RELATIONSHIP: The Central Point Argument of the EU

Why did the EU SUPRANATIONAL RELATIONSHIP Form?

There's a good summary here from EUReferendum.com: EU Referendum: remember Verdun. In The Great Deception we learn the names of the core, original architects of this idea for "the subordination" of nation states in Europe under a "United States of Europe" Supranational government:-

• Arthur Salter
• Jean Monnet

Subordination:

"When these two men first conceived their dream of a "United States of Europe", absolutely central to it was the prospect of setting up an entirely new form of government: One which was "Supra-National", beyond ["above"] the control of national governments , politicians and electorates. Nation states, governments and parliaments could be left in place: But only so that they could gradually become subordinated to a new supranational government which was above them all."

• Altiero Spinelli

Deception:

"Altiero Spinelli realized that to bring his vision  about, it would be necessary to conceal from the peoples of Europe just what was being done in their name until the process was so advanced that it had become irreversible."

• Paul Henri-Spaak

Engrenage:

"the most effective way to disguise the project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretence that it was concerned only with economic co-operation."

What I'd like to highlight: The reasons as per Verdun were "good intentions" to avoid bad relationships leading to millions of deaths in wars. However the means to achieve this objective, the forms decided upon:-

• Subordination will lead to an abuse of power.
• Deception will lead to broken communication between "elites and people".
• Engrenage priority will lead to putting this Relationship over Reasoned Argument in Policy (for example see Fishing Discards below).

What we can see is the intention is good but the exectuion is negative and it's because of the relationship that was at the heart of the design which itself had to work through negative methods and hence it has become a negative or destructive relationship structure.

The evidence of this Relationship (As IT Relates TO and is Being Related FROM) in action vs the Technical  argument (IT Itself) being subjugated is exemplified in Fisheries evidence:-

Fish, Fisheries = IT ; UK's relationship with the EU and the EU's relationship with the UK = (it) RELATES TO/FROM

To Summarize from Owen Paterson's Fisheries Speech:-

Re-establishing Local and National control of fishing policy will revive our fishing communities and restore our marine environment. 

If anything it has got worse. 

"Eleven years ago I produced an Opposition Green Paper on fishing in which I stated that ‘The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform. It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated fishing communities’. Despite determined efforts to reform the CFP by the UK Coalition Government, not much has changed. If anything it has got worse. 

The statistics are eye-watering

In 1995, 9,200 British fishing vessels landed 912,000 tons of fish; by 2002 there were 7,003 vessels landing 686,000 tons. That is a 25 per cent decline in just seven years, and meant the loss of on average one fishing vessel per day. A whole crew losing their livelihood each day.In that period landings dropped from over 900,000 to just 627,000 tonnes annually, with a value of only £770 million.  But the real contrast has come with imports. By 2012, by which time there were just 6,406 British fishing vessels at work, UK imports reached 638,410 tonnes, valued at £2.6bn, of which just under a third came from our EU neighbours. To make matters a great deal worse, many of them were caught in British waters."


How did this happen?
 
How did this happen? Politics. Access to fishing grounds has been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of ‘equal access’ to what Brussels called a ‘common resource’. When we joined, fishing fleets from other EU member states were given proportionately a greater share of the fish allocation in UK waters than the British fleet.  This ‘Total Allowable Catch’ was determined annually during a seedy bargaining session in Brussels.  We can’t say we weren’t warned. 

When Britain, Ireland, Norway and Denmark were negotiating to join the Common Market it was realised that 80 per cent of the EEC fish stock would now be in the internationally recognised ‘Exclusive Economic Zones’ of these four new member states. The Norwegian fisheries minister resigned rather than accept the deal, and when given the vote on whether to join, his countrymen sensibly said ‘nei’.

Effect on environment 

Considering this devastating effect on the industry, it’s almost an achievement that the Common Fisheries Policy has also managed to be an absolute ecological failure, too.

To Visualize the different arguments and the effect of this "new" Relationship on Fisheries Policy:-

Why overfishing?

