I did a broadcast for Canadian television yesterday on the referendum, telling my interrogator that the EU is a matter of detail. Unless you master that, I said, you will never really understand what is going on.

This is a theme I have rehearsed many times, and part of the fascination of the headline subject – the mackerel dispute – is that the detail is almost mind-boggling in its complexity. But what is also fascinating is the way that the so-called "eurosceptic" press has barely touched the issue, leaving it to the "soft left" such as The Guardian, which gets it completely wrong.

You would have thought, though, that with Monday's Fisheries Council meeting potentially having a major impact on British interests, the media might have taken an interest. But apart from a piece on the BBC Scotland website, and in The Scotsman, one struggles to find any significant British media interest.

View full article here

You're right, this is mind-numbingly complicated.

One point. This has been going on for three years?

The UNCLOS has a clearly defined dispute resolution process including arbitration.

Have the parties not gone down this route ?

This is interesting, very interesting actually - the grand burgher of Ruritania collapsed and died because of sepsis caused by inattention to an open sore on his little toe......



AEP financial bit of DT

What we do not take into consideration perhaps is the ethos and mind set of the islanders such as the Faroese [and Icelanders] - these boys climb down 600' cliffs to catch sea birds for food - their ancesters lived a precarious existence, subsistent level only depending on fish, the sea and their own seamanship skills. Be assured - they will defend their rights as they see it and EU, Russia and Britain be damned.
Have a look in the archive - look up 'Cod War' and that was pretty rough and sometimes vicious stuff - everything but shooting.

From reading a few other sources as this has been developing (sorry, didn’t retain the links) there is an alternative angle on this. Right or wrong, I wouldn’t like to say. Anyhow, they don’t want Cyprus to exit the EZ – re. “existential threat”. But bailouts were originally forbidden under the treaties, and they justified bending/breaking the rules as an emergency measure in response to systemic risk. So, Cyprus has to be declared a systemic risk, irrespective of whether it is or not, so that it can be bailout out.

The Cyprus government is currently being awkward over the Troika austerity conditions. I’d guess Schauble’s line was the usual “don’t be too awkward because we can afford to let you sink” message.

A definition of 'simple' that I've previously not come across.

Not only complicated but on the surface quite stupid.

Presumably the EU made the representation to the WTO as the aggrieved party, which might then lead to sanctions.

This seems to be pretty heavy-handed unless they have first gone through the UNCLOS dispute resolution and arbitration procedure.

There is even a well-established organisation to deal with exactly these disputes under the UNCLOS: -

International Tribunal for the Law Of the Sea