Have I lost the plot?

[Streetwalker]

Spoken like a true European , well done . I would just add that ,You have to be fecking joking .
The European Commission is the ONLY body in the EU with the power to initiate legislation. So what is the point of a fisheries committee other than to tick box what is put in front of them and give an illusion of democracy .
Why would anyone opposed to further EU integration want to put their name to what the Commission is proposing  ?  It was just a no win situation that Farage rightfully wanted no part of .
https://europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and-procedures/legislative-powers

Still 122 days and all the waffle , all the differences of opinion and all the fish will be on a different course

You are getting tangled up (it's very common) over who initiates legislation.

The link you provided pretty much shows my point. No legislation can get "on the books" unless the parliament votes for it and the recommendation is made by the committee.

In the UK the majority of legislation is intiated by the executive - either a minister or a lord.  Parliament (as distinct from the executive) rarely initiates legislation.

Farage had a position where he could influence the legislation regarding fisheries and threw it all away because his aim wasnt to help  fishermen, it was to grandstand and skim cash.

You know all his you tube speeches where he blasted the EU and all the other MEPs looked bored or embarrassed.

It was because he basically waltzed in to a debate for his speaking slot, had a rant that was nothing to do with the subject in hand until his time ran out then buggered off to the bar/his mistress/lunch.

Either way we are drifting from the point (no pun intended)

UK fishing is likely to be in a worse position in 18 months time than it is now. The fishermen may have larger quotas, but their markets will be smaller (and what happens to profits with increased supply and fewer buyers?). The fish processing industry that is 3x the size of the fish catching industry will be destroyed.

The government is unlikely to do anything concrete to help them. Indeed the only thing it could do (which they always could have) is provide funds for moving away from fishing.

Im not getting tangled up at all . Maybe you and Gerry are

The Commission is the EU body that has a monopoly on legislative initiative and important executive powers   .......It is the principle executive  body of the EU ....it overseas union law  and its members chair committees responsible for implementing union law (previously legislated by the commission )

All the Parliament does is either agree with them or not ,it does NOT initiate legislation .

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/25/the-european-commission

Is that clear or no ?

Probably no I suppose , I cant believe Im still posting these links 4 years after we voted to leave but hey ho it will soon be Christmas
   

[GerryT]

Spoken like a true European , well done . I would just add that ,You have to be fecking joking .

HE's quite correct, the EU commission can't enact any legislation, only parliament can do that. Not only that but parliament can amend commission proposals a number of times. Seems that the power in this regard sits with Parliament. The commission can produce legislature proposals as often as they want but nothing happens without parliament.
There are parliamentary groups, like the fisheries committee, your argument says the council will just ignore them, well that's just as ridiculous as me saying parliament will ignore any commission proposals.
Face it the EU is democratic, elected MEP's in parliament. Elected heads of member state govt making the council and those elected heads of govt nominating the commissioners. If any state doesn't like the commissioners being appointed by the elected head of govt then each country can elect their commissioner.

How are lords elected ?  how is the queen elected ? 

[patman post]

Doesn't the fishmonger opposite the Sainsburys Express on Stokey High Street have good catch? That's the only one I ever went to... if it still exists.

Suttons. It's now expanded and also has an upmarket eat in chippie in a sort of rustic style where the Athens fish and chip shop used to be. It has a wide range but it's aimed at the affluent, unlike the butchers next door which has queues almost all day...

[BeElBeeBub]

Spoken like a true European , well done . I would just add that ,You have to be fecking joking .
The European Commission is the ONLY body in the EU with the power to initiate legislation. So what is the point of a fisheries committee other than to tick box what is put in front of them and give an illusion of democracy .
Why would anyone opposed to further EU integration want to put their name to what the Commission is proposing  ?  It was just a no win situation that Farage rightfully wanted no part of .
https://europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and-procedures/legislative-powers

Still 122 days and all the waffle , all the differences of opinion and all the fish will be on a different course

You are getting tangled up (it's very common) over who initiates legislation.

The link you provided pretty much shows my point. No legislation can get "on the books" unless the parliament votes for it and the recommendation is made by the committee.

In the UK the majority of legislation is intiated by the executive - either a minister or a lord.  Parliament (as distinct from the executive) rarely initiates legislation.