Contrary to there being ‘too many fishermen chasing too few fish’, as the European Commission concluded after studying its own failures, the problem is caused by management in allowing overfishing for political reasons.

In the previous blog, Intermission: How To Argue About European Union Membership Effectively, it was looked at how to argue effectively to a general audience this message about the Central Point of the Argument about the EU as per Roland Smith's EU Referendum: Read The Question! and it needs to be reformulated in simple language that is undeniable: It is a question of Relationship Status of the UK with the EU and the merits of this status compared to a new relationship status such as:-

Explosive poll shows that the public back leaving the EU and remaining in the Single Market ~ Ben Kelly (The Sceptic Isle)

Far from in fact "selling the EEA" for it's "wonderful properties" which the Remain supporters are so desperate to contradict and step over the line into:-

• Lying
• Black-Naming & denigrating
• Manipulating via Authority and Prestige sources
• Not answering the question ie Mischaracterizing

ERM & Maastricht (Eurozone) "Economic Uncertainty" unleashed by John Major; Iraq War and Mass Immigration "Political Terror" unleashed by Tony Blair. Whether or not you like Nigel Farage the demagogue, he's the creation of both of these former Prime Ministers and their deep deep deceptions over the British people. The Deception is bigger than all the personalities and their declining prestige.

One of the worst mischaracterizations is from David Cameron's Immigration broken promise of <99,999 p.a. promise after his "Cast-Iron Guarantee Referendum" broken promise and then manipulation of the Referendum via his "Special Status" Dominance-Subordination discussions with the EU as Pete North notices: A matter of trusting David Cameron...


There's a simple truth here: The EEA is not about it's "Pros" in the first case and hence it's not about Immigration (The EU Question) either in the first case:-

The EFTA/EEA Transitional Brexit solution is effectively answering the FIRST Question of Political EU Union Membership and removing that FIRST!!!! as perahps both Lost Leonardo A Step Into The Light and The Brexit Door Transition (EEA) Unites Voters, appreciate.

The Three Body Problem of the UK's EU Relationship

Failure of uptake of The Great Deception seems to come about because of a lack of democracy. But only a rise of democracy seems possible to lead to an uptake of The Great Deception and hence determination to trigger the need for The Market Solution.

As much as my colleagues are positive about the recent reactions to the EEA, underneath I think there's this "3 Body Problem" (to nick from science: N > 2, the N-body problem is chaotic).

I think what needs to happen is to create more means and methods for Direct Democracy that by-pass a lot of the current news-media (see Scribblings From Seaham: The ‘pot-mess’ in which the UK now finds itself) and political bubble of SW1/Westminster politics (see ME Synon: How Cameron and the Commons will overturn a Leave vote) with more public <-> public (Mr. Brexit) debate and discussion generation.

This Referendum is a real result of this, any potential outcome Remain or Leave I think will be due more to "chaotic" factors!

EU Referendum: would we vote to join?

"Booker – like many observers - is getting increasingly fed up of what he calls "this claustrophobic referendum campaign". He is by no means alone.

Lord Ashcroft's focus groups are reporting increasing frustration, where many people's perplexity over the decision at hand is turning not into enlightenment but exasperation. Among the many words people used to describe the contest so far ("unreliable", "unrealistic", "uninformative", "not that interesting", "unnecessary", "a quagmire", "a lot of bullsh*t"), by far the most common was "confusing"."

Booker rightly observes that a "1-Body Problem" is very very very simple to answer for people (UK Unleashed) as opposed to this "3-Body Complexity" issue due to a lack of Direct Democracy operating in our politics. And that is the Central Point of the Argument: EU Political Relationship. The seeming obvious fact that all the most praised Remain positives of this Relationship are the UK's current "Opt-Outs" is or should be a minor epiphany of the poor logic of this relationship.

FLEXCIT: The Movie

FLEXCIT: A Holistic Argument

FLEXCIT THE MOVIE Intro by Christopher Booker.

