More Brexit discussion

This time it is about fisheries, a subject of some importance and one that this blog will be covering. The House of Commons Library has produced a short Briefing Paper under the title Brexit: What next for UK fisheries?. A friend called my attention to it and described the paper as "pusillanimous". Slightly more politely, I would call it "careful", which is not necessarily a bad thing at this stage but one would like to see a little more emphasis on countries that are outside the EU, run their own fisheries and do, somehow, manage to be successful at it and at negotiations with the EU.

Yes, dear readers, Norway and Iceland negotiate themselves both with the EU and at international level, like big grown up countries. The implication in the paper is that the UK is going to find that rather difficult and may well lose access to the European market, which, as it happens, buys fish from what will, we assume, be designated UK waters because it wants to not because it is forced.

Usually, these briefing papers are well produced but there is some sign of haste with this one. Several times whole sentences and paragraphs are repeated either because nobody had edited or proof-read the paper or because the author thinks that its readers have the memory of a goldfish. (Oh look, another piece of sea weed. Doesn't it look just like the last one.) Also, for some reason George Eustice, Minister of State at DEFRA, is called George Eustace in the text though given his correct moniker in the notes.

Some things do become clear. According to the 1976 international agreements home waters are 200 nautical miles from shore and it was a certain sleight of hand that enabled the EU to announce that actually it was all their waters. Negotiations should focus on that.

The much vaunted reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy have not gone all that far and, in any case, would not have been needed if the the Policy had not been such an economic and ecological disaster. Those discards, which are still happening, could have been stopped many years ago through various technical methods, such a mesh size but that is hard to achieve with the political structure of the CFP. That can be resolved if we disentangle ourselves from that pernicious structure.

Finally, what of co-operation with other countries once the fisheries are under British control? Well, oddly enough, that is not an impossibility:

The UK would need to cooperate with the EU after Brexit on quota setting. Cooperation on sharing stocks is required as many fish stocks are migratory and therefore cross EEZ boundaries. Fish populations could be damaged if countries failed to coordinate on fishing effort.

Such cooperation is enshrined in international law. The UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 199628 require cooperation on the conservation and management of fish stocks that straddle national jurisdictions. The UK has ratified these agreements.

Such cooperation is currently seen in Norway and other non-EU European countries. Around 90% of Norway’s fisheries are shared with other countries29, even though it is much more geographically isolated than the UK. The Norwegians set fish quotas and management strategies for important fish stocks in negotiation with other countries, including the EU and Russia. Norway and the EU have developed management strategies for several joint stocks including cod, haddock and herring.

The EU cooperates and negotiates with non-EU countries on behalf of Member States. The outcome of negotiations on one stock may be influenced by negotiations on another.

Following Brexit the UK will have to:

• maintain a close working relationship with the EU to enable the effective management of fisheries;

• agree a mechanism for agreeing quotas and management measures with the EU and other countries. This could be a bilateral mechanism between the UK and EU “in the case of stocks that are shared only between the EU and UK”, or through the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) for stocks shared with other countries “as is currently the case with mackerel, which is negotiated between the EU, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands”.

Perhaps. Or perhaps other structures will have to be created though there is much to be said for using the ones already in existence. The point is that these are all soluble problems.

We need to create another policy that will include our intentions towards other countries and towards the fishing industry in this one.

Faroe Islands go to the UN

The Faroe Islands who want the coastal countries that include Russia, Iceland and Norway (but not the UK because we do not negotiate on our behalf) to meet in September and discuss the management of the herring stock, have meanwhile taken the EU to an international tribunal under UNCLOS over those threats of sanctions.

The BBC reports that

A statement from the Faroese prime minister's office said the government had requested an international tribunal to declare the European Union "in breach of its obligations" under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It asked for EU authorities to be "ordered to refrain from the threat or adoption of coercive economic measures on the Faroe Islands".

Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson has also demanded the EU withdraws the threats and allows a peaceful settlement to be found under "free negotiations".

European sanctions will be brought in against Faroese herring and mackerel imports from the end of August.

Foolishly, the Scottish fishermen are supporting this high-handed action. Then again, what other options do they have?

Trade sanctions imposed on the Faroe Islands

Oh goody. The EU has picked someone small enough to bully and to Britain's shame its representatives as well as the representatives of fishermen's organizations have joined in.

