In our Summer 2003 issue, we reported on the Fishery Limits (Great Britain) Amendment Bill, introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Austin Mitchell, MP. Although the Bill did not succeed on that occasion, a broadly similar Bill, the Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill, was introduced in the House of Lords by Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. This Bill received its Second Reading on 17th December 2003 and subsequently passed through all its remaining stages in the Lords. It now goes to the House of Commons where we hope it will fare better this time.
Some brief extracts from the Second Reading debate now follow.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy:...... For 62 years of my life I lived within two miles of Fraserburgh, once one of the biggest and most prosperous fishing ports in the country - once, I believe, the biggest herring port in Europe - founded over 400 years ago by my ancestor. The prosperity of Fraserburgh is very dear to my heart and I have witnessed the decline of the fishing industry on which it depends with great sorrow. ...... The plight of our fishing industry has long been serious and is likely to become more so. ......
Ultimately, we in this country have a far greater interest in the sound management of our fish stocks than do the other member states which fish our fishing grounds and which are anxious to continue fishing our waters because 70 per cent of the European Union fish stocks are in our waters. It is the living of our fishermen and that of their children and grandchildren which is at stake. At present there are many very unhappy fishermen out there - and not only fishermen, for the ancillary businesses are affected too. If the decision on who fished our waters was ours alone, our fishermen would fare much better. That is the reason for the Bill. ......
I turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power, by affirmative order, to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy on such a date as he shall determine, regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.
Clause 2 amends the Fishery Limits Act 1976 so that foreign fishing boats not registered in a country with a fisheries agreement with the United Kingdom would be forbidden to enter United Kingdom fishery limits. Fishermen from the European Union would be specifically forbidden to fish within fishery limits unless their respective countries are designated access under the 1976 Act. No country would be so designated unless reciprocal rights to fish in its waters were granted to UK fishing boats and they observed the same conservation measures as those applied within British fishery limits, or more stringent ones. ......
This is an enabling Bill. It does not take the United Kingdom out of the Common Fisheries Policy; it merely enables the Secretary of State to make an order to do so - an order which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. But I hope that it will send a very clear signal to the Council of Ministers that people in this country are becoming very fed up and, by so doing, will give the Minister responsible for negotiations with the Council a stronger hand to play.
Lord Palmer:...... I think that everyone involved in the UK fishing industry would agree that the so-called science on which Brussels bases its decisions is disastrous for the Common Fisheries Policy and is hopelessly flawed. To give one small example, the white fishing boats in Scotland have been reduced from 351 to just 135, which means in reality that each vessel has a 1,000 square mile radius in which to fish. ......
Any outsider looking at the fact that there are EU grants to decommission with one hand and grants to build new boats with the other would agree what a farce the CFP has become.
My biggest worry is the long-term future for our fishermen and indeed for their families. I live close to the small fishing port of Eyemouth on the Berwickshire coast, and I am particularly concerned about all the ancillary businesses which are naturally affected by the CFP. In sparsely populated areas, fishermen and their ancillary trades have little or no opportunity to diversify. It is for that reason that my noble friend will have my full support in this enabling Bill. I hope that it will receive a quick passage through Parliament and Royal Assent before it is too late.
Lord Kimball:...... There is no time to lose in re-establishing our 200-mile limit round the coast of this country, excluding all fishing boats except those with an exchange of access agreement - those represented by the Faroes, Iceland, Ireland and Norway.
The future of the sand eels is important in the food chain for both our fish and birds. At the last count, the Danes were taking no less than 8,140 tonnes of sand eels each year to put in their power stations to generate power. The UK industry is taking anther 1,800 tonnes of sand eels to sell to the Danes; the Norwegians are taking slightly less. That is more than the sand eel population can stand. Even the European Commission recommends that we should cut by no less than 2,000 tonnes the number of sand eels taken next year.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth introduced a debate on the future of the Atlantic salmon round the Scottish coast. When a young salmon goes to sea in its second or third year as a smelt, it needs a good fill of sand eels to get it to the plankton off Ireland. If it does not get that, it will not get there. The supply of sand eels is now so short that most smelt salmon never reach their growing areas so that they can return to this country as grilse or salmon. If the salmon are to return to this country, to the river of their birth, we need the Bill to control the loss of salmon illegally swept up in the nets of the new types of fishing boat.
