The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.
What about everyone else?
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.
Perhaps people don't believe it?
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn. Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
Fishing is a classical example of the "tragedy of the commons" in which competition (between individual boats or national fleets) leads to depletion of the common resource. One solution is to assign fishing rights to one actor (so a monopoly – boo!) which would have the incentive to manage the stock for the future in order to maximise its profits (boo!). The EU however has not taken this on board (sic), instead trying to manage it by regulations and heeding the advice of well-intentioned scientists and conservationists arguing for moratoria. With little effect, as we can see.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
The link you linked to doesn't work.
Here is Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party. Lövin is the team leader on the Fisheries Committee for the Green Group of MEPs, and has published a book on the subject.
Her view on the CFP
"In fact, it’s been a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing. Our boats are simply too effective at what they do, which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that. They have been exceeding scientific advice by 50% on average. They are not taking responsibility for our common resource, which is the fish.
The CFP is also affecting the marine environment in a wider sense. We’re seeing more and more scientific reports published on the connections between overfishing of predatory fish from the marine ecosystems and algae blooming.
Overfishing can be curbed, and it has been in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway, it’s not as evident as in EU waters"
Or read the EU's own commissioned report into the CFP. It states:
"Status of stocks- The fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide and in a comparable developed country."
The link I gave is correct but seems to load very slowly - perhaps there's some problem with Nature's servers. You should be able to find the paper by googling:
"The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries" by Ruth H. Thurstan, Simon Brockington & Callum M. Roberts
There is no dispute that UK fisheries were already in very serious trouble before the CFP came into force. While there is certainly a need for both further reform of the CFP and its proper implementation by member states, simply withdrawing from the CFP because it has not worked as well as hoped would be highly irresponsible and likely to have a very negative outcome for fish stocks.
I think you are forgetting the fact that the CFP devastated the British fishing industry as more foreign boats came in our waters. If we leave the CFP, surely there will be less boats in our waters, which will give stocks a chance to recover?
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the EU loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
Let's look at the facts shall we?
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.
Funny to see you supporting someone quoting random facts unrelated to the point at hand.
Circero made a false statement. His facts didn't back up that statement so he tried to claim he had said something else that the facts did support. A very stupid thing to do when everyone can go back and see what was originally written.
The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.
What about everyone else?
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.
Perhaps people don't believe it?
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn. Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.
Who is asking for a change in policy? The plea is that things stay as they are. However, they won't. We are leaving the EU. Hopefully, that will not make much of a difference to London's start-up culture. Big companies, of course, all started small. It's a very lucky country that can dismiss the potential of start-ups. I am not sure we are that country. We will soon find out.
I know, its terrible, all this giving the voters what they want, we should think if a name for it one day.
Yep, clearly the voters want to curtail London's technology start-up community. And that's what they will get. I can believe that is a bad idea without being opposed to democracy. They'll think of a name for that one day.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?
Iceland and Norway's fisheries are large, remote and haven't been vastly overexploited for the last 100 years or so. UK fisheries, on the other hand, had been almost totally decimated prior to the introduction of the CFP and are strongly affected by the policies applied to neighbouring fisheries. That's why we need to work closely with our neighbours to manage the remaining fish stocks and ensure that the scientific advise for the CFP isn't watered down by national interests. International legislation and enforcement is absolutely essential for this.
On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.
UK government policies have for a long time contributed to driving up the cost of living. In the end that will always price us out of jobs that can go overseas. If we weren't in the EU it would be one less factor to justify a multinational paying our inflated wages and the shift to other countries would accelerate.
That;s just bollocks. The same multinat isn't making any discenible attempt to move jobs from it's German and French subsidiaries because it's too expensive.
In other words the ideal scenario is to move UK jobs overseas to Poland and Hungary while keeping UK prices levels intact.
And what are the respective head-counts in the UK, France and Germany today?
what's that got to do with the price of fish ? UK is the largest but also the largest turnover, Germany next then France.
The issue has nothing to do with relative size and everything to do with ease of moving jobs. If we want to stay in the EU then we need to adopt in full EU social policy and all it's commitments.
Currently the EU works for multinats in that it allows them to maximise profits while walking away from their commitments to host countries.
So are you in favour of a protectionist Brexit and making it much harder to make people redundant?
Most of the problems we have are because the UK has an open freemarket system on the anglo saxon model. The EU is set up on a the contininental model of high regulation and worker protection.
The inevitable trend will be that the UK will have to adopt the continental system either to control immigration ( most of the issues we have in the UK is becasue it is easy to access the social security system ) or over time that we will be pushed in to the continental model.
So instead of aski9ng me your question perhaps you'd like to ask it of yourself, becasue slowly but surely that's what Bremain entails.
The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.
What about everyone else?
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.
Perhaps people don't believe it?
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn. Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
That may well be so, but how often do you meet folk that measure how well they and their families are doing in life by GDP?
Never. But I know a lot of people who think that they pay too much tax and that public services are gone to pot - and that's with the subsidy all non-Londoners get from London.
The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.
What about everyone else?
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.
Perhaps people don't believe it?
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn. Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.
