A Fisheries Forecast: "Easterly, slight - or moderate, falling slowly..."

This map! "40 yrs of high quality cod discards"... "A Sea of Opportunity" including the UK Continental Shelf Limit," the implications of "turning this over to common grazing" in the 1970's"... [The CFP] "is simply unfit for purpose... "MP's/MEP's who simply know nothing about Fishing".

This blog brings to the reader's attention: Select Committees - Brexit and Fisheries Committee: Sub-committee session on the impact of Brexit on fisheries with evidence from academics, from Wednesday 7 September.  A lot of this reconnects to the arguments fairly well made in FLEXCIT and from John Ashworth's The Betrayal of Britain's Fishing to the European Union.

It's worth watching. Why? If you happened to catch this evening's Newsnight A look at David Cameron's legacy, the future of the EU this topic has already been covered in the previous blog: Sunday Reading: The Political Tea Leaves of Brexit


There's too much "adversarial nonsense" or "noise" mixed into the Newsnight report from people with their own "filters" operating. Read the blog for a more accurate summary. However if you watch the above select committee on Fisheries it as previously recognized, acts as an exemplar of the "problem - solution - outcome" triangle recognized previously and a model of other patterns that will also operate in other policy areas. For example, some of the core themes that pervade a lot of the prominent communication concerning Brexit:-

• "Hard vs Soft Brexit" in purely technical terms.
• Achieving Brexit for the UK "legitimately" at the same time as dealing with EU and other International Implications of this or "resonance".
• Coordinating the "public relations" of Brexit Negotiations.
• Above all building a conceptual framework from which all the above take their relative meanings

Final point will be revisited in a subsequent blog, it's been mentioned previously in the blog under "intellectual architecture" from Dr. RAE North. One point to bring up here that the Select Committee fails to start with or "beginning to begin" appropriately: The history of the UK's Fisheries that John Ashworth documents in the above booklet. Here the general themes of leaving the EU and the CFP connect, see Dr. North's latest monograph for expanding this same idea from for example here, one policy area, to the entire subject of leaving the EU:-

LEAVE ALLIANCE: Brexit Monograph 12 - Taking back control

Barrie Deas (National Federation of Fisherman's Organizations (NFFO) stated that UK's Fisheries has become "emblematic" since the question of UK membership of the EU has been put to national debate through the EU Referendum political process. This is historic and cultural and social value even if GDP value is not that significant, for very simple example:-

Does this map look familiar or sound familiar!

The BBC Shipping Forecast, was definitely something I grew up hearing, with it's strange but familiar language litany, for example:-

• Viking

- Wind: "Easterly or southeasterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 later."

- Sea State: "Slight or moderate." 

- Weather: "Fog patches." 

- Visibility: "Moderate or good, occasionally very poor."
The NFFO's chairman's report:

"The referendum on 23rd June, which decided that UK should leave the EU, represents a seismic change for the UK fishing industry. We are taking the view that there may be risks and pitfalls associated with this monumental change of direction but overall, this is a huge opportunity to reshape the management of our fisheries to the great benefit of our fishing industry and coastal communities. The Common Fisheries Policy has taken us down many blind alleys over the years. Now a new era beckons. This will not be without its own challenges; but the very fact that the fickle and cumbersome European co-decision process will no longer be the arbiter of our fate, is tremendously liberating." 

Bertie Armstrong (Scottish Fisherman's Federation (SFF)) makes an excellent distinction: (1st) The removal of the CFP not because they dislike rules, but because it is a system with too many rules that go wrong and hence "A Sea Of Opportunity" to revise this system in a more coherent and better managed way. He also makes the telling point that (2nd) the negotiations will be concluded at "the macro" level that for any given policy, in this case Fisheries (partly it's GDP ratio) it will not be a "pure debate" concerning the given policy in question in a political vacuum. This echoes the predictions made in FLEXCIT's introduction, (p.55 current version 13 July 2016 v.08) on the matter encapsulated in reversing the quote:-

Famously summarised by lead negotiator, Con O'Neill, he described his strategy as: "Swallow the lot, and swallow it now". which is the title component to the above monograph 12 requote.


So far I've quoted from the second session. The first session very much aligns with this quote above, from the expert witnesses:-