Having spent 40 years of my life in Sutherland, I know that, especially in the spring, when the fishing was bad, we went to Handa Island off the north-west coast. The population of puffins, terns, razorbills and guillemots was enormous, but during the past 20 years, since the Danes started fishing for sand eels, that population has vanished. The situation is now serious and I hope that the Bill will allow us to control our own fisheries policy, instead of being dictated to by Europe.
The Earl of Erroll:...... The Bill gives British fishermen a stake in their own future, because they will feel and know that their children will benefit from their restraint. With luck, they will stop over-fishing. If one feels that one is passing something on to one's own flesh and blood or one's community, one does something about it. That worked well with the cod recovery in either Iceland or Greenland. People who know more than myself will talk about that. People will even invest in the industry.
In the south-west there was an initiative to reintroduce lobsters where they had been over-fished. That went well. If people cannot protect that, there is no point in such initiatives. If, suddenly, strangers and foreigners can come and raid what people feel is their own property, there is no point in investing for the future. But if one gives them ownership, they will defend that. The Bill is important, because it starts to move in the right direction. ......
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the question which must by now be occurring to any normal person listening to or reading this debate is: "How on earth did we get into this mess?". The answer is, as usual, in our disastrous relationship with the European Union - in that the British people, and even Parliament, were deceived by the Government of the day. .......
On 13th December 1971 Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, who was negotiating the United Kingdom's access to what was then the Common Market, reported to the House of Commons on the outcome of the final meeting in Brussels which had sealed the fate of one of our most important assets. Mr. Rippon claimed that any "outstanding problems" on fisheries had been resolved. He said the Community had been persuaded of the need to protect Britain's vital interests, both by conserving fish stocks and by protecting "the livelihoods of our fishermen". He then claimed: it is clear that we retain full jurisdiction of the whole of our coastal waters up to 12 miles.
That was simply not true. First, what he had signed meant that British boats would only have exclusive rights to fish out to six miles, and our control over access between six and twelve miles had been limited. Secondly, that was allowed only under a ten-year derogation which was to expire on 31st December 1982, after which it could only be extended by unanimity. The derogation could thus be ended by a single veto. Thirdly, the United Kingdom had conceded the most important principle of all: namely, the power of Brussels to control our fishing waters right up to our beaches. Even in the six-mile zone, our fishermen would have to comply with Community rules. And when the 200-mile limit was introduced in 1977 at the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, and was accepted by the EEC, our waters were given away entirely.
No doubt desperate to hide how much the UK had conceded, Mr. Rippon told the House of Commons: I must emphasise that these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.
Members of the other place were not able to see the actual wording of the accession treaty until after it was signed, a month later. Only then did it become clear how they had been misled by Mr. Heath and his government. So that is a little of the story of how we were deceived into signing up to the Common Fisheries Policy. As I have said, the whole saga is set out in devastating detail in The Great Deception [reviewed in this issue].
It is perhaps worth repeating what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun said: that when we joined what is now the European Union we owned some 70 to 75 per cent of the fish which swam in all EEC waters. Now we are allowed to land, I think, some 25 per cent of the catch allowed by Brussels; and it is this transition which has caused the devastation to which other noble Lords have referred.
When we use the expression "allowable catch", we see another lunacy of the Common Fisheries Policy. This is that the Martians in Brussels presumably thought that they could practise conservation by limiting the amount of fish landed in port. They do not seem to have realised - probably because they had never been to sea - that when the nets come up, nearly all the fish in them are dead. So all fish beyond the "allowable catch" have to be thrown back dead, as the noble Lady said. The European Commission admitted not so long ago that some four million tonnes of dead fish are thus thrown back dead into the sea every year - good for the seabed, no doubt. That is conservation for you, a la Brussels.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: When Britain foolishly agreed to a common fisheries policy in 1972, as a price for entry to the Common Market, only nine countries were involved. That was bad enough, but now that 25 countries have a finger in the fishing pie, the Common Fisheries Policy will surely be completely unmanageable. That can only end in complete disaster. This is an opportune time to reclaim our fishing industry before another ten countries join the EU next May. Furthermore, the policy of withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy is gaining support from all sides, as the debate last week in another place showed. That debate showed that it was not only the Official Opposition calling for the repatriation of fishing, but also speakers from other political parties.
