An excellent article by the great Bill Jamieson in The Scotsman, published on Remembrance Day, November 11, and a very good comment (as you would expect) from Roddy McColl of FAL under it. Actually, it's the second comment so you don't have to scroll far. The whole mess, called the common fisheries policy is outlined in it very briefly.

As it happens, there was a posting on the subject on November 10. Either we agree with Mr Jamieson or he agrees with us.

First of all, here is an interesting time line that we have referred to before. It is always good to be reminded of such matters:

SNP TIME LINE -- from National Control to EU Integration 2003 Alex Salmond launches Bill to withdraw from Common Fisheries Policy.

2006 SNP October Conference, Richard Lochhead refers to ‘elephant in the room’ the CFP will always undermine our efforts to take the industry forward to better times. Only when Scotland regains control of our own waters will we be able to plot a course into calmer waters for our fishing communities”.

2007 SNP’s Manifesto -A better future outside the CFP The SNP will continue to work for withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy and will not support any future European Constitution that grants the EU "exclusive competence" over this valuable resource. We will work with our partners to enlist support for the repatriation of fisheries responsibilities to member states.

2008 31 July FAL’s first meeting with Richard Lochhead as Cabinet Secretary when he reaffirmed the SNP and therefore the new Scottish Government’s stated aim of withdrawal from the CFP and restoring national control.

2012 Your Scotland Your Future “With independence we will remain part of the EU.” Richard Lochhead 2014 Independence will result in direct representation in the European Union and ability to negotiate our priorities without compromise.

2014 The SNP’s policy of repatriation of fisheries, of the aspiration of national control has been discarded

The government (that's the one in the UK not the real one in Brussels) has been conducting a balance of competences review on various subjects, as this blog mentioned some time ago. FAL has submitted its statement on the subject of fisheries and there is a summary in the latest Newsletter:

There is being undertaken by the UK coalition Government a Balance of Competences review between the powers of the UK and the EU and how this affects the UK national interest. Part of this review calls for evidence on fisheries policy and is part of a wider cross Whitehall initiative considering 32 policy areas “designed to provide a constructive and serious contribution to the wider EU debate about how to modernise, reform and improve the EU.”

However some might consider it to be window dressing to appease the Conservative Eurosceptic MPs. Be that as it may let’s consider the following:

David Cameron has talked about a new settlement, a new relationship with Europe or more correctly with the EU.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this is stuff and nonsense.

The reason is the existence in EU law of the “acquis communautaire” - the entire body of EU laws, including all the Treaties, Regulations and Directives passed by the Institutions, as well as judgements laid down by the Court of Justice.

The “acquis” for fisheries is free access to waters on a non discriminatory basis for all member states' fleets (access to resources being based on the principle of relative stability for regulated species and unrestricted for non-regulated species).

1. In 1981 the European Court of Justice ruled that the EEC had exclusive competence to adopt fisheries conservation measures in Member States waters

2. EU exclusive prescriptive competence implies that Member States are precluded from any law-making.

3. Member States may not act validly unless treaties or secondary provisions say so.

FAL has just submitted its response to the above Review. It highlights a number of facts and opinions that demonstrate that exclusive competence is the chokepoint for a successful UK fishing industry; that it has resulted in the destruction of businesses and communities and that unless such competence is returned to the UK, further reduction of the British fleet and the communities it supports is inevitable.

Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this submission by email please contact me at roddy_AT_mccollassociates.com

The Autumn Newsletter of the Fishermen's Association Limited (FAL) is out and we thought our readers would like to see some snippets from it.

First off, there is an article by the Chairman about the discards in the West of Scotland Demersal fisheries, which strangely echo the arguments made by Icelanders and Faroese in their fierce debates with the EU (here, here, here, here and here):

It is difficult not to be dismayed at the continuing demands of the Commission for more fishing restrictions on West of Scotland fish stocks especially as skippers who fish the grounds have seen more fish these past 2 years than at any time since 2001.

When I retired the deep water fleet or “edge of shelf “fleet stood at 37 vessels. This has now reduced to 8 who spend most of the year in Area VIa / VIb.

