Euro Area

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a pretty meaningless comparison. Norway is like Saudi Arabia in that they're sparsely populated and sit on a ton of natural recources; except Norway is colder and a bit less conservative. Luxembourg is an EMU member and does better than anyone, but is likewise poor comparison material for obvious reasons. France and Germany, which are more comparable, also outperform the UK in terms of economic output.



I disagree. But let me preface that with stating that I think "transferring sovereignty" is a bit of a misnomer. Sovereignty is universally understood to hold supreme power, on paper and actual, over your territory. Compartamentalizing sovereignty and transferring bits of it is a logical impossibility. What's happened is that the member states have delegated bits of decision making to the EU, and under EU law they're no longer competent to make act in those areas themselves.
The crucial point is that member states are in the EU voluntarily, and could leave if they want. The possibility is explicitly mentioned in the Lisbon treaty, but hypothetically if anyone wanted to leave they could have done so at any time. In contrast, regions like Wales or Catalonia are not sovereign entities and if they unilaterally declared themselves independant there'd be significant rucus (and the UK and Spain have the means to deal with it, unlike the EU even if it was interested in forcefully keeping members in the fold)

Ireland's voters approved the Lisbon treaties partially because of their economic situation, but also because they got a buttload of garantues that any EU decisions on X or Y would not apply to them. That might sound appealing, but if every member state acted like tha the EU would become a quagmire of directives that never apply to more than the 2-3 random countries who didn't press for opt-outs in that particular case. As I've said before I don't approve of everything the EU does and not every decision they make is the optimal choice for my country. But I recognise there are 26 other member states who also have their own interests, and that the EU in its entirety is still beneficial to my country.

If a member state insists that all EU decisions should be in their particular national interest, 100% of the time, and continuously blocks the transfer of new powers that are in the interest of the vast majority of member states, I'd rather have that they leave. I doubt that the EU would penalize the UK if it left. A minority of spiteful MEPs might call for sanctions, but that's it. Of course; every time the EU drafts new legislation and policies it won't take British interests into account - imagine that - and some Brits will interpret this as unfair punishment, no doubt.

Britain has a lot of oil too - and we used to have large fish stocks, now we don't.

We can't control fish stocks because of the common fisheries policy, and our farmers suffer under the CAP - not issues Norway has to my knowledge. They are also able to control net immigration effectively, I believe.

[Kralizec]

You have lots of oil, but you don't have a low population density like Norway. The Netherlands has lots of natural gas, but again, a sizable population.

What the EU fishery policy needs more than anything else is a drastic reduction in quotas and fishing boats, but since the fishery lobby seems pretty strong in all countries across the EU, this has little chance of ever happening. The EU fishery policy is a major dissapointment but to think that any of the countries involved would have followed a responsible policy if they were on their own seems pretty naive, though I'd be interested in hearing why you think otherwise.

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

EDIT: how does the CAP hurt British farmers?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You have lots of oil, but you don't have a low population density like Norway. The Netherlands has lots of natural gas, but again, a sizable population.

What the EU fishery policy needs more than anything else is a drastic reduction in quotas and fishing boats, but since the fishery lobby seems pretty strong in all countries across the EU, this has little chance of ever happening. The EU fishery policy is a major dissapointment but to think that any of the countries involved would have followed a responsible policy if they were on their own seems pretty naive, though I'd be interested in hearing why you think otherwise.

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

The fisheries policy is completely wrong.

Quotas are useless - you need to restrict fishing waters, we have plans to do this in the UK but we need agreement from the rest of the EU or we can't effectively implement it. You also need to make it a criminal offence not to land what you catch, one which carries punitive penalties.

The suggestion that all countries are equally culpable is naive, and easily disproved when you look at countries, like Norway, which are outside the EU fisheries policy.

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

Also there is a massive problem with bycatch usually it's not such a major problem except under when under a quota regime.

I go fishing for herring but catch mackerel well over the side it goes, probably cos I have used my quota of mackerel or worse I didn't have any to begin with.