Mr. Whittingdale quoted figures to show that, since 1995, there had been a 25 per cent reduction in fishing boats and a 33 per cent drop in fish landed in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, the decline had been even more marked, with a 60 per cent reduction in boats, resulting in an annual loss of income of £300 million a year directly, and £755 million if ancillary industries are taken into account. Those figures were quoted in the House of Commons and were not challenged. ......
Like fishing, the UK has been adversely affected by the disaster of the Common Agricultural Policy, which has destroyed much of our agricultural production and caused many farmers and farm workers to leave the land altogether. We pay a net contribution of £3.5 billion a year into the EU, which could be used for good purposes in this country, including to assist the fishing industry. Even on trade we run an annual adverse balance of some £4.5 billion; that is the equivalent to the loss of 185,000 British jobs, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The constant stream of regulations reduces the competitiveness of British industry. It is quite clear that, in any cost-benefit analysis, it is not worthwhile to sacrifice the fishing industry any further.
The previous Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, talked about wanting Britain to be "at the heart of Europe"; like many others, he seemed to believe that it was possible to go further and further into the European Union enterprise while somehow retaining the essence of self-government.
The present Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, is a different kettle of fish. He is the most pro-EU Prime Minister since Edward Heath, and would willingly sign up to the whole package tomorrow - the euro, the constitution and all. His problem is that the British people remain resolutely opposed to this. There is little likelihood that he can win a referendum on giving up the pound, and there is also strong opposition to the proposed EU constitution.
Mr. Blair has recently sought to bolster his desired image as a leader of the EU at a three-way summit with President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schr”der of Germany. But this backfired on him when it became apparent that he was the outsider, unable to break into the controlling Franco-German axis. President Chirac confirmed this by pouring cold water on Mr. Blair's aspirations, saying of the Franco-German relationship:
It is not something that can be transposed or exported in the short term. It is a very intense relationship which is illustrated by our regular, almost daily, contacts. It is inappropriate to compare the relationships.
Mr. Blair's desires are clearly every bit as unrealistic as Mr. Major's were. The only sustainable system is to have a Europe of self-governing nations, co-operating with each other but not controlled by a supranational power. We in Britain should be doing all we can to bring this about. If we were able to reform the EU from within, well and good. But if experience shows that this is not possible - and the record hardly offers grounds for hope - then Britain should withdraw, not only to protect our own essential interests, but to show other European countries that there is also an alternative for them.
* * *
On 10th June we will have the elections to the European Union's so-called Parliament. This "Parliament", an attempt to give the fundamentally undemocratic European Union a veneer of democracy, is rightly held in low esteem by the electorate. At its last elections, in 1999, the turnout in the United Kingdom was just 23 per cent.
The Government has tried to give this year's turnout a boost by postponing the local elections, normally held in May, so that they will now be held on the same day as the Euro-elections. Despite this, many people will again boycott the Euro-elections.
Others will vote, albeit with an element of distaste, to try to send people to Strasbourg and Brussels who will use their position to expose the reality of the European Union.
Whether you vote or not, there will be public meetings and hustings at which candidates can be quizzed and at which our points can be made. We encourage our readers to make good use of any such meetings which may be taking place in their locality.
The League established this prize in 1999 in memory of Reg Simmerson, a strong supporter of our cause who was particularly noted for prolific letter-writing to the press. His letters, always pithy and forceful, appeared regularly in many newspapers and periodicals. Latterly he expanded this activity to include radio phone-in programmes, to which he also became a frequent contributor.