Who is asking for a change in policy? The plea is that things stay as they are. However, they won't. We are leaving the EU. Hopefully, that will not make much of a difference to London's start-up culture. Big companies, of course, all started small. It's a very lucky country that can dismiss the potential of start-ups. I am not sure we are that country. We will soon find out.
Gosh you are in a pessimistic mood this morning, Mr. Observer. However, I apologise for my use of the word "Adjusted" I think "Considered" would have been better. Silicon roundabout may be terribly fashionable but I am not sure it makes money and any idea that does get off the ground will be snapped up by Google or one of the other big boys with the IP ripped out and exported to the USA.
This is not something that should even appear on the HMG policy radar.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
The link you linked to doesn't work.
Here is Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party. Lövin is the team leader on the Fisheries Committee for the Green Group of MEPs, and has published a book on the subject.
Her view on the CFP
"In fact, it’s been a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing. Our boats are simply too effective at what they do, which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that. They have been exceeding scientific advice by 50% on average. They are not taking responsibility for our common resource, which is the fish.
The CFP is also affecting the marine environment in a wider sense. We’re seeing more and more scientific reports published on the connections between overfishing of predatory fish from the marine ecosystems and algae blooming.
Overfishing can be curbed, and it has been in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway, it’s not as evident as in EU waters"
Or read the EU's own commissioned report into the CFP. It states:
"Status of stocks- The fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide and in a comparable developed country."
The link I gave is correct but seems to load very slowly - perhaps there's some problem with Nature's servers. You should be able to find the paper by googling:
"The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries" by Ruth H. Thurstan, Simon Brockington & Callum M. Roberts
There is no dispute that UK fisheries were already in very serious trouble before the CFP came into force. While there is certainly a need for both further reform of the CFP and its proper implementation by member states, simply withdrawing from the CFP because it has not worked as well as hoped would be highly irresponsible and likely to have a very negative outcome for fish stocks.
I think you are forgetting the fact that the CFP devastated the British fishing industry as more foreign boats came in our waters. If we leave the CFP, surely there will be less boats in our waters, which will give stocks a chance to recover?
The fishing industries of the UK and other European countries were largely responsible for their own devastation as a result of massive overexploitation of fisheries before the advent of the CFP.
Your argument for leaving the CFP falls down on the fact that fish don't respect national waters. They may, for example, spawn in one area and then migrate to other areas. That's why it's essential to have cooperate closely with our maritime neighbours on fishing policy.
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.
This is mainly missing the point, which is the destruction of the industry largely as a result of a failed regulatory system, and the impossibility of reformation of that failed regulatory system.
The CFP have mandated that a large proportion - probably half or more - of caught fish has had to be thrown back into the sea, dead, because of a failed regulatory regime. That discard alone shows that it failed.
Perhaps fish stocks wouldn't have declined (or stayed at endangered levels) if we had been able to keep what we caught, rather than catching twice as much as we keep, and throwing half back, dead.
Then it has taken 30+ years to even begin to sort the discard problem, and that because of the intervention of a TV Celebrity Chef, and the issue has proven to be beyond the ability of a sclerotic, failed, EU to resolve.
Then the industry has been forcibly decimated repearedly as a result of that failure.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
You are still missing the point, though the fish stock of Red Herrings seems to be in rude health.
How does a policy which forces half of the fish catch to be thrown back dead help fish stocks to recover?
If the EU had a chance of working then the CFP would have been fixed by 1990, and we would have recovered stocks by now.
It didn't work. It doesn't work. It prevented recovery (just as is the Euro for teh Eurozone btw). And it is a disaster.
And it caused repeated decimation of the fishing industry.
And the nature of the EU prevented that policy being fixed, because it is simply disfunctional.
Sadiq Khan tackling the most important issues facing London....affordable housing and ticket price policies won't be met, but this will...
Adverts promoting negative body images will be banned across the Transport for London (TfL) network from next month. As part of his mayoral election manifesto Sadiq Khan pledged to ban adverts promoting "unhealthy or unrealistic" body images.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?
Iceland and Norway's fisheries are large, remote and haven't been vastly overexploited for the last 100 years or so. UK fisheries, on the other hand, had been almost totally decimated prior to the introduction of the CFP and are strongly affected by the policies applied to neighbouring fisheries. That's why we need to work closely with our neighbours to manage the remaining fish stocks and ensure that the scientific advise for the CFP isn't watered down by national interests. International legislation and enforcement is absolutely essential for this.
Not exactly true. The major Herring fisheries collapsed in the 1960s and provided the warning to Norway about sustainable fishing.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?
Iceland and Norway's fisheries are large, remote and haven't been vastly overexploited for the last 100 years or so. UK fisheries, on the other hand, had been almost totally decimated prior to the introduction of the CFP and are strongly affected by the policies applied to neighbouring fisheries. That's why we need to work closely with our neighbours to manage the remaining fish stocks and ensure that the scientific advise for the CFP isn't watered down by national interests. International legislation and enforcement is absolutely essential for this.
Might I suggest that, like Iceland and Norway it would be possible for the UK to manage fishing in its waters.
This is not something that should even appear on the HMG policy radar.