• Dr. Bryce Stewart
• Professor Richard Barnes
• Robin Churchill

Some notes on their contribution in summary:-

1. Discards is an area that requires resolving positively from Brexit.
2. Access Controls are a key part of management and compromise.
3. The degree of control over policy is deeply connected to North East Atlantic Fisheries eg (NEAFC) this is already evident with Norway and the EU cooperation for example.
4. All 6 agree that the fundamental zone of control or EEZ aligns with UNCLOS. Robin Churchill goes through the history of this and concludes that the 12 mile border and 200 mile border or median line take effect through his interpretation of preceding subsequent EEC and derogation matters with respect to the UK's Fisheries Sovereignty. "Historic Rights" could be assessed through this perspective it seems, too, interestingly.
5. Interconnection exists in Trade using variable economic measures in different sea food subsets eg shellfish or scollops differentials and then total percentages to the EU or other nations. Margins are often fine in multiple areas around fisherman (11,000) for example food processing or fish and chip shops rising (120,000) etc.
6. DEFRA's responsibilities will rise at the same time as it's capacity to absorb these changes has fallen with budget cuts. Alternative funding from EU sources will have to be arranged in other areas eg Lobsters for Baronness Wilcox's constituency.
7. The regulations that currently operate are not so easy to remove without already being in place a full substitute system, this will take a lot of time!
8. The UK will be open to join other Fisheries "Bodies" either international bodies or nations agreements and so forth which is useful.
9. Dr. Bryce Stewart was particularly interested in the fundamentals of a data-driven natural resource as the primary signal to economic yield, effectively sustainable stock maxima will lead to a economic yield maxima with the context of a dynamic stock that may absolutely grow and hence grow the above ratio, given the decline of Fisheries eg the pyramid base of sand eels from CFP. This had critical implications for "TAC" (Total Allowable Catch).
10. All three strongly agreed led by Professor Richard Barnes that the UK should be some sort of "adjunct member" of the CFP as a transitional measure or for example ISIS (An Integrated Sea information System) would continue it's functions for the UK for data as one visible example.
11. For example the current Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ's) were already a step in the right direction for reversing declines in fish stocks as some of the CFP had improved... but if you read Dr. North's latest monograph you'll see the core principles behind it's significant and long lasting failures.

Again coming back to Bertie Armstrong for a third valuable insight into a principle of regaining "control", (3rd) the perception difference is that cooperation allows compromise on access, but that the key to regaining this Policy was "prescription" as Norway currently enjoys when it allows other nations' fishing boats to fish in it's waters. This is useful policy to combine with the work of John Ashford concerning the absolute necessity to work with "immediate data" to feedback from the sustainable resource to the economic sustainable yield with the secondarily, cooperation of the actual fishermen, instead of criminalizing them. This point was further elaborated on differences in technical gear usage rules between zones (EEZ's) which the experts agreed was not necessarily a problem so long as the fishermen knew what the the rules were, given the above logic of using such equipment, eg John Ashworth's work explores this in greater detail.

Finally, perhaps I merely remember Bertie Armstrong's contributions more than the others hence I requote him again, despite the others all being very useful and informative: The key from the future of Brexit concerning Fisheries is The Positive Vision, that means the UK with it's factual assets could be become a (4th)  WORLD LEADER IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT and it's critically needed:-

Advancing conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (IUCN)

• NOTING that nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean is beyond national jurisdiction, and that this area provides valuable ecological, economic, social and cultural benefits;

• CONCERNED that marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is being significantly reduced by certain human activities, and noting the need to protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), such as by establishing  marine reserves or other types of marine protected areas;

• RECALLING the recommendation in the marine crosscutting theme at the IUCN World Parks Congress (Sydney, 2014) to urgently increase the ocean area that is effectively and equitably managed in ecologically representative and well-connected systems of MPAs or other effective conservation measures. This network should target protection of both biodiversity and ecosystem services and should include at least 30% of each marine habitat. The ultimate aim is to create a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no-extractive activities;

 

Mapping plastic in the ocean

Here's a picture of a beach I was walking along today:-

I picked up a very large bag of plastic rubbish washed up or left on the beach, mostly plastic bottles. Such a beautiful resource for the UK, I hope the future leads to more jobs looking after it.

The final point to add: As well as the "emblematic social/cultural and historic factors, the geographical and biological fact of of UK Fisheries must be the foundation from which good policy and hence good governance of this natural resource can be achieved and the relevant expertise exercised on a global and world level: Truly a positive vision.

The Betrayal Of Britains Fishing - Booklet

The Betrayal of Britain's Fishing to the European Union ~ John Ashworth

The Betrayal of Britain’s Fishing – Booklet now available

"Readers who appreciated John Ashworth’s excellent series of articles on the Common Fisheries Policy will be delighted to know that the eight pieces he wrote for this website have been edited into a single booklet, which is now available free of charge (although any contributions would be greatly welcomed).

If you live in near a fishing port, it will be a particularly useful booklet to distribute, but even if you don’t, what has happened to our fishing industry does not stand alone. This well-researched and hard-hitting account of the destruction of our fishing fleet by government ministers and civil servants epitomises everything that is wrong with our membership of the EU and provides a very powerful reason as to why we should vote to leave. Please contact admin [at] campaignforanindependentbritain [dot] org [dot] uk if you wish to order copies."

 
You can read the above booklet at the link provided or order a physical copy of the booklet by John Ashworth via The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) again using the link or email contact address above.

