Three weeks until the election

[mike777]

The UK cannot stop the Spanish trawlers, as the UK fisheries belong to the EU now. If the UK leave the EU, others will not have access. They would be arrested for fishing in UK territorial waters. Do you finally understand?

 

no

 

you have provided zero evidence they can be stopped

 

You seem to assume arrests and convictions happen by majic.

-----

 

In any case if the fish belong to the EU not the UK....why should they give them up?

You seem to assume they will with zero fight.

--------------

 

You keep saying UK fisheries but then you tell me the fact is they belong to the EU n ot UK

-----------

 

Your logic is:

1) Uk leaves and so the fish now belong to UK

2) the fishermen will stop

3) If they do not stop they will go to jail for a long time.

 

All of the above seems naïve at best and wishful thinking in reality.

 

I doubt the fisherman think the UK is strong enough to enforce, they spend too little on navy and local coast guard and police and courts.

[Cyberyeti]

Mike, prior to the EU, Britain had a 200 mile sea area to the north west for their exclusive use. This became a European area on joining the EU but would revert to the UK if we left. The EU common fisheries policy has been a disaster for the British fleet for several other reasons as well.

 

Fishing rights are serious business, wars were fought with Denmark/Iceland over them in relatively recent times.

[mike777]

Mike, prior to the EU, Britain had a 200 mile sea area to the north west for their exclusive use. This became a European area on joining the EU but would revert to the UK if we left. The EU common fisheries policy has been a disaster for the British fleet for several other reasons as well.

 

Fishing rights are serious business, wars were fought with Denmark/Iceland over them in relatively recent times.

 

ok but you miss my main point

In fact you miss your point

 

 

the war is not over

 

If leaving the EU is in the UK national interest ok...but so far no one says that

You do not say that!

 

----------------

 

------------

 

for some unknown reason stated.....posters think

1) leave EU

2) Uk won war on fishing

-------------------

-------------------

 

that is naive

 

yet no poster is willing to claim UK has the ability or will to win the war

1

[MrAce]

 

I doubt the fisherman think the UK is strong enough to enforce, they spend too little on navy and local coast guard and police and courts.

 

I think you are overly underestimating the capabilities of Royal navy.

[mike777]

I think you are overly underestimating the capabilities of Royal navy.

 

again you do not quote me in full so silly

 

in what world is this just navy

 

please quote me in full and not out of context

 

in any case the navy is losing capability ...not increasing

 

in any event this is not about the navy using atom bombs or subs...or planes but to police and convict and stop fishing..

 

so far the record per this thread only is horrible

 

if dropping out of EU improves navy ok then say so

 

tht seems what people naïve trust in...drop out of EU....navy gets better in putting in jail

 

---------------

 

I will repeat this again...sigh...if you think dropping out of the EU is best ok....but so far you show something close to zero that things will be better.

[helene_t]

North sea fishing stocks is a resource we have to manage together. And a ship with a Spanish owner and philipine crew can get a British convenience flag if needed. I suppose one could require fish caught in British waters to land in Britain but is it practical ?

[Trinidad]

Sympathy or sentiment should play zero role in decision.

(Views not necessarily mine)

Our fish reserves have been plundered by Spanish trawlers that buy British quotas, ignore the net regulations and go back to Spain rather than landing their catches here, killing the British fishing industry.

I will be content to stay in the EU if Cameron gets our fisheries back. I recently wrote him to inform him that this will be a make-or-break issue for many Britons. I will post when I get a reply.

So, the UK is willing to leave the EU over fishing?!?

 

This is the 21st century, right? And we are talking about a highly developed country? And fishing contributes how much to the UK economy? So, to supposedly get back the UK fishing industry (as if it has any future to begin with), the UK is willing to make sacrifices in their trades and services (the "London inner city") and hi-tech industry.

 

And sentiments have nothing to do with it...

 

Rik

[cherdano]

Marine fishing contributes to 0.049% of UK's GDP.

(Source)

Is it worth doing damage to the entire economy to take a principled stand on protecting UK fisheries?

