« Osborne's legal opinion casts doubt on Brown's latest tax | Main | Blair interviewed by police for the second time »


After the EPP debacle, Cameron needs to reassert his eurosceptic credentials. The environmentally disastrous CFP provides an ideal opportunity for him to do so.

However, eurosceptics must do their bit to allow a firm stance to be taken.

Firstly, they must recognise that some international regulation will still be required -- after all no one tells the fish when they swim across maritime borders.

Secondly, they tone down the "they're-our-fish" rhetoric, this is first and foremost an issue of conservation.

Thirdly, British fishermen aren't necessarily without fault in all of this -- some are guilty of ecologically damaging practices. A non-CFP conservation regime could and should impose more draconian conservation measures which won't necessarily be to liking of every UK fishing interest.

Fourthly, we should favour smaller, less intensive fishing businesses over industrial scale fishing operations. Let's hear no talk about "efficiency", when the only efficiency at work is the speed with which a natural resource is depleted.

Fifthly, let's not muck about on the most destructive methods of fishing -- these should just be banned outright.

Given these clear commitments I see no reason why most voters wouldn't welcome a Conservative pledge to pull Britain out of the CFP.

Two things: Conservatives believe in a United Kingdom so it is right this decision is made in London.

Secondly, Cameron is also right to recognise that these sort of daft commitments left over from the IDS era of stagnation should go.

Cameron's problem is that he hasn't challenged the hard right enough. The Conservatives should be must further ahead in the polls give Labour's woes. But clearly voters aren't yet prepared to give their trust in sufficient numbers.

Malcolm Rifkind was right to welcome people leaving for UKIP - just as Blair's greatest filip was when Scargill left Labour.

Well done Mr. Brocklebank. I like a man with principles.

Given that environmentalists oppose the CFP - all those dead fish thrown back in the sea - could this be the start of a backlash against Camerloon's supposed 'green' image?

Disastrous timing. Has Mr Cameron not been watching BBC1's "Trawlermen" series? The national mood is right to leave the CFP and, subject to Soupy's fine warnings, it's the right thing to do too.

Well done Ted! A man of principle.

Cameron's decision to back the CFP is utterly irrational, given the huge environmental destruction wrought on fish and aquatic life by this EU policy. It seems that he is so afraid of upsetting the EU, he would rather sacrifice our fishermen, and our marine environment than challenge this atrocity.

So much for "eco-friendly Dave". He's willing to talk about environment and bunny-wunnies, but not to do anything which might upset his superiors.

That's without taking into account the destruction of the fishing industry, and all the lives that have been ruined by the CFP....

well done to Ted on this I think he is doing the right thing by resigning.

This is one of the most potent ways of reconciling our eurosceptic position with something that matters to people in the Scottish context. As the SNP policy is still to leave the CFP this will leave us outflanked in Scotland on the eurosceptic stance which is of greatest significance here. It also plays well with rural voters in the North East who we did very well with in 1992 but where our support has collapsed since 1997. The constituencies where the CFP has done most harm include key targets for the Conservative Party. Given the class-oriented lefty madness of the Central Belt we will never rebuild unless we tap into a naturally right-wing constituency like the rural North East which has swung strongly to the SNP.

This will also undermine the Union as well as whenever the Party says being in a larger state like the UK is best for the Scottish entry the SNP alweays reply that it did us no good when Heath accepted the CFP. Now we can no longer reply that we are the quickest route out of it. I realise Cameron is paying lip service to defending the Union but stances such as this one leave Scottish Unionists high and dry.

After the Scottish Parliament elections the Scottish Party should make opposition to the CFP a prerequisite for entry onto the Westminster candidates list. This is 1) a perfectly good conservative stance which i suspect will be supported by most of our people throughout the UK and 2) will show that where the UK leadership adopts a policy which runs counter to the Scottish interest and what Scottish Conservatism would otherwise be about that the Scottish Party has the balls to disagree.

Theres all this talk about a separate Scottish Party, fiscal autonomy etc etc well here is a perfect way to differentiate Scottish Conservatism and show some blooming balls.

I have to agree with scottish conservative on this issue, and I think that this could hurt us in the North East which is not helpful so close to the elections.

Who can possibly disagree with the posters above? (except Marberry of course who has never ever given me any reason to suppose he /she supports the Conservative party).However I am sorry if Brocklebank resigns though. Generally speaking more will be achieved if one works on the inside.
The CFP has not been a success however one looks at it, I'd be very interested to see if anyone can defend it.

