Richard Benyon set an example for how to achieve EU reform and decentralisation

As part of the latest cabinet reshuffle, Richard Benyon is leaving his post as UK Fisheries Minister:

As he returns to the backbenches, it's worth highlighting how Mr Benyon - with the support of MPs on the EFRA Committee, who also produced some substantial work on this issue - played a pivotal role in one of the first cases of EU decentralisation and reform, with responsibilities flowing from Brussels to member states. By leading the way in reforming the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) - until recently possibly Brussels' silliest policy of the lot - he did show that it's possible for the UK to forge alliances and achieve real change.

As a quick reminder, the reformed CFP is due to enter into force on 1 January 2014 - following final approval from national governments and MEPs. The most significant changes include:

• A ban on discard of unwanted fish, which is to be gradually enforced between 2015 and 2019. This means fishermen will be obliged to land all the fish they catch and count it against their fishing quotas - and will go a long way to end the ridiculous practice whereby fishermen in some cases threw back 90% of the fish caught. 

• Greater regionalisation of decision-making. Basically, member states bordering a certain sea basin will sort out day-to-day technical issues among themselves, based on broad principles decided in Brussels. However, the allocation of fishing quotas will remain a centralised process (so there's still scope for some reform here).

• From 2015, and by 2020 at the latest, EU fishermen will not be allowed to catch more than a given fish stock can reproduce in a given year - under the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) principle.

• Annual allocations of fishing quotas will have to be consistent with longer-term management plans for individual fisheries. The rationale behind this is to try and avoid, or at least reduce, the yearly squabbling between national fisheries ministers in Brussels.

The European Commission - DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries - should be given some credit as well since it actually had the courage to table a proper reform proposal. This is also an example of where Berlin and London hooked up to outflank the Mediterranean bloc.

So UK ministers, Brussels, Berlin and everyone else - take note.

CFP reform: Credit where credit is due

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been arguably the most dysfunctional of all EU policies. So bad that even EU Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki has not shied away from criticising its damaging impact, especially on the long-term sustainability of fish stocks.

Yesterday, MEPs approved by 502 to 137 votes a set of measures to reform the CFP in what has been widely described as a 'landmark' vote. And rightly so, given that the CFP is re-opened for negotiation only every ten years. The measures adopted by MEPs include a number of positive things:

• A timetable for the enforcement of an EU-wide ban on discards of fish. Under the new rules, all fish caught will have to be landed. If enforce propoerly, this should encourage better and more selective fishing techniques.

• From 2015, and by 2020 at the latest, EU fishermen will not be allowed to catch more than a given fish stock can reproduce in a given year. For lovers of Brussels acronyms, this is called the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

• Annual allocations of fishing quotas will have to be consistent with longer-term management plans for individual fisheries. This is expected to avoid, or at least reduce, the yearly squabbling between national fisheries ministers in Brussels.
   
•  Most importantly, management of fisheries will be largely carried out at the regional level - i.e. member states surrounding a certain sea basin will sort out day-to-day issues among themselves, based on broad principles decided in Brussels.

Now that both national governments and the European Parliament have adopted their negotiating positions, talks will resume. There are still some issues that need to be ironed out. For example, MEPs wants to give the European Commission more power to intervene when member states struggle to reach an agreement among themselves on day-to-day management. The UK and other governments are suspicous that this could lead to more Commission power, not less. Also, MEPs want to be "present" when decisions about quota allocations are taken in the Fisheries Council.

But if one looks at the bigger picture, the reforms adopted yesterday, albeit decades late, are clearly a step in the right direction. And prove that shifting from Brussels-centric micro-management to a healthier and more logic regional-based approach is fully possible when there is the political will to do so.  

How realistic is Cameron's timetable for EU reform?

As Open Europe Director Mats Persson notes over on his Telegraph blog, in his speech today, Cameron has set himself a concrete timetable, despite the fact that timetables in Europe are notoriously difficult to control. A treaty change discussion could drag on for years. Here we look at how a few examples of how slowly or quickly it takes to reach a decision in Europe.

Basically, EU treaty changes or fundamental reform can take an enormous amount of time - or it can happen in months. It's all a matter of political expediency - and how bad Europe needs it / wants it. The single EU patent, for example, took 37 years to negotiate. Setting up a €440bn bailout fund took 12 hours (though it was followed by a year of bickering over what they actually had agreed).

So here are some examples. Those who say Cameron is stuffed, could point to:

Single EU patent – 37 years 
The Convention for the European Patent for the common market was signed at Luxembourg on December 15, 1975, by the 9 member states of the European Economic Community at that time. However the CPC never entered into force as it was not ratified by enough countries. It took until last December for a an agreement on the creation of a single patent system across 25 member states.