Farage had a position where he could influence the legislation regarding fisheries and threw it all away because his aim wasnt to help  fishermen, it was to grandstand and skim cash.

You know all his you tube speeches where he blasted the EU and all the other MEPs looked bored or embarrassed.

It was because he basically waltzed in to a debate for his speaking slot, had a rant that was nothing to do with the subject in hand until his time ran out then buggered off to the bar/his mistress/lunch.

Either way we are drifting from the point (no pun intended)

UK fishing is likely to be in a worse position in 18 months time than it is now. The fishermen may have larger quotas, but their markets will be smaller (and what happens to profits with increased supply and fewer buyers?). The fish processing industry that is 3x the size of the fish catching industry will be destroyed.

The government is unlikely to do anything concrete to help them. Indeed the only thing it could do (which they always could have) is provide funds for moving away from fishing.

[Borg Refinery]

That is a bit of a joke to be honest, but there are plenty of Hastings fishermen who also fish illegally I am told by someone who would know.

It can get nasty if caught:-

http://www.trawlerpictures.net/topic/1316-fish-firm-faces-l4m-confiscation/

Indeed.

But I don't have anything against one man one boat types who go out (to clean waters) and fish to salvage a living off-the-books, there are more than a few of those around here too so I'm told. However, if they're fishing in unsafe waters then that's bad. The local old town smokehouse fish market don't smell good, the fish smells off and people remark that it's quite dodgy... I dunno how true any of that is, but I just stick to the supermarkets (and chippy).

[Sheepy]

Still 122 days and all the waffle , all the differences of opinion and all the fish will be on a different course

They haven't stopped whining since they found out they are a minority time and time again. I don't take that much notice of them any longer. The job is in hand.

[Streetwalker]

You have that backwards.

No legislation passes without the EU parliament's approval.

The comission is the one without legislative powers.

The comission would propose various bits of legislation. The fisheries committee would scrutinise and liase with the commission until it made it's recommendation to the EU Parl whether to approve proposal (or not).

If you wanted to affect EU fisheries legislation the fisheries committee is one of the bodies you would want to be on.
[

Spoken like a true European , well done . I would just add that ,You have to be fecking joking .
The European Commission is the ONLY body in the EU with the power to initiate legislation. So what is the point of a fisheries committee other than to tick box what is put in front of them and give an illusion of democracy .
Why would anyone opposed to further EU integration want to put their name to what the Commission is proposing  ?  It was just a no win situation that Farage rightfully wanted no part of .
https://europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/powers-and-procedures/legislative-powers

Still 122 days and all the waffle , all the differences of opinion and all the fish will be on a different course

[papasmurf]

That is a bit of a joke to be honest, but there are plenty of Hastings fishermen who also fish illegally I am told by someone who would know.

It can get nasty if caught:-

http://www.trawlerpictures.net/topic/1316-fish-firm-faces-l4m-confiscation/

[Borg Refinery]

I think illegal fishing by foreign fleets has the Brexiter knickers in a bunch..

In November 2014 the British newspapers reported that a single Dutch trawler, the Cornelis Vrolijk, had the right to catch 23% of England's entire fishing quota. (1) To put this into perspective the entire small inshore fishing fleet for the whole England is given 4% of the quota. Built in the Netherlands in 1988 the Cornelis Vrolijk is a pelagic trawler which specialises in catching mid-water species such as mackerel, sardines, blue whiting and herring. It is 114 metres in length and displaces over 5500 tons (2), making it easily the largest fishing vessel in the UK-based fleet and it has the ability to process, freeze and package its catch on board. Although the Cornelis Vrolijk sails under a British flag and has Hull as its homeport it is ultimately owned and operated by a Dutch company.
Defra
—Defra and the government have come under pressure to explain who gets UK quota.

The news that the Cornelis Vrolijk could catch a huge proportion of England's fish only emerged as conservation charities placed pressure on both national governments and the European Union to be more transparent about how quota allowance was worked out, and explain exactly who was awarded quota to catch fish in the waters of the UK. When Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) first published the exact details of the full quota register in late 2013 the figures revealed that the Cornelis Vrolijk alone had 18% of the quota, and by 2014 the new set of figures released revealed that this had risen to 23% of the quota.