This year alone we have seen 4 vessels leave the fleet who traditionally fished West of 4 grounds.

Over the years FAL has argued for a vessel scrap and build policy. In June 2010 Richard Lochhead was informed by Sandy Patience that: “In the past one saved to build up the business – either by re-engining and proper care and maintenance or new building. However there are so many other demands now—buying of fish or shellfish or leasing quota and days plus buying of licence parking to obtain more days that nothing is being set aside for reinvestment.

Had a scrap and build scheme been introduced this would have encouraged the young men left in the industry to look forward with hope not despair.”

Regrettably this was never promoted by Marine Scotland.

On 10 July 2013 at a meeting of the EU Parliament Fisheries Committee, Alain Cadec MEP, Rapporteur on the EMFF proposals emphasised that ‘the money for fleet renewal (vessel construction) would only be available for a part of the fishing fleet — replacing vessels older than 35 years, smaller than 12 metres, with an obligation to reduce the vessel’s capacity by 40 percent.’

Mr Cadec stated that “his is responsible fleet renewal. Furthermore, you may only receive money to replace your engine if you reduce capacity. These are the only real measures in the EMFF and the basic regulation in the fisheries reform to reduce capacity in the EU fishing fleet.”

Unfortunately that fleet renewal proposal is not a scrap and build policy. In any event if passed in Parliament’s Plenary session in October (See page 14 CFP Reform Watch Article) it will do little, if anything, for the Scottish whitefish/prawn fleets but may assist some of the owners of very old boats in the Scottish/UK fleet.

In view of the condemnation by both politicians of the CFP and their call for restoration of national control would they care to explain how they are going to ensure the livelihoods of the Scottish fishing industry both offshore and onshore and the communities they support IF the Scottish people vote for independence and the SNP subsequently achieves its overwhelming ambition to become a member State of the EU?

We still await a reply. Perhaps we will obtain that when FAL meets Mr Lochhead on 31 October.

Ingredients

455g (1lb) vacuumpacked mussels in garlic butter sauce 55g (2oz) parsley, chopped 2 cloves garlic, crushed 6 x 15ml spoon (6 tablespoons) breadcrumbs 6 x 15ml spoon (6 tablespoons) pecorino or Parmesan cheese, grated grated rind 1 lime and juice of half a lime salt and freshly ground black pepper 6 x 15ml spoon (6 tablespoons) olive oil 1 lemon and 1 lime to garnish

Method

Mix together parsley, garlic, breadcrumbs, cheese,grated rind and lime juice. Season and mix with theolive oil. Blend thoroughly.

Split cooked mussels in half and discard the empty shells. Spread mussels in half shells with the breadcrumb mixture and arrange in a shallow ovenproof dish.

Bake for approximately 15-20 minutes until lightly browned.

Serve garnished with lemon and lime wedges.

We are very pleased to publish a letter from the indefatigable Honorary Chairman of FAL, Tom Hay, in which he once again attempts to explain that the common fisheries policy (CFP) is non-negotiable. The letter, we hope, will appear in the next issue of Fishing News.

It appears that Richard Benyon is determined to continue misleading British fishermen about CFP reform. His plausible statements in Fishing News 9th August 2013 on this very serious matter are extremely erroneous, in fact, spurious since they are deceiving our hard working fishermen into believing that a better future lies in store (how often have we heard that?) for them, if they submit to his optimistic overtures, that history would show that returning the seas to sustainable harvesting “as the really big win” of CFP reform. Fishermen will have certainty over the future of the stocks they fish, and depend on, he continues, but cunningly however, he doesn’t say British fishermen because, he really means EU fishermen.

This is why FAL is equally determined not to allow him to get away with this. What he is talking about reforming, and craftily calls it the CFP, is a temporary derogation from the general rule of equal conditions of access to fishery resources and non discrimination laid down in Article 40 clause 3 of the Treaty.

Never to my knowledge or belief has Richard Benyon or Richard Lochhead for that matter, ever stated publicly the appalling fact that the CFP is free access to waters on a non- discriminatory basis for all member states fleets, and that it is not negotiable.

Whatever these servants of the British people may tell our fishermen, they have no security whatsoever, and absolutely nothing can be done for their peace of mind, as long as we remain within this horrendous, anti-British Common Fisheries Policy.

Take a look at the East Coast of Scotland as an example of the enormous damage which has already been done. Every Port from the Borders to John o’ Groats, which used to be a bustling hive of activity, now lies indisputably desolate.

There is only one clear unobstructed way of escape. The fisheries agreement signed, by Treaty in 1972 must be revoked, and the shackles of this terrible Common Fisheries Policy thrown off, so that we can regain control of our potentially rich fishing grounds, which are rightly ours according to international law, yet so shamefully surrendered by the Edward Heath Government through unbelievable deceit.

Succeeding generations of the British people will hold us accountable for evermore if we allow a disaster of such tremendous enormity to befall our nation.

Thomas Hay

Honorary Chairman FAL

In response to the Fishing News article of May 24, 2013 [no link available] about the new CFP taking a large step forward, Roddy McColl wrote on behalf of FAL:

Are there any UK fishermen who believe that the Brussels deal will deliver workable measure in key areas? (FN 24 May)

As for Richard Benyon’s statement that British fishermen stood to gain from the changes as under the new rules of regionalisation fishermen “will be part of the process rather than victims of it” that is a masterpiece of propaganda, of hope over reality.

There is no new CFP. How often must we repeat that the real CFP is equal access to the common resource?

Of course there will be changes in various aspects of the EU’s fisheries policy- Common Organisation of the Market, a phased ban on discards and the implementation of MSY with a nod towards decentralisation of the “dysfunctional CFP” to quote Richard Lochhead with the introduction of regionalisation though even that will be a Member State acting as an agent (or agents in a regional context) to implement the grand strategy of the EU.

And that has never changed - the Treaties of Accession make it crystal clear that all species of fish within the waters of all EU maritime nations, are a common resource to which all EU member state’s fishermen have an equal right of access.

Exclusive competence for fisheries lies with the EU not the Member States.

The Commission has gone out of its way for years to make it absolutely clear that the non negotiable “acquis communautaire” for marine fisheries is free access to waters on a non discriminatory basis for all member states fleets, for all species of fish within the waters of all EU maritime nations. The CFP is about establishing an EU fleet, controlled, directed and managed from and by Brussels using compliant Member States as their agents to that end.

For any Minister to say that the current reform process provides one of the biggest opportunities ever to shape the future of the CFP is totally disingenuous.

Worth quoting in those interminable debates in response to those who say that the "new CFP" will be so wonderful and will solve all our problems. It will not.

The indefatigable Tom Hay, Honorary Chairman of FAL, has written a letter to the Buchan Observer, to be published this week, that replies to Richard Lochhead's latest praise of the so-called CFP reforms. Here is the letter in full.

Dear Editor

It is inexcusable that Richard Lochhead should continue to propagate the fallacy that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) can be reformed. FAL has advised him time and again that the real CFP – equal access to a common resource- cannot be reformed. Yet he carries on regardless. See Buchan Observer March 19 2013.

It serves the purpose of course of misleading the few Scottish fishermen who are left, that something can be done through negotiations to bring to a halt the clear intentions of the treaties - of driving British fishermen out of their own fishing grounds in favour of a predatory armada of fishermen from the other member states of the EU, predominately operating in what are British waters under international law.

He is of course referring to the temporary derogation from the real CFP which terminates at the end of a prescribed period.. He must be aware that the Conservative Administration in 1972 under the treacherous Edward Heath, surrendered by treaty British fishing grounds, fishing rights, and fish stocks to an alien, unelected foreign power, and thereby establishing the CFP.

Should he doubt the veracity of this, he will very easily find out the truth by reading the fishing debates in Parliament in the early 1970’s, or paying a visit to the Public Record Office in Kew London, which might even be better, since he will find out just how Parliament deceived the very people by whom it was elected.

During these debates, the House of Commons was prophetically warned, mostly by Labour Members of Parliament, that the disastrous circumstances which now prevail in the British Fishing Industry were inevitable, and could not be averted if we transferred by treaty exclusive competence to “Brussels” for the conservation and management of all living marine resources within British waters.