Well done Ted. I admire a principled stance such as this. It is a shame that DC wouldnt listen him, though I uderstand Annabel Goldie was not as supportive of his position as she could have been. What a shame that another talented performer will now join Macletchie languishing on the back benches when their spirited performances in the past were eye catching and newsworthy.

I agree with everyone whose posted so far (apart from Marberry, naturally). I've not decided whether he's a UKIP supporter trying to poison the well, or a Labour supporter trying to do the same thing.

Soupy Twist, reclaiming control over our fishing grounds should not be conditional on this or that policy then being adopted. We all know that the CFP is insane; we all know that we cannot change the CFP; no further debate is necessary to know that we should take back control by withdrawing from the CFP. Thereafter at least in that one respect normal politics would be resumed and we could discuss how best to make use of that reclaimed control over our fisheries. I have complete confidence that whatever we decided would be infinitely better than the CFP.

E L Wisty back on usual form, but wait - he said, and I quote,

"The Conservatives should be must [sic] further ahead in the polls give Labour's woes."

Attaboy, Wisty. We'll make a conservative out of you yet.

DC is showing some very dangerous pro-EU partisanship here.
Full marks to Brocklebank for some backbone, pity more are not like him.
The CFP needs to be expunged, it's destroyed the North Sea and plenty of our jobs.

Well, the headline synopsis from CHome is not clear- Brockkers resigns from what exactly? The Party? Or his position on the Scottish Conservatives front bench? Come on- be clear! If he's resigned from the front bench- well done Brockkers! Although he's a mid-wilderness and Fife list MSP, he resides , and campaigns a lot, in NE Fife which has a large (but declining) fishing industry. Some have said (the 'fishermen') that the Tories decline in NE Fife ( a seat they lost in 1987) is attributable to the CFP.

Purple Heart for Mr B. But a loss for the fishing community and for the Party.

The policy people have already got the solution to this problem spelled out for them. It's Conservative, it's in the national interest, it's Eurosceptic, it's been worked out in detail by Owen Paterson, it follows the Cameron policy principle of localism, it's backed by David Bellamy, AND it's green;


It's in the hands of Letwin and the policy working groups. If you feel strongly about it, drop them a line yourselves.

The CFP was part of the original EC Treaty. The only way that Cameron or Howard could withdraw from the CFP is to change the Treaty, which would require a unanimous vote from the other 26 EU countries, or by leaving the EU totally.

See the question in the European Parliament here, and the reply here.

Cameron is also lying about the Social Chapter: we can't withdraw from it, because it no longer exists. The Social Chapter was integrated into the Treaty of Amsterdam and, once again, the only way to opt out is by means of a unanimous vote or by withdrawing from the EU.

So, when will the Tories, and ConservativeHome, stop peddling this lie that we are going to simply "opt out", just like that? Or perhaps Cameron is not aware that he is promising things that he can't deliver?

In any case, the question is this: is David Cameron a liar or a fool?


P.S. Yes, I am a UKIP member but, yes, everything I've just told you is true.

Devil's Kitchen is right. If Ted Brocklebank wants Britain to withdraw from the CFP, he should advocate EU withdrawal itself and sign up to Better Off Out.

DK, you ask us to decide "is David Cameron a liar or a fool?".

One might be tempted to ask, in light of your analysis, whether he is not both...

CFP was not part of the EEC. It was foisted upon us at the eleventh hour by those european bastards on a non-negotiable basis, accept or no in.

Didn't Cameron announce this ages ago?

If so, why did Brocklebank wait until he's gotten onto the Regional List for MSPs?

Are you sure about that, George?


Activities of the European Union, Fisheries and Maritime Affairs -> Legal texts -> Treaty establishing the European Community (Articles 32 to 38).

Articles have been re-numbered since 1957, but the present Article 32 is the first in Title II Agriculture, and it starts:


"1. The common market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products. "Agricultural products" means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products."

and it and the subsequent Articles are the same as Article 38 and subsequent Articles in the original 1957 Treaty of Rome. So the seeds of the CFP were there from the start.

More evidence of the fact that Scotland needs a Conservative party of its own?

It really is an unbelievable fact that Cameron has backed away from the only Eurosceptic position that fits neatly into his Green agenda. What the hell is the reason?

Nice to know that there is one principled Conservative politician. If there are any more will they please stand up before disaster strikes.

