Fisheries: a growing bonanza
Saturday 8 June 2013
 Actually, it was a sub-million quota, topping out at 940,000 tones, but this is to be increase to 993,000 tons for 2014, an increase of 50,000 tons, or five times the annual North Sea quota for the entire British fleet. As often happens, when cod are plentiful, haddock suffer, so ICES is recommending a 25 percent cut in the haddock quota, down to 150,000 tons, bringing it down to less than half the 2012 level. But this is not to indicate that the haddock is threatened. Simply, it is all part of the natural variation in fish stocks that is constantly occurring. The reason for the cod bonanza was partly explained in this article - where the rise in fish stocks has been attributed to the rise in ocean temperatures. Simply, the cod have moved north – which also explains why there are few cod to be caught in the North Sea. However, as regards the Barents Sea, the belief is that the cod population is now peaking. The relatively warm sea temperatures have allowed the cod population to expand its range but the population is distributed almost as far north as the more shallow areas of the sea will allow before dropping off into the deep. North east Arctic cod do not tend to venture in waters deeper than 1,500 feet. The Barents Sea has a maximum depth of 1.400 feet whereas the Arctic Ocean has points deeper than 15,000 feet. What this demonstrates is that there are far greater influences on fish stocks than the relatively marginal activities of fishing fleets, contrasting with the claustrophobically narrow view of the BBC, which has Harrabin prattling about the "sustainability" of North Sea cod stocks. This, of course, is subtle propaganda, supporting claims that the EU has finally got to grips with fisheries management in the North Sea. Remarkably, we hear nothing from the BBC – or the British media in general – about cod stocks in the Barents Sea being at a record high. This narrowness of vision is classic "little Englander" thinking, reflected also in the low-circulationGuardian, which is reporting that "cod could be in for a revival at the fish counter as stocks recover after being overfished for decades". It does not seem to have realised that the fish counters are already groaning with cod, and the biggest complaint now is that the surplus is driving down prices. Such is the power of the narrative that the newspaper has no idea what is happening in the real world. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/06/2013 |
EU politics: another silly headline
Saturday 8 June 2013
 Arguments over the minutia of short-term trade figures seem not so very different from the endless exchanges of climate change data. And it is into this general territory that the Express has descended today, with a front-page headline: "Proof Britain doesn't need EU: our trade with rest of the world is now booming".This remarkable assertion is based on the most recent quarter's trade figures, as produced by ONS, an organisation that is telling us that, "due to the volatility of the monthly trade figures, it is not easy to discern trends for a single month". Understandably, the ONS is telling us that it is necessary to look at data over rather longer periods. But, it says, in the latest three months, trade in goods was in deficit by £26.3 billion, £0.5 billion less than in the preceding three months, but £1.8 billion higher than a year earlier. Crucially – and this is what has the Expresshyperventilating - exports to the EU in value fell by 5.2 percent between the latest three months and the same three months a year earlier. By contrast, to the rest of the world they were 0.6 percent higher. That, though, was that this was a period in which trade prices have generally fallen, making the volume comparisons more interesting. Here, we see exports to the rest of the EU coming in 3.1 percent lower in the three months to February, while exports to the rest of the world increased by 1.3 percent in the same period. In its 48-page document, the ONS goes on to sketch out the economic context, which make fascinating reading for the expert, painting a picture of economic volatility. But, if we want to pluck figures at random, we find (pg 4) that exports to the EU increased as a proportion of the UK's total exports to 51 percent in February 2013, compared with 49.7 percent in January 2013, down from 52.2 percent in February 2012. Nothing of that comes close to suggesting that we do not "need" the EU. The 26 (soon to become 27) trading partners are still very important to us, and loss of those markets would have a devastating effect on the British economy. Thus, while the Express editorial may proclaim, "Ailing European Union losing its hold on Britain", that is hardly the point. We need to trade with the EU and, if we send goods to EU member states, we have to do it on their terms. More to the point, the rather tired polemic from the Express fails to understand that the EU is far more than simply a trading partner. In the context of the increasing globalisation of trade standards and agreements, with deals made on a regional rather than bilateral basis and most often under the aegis of the WTO, the EU is our portal to the regulatory system that drives world trade. In that context, the Single Market is being progressively harmonised with global standards – most often via UN-sponsored bodies such as UNECE – in a process where the EU is a major and very active player. This means that, outside the EU, the UK would have difficulty in keeping up with this process, without first having gone through the complex and time-consuming process of re-ordering its international relations, building up its expertise and developing its own trading strategies. Much as one wants to see headlines asserting that our days with the EU are numbered, therefore, the shallowness of the Express pitch is hardly very helpful. In a sense, the Cameron pitch is closer to what we need – a change in our relationship with "Europe". Where we differ is in how to achieve that. Cameron wants to do it by internal renegotiation. We want to invoke Article 50. There is no disagreement, though, with the premise that we need a continued relationship with "Europe", to which extent, the overheated language of failing newspaper is hardly very helpful. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/06/2013 |
Immigration: fraying at the edges
Saturday 8 June 2013
