Fishing for Leave welcomes Michael Gove’s statement on discarding

This press release first appeared on the Fishing for Leave website.

It was good to hear Secretary of State Michael Gove at Conservative Conference and a sincere thanks for his kind words to John Ashworth – the unfaltering founder of the fight to free Britain’s fishing from the EU and CFP.

One of the original Brexiteers in the 90s, without John’s encyclopaedic constitutional knowledge of the EU treaties we may have never known nor understood the EU and its implications– many still do not.

Markets and Morals dictate discarding – where fishermen are forced to discard the “wrong” fish to match quotas – must end.

Quotas cause discards. Discarding distorts information on effort and abundance creating inaccurate science. Poor science leads to poor quotas perpetuating a system that only reflect quota limits and talks to itself in a downward spiral.

Banning discards addresses the symptom (discards) not the cause (quotas). ‘Choke species’ will see vessels have to stop fishing on exhausting their lowest quota to avoid any discarding –bankrupting the majority of the fleet and finishing off communities Brexit or not.

Fishing for Leave looks forward to continuing to work with government on the world leading, bespoke British system of refined effort control (days-at-sea) we propose which solves both choke species by ending the cause – quotas.

Allowing vessels to land all catches in exchange for a limit on time at sea – meaning catch less but land all –will provide real-time science and management.

Government must accelerate engagement so this viable alternative is there to replace the CFP. Otherwise, due to lack of alternative, Britain will remain with the disastrous status quo of the CFP, quotas and discards or a ban that will finish the fleet.

The Icelandic approach is the quota system on steroids. It will accelerate the consolidation of the industry, especially as choke species under a quota system and discard ban will push what little fleet is left out, with only a few big operators able to survive.

Such a result would only benefit a few big operators and ‘slipper skippers’ who rent quota. Anyone advocating replicating what has happened in Iceland has a narrow perception of accelerating an “all for one – none for all” system.

Consolidation to a few, as in Iceland, will make it impossible to rejuvenate the industry and communities so everyone – large or small can survive and thrive.

Coastal constituencies that voted for Brexit and Conservative did not do so for an increased dose of the same bad medicine of Quotas in some sort of continuation of the CFP.

Continuing the same bad system in London instead of Brussels is no solution. Especially when there is a viable alternative that is more sustainable, gives accurate science and would allow a £6.3bn industry and communities to be rebuilt as a beacon of Brexit.

The Secretary of State and this government cannot continue the same system on steroids as in Iceland to appease Remainers (who want to stay aligned with the EU) or to appease a few big interests and slipper skippers.

Many of who were happy to stay in the EU and to see the majority of the British Industry thrown to the Wolves so they can take all.

Cough, cough, but no new insights on Brexit

There were at least two statements about Brexit during the Tory conference which show that some at least within the party appreciate the seismic change that Brexit involves. Firstly, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, said that Brexit was “one of the most challenging tasks ever faced by a peacetime government in Britain.”  He is quite right there. Secondly, Jacob Rees-Mogg  challenged Theresa May’s assertion that her government would not be “defined by Brexit.” It “is the defining political issue of our time and and to pretend otherwise…is absurd”, he continued, comparing the changes Brexit would bring to the Great Reform Bill or the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Again, all well and good, but we were expecting something more from the Prime Minister in her keynote speech, particularly more detail on what the route to Brexit was going to look like. Sadly, we were to be disappointed.

Mrs May reiterated that we would leave the EU in March 2019. No back-pedalling here or she is toast – and she knows it. She then continued “I know some find the negotiations frustrating, but if we approach them in the right spirit – in a spirit of cooperation and friendship, with our sights set firmly on the future – I am confident we will find a deal that works for Britain and Europe too. And let’s be clear about the agreement we seek.”

Oh no! Next came that awful phrase again “deep and special” – twice, in fact.  Please bury this one, Mrs May. It’s just as bad as “strong and stable” which the voters found so unconvincing in June.  It doesn’t reflect reality and sounds rather soppy. Mind you, what came next as she fleshed out this overworked cliché sounded rather familiar too:- “A partnership that allows us to continue to trade and cooperate with each other, because we see shared challenges and opportunities ahead. But a partnership that ensures the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation once again. A country in which the British people are firmly in control.” Once again, her statement begs the obvious question, “yes, but how are we going to get there?”

What is more, Mrs May ignored the unfortunate reality that negotiations on this partnership are not even going to be started any time soon. Yesterday, the European Parliament passed a resolution which stated that the “absence of any clear proposals has seriously impeded the negotiations”. The Parliament is “of the opinion that in the fourth round of negotiations sufficient progress has not yet been made” in the three key areas. Of course, the resolution is significant but merely a non-binding expression of opinion, not having been introduced by the EU Commission.