 

 

FLEXCIT The MOVIE The Definitive EU Exit Plan Richard North Part 1

 

 

Richard North FLEXCIT THE MOVIE The Definitive EU EXIT Plan Part 2 

 

 

Richard North FLEXCIT THE MOVIE The Definitive EU Exit Plan Part 3

 

 

 

 

The Betrayal Of Britains Fishing - Booklet

The Betrayal of Britain's Fishing to the European Union ~ John Ashworth

The Betrayal of Britain’s Fishing – Booklet now available

"Readers who appreciated John Ashworth’s excellent series of articles on the Common Fisheries Policy will be delighted to know that the eight pieces he wrote for this website have been edited into a single booklet, which is now available free of charge (although any contributions would be greatly welcomed).

If you live in near a fishing port, it will be a particularly useful booklet to distribute, but even if you don’t, what has happened to our fishing industry does not stand alone. This well-researched and hard-hitting account of the destruction of our fishing fleet by government ministers and civil servants epitomises everything that is wrong with our membership of the EU and provides a very powerful reason as to why we should vote to leave. Please contact admin [at] campaignforanindependentbritain [dot] org [dot] uk if you wish to order copies."

 
You can read the above booklet at the link provided or order a physical copy of the booklet by John Ashworth via The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) again using the link or email contact address above.

I previously blogged about this subject and John Ashworth's work as it was being written up at CIB. There's a very very strong reason why it is one of the best works ever produced on Brexit or the EU and with respect to Fisheries as a Political Argument, possibly the best I have personally read. I think I am right in being able to successfully convey this reasoning via the efficacious illustration that I hope will be immensely valuable for framing and structuring conceptual understanding to the work and the factual research and details it's based upon and the core principles from which it continuously refers and repeats and rigorously demonstrates - in reality:-

Useful 'Thinking Framework' for John Ashworth's magnificent work

The Booklet is only 31 pages in total length including supplementary pages. Please take time to sit down and read it and think about it. If you do, you'll have, I'm absolutely sure and confident, understood the core arguments of the EU Referendum and Brexit as applied to a specific policy area: Fisheries. But the principles are transferable to all other policy areas; and hence it is an encapsulation of the complete argument - By reading this booklet you will have successfully learn the core or "kernel" of the political argument concerning the UK's Referendum on its EU membership and its alternative, Brexit; by which you will be informed enough to know how to vote either "Remain" or "Leave".

This booklet really is that valuable.

Many Thanks to John Ashworth for producing such a useful work.

The Leave Alliance: Synthesis of Arguments

The Sierpinski triangle arranged in descending tiers

A very resourceful quote by Cicero on arguments:-

“The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator.” ~ Cicero: De Oretore

 For People: A True Choice depends on a visible and "Complete Picture"

In the above concept diagram, the top of the triangle represents:-

1. Referendum = Direct Choice

A real (direct) democracy choice on a particular subject that qualifies for such real democracy from the people directly as opposed via representation of people in a Parliament.

The EU clearly meets this criteria and if people need to wonder how to vote, this very act of holding a referendum for the first time since 1975 amid many previous promises to do so covering as many as seven major new treaties without having a direct vote, then the question that derives also derives this guiding context to all voters.

Stage 6: It may be the final stage in FLEXCIT... but it's actually inherent in everything preceding: A Choice for Leave is a choice towards more real democracy (working knowledge applied politically)

What is interesting is that the voter themselves is at the top of the decision-making process, which is not the case in our other voters bar of course the General Elections, which themselves politicians admit are degraded due to "safe seats" even as far back as 1975:-

"The reason why I submit this Motion to your Lordships at this time is that, in the first place, I believe the authority of Parliament, and public respect for it, has been dangerously eroded during the past decade. I believe that the economic health of Britain depends on its political health, and the political health, in turn, depends upon the degree to which the great mass of the people, and the groups into which they organise themselves, are prepared to recognise the authority of free institutions such as Parliament. They will do so only if they are persuaded that these institutions fairly represent their cherished values and profound aspirations. I do not think that this is true of Parliament today. I could give plenty of evidence to support this view. The concentration of power in sectional hands has sometimes been able to unhorse Governments in the past. The real danger today is that power, irresponsibly exercised, may destroy Parliament itself, and with it the basic freedoms of a democratic society and, even, the unity of Great Britain."  ~ Lord Alport, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 23 April 1975

Often in the press the Tory divisions meme has been used as the headline reason for this referendum, but the true reason is rooted in the fundamental failure to represent people on this subject, to deceive upon it or else confidently present it to the people to decide.

