• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Chris Packham charged in Malta (1 Viewer)

It will be harder for justice minded people over there in the UK to stop illegal hunting in Malta and other EU countries from outside the EU. There again, how much did the UK government do to campaign to stop them?

Outside the EU, we won't be subsidising them to hunt illegally.

The UK has never had any influence in the EU anyway so leaving changes nothing in relation to policy or application thereof..

cheers, alan
 

I think you probably ought to read the web-page you've linked to, even if you assume this organisation is 'neutral' in this (or any other) debate.

There is plenty of evidence, including on that page, that on directives that matter to the UK (eg Port Services Directive), we are out voted and / or our influence on policy direction is limited or absent.

cheers, alan
 
fullfact.org

The website is not neutral. For example, much of the EU work is done by Paul Craig, Oxford professor of English law, .

"Speaking to Legal Cheek all the way from Indiana where he is currently teaching, Craig explained he wrote a number of articles for Full Fact in the weeks running up to referendum D-Day.

Though Craig is, understandably, a strong Remain supporter, he told us his articles were motivated not by politics but by fact. In his eyes, they were “clear”, “objective” and all pointing in the same direction: the UK should remain a Member State..."

cheers, alan
 
Outside the EU, we won't be subsidising them to hunt illegally.

The UK has never had any influence in the EU anyway so leaving changes nothing in relation to policy or application thereof..

cheers, alan

I suppose that you read that in a newspaper or heard it from a politician, two suspect sources of information! ;)

I know the first point and, as for the second, why didn't the UK try to influence the EU more? Now, unfortunately, you've lost the opportunity, and bird conservation will be poorer as a result.
 
Last edited:
I suppose that you read that in a newspaper or heard it from a politician, two suspect sources of information! ;)

I know the first point and, as for the second, why didn't the UK try to influence the EU more? Now, unfortunately, you've lost the opportunity, and bird conservation will be poorer as a result.

I assume you agree the first point?

1. Malta net recipient
2. UK net contributor
3. Thus UK subsidises all Maltese citizens
4. Thus UK subsidises Maltese hunters

cheers, alan
 
. for the second, why didn't the UK try to influence the EU more? Now, unfortunately, you've lost the opportunity, and bird conservation will be poorer as a result.

OK, let's break this down. Let's consider David Cameron's attempt to secure some changes, such as an 'Emergency Brake' on EU immigration, to enable him to win the EU referendum. The 'Brake' and its effect would have been little different in effect to the transitional arrangements which Tony Blair failed to implement in respect of new accession countries (Romania, Bulgaria). The EU rejected the emergency brake out of hand. That one simple act of compromise would probably have been sufficient for the majority of UK voters to remain in the EU. If the UK has such limited influence even when it is threatening to leave, then how do you expect anyone to believe that we had influence prior to that.

Why will bird conservation be poorer? We will not be subsidising the habitat destroying CAP and we will not be subsidising southern European hunters in net recipient countries.

cheers, alan
 
The view from outside

Why will bird conservation be poorer? We will not be subsidising the habitat destroying CAP and we will not be subsidising southern European hunters in net recipient countries.

cheers, alan

Why will bird conservation be poorer? Lack of influence in making the EU enforce the wildbird directive. If it was difficult from within the EU, it won't happen from the outside.

Subsidies? Do grouse estates in the UK receive any taxpayers' money? UK politicians were weak in making the EU enforce the wildbird directive because of the influence of those rich landowners in the UK Conservative Party.

Good on Chris Packham for trying.
 
Why will bird conservation be poorer? Lack of influence in making the EU enforce the wildbird directive. If it was difficult from within the EU, it won't happen from the outside.
/QUOTE]

IMO we have no influence and that is demonstrable by the 'emergency brake' argument. How can you change things from the inside when an organisation lacks the will,, means or structures to change. The UK can be more direct from outside the block and can make bilateral arrangements.

Subsidies? Do grouse estates in the UK receive any taxpayers' money? UK politicians were weak in making the EU enforce the wildbird directive because of the influence of those rich landowners in the UK Conservative Party.

Yes, separate point and happy to discuss this elsewhere

Good on Chris Packham for trying.

Yes, CP has done a huge amount to bring this to the attention of the UK. I support him wholeheartedly.

A pity we are currently subsidising such a corrupt country (see links above), through our EU net contributions.

cheers, alan
 
I assume you agree the first point?

1. Malta net recipient
2. UK net contributor
3. Thus UK subsidises all Maltese citizens
4. Thus UK subsidises Maltese hunters

cheers, alan

While the point might be strictly true you used the classic Europhobe game of putting a bizarre spin on reality to come up with "80euro of your money goes to Maltese hunters" claim

Anyhoo.....

Using relatively current (2015) data.

The net per capita distribution of EU funds to Malta is about 97euro
That doesn't all come from the UK. However obviously the UK has (for the moment) a large and strong economy built significantly on trade with our EU compatriots, so we are net contributors to the EU budget.

The UK gross contribution to the EU budget is 14% (noting this is about 1% of total UK government spending a minuscule proportion for all the bloody fuss leavers make about it, and this is gross so I have ignored the money we receive back from the EU)

So the per capita distribution of UK EU funds to Malta is less than 14euro

Since you said "80euros of your cash" another way to cut it is per capita distribution from a UK individual to a Maltese individual. In that instance about 0.3euro per UK individual goes to each Maltese per year.

So more accurately each Maltese hunter or police gets about 0.3euro of your cash a year. Probably more like 0.6euro per tax payer I guess.

I hope they don't spend it all at once......
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top