I previously blogged about this subject and John Ashworth's work as it was being written up at CIB. There's a very very strong reason why it is one of the best works ever produced on Brexit or the EU and with respect to Fisheries as a Political Argument, possibly the best I have personally read. I think I am right in being able to successfully convey this reasoning via the efficacious illustration that I hope will be immensely valuable for framing and structuring conceptual understanding to the work and the factual research and details it's based upon and the core principles from which it continuously refers and repeats and rigorously demonstrates - in reality:-

Useful 'Thinking Framework' for John Ashworth's magnificent work

The Booklet is only 31 pages in total length including supplementary pages. Please take time to sit down and read it and think about it. If you do, you'll have, I'm absolutely sure and confident, understood the core arguments of the EU Referendum and Brexit as applied to a specific policy area: Fisheries. But the principles are transferable to all other policy areas; and hence it is an encapsulation of the complete argument - By reading this booklet you will have successfully learn the core or "kernel" of the political argument concerning the UK's Referendum on its EU membership and its alternative, Brexit; by which you will be informed enough to know how to vote either "Remain" or "Leave".

This booklet really is that valuable.

Many Thanks to John Ashworth for producing such a useful work.

FLEXCIT Application: 3. Fisheries Outcomes

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

To recap we have correctly described the problem and it's correct context. We've then looked a the solution that draws away FROM the problem and now look at where/what we are transitioning TO: The Outcomes.

How do we come to outcomes? Quoting the Fisheries Green paper by Owen Paterson above:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

We have a true competition of ideas, the use of scientific method and the coherent integration of all dependent parties. This is the effective outcome that is better than the problem from which we desire to remove if we find the means to make it possible.

You can see that by looking at some of the best cases of Fisheries Management Systems from around the world, lessons can be learnt and applied, successfully. However they can only do this if the UK has Fisheries Policy Control restored to it's government in service of it's people and their ownership of their own resources: Themselves and their nation!

For example using the summary of the above paper on such policy proposals:-

"From that experience, backed by extensive discussions with scientists, experts, fishermen and environmentalists, we have devised a policy framework tailored to suit the specific requirements of the UK.  

It is based on the following principles":

• Effort control based on “days at sea” instead of fixed quotas
• A ban on discarding commercial species
• Permanent closed areas for conservation
• Provision for temporary closures of fisheries
• Promotion of selective gear and technical controls
• Rigorous definition of minimum commercial sizes
• A ban on industrial fishing
• A prohibition of production subsidies
• Zoning of fisheries
• Registration of fishing vessels, skippers and senior crew members
• Measures to promote profitability rather than volume
• Effective and fair enforcement

 It's clear to see from this map that the UK Fisheries Zones are enormously important Policy Competence for the UK to manage and govern responsibly and productively

The objective of this blog is to summarize and not "rehearse" nor "rehash" argument without attempting to provide more perspectives and alternative ways of combining and organizing information. So more of the above can be read via the particular paper quoted.

Here there's something worth pointing out: We need Policy Control returned to our government. But that government also needs to be Self-Governing. What does that mean? Most arguments take this to mean:-

Sovereignty = Self-Governing + Policy Control

In short-hand I would argue. Here we then see that this headline container of "Sovereignty" vs Supranationalism shapes so much of the arguments. Our Prime Minister David Cameron on this subject:-

David Cameron: "You have an illusion of sovereignty but you don't have power"

A Great Deception or An Illusion of Sovereignty?

 ~~ Thought Exercise Intermission ~~

This is one of the almost classic examples of when you know someone is either lying or deceiving (Tony Blair) but you can't necessarily explain how. To suggest that the UK must give up Sovereignty to have power is actually telling us how Mr. Cameron views the world and it's that the UK/"you" means those in charge of the people of the UK - not the people themselves. Now this minor intermission, is worth a pause: Repeat that phrase to yourself several times by rereading it and apply it as sort of "interpretation filter" the next numerous occasions you happen to be listening to a politician involved in a senior capacity in our own Westminster Parliament and note if this is the filter their own mental models tend to hint at: How they really see themselves: As masters or as servants of the British people?

Fortunately we can rely again on John Ashworth to clear up this question of Sovereignty and define our REAL PREDICAMENT and hence allow us to depart from Babel-17 - finally after 4 detailed blogs.

Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty 

There is a massive difference between loss of sovereignty, and what has actually happened. Our Westminster Parliament has “lent” sovereignty to the European Union. We start with the classic definition of sovereignty given by A. V. Dicey in his “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”:

• “The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that ‘Parliament’ has ‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.

This means that Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972. By doing so, Parliament — not the EU, not the European Court of Justice, but Parliament — decided to accept the obligations of EU membership for the UK. Parliament has continued to exercise its sovereignty in passing the legislation necessary to implement every EU amending treaty since the Single European Act 1986.