The Scotsman reports that

THE European Commission today finally moved to impose trade sanctions against the Faroe Islands because of their continued refusal to enter into an international agreement on the division of the North Atlantic herring stock.

A total ban on the import of Faroese catches of both herring and mackerel into European ports is to be brought into force before the end of August in a major blow for the Nordic nation’s fishing industry. Similar sanctions are expected to be imposed in the near future against Iceland on mackerel.

Last year Icelandic vessels landed 123,000 tonnes of mackerel while Faroese boats took 159,000 tonnes of mackerel, one of the most important catches for Scotland’s powerful pelagic fleet.

Member States have agreed to impose sanctions on the trade of both herring and mackerel from the Faroes to the EU. Mackerel has been included in this EU sanctions package because the Faroese catch the mackerel in association with landings of Atlanto-Scandian herring.

And there may be scope under the sanctions deal to introduce further fish products in the trade ban at a later date. Future sanctions could include fishmeal, fish oil and Faroese salmon products because herring is used in the manufacture of their feed.

Well, what fun that is. The EU is determined to destroy the economy of the Faroe Islands and, if possible, that of Iceland. That will teach them not to want to join us. Of course, they might start exporting to other countries and thumb their noses at the EU.

The argument in both cases is that there has been a recent increase in the fish stock in northern Atlantic; I have not yet seen that argument disproved. The EU is merely shouting hysterically that these people are not allowed to fish more than they are allowed to do by the EU though they are not actually members. (The Faroe Islands have a complicated status. They are a "a self-governing country within the Danish Realm" and not part of the European Union. Indeed, Danish citizens who live there are not EU citizens though those of other member states are.)

EurActiv and EUObserver have both published an article by Kaj Leo Holm Johannesen, the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, which is worth reading in full. Here are some excerpts:

Underpinning the Commission’s proposal to implement economic measures against the Faroe Islands is the assertion by European Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki that the Faroe Islands have “left the negotiation table” on Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Faroese government has been repeatedly calling for negotiations between all coastal states to discuss a revision of the sharing arrangement for this important and very valuable shared fish stock in the Northeast Atlantic.

Multilateral management of shared fish stocks should always be based on the best available scientific information on the size and behaviour of the stock. We have been witness in recent years to a marked increase in abundance of herring in Faroese waters, also for longer periods.

Assessments by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2011 and 2012 confirm these new trends and the increased dependency of the herring on maritime areas within Faroese jurisdiction.

...

Despite the virtual absence of Atlanto-Scandian herring in EU waters, the EU became a party to the arrangement, after having set itself a unilateral quota of 150,000 tonnes in 1996, which it could only effectively fish in international waters.

The allocation key was modified again in 2007, after four years without an agreed arrangement, due to Norway’s demands that its share was increased.

In contrast, the Faroese share has remained by far the smallest all these years at just over 5%. This by no means reflects the occurrence of Atlanto-Scandian herring in Faroese waters today, nor the long-standing dependency of the Faroe Islands on fisheries.

Both the Faroese and Danish governments have underlined to the Commission that all options for renegotiating an equitable allocation of the Atlanto-Scandian herring have far from been exhausted. The Faroe Islands have also repeatedly pointed out that we remain ready and willing to resume consultations with the other parties as soon as possible.

We are seeking the opportunity to present a reasoned and justified claim for an increased Faroese share of the Atlanto-Scandian herring stock to be discussed in the appropriate multilateral context.

But all this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in Brussels. The relentless determination to implement measures against the Faroes is being rushed through the EU system with an absolute minimum of time for EU member states to scrutinise and discuss the political rationale and factual details of the proposal.

A meeting between the five coastal States has now been scheduled for 2 and 3 September in London. Regardless of this, the Commission has chosen to proceed with its proposal for measures against the Faroe Islands, aiming for its adoption by the Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture on 31 July.

Why do I find the arguments in this article as well as the account of the EU's behaviour so persuasive? Could it be that they smack of the truth? As I said, read the whole article.

Spanish practices

I don't really need to blog about this as it is posted over on Fisheries - Truth and Fiction. But as we listen to all the waffle about the CFP reform, it is worth having a look at the reality as far as the biggest and most rapacious of the fleets is concerned.

