River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[rollingpinboy]

When anglers bait is not about in the close season, fish return to the naturals/macro inverts etc to survive, as they have always done. There is no problem with that, although there are many anglers nowadays that continue to supplement/pre-bait all through the Close Season to gain an edge for the coming season. In is inevitable that fishing in the close season will damage future populations if/when a female barbel drops 8-10,000 eggs or male milt on your lap, your mat, weigh sling or when playing the fish to the net, etc. thus killing/destroying future year classes and future generations. The same goes for all coarse species. Yes, we know fish can spawn early or late and sometimes more than once. Anglers should refrain from fishing during any spawning period when they are knowingly targeting their own specific species, in or out of season. The current March-June Close Season is still a good bet, and if you want to include a few other species, then extend the close season from Feb-July (as someone suggested), and not shorten or abolish it which is detrimental. Perhaps river species may recover even more so.
Black Kettle...The problem with the dye or other ****, is that fish do not always detect/sense chemicals in the water! Some can kill outright but others can take longer to kill or cause problems, and are accumulative in fish vital organs and flesh over a period of time, so they may eventually die a slow lingering death and you'll wonder why they have all disappeared. Discharges like that are usually illegal if it discolours the receiving water, so it should be reported to the EA and checked.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

There seem to be the odd huge assumption being made on the part of those that wish to see the continuance of the closed season. Whilst I'd accept that it seems to be common sense that the closed season will be of benefit to fish and recruitment, I've never seen any proof whatsoever that this is actually the case. There's always a chance that the closed season, and the removal of a good food source at precisely the time it might be most needed, actually does more harm than good. That would be hugely ironic if it turns out that the rabid pro group turn out to be supportive of something that actually harms the fish that they are assuming that they are protecting.

It also strikes me that the old (pre 1995) NRA/EA report (including the fisheries scientists), that basically suggests that the closed season be scrapped, which Martin Salter has admitted to helping to shelve for the rivers when he was an MP, is quietly ignored or interpreted quite differently to the way I read it.

Oh, and by the way, can we stop with the accusations of selfishness from the pro-closed season group. The reality is that most of those people that wish to see it remain are no less selfish. Most simply want it to remain because it suits them. Cogent arguments beyond that are sadly lacking. Yet again on here, the more politically active try to turn a debate with emotive language and browbeating.

Sam,
AS you accept that a closed season makes sense and would benefit fish and their recruitment, like me you may not have seen any proof that it is actually the case. You say that there might be a chance that keeping the close season might do more harm than good, well on the flip side removing it may do irreparable harm that could not be redressed.

Let me tell you why I support the close season, I honestly believe that it covers most species spawning periods of course it is not perfect but in this world what is? I would sooner keep it as it is rather than alter or abolish it when there is no way of knowing the harm it might do. Rivers are different to still waters where fish can be protected if the controlling owner or club facilitate a closure at spawning time. This would be almost impossible on our rivers fish move to different areas, some stretches of rivers have different clubs or syndicates on opposite banks so one owner/club might close its water but the opposite bank owner/club stay open for angling. So you may not agree but in my opinion any change to the rivers close season would be wrong.

You call the supporters of the close season “Rabid” and selfish, and that we have no cogent arguments and that our only reasons for keeping the close season are solely based because it suits us.

Well, Sam let me tell you I neither want to keep the close season for selfish reason or just because it suits me and I think most supporters of the close season would take exception to your comments.

My wanting the close season kept in its current form is not based on my earning potential as a river angling guide (if I was one) which I am not. It is not based on my being able to fish more river matches I am not a match angler.

I have always been a supporter of the close season and that included still waters and canals, I have not changed my mind due to the floods they did not stop me from river fishing. It is based on common sense that a river close season makes sense to protect riverine species as best we can, I do not belong to the take,take society we seem to be living in.

You say we have no cogent argument for keeping the close season, where are the cogent arguments for changing it? All I see is arguments based on finance from those who would have it changed. One of those who has been calling for change now states he supports the close season simply because he is old school. Well no can have it both ways, one minute calling for change, then to state you will not campaign hard for change. If one wishes to be taken seriously one needs to be consistent not doing a u-turn when it suits a personal agenda or things look like turning against you.