[Cyberyeti]

Marine fishing contributes to 0.049% of UK's GDP.

(Source)

Is it worth doing damage to the entire economy to take a principled stand on protecting UK fisheries?

 

It does now because the industry has been largely eliminated.

[helene_t]

There is a feeling that if something is law in the EU, we observe the regs but other countries just ignore them when it suits them.

The danish newspaper "Politiken" made a version of Snakes and Ladders called the EU Game, in which each player gets a proposed EU directive and competes on getting their directive through the political/bureaucratic maze as fast as possible. The "Goal" contains a text that reads something like: "Congrats, your directive has passed, it will now be immediately implemented in Denmark, Ireland and the UK. Germany, France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands will follow within the next three-four years. Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to be taken to the Luxembourg court though, so that will take a bit longer."

 

It was a couple of decades ago, though, so I don't now how accurate it is now.

 

Of course the other side of the coin is that Denmark uk Ireland often obstruct the negotiations with selfish requirements. Maybe Italian politicians don't bother to obstruct because they don't feel obliged to comply anyway? Just speculating.

 

This all said it is not my impression that politics in eu ismore rridiculous than everywhere else. Of course I shouldn't base my political opinions on silly board games. I found it funny, though.

[NickRW]

The UK has basically been disloyal and difficult towards Europe since Thatcher. It has not behaved like a friend of Europe. (In fact, it isn't a friend of Europe.)

 

The problem is that loyalty is assumed to have been given in the first place. For many of us loyalty was either never given or only given to the to the ideal of the Common Market, not the political clap trap that has been imposed by stealth.

[blackshoe]

Marine fishing contributes to 0.049% of UK's GDP.

(Source)

Is it worth doing damage to the entire economy to take a principled stand on protecting UK fisheries?

I would venture to guess that it's worth it to the UK's fishermen. ;)

[NickRW]

I would venture to guess that it's worth it to the UK's fishermen. ;)

 

It is arguable that, today, the UK fishing industry is small fry and that what happened in the past should not figure heavily in anyone's thinking. Some of us however remember the size of the industry that was and the wholesale damage that the 'Common Fisheries Policy' did (not to mention to the 'Common Agricultural Policy' and the 'butter mountains' as well). Some younger folks who don't remember that, but are of the more green persuasion may be happy to see less trawlers in 'British' waters for the effect that it would have on fish stocks. Some of the left persuasion may be happy to see a positive effect on jobs in British ports no matter that it may be small to begin with.

 

Oh, and before that Sturgeon woman in Scotland thinks Scotland is going to vote yes - a lot of those jobs were Scottish jobs!

[nige1]

Oh, and before that Sturgeon woman in Scotland thinks Scotland is going to vote yes - a lot of those jobs were Scottish jobs!

You expect Salmond and Sturgeon to support the fishing industry? Go fish :)

[nige1]

So I am unclear. You are in favor of staying in the EU or dropping out?

When Britain joined the Common Market, my only criticism was that Europe should have joined the British Commonwealth, instead. I would even approve had we adopted the Euro, although that might still have turned out badly. There are many deplorable aspects of the EEC (especially massive corruption and a daft agricultural policy) but if Britain took a more principled and enthusiastic role, we would be better able to effect change from within.

[helene_t]

Most fisheries are not sustainable and I believe eu has done a much better job at reducing quota than individual countries would have been able to. That said, if Stephanie is right that Spanish trawlers ignore the net rules then that is very bad.

[cherdano]

Oh, and before that Sturgeon woman in Scotland thinks Scotland is going to vote yes - a lot of those jobs were Scottish jobs!

Scotland is going to vote in favour of staying in Europe. Do you want to bet?

[kenberg]

Help me understand about The Queen's Speech.

 

David Cameron has said he will (attempt to ) negotiate new terms with the EU and then put it to a vote as to whether or not to get out. But here in the US at least, politicians say a lot of things. Some of them happen and some of them don't. But now the Queen has said that this will happen. I understand that at least to some extent she is setting out the agenda that the Prime Minister designed. But she has made a speech. Does this mean that what was, before the speech, something like "I know what Cameron said, now we will see if he does it" has now become something that everyone can feel certain will be done?