We go through these charades over and over again

Farming Online reports that the UK and Poland have, for a change, created a common front on the subject of CAP reforms. It is likely to be as successful as other common fronts have been in the past.

Britain and Poland have called for radical reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), ahead of proposals published by the European Commission, expected on 12th October. The two countries share ambitious plans for reform, which go against the direction the EC's proposals seem to take in a steady stream of leaked documents, which have seen the light of day over the past months.

Leaks from the EC show it proposes the retention of a strong Pillar one (direct payments), which will be heavily reliant on environmental measures. Up to 30 per cent of direct payments would be reliant on increasing ecological performance. However, Defra, who upon acceding power pledged the government would be 'the greenest ever,' rejects this approach.

The UK-Poland statement, which was issued today by UK Agriculture Minister Jim Paice and his Polish counterpart Marek Sawicki following an EU agriculture meeting in Brussels, calls instead for the "modernisation of European agriculture to meet the challenges of the future rather than a system that protects outdated practices of the past."

Of course, modernisation of European agriculture means different things in different parts of Europe but that idea is anathema to the whole concept of the CAP and, indeed, the EU. That being so, I cannot quite see what the point of this statement and proposal is. Oh wait, I do see it: we go through these charades over and over again just in order for the negotiators to come back, empty-handed and with a sorrowful mien to tell us that they fought hard for a proper reform but it was not to be.

Meanwhile, the horse-trading fish-trading has started in preparation for the Fisheries Council meeting in December.

"We are where we are"

For some reason (and we can probably guess what it is) Baroness Parminter's Starred Question about the Common Fisheries Policy and what HMG might be doing about it was taken on the day the Commission published its proposed reforms.

This allowed Lord Henley to be even more evasive than usual, as he agreed with most questioners who said rather forcefully that the CFP has been a disaster and pointing out that there are these proposals on the table so we shall just go on negotiating for further reforms and sensible policies, which has done us no good in the past.

Lord Saltoun of Abernethy seemed perturbed by the notion that the Commission was going to take fisheries back the management of fisheries, which, he thought, had been handed over to the European Parliament (and what good the Tory Parliament would be in this situation I cannot even imagine). Not so, said Lord Henley:

As I understand it, following this report from the Commission, this will be a matter for the Council of Ministers and for the European Parliament. It will be a matter for co-decision, so it will take some time. As a result, it is very important that we build up the appropriate alliances in Europe and within the European Parliament to make sure that we can negotiate the best deal possible for a proper, radical reform of the common fisheries policy.

That will presumably be just as successful as our previous attempts to negotiate a radical reform of the fisheries policy.

Lord Pearson made the obvious comment, though he did it to the sound of much laughter:

My Lords, given the success of the fisheries policies of Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and given the fact that 70 per cent of the fish in European waters swam in British waters before we joined the Community, why do we not take back our own fish management to the benefit of our industry? Why do we need a common fisheries policy at all?

HMG did not deny what he said. Lord Henley merely asserted that

we are where we are. We have a common fisheries policy and we are committed to renegotiating that along with the Commission, which has accepted that that policy does not work, and we are going to get that right. With the Commission and a vast number of other member states being on side, and with this country being totally and utterly committed to doing so, we can get that right. We will start that process next Tuesday and continue it as long as is necessary.

What is it that enables people to say things like that with a straight face as they survey previous assurances of negotiations for radical reform that failed?

Business as usual

While the Tory "eurosceptics" and the various front organizations that are determined to fudge the questions of how exactly we are to come out of the EU and what are we to do afterwards are celebrating the fact that the latest opinion polls show a tiny swing towards those who want to come out without really knowing what that entails, the EU is engaged in business as usual. Here are the documents on the latest CFP reform proposals. I suspect they do not paint as happy a picture as the media has been predicting for days but it will take me a little time to read and digest them.

Here is another smug little blog from the Freedom Association that sums up all those wonderful results, forgetting that the Conservative Party had better opinion polls for quite a long part of the campaign and those of us who said that is not good enough turned out to be right.

