That goes both for the World Wildlife Fund and the Guardian that dutifully reports the organization's every move, report and statement. It is, of course, disgraceful, that through those Third Country Agreements fleets of EU member states fish out the waters of developing countries (except those, like Namibia or Morocco, who have metaphorically speaking have shown the EU the door).

The reason for that is not the fact that European fishermen are particularly evil, though you would never guess that from the WWF's attitude but the Common Fisheries Policy itself. By turning the whole of the EU waters and fishing stock into common resource to be shared out between countries according to centrally decided rules voted on by all 27 members, the European Union has ensured that sustainable fishing as well as sustainable fishing communities has become a thing of the past.

At the same time the problem of heavily subsidized large fleets in some member states has remained. Essentially, those agreements are a way of passing on those problems to the countries outside the EU waters. But you would never guess that, either, from the article.

We are now living under a Danish Presidency in the European Union as the system of rotation goes on. Its work programme on the fisheries was presented  at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting. In parenthesis, it has to be noted that the European Union does not go in for mundane matters like legislation through elected legislative assemblies, however one calls them but through administrative work programmes that continue regardless of electoral cycles.

Regarding the fisheries policy reform, the Council will aim to conclude the debate on the reform package, which consists of a new basic regulation, a new common market organisation and a new European maritime and fisheries fund for 2014-2020.

Not a particularly ambitious programme and no mention of the real CFP that should come into its own this year.

If Scotland votes to leave the UK (not that it will but let us suppose) they will, presumably, have to apply for EU membership, which is what Alex Salmond longs for. However, the country they will leave behind will be very different from the one that became member of the then European Economic Community, which gradually transmogrified into just the European Community and, after the Maastricht Treaty, into the European Union. Will the remaining parts, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have to reapply? That could be interesting.

Sandy Patience, Chairman of FAL had a letter published in The Press and Journal on January 14 of this year. Here is the full text:

The letter on Scottish Independence in yesterday’s Press and Journal by Ian Walker is absolutely correct.

It is pure fantasy for Alex Salmond to hoodwink the Scottish people into believing that we can have an independent Scotland within the European Union.

We need to waken up to the undeniable fact that the European Union exists for the benefit of the European Union, not for the benefit of the member states.

EU law demands that new member states must accept existing Community legislation in its entirety and subscribe to the common policies. No exceptions can be allowed other than those agreed upon for a transitional period.

So what does the future hold for the fishing industry in an independent Scotland within the EU? - the continuation of the deliberate and decisive destruction of the Scottish fishing fleet, under the pretence of the need for more and more conservation, while at the same time allowing a seal population to explode and consume more fish than the EU allows the industry to catch.

And what does the future hold for us all with so called independence in the European Union?

There would be nothing but political intrusion, suppression and diktat while commanded to hand over billions of pounds a year for illusory benefits

The idea that Scottish fishermen will, somehow, do well out of that weird status of "independence within the EU" is, as Sandy Patience, says, complete fantasy. Unsurprisingly, many other people in Scotland may realize this truth. According to the top news story in the same newspaper:

VOTERS across northern Scotland have said no to independence in a survey commissioned by the Press and Journal.

And they want to have their say on the issue now – not in 2014, when the SNP says it will put the question to the nation.

Nearly 45% of those polled said they would reject the chance to let Scotland go it alone.

That may be why Alex Salmond wants to postpone the referendum.

It is time, we have decided, to go back to basics and trace some of the elements of the Common Fisheries Policy. It is no great secret that the policy and its incarnation, EEC Council Regulation 2141/70, was cobbled together hastily and illegally according to the EEC's own laws (more details in another posting) a few months before the applications of four countries with the richest fishing waters, UK, Ireland, Denmark and Norway were put in. Since applicants have to negotiate on the basis of the acquis communautaire, that is existing legislation, the CFP had to be shoe-horned into it.

Whether by design or, more likely, incompetence the FCO and the relevant politicians did not wake up in time to realize how serious that problem would be for Britain and its fishing. Rather desperately Edward Heath negotiated a derogation up to the 6 mile limit, then found that Ireland and Norway demanded control of waters up to the 12 mile limit. The story is told in The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

There is an interesting aspect to that sorry tale. Norway, as the authors point out, passed a law that limited the size of vessels allowed into the 6 to 12 mile zone. This was a blow to the British deep sea trawlers. They then add a note:

A question which inevitably arises when looking back at the fisheries episode is why Britain and the other applicant countries did not band together to insist that the 'equal access' rule was unacceptable. It is clear from the FCO papers that this was rejected because Britain's distant-water fishing companies, then the biggest players in the fishing industry, saw in 'equal access' a chance to win greater access to Norwegian waters. In the end, of course, Norway did not join and within a few years most of those companies disappeared. 

The tale of this country's membership of what was then the EEC and is now the EU is complicated with such details. It is not a tale of simple foreign domination but a disastrous one, nonetheless.

A very happy Christmas to all readers of this blog. The fight will continue after the festivities.

We shall have much to say about the agreement reached at the end of the Fishing Council on Saturday, but let us begin by linking to an article by Patrick Sawer in the Daily Telegraph.

The title is: Fishermen angry at European Union decision to reduce number of days at sea. It is perfectly understandable that fishermen should be angry at this decision:

Although the British fishing fleet will be allowed to catch bigger quotas, it faces an estimated 15 to 25 per cent cut in the number of days at sea following marathon talks which ended at dawn on Saturday in Brussels. As a result of the deal the UK’s fleet will be confined to port for longer than ever. That will make it hard for trawlers to take advantage of some big rises in fish catch quotas agreed following the success of conservation measures in some regions. Britain fended off moves to cut fishermen’s days at sea to just four a fortnight next year, in exchange for greater national fish conservation efforts. But boats will still be confined to ports for longer than before.

On the other hand, the various organizations cannot be surprised. This was on the cards all along: there would be cuts in days at sea to accommodate the demands for the elimination of discards and, at the same time, to make it possible for all the CFP fleets to go on fishing in what is designated as Community waters. This is, after all, a common policy. Nor shall the problems be solved until we are out of it and are in a position to make our own decisions to suit our own fishing industry.