Therefore the UK Parliament is and remains sovereign. That is not affected one millimetre or one inch by the Lisbon treaty. As our own courts have ruled, by Lord Justice Laws:-

• “The fundamental legal basis of the UK’s relationship with the EU rests with the domestic not the European legal powers.”

John Ashworth makes the product of understanding our Sovereignty very clear: "We cannot change European Law."

This, however, is exactly what Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to do and explains why on becoming party leader he dumped the policy of returning fisheries to national control and why before this, he had been so opposed to Michael Howard’s letter outlining the course of using the supremacy of parliament to obtain national control of fisheries, because he has no intention of using the British legal order.

To quote David Howarth again: it is of our own doing that we are in this club. (The EU) While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rules—they can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

Nine deceptions in our history with the EU

"To get back up to the shining world from there; My guide and I went into that hidden tunnel; . . .Where we came forth, and once more saw the stars." ~ Dante Alighieri: The Divine Comedy - Inferno Canto XXXIV:70-139 The Poets leave The Nine Circles of Hell

What is so interesting is that here with Fisheries we have the echo of the greater argument with which not only the details of a specific policy are in harmony with but also the entire philosophical principles and derivations from such principles or axioms of argument themselves when we now return to the present and see for ourselves The Great Deception in full operation via our own Prime Minister:-

Politicians: Ahead of the Law (for now...)

• EU Referendum: treaty fraud
• EU Referendum: papering over the lies
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal - 1
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 2
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 3 
• EU Referendum: debunking the deal

Dr. RAE North has suggested that what is needed is a Positive Vision, an offer that is worth travelling through that dark tunnel or across that bridge: What lies beyond? It is very easy to get bogged down by the deceptions and lose the vision. But if we have not lost our Sovereignty what are we to gain from leaving?

The European Union LEX: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Summaries

So hopefully we've concluded that via the European Communities Act 1972 we have "lent" our Fisheries Policy competence and hence self-governance to the EU as per the above applicable to the UK. We've decided that for this policy there is a problem and we have identified the solution to remove that problem: So what does the Outcome look like? In detail looking at the summaries provided we want to separate the Political Agenda of the EU (Supranationalism) from the Technical and Scientific Frameworks in accordance with good Self-Governance.

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

• Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. 
• an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union [COM(2007) 575 
• Towards the integration of maritime surveillance: A common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain [COM(2009) 538
• Developing the international dimension of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union [COM(2009) 536
• Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean [COM(2009) 466
• “Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integrated maritime governance and stakeholder consultation” [COM(2008) 395
• Recommendation 2002/413/EC - Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe

Some of the integration measures here will help with cooperation practically so they are positive, but where they are political they are perhaps negative as we have seen. Effectively leaving the EU is removing the "Ever Closer Union" political attribution but keeping the cooperative trading and conservation agendas. Let's think about these as the source of an alternative positive oucome or vision:-

 We've decided we can do a much better job ourselves under our own policy control!

And here is the problem as John Ashworth has remarked: We have to swallow the entire EU acquis including Fisheries and the rules therein and this is why this policy has not improved because of our own government.

If we look at the EU's Management of Fisheries we can do a better job ourselves, but secondly if we look further at the Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation of Marine Ecosystems, which John Ashworth comments on very succinctly in how they essentially work, we see the EU is taking it's lead from:-

Target 6: addressing the global biodiversity crisis

The EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss by meeting the commitments made at the 10th Conference of Parties (COP10) to the 

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Nagoya in 2010. During this conference, the EU committed to:

—	achieving the goals set by the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;

—	implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (ABS Protocol); and

—	mobilising additional resources to finance the challenge of protecting biodiversity world-wide.

Secondly it seems the specific functions that are mutually beneficial perhaps between the EU and European Nations not in the in this policy area:-

• EMODnet
• Copernicus
• Inspire

Then the UK would still contribute and collaborate fully with anyway. Other bodies such as:-

•  OSPAR Commission

"OSPAR is the mechanism by which 15 Governments & the EU cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic."

• KIMO

"KIMO is your local government voice on marine pollution. KIMO engages with the most serious environmental threats using practical, diplomatic and research based approaches."

Outside the EU would equally be involved with the UK.

The picture is a merging of the Global bodies and specialisms with the local bodies and specialism, effectively and removing the excesses and inefficiencies of centralized government where this is negative in this area. In another EU document on this subject:

Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment

"In particular, with regard to the regional conventions, their long track record of scientific and technical competence and ability to act as a bridge with non-EU countries will make them invaluable partners in delivering the EU Strategy. With regard to the existing institutional and legal arrangements at an international/global level (e.g. IMO, UNCLOS) EU policy will be developed within the context of the Green Paper on Maritime Policy."