Then yet again the country will need to prosper in spite of a short-sighted government... If we have an industrial policy at all then ensuring we capture as much of the future growth in high tech industries has to be one of its top priorities.
Russia is investing billions in the Skolkovo project to nurture its own tech hub and stop the brain drain to other countries. It comes to something when they are more focused on sustainable growth than we are.
The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.
What about everyone else?
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.
Perhaps people don't believe it?
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn. Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.
Who is asking for a change in policy? The plea is that things stay as they are. However, they won't. We are leaving the EU. Hopefully, that will not make much of a difference to London's start-up culture. Big companies, of course, all started small. It's a very lucky country that can dismiss the potential of start-ups. I am not sure we are that country. We will soon find out.
Gosh you are in a pessimistic mood this morning, Mr. Observer. However, I apologise for my use of the word "Adjusted" I think "Considered" would have been better. Silicon roundabout may be terribly fashionable but I am not sure it makes money and any idea that does get off the ground will be snapped up by Google or one of the other big boys with the IP ripped out and exported to the USA.
This is not something that should even appear on the HMG policy radar.
Yes, I am very pessimistic. I don't think leaving the EU is going to be very good news for us or the wider European economy. Of course, I want to be wrong.
I would be very surprised if Silicon Roundabout made any money. But I have spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley - probably more than most people on here (with one or two exceptions) - and its potential excites me. Being a European IP and tech hub may mean that a few companies are bought up by Google, but that will only encourage other companies to start up and more investors to come in looking for the next big thing. We will all benefit from that. Thanks to free movement, low start-up costs, relatively little bureaucracy and a ready supply of capital London currently has something that most other countries can only dream about, in a sector that will only get more important. This most definitely is not the fishing industry.
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?
At the right price, yes. I don't think it's more probable than not; I am just highly sceptical of treating it as a foregone conclusion that Leave will do worse in S than in E&W.
'I wouldn't be surprised ' suggests around 2/1 to me.
I think you originally suggested that Leave in Scotland would be no more than 4 pts below Leave in rUK, what price that? Evens?
I'll go 5-2, just for John_N. Max bet £200. Cash to be lodged with a reputable poster as his post count is lowish.
Leave in Scotland > Leave in England and Wales as a % is the bet ^_~
I'd go to £100 at 5/2. I think Alisdair has first dibs on the Leave in Scotland > Leave in England and Wales % bet!
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.
This is mainly missing the point, which is the destruction of the industry largely as a result of a failed regulatory system, and the impossibility of reformation of that failed regulatory system.
The CFP have mandated that a large proportion - probably half or more - of caught fish has had to be thrown back into the sea, dead, because of a failed regulatory regime. That discard alone shows that it failed.
Perhaps fish stocks wouldn't have declined (or stayed at endangered levels) if we had been able to keep what we caught, rather than catching twice as much as we keep, and throwing half back, dead.
Then it has taken 30+ years to even begin to sort the discard problem, and that because of the intervention of a TV Celebrity Chef, and the issue has proven to be beyond the ability of a sclerotic, failed, EU to resolve.
Then the industry has been forcibly decimated repearedly as a result of that failure.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
You are still missing the point, though the fish stock of Red Herrings seems to be in rude health.
How does a policy which forces half of the fish catch to be thrown back dead help fish stocks to recover?
If the EU had a chance of working then the CFP would have been fixed by 1990, and we would have recovered stocks by now.
It didn't work. It doesn't work. It prevented recovery (just as is the Euro for teh Eurozone btw). And it is a disaster.
And it caused repeated decimation of the fishing industry.
And the nature of the EU prevented that policy being fixed, because it is simply disfunctional.
Ergo .. Better Off Out.
When we have these discussions here, I often wonder what would be posted on a comparable Spanish or Portuguese (both of wehich have substantial fishing industries) site. Does anyone know. My Spanish isn’t good enough to find out! Do they complain about the CFP as (some) British fishermen do?
And there’s an area where comparison can be made with other industries. Coal and steel for example. Secondly, does anyone know what, if anything, is being done to revive the cod stocks off Newfoundland?
I do wonder why Sky has such a fetish for live courtroom tedium.
Christ - are they still doing Pistorius? I've been reading and watching crime.
The more time for Pistorius the less time for Labour Remain.
The Remain campaign are reaping what they sowed - they thought they'd have a huge lead and could swap the last two weeks with footie. Well, that hasn't happened.
And Leave via a black swan whistleblower in the FCO have a gotcha on Turkey. It's all to play for.
Being a European IP and tech hub may mean that a few companies are bought up by Google, but that will only encourage other companies to start up and more investors to come in looking for the next big thing. We will all benefit from that. Thanks to free movement, low start-up costs, relatively little bureaucracy and a ready supply of capital London currently has something that most other countries can only dream about, in a sector that will only get more important. This most definitely is not the fishing industry.
+1
There are studies showing that one of the key factors in creating a sustainable hub is a pool of entrepreneurs who have made 9 figure exits and can therefore afford to take bigger risks when they invest in the next wave.
I'm going to do something very unusual here. I'm going to post an article by someone on the opposite side of the debate - because I thought it was rather good. How is it in the interests of Remain for me to do that? Well frankly too many on our side are just bemoaning the ignorance of the general public, questioning their motives and values. Perhaps this kind of article might encourage them to see things differently? And if we do stay in the EU (and I'd have preferred a referendum AFTER the inevitable change in the Eurozone) what kind of EU are we going to help create? Clegg's response that in 10 years the EU would be pretty much the same, when almost no-one across the continent wanted the current half-integrated status quo, was a shocker.
From the BBC website - "Worries about the economic impact of leaving the EU were also blamed for a big fall in Asian stock markets. Japan's Nikkei index closed 3.5% down, while Hong Kong's main index slid 2.5%.
Seriously? >3.5% of the value of Japanese assets is dependent on whether an island the other side of the world is part of a free trading zone that Japan doesn't even have a free trade agreement with?
There isn't a single bookie currently offering 2/1 against LEAVE. Most go 7/4, a couple are offering only 8/5. That's a long way from the 4/1 on offer about 10 days ago, when it was beginning to look all over bar the counting.
It would seem that the betting market is expecting another poll favourable to the Boris/Gove camp.
For a long time REMAIN's odds have been stuck on 1.25 or even shorter, so there's an awful lot of money staked on that side of the equation. Expect a torrent of cash to be poured onto LEAVE in very short order, should the market really start to believe they have a good chance of winning.
Right now we are a considerable distance from reaching that point, but opinion could change quickly ..... either way, as we reach the crucial stage of the campaign.
There isn't a single bookie currently offering 2/1 against LEAVE. Most go 7/4, a couple are offering only 8/5. That's a long way from the 4/1 on offer about 10 days ago, when it was beginning to look all over bar the counting.
It would seem that the betting market is expecting another poll favourable to the Boris/Gove camp.
For a long time REMAIN's odds have been stuck on 1.25 or even shorter, so there's an awful lot of money staked on that side of the equation. Expect a torrent of cash to be poured onto LEAVE in very short order, should the market really start to believe they have a good chance of winning.
Right now we are a considerable distance from reaching that point, but opinion could change quickly ..... either way, as we reach the crucial stage of the campaign.
Wouldn't betting on leave be a good way for businesses to insure themselves against the costs of Brexit?
From the BBC website - "Worries about the economic impact of leaving the EU were also blamed for a big fall in Asian stock markets. Japan's Nikkei index closed 3.5% down, while Hong Kong's main index slid 2.5%.
Seriously? >3.5% of the value of Japanese assets is dependent on whether an island the other side of the world is part of a free trading zone that Japan doesn't even have a free trade agreement with?
Japanese stocks probably more about their credit rating.
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?
Iceland and Norway's fisheries are large, remote and haven't been vastly overexploited for the last 100 years or so. UK fisheries, on the other hand, had been almost totally decimated prior to the introduction of the CFP and are strongly affected by the policies applied to neighbouring fisheries. That's why we need to work closely with our neighbours to manage the remaining fish stocks and ensure that the scientific advise for the CFP isn't watered down by national interests. International legislation and enforcement is absolutely essential for this.
Might I suggest that, like Iceland and Norway it would be possible for the UK to manage fishing in its waters.
The UK could certainly manage fishing in its waters, but it would have a lot more trouble managing fish stocks in its waters without international cooperation. This is due to refusal of the fish to respect national maritime boundaries (which is much more of an issue for the UK than it is for remote Iceland and Norway).
There isn't a single bookie currently offering 2/1 against LEAVE. Most go 7/4, a couple are offering only 8/5. That's a long way from the 4/1 on offer about 10 days ago, when it was beginning to look all over bar the counting.
It would seem that the betting market is expecting another poll favourable to the Boris/Gove camp.
For a long time REMAIN's odds have been stuck on 1.25 or even shorter, so there's an awful lot of money staked on that side of the equation. Expect a torrent of cash to be poured onto LEAVE in very short order, should the market really start to believe they have a good chance of winning.
Right now we are a considerable distance from reaching that point, but opinion could change quickly ..... either way, as we reach the crucial stage of the campaign.
Wouldn't betting on leave be a good way for businesses to insure themselves against the costs of Brexit?
Possibly, if one really thinks Brexit might actually happen ..... eventually. Personally I'm convinced it won't, irrespective of the result of the referendum.
The thing is would Brexit be bringing forward a necessary correction or would it overwhelm us given our current precarious state? As the previous article that I linked by AEP pointed out we have a record current account deficit and are keeping our head above water thanks to flightly incoming capital - which could just as quickly fly away.
I'm going to do something very unusual here. I'm going to post an article by someone on the opposite side of the debate - because I thought it was rather good. How is it in the interests of Remain for me to do that? Well frankly too many on our side are just bemoaning the ignorance of the general public, questioning their motives and values. Perhaps this kind of article might encourage them to see things differently? And if we do stay in the EU (and I'd have preferred a referendum AFTER the inevitable change in the Eurozone) what kind of EU are we going to help create? Clegg's response that in 10 years the EU would be pretty much the same, when almost no-one across the continent wanted the current half-integrated status quo, was a shocker.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
Some more information on capital flight from Britain due to Brexit should be available soon.There's bound to be a rush to the safety of the Swiss banks and gold.Would a Tory government on Brexit have to reintroduce exchange controls and a gold standard to support the currency as an emergency measure?
From the BBC website - "Worries about the economic impact of leaving the EU were also blamed for a big fall in Asian stock markets. Japan's Nikkei index closed 3.5% down, while Hong Kong's main index slid 2.5%.
Seriously? >3.5% of the value of Japanese assets is dependent on whether an island the other side of the world is part of a free trading zone that Japan doesn't even have a free trade agreement with?
From the BBC website - "Worries about the economic impact of leaving the EU were also blamed for a big fall in Asian stock markets. Japan's Nikkei index closed 3.5% down, while Hong Kong's main index slid 2.5%.
Seriously? >3.5% of the value of Japanese assets is dependent on whether an island the other side of the world is part of a free trading zone that Japan doesn't even have a free trade agreement with?
I don't understand the world of finance (although recently I've been doing technology-related consulting in it, and it seems to consist of the smartest people I've ever met doing the stupidest shit you can imagine) but I can confirm that the Japanese press are also blaming the drop on fear of Brexit. Apparently this is making the yen go up, which in turn makes Japanese companies worth less in real terms, and worth even more less in yen.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
Nunu, I've sent you a box of leaflets by Parcelforce. It should arrive before 12 tomorrow.
Wonder if the start up scene is just a money destroyer - "There are fears that another Ice Age is about to hit Silicon Valley because of the implosion of its unicorns — start-ups valued at more than one billion dollars. By one estimate there were 229 such companies in January of this year. Their valuations are dropping precipitously because they were overpriced and overhyped. The fear is that venture capital will dry up and hurt the innovation ecosystem. " - is anyone making long term money?
Some more information on capital flight from Britain due to Brexit should be available soon.There's bound to be a rush to the safety of the Swiss banks and gold.Would a Tory government on Brexit have to reintroduce exchange controls and a gold standard to support the currency as an emergency measure?
You mean the same flight to safety that has pushed 10y gilt yields down to record lows?
The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.
What about everyone else?
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.
Perhaps people don't believe it?
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn. Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.
Who is asking for a change in policy? The plea is that things stay as they are. However, they won't. We are leaving the EU. Hopefully, that will not make much of a difference to London's start-up culture. Big companies, of course, all started small. It's a very lucky country that can dismiss the potential of start-ups. I am not sure we are that country. We will soon find out.
I know, its terrible, all this giving the voters what they want, we should think if a name for it one day.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
Nunu, I've sent you a box of leaflets by Parcelforce. It should arrive before 12 tomorrow.
The thing is would Brexit be bringing forward a necessary correction or would it overwhelm us given our current precarious state? As the previous article that I linked by AEP pointed out we have a record current account deficit and are keeping our head above water thanks to flightly incoming capital - which could just as quickly fly away.
William Keegan, Observer, has been pointing out the current account issue for months. Brexit is a huge risk in this respect.
"No wonder the markets are unsettled; and those of us with long memories know that when markets become seriously unsettled, it is difficult to prevent things from getting totally out of hand."
Wonder if the start up scene is just a money destroyer - "There are fears that another Ice Age is about to hit Silicon Valley because of the implosion of its unicorns — start-ups valued at more than one billion dollars. By one estimate there were 229 such companies in January of this year. Their valuations are dropping precipitously because they were overpriced and overhyped. The fear is that venture capital will dry up and hurt the innovation ecosystem. " - is anyone making long term money?
Another dotcom style crash? That took £10 off BT's share price - to c£3.
1.42 / 1.26 are perfectly "normal" mid bank rates...
1.4 to the € was painful, very painful.
Not for those of us paid in £s and living in Europe. tghere are many in my part of the world who could be forced to return if the £ fell to 1:1 against the euro or worse. They are invariably old and relatively poor. I hope the NHS is ready.
Wonder if the start up scene is just a money destroyer - "There are fears that another Ice Age is about to hit Silicon Valley because of the implosion of its unicorns — start-ups valued at more than one billion dollars. By one estimate there were 229 such companies in January of this year. Their valuations are dropping precipitously because they were overpriced and overhyped. The fear is that venture capital will dry up and hurt the innovation ecosystem. " - is anyone making long term money?
They seem like the perfect companies for a bit of a "pump and dump".
The thing is would Brexit be bringing forward a necessary correction or would it overwhelm us given our current precarious state? As the previous article that I linked by AEP pointed out we have a record current account deficit and are keeping our head above water thanks to flightly incoming capital - which could just as quickly fly away.
Whatever comes economically after Brexit is going to happen anyway. Brexit may just bring it forwards. We can't have long term economic policy built on consumer borrowing and importation of goods. It hurts domestic investment, productivity and overall economic growth. Balancing the current account is more important than balancing the fiscal budget IMO.
Off topic, the blanket Remain advertising is back in Canary Wharf this morning. This time, a slightly different tack: they are now flying the flag (union flag) and appealing to vote Remain to "keep Britain great".
My reading is that someone in Remain is recognising they need "heart" to compete with Leave, as well as what they think is head, and this is their attempt to engage it.
It will be interesting to see if this is the new line nationally over the next 10 days.
I hear they're going to start running with images of Canary Wharf in the early 1970s before Britain joined the EU.
"Don't Return to This" will be the slogan.
"Vote REMAIN or the Bankers get it"
This is not going to win over the working class vote.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
And bus passes.
I guess they're saving 'Brexit to cause global mass extinction' headlines for next week.
1.42 / 1.26 are perfectly "normal" mid bank rates...
1.4 to the € was painful, very painful.
Not for those of us paid in £s and living in Europe. tghere are many in my part of the world who could be forced to return if the £ fell to 1:1 against the euro or worse. They are invariably old and relatively poor. I hope the NHS is ready.
1:1 would be too low Mr Felix ! But 1:1.4 is too high ;p
1.26 seems "about right" to me, a happy place for both exporters and holidaymakers.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
And bus passes.
I guess they're saving 'Brexit to cause global mass extinction' headlines for next week.
"Brexit will cause asteroids to change orbit and head towards the Earth"
1.42 / 1.26 are perfectly "normal" mid bank rates...
1.4 to the € was painful, very painful.
Not for those of us paid in £s and living in Europe. tghere are many in my part of the world who could be forced to return if the £ fell to 1:1 against the euro or worse. They are invariably old and relatively poor. I hope the NHS is ready.
1:1 would be too low Mr Felix ! But 1:1.4 is too high ;p
1.26 seems "about right" to me, a happy place for both exporters and holidaymakers.
I agree - but it will go a lot lower than 1:1.25 - most forecasters expect at least another 20% fall -and we don't know how long that might last.
Wonder if the start up scene is just a money destroyer - "There are fears that another Ice Age is about to hit Silicon Valley because of the implosion of its unicorns — start-ups valued at more than one billion dollars. By one estimate there were 229 such companies in January of this year. Their valuations are dropping precipitously because they were overpriced and overhyped. The fear is that venture capital will dry up and hurt the innovation ecosystem. " - is anyone making long term money?
They seem like the perfect companies for a bit of a "pump and dump".
Silicon valley funding rounds are becoming riskier than investing in random companies on AIM at the moment. No doubt the government will blame Brexit.
The thing is would Brexit be bringing forward a necessary correction or would it overwhelm us given our current precarious state? As the previous article that I linked by AEP pointed out we have a record current account deficit and are keeping our head above water thanks to flightly incoming capital - which could just as quickly fly away.
Whatever comes economically after Brexit is going to happen anyway. Brexit may just bring it forwards. We can't have long term economic policy built on consumer borrowing and importation of goods. It hurts domestic investment, productivity and overall economic growth. Balancing the current account is more important than balancing the fiscal budget IMO.
Whatever happens in the markets and the wider economy after 23rd June and our vote to Brexit will be owned by Leave; good and bad.
1.42 / 1.26 are perfectly "normal" mid bank rates...
1.4 to the € was painful, very painful.
Not for those of us paid in £s and living in Europe. tghere are many in my part of the world who could be forced to return if the £ fell to 1:1 against the euro or worse. They are invariably old and relatively poor. I hope the NHS is ready.
1:1 would be too low Mr Felix ! But 1:1.4 is too high ;p
1.26 seems "about right" to me, a happy place for both exporters and holidaymakers.
I agree - but it will go a lot lower than 1:1.25 - most forecasters expect at least another 20% fall -and we don't know how long that might last.
Care to link to these forecasts?
I had the overview a couple of weeks ago and it was a 10-12 point fall vs USD and a 7-9 point fall vs EUR.
I see that sterling is playing the role of the NHS in winter as people try to talk up a crisis.
Ha - so true. And lots of graphs with questionable Y axis.
It's good to see you people having such fun with an issue that affects the daily lives of thousands of people, mainly pensioners, living abroad. Very tasteful.
The thing is would Brexit be bringing forward a necessary correction or would it overwhelm us given our current precarious state? As the previous article that I linked by AEP pointed out we have a record current account deficit and are keeping our head above water thanks to flightly incoming capital - which could just as quickly fly away.
Whatever comes economically after Brexit is going to happen anyway. Brexit may just bring it forwards. We can't have long term economic policy built on consumer borrowing and importation of goods. It hurts domestic investment, productivity and overall economic growth. Balancing the current account is more important than balancing the fiscal budget IMO.
Whatever happens in the markets and the wider economy after 23rd June and our vote to Brexit will be owned by Leave; good and bad.
Possibly, however, if we remain and the same happens a year from now it will be owned by the the in camp who have basically promised perpetual economic growth on the back of our EU membership. Completely ignoring how badly the EMU crisis blew our economy off course just a few years ago.
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
Nunu, I've sent you a box of leaflets by Parcelforce. It should arrive before 12 tomorrow.
Thanx! Hows it going in Luton? I dont believe Leave can be ahead in Luton I expect it to be same as London despite the "experts" spreadsheets. Keep going though this campaign will be won by grassroots campaigners like you. Thank you.
1.42 / 1.26 are perfectly "normal" mid bank rates...
