Letters / Confused by his reasoning
Mr Magnie Stewart, in his letter The real CFP (SN; 30/09/14) states:
“Relative stability – or the system of national quotas – does not underpin the CFP, as Mr Sandison mistakenly believes, but underpins the 1983 derogation.”
The letter submitted on my behalf by Mr John Tulloch mistakenly presented part of a quotation as my own words – but the comment that “relative stability… underpins the CFP to this day” is in fact the wording of a House of Lords report from 2008, titled The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy.
This report can be viewed in full here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/146/146.pdf
Mr Stewart further states that, “what was agreed in 1983 was not the CFP, but a derogation from the CFP.”
This is where I get a bit confused by Mr Stewart’s reasoning. Multiple sources refer to 1983 as the year the CFP first become a fully-fledged policy, among them the European Commission’s Eurostat website.
I assume what Mr Stewart means is that the CFP agreed in 1983 is a derogation from the Treaty of Rome, as per the European Court of Justice ruling mentioned in his previous letter A fighting chance (SN; 08/09/14).
The abstract from this letter is not a direct quote – the only search result for the abstract is the letter itself – however I assume what Mr Stewart refers to is a legal case, Case C-246/89 R, concerning the registration of fishing vessels in the UK.
Paragraph 26 of the linked document does indeed rule that the national quota system is a derogation from Article 40(3) of the Treaty of Rome.
However, the paragraph immediately following states that:
“That derogation is justified, according to the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 170/83, by the need, in a situation where there is a dearth of fishery resources, to ensure a relative stability in regard to fishing activities in order to safeguard the particular needs of regions where local populations are especially dependent on fisheries and related industries.”
My understanding is that, under Articles 43(3) and 293 of the Lisbon Treaty, any change to the allocation of fishing opportunities would require to be proposed by the European Commission and passed by qualified majority vote of the European Council, or voted on unanimously by the European Council.
I cannot see how the European Commission could see fit to go against the justification given above by proposing a change that removed the principle of relative stability.
What I also do not understand is why this is presented as almost a unique danger to an independent Scotland.
Mr Stewart says Scotland would have to sign up to the community acquis – the community acquis is an accumulation of all the laws of the European Union and therefore includes all active derogations.
Scotland would be agreeing to its provisions including the derogation that allows relative stability to “underpin” the CFP. Any scenario where this derogation could be removed is surely as much a risk to the United Kingdom including Scotland as it is to an independent Scotland?
Mr Stewart refers to this issue as “water under the bridge”, and he may well be correct. However, I note in the comments to another article, One way or another, change is coming (SN, 29/09/14), that Mr Tulloch continues to refer to the issue of the CFP as a barrier to any future attempts to gain Scottish independence.
Given the huge increase in membership of independence supporting political parties and the clearly remaining desire among many young people for Scottish independence I believe this discussion holds some relevance still.
Toby Sandison
Castle Street
Scalloway
Become a supporter of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider start paying for their dose of the latest local news delivered straight to their PC, tablet or mobile phone.
Journalism comes at a price and because that price is not being paid in today’s rapidly changing media world, most publishers - national and local - struggle financially despite very healthy audience figures.
Most online publishers have started charging for access to their websites, others have chosen a different route. Shetland News currently has over 600 supporters who are all making small voluntary financial contributions. All funds go towards covering our cost and improving the service further.
Your contribution will ensure Shetland News can: -
- Bring you the headlines as they happen;
- Stay editorially independent;
- Give a voice to the community;
- Grow site traffic further;
- Research and publish more in-depth news, including more Shetland Lives features.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a supporter of Shetland News by either making a single payment or monthly subscription.
Support us from as little as £3 per month – it only takes a minute to sign up. Thank you.
Already a supporter? Sign in to hide this message.