In particular:

"Community participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs)"

Given the size of the UK's Fisheries more direct specialism and expertise and collaboration in this sphere would seem very productive as per Owen Paterson's Fisheries paper we already mentioned:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

As per the link above on RFO's they in turn are influenced by other global bodies such as FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Then looking at Deep-sea Fish Stocks there is collaboration between an international organization and an EU one:-

• International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
• Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)

 When David Cameron says there's an "illusion of Sovereignty" vs Power (for business in the example he gave) if we compare with Fisheries it's quite clear that the UK gains far more local and global power outside the EU! We remove the problem and additionally have a positive vision of an outcome in collaborating and sharing expertise with global bodies removed of political pollution.

Moving away from the management of Fisheries and into the Commercial Trade Industry for Fisheries, taking Norway as an example outside the EU on Fisheries influence, and now using Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and compare this with the EU's: EU market for fishery and aquaculture products:-

 In FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.1 Replacement and removal of existing law Dr. RAE North provides a summary of the law the UK operates under via domestic and EU sources:-

 What we're seeing therefore is the entire argument about "power" as David Cameron calls it is about the RULES we impose on ourselves and how these are developed and by whom and how we agree to accept them or otherwise. In Fisheries Outcomes we've already seen that this EU Law has some major components:-

• Some is not specific to the UK
• Some of it is engendered with the principles of the EU: "Ever Closer Union"
• Some of it is from global sources who are the specialist in making it.
• Community Law takes precedence over Domestic Law which applies to all members and limits members equally according to "Community Rules" applied equally or equivalently.

With respect to the above market for Fisheries there is a mismatch between the regulatory requirements for example with food products (Horsemeat) and criminal activity which is based on National enforcement of standards. Secondly there is a "Two-Tier Regulation" System argument that fails to acknowledge that standards are increasingly being set at global levels for convergence eg WTO. Dr. RAE North remarks in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 10.1: The EU Role In Global Governance:-

"Nevertheless,  despite  the activity  of  the EU  at  global  level,  there  is  a perverse effect  arising  from  globalisation.  As  more  and  more  issues  are addressed  at global  level,  the  EU  is  losing control  over  its  own regulatory  agenda."

"More than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU's Single Market legislation) falls  within  the ambit  of existing international  organisations and  is thus potentially amenable to global regulation. In   terms   of   detail,   over   33   percent   of   the acquis comprises "technical regulations,  standards,  testing  and  certification".  Much  of  this  is  implemented through standards bodies which will eventually emerge as ISO standards."

Further reference with direct respect to Norway: Norway has no influence? Let's now take a look at Fisheries in this respect to Norway now the wider picture scene is set:-

 So according to Mr. Bjorn Knudtsen he and his nation Norway are ALREADY in the situation we've decided might be hypothetically desirable for the UK in this particular case for Fisheries Policy. We do not need to deliberate, we can decide DECIDEDLY as per international rules on food "Codex was the "top table" and evidently the source of expertise of technical considerations.

This highlighted section is the argument we've been trying to elucidate all this time for the effect that separating EU Supranational Politics from UK Politics (Self-Governance) and hence UK Policy Control (Competence).

We see that Norway has been "from inception to the final formulation of rules" been involved "at every step of the process".

Here encapsulated into Fisheries Policy we have our Positive Outcome!

Norway has no influence?

"Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies few have ever heard of, where the EU takes our seat and negotiates on our behalf. Norway is fully engaged in the process before it gets anywhere near the EU. They are at the top tables with full rights of veto." 

 Abstraction of Outcomes:-

1. Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
2. These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
3. This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
4. The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
5. The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
6. When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
7. Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
8. We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
9. This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
10. Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
11. This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
12. Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.

s

FLEXCIT Application: 2. Fisheries Solutions

 Understanding the Solutions means understanding their context too: Under Supranationalism or Under Intergovernmentalism

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

1. The Solution Defined:-

Before looking at the potential Solutions if we agree that there are indeed problems:

"The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform.  It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea
than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated
fishing communities."

"Fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale; they need local control." ~ Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January, 2005

Then we must establish the exact nature of those Problems, to which John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 provides the exact description of the rules of the EU, how it works:-

"When a Regulation is created, at the top it states the articles within the Treaty the regulation takes its authority from, and as soon as a Regulation comes into force, it in turn becomes what is known as the acquis communautaire:-

• "The Court of Justice has ruled that the EU acquis takes precedence over national law if there is a conflict, and that the acquis may have direct effect in the Member States."

In understanding the workings of the then EEC, now European Union, the above paragraph is probably one of the most important aspects to have to learn.

Firstly – what is this acquis communautaire. -. It is all EEC/EU treaties, EU legislation -(regulation), international agreements, standards, court verdicts, fundamental rights provisions and horizontal principles in the treaties such as equality and non-discrimination. In short, all EU-law.