Fisheries reform – 21 years and counting 
In 1992, it was determined that there had been over-investment in vessels, overfishing and that numbers of fish landed were decreasing, and that reforms were needed to address these issues. Completing the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) by the end of June 2013, in a single reading if possible, is the goal of the current Irish EU Presidency.

UK Rebate – 10 years 
In 1974/75 the Wilson Government sought to resolve the UK contribution question - which was the highest in net terms - during the “renegotiation” of the UK’s terms of accession which it had promised in its October 1974 election manifesto. The UK did achieve a new corrective mechanism but the revised formula (which placed more emphasis on national wealth when calculating our contribution) in practice produced no real benefit to Britain. In 1984, Margaret Thatcher secured the UK rebate in its current form.

European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty – 8 years 
The drafting for European Constitution was initiated by a declaration annexed to the Treaty of Nice in 2001, and the draft Constitution was signed on 29 October 2004 by representatives of the then 25 member states. Following the ‘no’ votes in the French and Dutch referendums, negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty began in 2007 and the new Treaty was ratified in 2009.

...but those who say that, given the enormous stakes, Cameron actually achieve something substantial, could point to:

Limited treaty change to establish new eurozone bailout fund – 5 months 
On October 29 2010, following pressure from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, EU prime ministers and presidents backed "a limited treaty change" to deliver tighter fiscal discipline and allow for the creation of a permanent bail-out fund for members of the eurozone. On March 25 2011, the European Council agreed to amend Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro.

Setting up a new €440bn eurozone bailout fund - 12 hours
On May 9 2010, following 12 hours of talks in Brussels, EU financed ministers agreed to establish the EFSF, a temporary bailout fund composed of government-backed loan guarantees and bilateral loans worth up to €440bn provided by eurozone members.

In EU politics, when you hear someone giving you an easy answer, it's probably the wrong answer...

Britain has the perfect chance to work out how to loosen its ties with Brussels

Open Europe Chairman Lord Leach of Fairford has an op-ed in today's Times, where he argues,

If Britain pulls out of the EU, that will be as much due to our condescending Eurozealots, who have called every turn wrong for 30 years, as to UKIP. Both alike tell us that radical change in the European structure is out of the question.

Moderate sceptics, who want to stay in the EU but might want “out” if the Government can’t negotiate a changed relationship, are the majority of the electorate, but their voice is too seldom heard. The BBC neglects them, presumably calculating that pitting Nigel Farage against Denis MacShane does more for its audience ratings than analysis of the most important issue facing the country.

Circumstances, however, have conspired to deliver our fate to the moderates. While the eurozone faces a polarised choice between economic union or break-up, Britain has three options: “more Europe”, exit or renegotiate. And since “more Europe” has become unthinkable, the effective option is exit or reform. In a word, the Europhiles have lost. The sceptics, however, have not yet won. For this, the coalition is to blame for its failure to articulate a constructive vision of a Europe that would meet the aims both of the integrationist countries and of those that put self-determination first.

Whether Britain withdraws or remains, it will have to negotiate terms with an EU that has lost its way after the triumphs of its first 50 years, when tariffs were cut, enemies reconciled and a haven given to victims of dictatorships. Its icon, the euro, has awakened resentments unknown since the Second World War. Unemployment in the South is at 1930s levels, with nothing but depression and endless financial chicanery in sight. The region has slid inexorably down the global economic league tables.

Brussels treats the catastrophe predictably as a pretext for “more Europe”, but Germany’s reaction, caught between the appeal of European solidarity and reluctance to be the milch cow for Mediterranean indiscipline, has been cautious and ambivalent. There is nothing in Berlin’s response to suggest a closed mind to a new deal with the countries outside the eurozone. They know that a British government that signed up to deeper economic integration wouldn’t last a week. They also read the polls, showing UKIP neck-and-neck with the Lib Dems. It is not in Germany’s interest to drive Britain to withdraw, depriving the EU of its financial centre, its principal advocate of democracy and free trade, and one of its two foremost military powers, not to mention its highly lucrative market.

Germany is ripe for change. After two thirds of a century’s atonement, it no longer has to disprove a wish for domination or to pretend that without uniformity there can be no peace in Europe. It can admit that the proudest European heritage - German music, Italian painting, French civilisation, English literature - is utterly removed from the integrationist obsessions of the European political class. Liberated from guilt, Germany begins to recognise again democracy’s ability to reconcile voters to political defeat, to repeal unworkable laws and dismiss bad leaders, and to tackle difficulties with the grain of national traditions, institutions and instincts, not by the imposition of one-size-fits-all European-level solutions.

The shape of a new Europe therefore writes its own script - a neighbourly alliance, partly federal, partly by treaty between independent states, in which those who want to share a currency and economic sovereignty and those who just want co-operation would be equally welcome. Only trade, the bedrock of the original Common Market, would be universal.