The prize, of £25, is awarded annually to the writer of the published letter which, in the opinion of the Editor of Britain, has done most to further the aim of the League. There were several entries for the 2003 prize, and among the runners-up was an excellent letter by Mr. Derek James, a former Chairman of the League, which appeared in The Sunday Telegraph in January, noting the thirtieth anniversary of British entry into the European Economic Community and calling to mind the deceptions employed by the Heath administration to railroad Britain into EEC membership.
The prize for 2003 has been awarded to Miss Marie Endean, of Upper Woolhampton, Berkshire. Miss Endean is well known for her long-standing commitment to our cause and for her active part in the Berkshire branch of the Campaign for an Independent Britain. Her letters are published frequently in her local press and occasionally in the national press.
The letter for which the prize was awarded appeared in the Newbury Weekly News on 27th March, 2003, and is re-printed below.
The United States of Europe will suppress public and political life
Sir,
The draft constitution of the proposed European superstate is
published on the website of the European Commission http://www.europa.eu.int.
The United States of Europe to be set up will be
totalitarian, run by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and will
invade and suppress all areas of our political and public life:
our foreign and defence policy, taxation, economic and social
justice, movement of persons, goods, services, capital,
competition rules, public health, free speech - virtually all
areas of government.
In January, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked the Government how
many of the all-powerful regulations Brussels had issued since
Britain had joined the European Community in 1973. Lady Symons,
Deputy Leader of the Lords, gave year-by-year figures showing
the total as 101,811.
Lord Stoddart then urged that details of the regulations be
made available to Parliament but she refused because the numbers
involved were so many that it would incur "disproportionate
cost".
That's how fettered we already are! Without doubt, the only
way we can escape the proposed EU mad-house will be our
resounding "no" in a referendum.
Yours faithfully,
MARIE ENDEAN
Upper Woolhampton, Berks.
Although the draft EU Constitution has gone away for now, it
will be re-introduced sooner or later, so Miss Endean's warning
remains timely.
Nominations for the 2004 prize, whether your own letter or
someone else's, may be submitted to the Editor at any time
during the year.
This 32-minute video exposes the facts about EU corruption,
the destruction of the British system of justice, and plans for
a United States of Europe, in which the British Parliament would
be by-passed and perhaps even abolished.
It is available from the League's Worcester Park address at
£6 each, two for £10 or five for £20.
The Great Deception - the Secret History of the European
Union
Christopher Booker and Richard North
Continuum ISBN 0-8264-7105-6
454pp. £20.00
Viewed from the outside world it would appear to the casual
observer that some members of the Euro-sceptic movement never
fail to miss an opportunity to build cohesion of purpose and
solidarity within the ranks of those who call themselves
Euro-sceptic or Euro-realist.
Two of the best known and most highly respected anti-EU
polemicists, Christopher Booker, he of Sunday Telegraph
fame, and Dr. Richard North, late of the EDD Group (Europe of
Democracies and Diversities - the group to which the UK
Independence Party belongs) in the Brussels parliament, have
joined forces to write yet another tour de force called
The Great Deception - the Secret History of the European
Union.
Their efforts have been panned by the only two other reviews
of The Secret History that I have read. What is hard to
countenance is that equally well-known authors and writers on
behalf of the sceptic movement wrote both reviews.
Building upon their reputations gained from their earlier
works with ,i>The Mad Officials and, later, The Castle of
Lies, one would have thought that both Booker and North
should be treated as serious writers and with much to offer the
world so far as informed Euro-scepticism is concerned.
It was not to be. The first critique to be offered to the
select world of Euro-scepticism came from John Laughland. So
vociferous was his attack that it soon became obvious that there
was a personal agenda attached to his views and they were
therefore that much easier to ignore as a result. More
difficult to pigeon-hole is the review by the respected
authoress, Lindsay Jenkins, who describes the book as "a very
bad book" and goes on to say that some would accuse the authors
of "plagiarism"! One would have thought that such seasoned
writers on this, one of the most important issues to face the
British people for generations, would have brought forth a sense
of greater joint purpose and accord. Clearly, it was not to be,
as competing agendas and personal conflicts so obviously
littered the literary landscape.