On a final note and I say this to you respectfully Sam. I am not trying to browbeat anyone I am expressing my views on why I believe the close season should remain as it is. I am also expressing my views on what I believe are the real reasons behind the call for change. Anyone is welcome to agree or disagree whith them as they see fit.

They are not based on reasons of selfishness or financial gain or scientific reasons as I do not have any. They are based on common sense that a close season benefits the very thing we get our enjoyment from, some will disagree as is there right.

It appears however that those who have raised the close season issue this time are unwilling to debate with us and place their cogent arguments for change into the public arena if they actually have any.

Yours respectfully
Ray

 

[geoffmaynard]

honestly believe that it covers most species spawning periods of course it is not perfect but in this world what is?

Well, a closed season which was species specific and guided by local management would be perfect. But some of you guys don't want that, you prefer a random set of dates which ignores early and late spawning species and is a 'cover-all'. I have to wonder if for instance any grayling or dace anywhere have ever been protected by the existing closed season dates?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Well, a closed season which was species specific and guided by local management would be perfect. But some of you guys don't want that, you prefer a random set of dates which ignores early and late spawning species and is a 'cover-all'. I have to wonder if for instance any grayling or dace anywhere have ever been protected by the existing closed season dates?

Species specific and guided by local management?

If that were to happen then it would probably result in a longer close Season, if accepting some of the comments on here.

As for local management, no thanks, I prefer to see scientific studies over layman rules any day.

How about "local management" then where either adjacent stretches or opposite sides of the same river is left in the hands of lay people with different sets of dates?

Now that really would lead to Absolute chaos!

Far rather leaving the status quo until such time that science-led factual based evidence gathered over a substantial period of time can support the case one way or the other.

The dates were not exactly "random" when they were introduced, were certainly not random in the various and many reviews over the past 30 years and are far from random now as they give protection to most species, in most geographical areas during most average weather conditions.

I am sorry Geoff but whichever way you try to dress it up, there really is no need for a rethink, now, and certainly not until detailed investigations have been carried out. And only then if found to be in the best interests of the fish and the surrounding environment and certainly not undertaken for commercial interest.

Regarding Grayling:"Spawning occurs in spring, usually late April to mid-May, but can occur between the end of March to the first weeks of June."

Taken from: http://www.graylingresearch.org/grayling/spawning

If you look on the spawning map on that Grayling research site it shows spawning in the River Frome from March 27th to the River Clyde by mid-April so that pretty much covers the entire country.

Regarding Dace: In my area, and for most of the southern rivers Dace typically spawn between late February and mid to end May

"During February and March male and female dace separate. The males move into fast shallow water, while the females move into deeper and calmer water."

Taken from: http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-...pecies2/British-Freshwater-Fish-Species/Dace/

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Well, a closed season which was species specific and guided by local management would be perfect. But some of you guys don't want that, you prefer a random set of dates which ignores early and late spawning species and is a 'cover-all'. I have to wonder if for instance any grayling or dace anywhere have ever been protected by the existing closed season dates?

Geoff,
Peter has answered far better than I could even attempt, if we had what you suggest the season would be for about three/four months.

Do not presume to know what I want, but be assured I want to see all fish protected not put at risk for personal gain.

Respectfully yours
Ray

 

[cg74]

Well, a closed season which was species specific and guided by local management would be perfect. But some of you guys don't want that, you prefer a random set of dates which ignores early and late spawning species and is a 'cover-all'. I have to wonder if for instance any grayling or dace anywhere have ever been protected by the existing closed season dates?

Geoff, the best post on this thread, I'm 100% in agreement.

Peter, if the Close Season was to be managed on a "local management" basis, why would you think it would automatically lose its scientific validity and basis?

An area and species based Close Season is a very workable arrangement, even though for the larger rivers it'd undoubtedly mean 2 or even 3 sets of rules.
It's perfectly possible to pretty much eradicate some bycatches with bait and technique rulings.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Geoff, the best post on this thread, I'm 100% in agreement.

Peter, if the Close Season was to be managed on a "local management" basis, why would you think it would automatically lose its scientific validity and basis?

An area and species based Close Season is a very workable arrangement, even though for the larger rivers it'd undoubtedly mean 2 or even 3 sets of rules.
It's perfectly possible to pretty much eradicate some bycatches with bait and technique rulings.