In truth, it is not the eurozone that is the “core” of Europe - it is the single market. In the new, flexible model for EU integration, the UK would remain a full member of the customs union and single market and maintain its vote on making Europe’s trading rules. But it could limit Brussels’ involvement in areas such as policing and crime, fisheries, farming, employment law and regional policy. 

The EU’s institutions would be adapted so as not to discriminate against countries who have chosen to be less integrated. Likewise, the UK would not vote on EU laws that did not apply to itself. The presumption of travel towards a common destiny would cease to apply, since all forms of EU membership would be equally legitimate. 

 Instead of institutional tinkering and going round in circles on the euro, national democracies would start working out how to succeed in the globally networked modern world. Each country would find its own way back to prosperity. That, after all, was how Europe became rich and civilised in the first place. Relieved from unwanted legislation and desperate sacrifices for the euro, we would rediscover the amity of neighbours. 

We might even find that a confederate EU had become a magnet for Norway and Switzerland. That would be a delicious irony - sceptical Britain bringing about a strengthening of Europe that has eluded the zealots. 

Can A Fictional Character Break EU Law?

Apparently yes. Here's a peculiar story which is all over Italian media: according to Italian papers, the EU Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki has written a letter to the 86-year-old, famous Italian writer Andrea Camilleri complaining - somewhat tongue-in-cheek, we hope - that the writer's best-known fictional character is regularly and blatantly breaking EU law.

A bit of cultural background: Camilleri is the author of a series of best-selling crime novels, which have also been turned into successful TV episodes for Italy's public broadcaster RAI. The main character of the novels is Sicilian police detective Salvo Montalbano - played by actor Luca Zingaretti in the TV version (see picture) - whose favourite dish happens to be small squids.

The problem is that the sale of so-called 'baby fish' for human consumption is forbidden under EU law. Thus, Commissioner Damanaki worries that every time Montalbano enjoys a portion of small squids at home or in his favourite restaurant, he sends the wrong message to millions of readers and viewers. She has therefore kindly asked Camilleri to change the eating habits of his fictional creation.

Damanaki writes on her blog,

I am a big fan of Andrea Camilleri, the well-known Italian writer who created Montalbano, and I intend to write him a letter to pay tribute to his work, but also to ask him to stop having the protagonist of his novels eating small squids: that is unethical!

The outspoken 86-year-old writer has said that he has not yet received any letter from Damanaki, but added,

Well, perhaps a bit more seriousness is needed. Montalbano likes cliff mullets, which are not forbidden, and sometimes also eats bianchetti [white baits]...

Our question: If Camilleri refuses to comply, will Ms. Damanaki launch a fictional infringement procedure?

The EU's fisheries policy gets battered

If there ever was a competition for the worst EU policy, the Common Fisheries Policy would probably end up on top. The policy simply has to go.

So it's encouraging that the EU’s Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki yesterday did the right thing and called for an end to the CFP-mandated practice of throwing back dead fish overboard if fishermen's quotas have been exceeded:

"I consider discarding of fish unethical, a waste of natural resources and a waste of fishermen's effort. But I would like to go further – since our stocks are declining, these figures are not justifiable anymore. If we continue with our policy, then we will soon face a situation where the production capacity of marine ecosystems is at risk”.

This is of course hardly a revelation; groups from across society and the political spectrum have been warning about the economic, social and environmental catastrophe that is the CFP for a long time.

To give only a couple of examples of what Europe's fishing industry has come to under the CFP :

· 80% of Europe’s fisheries are considered to be overexploited or in danger of collapse

· 1.3 million tonnes of seafood are thrown back every year in the North Atlantic alone, including two out of every three haddock caught to the west of Scotland

· The value of fish that thrown back every year by the Scottish fishing fleet alone was estimated at £40m, resulting in higher prices for consumers.

Momentum against the CFP is building, and the recent “Fish Fight” campaign fronted by TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has brought the issue to a much wider audience, helping to put pressure on the EU for reform. While Damanaki’s pledge is good news, this time it must be followed by concrete action. After all one her predecessors, Joe Borg, called the discards policy “morally wrong” and pledged root-and-branch reform back in 2007, but to no avail.

The common sense void in which the CFP exists is a big reason why hostility to the EU is growing, exemplifying Brussels’ painful inability to reform its policies as the circumstances around it changes (on this one, it's not the Commission's fault as a handful member states, most importantly Spain, continue to block reform). It is so detested that it even managed to unite such diverse groups as climate change sceptic Conservative MPs and Greenpeace activists.

Although dumping the discards policy will not solve all Europe’s fishing problems, it's certainly the right place to start.