One of the authors at the book's launch described it as
reading like a novel, compulsively forcing the reader to turn
the page to the next exciting morsel of discovery. Perhaps I
missed something, but I would not quite go that far in my
enthusiasm to describe each labyrinthine twist and turn of the
complex plots and political scenarios as the authors take us
through the history of the EU. But there again, they could be
forgiven for their enthusiasm and their urge to sell their own
work.
Booker and North very clearly and firmly anchor the origins
of the modern-day European Union in the Twenties with the first
meeting of Jean Monnet and a little-known and largely forgotten
British civil servant called Arthur Salter, and others, who
worked within the long-since defunct League of Nations.
Monnet was motivated to act and inspired by the carnage of
the First World War and the slaughter of the French and German
armies at the battle of Verdun where competing industrial
machines fought for supremacy. Not only was Monnet himself in
the battle, but so too was Charles de Gaulle and the fathers of
most of the post-second world war generation of European leaders
who would contribute so much to the building of the modern day
United States of Europe. It is perhaps here that the writers
earned much of the opprobrium heaped upon them by their critics
for debunking the Nazi link and the hype generated from this
supposed link with the origins of the European project. Not so,
according to The Secret History.
Much work was done and political contacts formed throughout
the Twenties and Thirties as the architects of this fledgling
ideology took form and almost predestined itself, when Monnet
proposed in 1940 to Churchill and the War Cabinet, as France was
about to fall to the Wehrmacht, that France and Great Britain
should form an indissoluble political union, an Anglo-French
Union, to defeat the Third Reich. The union was to be complete
with its own single government, joint armed forces, common
citizenship and even a single currency. Churchill threw out the
provision for a single currency, but amazingly the British
Cabinet approved the draft, although the country was "saved" by
the ranting of Marshal P‚tain, and the refusal by de Gaulle and
the French Premier Reynaud to align themselves with Britain,
considering that they would be a "mere dominion" of Britain, and
other French officials saying that they would rather have Hitler
than be the slaves of England!
So the opening pages and chapters set the scene for what
undoubtedly is an exciting read and a well researched and
in-depth study of the history of the European Union, or the
"Project" as it is often referred to.
It is all there. In its 400-plus pages, the authors cover
all the twists and turns and complexities of the history of the
burgeoning EU: the story behind the first two failed attempts
to form the Union, despite partial backing from Winston
Churchill himself, through to the successful flotation of the
Coal and Steel Community, from which Britain was successfully
kept out in case our diplomatic and political skills and
experience of empire would destroy Monnet's dreams of French
hegemony.
As we now know, the early days of the EEC or Common Market
were sold as nothing more than an ‚lite trading club for the
founder members, and the founding fathers successfully hid from
the people the extent of the new post-war political empire that
was in the process of construction. The sheer size and scope of
what has emerged would shock even most ardent Europhiles if they
were to visit Brussels and witness the behemoth that now resides
there.
Booker and North spare none of the detail as to how this has
been brought about, and it is amply documented with the events
of the time and the chicanery and coercion that the leading
players used. From the architect Le Corbusier to Spinelli,
Delors to Prodi, Adenauer to Mitterrand, Heath to Spaak,
Macmillan to Trichet, Thatcher to Schuman and many more, the
cast is truly huge; and the roles that they played and the
deceit they employed will leave few in doubt that they have
lived through an awesomely sinister period of European history
which rivals the Medici era!
The devices employed in the fearsomely complex treaties that
governments have signed over the years, from the original Treaty
of Rome through to the Single European Act, the Maastricht
Treaty, the Amsterdam and Nice treaties, up to the proposed
European Constitution: they are all there, and the implications
of what they mean to us and how they have removed the
accountability of our politicians to the people as to who
operates the levers of power, supposedly in our name, are truly
shocking.
The Great Deception should be required reading by all
Europhiles and Eurosceptics alike. If it is true - and I do
believe it is, according to my own research - that the origins
of the European Union stem from the Twenties and not from the
Nazi era, there can be little dispute as to the authenticity of
the authors' claims starting from the early days of the Schuman
Plan in the Fifties. Much of the development of the EU was well
documented from its then inception (as the EEC) onwards. How
could it be otherwise with the well-known penchant of the
professional bureaucratic class for detailed documentation.