CG,
Can you explain just how a species and area close season would be a workable arrangement then? It seems to me that having two/three sets of rules for larger rivers or any river for that matter would just be chaos and a recipe for disaster.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[loggerhead]

there really is no need for a rethink,

I thought you said earlier you kept an open mind? Doesn't sound like it to me.

until such time that science-led factual based evidence gathered over a substantial period of time can support the case one way or the other.

And you know full well that such research would be impossible to collect unless some CS fishing was allowed in the first place, which it won't be so no research would be possible. Catch 22.

The present dates weren't random, they were a compromise. Just the same as two owners/clubs having access to the same stretch of river, they would reach a compromise. Otherwise, one club would just go it alone, if it wished and was thought necessary.

Also, research can be bent one way or the other depending on who's paying for it. Take the rubbish that's produced by Fishtec to back up the development of hydros, it's a load of rubbish from our point of view, but lots of developers are submitting it to LAs as part of their planning applications - and it's being believed!

I would agree that financial considerations should be left out of it, but I don't see why there has been such a concerted attack on Steve Pope and his position within the Barbel Society. He's entitled to his own opinion despite being head of a group and he's also entitled to a change of mind, as everyone is. Not so according to some posters on here.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I thought you said earlier you kept an open mind? Doesn't sound like it to me.And you know full well that such research would be impossible to collect unless some CS fishing was allowed in the first place, which it won't be so no research would be possible. Catch 22.

The present dates weren't random, they were a compromise. Just the same as two owners/clubs having access to the same stretch of river, they would reach a compromise. Otherwise, one club would just go it alone, if it wished and was thought necessary.

I simply cannot accept that lay people such as riparian owners and controlling clubs have the necessary expertise on such environmentally sensitive areas as this.
We (anglers) are not the only interested party in this, not by a long shot. I was quite amazed at the responses I had from so many different organisations when I simply approached them to inform them of what is being suggested w.r.t. the Close Season.

Also, research can be bent one way or the other depending on who's paying for it. Take the rubbish that's produced by Fishtec to back up the development of hydros, it's a load of rubbish from our point of view, but lots of developers are submitting it to LAs as part of their planning applications - and it's being believed!

Which is why it is best left to the EA and their chosen contractors (like last time) rather then pass the buck and hand such an important decision into the hands of laymen riparian owners and/or controlling clubs.

I would agree that financial considerations should be left out of it, but I don't see why there has been such a concerted attack on Steve Pope and his position within the Barbel Society. He's entitled to his own opinion despite being head of a group and he's also entitled to a change of mind, as everyone is. Not so according to some posters on here.

I see you have quoted my posts so I have to assume that you believe I have attacked Steve Pope in some way or another? If so then please let me know where as that was never my intention.

It is good to see though that at least we agree on not allowing financial considerations to be given any undue credence, because my comments on that score were aimed wholly at the retail and manufacturing trade alone.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I thought you said earlier you kept an open mind? Doesn't sound like it to me.And you know full well that such research would be impossible to collect unless some CS fishing was allowed in the first place, which it won't be so no research would be possible. Catch 22.

The present dates weren't random, they were a compromise. Just the same as two owners/clubs having access to the same stretch of river, they would reach a compromise. Otherwise, one club would just go it alone, if it wished and was thought necessary.

Also, research can be bent one way or the other depending on who's paying for it. Take the rubbish that's produced by Fishtec to back up the development of hydros, it's a load of rubbish from our point of view, but lots of developers are submitting it to LAs as part of their planning applications - and it's being believed!

I would agree that financial considerations should be left out of it, but I don't see why there has been such a concerted attack on Steve Pope and his position within the Barbel Society. He's entitled to his own opinion despite being head of a group and he's also entitled to a change of mind, as everyone is. Not so according to some posters on here.

Loggerhead, nice name by the way,
I totally agree with you that SP is entitled to have his own opinion and also has the right to change his mind. Where I disagree with you, and I suspect others will do so is as head of the BS a position he uses to promote himself his personal views on the CS are in direct conflict with with BS aims and objectives and it’s conservation stance. The very things the BS was formed on and has stood for since its conception.

SP has contacts in the Angling Trust and sway as head of the BS which as a Society is a member club of the trust. So what would happen if the membership of the BS reject any call for change to the CS (if given the chance). SP will be duty bound by his position to carry the wishes of the BS membership forward and oppose any change to the CS on their behalf would he not?