The Treaties of Accession make it crystal clear that all species of fish within the waters of all EU maritime nations, are a common resource to which all EU member state’s fishermen have an equal right of access.

This is the real, ugly, one and only CFP, which cannot be reformed, and Richard Lochhead is doing himself and his Party a great deal of harm. If he wants to continue as a servant of the Scottish people in another SNP administration, and perhaps even in an independent Scotland after 18 September 2014 then he needs to stop propagating this travesty of the truth now, and find the courage to return to the position he adopted in 2006 when as Shadow Minister for Environment, Rural Affairs, Energy and Fisheries he stated: The Common Fisheries Policy will always undermine our efforts to take the industry forward to better times. Only when Scotland regains control of our own waters will we be able to plot a course for our fishing communities.


Thomas Hay

Honorary Chairman FAL

It would be nice to think that Richard Lochhead and, more importantly, his officials would read this and ponder over it.

Here is a characteristically outspoken letter by Tom Hay, Honorary Chairman of FAL, published in the December 21 issue of eurofacts.

 Dear Sir, 

 I am fed up with David Cameron. I have read today that he is now saying, we must be at the heart of Europe otherwise it will be disastrous for the UK. What a downright lie. He should ake a look at the British white fish fleet. No aspect of the United Kingdom’s suicidal involvement with the European Union is more flagrant than the downright treachery, and lies which has brought about the deliberate destruction of our white fish fleet. 

What about democracy? Democracy means the people are free, and the free people choose their rulers, and the rulers rule according to the wishes of the people - that is true democracy. Yet the notion exists that democracy means putting your cross down on a piece of paper, after which those elected, become the dictators of those who elected them. 

This it appears is the view taken by David Cameron, since the last thing he wants to know is the will of the British people. Of course it was his Party which took us into this mess in the first place. In 1972 the Conservative Administration took us into what we were deceived into believing was just a “common market”, and agreed in the European Communities Act 1972, to allow EC law now (EU law) to take precedence over British law. 

Surely that must have been very close to, if not altogether an Act of Treason against the state, since the constraints of the British Constitution doesn’t permit any transfer of sovereignty to a foreign power for five minutes, far less for 40 years. 

Furthermore this treacherous action has resulted in the British people being made subordinate political serfs to an alien foreign power, and perpetuates this by insisting that we remain in political servitude to it. The public trust in our politicians and civil servants does not permit them to undermine with utter contempt the constraints of the British Constitution by which they are legally bound. By doing so however, they are making an absolute mockery of all the human sacrifice that went into creating, and defending it in the first place. 

The British people demand that their voice must be heard, and every vestige of sovereignty which has been deceitfully surrendered to Brussels, returned to the British Parliament as speedily as possible. 

We have had enough of it David Cameron’s way! 

THOMAS HAY 
Aberdeen

All very true but the chances of this government listening are slim.

On the whole the much-touted Cabinet reshuffle has been a damp squib. None of the senior positions were touched though Ken Clarke has finally been shuffled out of any position of responsibility and the egregious Baroness Warsi has lost the chairmanship of the party, something that the Prime Minister ought to have put into effect a while ago.

Most of the predicted moves did come about: Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Mitchell, Justine Greening and one or two others are no longer in the position they were last week.

There was some rejoicing and gnashing of teeth about the government, allegedly, becoming more right-wing but that has been countered by the fact that the Lib-Dems, the party that raised its share of votes in the last election by all of 1 per cent, lost several seats and whose vote has now collapsed, have been given another place in the Cabinet. There seems no point to it. David Laws, he of the expenses scandal in the new government, has been given a junior post in the Department of Education. He will, however, "attend Cabinet and have a roving brief across Government", whatever that might mean.

Of the new Ministers two might affect the question of fisheries: Justine Greening, now at International Development (the ministry that would be the first to be abolished if there were any justice in the world) where she might get involved in some of the fisheries negotiations with third countries. It is hard to predict how Ms Greening will behave. So far, she has not been a success in any of her positions. This might change but then again it might not.

