, but I do remember having to do a tonne/kilometre (T/Km) calculation for each journey and enter the figure on the line for that trip.

I used to do crazy triangular journey all around the (then) EEC, but also do Norway and Sweden by using the ECMT book… happy days!!

Note to Carryfast… Neither of these books permitted cabotage.

David Miller:
Does such a system still exist or in this wonderful European dream can you just trundle around as you please?

It does indeed David, but the country list is very different to the way it was in our day.

Here’s a link Link to DfT.GOV site

You may have to scroll a little when you land on that page.

Note to all vehicle operators: it should be borne in mind the minister of transport for Carryfastland has not ratified the ECMT agreement.
Apparently, there’s an ongoing dispute about definitions.