Article 47

[Steve Coppolo]

Today is a big day for article 47.

 

They are voting on proposed amendments (maybe even removal of article 47!) this afternoon in Brussels.

 

Talking about Article 47, what about the suggestion for sea angler bag limits, to Defra, from the very Sea Fisheries Committee THAT YOU SIT ON? This is YOUR patch and YOUR Sea Fisheries Comittee and it will affect the anglers that YOU claim to represent.

 

Any comments on that?

[Leon Roskilly]

email recieved from UKIP:

 

So often, all it takes is just one little word and Article 47 of the Common Fisheries Policy is no exception.

 

 

The policy and its 390 proposed amendments went to the EU Fisheries Committee this afternoon and was involved in what Nigel Farage has called "an outbreak of commonsense".

 

 

It looks like a victory for UKIP and all the supporters of recreational sea angling in Britain simply through the adoption of the word 'May' instead of 'Shall' in a couple of key paragraphs.

 

 

As well as this, the proposed amendment to exempt shore fishing has been passed. A relief to all of us.

 

 

So just to be clear, Article 47 as it now stands says:

 

 

In paragraph 1:

 

 

Recreational fisheries conducted from a vessel in Community marine waters on a stock subject to a multiannual recovery plan may be evaluated by the Member State in whose waters they are conducted. Fishing with rod and reel from shore may not be included.

 

 

While in paragaph 2:

 

 

Within two years of the date of entry into force of this Regulation, Member States may estimate the impact of recreational fisheries conducted in their waters and submit the information to the Commission. The relevant Member State and the Commission, on the basis of the advice of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, shall decide which recreational fisheries are having a significant impact on stocks. For those fisheries having a significant impact, the Member State, in close cooperation with the Commission, shall develop a monitoring system that is able to accurately estimate the total recreational catches from each stock. Recreational fisheries shall comply with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy

 

 

The incorporation of this word into the policy can be interpreted in one easy way: We don't HAVE TO do any of it but if a country decides that it does want to submit information to the Commission, then the development of a monitoring system can follow automatically.

 

 

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage greeted the victory with caution.

 

 

He said: "The amended policy still has to go through the plenary session before reaching the fisheries council, so the battle is not over yet."

 

 

And he warned that the we needed to keep a close eye on future policy discussions. "We need to be aware that the principle of recreational sea angling coming under the realm of the Common Fisheries Policy has now been established and there's every likelihood that it will one day return for regulation," he said.

 

 

"Also, with the current New Labour government only to keen too go along with European harmonisation at every opportunity, Gordon Brown may well opt to take up the implicit offer of Article 47 despite the clamour to scrap the entire thing."

 

 

If you need any further information on this, please don't hesitate to contact me and thanks once again for your continuing support

Kind regards

 

 

Damian Wilson

UKIP campaign organiser

[Steve Coppolo]

That can hardly be described as a victory.

 

All it does, by including the word 'may' instead of 'shall', is give those that rely on managing, monitoring, studying, researching, regulating and enforcing, permission to do just that. If Article 47 goes through in that form, it is an opportunity that won't be turned down.

 

Now, what about those suggested bag limits for the Kent and Essex anglers you are supposed to be representing, Leon?

[barry luxton]

That can hardly be described as a victory.

 

All it does, by including the word 'may' instead of 'shall', is give those that rely on managing, monitoring, studying, researching, regulating and enforcing, permission to do just that. If Article 47 goes through in that form, it is an opportunity that won't be turned down.

 

Now, what about those suggested bag limits for the Kent and Essex anglers you are supposed to be representing, Leon?

 

All that may word has done is give them an inroad into controlling the rsa. as i have said, it isn't broke, it has not caused any detriment to any fish stock, yet they don't give a stuff about the rsa, as long as they can have part of it.

 

Haven't heard anything from the A T yet as to what thier ideas are regarding 47, have they missed the boat?

[Leon Roskilly]

see:

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/.../default_en.htm

[Steve Coppolo]

see:

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/.../default_en.htm

 

Nothing about bag limits for Kent and Essex sea anglers, then?

[H.A.]

Nothing about bag limits for Kent and Essex sea anglers, then?

 

For Christ's sake, Steve ....

 

the thread's called ARTICLE 47; not "Steve's ruck with Leon".

Grow up!

 

[Steve Coppolo]

For Christ's sake, Steve ....

 

the thread's called ARTICLE 47; not "Steve's ruck with Leon".

Grow up!

 

 

Yes, Ada, and if you knew just a fraction of what you pretend to know, you would know that the suggested bag limits for Kent and essex sea anglers is in direct response to Article 47.

 

What I want to know is, as Leon sits on the Kent and Essex SFC, why he hasn't highlighted it in the same way as he highlights everything else? Where are the links and cut n pastes to the letter that was sent to Defra? Where are the calls for local anglers to write to and phone the Chief Fisheries Officer to protest against the bag limits?

 

All it takes is a simple post to answer these questions, but it seems that local sea anglers aren't important enough for 'Lord Mullet' to waste his precious time on. Perhaps if we were politicians we might fare better?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Arf]

Yes, Ada, and if you knew just a fraction of what you pretend to know, you would know that the suggested bag limits for Kent and essex sea anglers is in direct response to Article 47.

 

.. How come you are so utterly obsessed with the idea of bag limits? It's a system that has works very well in some places I've seen.

[Steve Coppolo]

.. How come you are so utterly obsessed with the idea of bag limits? It's a system that has works very well in some places I've seen.

 

I'm not 'so utterly obsessed' with bag limits, I'm just opposed to them. They are totally unnecessary and wouldn't make a bit of difference to the UK's fish stocks. I defy you, or anyone else, to prove otherwise.

 

Maybe the places you've visited, where bag limits appear to work well, have other, more effective, measures in place that give the impression that it's the bag limits making all the difference? Here in the UK, our fisheries managers have demonstrated quite clearly that they aren't serious about improving the health of fish stocks, so why we should let them imose bag limits as a token gesture, is beyond my comprehension.

 

And anyway, the fishing in our part of the UK, (I notice you are from Kent), is pretty good right now, so why should we be restricted in any way? If it's not broken, why try to fix it?