1.4 to the € was painful, very painful.
Not for those of us paid in £s and living in Europe. tghere are many in my part of the world who could be forced to return if the £ fell to 1:1 against the euro or worse. They are invariably old and relatively poor. I hope the NHS is ready.
1:1 would be too low Mr Felix ! But 1:1.4 is too high ;p
1.26 seems "about right" to me, a happy place for both exporters and holidaymakers.
I agree - but it will go a lot lower than 1:1.25 - most forecasters expect at least another 20% fall -and we don't know how long that might last.
Care to link to these forecasts?
I had the overview a couple of weeks ago and it was a 10-12 point fall vs USD and a 7-9 point fall vs EUR.
I'm afraid I don't keep links but I have seen these reports in the Guardian and the Telegraph. Believe me, i have very good reasons for hoping they're wrong!
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.
Makes me proud to be British.
We are the most sceptical peoples in the world so when Cameron says "WW3 and global recession if we leave." People just laugh.
Nunu, I've sent you a box of leaflets by Parcelforce. It should arrive before 12 tomorrow.
Thanx! Hows it going in Luton? I dont believe Leave can be ahead in Luton I expect it to be same as London despite the "experts" spreadsheets. Keep going though this campaign will be won by grassroots campaigners like you. Thank you.
As far as I can tell, it's going well in Luton.
We've got a big meeting tomorrow night with Kelvin Hopkins.
I didn't understand half the words in the article and haven;t heard of any of the companies which you mention, but equally nothing I have heard form Leave has suggested they want to stop you hiring high quality people from other EU countries.
Indeed they would argue i am sure that they would make it easier for you to hire highly educated people from elsewhere in the world.
This reason alone is on balance a reason to Leave, not Remain! My company has to jump through hoops to hire people who work for us in from India to come permanently to the UK - we give up sometimes. This is because they are non-EU nationals.
I am not an expert o this by any means and agree that uncertainty won;t help recruitment, but uncertainty will be temporary.
I see that sterling is playing the role of the NHS in winter as people try to talk up a crisis.
Ha - so true. And lots of graphs with questionable Y axis.
It's good to see you people having such fun with an issue that affects the daily lives of thousands of people, mainly pensioners, living abroad. Very tasteful.
Basically, the problem with the referendum is the dishonesty of politicians over the last few years.
I can understand the Labour party supporting Remain. They've decided that "the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Even if the two birds in the bush are the British electorate, who can't be trusted to vote the right way.
The Conservative party Remainers should also say "Immigration is good for the economy, so you've got to put up with it."
The "racist" response to both is ... "You posh people meet the "nice" immigrants, the well-educated, those that speak good English and integrate - unless it's someone doing your plumbing, gardening, or au-pairing. You can send your kids to private schools and avoid the over-crowded classrooms in our part of the country."
Remainers' reply ... "That's easily solved, we'll build more classrooms and employ more teachers."
"Then why have you made no effort to do this in the last ten years?"
@TSE I hadn't realised that Florida was in the EU.
Yup, there is that. won't stop some Leavers trying to weaponise Orlando.
They don't have to do anything.
The fact is that a Muslim nutter murdered innocent people who believe in western values. If you think that helps play into Remain's position, you're welcome.
Comments
(Poll of Expats)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/eu-referendum-three-quarters-of-british-expats-back-staying-in-eu-a3269901.html
Not seen the tables, so would urge caution.
Circero made a false statement. His facts didn't back up that statement so he tried to claim he had said something else that the facts did support. A very stupid thing to do when everyone can go back and see what was originally written.
The inevitable trend will be that the UK will have to adopt the continental system either to control immigration ( most of the issues we have in the UK is becasue it is easy to access the social security system ) or over time that we will be pushed in to the continental model.
So instead of aski9ng me your question perhaps you'd like to ask it of yourself, becasue slowly but surely that's what Bremain entails.
@felix @Sandpit @Indigo @RobD @TimT @Tim_B are all different ages, living in different counties, with different perspectives, just for example
This is not something that should even appear on the HMG policy radar.
Your argument for leaving the CFP falls down on the fact that fish don't respect national waters. They may, for example, spawn in one area and then migrate to other areas. That's why it's essential to have cooperate closely with our maritime neighbours on fishing policy.
How does a policy which forces half of the fish catch to be thrown back dead help fish stocks to recover?
If the EU had a chance of working then the CFP would have been fixed by 1990, and we would have recovered stocks by now.
It didn't work. It doesn't work. It prevented recovery (just as is the Euro for teh Eurozone btw). And it is a disaster.
And it caused repeated decimation of the fishing industry.
And the nature of the EU prevented that policy being fixed, because it is simply disfunctional.
Ergo .. Better Off Out.
Adverts promoting negative body images will be banned across the Transport for London (TfL) network from next month. As part of his mayoral election manifesto Sadiq Khan pledged to ban adverts promoting "unhealthy or unrealistic" body images.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36516378
Russia is investing billions in the Skolkovo project to nurture its own tech hub and stop the brain drain to other countries. It comes to something when they are more focused on sustainable growth than we are.
