Letters: Britain sold its fishing industry down the river
Hard reset
Sir: Once again we must debate Brexit ('Starmer vs the workers', 24 May). The 'reset' agreement does give more control over UK domestic policy to the EU, if the points outlined in it are followed through. I assume they will be, as that's what Labour's front bench wants. (The prospect of us rushing through EU passport control, as Michael Gove and others suggest, is still unlikely, though – the document states only that there will be the 'potential use of e-gates where appropriate'.)
Britain must pay for many of the extra 'benefits'. Apparently the boost to the UK amounts to £9 billion by 2040, but I'm unable to identify any government research that supports this – only an assertion in a press release. According to the release, in the absence of agreement on the EU's carbon trading system, UK exporters will contribute £800 million to the EU from 2026. My own simplistic calculation is that if this is repeated for 15 years, it would cost us £12 billion. If this is treated as a benefit by our government, then there are no other benefits – but only costs – to reach a total of £9 billion.
And Richard Johnson ('Left alone', 24 May) wants government loans with union and workers' conditions attached to the fishing industry. Socialism never dies! Simply giving tax credits for such investment would be 100 per cent better.
Trevor Pitman
Beckenham, Kent
Hook, line and sinker
Sir: Matthew Parris is right: the French have always looked after their coastal communities better than we have ('Flogging a dead fish', 24 May). In contrast, Britain missed a clear opportunity.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reform stands at the crossroads of electoral triumph or disintegration
Until now, Reform has seemed an unstoppable insurgent force in British politics. Nigel Farage's startup party is on the brink of smashing the two-party system, with a real chance of consigning the Tories to political irrelevance. The idea that Reform could replace the oldest and most successful party in democratic history has become banal, with voters and commentators shrugging at its apparent inevitability. As Farage's party triumphs in council elections and seizes what were once among the safest Labour seats in the land – such as Runcorn – the idea that Reform could win the next election, and oust Keir Starmer after just one term had started to look not just possible but probable. Reform has spooked its rivals not only with its slick media machine but its drive to mine the country's new political talent from outside the stagnant Westminster pool of former spads and PPE graduates. The upstart is courting entrepreneurs, army veterans and magistrates. But the resignation of the party's chairman, Zia Yusuf, could prove a major blow to Reform. If the party wants to maintain its momentum, it will have to get its act together – most importantly addressing serious concerns over internal party discipline and Nigel Farage's leadership style. Perhaps the biggest question facing Reform is whether it has what it takes to be a serious party – as the circumstances of Yusuf's departure highlights. All is not well at Reform HQ. I first met Yusuf – who has been dubbed Nigel Farage's 'chief general' – several months ago at Winston Churchill's old haunt, Kettner's. We talked about Reform's 'wargame' strategy. I found Yusuf to be impressive – not only a zestful and successful entrepreneur, but an epic brain with a forensic attention to detail. He is as intellectually interested in the minutiae of council elections as the global rise of the New Right. I genuinely wondered whether Farage – a doer rather than a thinker, a street fighter rather than a strategist – had found his political soul mate, the yin to his yang. Now though the political love affair is over with Reform, if not with Farage. The party leader went out of his way to praise the departing chairman. Yusuf has been instrumental in planning and coordinating Reform's ground war in rustbelt seats, building constituency parties, creating the party's database and spearheading its DOGE projects in local councils. Much of Reform's grassroots strategy is cleverly inspired by the Lib Dems' pavement politics. Disillusionment with the major parties is strong, but Reform still faces an uphill battle to build up a presence in key battleground seats, and make a mark in councils up and down the country. Such a challenge requires discipline, persistence, a close grasp of local issues, and an ability to pluck and nurture grassroots talent. With Yusuf now gone, it is not clear who will take up this task. Reform will have to find someone quickly to take on the chairman's role. The party will also have to nip in the bud its dangerous inability to keep discipline. Yusuf has departed after falling out with Reform's Runcorn by-election victor, MP Sarah Pochin, after calling her 'dumb' for questioning Keir Starmer about banning burqas during PMQs. This seems like a classic case of clashing egos. When I spoke with Pochin on the campaign trail in Runcorn, she struck me as fearlessly strident, a trait that perhaps stemmed from her career as a magistrate. As she told me: 'It's not always helpful to have people in politics who are from the Westminster bubble or the ivory tower. I've spent 20 years in court in Chester. I've done search warrants. You name it, I've seen it.' It's not hard to envisage that such a character might be tempted to defy the party chairman who may have tried to block her PMQ debut. Therein lies the conundrum of Reform. Nigel Farage is keen to bring an end to the cult of career MPs and radically alter the breed of politician in Parliament, enriching the political ecosystem with people who have been successful in their own right in various walks of life. But the problem with interesting, spirited people whose souls have not been ground down by the political machine is that they don't like to toe the line. The Right-wing insurgent parties of the past failed because they were infiltrated by racists and kooks. But Reform may implode paradoxically because the calibre of its candidates is too high, in a way that actually renders them depressingly ill adapted to the game of politics. If the party wants to stay the course, Farage will have to build up a team of people who are capable of cracking the whip. Most importantly of all, Reform will now need to reflect on whether it is a serious party. Allies of its ousted MP Rupert Lowe have been grumbling for some time that it isn't. They point to Farage's 'adolescent insecurity' and the party's pathological aversion to deep policy thinking. There are exceptions like Richard Tice. He has a detailed interest in everything from reforming the Bank of England and overhauling benefits to the question of whether the UK can find more cash for the welfare state and tax cuts by restructuring its debts. But Reform as a whole has yet to understand that intellectual work is not a luxury but a necessity. The reason that the Tories collapsed into soggy nihilism is that they lacked a disciplining ideology. If politicians are not confident in their beliefs, their plans and precisely how they can achieve them, they inevitably succumb to egoism and infighting. When a party has concrete policy priorities, it is also easier to negotiate with single-minded MPs about what issues the opposition should be grilling Labour on – and what is just performative populism that puts off undecided voters while pandering to your base. It is not clear that Reform entirely understands this. During my exchange with Zia Yusuf back in December, he asked me if I thought his party had a shot and I simply told him it was Reform's to lose.