It was also revealed that while the Cornelis Vrolijk fishes off a British quota the vessel lands all of its catch in the Dutch port of IJmuiden. (1) The company which owns and operates Cornelis Vrolijk responded by saying that they paid taxes in the UK and provided employment to British fishermen.

IJmuiden Port
—Despite fishing off a British quota the Cornelis Vrolijk lands its catches at IJmuiden Port in the Netherlands.

Other worrying news emerged about foreign vessels operating in British water. In 2010 the Spanish owned trawlers O Gentia and Coyo Tercero were fined a total of £1.62 million for illegal fishing. Coyo Tercero was stopped by the Royal Navy fisheries protection vessel HMS Tyne and found to have 500kg of salted ling on board which were not recorded in the logbook while O Genita had been involved in illegal ship-to-ship transfers of fish at sea in an attempt to avoid quota restrictions. (3) Danny Poulding of the Marine Management Organisation which led the prosecutions stated in 2010:


"This company systematically abused the quota system for significant and unfair financial gain, threatening the future sustainability of an already vulnerable fish stock and impacting on the businesses of legitimate fishermen by flooding the market with cheaper fish. (3)"

However, the news released in 2013 revealed that despite its past crimes the O Genita still had a large quota to fish in UK waters – clearly serious breaches of UK and EU fishing laws are no barrier to being rewarded with quotas in the future.

HMS Tyne
—The vessels of the Royal Navy's Fisheries Protection Squadron (HMS Tyne, pictured in the foreground with HMS Mersey and HMS Severn behind) were responsible for discovering the illegal fishing of the Spanish vessels, and the illegal catch on board the Dutch-owned super-trawler the Frank Bonefaas.

In March 2015 further news emerged of illegal fishing in British waters. The Frank Bonefaas – a 120m super-trawler which is owned by the Cornelis Vrolijk company – was caught by HMS Severn with an astonishing 632,000kg (1,400,000lbs) of mackerel on board – all of which had been caught in a protected area off the Cornish coast. (4) Despite the catch being worth an estimated £437,000 (although some reports claim that the amount of mackerel on board would have, in fact, sold for around £750,00) it was not confiscated from the boats owners, and they were instead allowed to sell it and fined just £97,000 plus £5,000 costs, meaning that their illegal operations had been very worthwhile indeed. (4) The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) which brought the prosecution against the Frank Bonefaas and the Cornelis Vrolijk parent company revealed that the court had the power to set the fine at the same level as the value of the catch, and the MMO had invited them to do so, but the court had chosen not to. (5)

http://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/


That is a bit of a joke to be honest, but there are plenty of Hastings fishermen who also fish illegally I am told by someone who would know.

[BeElBeeBub]

I think it was well documented that attending the fisheries committee was a waste of time as it had no legislative powers , it was nothing more than an advisory body ,advice that was generally ignored . It was in fact one of those committees that the EU point to as a place for its  democratically elected representatives .     . He instead used his time better in Lobbying people within the European Commission like Maria Daminanki who could make a difference . But there you go you wont read about that on the BBC news .

You have that backwards.

No legislation passes without the EU parliament's approval.

The comission is the one without legislative powers.

The comission would propose various bits of legislation. The fisheries committee would scrutinise and liase with the commission until it made it's recommendation to the EU Parl whether to approve proposal (or not).

If you wanted to affect EU fisheries legislation the fisheries committee is one of the bodies you would want to be on.

https://ffl.org.uk/quotas-cause-discards-lbc-fishing-with-nigel-farage/  ''Fishing for leave thank Nigel for his continued support for British Fishermen and our costal communities ''

And don't forget foreign boats brought EU/ UK quotas , not the rights to fish . If we dont have a quota system and are not under the CFP  what they have is worthless .  Still we are not Spain so are unlikely to take away what people have paid for in good faith .

The quota *is* the right to fish.  Fish caught outside the quota won't be legal to sell (this was part of the bycatch problem which was mainly remedied by HFW's "fish fight" campaign not Nigel Farage).

The UK will have to have some sort of quota arranged with the EU. How it divides that quota internally is up to it.

Norway negotiates it's quotas with the EU.

Let's say the UK said "stuff this we'll fish as much as we like and damn the lot of you!" - the first thing likely to happen is all UK fish exports to the EU will stop. uK caught fish won't be allowed into the EU at all.