2. Choice between 2 Paradigms

 Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech")

Here is presented two sides to the argument: Supranationalism vs Intergovernmentalism which frame the arguments for Remaining or Leaving the membership of the European Union. Without this correct framing, the question is devoid of understanding and context to derivative details.

 History repeats itself when...

One of the biggest biggest problems that so many have failed the British people concerning the volumes of argument that have been aired, is the neglection of The Great Deception history of the European Union to define one side of the argument, it's concept, it's definition and mode of working, it's philosophy, it's purpose, the origin of it's ideas and the people influential in developing those ideas into the institutions of today.

 Globalization and Sovereignty?

If that problem is large, so too is the other problem: The lack of knowledge of the opposite argument for Intergovernmentalism and the drive of globalization to build a picture of a possible position of the UK in such a developing future, so much more challenging to picture than the past!

It may have escaped your notice the specific flow diagram postulated here.

3. Arguments: Structured Data

A complete argument is coherent and consistent. Interesting this point is made very explicitly in the latest of Dr. RAE North's blog posts EU Referendum: countdown to launch:-

"There is no short-term economic benefit from leaving the EU. There are no immediate savings to be made, and any expectations that goods will be cheaper in the shops, or that wages will somehow increase overnight are vastly overblown.

Any financial benefits accruing from leaving the EU will be slow in coming and, in many respects, will be expressed in a negative sense: i.e., "had we not left the EU things would be even worse than they are now". [...]

The big problem is that it is almost impossible to demonstrate a clear case, unequivocally showing that all or any groups would be better off. This is especially so when we are seeking to argue for stability, presenting the case that there would be very little material change to the UK immediately after leaving, or in the short- to medium-term. [...]

To do so, though, would be to sell the lie. We are making promises we can't keep. Furthermore, it exposes us – as we are seeing – to "he says, she says" exchanges with the "remains", where the arguments are getting bogged down in ever-more arcane detail, and even more strident disputes, as each side seeks to establish their positions. [...]

It was for this that The Harrogate Agenda was devised, the implementation of which is incompatible with continuing membership of the EU. A necessary consequence of adopting THA, therefore, would be Brexit.

Given that the benefits of implementing THA would be tangible – and some of them immediate – returning powers to the people and giving them much greater control over all manner of things, including taxation, this could be the missing element which motivates people to leave the EU."

This point has already been made in 1. But without inheriting it downwards into our argument logic that creates patterns out of the data all we're left with is:-

 FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: The Greatest Trick The Politicians Ever Pulled on the People: With no context "anything COULD happen" and hence no sane solution presents itself.

It's beyond count the volume of words and works that end in the above result and the game turns into who can stack up the biggest and most impressive lies on each side of the confabulists' narrative of the day. We subsequently that because neither side can "win", then the temptation to argue according to the "biggest group" takes precedence resulting in an all too familiar picture:-

Migration Policy: An overloaded argument disproportionate to it's correct contribution to the "full picture"; trying to make it "the picture" itself.

 FLEXCIT: An Iterative method of organized the evidence and data to connect them into the service and form of a Direct Democracy choice for PEOPLE/VOTERS:-

4. Research-Driven Policy: Details & Data

 The macro within the micro encapsulated: John Ashworth's work perfectly demonstrates the entire synthesis of argument from Tier 1 (choice) to Tier 5 (The Complete Market Solution Work)

Possibly one of the biggest arguments against the EU is that it is a Supranational organization, that it's political agenda leads to less than desirable results so much so because it invalidates the evidence base via forms of bias and prejudice corrupting the process of developing knowledge-based solutions.

We met this via John Ashworth's investigations and experience and his campaign group "Restore Britain's Fish":-

Abstraction of Problems:-

1. Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
2. Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
3. Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
4. So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
5. British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
6. Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
7. Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
8. Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.