Maybe a speech at a party conference is  not the best occasion for announcing a new initiative on Brexit to unblock the talks, but when exactly will the moment come? Her words on Brexit today could have been cut and pasted from the Florence speech, which was received politely by the EU’s leading lights who then pointed out that it gave little idea about the sort of deal Mrs May is seeking, both for the interim and longer term.

To be fair to the Prime Minister, she wasn’t at her best, having to deal with a persistent cough and – as if that was not enough – a moronic intruder who somehow gatecrashed the meeting, handed her a P45 saying “Boris made me do it.” However, the issue goes deeper – and affects not only the Prime Minister but, it seems, a considerable number of Members of Parliament – they still fail to understand what the EU project is all about.

During the German General Election, one politician, when asked about Brexit, said he regretted that the UK always viewed the EU as an economic rather than a political project, this failing to see its value – at least in his eyes. This man, whether by accident or not, has hit the nail on the head. It explains why we are  getting two different pictures from the UK and the EU side whenever they report on the current negotiations.

To put it simply, the UK negotiators (and, I would suspect, Mrs May), are viewing  these negotiations through this same historic mindset. The EU must want a trade deal with us because surely it would be foolish not to. Look at how their businesses would suffer without one. Therefore, if we complete the repatriation of the acquis by Brexit day, there should be no reason why should we not trade as before – well, more or less – as there will still be regulatory convergence.

The EU’s reply, reiterated ad nauseam by Michel Barnier, is that we will be a third country on 29th March 2019. We will be outside the EU’s political bloc, whose ongoing integrity matters far more than trade deals. If the EU was prepared to reduce Greece to poverty – and Greece wasn’t even talking about leaving the EU – why should it put trade before politics in the Brexit negotiations? To repeat, for us, it’s all about trade whereas for the EU, it’s all about politics. Even discussion of any interim arrangement needs to be viewed in that light.  The EU simply will not let us enjoy two years as an honorary member of the club while outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ  and refusing to continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules. It is another terrible and overused cliché, but only when our politicians can learn to see how the EU project is understood by the likes not just of Barnier, Juncker and Verhofstadt, but also of national leaders such as Merkel, Macron and even Varadkar – and realise that they are all more or less of the same opinion – will we be able to escape the “having cake but eating it” mindset which has so bedevilled the negotiations from the very start.

There are grounds for hope that at least some MPs are belatedly beginning to understand the nature of the EU, so I have been told, but they need to spread the word among their colleagues pretty quickly if we are to have any hope at all of leaving the EU in March 2019 with any sort of deal worthy of the name.

 

Photo by EU2017EE

Government must scrap its compromises over EU military schemes

By David Banks. This post originally appeared on the Bruges Group website and is reproduced with permission

Since the Brexit vote, the UK has given a green light to the juggernaut of EU military schemes on the understanding we would be outside of them.

However, government position papers incredibly propose STAYING IN joint EU schemes on military finance, research and assets.

The schemes, which have never been voted on by MPs, would mean the UK staying in EU Common Defence Policy, the European Defence Agency and even EU defence procurement directives. Norway is the only non-EU country in the schemes and was obliged to accept these rules.

The PM has rightly declared the UK’s unconditional commitment to Europe’s defence via NATO.

However, we fear that MPs and ministers are not aware of the full implications of a Norway-style military union agreement. Many civil servants are aware of these implications and are pushing for UK entry relentlessly.

At the same time as these new EU military finance and structure schemes are being agreed, the EU is growing the remit of its Common Security and Defence Policy in a way that consolidates its control over EU Council-agreed military responses. The EU’s new military HQ, the MPCC, which UK diplomats tried in vain to change, is just a small part of this.

The EU is also tightening defence asset production rules to make an EU defence market in which member state governments will find it impossible to protect domestic defence jobs and industry eg Scottish shipyards in the UK’s case.

Sadly, the Government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy of September 2017 fully adheres to the latest EU rules in cross-border defence tendering – clearly anticipating a future where the UK would need to comply.

It is essential that at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester delegates are made aware of the risk to Scottish shipyards, particularly Ruth Davidson and her Scottish Conservatives team. The UK is heading towards a scenario where it is dictated by these EU procurement rules which will only become more assertive when the UK is fully committed to them.

Reasonable or unreasonable?

