After all these years, we've finally found out that LW's trigger phrase is "Daily Mail".
Aye, I'm an avid reader of in rough order of left to right, Guardian, Observer, Independent, Economist, Metro, London Evening Standard, BBC news, Spectator, the Times, Telegraph, Breitbart, and I don't know where Russian Bastion of Freedom Today News or Al Jazeera stand but they're in there too. Volksrant apparently also lol. Daily Mail though? Them's fighting words. I've no disrespect for the Daily Mail any more than I'd give to MSNBC but it's like calling Cameron Neville Chamberlain, you only mean a few certain things when you call it.
LW, I could write a longer post, but: A) Why do you think entering the EU caused such a problem when the UK was claiming only a 12nm bands around its shors? That means that 12,5 nm out, Europeans boats were free to fish before and after joining.
Because as members of the EU, we could not claim more than 12nm, at a time when all other nations extended their claims to 200 nm; tiny countries to boot. To make matters worse, as the nature article shows, under the EU quota system the British share of landings dramatically falls as hauls are dragged back to France, Netherlands and Spain.
With the world's largest EEZ managed directly by Brussels, British waters became subject to continental trawling lobbies.
Our profitable fishing industry got paid to scrap itself whilst the EU subsidized unprofitable trawlers that destroyed the Med, destroyed Somalia, the North Sea and are now operating in the West African Coast or else the EU will cut development aid to West African nations.
The policy of subsidising vast fishing fleets to catch ever-diminishing stocks is unsustainable. In Spain, for example, one in three fish landed is paid for by subsidy. Governments, concerned with keeping jobs alive in the fishing industry in the short-term, are essentially paying people to extinguish their own long-term job prospects – not to mention the effect on the next generation of fishermen. Artisanal fishing catches half the world’s fish, yet it provides 90% of the sector’s jobs.How does it affect us now? Our conservation efforts end 12 nautical miles out to sea, which is not enough to save our fish. And if we vote to leave we're under threat by European trawlers fearful of losing access to our market taking everything they can before they're stopped, turning the permanent damage they've already inflicted into one that may be irrecoverable. For example we banned the trawling technique used by French and Spanish fishermen that were killing our dolphins and porpoises in
2004, but any attempt to stop them killing everything that makes its way out of that zone is fair game - if we are to protect our aquatic ecosystem beyond that, we have to get approval of the entire European Union which is not going to happen and hasn't happened. If it did, the EU would not be subsidizing trawlers that don't make profit and cause irreparable damage.
This is a snapshot of how hard it was to get discarding banned:Last year, member state ministers passed the reforms after an all-night negotiating session, but it is possible that the fishing lobby will make a last-ditch attempt to have member states derail or water the changes down in the final stages of the process. But Saskia Richartz, EU fisheries policy director at Greenpeace, said: "This vote signals a momentous shift away from overfishing and is a testament to parliament's resolve to defend the general interest. National governments that stand in the way of reform, like Spain and France, will find it increasingly hard to act as proxies for a handful of powerful companies, with no concern for the long-term wellbeing of the oceans or the majority of fishermen."
The changes would also put an end to the annual wrangling over fishing quotas, which campaigners say leads to overfishing rather than protecting stocks. In future quotas would be based on longer term "maximum sustainable yield", set taking scientific advice into consideration.
It took a decade to get to a settlement the British were already carrying out whilst the EU had it
diluted,
delayed and rendered meaningless. Meaning we're going to have to fight discarding
again. Alternatively, we're going to get our waters back.
Interestingly the UK government did something I can genuinely be proud of in that
it stepped in to fight the European Union's exploitation of West African waters. Sadly,
the UK seems to have been ignored. In the nature article I linked earlier it was made clear the EU was regularly setting their quota too high above what scientists regarded safe, routinely ignoring or misinterpreting their guidelines whilst subsidizing increasingly advanced and powerful fishing ships that weren't making profit. The quotas were supposed to solve this issue so that as fishing trawlers grew more advanced, fishermen would fish less, but they just ended up discarding the extra fish caught - or fishing in African waters where the quotas did not apply, thus depleting their stocks.
Normally a country would step in and stop their own people from destroying their own livelihood and future, or the free market would render fishermen who destroyed their own livelihoods bankrupt, but why would a lobby that destroyed its own waters and the oceans and seas of foreigners care about destroying more foreign seas - getting paid EU subsidies to justify reckless destruction? Why on Earth was the profitable British fleet cut by the EU more than the more harmful and unprofitable Spanish fleet that requires EU subsidies to stay afloat? One is more powerful than the other in Brussels.
I think we have to accept that European trawlers will inflict irreparable damage one last time and try to restore our stocks before they are rendered extinct through slow death by European harmonization. Our British fishing industry is already pretty fucked so we don't have much more left to lose there.
Who cares about fishermen? Jesus used to like them, look what it earned him
An island people are either connected with the world through the sea, or isolated by it. The key to this difference is the quantity of able seamen they have available to them.
I'm sorry that I assumed that you read the daily mail just because you are repeating the talking points of one of their fake scandals. You could have read about it on all sorts of poorly sourced right wing news sources targeted towards nationalistic British conservatives.
Mainiac, that's not a very sincere apology. You should not be stooping to attacks on character, adhoms are beneath you.
That's mainiac's way of expressing affection.
Heh, in that case I apologise for misinterpreting it
This is the most British thing I've ever seen.
I've seen worse
Poll
Author
Topic: Breeki British Brexit thread (Read 155777 times)