The CFP has not gone away

There was a stealth edit on the previous posting - I was writing about the Common Foreign Policy. This, on the other hand, is about the Common Fisheries Policy, our much hated CFP, the single most disastrous EU policy (says who? Ed.). The fight is not over though we have lost much ground.

Save Britain's Fish may not be active at the moment but Fishermen's Association Ltd (FAL or Fighting Against Lies) is and has just set up a new blogsite.

The real CFP

The post has just been delivered and among the various circulars and offers of things I do not want there is a book from my friend Michel Gurfinkiel, one of about six right-wing journalists in France. (Wiki page in French) and The Fishermen's Association Ltd's Newsletter. On the first page there is an account of their representatives' meeting with Richard Benyon, the somewhat gormless Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries

Sandy Patience, FAL’s Chairman, acknowledged the effort that Mr Benyon and his officials had made at the 2010 December Fish Council given all that was stacked against the UK in having to meet the maximum sustainable yield commitments of the Johannesburg Agreement.

However he reminded the Minister that it was the Tory administration in 1972 which had surrendered our national fish stocks to the EU to be managed under a Common Fisheries Policy, which to date, as far as British fishermen are concerned has been nothing short of a disaster.

He urged the Minister to persuade the Prime Minster to visit fishing constituencies and hear from the grass roots of the hard working people who make up the industry and then give the same commitment as Mrs Thatcher did to defend British fishing rights when she was Prime Minister.

However Mr Patience reminded Mr Benyon that the real Common Fisheries Policy – the principle of equal access to the common resource cannot be reformed and with 2012 rapidly approaching and therefore the end of the present derogation, the Commission must necessarily introduce measures upon our fishermen, in readiness for the implementation of the full thrust of that principle as demanded by the Treaties.

Are you paying attention? The real Common Fisheries Policy, as defined by the various Regulations pushed through illegally under the wrong Articles and not put into the treaty until that little affair at Maastricht, is equal access right up to the shore. That will kick in in 2012 and precious little can our fishermen do about that. Do all those let's-jump-on-the-bandwagon campaigners who have suddenly realized there are problems with the way fishing is conducted know this? Mr Benyon does now, because he has been told by Mr Patience. Will he remember it long enough to try and think his way round the problem?

Actually, he does not have to think about it at all. There is that policy, discarded by the Boy-King when he became leader of the Conservative Party, all ready to hand.

It's that time of the year

The Independent says so therefore it must be true:

North Sea fishermen are throwing away up to half of all the fish they catch every year in what campaigners say is a chronic waste of food.

How long has this madness been going on? How many years have we been campaigning? I have lost count but this time of the year the media wakes up to the "problem". The Fisheries Council is coming and the Total Allowed Catch (TAC) for next year will be set. So, we get very excited and talk about the need to reform the Common Fisheries Policy, which requires a qualified majority vote for every change. Then everybody goes quiet for a year.

A Stampede of Groundhogs as the Boss says on EUReferendum. And, of course, the Cleggerons are up in arms and have been since June when they announced that they were going to reform the Common Fisheries Policy though there seems to be some difficulty in explaining who exactly are going to be the countries who will fight with us for a reform.

Mackerel wars?

Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson's blog about the mackerel dispute between Iceland, in whose waters most of the fish is found, and the EU. Not, please note, the country that is also affected by the problem of too many mackerel and the need to increase the quota, but the EU on whose behalf the Commission is negotiating and threatening Iceland with economic sanctions for its perfectly sensible behaviour legally and economically speaking.

This is getting to be serious

Naturally, I know who writes the responses to Written Questions in the House of Lords and it is not the Ministers themselves. However, I seem to recall promises of transparency and honesty when the unelected Cleggeron Coalition assumed the mantle of what power the EU leaves it. Therefore, it might be a good idea for answers to be tailored to the questions that are asked.

Take this example. Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 12 July (WA 97), which European Union countries support their position on reform of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies; and what voting power those countries have in the Council of Ministers.

This was carefully worded to find out exactly which countries will give support for that putative reform that has not materialized in all these years or, in other words, how many votes can Britain count on. Apparently, this is a state secret or something because the answer was to a completely different question:

There is broad agreement across the EU about the case for reform of the common fisheries policy, including the need to decentralise and simplify the current complex regulations. Few, if any, member states support the status quo, though views vary as to the changes needed. A draft legislative proposal will be published in 2011 and the UK is fully engaged in dialogue with other member states, the European Commission, industry, environmental NGOs and scientists to establish common ground for reform.