It will have come as no surprise to many keen observers of the Brexit process that the fourth round of talks ended this week ended with Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commision President, saying that it would take a “miracle” for Brexit talks to progress quickly enough to persuade the EU to start discussing a trade deal any time soon. This follows on from Michel Barnier saying the same thing a day earlier.

It is the usual story. An optimistic David Davis speaking of encouraging progress followed by a more negative slant from the EU side.

The divergence in assessing the state of play goes right back to Davis and his team agreeing to the EU’s negotiating schedule, which demanded that progress had to be made on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, the Irish border question and the financial settlement, or so-called divorce bill, before the issues of trade would be discussed.

Was it reasonable or unreasonable for the EU to take the initiative in proposing a schedule? Hard to say. After all, they never wanted us to vote to leave. On the other hand, we were not bound under Article 50 to agree to their schedule, but for better or worse, we did.

So what of the three demands? The size of our divorce settlement was always going to be a contentious issue. Some would argue that we shouldn’t pay a penny after Brexit day while others are willing at least to concede that we should honour our obligations up to the end of the EU’s seven-year budget cycle, which takes up up to 2020. There is a even a huge gap between the EU’s demands and the generous figure which Mrs May has indicated she is willing to pay – £50 billion – and this is higher than the carefully-researched study by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, which comes out with a figure of  £28 billion, including  spending which has been authorised but not incurred. The EU is unhappy with our foot-dragging, but given that Mrs May’s alleged offer was a generous gesture to try and unblock talks, if it doesn’t satisfy the EU, they are definitely the side who are being unreasonable.

The most unreasonable of all demands is that any agreement regarding the legal status of EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit includes a role for the European Court of Justice. This is quite frankly absurd.  If the UK insisted on UK law and the UK courts determining any aspect of the lives  of UK expats in, say Saudi Arabia, the Saudis would tell us, to quote Boris Johnson (or was it Philip Hollobone?), to “go whistle”. English Common Law means just that – it gives common treatment to all UK residents including non-nationals. We did make an exception in the Middle Ages, with the clergy subject to Canon Law instead and the general population didn’t like it one little bit, especially as monks and priests were able to get away with crimes for which the rest of the population wold be punished. There is no need to create another exception now. Our legal system is fair, with plenty of checks and balances. No EU citizen living over here should feel they are living in a tyrannical, unjust country

The question of the Irish border, however, is another matter.  The Irish republic joined the EEC, as it was, along with the UK in 1973. The two countries’ economies were – indeed, still are – closely linked and for the Irish to have kept out while we joined the European project would have caused immense problems. When the Irish joined the €uro, they did so in the expectation that we would follow suit. We did not, nor have we abandoned imperial measurements as they have. They have consistently elected governments which are led by EU enthusiasts. By contrast, most of our Prime Ministers since 1973 have been at best lukewarm towards the EU apart from Ted Heath and Tony Blair. In spite of these divergences, however, we share a common language, a common genetic ancestry and several hundred years of common history. More importantly as far as Brexit is concerned, we will soon be sharing the only land border between an independent UK and an EU member state.

It is true that the EU as a whole would suffer proportionately less than the UK from our crashing in March 2019 without a trade deal, but some individual states would take a big hit, with Ireland topping the list. No one wants a “hard border” and everyone wants trade to continue to flow freely between the Republic and Northern Ireland but, as Michel Barnier keeps pointing out, we become a “third country” in 18 months’ time. It is one thing to insist that we cannot go back to the days before the Good Friday Agreement but quite another to come up with a workable arrangement which is acceptable to Dublin and Brussels. So far, the EU negotiators have not head anything from their UK counterparts which provides the basis for a future agreement. Their impression is that, 15 months after Brexit, the UK has not got to grips with the issues involved in striking a deal on the Irish border question.  If this is true, there are good grounds for the EU to say we are being unreasonable.

There are other areas, however, where the EU – or at least, some of its senior figures – is being very unreasonable. The over-the-top reaction to Michael Gove’s denunciation of the 1964 London Fisheries Convention is one good example. Another  is the behaviour of José Margallo, the former Spanish Foreign Minister, who has been ramping up the Gibraltar issue, claiming that  Gibraltar will eventually have to welcome dual sovereignty for Spain and  spreading misleading statements about a proposed meeting with Fabian Picardo, Gibraltar’s Chief minister.

Of course, if, as claimed by one reliable source, staff are quitting the Department for Exiting the European Union “in their droves”, this isn’t getting us any closer to address the issues where some work is obviously needed by the UK side.  There is a good argument to be made that some EU demands are very unreasonable, but equally, a strong case can be made that thus far, our side’s approach to these difficult negotiations has left a lot to be desired.

 

CIB congratulates Henry Bolton on his election as UKIP Leader

The Campaign for an Independent Britain wishes to congratulate Henry Bolton on his election as leader of the UK Independence Party.

In particular, we welcome Mr Bolton’s concerns over plans for a future security partnership between the UK and the EU after Brexit. We sought to highlight some serious flaws in the Government’s approach to defence issues several months ago and very much hope that, with Mr Bolton leading UKIP, we can work alongside him and his party as well as other concerned groups such as Veteran for Britain in ensuring that as far as our armed forces are concerned, Brexit truly will mean Brexit.

Meanwhile, what of the union which we’re leaving?

Amidst all the kerfuffle of the Labour Party conference and the German General Election, a most important speech has rather slipped off many people’s radar.

France’s President Macron set out his vision of the future of the EU in a speech lasting nearly two hours.  It echoed in many ways the vision articulated by Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, in his “state of the Union” address earlier this month.  More Europe, inevitably, is the way forward, said M. Macron, at least in as many words.  “At the beginning of the next decade, Europe must have a joint intervention force, a common defence budget and a joint doctrine for action,” he said, adding “The Europe that we know is too weak, too slow, too inefficient, but Europe alone can give us the ability to act in the world faced with big contemporary challenges.”

The most bizarre statement, however, was his assertion that “”In a few years, if it so wishes, Britain could regain the place that belongs to it.”

At the moment, there is much wishful thinking going on in remainiac circles, even though 75% of the electorate, so we were told at last Monday’s Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign fringe meeting, just wants the government to “get on with it.” I believe that Brexit will happen, for reasons stated in this piece, and  therefore at the very earliest, it is likely to be the middle of the next decade at the earliest before the UK electorate could ever be asked if it wants to re-join.  By this time, Macron hopes that the EU will have been re-launched – to be more precise, possibly in 2024, when Paris hosts the Olympic Games. It’s hard to see any enthusiasm for re-joining an EU re-launched according to the Macron/Juncker vision. as it consists of a beefing up of every aspect of EU which we will be the most delighted to leave behind.

Macron advocated a European rapid reaction force, a European common Asylum policy, a European carbon tax, Europe-wide lists for candidates in the 2019 European parliamentary elections  and deeper €urozone integration.

Given that the UK would not be guaranteed its opt-outs from the Single Currency or Schengen and would also lose the Fontainebleau rebate negotiated by Mrs Thatcher, it is hard to see what the appeal of re-joining could possibly be.

But let’s not jump the gun. Before M. Macron’s speech ever gets translated into policy, it will face a number of hurdles. Eurozone economic data points to an improving picture across the 19-nation bloc, but political differences, which could pit north against south and east against west are still lurking beneath the surface. Juncker stated in his speech that some from of treaty change will be necessary. If this change means closer integration, as it probably will, it will face a rough ride in Hungary and Poland for starters. Angela Merkel’s less than resounding election victory means that any talk of debt mutualisation within the €urozone will face a very rough ride in the German Parliament. It’s not just AfD who don’t like the idea – some in her own party are none too keen either. Without €urobonds, however, closer integration across the single currency area will make little progress.

Furthermore, even before Mrs Merkel has sorted out her coalition, the forthcoming election in the Czech Republic is likely to provide a further harsh dose of reality for federalist dreamers like Juncker and Macron. It is widely expected that Andrej Babis, a billionaire who heads up ANO, a strongly Eurosceptic party, could become the next Prime Minister. Mr Babis has said, “We don’t want the euro here, it gives Brussels another area for meddling” and only one third of his countrymen view the EU as a good thing.  Czech opposition to accepting refugees is likely further to intensify. Indeed, in a recent Europe-wide survey, the Czech Republic stood out  as the only other member state apart from the UK which would vote to leave altogether in the event of an independence referendum being held.

Macron is none too popular in Italy either, whose press cynically refer to him as “Micron” or “le petit Napoléon.” The country faces a general election next year which could see an assortment of eurosecptic parties win a majority of the vote.

While no one should expect the EU to implode any time soon – or indeed, any other member state to secede, it is quite obvious that even reviving the Franco-German integrationist engine is going to be hard enough for M. Macron given the weakened position of the German Chancellor. It will be child’s play, however, compared with encouraging some other member states to get on board.  The gap between the Macron/Juncker vision of the EU’s future and the predominant vision in Warsaw, Budapest and – even before its general election – Prague,  shows no sign of narrowing.