But what of his own desire to have the close season shortened? Just how can he pursue his desire within the AT and still represent the membership of the BS who may not want anything changed. He cannot, he is presented with a clear conflict of interest between his own wishes for change and that of no change by his membership. As far as I know the BS stance on the CS remains the same. The only way SP can pursue his own interest in having the CS changed is to step down as chairman and let the BS follow its membership wishes.

Steve now appears to be at odds with himself regarding the change or re-think he deem necessary, he believes in a close season but wants to change it but won’t campaign hard for that change. One has to wonder just why he got involved in the first place when it appears he doesn't really know what he want’s.

I am a founder member of the BS, I believe in its aims and objectives and conservation stance. The same ones Steve has defended to the hilt including the CS for as long as they have existed. If he has changed his mind and really thinks the CS needs to be changed he has only one choice he cannot have it both ways.

You may view some posts as attacks (mine included) that is your right to interpret them as you wish. My view is that they are justified given that there is (in my opinion) a clear conflict of interest between Steve’s own views and that of the BS and he can’t represent them both in a fair and unbiased way.

As Steve is not only chairman of the BS but also its spokesman we are unlikely to hear what the membership views are.

I hope I have made my position clear to you, but if not there is little else I can do.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[sam vimes]

Sam,
AS you accept that a closed season makes sense and would benefit fish and their recruitment, like me you may not have seen any proof that it is actually the case. You say that there might be a chance that keeping the close season might do more harm than good, well on the flip side removing it may do irreparable harm that could not be redressed.

No, Ray, I accept that it's intuative (common sense) to think that the closed season might benefit fish, but it may not actually be the case. For centuries it was intuative for the majority of the people to believe that the earth was flat, that certainly wasn't the case. The NRA/EA report also casts doubt on the closed season being particularly beneficial. You are quite correct that scrapping the closed season might cause damage, equally, it might not. There's always a chance that scrapping it might do more good than harm.

Those that blindly advocate we never change, or even look at the possibility of change, are no less selfish than those that wish to see it abolished, or at least examined properly to see if changes might have zero effect or, heaven forbid, even be beneficial. Many of the arguments against even examining a possible change are little more than emotive nonsense or dogmatic resistance to change. Essentially, many protagonists simply like the closed season (there's nothing particularly wrong with liking the closed season btw) and then try to justify that liking with all sorts of assumptions and barely logical pseudo science. I'd rather leave the science to scientists. If there's proof that the closed season benefits fish, great, lets keep it. If there isn't, scrap it or modify it as required. Staying the same because it has "always" been like that is not a sound argument for retention.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

No, Ray, I accept that it's intuative (common sense) to think that the closed season might benefit fish, but it may not actually be the case. For centuries it was intuative for the majority of the people to believe that the earth was flat, that certainly wasn't the case. The NRA/EA report also casts doubt on the closed season being particularly beneficial. You are quite correct that scrapping the closed season might cause damage, equally, it might not. There's always a chance that scrapping it might do more good than harm.

Those that blindly advocate we never change, or even look at the possibility of change, are no less selfish than those that wish to see it abolished, or at least examined properly to see if changes might have zero effect or, heaven forbid, even be beneficial. Many of the arguments against even examining a possible change are little more than emotive nonsense or dogmatic resistance to change. Essentially, many protagonists simply like the closed season (there's nothing particularly wrong with liking the closed season btw) and then try to justify that liking with all sorts of assumptions and barely logical pseudo science. I'd rather leave the science to scientists. If there's proof that the closed season benefits fish, great, lets keep it. If there isn't, scrap it or modify it as required. Staying the same because it has "always" been like that is not a sound argument for retention.

Sam,
Nice response, I could concede several points to you if I thought that some of those who want the CS looked at were asking for reason other than commercial or for financial gain for some (but I don’t). Yes leave the science to the scientists, not laymen who have no clue (myself included).

I know the world is not flat, I got so drunk:w once up in Bridgenorth (my drinks were spiked) at a Barbel Catchers AGM I fell down that bloody great staircase top to bottom. I did not fall off the edge of the world I just kept rolling.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[geoffmaynard]

Peter has answered far better than I could even attempt, if we had what you suggest the season would be for about three/four months.