Actually, Devil, I seem to recall that the CFP was not "part of the original EU treaty" (Rome) - accession negotiators abroad only invented it when they realised what rich pickings Norwegian and British waters had to offer. Norway saw the trap and declined to join. Treasonous Ted's negotiating committee saw the trap, too, but Ted overrulled them, not wanting to have any further delays... The CFP was only formally legalised by Maastricht. This is all (I recall) documented in Richard North and Christopher Booker's excellent book, "Castle of Lies: Why Britain Must Get Out of Europe".


Wikipedia entry for the CFP:

"The first specific rules were created in 1970. When the fisheries policy was originally set up the intention was to create a free trade area in fish and fish products with common rules. It was agreed that fishermen from any state should have access to all waters. An exception was made for the coastal strip which was reserved for local fishermen who had traditionally fished those areas."

But, yes, the CFP is now incorporated into the first EC Treaty; but don't take my word for it, ask Mr "resistance is futile" Borg of the European Commission: he ought to know. Whether it was there originally or not is rather immaterial don't you think? It's there now and there's stuff all that Cameron (or anyone else (apart from a party actively advocating complete withdrawal from the EU) can do about it.

After all, the Social Chapter wasn't originally in the Treaty of Amsterdam, either; but it is now and there is, once again, stuff all that can be done about it.

So, Cameron: liar or fool? Or, of course, both?


It's only material in the sense that when Heath was appointed by Macmillan to negotiate EEC entry in 1961, he must surely have read the then Article 38 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome:

""Agricultural products" means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries ..."

and realised in the light of the commitment to "ever closer union" that in due course there would be moves to take over our fisheries. So the idea that it all came as a surprise and was foisted on him in 1972 doesn't exactly hold water.

So i'm right then, post 12:28.
Heath/Wilson sold the fisherman and the country down the river.
We cannot trust the EU, vide the CFP, and that is a view that cannot be faulted with the continuing tyranny being perpetuated by Merkel over Federalism and the constitution rejected by France and Holland.
Merkel can of course afford this attitude, as referenda are forbidden under the German Federal constitution, which means she can conveniently ignore 80+ million voters.
We must seek our referendum at the earliest possible stage, howabout now.

Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
by Dr Alan Sked

Just hours before negotiations with Britain over entry to the EEC began, the Council of Ministers hastily agreed to a Common Fisheries Policy which would guarantee "equal access for all" in Community waters. In this way all fish would become "a common European resource". Geoffrey Rippon, Heath's main negotiator, meanwhile informed Parliament that HMG would resist the CFP. Instead, Heath ordered him to capitulate during the negotiations and merely accept a derogation allowing the UK to retain control over waters out to 12 miles "until December 31, 1982". On 13 December 1971 Rippon, none the less, told the House of Commons that Britain had retained full control of her territorial waters and that none of the arrangements made were to be merely transitional. Rippon lied and the lying is still going on. MPs, by the way, were not given the terms of the concessions made over fishing rights until after the Treaty of Accession has been voted on and signed. It is interesting to note, however, that, although Heath managed to persuade the Norwegians to accept similar terms, these helped lead to EEC membership being rejected by Norway in a referendum.

Read the full article on:


Sad, but refreshing to see some integrity.

Christopher Booker (Sunday Telegraph 06/01/2002)

Secret documents revealed last week under the 30-year rule complete the story of the most cynical smash and grab raid in the history of the European Union. It was this that led the Prime Minister of the day, Edward Heath, to give away the world's richest fishing waters. A national resource worth tens of billions of pounds - as the price he was prepared to pay to fulfil his dream of taking Britain into the Common Market in January 1973.

The new papers that have just been released, covering the year 1971, show that Heath's ministers did belatedly wake up to the catastrophe that this would prove for both fish stocks and Britain's fishing industry. But, when they realised that they had been outwitted, they were prepared to lie openly to Parliament to hide what they had done.

As was disclosed by the first batch of Foreign Office papers released last year, this strange story began in June 1970, when Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway were about to apply for membership of the Common Market. Realising these four countries would control fishing waters containing more than 90% of Europe's fish, the six original members of the European Commission laid an ambush by agreeing in principal, just hours before the applications arrived, that all fish in western European waters should be regarded as a "common European resource".

As the documents covering 1970 made clear, the Six knew that this was illegal. It was not authorise by the Treaty of Rome, but they gambled that, so long as the principle was agreed before the new countries applied for entry, the applicants would have to accept it as part of acquis communautaire, the established body of Common Market law. The 1970 documents also revealed that the Heath government decided not to challenge the new "Common Fisheries Policy" for fear of prejudicing the negotiations.