Abstraction of Solutions:-

1. Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
2. With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
3. As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
4. In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
5. This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
6. This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
7. It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
8. This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
9. Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
10. We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

Abstraction of Outcomes:-

1. Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
2. These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
3. This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
4. The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
5. The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
6. When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
7. Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
8. We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
9. This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
10. Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
11. This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
12. Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.

The argument for Fisheries not only includes the relevant facts and details, data and research and evidence basis but it is in a form that is conducive to organization in eventual service to the final form: The Voter's Choice!

When this is not done we end up with a sea of details such as I tried to convey concerning arguments for Scientists: EU: From Common Market To EU Constitution

5. Complete Argument by The Leave Alliance

The Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) was formed in 1969 as a cross party coalition

FLEXCIT Application: 2. Fisheries Solutions

 Understanding the Solutions means understanding their context too: Under Supranationalism or Under Intergovernmentalism

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

1. The Solution Defined:-

Before looking at the potential Solutions if we agree that there are indeed problems:

"The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform.  It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea
than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated
fishing communities."

"Fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale; they need local control." ~ Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January, 2005

Then we must establish the exact nature of those Problems, to which John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 provides the exact description of the rules of the EU, how it works:-

"When a Regulation is created, at the top it states the articles within the Treaty the regulation takes its authority from, and as soon as a Regulation comes into force, it in turn becomes what is known as the acquis communautaire:-

• "The Court of Justice has ruled that the EU acquis takes precedence over national law if there is a conflict, and that the acquis may have direct effect in the Member States."

In understanding the workings of the then EEC, now European Union, the above paragraph is probably one of the most important aspects to have to learn.

Firstly – what is this acquis communautaire. -. It is all EEC/EU treaties, EU legislation -(regulation), international agreements, standards, court verdicts, fundamental rights provisions and horizontal principles in the treaties such as equality and non-discrimination. In short, all EU-law.

When Britain joined in January 1973, the acquis communautaire amounted to around 5,000 pages; today it is estimated to be 170,000 pages and growing. When a nation joins, what is now the EU, it has to accept, and comply, with the acquis communautaire in full, without exception, other than with transitional derogations. In addition the existing members have to all agree, to the applying Nation joining under those terms, which in effect the existing members, by Treaty, are endorsing their allegiance/compliance to the acquis communautaire."

 The UK joined the EEC in 1972 and has been a member of the EU for 44 years and a part of the acquis system above. Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.0 Regulatory issues provides a summary of the full weight of membership to this system for the UK:-

"In  this  event, the UK will be obliged to keep all Single Market  regulation in place. This  is an extensive body of law. From May 1992,  when the EEA Agreement encompassed 1,849  legal acts, by  December 2013 it had grown  o 5,758  legislative  acts, out  of  the 20,868  EU  acts  currently  in  orce (Table 3). By the end of October 2015, there were 4,957 acts remaining in force, with EU laws in  force recorded at  23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis stood at 22 percent."

2. The Two-Step Solution Applied (I):-

"Since there would be no obligation to retain the remainder of the acquis, theoretically, leaving  the EU could  give relief from around 15,000 acts (although  by no  means all are  applicable to the UK). Amongst  others,  high profile policies such as the CFP and the CAP, would be amendable to abolition if there was the political will to do so, and the nation was prepared to accept the consequences."

 Of which, Table 3: European Union Legislation in force Fisheries Acts = 1,170.

Solution = transition or "bridge" between Problem and Outcome

If we look at our FLEXCIT model we remind ourselves what is the "problem" we are trying to actually solve. Is it economics? No It's political. We saw in FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems of Supranational membership. This is why "keeping all the Single Market regulations" in place is undertaken on withdrawing from Political Union.

The solution is as per Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT:-

"To  allow time  to revise  our  law  books,  a  holding  process  will  be  needed.  The best option is to repatriate the entire body of EU law, converting it en bloc into British law (by a device similar to the ECA)"

 Hence the solution is to again quote John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.:-

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."

"The first priority, therefore, is that control/competence is returned back to Britain."

Here we have the solution, repatriation of the acquis does mean full "control/competence is returned back to Britain."

3. The Two-Step Solution Applied (II):-

This comes back to the quote above concerning removing Supranationalism to quote Owen Paterson Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters:-

"Since its inception, it has been dominated by political considerations that have had little to do with good fisheries management, so the decline and impending collapse of British fisheries has to be laid squarely at the door of the CFP."

"There is now increasing evidence that the reason for the failure is that the core regime applied by the CFP is irredeemably flawed, not least in terms of its appreciation of fish biology, the quality and interpretation of data, as well as the treatment of fishermen"

To come back to John Ashworth:-

"However, as far as fisheries are concerned, it is no good scrapping one régime in order to establish another equally bad system. Withdrawal presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to show what can be achieved in an area that contains one of the finest marine resources in the world."

John Ashworth: The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.

"But the distinction has been made, once we regain Sovereignty of a national resource, the full British Fisheries Industry scope is set according to International Law that allows Sovereignty to be clearly defined and not obfuscated under Supranationalism (which we see persistent examples of):-
An inshore industry could be built around the 0 -12 mile limit, which would have a beneficial effect on coastal communities through tourism, recreational fishing, employment and other ancillary industries. All could be administered locally."

"The offshore Industry would be based on the 12 to 200 mile/median line, and then you have the straddling stocks and reciprocal arrangements, which brings genuine friendship between fishermen of different nations. When other nation’s vessels fish in our waters they would do so under our rules."

What we see is that there is no "leap in the dark" there is a orderly two-step withdrawal that regains Sovereignty and removes Supranationalism. Remember that the Solution is not the Outcome, it's a bridge FROM Supranationalism TO Intergovernmentalism:-

 This simple distinction is not made by so much of the political commentary on this subject not just say on Fisheries but on Immigration or any other "Policy Outcome Aspirations". The process of transition itself.

What this solutions does not provide (Outcome) it does provide in terms of relief as per Owen Paterson above, relief from Bad Politics interfering with good fisheries management. It also will help provide a stronger scientific and technical basis for Fisheries Conservation, Sustainability and Recovery and hence a thriving industry administered locally by people who have a vested interest in it's welfare and their own. For example John Ashworth again summarizes:-

Two essential features are needed for a viable fisheries policy:-

1. The first is the ability to be able rapidly to close areas down where juvenile fish are abundant. This has to be done within hours, even if the closure period may only last for a day or two. This ability to react quickly will never happen while our waters are under the control of Brussels control.
2. The other important feature of any contemporary fisheries management is the use of selective gear, As a fishing gear designer I need to emphasise that the gear you design for one area is not the same for another area. Even if you are catching the same species, you need to make slight alterations to the gear. This level of adaption is impossible under the policy imposed by Brussels where one set of rules must fit the whole of a large area.

"You must have fishermen on side to make this work, but again, under the North/Paterson proposals, this is far more likely than under the current EU- controlled regime. The attitude it has engendered is that if I don’t catch it, some other foreigner, even though it is another EU citizen, will get it, so I will get in first."

"Personally, I am strongly in favour of the model used by the Faeroe Islanders which operates in a diametrically opposite way to the EU system of setting for each species a total allowable catch on an annual basis, often based on dubious research. In my view it is no good working from the top of the pyramid downwards. Research should be directed at the base of the pyramid upwards; starting with the food source. Once you know the availability here, you can calculate what can be sustained at the top. If for example you have a collapse of the base, you have to fish the top hard, the very opposite to what would happen now."

And on the problems in-built into the "DNA" of the Political "Ever Closer Union" Supranational EU:

"Ranged against us are those who don’t want the Nation State, and those reformists who either don’t understand the workings of the EU, or else who have a hidden agenda. If they really believed in reform, they would want to get rid of the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination. However, such reform is impossible because of the thinking behind the EU Common fisheries policy, which is incapable of beneficial reform along the lines suggested here as it violates the very principles of integration enshrined in the EU treaties which it was designed to promote. Unfortunately, so-called reformists never acknowledge this harsh reality."

"Leaving the EU per se is no solution in itself. It is only the beginning." ~ John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
.

Abstraction of Solutions:-

 

1. Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
2. With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
3. As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
4. In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
5. This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
6. This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
7. It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
8. This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
9. Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
10. We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems

Identifying The Problem: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Save RESTORE Britain's Fish!

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

Fisheries: 1. Problem

1.1 Original Problems:-

The challenge here is to summarize a history stretching from 1970 and even beyond the present past 2020. However that's plenty of time with which to build a very strong evidence basis concerning a problem with Fisheries Policy, to quote FLEXCIT: 14.0 Fisheries:-

"While there are aspects of the CAP which may be tolerable, at least in the short to medium-term, there are no redeeming aspects of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."

To quote and paraphrase John Ashworth's Fisheries work above: At the end of June 1970, just before the UK was in the process of joining the EEC, the original six members "created the Fisheries regulation 2140/70".

"In laymen’s language, that is, on becoming a member of the then EEC, now EU, the fishery limits bestowed on a Nation by International Law, are handed to the EU, to become Community waters, shared equally and without discrimination, with every other Member Nation."

"As Britain had the largest living marine resource within the EU. We had, by our Accession Treaty obligation share it with every other member – end result – our vessels had to go."

"The British people were not told these facts, in fact the very opposite."

What is significant is the timing of this new regulation which became adopted into the acquis communautaire before the UK Prime Minister Heath had completed his formal application for membership to the EEC. And therefore the PM lied about the Fisheries in order to successfully gain membership by adopting the entire acquis as part of the requirement of the EU Treaties rules themselves.

1.2 Continuity of Problems:-

On "EU Reform" applied to Fisheries:-

"This so-called reform is not the CFP, but a political management tool that is a derogation from the CFP, and this “reform” that our British politicians claim to be a wonderful achievement to obtain, is actually part of the political process to full integration – community waters – community fleet – based on non-discrimination, as stated in the Treaties."

Further problems are highlighted by the fact that Norway did not join nor did Iceland and then Greenland left - Because of Fisheries to a large degree. Coupled to this:-

"Spain, whose application was filed in 1977, would join. Indeed, along with Portugal it did join in 1986, bringing a massive fishing capacity with little resource, tipping the capacity to resource ratio the wrong way.Things were further complicated by Greenland leaving the then EEC in 1985, another loss of resource and again, because of fishing."

"Britain tried to secure a 50 mile exclusive fishing zone, and later attempted to seek a higher percentage share of the quota, but the other Member States said, “no, go and read the Treaties” – something the British are not good at."

"The Accession of Spain and Portugal sailed through our Parliament during 1985, without hardly any questions being asked."

"Genuine reform can only be implemented by unanimous agreement. Meanwhile, the integration process rolls onwards and the obliteration of the British fishing fleet continues, in a most devious manner."

The deviousness all came from the British side"

What happened with the "skewed fishing capacity to resource ratio" was that the British politicians had to find a way to decimate the British fishing vessels to make space for the Spanish:-

"These same people had a problem:- knowing full well that the execution of British fishermen had to take place, but having to do it without the British people knowing.

In the second half of the 1980s, and into the 1990s two situations were happening: large amounts of juvenile fish were being dumped dead back into the sea, and the sand eel stocks, which play a crucial role in the food chain, were being hammered.

The industry highlighted these problems, and through some brilliant research by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, groundbreaking information was provided on how, by changes ot the gear design, the small fish would not be caught.

Our own Ministry firstly denied either of the events were taking place then secondly went into silent mode, appearing to want to take no action. At that time we did not appreciate why.

One area where the EU excels is if they have a problem, sometimes a crisis ensues which they can use to solve the problem and  at the same time further the integration process. This is called a beneficial crisis."

1.3 Present Problems:-

"Even now the present Westminster Fisheries Minister George Eustice MP states he is a “strong eurosceptic”, who is pleased with his Ministry’s so called “CFP reform”.

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."

• Equal access: All waters of the member states, up to the shore (base) line is shared equally with every other member state. Apart from during the early 1970s, you never heard the equal access principle mentioned, even though it was created at the very start of the Common Fisheries project – as far back as 1970.
   