When Britain joined in January 1973, the acquis communautaire amounted to around 5,000 pages; today it is estimated to be 170,000 pages and growing. When a nation joins, what is now the EU, it has to accept, and comply, with the acquis communautaire in full, without exception, other than with transitional derogations. In addition the existing members have to all agree, to the applying Nation joining under those terms, which in effect the existing members, by Treaty, are endorsing their allegiance/compliance to the acquis communautaire."

 The UK joined the EEC in 1972 and has been a member of the EU for 44 years and a part of the acquis system above. Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.0 Regulatory issues provides a summary of the full weight of membership to this system for the UK:-

"In  this  event, the UK will be obliged to keep all Single Market  regulation in place. This  is an extensive body of law. From May 1992,  when the EEA Agreement encompassed 1,849  legal acts, by  December 2013 it had grown  o 5,758  legislative  acts, out  of  the 20,868  EU  acts  currently  in  orce (Table 3). By the end of October 2015, there were 4,957 acts remaining in force, with EU laws in  force recorded at  23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis stood at 22 percent."

2. The Two-Step Solution Applied (I):-

"Since there would be no obligation to retain the remainder of the acquis, theoretically, leaving  the EU could  give relief from around 15,000 acts (although  by no  means all are  applicable to the UK). Amongst  others,  high profile policies such as the CFP and the CAP, would be amendable to abolition if there was the political will to do so, and the nation was prepared to accept the consequences."

 Of which, Table 3: European Union Legislation in force Fisheries Acts = 1,170.

Solution = transition or "bridge" between Problem and Outcome

If we look at our FLEXCIT model we remind ourselves what is the "problem" we are trying to actually solve. Is it economics? No It's political. We saw in FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems of Supranational membership. This is why "keeping all the Single Market regulations" in place is undertaken on withdrawing from Political Union.

The solution is as per Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT:-

"To  allow time  to revise  our  law  books,  a  holding  process  will  be  needed.  The best option is to repatriate the entire body of EU law, converting it en bloc into British law (by a device similar to the ECA)"

 Hence the solution is to again quote John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.:-

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."

"The first priority, therefore, is that control/competence is returned back to Britain."

Here we have the solution, repatriation of the acquis does mean full "control/competence is returned back to Britain."

3. The Two-Step Solution Applied (II):-

This comes back to the quote above concerning removing Supranationalism to quote Owen Paterson Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters:-

"Since its inception, it has been dominated by political considerations that have had little to do with good fisheries management, so the decline and impending collapse of British fisheries has to be laid squarely at the door of the CFP."

"There is now increasing evidence that the reason for the failure is that the core regime applied by the CFP is irredeemably flawed, not least in terms of its appreciation of fish biology, the quality and interpretation of data, as well as the treatment of fishermen"

To come back to John Ashworth:-

"However, as far as fisheries are concerned, it is no good scrapping one régime in order to establish another equally bad system. Withdrawal presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to show what can be achieved in an area that contains one of the finest marine resources in the world."

John Ashworth: The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.

"But the distinction has been made, once we regain Sovereignty of a national resource, the full British Fisheries Industry scope is set according to International Law that allows Sovereignty to be clearly defined and not obfuscated under Supranationalism (which we see persistent examples of):-
An inshore industry could be built around the 0 -12 mile limit, which would have a beneficial effect on coastal communities through tourism, recreational fishing, employment and other ancillary industries. All could be administered locally."

"The offshore Industry would be based on the 12 to 200 mile/median line, and then you have the straddling stocks and reciprocal arrangements, which brings genuine friendship between fishermen of different nations. When other nation’s vessels fish in our waters they would do so under our rules."

What we see is that there is no "leap in the dark" there is a orderly two-step withdrawal that regains Sovereignty and removes Supranationalism. Remember that the Solution is not the Outcome, it's a bridge FROM Supranationalism TO Intergovernmentalism:-

 This simple distinction is not made by so much of the political commentary on this subject not just say on Fisheries but on Immigration or any other "Policy Outcome Aspirations". The process of transition itself.

What this solutions does not provide (Outcome) it does provide in terms of relief as per Owen Paterson above, relief from Bad Politics interfering with good fisheries management. It also will help provide a stronger scientific and technical basis for Fisheries Conservation, Sustainability and Recovery and hence a thriving industry administered locally by people who have a vested interest in it's welfare and their own. For example John Ashworth again summarizes:-

Two essential features are needed for a viable fisheries policy:-

1. The first is the ability to be able rapidly to close areas down where juvenile fish are abundant. This has to be done within hours, even if the closure period may only last for a day or two. This ability to react quickly will never happen while our waters are under the control of Brussels control.
2. The other important feature of any contemporary fisheries management is the use of selective gear, As a fishing gear designer I need to emphasise that the gear you design for one area is not the same for another area. Even if you are catching the same species, you need to make slight alterations to the gear. This level of adaption is impossible under the policy imposed by Brussels where one set of rules must fit the whole of a large area.

