Have I lost the plot?

[papasmurf]

Why aren't brexiters up in arms about the demise of the blacksmithing industry? Once upon a time there was a blacksmith in every village in the land.  Good, skilled employment hboften handed down over generations.

What killed them off was Wun Hung Lo's village blacksmiths in rural China making products cheaper. (Even horse shoes come part forged these days, a Farrier merely finishes them off to fit.)
(I am waiting for a delivery from Wun Hung Lo  at the moment £21 postage paid, the same thing from a UK source around £150/£160.)

[BeElBeeBub]

  The point that our fishing is so small

Small now, but it did not used to be, it shrunk a long time ago for reasons not related to the EU.
(It is is a complex issue not explainable in a few sentences on an internet forum, and could form the basis for a thesis for a degree.)
One could argue it started with the rise of the domestic freezer and supermarkets selling frozen fish.

As I mentioned, the Norwegian fishing industry (in terms of fishermen) has shrunk *even though* they have control over their waters.

Overfishing, climate change, automation, technology, chanj going consumer habits etc have all meant the catching fish industry has shrunk everywhere.

Why aren't brexiters up in arms about the demise of the blacksmithing industry? Once upon a time there was a blacksmith in every village in the land.  Good, skilled employment hboften handed down over generations.

All gone. 

Where is the bring back blacksmithing campaign?

[BeElBeeBub]

The "only the commission can propose/initiate legislation" argument is often brought up.

But who *should* have the right to propose/initiate EU legislation?

Should it be the council?  That would mean the Germans or Italians or French proposing legislation.  You can imagine how that would go down. You would get 3 slightly different proposals for each law and each country would immediately veto the others versions.

Alternatively, should the EParl propose legislation?  So an Italian MEP from an agricultural area could propose agricultural subsidies legislation?

The only people who should be proposing and initiating legislation that effects British people is the elected UK government and its Parliament . 

As for the EU I dont really care .

Right, so when there is legislation about air travel, we don't need to negotiate that with other countries? 

How about air pollution?  Because as we know that never travels beyond national borders.

Fishing in the congested and historically messy North Atlantic/North sea area will always require negotiations with other countries.

A decision by a French legislator (say to allow unlimited beam trawling in the channel, or oil tankers to discharge their tanks out just outside the 12m limit but next to a rich fishing ground) will always affect the British people.

The mindset that the UK can unilaterally make decisions with no regard for others is as outdated as the empire.

[papasmurf]

  The point that our fishing is so small

Small now, but it did not used to be, it shrunk a long time ago for reasons not related to the EU.
(It is is a complex issue not explainable in a few sentences on an internet forum, and could form the basis for a thesis for a degree.)
One could argue it started with the rise of the domestic freezer and supermarkets selling frozen fish.

[T00ts]

I would suggest not believing a newspaper article on the subject of fishing especially the Daily Heil. (Seriously.)
It takes a lot of research using official data, from a multiplicity of sources to get at the reality.
Then there is the need to research the long decline of the British fishing industry which despite the propaganda is not all the EUs fault.
(Also fish and shellfish with a few exceptions do not stick to artificial boundaries in the sea.)

I sometimes wonder if these searches through data and multiple sources doesn't make for more confusion than help. It is so easy to confuse a situation in this way. Just because it is written in the Daily Fail doesn't make it incorrect. Just because it is a relatively simple analysis of the past actions of government - even a Tory one - doesn't make it any less valuable in explaining why we are where we are. My own memory confirms a lot of it. Your comment above suggests that you didn't read the article and if so it's unfair to judge it.

From your article - "Indeed, a fifth of the entire quota for England is caught by one 370 ft Dutch mega-trawler."

The quota was sold to the Dutch by us for that one! I covered it earlier in the thread, the same is very likely true for French cod catches. They leave important key details out. I agree it gets confusing.

The point is though - why? From the article it suggests that the EU decision to allow all EU nations access to all fishing areas as a common utility has made the problem and hit our fishing industry hardest.  The point that our fishing is so small has surely been created by EU policy that appears totally unfair and agreed for questionable motives. It simply reinforces my view that the EU is better without us.

[papasmurf]

From your article - "Indeed, a fifth of the entire quota for England is caught by one 370 ft Dutch mega-trawler."

With no link to any source for that, or any of the other "facts," in the article.

[Borg Refinery]

I would suggest not believing a newspaper article on the subject of fishing especially the Daily Heil. (Seriously.)
It takes a lot of research using official data, from a multiplicity of sources to get at the reality.
Then there is the need to research the long decline of the British fishing industry which despite the propaganda is not all the EUs fault.
(Also fish and shellfish with a few exceptions do not stick to artificial boundaries in the sea.)

