Watch The Parliament Vote for CFP Reform

If you were not able to watch the vote of the fisheries committee on 18 December 2012 you can watch it here.

You can watch from the comfort of your own home the chaotic end of the morning session and the final vote for vote of the fishing committee.

Morning Session – 12:30 18th  December 2012




Afternoon Session – 3 pm 18th December 2012





Time for Business To Get Serious – Bring In the Political Bruiser

Mark Penn has been brought in by Microsoft to lead the fight against Google.

Mark Penn is a serious political pro. He is a bruiser. He relaxes by running campaigns and trampling his candiates’ opponents. He’s very good at it.

The New York Times profile points out that this  at last shows a seriousness of mind from Microsoft to taking on the challenges that face them.

You can read the piece @

Run a Political Campaign When You Want to Win

It is a seriousness that very few companies ever display.

The idea that engaging with politicians and policy makers on their terms, in language they understand seems to be alien to many companies. They’ll gripe that they did not get what they wanted, their product/service got banned or their competitors got their product/service banned.

 Telepathy Does Not Work

Tried and tested techniques from the political campaign can be used. Speaking with politicians around election/selection time, raising a public debate, even speaking to key people early in the game, are all basic rules of the political campaign.

They work. Maybe industry will try it (one day).

Time For Lunch – We Vote At 3 pm

Yesterday, the Fisheries Committee voted for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Re-Booting the Voting Machines

After the voting machines broke down 10 minutes into voting, to be re-booted to work again, the voting went on quickly and mostly in a progressive direction.

But, when all the thousand or so  amendments had been voted for some reason the Chair decided not to vote on the adoption of the final report.

Lunch Time is Sacred

Instead at 12:30 pm the Chair stopped proceedings for lunch. The members and audience were confused and smelt some strange last minute games to stop a historic vote.

I hope to post the video of the scrambled and confused minutes later today.

“We Vote At 3 pm

Gabriel Mato Adrover informed the Committee that everyone should come back at 3 pm because it was in the Committee’s agenda.

Was the Chair such a stickler for the agenda? The answer is yes and no.

Many groups had asked for a short break after the vote on all amendments before casting the final vote. But, the public agenda of the Committee made no mention of the 3 pm vote.

However, I recall from my time in the EP, that the Chair also has a working schedule of the Committee, and I expect that Mr Adrover’s working agenda had 3 pm penciled in for the vote.

We Will Vote On This Until We get It Right

As we now know, the fisheries committee duly came back at 3 pm to vote 13 votes for reform, 10 against, and 2 abstensions. Indeed, the vote was done twice. The first time around 14 MEPs voted for reform and 10 voted against.

Who Voted for What

I am trying to find out if there is a record of how the MEPs voted. In the UK Parliament the results of how MPs vote are made public. I am not sure if the same is true in Brussels.

3rd Time Lucky

According to the fishing committee’s news, there is a new result.

Escape to Victory – CFP Reform Wins

Today, the European Parliament’s Fisheries Committee voted for the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

Common Sense

At 3 pm the votes  were finally called (for the 2nd time) and the results were::

13 for – 10 against – 2 abstentions.

This is remarkable for a committee that usually votes 15:10 against any progressive measures.

Change We Can

The Fishing Committee backed calls to end discards, returning fish stocks to healthy levels by 2020, and introducing more regional decision making.

Vote Against TFCs

They unfortunately voted against any form of ITQs. This is ironic. To date, other than world wars, this is the only measure that has led to fish stock recovery.

I found the reasons against ITQs interesting. The main reason was that fish are a national asset and this should be held by the government. It matters not that most governments in europe have proved incapable or incompetent at managing their fish stocks.  The irony is even worse. Most governments have no or very little idea about who is using the fishing quotas they hand out for free or little cost to fishermen.

Two countries seem to know who does fish and use quotas. But, Denmark and Norway have ITQs and they stick everything on the web.