 German communities, we have told, have complained for years about Romanians and Bulgarians immigrating specifically to take advantage of the country's social welfare system. And yesterday, the federal interior minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, promised tougher measures, including expulsions and travel bans. The minister was speaking to his counterparts in Luxembourg, including Theresa May and Iain Duncan Smith, who were afforded a friendly reception. He told the assembled ministers that Germany will take measures to prevent poor immigrants from the two Eastern European countries from entering the country under false pretences to collect welfare benefits. Friedrich says he wants to "align the issue with our current national legislative initiatives" and give these new arrivals a message: "If you are working here illegally - no matter how - then please go back to where you came from!" The issue has been prompted by complaints from German communities claiming that an increasing number of people are arriving from Romania and Bulgaria with the help of organised gangs, obtaining a business license and applying for benefits a few months later under the pretences that the business has been unsuccessful. Friedrich says that those who are found defrauding social services will be expelled from the country, and will be banned from returning to Germany for a certain length of time. The interior minister adds: "Then, if they are picked up somewhere, they can be kicked out of the country again with little hassle, and this is crucial". In theory, this is entirely with the ambit of EU rules. A German legal advice site writes of EU citizens not being permitted entry unless they are in "gainful employment", with pensioners and students only having full right to freedom of movement if they also have sufficient means to cover their subsistence and adequate health insurance. Family members joining migrants already in the country must not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State. These qualifications are set out in Directives 2003/86/EC and 2004/38/EC, augmented by innumerable judgements from the ECJ. But, while the law is one thing, enforcement is quite another. Here, the problem for the Germans is satisfying the Commission that this the new movement is strictly proportionate to the problem, directed specifically at fraud, and not just responding to "populist" sentiment. EU Home Affairs Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, is taking a tough line, arguing that there is no good evidence of any increase in social security fraud. In December 2012, only 9.6 percent of Romanians and Bulgarians in Germany were registered as unemployed, which is substantially lower than the unemployment rate of 16.4 percent among foreigners in general. "We have not yet received any figures or examples," she said in Luxembourg. "It must be concretely shown what the exact problem is". Restricting the free movement of EU citizens, she added, is "out of the question". Friedrich remained uncompromising, telling the Commission to "take a look at these problems on-site". He adds, "If they want proof, the Commission ís more than welcome to visit the big cities in Germany where they can be readily observed". There is, of course, nothing more fundamental to the treaties than freedom of movement and freedom of establishment, and this brings the Commission right to the edge. It cannot afford to give ground on this. Yet, try as it might, the very fabric of the treaties is fraying at the edges. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/06/2013 |
Energy: that's telling 'em
Saturday 8 June 2013
 Nevertheless, Greenpeace Muppet Leila Deen is reduced to complaining that, "Wind farms may seem like a scam to a Government minister who questions the science of climate change and who's pushing for his Shropshire constituency to be fracked for shale gas". Says the outraged Deen, "The public disagrees - two thirds of people would rather have a wind turbine near their home than a fracking site". She adds: "Onshore wind powered almost 2.5 million homes in 2011, is falling in cost and will play a key role in our future energy mix". One has to admire the "straw man" technique here. Presented with some of the environmental horrors that US residents have had to put up with, it is probably fair to say that most people would prefer a wind farm to a poorly-regulated drill site. But, in all probability, most people would prefer to have neither. The interesting thing is that the minister in charge of environmental standards for gas drilling is none other than Mr Paterson, and he is in a position to make sure that the abuses seen in the United States are not repeated here. But it does come to something when the main argument that Greenpeace can offer for wind is that something else might actually be worse. And speaking of fracking, British Gas owner, Centrica, is close to signing a deal to partner Cuadrilla Resources in fracking for shale gas in the north-west of England. Centrica has been negotiating with the Cuadrilla's controlling owners, Riverstone Holdings, the private equity firm, and AJ Lucas, the Australian engineering group, for months but is now understood to be just weeks away from agreement. The deal would see Centrica buy a minority stake in Cuadrilla's Bowland shale licence, which the company has said could contain 200 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas. COMMENT: COMBINED WIND THREAD Richard North 08/06/2013 |
UK politics: Builder Burgers rampant
Friday 7 June 2013
And yes, this is the same Gerald Batten who believes invoking Article 50 is a "humiliating and dishonourable course of action".
With a hitherto unrealised sense of humour, though, David Cameron is today to attend the meeting in Watford, driving the wuzzies to new heights of frenzy as they declaim the "New World Order" unfolding in front of their very eyes. But, in fact, there are any number of such meetings of the rich and powerful – many so secret you don't even know they are happening, or where they are held. And it has always been the case since the dawn of civilisation, that rich and powerful men (and women) get together on occasions to chew the fat, and rig things to their advantage. In truth, what makes this group so sinister, and gets the likes of Batten fulminating, is that it has a mysterious-sounding name, even if it is an accident of history. The name comes from the Dutch hotel at Oosterbeek, near Arnhem, where the first meeting was held in 1954. Worse still - horror of horrors - it is a foreign name. But just imagine how it would have been regarded if, say, it had first met in the Old Swan Hotel, and taken its name from that establishment. The thing is, if you want to get worked up about the New World Order, there is plenty to go at. And for a conspiracy of world bankers try the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision where dangerous forces are truly at work. As always, though, the wuzzies go for the cheap, superficial shot. Any passing conspiracy theory will do – anything to save the effort of actually finding out how the world really works and where the real threats lie. Whether it is "trilaterals", the "illuminati", the "bob-the-builder-burgers", or even shape-shifting lizards, there will always be a constituency ready indulge in their fantasies about mysterious forces ruling the world. The irony is, however, that we do have a New World Order in the making but, as Booker points out, it is readily visible, hiding in plain sight. This is the real world, but it is far to difficult for the wuzzies to understand. They find it so much easier to parade outside a Watford hotel and hyperventilate. Then they wonder why we don't take them seriously. COMMENT THREAD |
Posts
