Arbitrators give mixed ruling in EU-UK fishing rights dispute
BRUSSELS, May 2 (Reuters) - Arbitrators asked to settle a dispute between Britain and the European Union over post-Brexit fishing rights have given a mixed ruling, the Permanent Court of Arbitration said on Friday.
The case, which would complicate Britain's planned "reset" of relations with the bloc, concerned whether a British ban on fishing sandeels in its North Sea waters breaches the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
The three-person panel dismissed a number of EU complaints, but did find that Britain's sandeel fishing ban in English waters was not "proportionate" and that Britain needed to take the necessary measures to comply with its ruling.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
How can ‘sanction' mean two opposing things?
Sir Keir Starmer said 'he could 'not imagine' the circumstances in which he would sanction a new referendum' on Scottish independence, the Times reported the other day. The Mirror said Amazon 'has agreed to sanction businesses that boost their star ratings with bogus reviews'. So we find sanction being used with completely opposite meanings: 'give permission' and 'enact a penalty to enforce obedience to a law'. The latter sense was extended after the first world war to cover economic or military action against a state as a coercive measure. That is the use we daily find applied to action, or the lack of it, against Russia. The diverging meanings both go back to the Latin noun sanctio, deriving from the verb sancire 'to render sacred', hence 'inviolable'. Such a sanctio came to mean a decree, as in that obscure beast of history, the pragmatic sanction, which looks neither pragmatic or like a sanction. The phrase had a good run for its money, though, labelling a decree attributed to St Louis of France against the Papacy in 1268 and a decree by Charles III of Spain in 1759, granting the crown of the Two Sicilies to his son. I would describe as an anxiety dream the thought of having to write about either. Here, pragmatic meant 'to do with affairs of state', a development of the ancient Greek word that, via Latin, also gives us practical. In English pragmatic acquired the meaning 'practical' only in the mid 19th century, allowing the Americans C.S. Peirce and William James to harness pragmatism to describe a kind of philosophy. As for sanction, it is now also deployed to label the removal or reduction of social benefits. In February this year, 5.5 per cent of claimants were being sanctioned. There is, too, the architect of Dublin's Heuston station (often misprinted as Euston station): Sancton Wood (often misprinted as Sanction Wood).
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces. That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'. Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner. So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand! A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations. No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month. I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win. In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