The UK's aim of a competitive, thriving and sustainable agriculture sector is supported by all member states. The Government are starting to consider their detailed position on reform of the common agricultural policy beyond 2013. Individual member states' positions will become clear in their responses to the European Commission's communication on CAP reform later this year.

Given that those reforms never seem to happen and every Fisheries Council finishes with the status quo more or less intact; given that a number of countries have already made it clear that they have no intention of changing the CAP come 2013, just as they refused to introduce any big reforms last time, these statements are fatuous, quite apart from ignoring the question.

Some things never change

One of them is Tory hypocrisy or, if you like, total ignorance about the Common Fisheries Policy. They seem to think that if they keep telling us that they will change that noxious system then it will actually happen and appear oblivious to the fact that change might have been effected by the policy, carefully worked out by the then spokesman Owen Paterson and the Boss and adopted after a great deal of trouble by Michael Howard. As we know from previous postings on this blog (eg here) and on EUReferendum, the Boy-King's first action on becoming leader of that benighted party was to discard the policy.

Well, here we go again. The Press Association reports that Richard Benyon, the current Fisheries Minister is unhappy with the CFP and wants it reformed. Indeed, he assures us or somebody that the UK will speak "with one voice" when it demands that reform though he neglects to tell us that other voices, those of other member states will have as much say as the UK's. The Spanish Minister of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs also thinks there should be changes but not necessarily reforms. She merely think quotas and total allowable catch (TAC), the system that has destroyed a good deal of fish and fisheries wherever the EU has any say on the matter, should be adjusted according to scientific reports.

And to prove how much he understand Richard Benyon added:

This is the UK's most economically important fishery, contributing £140 million to the economy, and is of particular importance to Scotland. The sustainability of this well-managed stock must not be put at risk by the setting of unrealistic and irresponsible quotas. I am clear that Iceland and the Faroe Islands must cooperate with other countries to effectively manage this vital fish stock.

Or, in other words, this is disastrous, appallingly managed system that has caused a great deal of social, economic and environmental damage; therefore Iceland and the Faroe Islands must be persuaded to take part in it. Otherwise, they might be more successful than we have been.

Meanwhile, over in the House of Lords, that "quango" as the Boy-King and Douglas Carswell MP seem to think it is, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has asked another pertinent question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government , further to the Written Statement by Lord Henley on 22 June (WS 101) on reform of the common fisheries policy, whether they will propose that the responsibility for fisheries policy is returned to member states.

It has long been clear to anyone who has even thought about the subject that there is no other way of managing fisheries successfully in a sustainable way.

Among those who have ever thought about the subject we cannot count the Coalition government or its members, the Lib-Dims and the party formerly known as Conservative:

We need to move on from the current centralised common fisheries policy (CFP) that attempts to micromanage fishermen's daily activities. In negotiations on the reform of the CFP, the UK will press for radical change that provides for serious devolution of decision-making, and simplification, to improve fisheries management. While it may be appropriate for genuinely strategic decisions to be taken at EU level, because many fish stocks are shared between various member states, more responsibility for implementation can, and should, be devolved to member states.

In other words, we shall do nothing but continue to whine and pretend that we have any knowledge or understanding of the subject, not to mention the political courage to tackle it.

Spot the differences

This is a little like those quizzes in newspapers that I can never resist: two pictures that look exactly the same but there are five differences and you have to find them. The same can apply to the list of different attitudes to Key EU Policies expressed by the three main parties (the others apparently do not exist) as summarized by Open Europe.

There are, apparently, minute differences - the odd bracelet missing and the handbag has a different clutch. Here and there you get one party being in favour of more integration or partially in favour of more integration or, actually, against more integration but not really knowing a great deal about it.

At the end Open Europe gives its judgement of the differences and try as they might they cannot really show that the Conservatives are that different from the other two. After all, it is only on major transfer of power that they are promising a referendum and nobody can quite define what a major transfer of power is. Nor is it particularly clear how they intend to repatriate powers from the EU. As for the CFP, that all parties wish to reform, the Conservatives had a perfectly good policy that was ditched by the Boy-King as soon as he became leader. It involved Britain pulling out of the CFP and he could not countenance that. In fact, even Open Europe has to admit that neither party advocates withdrawal from the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy. Since wholesale reform is not possible, given its structure, we are at an impasse.