 

I guess my general question, in short, is: What is the significance of The Queen's Speech?

[Vampyr]

 

I guess my general question, in short, is: What is the significance of The Queen's Speech?

 

The speech is written by the government. It is a tradition that the monarch instead of the Prime Minister reads it. Similar to the way the leader of the party with a majority has to ask her permission to form a government.

[blackshoe]

I've always wondered what would happen if the leader of the majority party asked the Queen for permission to form a government and she said "no".

 

RA officers take an oath to Parliament. RN officers' oath is to the Queen. I was told by several RN officers, back in the day, that if Parliament said "do X" and the Queen said "do Y", the RN would do Y. Never seen that tested, though. :ph34r:

[helene_t]

I think Cameron would need an unusually good excuse for not holding the referendum. Of course many promises will be broken but this one was a key promise. Look what happened to the libdems when they broke a key promise. And they even had some decent excuses.

[NickRW]

Scotland is going to vote in favour of staying in Europe. Do you want to bet?

 

No I certainly don't want to bet. The Scots are in more of a "sod the English" mood than usual. Personally I wish they'd taken their independence opportunity when they had it - things would have been simpler in the long run if nothing else.

[Aberlour10]

Did you see the comment about the Spanish trawlers? They would not have access if we left the EU.

 

I am not a fisherman, but this issue has been a big deal for me for many years.

 

In this case the british fishermen would loose the rights to fish rich West African waters empty, because only EU trawlers have the access there. ( due to the treaties with these countries).

 

This is only one small detail in the "sea of impacts" by In or out decission.

 

 

 

[mycroft]

I guess my general question, in short, is: What is the significance of The Queen's Speech?

Short, practically but not technically correct answer: it's the ruling party telling the people through their MPs what they intend to get the government to do in this session of Parliament. The Queen delivers the speech because of reasons.

 

Long answer: Like everything to do with politics in the British Commonwealth (happens with our Governor General (of HM the Queen in Canada) or our Lieutenant Governor (of HM the Queen in Alberta) as well), this is tradition and history.

 

Originally (okay, from French/Norman tradition, 1066 and forward) the monarch had universal power over the realm, given to the monarch by God's hand. A bunch of influential people didn't like this and forced some limits on the monarch's power - that's the Magna Carta. One of the key aspects agreed here is that the monarch could no longer raise taxes without consultation with his advisers - which became Parliament.

 

So, for several hundred years, the only hold the "people" had on the King was that the King would have to summon Parliament when he needed more money. Of course Parliament attempted to get more concessions every time in exchange for the King's new taxes. One of the issues leading to Cromwell's Revolution was that the King at the time attempted to govern without calling Parliament (at one point for 17 years IIRC). One of the conditions of returning the Monarchy was that Parliament was to be regularly called.

 

Over many many years and acts and concessions, the people (Parliament generally at first, and in the last 150 years or so, the Commons as opposed to the Lords/Senate) have been taking more and more power; so now the right of the Monarch to propose or oppose legislation is now effectively zero (She could try something, but it would start a revolution, and the monarchy would lose. I am told, however, that HM EIIR is a very strong, frequent and sound adviser to government, and is very much listened to). However, laws are still made in the name of the Queen; the Prime Minister is still the Prime Minister *of* the Queen, and the Queen's speech, at the opening of Parliament for every session, is what her ministers and advisers intend to do over the course of the session. By reading it, of course, she is acceding to her ministers' advice. But technically, it is still the ministers advising the Queen, and the Queen making the laws (and being the ultimate power backing those laws).

 

This applies to other things as well; my passport, for instance, is a request in the name of the Queen herself for this citizen of hers to be allowed the privileges of travel and protection. As a result, the Queen is the only person in the British Empire [who travels] without a passport - she can ask for those privileges herself!

[blackshoe]

Hm. I wonder if Barak Obama has a passport.