By the end of 1970, as fishermen and MPs began to question what was going on, the Government's official line was to give public reassurance that Britain has "reserved its position" on the CFP and would "take proper account of the interests of the fishermen", while privately conceding, as one official put it, that "in the wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable".

Twenty-five further files now take the story on into 1971. Early that year, as public concern grew, the Foreign Office privately acknowledged that "the threat is tiresomely real, the subject emotive" and that constantly repeating "we have reserved our position" was not having the soothing effect intended. "I think that we must play this issue long, while giving the public as much reassuring detail as we can", minuted one official.

For more visit this site:


However when Mr Borg states that:

"Article 3 of the EC Treaty lays down that the activities of the Community shall include a common policy in the sphere of fisheries"

that's true for the present EC treaty:


"(e) a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries;"

but Article 3 of the original Treaty of Rome only referred to agriculture:

"(d) the adoption of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture;"

and in the whole document the only reference to fish or fisheries was in the definition of "agricultural products" in the original Article 38:

1. The common market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products. “Agricultural products” means the products of the soil, of stock-farming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products."

Thus confirming what we already know, that we are and always have been dealing with sneaky and underhand and untrustworthy bastards here, including of course that bastard Heath who should have been strung up rather than knighted.

I rest my case re the EU.
They couldn't beat us at war over the last 6 centuries, but will emasculate us using legislation and red tape.
A pop and plague on em all.

What an idiot!
A co-incidence he's just been ranked 3rd on a 3 region list; terrified he's going to lose his job.
This is the time MSPs should be pulling together, not in-fighting

For once, malcolm's post is genuinely funny. Staying in to do more good on the inside has been the justification for membership of every single useless, absurd supranational organisation I can think of. So the Tories should leave the CFP but Ted Brocklebank should not leave his post as Scots fisheries spokesman. How does that work?

Green Dave took over the arch europhile Hurd's constituency, there is no way he would have allowed a sceptic to do that.

Green Dave conned all the sceptics over his EPP pledge and ratting on the CFP is just more of the same. The Europhiles got their man in, instead of Davis. The party was tricked.

That's why all true sceptics are dumping him, you can't believe a word he says.

Given Up, I'm not sure I follow this logic that whoever takes over a seat has the same views as the previous incumbant. You would hardly say that Derek Conway and Ted Heath were birds of a feather would you.

I do hope David Cameron rethinks this. The Europe policy at the moment doesn't look joined up and looks like it's being thought up on the hoof.

Um, yes, GU - you could hardly accuse Hezza and Boris (both Henley men) of being on the same wavelength?

Having been in the Fishing Industry all my life and led the Save Britain's Fish campaign, I have never seen such rubbish written as Soupy Twist. As to Scottish Tory, Ted Brocklebank undertook that job on the basis of the Howard Policy. Now it has been sunk, how can Ted continue when the new policy is everything Ted fought against?. To have principles in the Conservative Party these days is a rare occasion.

Mr Ashworth,the words "principles" and "Conservative Party"should never be used in the same paragraph.

Eurosceptic conservative thinkers know deep down that they can never achieve their aims in the Conservative Party as it is today.

They should make a stand and a statement,then,go to fresh grounds where they will do some good and be supported for it.

As one who voted for Cameron I am becoming increasingly alarmed and concerned about his leftward drift.

I feel that maybe he has come under the wrong influences since becoming leader

It's good to see all the supportive commens "well done Ted" etc :-)

and I fully support his stance. I would fully support the right of the Scots Conservatives to hold a separate policy decision from the National Party - thats what devolution is about isn't it?

Sorry to the BOO team and the UKIP visitors but Margaret Thatcher proved over the Budget Rebate that you could change the basis on which we joined the EEC - it just takes determination. There is problem of quid pro quo - would DC or another PM be drawn into trading something else for the change? Does he have the determination?

Ted you are wrong about the Thatcher rebate. That rebate did not require a Treaty change, but Maggie did have a Bill prepared to present to Parliament if the then EC did not give way, so unlike Cameron she was prepared to use the supremacy of Parliament.
Rudyard, I agree, but Cameron has now given the proof their is no place in the Tory Party for those you describe.

No problem about the "quid pro quo" - the other EU member states give up their treaty rights over our fishing grounds, and in exchange we give up our treaty rights over their fishing grounds. Seems fair enough to me! :-)

No problem about the "quid pro quo" - the other EU member states give up their treaty rights over our fishing grounds, and in exchange we give up our treaty rights over their fishing grounds. Seems fair enough to me! :-)

Congratulations must go to Mr Brocklebank for actually being a politician with principles

And the balls to stand up for them too.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker