this does dot seem to be entirely true as the French minister, M. Barnier, is actually lobbying to support fishermen’s freedom to fish whatever they like instead of the new environmental policies aiming at preserving ressources (which is ironic considering that before being in charge of fishing policies he was a member of the Commission as well as a former minister for environment).

Otherwise I can only agree that the Norvegian government should not expect to be listened to until they are members of the Union.

The CFP is the perfect example of why I despise the EU, and even more so, despise the British politicians who go to Brussels, cap in hand, to ask for something that was once theirs.

Maybe all fish in Norwegian waters have been tagged so it can be proved where they were caught ?

The lack of genuine joined-upness in policy making on fisheries is shocking. The marine green paper was supposed to be an attempt to do something about it (along with seabed exploitation, shipping emissions etc.) Obviously it doesn’t really seem to do the trick but at least someone somewhere in the European Commission was acknowledging that there really is a problem.

A genuine question (which reading the above I suspect Tim might possibly want to answer) as I freely admit to not being an expert on the Common Fisheries Policy…
did not UK fishermen sell their fishing rights to French and Spanish fishermen (which is perfectly possible and legal under CFP), and then complain that French and Spanish fishermen were fishing in UK waters? Or is the scurrilous left-wing press version of the real story?

“In the case of CFP, Norway would as one of the largest fishing nations in Europe, have substantial influence on the policy as members.”

The UK was the largest fishing nation before we joined the EU and thus the CFP. What happened to us would happen to you: the fishing grounds would be declared a common european resource and you would be entirely fucked, just as we were.

Don’t you actually know any history?

Furthermore I strongly believe membership would be beneficial for Norway, as we today have a totally undemocratic EEA-agreement, where we accept the aquis without a say in the decision-making process.

This is from the web site of the Norwegian Government about the scope of the EEA which “cover the so-called four freedoms (free movement of goods, capital, services and persons). In addition, it establishes a system ensuring equal conditions of competition. The Agreement also provides for co-operation in such areas as research and development, education, environment, social policy, culture, health and equal opportunities, and in a range of programmes and activities carried out in the EU. The EEA Agreement does not cover the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy or the Common Fisheries Policy, but contains provisions on various aspects of trade in agricultural and fish products.”

The result is that every decision made within these areas, also apply to Norway. While member states can influence and negotiate any proposal, either in the Parliament or the Council, Norway is left outside without a voice. Membership would change this situation, for the better. In the case of CFP, Norway would as one of the largest fishing nations in Europe, have substantial influence on the policy as members.

So you’re a cretin too? How can joining an institution that you agree is a total fuck up be an advance?