EU Maritime Policy

Why did the British need the EU Constitution to explain where the Falkland Islands stood as regards THEIR overseas territories. Did ‘todays’ people not understand why we went to war, or so many of our young people lost their lives in so doing?

Perhaps this re-inforces my reasoning re the EU’s Green Consultation Paper COM (2006) 275 7.6.2006 “Towards a\ future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas”. I hope many people respond to this Green Paper this may be the nearest thing they get to a referendum. If we do not win this argument with the British Government or the EU, the eU will control all our seas and oceans and everything in those waters, from every grip of sand at the bottom of the ocean to everything that travels on the surface, not just temporary, but forever.

From Anne Palmer

Consultation paper

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy_en.html

Press Release
Response to Argentinian Outrage
3 May 2005

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/media/response-3-may-2005.htm

A senior British MEP has written to the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Javier Solana, after Argentina’s protest at the inclusion of the Falkland Islands as a “British Antarctic Territory” in the draft EU Constitution.

Mr Edward McMillan-Scott MEP (Yorks, Cons), Vice-President of the European Parliament and a former adviser to the Falkland Islands Government, said: “Argentina is a bit slow on the uptake as the EU governments agreed this Treaty on 18 June last year. Normally Argentina makes difficulties over the Falkland Islands when the government is in trouble at home. The fact is that Argentina did not exist at the time that Britain discovered and held the Falkland Islands.”

Mr McMillan-Scott goes on to point out that the EU’s commitment to democracy worldwide “should embrace the rights of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own form of government. Whenever this has been tested, the Islanders have been unequivocally in favour of remaining British”.

Falklands Councillor Norma Edwards said that the Falkland Islands Government Legislative Council has discussed the protests and it “refutes absolutely what Argentina is saying.” She said: “…we are clear on where we stand and the British Government is clear on our status and I’m sure that the British Government will reply to this in that vein.”

A spokesperson for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FOC) said: “The EU Constitution confirms the present position with regards to the status of the Overseas Territories.”

*******************************************************************************************

This is taken from the EU’s Green paper. (My highlights) Brussels 7.6.200. COM (2006) 275 final Volume II - ANNEX “Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas”.

5.4. Taking Account of Geographical Realities (Page 44)

A European maritime policy needs a general framework, as set out in this document,

but its implementation will need to take account of the realities of Europe’s

geographical situation. For example, EU Member States’ overseas territories give a

worldwide dimension to European Maritime Policy. European Neighbourhood

Policy comprises a regular dialogue with partner countries, including maritime

issues.

The ecological characteristics of Europe’s coastal waters and the structure and

intensity of the maritime activities which take place on them vary widely between the

Baltic, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the North Sea, and the Black Sea. The

latter will become an EU coastal water with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.

The Baltic is shallow, with a narrow connection to the Atlantic, and minimal tides.

The Mediterranean is much deeper, but also has minimal exchange with the Atlantic.

The waters of the Black Sea, which are deep, are, however, largely devoid of the

oxygen needed for a vibrant ecosystem. The North Sea and the Atlantic seaboard

have strong currents and high tidal variation.

Filed under : Would we not be Better off Out
By Ken
On July 17, 2006
At 9:33 am
Comments :Comments Off

Conservatives half-brained over the EU

It looks as if the Conservatives are at it yet again; they do seem to live in a dream world in which the EU does not exist and can therefore be ignored, because the EU is a constant source of conflict within the party, the Conservative leadership wish it not be above the political horizon and do everything possible to make that happen.

The problem is that they then offer up for public consumption some plan or other that conflicts with EU directives or EU treaties, they then ignore the conflicts, as if they, along with the EU did not exist, and refuse to offer an explanation of exatly how they will put into practice their plans which would either break an EU treaty or run directly against an EU directive, or tell us what they would do when the ECJ fines the UK for breaking an EU directive.

With such half-brained ideas it must be hoped that they do not gain power, because if they did they would either have to rethink or drop many of their policies or face the consequences.

Acording to ConservativeHome.com

“The Conservatives have admitted their decision to divide the track and train components of the rail network in 1996 was a mistake which increased costs.” - BBC

“David Cameron, the Tory leader, and Chris Grayling, the Shadow Transport Secretary, will visit Clapham Junction in South London to announce a review of the rail industry that will focus on reuniting wheel and rail.” - The Times

The BBC article says “He will add that the Tories do not want a return to a British Rail structure.” Just as well, as according to Professor Lewis Lesley that would contravene the EU Directives (see below). The Times article says “The party will propose that train operators should be allowed to run their own tracks, with one option being to create regional companies like those that dominated the network before the Second World War.” - presumably with separated accounts inside each regional company. Thanks to all those who have sent me various pieces of information on this in the past - they get filed away!

Comments

I thought the separation of track and trains was an EU requirement.(It is also enshrined in the list of duties for members of Network Rail that they comply with this.)

Posted by: michael mcgough | 17 July 2006 at 08:26

The Major government was excessively euro-enthusiastic over the railways.

Article 1 of the relevant EU Directive 91/440/EEC, of July 29th 1991 stated:

“The aim of this Directive is to facilitate the adoption of the Community railways to the needs of the Single Market and to increase their efficiency … by separating the management of railway operation and infrastructure from the provision of railway transport services, separation of accounts being compulsory and organizational or institutional separation being optional ..”

In any case, it was arguable that under Article 2, all railways in Great Britain were outside the scope of the Directive, with the sole exception of Eurostar.

Since then there has been a clutch of further Directives, and I hope that Grayling has checked these out. According to Lewis Lesley, Professor of Transport at Liverpool John Moores University, writing in the Independent on April 6th 2004:

“… the Railways Directives will prevent a new single BR being formed. This is because railway economics are being put on the same “playing field” as road transport, in order to win traffic back to rail. “Open access” will allow competition to improve services, in place since 2003 for freight and from 2008 for passengers.”

Some at least of the additional Directives were mentioned in this reply from Lord Davies of Oldham to a question from Lord Dykes, February 4th 2005:

“The Government currently expect to transpose the directives (2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC) by the end of 2005.

Transposing these directives is not expected to have a substantive impact on the railways in Great Britain, which already comply with the vast majority of the directives’ requirements, aiming to open up the European rail market to competition.”

Sorry to be “talking about Europe” so early in the morning.

Posted by: Denis Cooper | 17 July 2006 at 08:37

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991

Whereas the future development and efficient operation of the railway system may be made easier if a distinction is made between the provision of transport services and the operation of infrastructure; whereas given this situation, it is necessary for these two activities to be separately managed and have separate accounts;

SECTION 1

Objective and scope

Article 1

The aim of this Directive is to facilitate the adoption of the Community railways to the needs of the single market and to increase their efficiency;

by ensuring the management independence of railway undertakings;

by separating the management of railway operation and infrastructure from the provision of railway transport services, separation of accounts being compulsory and organizational or institutional separation being optional;

by improving the financial structure of undertakings;

by ensuring access to the networks of Member States for international groupings of railway undertakings and for railway undertakings engaged in the international combined transport of goods.