I sometimes wonder if these searches through data and multiple sources doesn't make for more confusion than help. It is so easy to confuse a situation in this way. Just because it is written in the Daily Fail doesn't make it incorrect. Just because it is a relatively simple analysis of the past actions of government - even a Tory one - doesn't make it any less valuable in explaining why we are where we are. My own memory confirms a lot of it. Your comment above suggests that you didn't read the article and if so it's unfair to judge it.

From your article - "Indeed, a fifth of the entire quota for England is caught by one 370 ft Dutch mega-trawler."

The quota was sold to the Dutch by us for that one! I covered it earlier in the thread, the same is very likely true for French cod catches. They leave important key details out. I agree it gets confusing.

[papasmurf]

Just because it is written in the Daily Fail doesn't make it incorrect.

Based on the DMs track record always assume it is incorrect until proven otherwise.

[T00ts]

I would suggest not believing a newspaper article on the subject of fishing especially the Daily Heil. (Seriously.)
 It takes a lot of research using official data, from a multiplicity of sources to get at the reality.
Then there is the need to research the long decline of the British fishing industry which despite the propaganda is not all the EUs fault.
(Also fish and shellfish with a few exceptions do not stick to artificial boundaries in the sea.)

I sometimes wonder if these searches through data and multiple sources doesn't make for more confusion than help. It is so easy to confuse a situation in this way. Just because it is written in the Daily Fail doesn't make it incorrect. Just because it is a relatively simple analysis of the past actions of government - even a Tory one - doesn't make it any less valuable in explaining why we are where we are. My own memory confirms a lot of it. Your comment above suggests that you didn't read the article and if so it's unfair to judge it.

[papasmurf]

I have just read the following article and if true does appear clear up the history or fishing right etc and how our fishing industry is where it is.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8687333/As-wrangle-fishing-rights-former-MEP-DANIEL-HANNAN-argues-upper-hand.html

I would suggest not believing a newspaper article on the subject of fishing especially the Daily Heil. (Seriously.)
It takes a lot of research using official data, from a multiplicity of sources to get at the reality.
Then there is the need to research the long decline of the British fishing industry which despite the propaganda is not all the EUs fault.
(Also fish and shellfish with a few exceptions do not stick to artificial boundaries in the sea.)

[Streetwalker]

I have just read the following article and if true does appear clear up the history or fishing right etc and how our fishing industry is where it is.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8687333/As-wrangle-fishing-rights-former-MEP-DANIEL-HANNAN-argues-upper-hand.html

I have always thought it madness on the part of the government that they haven't used  our MEP's , people who actually have some idea of how the EU works in negotiations .Hannan in particular would have been a great asset . 

[T00ts]

I have just read the following article and if true does appear clear up the history or fishing right etc and how our fishing industry is where it is.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8687333/As-wrangle-fishing-rights-former-MEP-DANIEL-HANNAN-argues-upper-hand.html

[Streetwalker]

The "only the commission can propose/initiate legislation" argument is often brought up.

But who *should* have the right to propose/initiate EU legislation?

Should it be the council?  That would mean the Germans or Italians or French proposing legislation.  You can imagine how that would go down. You would get 3 slightly different proposals for each law and each country would immediately veto the others versions.

Alternatively, should the EParl propose legislation?  So an Italian MEP from an agricultural area could propose agricultural subsidies legislation?

The only people who should be proposing and initiating legislation that effects British people is the elected UK government and its Parliament . 

As for the EU I dont really care .

[BeElBeeBub]

The "only the commission can propose/initiate legislation" argument is often brought up.

But who *should* have the right to propose/initiate EU legislation?

Should it be the council?  That would mean the Germans or Italians or French proposing legislation.  You can imagine how that would go down. You would get 3 slightly different proposals for each law and each country would immediately veto the others versions.

Alternatively, should the EParl propose legislation?  So an Italian MEP from an agricultural area could propose agricultural subsidies legislation?

[BeElBeeBub]

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 can't believe Im still posting these links 4 years after we voted to leave but hey ho it will soon be Christmas

Correct.

But the important point you miss is that the parliament (and the council) *must* approve any proposals (there are a few exceptions in obscure corners or competition law).

Say only I can suggest a restaurant for dinner, but you must approve the suggestion.

Sure I can keep proposing the kebab shop, but if you don't like it you can just refuse.

If we further the analogy, if you also have the power to fire.me if I keep suggesting the kebab shop when you have rejected it and made it clear you fancy Chinese, who is in control?

If the commission suggested legislation that was detrimental to UK fishermen, Farage could have used his position in the committee to amend it or recommend the parliament vote against it.  In order to do that he has to attend.

Contrast that with the UK position where the executive (government) has a near monopoly on initiating legislation *and* by definition of being the parliamentary majority can also pass the legislation.

With a large majority there is almost no limit to what the UK executive can legislate. It has been proposed that a UK PM with a large majority is one of the most unrestricted leaders in the world.