I would be very surprised if Silicon Roundabout made any money. But I have spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley - probably more than most people on here (with one or two exceptions) - and its potential excites me. Being a European IP and tech hub may mean that a few companies are bought up by Google, but that will only encourage other companies to start up and more investors to come in looking for the next big thing. We will all benefit from that. Thanks to free movement, low start-up costs, relatively little bureaucracy and a ready supply of capital London currently has something that most other countries can only dream about, in a sector that will only get more important. This most definitely is not the fishing industry.
I think Alisdair has first dibs on the Leave in Scotland > Leave in England and Wales % bet!
Do they complain about the CFP as (some) British fishermen do?
And there’s an area where comparison can be made with other industries. Coal and steel for example.
Secondly, does anyone know what, if anything, is being done to revive the cod stocks off Newfoundland?
Edit ..... just found this https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27867-cod-make-a-comeback-thanks-to-strict-cuts-in-fishing/
And Leave via a black swan whistleblower in the FCO have a gotcha on Turkey. It's all to play for.
There are studies showing that one of the key factors in creating a sustainable hub is a pool of entrepreneurs who have made 9 figure exits and can therefore afford to take bigger risks when they invest in the next wave.
It's televisual horlicks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/12/brexit-vote-is-about-the-supremacy-of-parliament-and-nothing-els/
"Worries about the economic impact of leaving the EU were also blamed for a big fall in Asian stock markets. Japan's Nikkei index closed 3.5% down, while Hong Kong's main index slid 2.5%.
However, the reaction on London's FTSE 100 was muted, with the index down 0.3% in morning trading."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36515816
Seriously? >3.5% of the value of Japanese assets is dependent on whether an island the other side of the world is part of a free trading zone that Japan doesn't even have a free trade agreement with?
It would seem that the betting market is expecting another poll favourable to the Boris/Gove camp.
For a long time REMAIN's odds have been stuck on 1.25 or even shorter, so there's an awful lot of money staked on that side of the equation. Expect a torrent of cash to be poured onto LEAVE in very short order, should the market really start to believe they have a good chance of winning.
Right now we are a considerable distance from reaching that point, but opinion could change quickly ..... either way, as we reach the crucial stage of the campaign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36515816
https://twitter.com/JamesWHarrison/status/742309048117305344
Mr. Gin, thank Mr. Eagles, he brought the news.
I don't think we're getting an ICM at 12.30
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexit-will-give-power-back-to-the-people-2zz3z07h5
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
I doubt isis drink champagne, ginger beer maybe?
Are we going to get a vow from Merkel "we can discuss freemovement of people but only if you stay" must be a high chance Leave better be ready.
We are quite literally all going to die.
1.4 to the € was painful, very painful.
" - is anyone making long term money?
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/742317894978174976
"No wonder the markets are unsettled; and those of us with long memories know that when markets become seriously unsettled, it is difficult to prevent things from getting totally out of hand."
Also, he's choosing to raise those as at risk, but not aid spending.
Mr. Eagles, hmm. Ah ha! A search reveals I was crediting you for Mr. Royale's good work:
Justin
16m
Justin @Donnie_Eagle
@MSmithsonPB ICM just confirmed new poll today at 12.30pm.
12m
Martin Boon @martinboon
@MSmithsonPB I would not hold your breath if i were you.
ICM out later, or excitement a red herring?
1.26 seems "about right" to me, a happy place for both exporters and holidaymakers.
The ICM website has crashed at 12.30pm.
I had the overview a couple of weeks ago and it was a 10-12 point fall vs USD and a 7-9 point fall vs EUR.
We all know and love TSE for his balls, but the Remain campaign criticizing anything after deploying World War III is beyond chutzpah
We've got a big meeting tomorrow night with Kelvin Hopkins.
I didn't understand half the words in the article and haven;t heard of any of the companies which you mention, but equally nothing I have heard form Leave has suggested they want to stop you hiring high quality people from other EU countries.
Indeed they would argue i am sure that they would make it easier for you to hire highly educated people from elsewhere in the world.
This reason alone is on balance a reason to Leave, not Remain! My company has to jump through hoops to hire people who work for us in from India to come permanently to the UK - we give up sometimes. This is because they are non-EU nationals.
I am not an expert o this by any means and agree that uncertainty won;t help recruitment, but uncertainty will be temporary.
https://twitter.com/Donnie_Eagle/status/742320926973399040
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/742321342817669120
I can understand the Labour party supporting Remain. They've decided that "the bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Even if the two birds in the bush are the British electorate, who can't be trusted to vote the right way.
The Conservative party Remainers should also say "Immigration is good for the economy, so you've got to put up with it."
The "racist" response to both is ... "You posh people meet the "nice" immigrants, the well-educated, those that speak good English and integrate - unless it's someone doing your plumbing, gardening, or au-pairing. You can send your kids to private schools and avoid the over-crowded classrooms in our part of the country."
Remainers' reply ... "That's easily solved, we'll build more classrooms and employ more teachers."
"Then why have you made no effort to do this in the last ten years?"
"Racist!"
The fact is that a Muslim nutter murdered innocent people who believe in western values. If you think that helps play into Remain's position, you're welcome.