• To a common resource: All living marine life is a common resource.
   
• Without discrimination: One of the main principles of the EU membership which our Prime Minister does not want to understand.
   
• Without increasing fishing effort: So if a new member has large capacity and little resource, that capacity has to be absorbed with no increase in catching more which means someone has to go.

"Meanwhile the only “British waters” are so limited that the fishing of those waters thas now been relegated to a cottage industry which only exists thanks to a derogation within the 6 and partial 6 to 12 mile limits, which the other EU member states are under no obligation to renew."

FLEXCIT: Stage 4 - Restoring independent policies ~ 14.0 Fisheries

The  figures  themselves  told  the  story. In 1972,  a  total  of  939,800  tons  was landed  by  British  vessels,  compared  with  145,850  tons  landed  by  foreign vessels. Vessel numbers were then not accurately recorded (and nor indeed was the  entire  UK  catch).  But  in 1995, we  know  that 9,200  fishing  vessels  landed 912,000 tonnes of  fish– not a great difference, but then the CFP was only just beginning to bite."

"In  2002, however,  after  Commission  effects  to  reduce  the  fishing  effort, there were only 7,578 vessels, which landed 686,000 tonnes – a 25 percent reduction in  catches  over  eight  years."

"By  2012,  the  UK  fleet  had  dropped  to  6,406 vessels, comprising 5,032 ten-metre and under vessels and 1,374 over ten-metre vessels. Landings dropped to 627,000 tonnes, with a value of £770 million. But the real contrast came with the imports. In the same year, these reached 638,410 tonnes,  valued  at  £2.6bn.  Of  that,  £797  million  came  from  the  EU-27,  a significant proportion of which were caught in UK waters."

"This  provided  a  graphic  illustration  of  the  way  the  CFP  worked.  Access  to fishing grounds had been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of "equal  access" to  what  was defined  as  a "common  resource"."

Abstraction of Problems:-

1. Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
2. Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
3. Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
4. So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
5. British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
6. Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
7. Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
8. Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.

LeaveHQ: Restore Britain's Fish

FLEXCIT Application: 0. A Framework for Fisheries

 Restore Britain's Fish: A Model Example of FLEXCIT Applied

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

Correct Framing, Logical Reasoning, Comprehensive Organizing, Balance of Evidence = Brexit Solution Selection within FLEXCIT Paradigm Shift framework

In the previous blog, FLEXCIT: Back From The Future I think I managed successfully to finally encapsulate FLEXCIT in a visible and accessible form for people who have zero knowledge of the subject of the EU Referendum and Brexit. FLEXCIT: The Market Solution can be thought of as the "DNA": It is a compacted store of extraordinarily organized and complex information. Most people will not read this "genetic code". Hence for this "DNA" to be useful, it requires people to transcribe it into different "USE-ABLE FORMS". In this case we're going to do just that starting with The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as example of applying our method to harvest data/evidence to feed into the question of Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism. The references above provide all the data. What people need is not mountains of data, they need organization of it:-

Evidence of a Problem: UK Fisheries under Supranationalism = Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

To provide an example the form mentioned above would be suitable for a 10-20 page pamphlet as a visual guide to the referendum and how people can structure their choice to vote to Remain or to vote to Leave. The challenge of the EU is to show to people that our Policy Control is best served when it is by self-governance of the people by the people as well as the positive alternative vision that replaces Supranationalism with Intergovernmentalism. So using our method on this data/evidence set of Fisheries let's begin:-
 

Inheritance: Method to Organize the Evidence for Fisheries - "Use-ably"

The reason we use this structured method is that it feeds into the upper levels which are most relevant to our Referendum Question itself and in a form that is easy for people to appreciate when they (millions) make their choice.

Each of the above:

• Problem
• Solution
• Outcome

Will be summarized from the primary research and references, then at the end abstraction of the "common messages". In turn these common messages will themselves become the form for a new form for people to use to easily understand the EU Referendum question inheriting the positive qualities that originate in the works above (the DNA) and ensuring a direct link to a common source of origin and expertise.