So we go on to the new Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson. This is an interesting choice as Mr Paterson has shown himself to be somewhat rebellious at various times. He is a man who actually knows and cares about the environment and who is, unlike some of the others who have been promoted, on the right of the party. This is what James Delingpole wrote about him in the Daily Telegraph:

Paterson is a man of principle and a fighter and may prove much more reluctant to be trampled on than was his chocolate fireguard of a predecessor, Caroline Spelman. He is pro fox hunting; pro shale gas; pro free markets; he is anti wind farms; anti gay marriage. The kind of sound Tory MP you almost feared they didn't make any more.

Tom Hay, the Honorary Chairman of FAL, continues in his efforts to educate our politicians. Here is a letter he wrote to Ian Hudghton an SNP representative in the European Parliament, where the party is a member of the Greens/European Free Alliance Group for voting and funding purposes and he, himself, sits on the Committee on Fisheries. A copy of the letter went to Struan Stevenson MEP, Vice-Chair of that Committee, who has been mentioned on this blog before.

The letter is being published with Tom's permission.

Dear Ian,

It was good to see you in the Waterside Inn this past Friday the 30th March 2012.

I am sure that the thoughts which gave rise to the statement you made publicly in Aviemore a few years ago that FAL was right, must revolve around your mind oftentimes, as you witness the continued deliberate destruction of the British White fish fleet, as it desperately struggles to survive, only a stone’s throw away from its almost inevitable collapse.

Be that as it may, I was visibly shaken, and astonished that you sought to proffer the thought, that the horrendous anti-British principle of “equal access” to our fishing grounds, and living marine resources might only be a threat. Every Nation which has become a member of the European Union both with, and without a maritime sea-board, has agreed by treaty to accept that principle.

The Commission has gone out of its way for years, to make it absolutely clear that the “acquis communautaire” for marine fisheries is free access to waters on a non discriminatory basis for all member states fleets, for all species of fish within the waters of all EU maritime nations, and that the “acquis” is not negotiable. Actual negotiations are limited to transitional arrangements or derogations, but for as long as the European Union continues, the “acquis communautaire” remains sacrosanct”.

It is outwith the bounds of EU law for a derogation to override a treaty. If a derogation could at any time wipe out a treaty, what would be the point of having a treaty in the first place? Furthermore one member state or an applicant nation such as Iceland, (if they are foolish enough) cannot amend a treaty without the unanimous consent of all the other member states. Treaty amendments have usually been made at inter governmental conferences which are usually held once every four years, although this time limit is not unalterable, but every head of state must be at the summit, and the decision taken must be unanimous.

If on the other hand the UK Parliament argued that a continuance of the present derogation was a vital national interest of ours, and the Spanish or any other member state argued that its discontinuation was equally a vital national interest of theirs, and if all negotiations failed, as could easily happen, and perhaps would most likely happen, the disagreement would have to be brought before the European Court of Justice. The Court would without the least shadow of doubt find that the derogation must end, and the full thrust of the “equal access” principle as prescribed by the treaties must be introduced.

The simple fact is therefore, however unpalatable it may be, that any other member state of the EU in this sequence of events, could veto the continuance of the derogation after 2012, but we cannot by veto ensure its continuance. 

The European Union’s plan of action to get rid of the British fishing fleet is quite clear, especially to those of us who have experienced the most awful persecution and humiliation of the 1983 derogation. The Brussels bureaucracy deviously planned and cleverly masterminded the concept, that our fishermen should be guided towards the establishment of a single European Union fleet, on a non discriminatory basis, with no increase in fishing effort without them ever knowing what was happening.

They believed that this could best be accomplished by successive steps, each craftily disguised as emphasising the need for more and more conservation, but which when taken together would inevitably and irreversibly lead to the annihilation of the British fleet. Thus with characteristic arrogance and contempt for ordinary hard working people, these lavishly paid and incompetent officials have assumed that British fishermen could be deluded, however reluctantly, into co-operating in their own extermination.