Secondly, fish move. The fish that are caught in UK waters don't spend all their life cycle there. They pass through other state's waters. If we don't respect their quotas on catch they probably won't respect ours.  We might we'll find all the fish has been caught before it get to UK waters.

I think I mentioned I have attended the Dorset Fish Fair . It  promotes eating what we find around our shores , sustainable fishing and all things good about the natural resource on our doorstep . Made me laugh a couple of years back when Extinction rebels marched through the dock dressed up as Haddock with posters demanding sustainable fishing . They made a quick exit when it was pointed out to them that was exactly what was going on . Maybe a bit less cod and chips and more Mackerel salads are in order .

To be fair, a change in our eating habits would not be a bad thing, but it still doesn't help if we catch more than we eat. Even if the UK only ate fish caught in UK waters by UK fishermen, it would still be less than the current catch levels.

All of a small pie can be less than part of a large one

[GerryT]

Seems strange that the UK is surrounded by sea, but offers its population such a limited selection of seafood at such high prices...

It's not because it's not offered, it's because it's not wanted.  There is a demand in the EU, A lot of UK boats land their catch in EU ports, if quotas are removed from EU fishermen I can't see UK boats landing in the EU.

I may be wrong but isn't it the catch a long distance from shore, usually serviced by large vessels that UK consumers like, it would require some investment by UK fishermen but that quota would be worth keeping for UK fishermen. But would that mean current UK fishermen that have sold their quotas to EU fishermen, having to buy back the quotas ?

[Streetwalker]

Your right beelbub , there is little difference at the moment between what flag a ship sails and fishes under in British waters . Its one of the reasons that the fishing communities were in the main pro leave .
Fishing is a subject that gets the blood pressure rising even for a land lubber like myself who gets a glimpse of the English Channel from the pub window on the annual outing to the Dorset fish fare .

Which is sort of my point. Fishing has an outsized *emotional* resonance (the image of a proud weatherbeaten fisherman setting out in his little boat from a.small Cornish fishing village like his father and grandfather before him plays well in the heart strings but isn't really that close to reality). In fairness, this affliction is not just British. All the coastal EU countries have the same issue, hence fisheries having an impact on trade negotiations w
ay above their economic importance.

And the lack of difference between the boats if variousnfoags, and nationalities is related to when it comes to *sell* the catch (a vital part of the fishing process)

The ability to catch the fish in the first place is related to the quotas.  Those quotas were originally all given to British fishermen. Over time some have chosen to sell their quotas to others, including foreign captains.  This was explicitly allowed (encouraged even) by the UK government. Other EU nations had conditions on the sake of quotas. The UK chose not to and the captains chose to sell.

I dont therefore pretend to know the ins and outs of the fishing industry but what I do know is that we should support what our fishermen want as they and our coastal ports seem to have had the roughest of deals from our EU membership .

Yet despite having "one of the roughest deals" the UK fishing fleet is one of the largest in the EU (by displacement) and has one of the largest catches.

Fishing was always going to decline over the 2nd ½ of the C20th.  Overfishing meant we either had to reduce our fleets or see them vanish completely.  Increasing automation means fewer fishermen can catch more fish.  The two together mean fishing employment was *always* going to fall.

Norway, who have had control over their fisheries and for who fishing is an equally (if not more) emotive topic, have seen a decline in fishermen over the same time period.

They (the fishermen) do know their industry though and are not like many of us land lubbers ( sink the French bastards ) and are happy to see compromises that just reinstate what they see as a fair deal . Something like  legislation that sees 60% of UK boats actually  British owned  and crewed  along with 60% of fish landed sold and processed in the UK  .

to do so would require a buy back of quotas from the current non-british holders. Entirely feasible and entirely in the UK government's court.

The bigger problem is that catching fish is no good if you can't sell them.

The fish we can catch in the UK are not to UK tastes.  We export a large chunk of our catch.

That will now be more difficult.

As I say all we can do is support them and hope the government doesnt let them down in their one chance to put right the awful deals of the past commonly known as the Common fisheries policy

Yes, we can support them, but they have already been let down.  They have served their usefulness in delivering the brexit vote so are no longer of concern to the government. Remember, Nigel Farage was on the EU fisheries committee, where he could have made a real difference for the fishermen he claims to care about, but he went to 1 out of 42 meetings.

