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.

Iceland has officially abandoned any pretence at wanting to be part of the European Union.

Iceland’s bid to join the EU has come to an end, Iceland’s centre-right independence party leader Bjarni Benediktsson has said.

The eurosceptic politician made the statement in an interview with Icelandic news outlet mbl.is on Tuesday (21 May).

The 43-year old Benediktsson is in discussion to shape a new government with the centrist progressive party, following elections on 27 April. The progressives also oppose joining the EU.

We understand that a great deal of the argument revolved round the Common Fisheries Policy and what its effect would be on Iceland's fisheries.

Bloomberg reports:

Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who will take over as prime minister this week, has decided that a January decision to freeze EU membership talks will be extended indefinitely, his political adviser Johannes Thor Skulason said in a phone interview today.

“Later in the term there will be a referendum on whether Iceland should continue the talks, although no date has been decided,” Skulason said.

A referendum on whether to continue the talks not ex-post facto on whether to stay in.

While the various moves and counter-moves go on in the House of Commons about the possible but practically useless Bill for and In/Out referendum on the EU, over on the other side, where the red seats are, Lord Pearson has introduced a new Bill,the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill [HL] 2013-14. It had its First Reading on May 15 and its aim is "to make provision to repeal the European Communities Act 1972; and to make provision for the Secretary of State to repeal any enactment that has been a consequence of the European Communities Act 1972". It is unlikely to get very far but may well have a Second Reading and, possibly, the odd Committee day. The debates should be interesting and the subject of the disastrous and unreformable Common Fisheries Policy is likely to come up. We must make sure it does.

We have received the following information from Scottish Enterprise:

NOTIFICATION TO INDUSTRY

In support of the Scottish Government’s policy of developing the offshore renewable energy capacity in Scotland while providing a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing community, Scottish Enterprise has commissioned a study on behalf of the Scottish Government to investigate the potential opportunities for the use of the Scottish Fishing fleet in support of the offshore wind industry in Scotland.

The study will incorporate the following 5 aspects:

1) A Demand Study: Where the potential demands from the offshore wind developers for vessels to service the offshore wind sector will be determined.

2) A Supply Study: Which will investigate the potential use and conversion options for the Scottish fishing fleet, should the owners express an interest.

3) A Shortfall Study: An analysis of the potential demand for vessels, and where potentially this may be met by the fishing vessel fleet following conversion or retrofit.

4) A role, retrofit and Conversion Study: Analysis and categorisation of the types of retrofit and conversion options required of a fishing vessel to fulfil a role in the offshore wind industry.

5) Identification of Operational Locations: An evaluation of the location, facilities and constraints of potential operational support locations for vessels deployed to support the development, construction and operation of Scottish offshore wind farms. Initial engagement with industry stakeholders will be through a targeted perception survey, and this will be used to gather industry input, viewpoints and data. Contact with industry stakeholders will be made shortly and, input and opinion sought.

The study is being undertaken by SeaEnergy PLC, and supported by BVG Associates. For further information please contact SeaEnergy PLC through the following e-mail address:

fishingvesselstudy@seaenergy-plc.com

This cannot be said often enough: member states of the European Union are not sovereign. They cannot legislate for themselves in the overwhelming majority of fields and in at least one case, the VAT, can decide on rates only within boundaries set by the EU. Fishermen know this better than anyone else: whatever policies would be right for this country or for different parts of it they have to stay within the centrally decided (by 27, soon to be 28, member states) Common Fisheries Policy. Therefore, this posting (not about fisheries but about fiscal rules but that makes no difference) is seriously misleading. We cannot cede sovereignty - we have none to cede.

Though we missed the actual day of her passing (by less than an hour) the subject of Margaret Thatcher remains the one that preoccupies everyone's thoughts and discussions. Those of us who do not like the European Union and its policies and would like to see Britain out of it, making her own policies on all subjects including fisheries and creating treaties and agreements as needed, have an inevitably ambivalent attitude to the Iron Lady and her legacy.