"You must have fishermen on side to make this work, but again, under the North/Paterson proposals, this is far more likely than under the current EU- controlled regime. The attitude it has engendered is that if I don’t catch it, some other foreigner, even though it is another EU citizen, will get it, so I will get in first."

"Personally, I am strongly in favour of the model used by the Faeroe Islanders which operates in a diametrically opposite way to the EU system of setting for each species a total allowable catch on an annual basis, often based on dubious research. In my view it is no good working from the top of the pyramid downwards. Research should be directed at the base of the pyramid upwards; starting with the food source. Once you know the availability here, you can calculate what can be sustained at the top. If for example you have a collapse of the base, you have to fish the top hard, the very opposite to what would happen now."

And on the problems in-built into the "DNA" of the Political "Ever Closer Union" Supranational EU:

"Ranged against us are those who don’t want the Nation State, and those reformists who either don’t understand the workings of the EU, or else who have a hidden agenda. If they really believed in reform, they would want to get rid of the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination. However, such reform is impossible because of the thinking behind the EU Common fisheries policy, which is incapable of beneficial reform along the lines suggested here as it violates the very principles of integration enshrined in the EU treaties which it was designed to promote. Unfortunately, so-called reformists never acknowledge this harsh reality."

"Leaving the EU per se is no solution in itself. It is only the beginning." ~ John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
.

Abstraction of Solutions:-

 

1. Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
2. With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
3. As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
4. In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
5. This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
6. This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
7. It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
8. This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
9. Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
10. We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems

Identifying The Problem: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Save RESTORE Britain's Fish!

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

Fisheries: 1. Problem

1.1 Original Problems:-

The challenge here is to summarize a history stretching from 1970 and even beyond the present past 2020. However that's plenty of time with which to build a very strong evidence basis concerning a problem with Fisheries Policy, to quote FLEXCIT: 14.0 Fisheries:-

"While there are aspects of the CAP which may be tolerable, at least in the short to medium-term, there are no redeeming aspects of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."

To quote and paraphrase John Ashworth's Fisheries work above: At the end of June 1970, just before the UK was in the process of joining the EEC, the original six members "created the Fisheries regulation 2140/70".

"In laymen’s language, that is, on becoming a member of the then EEC, now EU, the fishery limits bestowed on a Nation by International Law, are handed to the EU, to become Community waters, shared equally and without discrimination, with every other Member Nation."

"As Britain had the largest living marine resource within the EU. We had, by our Accession Treaty obligation share it with every other member – end result – our vessels had to go."

"The British people were not told these facts, in fact the very opposite."

What is significant is the timing of this new regulation which became adopted into the acquis communautaire before the UK Prime Minister Heath had completed his formal application for membership to the EEC. And therefore the PM lied about the Fisheries in order to successfully gain membership by adopting the entire acquis as part of the requirement of the EU Treaties rules themselves.

1.2 Continuity of Problems:-

On "EU Reform" applied to Fisheries:-

"This so-called reform is not the CFP, but a political management tool that is a derogation from the CFP, and this “reform” that our British politicians claim to be a wonderful achievement to obtain, is actually part of the political process to full integration – community waters – community fleet – based on non-discrimination, as stated in the Treaties."

Further problems are highlighted by the fact that Norway did not join nor did Iceland and then Greenland left - Because of Fisheries to a large degree. Coupled to this:-

"Spain, whose application was filed in 1977, would join. Indeed, along with Portugal it did join in 1986, bringing a massive fishing capacity with little resource, tipping the capacity to resource ratio the wrong way.Things were further complicated by Greenland leaving the then EEC in 1985, another loss of resource and again, because of fishing."

"Britain tried to secure a 50 mile exclusive fishing zone, and later attempted to seek a higher percentage share of the quota, but the other Member States said, “no, go and read the Treaties” – something the British are not good at."

"The Accession of Spain and Portugal sailed through our Parliament during 1985, without hardly any questions being asked."

"Genuine reform can only be implemented by unanimous agreement. Meanwhile, the integration process rolls onwards and the obliteration of the British fishing fleet continues, in a most devious manner."

The deviousness all came from the British side"

What happened with the "skewed fishing capacity to resource ratio" was that the British politicians had to find a way to decimate the British fishing vessels to make space for the Spanish:-

"These same people had a problem:- knowing full well that the execution of British fishermen had to take place, but having to do it without the British people knowing.

In the second half of the 1980s, and into the 1990s two situations were happening: large amounts of juvenile fish were being dumped dead back into the sea, and the sand eel stocks, which play a crucial role in the food chain, were being hammered.

The industry highlighted these problems, and through some brilliant research by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, groundbreaking information was provided on how, by changes ot the gear design, the small fish would not be caught.

Our own Ministry firstly denied either of the events were taking place then secondly went into silent mode, appearing to want to take no action. At that time we did not appreciate why.