I presume he was joking

During the short debate in response to Lord Teverson's Starred Question on fish discards there was a slightly comical moment. Lord Teverson asked

Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have following their estimate that, of 37,000 tonnes of cod, haddock, plaice, sole, anglerfish and other demersal species caught by English and Welsh registered vessels in the North Sea and south western waters during 2008, 9,400 tonnes were discarded.

A good question though those estimates, I suspect, are a little on the low side. Well what is HMG going to do? Easy, as Lord Davies of Oldham explained:

My Lords, the UK Government are funding initiatives to address discards, working together with the fishing industry. These include limitations on fishing effort, improving gear selectivity and closures that protect spawning and undersized fish. The UK has also committed, with Denmark and Germany, to trial a catch quota management system. Through the review of the common fisheries policy, we are working towards a European discard policy that applies to all member states, regardless of where they fish.

Very useful, indeed, and has been the policy of successive British governments. Sadly, large amounts of fish are still being discarded because they are caught above quotas and cannot be landed. (Of course, large amounts are landed in various places and sold on the black market, but that's another story.)

Lord Teverson was not pleased.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am rather disappointed. The Secretary of State for the Environment called last month for a ban on waste food, yet he is responsible for discards whereby we throw away a quarter of our most precious species. Is that not obscene, and should not the UK Government insist, in relation to the common fisheries policy, that like Canada, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, we should have a ban on discards? Why cannot the EU do that when other nations can?

I trust that readers of this blog have noticed a certain something all those countries listed as examples of good management by Lord Teverson. Lord Willoughby de Broke made the connection clear:

Could the Minister confirm that the countries mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his second question—countries which all run successful fisheries policies—are all outside the European Union? Would it therefore not be better for this country to follow their path, repatriate the common fisheries policy and run it from the UK in the interests of UK fisheries?

Ah yes, all those countries run their own fisheries policy, something that the Labour Government cannot even envisage and the Conservatives have decided not to include in their election manifesto.

At this point, the Minister made rather a comical comment:

My Lords, there is still the question of who fishes in which waters. The noble Lord will readily accept that the fishing fleet of Spain, for instance, has been significantly expanded in recent years. It is important that we have a common fisheries policy that ensures that the practices that are followed by the Spanish, and to an extent by the French, are the high standards that we are trying to set, particularly with regard to our discard policy for British fishermen.

The Minister or his talented advisers think that the British fisherment should follow rapacious Spanish practices? How very odd. And while we are on the subject, why and how has that Spanish fishing fleet expanded? Did that have anything to do with the amount of Structural Funds the EU poured into the Spanish fishing industry? Not possible.

Nor is it possible that the Minister could say with a straight face in response to the Countess of Mar's very reasonably question about the logic behind discards:

My Lords, the fishermen have to make a living. Their problem is that only certain fish are marketable and economic to land, to say nothing of the fact that new gear tends to catch in its nets a whole lot of sea animals and fish that are really not edible and which are therefore discarded. The noble Countess is right; we want to change the gear that is used so that it is appropriate for the commercial fish to be landed. That is exactly what the British Government are seeking to achieve.

Marketable? Economic to land? Nothing to do with quotas then? Dear, dear. I was not present at the debate so I cannot tell my readers whether the Minister's nose lengthened just a tad but if it did not, Jiminy Cricket was not listening.

While we are on the subject of what the British Government are seeking to achieve, there was a Written Statement [scroll down] on January 21 about the outcome of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. This is what was said about those negotiations:

With regard to fisheries and the technical conservation measures regulation, council reached political agreement (with the UK and Ireland voting against) on an interim compromise for 18 months only of the current annual provisions governing mesh sizes, gear types and catch composition, having failed to agree the main framework proposal. This was in the context of the impending entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, which would require co-decision with the European Parliament on this aspect of fisheries. An absence of any decision would have left a legal gap on such technical measures from 1 January 2010 given that current measures are in the annual fishing opportunities regulation, which will remain as a council-only decision.