[Fragony]

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

Yeah we are really in need of another one

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also there is a massive problem with bycatch usually it's not such a major problem except under when under a quota regime.

I go fishing for herring but catch mackerel well over the side it goes, probably cos I have used my quota of mackerel or worse I didn't have any to begin with.

Right - that's the problem with quotas

Fishermen are allowed to throwback, and because they have quotas they'll throwback three times the weight in mackerel that they're trying to find in herring.

This is a bloody mess all over, not only are the fishermen wasting catch that could be sold and is already dead, they're also wasting time out on the water when they could be in port selling a fresher catch.

Every British fisherman knows this and, again, they don't have the problem in Norway.

[SoFarSoGood]

"Independence for Catalonia? Over my dead body. Spain is not Yugoslavia or Belgium. Even if the lion is sleeping, don’t provoke the lion, because he will show the ferocity proven over centuries." Colonel Francisco Alaman yesterday...

[Kralizec]

The fisheries policy is completely wrong.

Quotas are useless - you need to restrict fishing waters, we have plans to do this in the UK but we need agreement from the rest of the EU or we can't effectively implement it. You also need to make it a criminal offence not to land what you catch, one which carries punitive penalties.

The suggestion that all countries are equally culpable is naive, and easily disproved when you look at countries, like Norway, which are outside the EU fisheries policy.

I'm quite comfortable blaming Southern Europeans for this, who refuse reforms because they have fished out their own waters and now have come North - especially the Spanish.

The quotas are already divided geographicly across the seas, and based (in a flawed manner) on the current stock of fish there. I haven't heard about that British idea, what's it about? Creating no-fishing zones near Britains shore, while British fisherboats can still fish in Spanish and Dutch waters?

Britain also has quota rights in the waters of other countries, something which eurosceptic pundits ignore all the time. The annual quota for each country was based on the historic size of their fishing fleet (a simple, and probably stupid idea), and reductions over the years have been applied across the board. The only "real" controversy is the practice of quota hopping: English fishermen sold their boats, and the associated fishing permits, to those bloody foreigners. Your country then tried to ban this practice by a shoddy piece of legislation that was outright discriminatory, and therefore struck down by the EU court.

Not that I care to defend Spanish or Italian fisherman. I agree that they are the biggest offenders. If I had my way, I'd forcibly decimate the fishing industry with catch quotas that are scientifically sound, scrap their subsidies and put huge tariffs on fish exports to Japan (who buy three quarters of the tuna caught in the mediteranean, for example) That'll teach them.

[SoFarSoGood]

Large areas of the North Sea should, in my opinion, be ruled "no fishing zones" for 10 - 20 years and be policed to enforce it. It's a matter of whether our children can eat fish and chips.

[gaelic cowboy]

and of course the attempt at a solution through transferable quota merely cause a new problem

[SoFarSoGood]

You could argue about wether the EU should have anything to do with the subject at all, but the EC/EU had almost nothing to do with immigration policy until 1997, so virtually all problems that exist now are due to national policies.

An ingenius arguement... The EU has messed up fishing policy so now they have their paws on immigration it's all going to be safe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

EDIT: how does the CAP hurt British farmers?

British farmers don't qualify like French farmers, or Italian farmers.

You might ask why that is - it's known that on Sicily there are twice as many cows on paper as on the ground. Britain makes a net loss on the cap, on fishing, and a net loss on EU spending overall.

France makes a net gain.

The point to understand is that we'd rather spend the CAP money in Wales or the North than France.

Edit: The immigration problem is due to the 1997 treaty and then the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries. We quite like the Poles coming over here, always have, but we can't provide jobs for all of them and our own unemployed.

[Kralizec]

British farmers don't qualify like French farmers, or Italian farmers.

You might ask why that is - it's known that on Sicily there are twice as many cows on paper as on the ground. Britain makes a net loss on the cap, on fishing, and a net loss on EU spending overall.

France makes a net gain.

The point to understand is that we'd rather spend the CAP money in Wales or the North than France.