She was, as we know, a member of Edward Heath's government, which negotiated Britain's entry into the Common Market. We have traced the events of 1970 here and here. Suffice it to say that a surrender of Britain's fishing grounds was part of the deal. It was not discussed widely and more or less denied in Parliament.

In the 1975 referendum called after some very superficial "renegotiations" Thatcher campaigned vigorously on the yes side. She also signed the Single European Act, apparently not realizing the effect it will have on Britain's economy.

But, let us also be fair. She did realize earlier than many of her colleagues where the whole project was leading as she made it clear in her famous Bruges speech. Whether she really would have called a halt to the process of integration and socialist regulation, whether she could even have managed to do so is irrelevant as soon after this her party got rid of her in a way that has steadily undermined them. It will be interesting to see whether with Thatcher's death that particular sore will finally be healed. Still she did not sign the Maastricht Treaty, which incorporated the Common Fisheries Policy, thus making it impossible to change, reform or, especially, destroy. That was Sir John Major's achievement though he seems to have forgotten it.

After her resignation Lady Thatcher concentrated on promoting the various ideas of anti-statism that are associated with her name, making a few cautious eurosceptic comments. She was more outspoken on the European issue in private but did not want to undermine her successors in the Conservative party. No doubt she recalled Edward Heath's "Great Sulk" and did not want to emulate it. A great pity, in many ways.

The passing of Margaret Thatcher does remind us of the paucity of political talent around us.

We have covered the ridiculous scare story of their being practically no grown cod in the North Sea here, here and here.

Now, thanks to EUReferendum, we can examine another side of the story. Well, not that particular story as this does not concern the CFP. It seems that in countries outside that noxious system the number and size of cod has been growing to the point that fishermen in Alaska are complaining about the drop in price. Well, yes, that is what happens when there is more produce.

However, the really interesting development is to be found in the Barents Sea. Last October the Barents Observer recorded that

The Barents Sea cod stock is growing and spreading northwards and eastwards. Never before have scientists found cod as far north as during this year’s ecosystem mission.

Apparently

Norwegian and Russian scientists recently concluded this year’s joint ecosystem mission to the Barents Sea. The conclusion is that the cod stock in the Barents Sea has set a new record when it somes to northern distribution.

The Russian research vessel “Vilnjus” found cod as far north as 82 degrees 30 minutes north.

The cod stock in the Barents Sea is considered to be the largest in the world. The quotas for 2013 will probably be over 900.000 tons.

In March Fishupdate.com was reporting that the predictions were coming true.

Six Icelandic factory trawlers have been fishing in the Norwegian and Russian zones of the Barents Sea. One of them is HB Grandi’s Venus, and according to this trip‘s skipper Haraldur Árnason, there are a huge amounts of fish on the grounds, including on the Malaga shallows and the Fugløy bank in the Norwegian zone where the Icelandic vessels have mostly been fishing.

The skippers are complaining - not a good development. With more cod and bigger cod the price per tonne will fall. They might have to think of joining the EU after all. (Just kidding.) There are other ways of dealing with the problem and Norway is looking at them. One can look to improving quality or to spreading the season. (This article about a report released by the Norwegian research institute Nofima is well worth reading in full.)

As EUReferendum says very pertinently:

That Norway is even able to consider these options rests almost entirely on its refusal in 1994 to join the European Union (for the second time). As it stands, fisheries stocks in the Barents Sea are managed by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission, established in 1975.

Had Norway become an EU member, it would have handed control of its fisheries to the Commission, to be treated as a "common resource". The EU would be negotiating directly with Russia, excluding Norway from the table.

And like Britain, it might have been looking at quotas in the tens of thousands, rather than the hundreds of thousands of tons it is currently catching, with their fleet a fraction of the size. It is a small wonder that the EU's CFP was one of the main reasons why Norway didn't want to join.

Would it be possible for our politicians, journalists and other would-be experts to understand that.?