The UK and Ireland worked very hard in bilaterals with the presidency and the Commission to find an acceptable solution. The Commission was inflexible, claiming that the relaxation of the relevant catch composition measures would be detrimental to haddock stocks. The UK asserted that this had no effect on fishing mortality and merely led to increased discarding. Regrettably, the presidency was not able to accept UK and Irish requests and a final compromise was agreed with no concessions offered. Agreement was reached by qualified majority, with the final formal adoption by written procedure by 30 November.

In other words, Britain and Ireland, still the possessors of the richest fishing waters (though not for much longer if the CFP stays in place) were outvoted and achieved nothing. So much for our efforts and influence.

UPDATE: Link at the top has been changed to the correct one.

Fisheries and discards

A Written Question by the Lord Teverson asked Her Majesty's Government

what was the total tonnage of fish caught by the United Kingdom-registered fishing fleet from species regulated by Common Fisheries Policy quotas in the past year for which the figure is available; and what was the total tonnage of those fish that were discarded.

The response was somewhat complicated and, dare one say it, inadequate. It seems that, to a great extent, HMG does not know the tonnage of fish that has been discarded (because according to the Common Fisheries Policy, it is over the amount our fishermen are allowed to catch and land).

As Lord Davies of Oldham explained:

UK fisheries laboratories send observers to sea to record the quantity of fish discarded and retained by fishing vessels. This sampling is intended to provide estimates of discards of the main commercial species, but at present is not representative of all UK fisheries. It is also only possible to sample a proportion of the vessels participating in any fishery. As a consequence, estimates of total discards are subject to uncertainty.

Not precisely helpful, given what a problem those discards are but we do know some:

Estimates of discards for 2008 are available for the following fisheries:

Fleet-English and Welsh vessels over 10 metres in length.Areas-North Sea (ICES area IV), and waters to the south and west of England and Wales (ICES area VII).Species-Demersal quota species (Cod, haddock, plaice, sole, anglerfish etc.).Estimated 2008 catches-37,000t, of which 27,600t were landed and 9,400t discarded.

Fleet-Scottish vessels over 10 metres in length.Areas-North Sea (ICES area IV), and west of Scotland (ICES Division Vla). Species-Cod, haddock, whiting and saithe.Estimated 2008 Catches-91,700t of which 56,600t were landed and 35,100t discarded.Fleet-UK vessels fishing for pelagic species. Areas-All areas. Species-Mackerel, horse mackerel, herring, sprat, blue whiting. Estimated 2008 Catches-203,200t of which 198,300t were landed and 4,900t discarded.

In total these fisheries are estimated to have caught around 332,000t of the relevant species in 2008, of which 283,000t was landed and 49,000t were discarded.

Thus, we can see that even for the limited areas for which there are estimatesof discards, we are talking about quite a lare amount of fish that is caught and discarded.

While we are on the subject of discards, let us not forget that the first thing the Boy-King of the Conservative Party did on becoming leader is to discard the very sensible fisheries policy produced by the Boss of EUReferendum and the then Conservative spokesman on the subject, Owen Paterson, and adopted by Michael Howard.

It so happens, that yesterday I was outlining the story of the Conservative fisheries policy and David Cameron to a political journalist who described herself as a "europhobe" but who was so mesmerized by the Punch and Judy show that British politics had become that she refused to see anything beyond the notion of getting rid of Gordon Brown and giving David Cameron a chance.

What of his performance over the fisheries policy? Perfectly understandable, she said. When Cameron became leader he had to get rid of the swivel-eyed, europhobic image to make the party electable. Comments like this from highly intelligent and knowledgeable people make me despair.

Response number one is that the Conservative Party was never eurosceptic, let alone europhobic except in the fevered imagination of the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent.

Response number two is that even if that had been true, a rational reorganization of our fisheries policy (which would, indeed, have entailed coming out of the CFP but had many other aspects) would have been popular among a very large proportion of the population and even the chattering classes, as the CFP is universally acknowledged to be a social, economic and ecological disaster. Nothing swivel-eyed even for the Guardian in getting rid of the concept of discards. Yet Cameron discarded the policy, presumably because he did not want to upset the Colleagues. Or, maybe, he thinks it is a good idea. Who knows?