Edit: The immigration problem is due to the 1997 treaty and then the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries. We quite like the Poles coming over here, always have, but we can't provide jobs for all of them and our own unemployed.

I don't know the specific criteria, but they're not discriminatory as you're implying. France has more fertile land than any other European country and therefore disproportionally benefits from the CAP. Even so they're still a net contibutor, albeit not by a large margin.

I agree the situation is unfair, but I doubt you'll find a farmer in England that will agree the CAP subsidies need to be abolished. And allthough I would like the subsidies to dissapear entirely, that's a pipe dream. A fair solution would be to decentralise the CAP scheme, so that the French (and others) get to pay for their farmers directly without consequenses for their pay tab on other issues, pushing their net contribution up.

Freedom of movement is restricted - countries can kick other EU nationals out if they're not financially self-sufficient or able to prove that they'll have employment within a few months. To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.

[SoFarSoGood]

To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.

Supply and demand...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The quotas are already divided geographicly across the seas, and based (in a flawed manner) on the current stock of fish there. I haven't heard about that British idea, what's it about? Creating no-fishing zones near Britains shore, while British fisherboats can still fish in Spanish and Dutch waters?

Britain also has quota rights in the waters of other countries, something which eurosceptic pundits ignore all the time. The annual quota for each country was based on the historic size of their fishing fleet (a simple, and probably stupid idea), and reductions over the years have been applied across the board. The only "real" controversy is the practice of quota hopping: English fishermen sold their boats, and the associated fishing permits, to those bloody foreigners. Your country then tried to ban this practice by a shoddy piece of legislation that was outright discriminatory, and therefore struck down by the EU court.

Not that I care to defend Spanish or Italian fisherman. I agree that they are the biggest offenders. If I had my way, I'd forcibly decimate the fishing industry with catch quotas that are scientifically sound, scrap their subsidies and put huge tariffs on fish exports to Japan (who buy three quarters of the tuna caught in the mediteranean, for example) That'll teach them.

Why would we need quota rights in waters with no fish?

The concept is simple, it's this:

Large areas of the North Sea should, in my opinion, be ruled "no fishing zones" for 10 - 20 years and be policed to enforce it. It's a matter of whether our children can eat fish and chips.

You codon of 30-50% of the North sea and refuse ALL fishing rights, with unrestricted fishing in the rest. There have been pilot schemes (EU approved I believe) but it has been impossible to enforce in practice because the British Government does not have sovereignty over British waters.

We didn't used to have a problem, then we joined the EU and other fisherman from other countries got unrestricted access to our waters.

I'm sorry Kralizec - quotas don't work because you can't control what you catch.

Freedom of movement is restricted - countries can kick other EU nationals out if they're not financially self-sufficient or able to prove that they'll have employment within a few months. To suggest that your unemployment will vanish if you refuse Polish workers at the border is blisteringly naive.

Is it?

News to me.

[SoFarSoGood]

The future of fish should NOT be a political 'football'. It just needs doing.

[Papewaio]

If you lost the ability to set quotas on fish why isn't offshore oil in a similar situation? I assume UK still has sovereignty over its oil, so why can't it quota it's fish?

If you can't quota then you can't conserve and you also appear to lack sovereignty over a key aspect of a nation and that is its waters. I'm sure there is no unrestricted access to farmland too.

[Kralizec]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...ts?view=Binary

Nationals of these countries, like their EU counterparts, have the right to live
and work in any Member State of the Union. EEA nationals who are either
working (employed or in self-employment) or who are non-economically active
but able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, including
students, have the same right as EU nationals to reside in the United
Kingdom under European Law.

...

A job seeker is a person in search of work for the first time or those between
jobs or in training. An EEA national must be able to provide evidence that
he/she is seeking employment. A job seeker is expected to be able to get
employment within 6 months of the beginning of a search and is not entitled to
benefits. The evidence required for those seeking employment will also
depend on the date of the birth of the child.

EDIT: more to the point:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...77:0123:EN:PDF

1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another Member State for
a period of longer than three months if they:
(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or
(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden on
the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and
have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or
[snip]