Comments on: Trawling for a new fishing policy

By: Patrick Nicholls

Patrick Nicholls — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:31:20 +0000

John Redwood is of course entirely right and can I thank both the commentators who recalled that I was the Shadow Fisheries Minister under William Hague, when the Conservative Party changed its position on the CFP.

I took a considerable amount of time and trouble to ensure that the reforms I was proposing would work. Crucially, I also took legal advice. I will not pretend that now I am out of the House of Commons that I am completely up to speed with the minutiae of the problem today.

What I can say, however, is that fundamental problem remains, which is that the CFP perpetuates a solution when all the evidence shows that the solution is in fact the problem and the answer to the problem is the restoration of national control

We are now nearly a decade on from when I suggested a differerent way forward. I believe that David Cameronh and his team should be given time to fine tune an approach which takes account of what has happened since my time.

If we allow them that time, I am confident that party policy will indeed move in the directioin that John Redwood wants and that indeed we all want.

Patrick Nicholls

By: SJB

SJB — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:45:40 +0000

The treaties provide for financial sanctions against countries suspected of being involved in supporting terrorism. Post 9/11, it became necessary to apply sanctions against individuals on the same grounds. So Art 308 EC was used to pass a new law to accomplish this objective. Contrary to the assertion made by the TPA, it seems to me that the law fell within an area – viz. sanctions against suspected supporters of terrorism – authorised by the treaties.

If you click on the TPA link (see earlier post above), you will see that not only did I point this out but I challenged the TPA to back-up their assertion by providing a specific example where Art 308 EC has been used “to pass a law in an area that isn’t in fact authorised by the treaties.” That request was made over two weeks ago.

By: Denis Cooper

Denis Cooper — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:36:25 +0000

I think they would be in all 908 cases, because otherwise there’d be no need to invoke Article 308.

Pdf page 179 here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:pdf

“If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.”

By: Lola

Lola — Wed, 27 May 2009 09:36:34 +0000

Green Person. ‘What we need is more centralised control’
Me. ‘No, what we need is the exact opposite, more decentralisation and ownership by the fishermen”
Green Person. ‘Oh. So you want the chaos of the market then? And we know just how that has failed don’t we?”
Me. “Wrong again, sunshine. The ‘market’ (or me and you and everyone else) has actually done rather well in passing an accurate judgement on the epic failures of bureaucratism. And anyway markets are not chaotic. Bureaucracies are chaotic. Markets are ordered chaotically, or rather are continuously evolving, which is of course an anthema to bureaucracies who want control, because they just can’t keep up with the creative inventiveness of me and you and everyone else. We know what we are doing and bureaucracies don’t’.’

By: Alan Phillips

Alan Phillips — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:47:07 +0000

I’ve always believed that too. In my view, once a quota has been reached, the surplus should taxed at a rate say 70% of the value. It wouldn’t make them an attractive option to say “oops I’ve caught too many, never mind at least I can cash in” but it would provide an insentive not to catch them, it makes it unviable cost wise to persue catching them. The surplus fish sold would also have the effect of driving down prices, so it will act as a deterent to over fishing also. Once they are dead, they don’t become un-dead by throwing them back.

By: SJB

SJB — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:45:13 +0000

I think the figure he endorsed comes from his article in The Spectator. He wrote: “According to the highly respected think-tank the TaxPayers’ Alliance, our membership of the EU costs us £120 billion a year.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3634493/part_2/why-im-voting-for-ukip.thtml

It is debatable that the Taxpayers’ Alliance is “a highly respected think-thank” – pressure group is nearer the mark. For example, one of their recent assertions was that: “Article 308 is a treaty clause (one of three, in fact) that allows government ministers and Commissioners to pass a law in an AREA [my emphasis] that isn’t in fact authorised by the treaties.” While Article 308 has apparently been used 908 times not one recent example was given to support their claim that the new law was in an unauthorised area.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/eu/2009/05/how-many-illegal-eu-laws.html#comments

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:15:45 +0000

They have also just spent £500,000 and TWO YEARS research finding out that commuters like trains to run on time.
In Mondays Telegraph on yesterdays Blog.

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Tue, 26 May 2009 18:11:47 +0000

Did not Maggie Thatcher renegotiate more favourable terms some years ago, again proof if any were needed that it is possible.

Labour also renegotiated a couple of years ago, only this time a British Prime Minister gave back hard won benefits, and we now have to put our hands deeper into our pockets to pay for it.

So negotiation on anything is possible, if you have the will and determination, and are a bit bloody minded with it.

Its all about having the will, the belief, and the courage.

Time will tell if DC has the necessary attitude.

By: Mike Stallard

Mike Stallard — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:06:27 +0000

For at least ten years – maybe more, Christopher Booker has been banging on about this in the Telegraph.
Nobody from any party has been remotely interested.
This very evening, a Green Person was speaking about this very problem on Radio 4. What is needed, he considered, as anyone can see is far more centralised control. We urgently need an agreement which can be decided centrally. Any thought of letting the local nations decide for themselves how to manage the dwindling fish stocks is quite ridiculous. There are already far too many boats in far to small an area of sea. If we open up the sea to a free for all , then we can expect the already vanishing cod stocks to disappear in a very few days.
I wonder if he has ever actually been on a fishing boat? I was once and, was I sick! Well, we’ll draw a veil over that shall we……
The difference is that I am not micromanaging the fleet.
How about putting all the experts, expenses paid, on a small boat in a force 7 to have a sea fishing fact finding mission?

By: Denis Cooper

Denis Cooper — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:32:51 +0000

Good point.

And not only do they want Iceland per se, they want to be able to hold out to the Irish the credible prospect of an accession treaty in the not too distant future.

Why? Because the “legal guarantees” which will be offered to the Irish before the repeat referendum will in fact be non-binding promises, carrying no more legal weight than an election manifesto; but not to worry, trust us, they’ll be given legal force through a protocol attached to a future treaty.

An accession treaty for Croatia in 2010 was being mooted, but the Croats and the Slovenes are at loggerheads over a patch of territory and until that’s resolved to their satisfaction the Slovenian government will veto the accession of Croatia to the EU.

Having Iceland apparently lined up to be fast-tracked into the EU would provide a back-up plan for seducing the Irish.