Yes PJ is an extremely eloquent and very convincing debater, with whom I've crossed friendly swords from time to time and he's someone I have the greatest respect for. He is also as wrong as often as he is right imo.
You completely misunderstand me Ray. I don't want a 'Closed Season' which covers all species. I want fishing stopped for species which are spawning, whenever that may be, and not stopped for other species - as it is in the USA for example, where you will find very little sign of the 'absolute chaos' Peter suggests will result. I see no problem fishing for fish which are not spawning in any particular month of the year. Just because one species is spawning, angling should not be forbidden on other species which are not spawning. I object to this because it is irrational. I also object to being scorned and treated as some kind of a pariah by some people (none on here yet btw) with more traditional views who adopt a holier than thou poise when discussing this issue - and then think nothing of fishing for spawning carp or tench in July! Temperature is rather vital when it comes to spawning fish and geographic distinctions are important; let's recognise that fact and act upon it.

 

[loggerhead]

I simply cannot accept that lay people such as riparian owners and controlling clubs have the necessary expertise on such environmentally sensitive areas as this.

I would suggest that they are the best people to decide on when to close a fishery, most are keen conservationists and it is they that know their own waters best of all.

Which is why it is best left to the EA and their chosen contractors

Oh no, no, no! It is they who believe the rubbish poured out by such researchers as Fishtec. The EA believes what they want to believe, their Fisheries Departments have liitle say.

I see you have quoted my posts so I have to assume that you believe I have attacked Steve Pope

Sorry, I cannot separate the elements within posts, but it is true that you have had a dig at Steve Pope and also at Martin Salter. I'm sure that Mr Salter is well able to stand up for himself, but he too can have an independant view, quite separate from his position with the Trust.

They also must explore other ideas and information and keep open minds to see if better methods can come out, you cannot possibly stick to one principal for ever more, this is not The Holy Bible we're dealing with. Anything else is pure dogmatism.

Why does everyone, well 3 or 4 of you, suddenly believe that there's some conspiracy theory going on by the Trust and other group leaders to get rid of the CS? All that has happened is that Martin Salter has "INVITED COMMENTS" on the existing close season on whether it is still fit for purpose. For this he and others are branded heretics, but you might do well to keep open minds yourselves (some fat chance of that! )

 

[barbelboi]

How about looking at it from the other angle, if hypothetically there had never been a close season introduced in 1878 what are the reasons now for bringing a fixed date CS into being...................................

 

[sam vimes]

How about looking at it from the other angle, if hypothetically there had never been a close season introduced in 1878 what are the reasons now for bringing a fixed date CS into being...................................

Exactly the same as 1878, all coarse fish caught are killed. Oh, hang on, just wait a moment............

 

[rollingpinboy]

Martin Salter also works for Thames Water (who are probably the biggest and most consistent polluter of Rivers and Streams in the UK)

Scientists are not always correct and many have different opinions regarding each others research, and some may be biased on subjects depending on who's funding them and what results are required.

The alternative conflicting views held by the same people mentioned is a joke! They either have one or the other to promote! They play ball in a different court depending who they are trying to convince or save face. In positions of influential power, which both think they are, their current personal opinions cannot be valid unless they discredit and dump their past opinions (with reasons for doing so), which they have preached and taught to others to adhere as the true Gospel. There is no doubt in my mind that the Pope does not agree with God and Noah in initiating the recent floods and would like to negotiate extra months on the banks so that he and some followers can net more fish and attempt to change water into wine.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Martin Salter also works for Thames Water

Hi Ray, remember me? I'm not sure whether Martin does work for TW any longer, he did for sure, but I thought I'd heard he no longer did. Not that it matters, because he's done a lot of good work there and I must be a bit of a turncoat. Once upon a time I would have hung their CEO for each pollution incident, but their attitude has changed in recent times and they're quite ready to hold up their hand now and pay up-front for the restoration of any fisheries that are damaged. That doesn't put them in the clear, they are reminded by myself and others in our area of the need for preventative maintenance on all of their installations.

SOME GOOD NEWS - They are trialling some new revolving 2mm screens at one of their abstraction plants. One EA Fisheries Officer told me that this alone will save more than a couple of million fish fry every year. That's perhaps far more than the close season would ever achieve.