One area where the EU excels is if they have a problem, sometimes a crisis ensues which they can use to solve the problem and  at the same time further the integration process. This is called a beneficial crisis."

1.3 Present Problems:-

"Even now the present Westminster Fisheries Minister George Eustice MP states he is a “strong eurosceptic”, who is pleased with his Ministry’s so called “CFP reform”.

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."

• Equal access: All waters of the member states, up to the shore (base) line is shared equally with every other member state. Apart from during the early 1970s, you never heard the equal access principle mentioned, even though it was created at the very start of the Common Fisheries project – as far back as 1970.
   
• To a common resource: All living marine life is a common resource.
   
• Without discrimination: One of the main principles of the EU membership which our Prime Minister does not want to understand.
   
• Without increasing fishing effort: So if a new member has large capacity and little resource, that capacity has to be absorbed with no increase in catching more which means someone has to go.

"Meanwhile the only “British waters” are so limited that the fishing of those waters thas now been relegated to a cottage industry which only exists thanks to a derogation within the 6 and partial 6 to 12 mile limits, which the other EU member states are under no obligation to renew."

FLEXCIT: Stage 4 - Restoring independent policies ~ 14.0 Fisheries

The  figures  themselves  told  the  story. In 1972,  a  total  of  939,800  tons  was landed  by  British  vessels,  compared  with  145,850  tons  landed  by  foreign vessels. Vessel numbers were then not accurately recorded (and nor indeed was the  entire  UK  catch).  But  in 1995, we  know  that 9,200  fishing  vessels  landed 912,000 tonnes of  fish– not a great difference, but then the CFP was only just beginning to bite."

"In  2002, however,  after  Commission  effects  to  reduce  the  fishing  effort, there were only 7,578 vessels, which landed 686,000 tonnes – a 25 percent reduction in  catches  over  eight  years."

"By  2012,  the  UK  fleet  had  dropped  to  6,406 vessels, comprising 5,032 ten-metre and under vessels and 1,374 over ten-metre vessels. Landings dropped to 627,000 tonnes, with a value of £770 million. But the real contrast came with the imports. In the same year, these reached 638,410 tonnes,  valued  at  £2.6bn.  Of  that,  £797  million  came  from  the  EU-27,  a significant proportion of which were caught in UK waters."

"This  provided  a  graphic  illustration  of  the  way  the  CFP  worked.  Access  to fishing grounds had been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of "equal  access" to  what  was defined  as  a "common  resource"."

Abstraction of Problems:-

1. Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
2. Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
3. Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
4. So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
5. British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
6. Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
7. Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
8. Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.

LeaveHQ: Restore Britain's Fish

EU Reform: Asking The Wrong Question

The jam is not for the wasps: They're considered "a nuisance" to trick, trap & remove

I'm not a fan of jam traps for wasps. I actually do think the best way is to be both careful with sweet foods when outside and to provide an alternative sweet source at some distance elsewhere for the wasps if they turn up. Live and let live. But the trick is clear: The jam of a trap is not for the wasps, they don't know this, as they're simple insects, but it effectively "keeps them out of the way".

Now, why's this important? The reason is that the "EU Reform" is a method to get people out of the way. Another example of this previously used was given by John Ashworth in his history of the Common Fisheries Policy series of articles at Campaign For An Independent Britain:

Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

"To quote David Howarth again: it is of our own doing that we are in this club. (The EU) While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rules—they can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

This causes a dilemma for David Cameron. He has no intention of leaving the EU"

The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?

"One theme that runs through the UK’s 43-year involvement with the EEC/EU is that our politicians –  supported by the Civil Servants – have done everything in their power to keep the UK locked into the Common Fisheries Policy and indeed, to the EU as a whole. There have been constant assurances and promises everything was being done for UK fishermen and the future was guaranteed to be better. There were glowing expectations of what reform would bring.

Yet the opposite has happened. These empty promises merely kept the UK locked into a system which progressively strangled our industry and the fishing communities. Constantly a light of hope and change for the better appeared to be shining at the end of the long tunnel but as you got nearer, the light disappeared further away into another tunnel so as to continue the flow of implementing integration – as commanded in the Treaties – often by stealth. An EU Common policy has one destination, a Union fishing fleet in Union waters."

 It is hard to do better than read John Ashworth's series of articles on the CFP as an exemplar of our relationship with the Political Union EU. But if "EU Reform" is the wrong question, then what is the right question?

It depends.

It is possible to demonstrate the opposite to asking these questions per side of the argument and show that asking the wrong question is the epitome of the art of deception:-

 Sunday Politics: Open Europe are a "EU Reform" aka "Remain" organization asking WHY? Leave questions and leading to deception: "Regulations Bonfire Cut Red-Tape"

If you are on the side of "Remain", you have this question to ask:-

• WHY should we Remain a Member of the Political Union (EU)?

If you are on the side of "Leave", you have this question to ask:-

• HOW should we Leave the Political Union (EU)?