The average Europhile I have met displays an almost alarming
ignorance of the history and purpose of the European Union, and
Booker and North have done us all a great service by writing
this almost epic tome. It will benefit all who read it,
furthering their understanding of one of the greatest political
deceptions to have been perpetrated upon the peoples of Europe
by their own, supposedly democratic politicians.
A copy of the book was purchased by a benefactor for every
MP, members of the House of Lords, and all the British MEPs in
Brussels. I wonder how many have read it. Your starter for ten!
I read the book over the Christmas period whilst on a
Caribbean cruise that was packed with Europeans of one hue or
another. I could often be found sitting in the sun whilst
reading the book, glass of champagne in hand, whilst various
French or Germans or Dutch could be heard muttering under their
breath about mad Englishmen. No one took up my offer to lend
the book for a few hours to improve their knowledge of how the
biggest government in Europe runs their lives. But then isn't
this the way it has always been in Europe - until it is too late?
A survey published in January revealed that 59 per cent of
citizens of Eurozone countries believe that there are
disadvantages to the single currency - almost double the figure
shown when the same survey was conducted in 1999.
The report, by Cetelem, the consumer finance subsidiary of
the bank BNP Paribas, surveyed more than 5,000 people in seven
EU countries during October and November. Italians were the
most critical of the euro, with 78 per cent voicing concerns,
closely followed by the Germans. British unease about the euro
has swelled from 48 per cent in the 1999 survey to 65 per cent
in the latest poll.
Meanwhile another poll, commissioned by Barclays Capital,
highlights the struggle the Government will face if they want to
bounce the UK into the euro. The poll - the first to use the
Government's own preferred wording for a referendum question -
showed that 64 per cent of people would vote no, with 26 per
cent saying they would vote yes.
The question - "Do you think the UK should adopt the euro as
its currency?" - has been attacked as unfair because it doesn't
explicitly say that to join the euro we have to scrap the pound.
Polls show that around thirty per cent of voters might not
understand this - and on such a fundamental issue, the
Government shouldn't be scared of having a fair question.
A further report, this time by the merchant bank Morgan
Stanley, warns that the Eurozone may collapse, with current
members pulling out and reverting to their own currencies. The
report argues that, "a disunited Europe could lead to secession
as some countries might decide that the benefits of
reintroducing a national money outweigh the costs." It adds
that, while this outcome is unlikely, it should not be ruled out
as a possibility.
And the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has blamed
the euro for pushing up prices. In his first press conference
of the new year he said: "It's absolutely true that the euro
made prices increase".
Each new piece of evidence seems to vindicate Britain's
desire to retain the freedom and flexibility implicit in keeping
her own currency.
Many of us Anti-Common Market League members - and members of
the Campaign for an Independent Britain, to which many League
members also belong - continue with the hard work of holding
occasional meetings for our members and/or for the general
public. The meetings are not always large, but often get
publicity, and in any case encourage our members and attract new
supporters. Moreover, most of the influential newspapers give
publicity to the anti-Common Market case from time to time. Our
case continues to be heard, and our supporters are not - and
really cannot be - effectively answered.
The important thing is that our words continue to be listened
to or read and talked about. Many thinking people talk about
the European Union - and not only at meetings - so that what is
said, either at meetings or in conversations, gets round to our
neighbours. There is little doubt that what is said by
neighbours and friends is more influential than anything else in
forming the thinking of almost everyone.
The facts remain the same - that the Common Market reduces
our historic feelings and independence, and wastes our money by
inflicting taxes on its Members. Let us continue to object to
such things, which cannot be denied. Let us continue to talk to
our friends and neighbours about the Common Market.
EUROPEAN UNION
'SHOCKWAVES'
"The facts they don't want you to know"
BOOK REVIEW
by John Moran
DISSATISFACTION WITH THE EURO GROWS
PLEASE TALK ABOUT THE COMMON MARKET
by Hugh Gilmour