Scientists are not always correct and many have different opinions regarding each others research, and some may be biased on subjects depending on who's funding them and what results are required.

Absolutely! :thumbs:



Sorry folks, couldn't help looking in, just put in a reply to Pete Reading's post on Martin's thread and wondered how you were NOT getting along.

How about looking at it from the other angle, if hypothetically there had never been a close season introduced in 1878 what are the reasons now for bringing a fixed date CS into being...................................

Yep, that about sums it up. I posted pretty much the same on Martins Blog page -

You’ve perhaps heard the modern buzzwords of ‘blue sky thinking’ or ‘thinking outside the box’? Yes, I don’t like those terms, but a method of thinking was taught and promoted by Professor Edward De Bono (lateral thinking and all that). The idea being, you have a problem (even if you personally don’t consider it as such) and how do you solve it? All ideas you might have could be coloured by history, ‘tradition’ in this case, or other constraints such as costs or convenience. So in order to find the best solutions that will work you have to forget rules, traditions, preconceptions and everything else. Start afresh with a blank sheet, imagine that the Mundella Act had never come into being, that we’ve always had 12 months coarse fishing everywhere. Now find the problems and search for solutions, “What is it I would like to see to protect and assist the recruitment of fish?”

Hence RETHINK!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

You’ve perhaps heard the modern buzzwords of ‘blue sky thinking’ or ‘thinking outside the box’? Yes, I don’t like those terms, but a method of thinking was taught and promoted by Professor Edward De Bono (lateral thinking and all that). The idea being, you have a problem (even if you personally don’t consider it as such) and how do you solve it? All ideas you might have could be coloured by history, ‘tradition’ in this case, or other constraints such as costs or convenience. So in order to find the best solutions that will work you have to forget rules, traditions, preconceptions and everything else. Start afresh with a blank sheet, imagine that the Mundella Act had never come into being, that we’ve always had 12 months coarse fishing everywhere. Now find the problems and search for solutions, “What is it I would like to see to protect and assist the recruitment of fish?” Hence RETHINK!

That would be the same Prof. E De Bono who was severaly criticized back in 2000 for suggesting that Arabs who ingest low levels of zinc found in people who eat unleavened bread(e.g. pita flatbread) suffer from a known side-effect of which is aggression? He suggested shipping out jars of Marmite to compensate . . . . . . .

On the other hand you may have heard of T. Bertram Lance who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in Jimmy Carter's 1977 administration, who popularised the well known phrase of: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Supporters of abolishing the Close Season seem to continually harp back to the Mundella Act as if they themselves were stuck in the 1800's and refuse to accept that the Act has undergone many reviews and alterations as recently as 2000 and 2003.

It has been reviewed, and if you like re-thought several times - hence we don't need to re-think it yet again without the benefit of supportive scientific studies, which, if you prefer would be a far better subject to thinking out-of-the-box or lateral thinking (with or without the Marmite)

 

[Ray Wood 1]

That would be the same Prof. E De Bono who was severaly criticized back in 2000 for suggesting that Arabs who ingest low levels of zinc found in people who eat unleavened bread(e.g. pita flatbread) suffer from a known side-effect of which is aggression? He suggested shipping out jars of Marmite to compensate . . . . . . .

On the other hand you may have heard of T. Bertram Lance who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in Jimmy Carter's 1977 administration, who popularised the well known phrase of: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Supporters abolishing of the Close Season seem to continually harp back to the Mundella Act as if they themselves were stuck in the 18000's and refuse to accept that the Act has undergone many reviews and alterations as recently as 2000 and 2003.

It has been reviewed, and if you like re-thought several times - hence we don't need to re-think it yet again without the benefit of supportive scientific studies, which, if you prefer would be a far better subject to thinking out-of-the-box or lateral thinking (with or without the Marmite)

Ireland forced to vote on Lisbon Treaty... again
It’s all a bit ground hog day, the abolishers will keep coming back until they get the vote they want. It won’t happen this time around but just you wait, they will be back with a new thought out scheme. It might be fluffy snow next time, or some other cleverly thought out reason.

What was that old song? “Keep a knocking but you can’t come in” that was it.

Enjoy your day folks and don’t spend it lurking in the back ground on here you will know who I mean:j

Kind regards
Ray