The European Court of Justice has stated that the Community system of national quotas is a derogation from the general rule of equal conditions of access to fishery resources, and the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 40(3) of the treaty. I have a top secret, classified, confidential document, which was leaked to me from a government department which clearly states this. I am prepared to let you see it sometime if you should so wish. So how can the 1983 fisheries agreement be the Common Fisheries Policy, and a derogation from it at the same time? Those who knowingly continue to propagate this lie, are highly skilled in the deception, since it serves the purpose of deceiving our fishermen into believing that the Common Fisheries Policy can be reformed, when indeed it cannot!

In Fishupdate.com October 17 2003, not all that long after the end of the 2002 derogation, it was reported from the EU Fisheries Conference in Southern Ireland, and I quote --- Spanish fishermen will be given access to some of Europe’s most sensitive fishing grounds under a deal agreed by EU Fisheries Ministers. They have agreed to open almost 10,000 square miles off the Irish coast, until now been deemed environmentally sensitive. The deal to allow access to a quarter of the restricted area ignored opposition from Ireland, Britain, France and Portugal. The Irish Box, a 50 mile exclusion zone round the Irish coast has been seen as one of the most important spawning and nursery grounds in EU waters. 

Neil Parish MEP, Conservative Spokesman on Fisheries in the European Parliament, said “ This decision is totally hypocritical. The European Commission is telling everyone that whitefish stocks are perilously low, and have demanded quota cuts and reductions in time at sea, for British fishermen etc. etc…..until Fisheries Commissioner Franz Fischler is quoted as having said --- “Spain and Portugal have now been fully integrated into the CFP, all rules that could be considered as discriminatory have been abolished and from now on, EU measures will apply equally to all. The new regime legally brings to an end the discriminatory restrictions on access following the full integration of Spain and Portugal into the Common Fisheries Policy.”

Can we really expect our so called European Partners to whom we have given such valuable treaty guarantees to negotiate their cancellation, and thus surrender their assurance of unfettered access to some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. I think not. The stark reality which yawns before our fishermen is the fact that they have to be driven out of their own fishing grounds to let the rest of the member states fishermen predominate in British waters.

The only way to rescue the British fishing industry, and having it re-established as it once was, is through the restoration of National Control by a United Kingdom Act of Parliament, over those waters legally under our jurisdiction in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea 1982.

I am sending a copy of this letter to Struan Stevenson MEP. 

I have not the slightest doubt that FAL will be accredited a station of great honour, in the annals of history for telling British fishermen the truth.

Yours sincerely,


Thomas Hay. Hon. Chairman FAL 

So far, there has been no reply and Tom's exposition of the Common Fisheries Policy as it really is has not been acknowledged, refuted or even discussed. 

The Chairman of FAL responded to Richard Benyon's article with this letter:

It has been a longish time since this blog was last updated and there is little excuse for that except that discussions as to the best way to proceed have been going on and will be reflected in future postings.

In the meantime, we would like to call our readers' attention again to a document that needs to be revived. It is the Conservative Party Fisheries Policy that had been accepted by Michael Howard when he was leader and ditched immediately by David Cameron when he succeeded to the job.

It is our opinion in FAL that this policy, with a few possible minor changes, can still be the basis of our contribution to the discussion on how to move forward or how to "reform" the Common Fisheries Policy. Those who take the trouble to read at least the Executive Summary will see that we do not consider that there can be any movement until control of fisheries is restored to the UK government. Then we need to consider how far down in the chain should decisions be positioned.

We appreciate all contributions to the discussion, which will be fully aired on this blog.

This is to be found on page 10 of the Newsletter:

FAL's Summer Newsletter has the following excerpt from its November 2000 Memorandum to the European Union Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries:

The present EC Common Fisheries Policy is – and from its very inauguration has always been - about exploitation, not conservation or management. It has certainly worked to the advantage of one or two member states, but its overall effect otherwise has been negative and destructive. Not the least pernicious aspect is the extent to which a pseudo-ethical Euro-idealism has been used as a camouflage for naked national advantage.

FAL has issued a press release in response to the so-called Common Fisheries Policy reform, calling it, appropriately enough, The Sinking Titanic.