I'm sorry I just skipped a few rules of the co-management document.

18. Stresses that in such cases the IA should include options covering alternative mechanisms and/or flexibilities in order to help SMEs comply with the initiative (as provided for in Annex 8.4); welcomes, in this connection, the exclusion of micro-enterprises from the scope of a legislative proposal as a policy option stated in the draft revised guidelines; believes, however, that exempting micro-enterprises by default may not always be the best approach, and that this must therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis for each proposal in order to reflect the policy of reversing the burden of proof, i.e. that micro-enterprises should remain outside the scope of proposals unless it is demonstrated that they should be included; supports ...[+++]the consideration of adapted solutions and lighter regimes for SMEs in IAs where this does not inappropriately limit the effectiveness of legislation;

I will skip a few lines and go to the second paragraph that I will quote in its entirety:

However, one line jumped out at me, and that is that TACs cannot control fishing mortality because they control landings but not catches and discards.

This is the acid test: we have to decide whether these debates are destined never to have any effect outside our archives or whether we want, once and for all, to take that leap forwards and make a clear, definitive political decision.

We certainly understand the Council’s dislike of the shameless attempts by the Commission in recent months to force through, along the lines of the Dehaene report, the idea of another major federalist leap forward.