Ironically, a deal on fishing (which would almost certainly require the UK to agree to the EU quota negotiation system) in exchange for continued access to their biggest export market would be in the fishing industry's best interests.

Don't forget the fish processing industry is bigger than the fish catching industry.

I think it was well documented that attending the fisheries committee was a waste of time as it had no legislative powers , it was nothing more than an advisory body ,advice that was generally ignored . It was in fact one of those committees that the EU point to as a place for its  democratically elected representatives .     . He instead used his time better in Lobbying people within the European Commission like Maria Daminanki who could make a difference . But there you go you wont read about that on the BBC news .

https://ffl.org.uk/quotas-cause-discards-lbc-fishing-with-nigel-farage/  ''Fishing for leave thank Nigel for his continued support for British Fishermen and our costal communities ''

And don't forget foreign boats brought EU/ UK quotas , not the rights to fish . If we dont have a quota system and are not under the CFP  what they have is worthless .  Still we are not Spain so are unlikely to take away what people have paid for in good faith . 

I think I mentioned I have attended the Dorset Fish Fair . It  promotes eating what we find around our shores , sustainable fishing and all things good about the natural resource on our doorstep . Made me laugh a couple of years back when Extinction rebels marched through the dock dressed up as Haddock with posters demanding sustainable fishing . They made a quick exit when it was pointed out to them that was exactly what was going on . Maybe a bit less cod and chips and more Mackerel salads are in order .   

[Borg Refinery]

Which is sort of my point. Fishing has an outsized *emotional* resonance (the image of a proud weatherbeaten fisherman setting out in his little boat from a.small Cornish fishing village like his father and grandfather before him plays well in the heart strings but isn't really that close to reality).

It is still the reality where I live.
A volunteer for the local Cost Watch, no local knowledge  was overheard to say recently. "What was ------- doing out in that thick fog, no other boats could see him."

There was no chance whatsoever of any other boat going anywhere near where the local man was fishing in fog because without the local knowledge gained over generations, the risk of death is high even on a clear sunshiny day.  (At certain states of the tide due to turbulent water, so many air bubbles get into the water there is not enough density to keep a boat afloat.)

Same here in Hastings, and the water isn't as 'blue' or turbulent over here.

The bad thing is they go MUCH further out here as the water is horribly polluted, so it's probably just as dangerous.

They are going to be sacrificed by the govt.

[Borg Refinery]

They can but UK consumers don't buy much shellfish, so the catch can be landed in the UK and it won't all sell.

British can't be blamed for not buying shellfish if it's not available. Even I in my thirties can remember whelk stalls, cockles and mussels sold outside pubs and at greyhound tracks. These days most fish is sold through supermarkets, which offer limited choice of (often farmed) fish. There are few dedicated seafood outlets (apart from the chippie which is now usually selling more fried chicken, pies, and Chinese dishes). Oysters seem to retail at between 80p and £1 each — in France they're often less than £5 a dozen.
We've got three fishmongers in walking distance. One sells mostly sea bass an sea bream with a whole ranch of frozen packs. Another's kosher so doesn't offer shellfish, and the third charges like a wounded bull, though it has a wide selection of fresh seafood.
Seems strange that the UK is surrounded by sea, but offers its population such a limited selection of seafood at such high prices...

Doesn't the fishmonger opposite the Sainsburys Express on Stokey High Street have good catch? That's the only one I ever went to... if it still exists.

[papasmurf]

Which is sort of my point. Fishing has an outsized *emotional* resonance (the image of a proud weatherbeaten fisherman setting out in his little boat from a.small Cornish fishing village like his father and grandfather before him plays well in the heart strings but isn't really that close to reality).

It is still the reality where I live.
A volunteer for the local Cost Watch, no local knowledge  was overheard to say recently. "What was ------- doing out in that thick fog, no other boats could see him."

There was no chance whatsoever of any other boat going anywhere near where the local man was fishing in fog because without the local knowledge gained over generations, the risk of death is high even on a clear sunshiny day.  (At certain states of the tide due to turbulent water, so many air bubbles get into the water there is not enough density to keep a boat afloat.)