From the BBC:
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond believes Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to veto EU treaty changes could affect talks on fish quotas.
He told the BBC that Mr Cameron's "irresponsible posturing" could make it harder to stop regulation of the Scottish fishing industry. Mr Salmond has written to the prime minister asking him to explain his actions to the devolved governments...
D'oh!
Cameron went to Brussels tasked with getting a concession for his mates in banking, Merkozy refused point blank, so Cameron played the only card he had left and walked out.
I do wonder whether Salmond, who is a master negotiator, really fails to realise that we can do exactly the same thing again for our fishing industry at the next round of talks on fish quotas.
Here's a quick guide for him, just in case he's reading this:
--------------------------------
Salmond (or whoever it is): "About these quotas. We'd like to regain control of all fishing rights in our half of the North Sea."
Others round the table: "No chance. We were thinking of reducing Scotland's quota even further."
Salmond: "All right, sod the lot of you. As of next week, we are withdrawing from the Common Fisheries Policy. Anybody who wants to fish in our half of the North Sea can pay up or be blown out of the water."
Others round the table: "Er... or what?"
Salmond, packing briefcase etc: "Well it was lovely meeting you all. What time's the next Eurostar back to Blighty?"
Others round the table: "Did I hear that right..? Shit! Seriously - what's our next move? Oh, f-ing hell..."
Not an individual of mental adventure
29 minutes ago
9 comments:
yup
that is indeed how the 'new thinking' has to work
(actually, it's just 'traditional French thinking')
See, I was right. We need more frigates..!
I disagree.
The SNP is riddled with Europhiles. If/when they gain independence it will be short-lived.
I have said many times that before the first champagne cork hits the ground Alex will be on the horn to von Rumpoy begging to be let in.
It will be the shortest period independence has been enjoyed by any country since records began.
They NEED the EU. They NEED all that "free" money.
However, Scotlands independence means an automatic ejection from the EU (for the UK) and we would need to re-apply to join.
Every cloud, eh?
CR.
ND, call it traditional French thinking if you will, it does seem to work, doesn't it?
L, maybe. Or we could ring up Iceland and ask them how many boats they had forty years ago. As long as we got more than Spain etc in easy reach of the North Sea, then we are laughing.
CR, yes SNP is EU-phile, but you have to balance the potential extra income from fishing against the loss of subsidies from EU, I imagine it's a similar amount either way. As to UK being expelled, I don't think that's true, when Greenland became independent, it left the EU but Denmark did not.
Great article ...
Greenland was only a member of the EEC though. And the treaties were slightly different 20 years ago.
Is that true? We could get rid of the EU and the Scots in one fell swoop? Go Scots Nats! What about the Ulstermen, can we get rid of them too, while we are about it (the Unionists, that is, the other lot want to go anyway)?
MW, you write, "Cameron went to Brussels tasked with getting a concession for his mates in banking, Merkozy refused point blank, so Cameron played the only card he had left and walked out. I do wonder whether Salmond, who is a master negotiator, really fails to realise that we can do exactly the same thing again..."
Cameron didn't ask for special treatment for the City (in the sense that, say, the French insist on special treatment for their film industry). All he was asking was that future decisions on financial services shouldn't be imposed without the consent of all 27 members. In other words, far from demanding a concession, he simply wanted a confirmation that the status quo couldn't be altered.
Translate that to Alex Salmond and fish then and you'd think he could protect the status quo by just walking out but he can't.
For now, national governments continue to run inner waters of 12 nautical miles. Within those 12 mile limits, new vessels can’t come in to fish as well. This
basically stops new foreign fleets moving in to home waters. This continued national management is only granted, however, under a
derogation. This needs to be renewed every ten years (agreed by Qualified Majority Voting, or QMV), otherwise it will run out and control passes to Brussels. It is next due for negotiation in 2012 and Britain has not veto... What essentially happens every 10 years is that unless more is given in the 200 mile zone every time, the blackmail is of the 12 mile zone control being lost.
M, ta.
Anon 1.18, yes of course, I'm simplifying.
B, that's CR's theory.
OTOH, whether Cameron was asking for special treatment for City bankers, or merely asked that their position not be made worse is a separate issue.
Thanks for explanation of the 12-mile, 200-mile stuff, but you are still assuming that the UK has to do some sort of deal with "the EU" about who fishes where. Who says it has to? It comes down to who's prepared to use its Navy and where, in the end. And the EU does not have a Navy.
Post a Comment