The resulting CFP – and those expiring 10-year derogations that were concealed from Parliament – were therefore the direct reasons why the UK lost the ability to impose its own 200 mile limit that Iceland had declared, and (worse) had to now accept that fishing was to be parcelled out by the then EEC. The subsequent 40 years has simply been a sorry mess that has enormously damaged the reputation of the EU (leave aside the issues regarding fisheries). This is why Remain has been boxed into a corner on the CFP as it is beyond defence and reputational rescue – therefore Remain left its response to the EU’s terrible record in this area just to childish insult by Remain people howling obscenities at fishermen and their supporters from a boat on the Thames (but of course no facts or figures or defence of the indefensible on the media by those screaming swearwords).

The ‘reforms’ of the early years of the century were simply a ruse to enforce even greater central control by the Commission over fishing under the entirely false guise of ‘de-centralisation’. And the destruction of important elements of the Scottish industry. I have lived through endless supposed reforms where wide-eyed apologists (I am not saying this of you btw) tell me that it is all great now and the reforms are fab and really it all going to go well (that was how 2002/03 was touted by apologists for the EU) …but the real bottom line is that within the EU it will always be more of the same, a constant battle for power and little real change except words. Out of the EU (however simplistic the arguments are about ‘control’) there is always the possibility of better things – if it is in the nature of humans to want at least to have some hope through being able to influence their own futures, it is also in their nature to rebel against huge impersonal and lofty structures which offer nothing except that infamous boot in the face forever and no hope at all. That is how the CFP and CAP have appeared to most British people who have had any experience of them over the past two generations.

One of the problems for many REMAINers, including me, was the obvious flaws in the EU project and balancing these against the benefits which the EU had brought to much of Europe, including many sparsely populated areas.

There were issues about the powers of the Commission, the particular approach to the economy.

Often, in politics, we are faced with choosing the ‘least worst’ option.

On the New Statesman website today, Yanis Veroufakis, the former economics minister of Greece, presents such an argument which he said he maid to Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell.

Norway has the benefit of oil and gas and a sovereign fund which it has managed very well (in contrast to the plundering of the oil and gas in Scottish waters mainly to fill the maw of the city. While the unionists have crowed about the fall in oil prices and the ‘loss’ in revenue over the past four years, Norway has continued to gain. The UK Government, pace Brown and Darling with the bankers, shovelled cash towards the oil companies. Norway, like other Nordic states has a much better functioning democracy which distribute wealth much more equitably., unlike the City/Westminster/Whitehall/mainstream media clique.

Iceland suffered badly following the 2008 crash, mainly due to a small clique. However, Iceland dealt with them in a way that the UK would not do. Indeed, the oafish PM Brown sought to add to Iceland’s problems. Again, Iceland has a good participative democracy. It has historically been doughty in its defence of its fishing stocks. I remember the stories of the ‘Cod War’ against the Wilson Government.

The EU requires greater devolution.

The key surely is the greater control which is widely felt will be possible once the UK is no longer bound automatically to the CFP. With the revival of the idea that no incoming government can be bound by its predecessor (even if this is a simplistic way of looking at it), it will make it more difficult for governments to automatically say “our hands are tied” even if they want to. This has happened a fair amount over agriculture and fisheries during the past 40 years, notably under the Blair government.

Norway and Iceland have constantly rejected the idea of membership of the EU, in spite of being pressured by much of the political class to join. The voters’ reasons are clear – they know that their fisheries will be destroyed by EU membership and its woeful CFP, and the lessons of the disaster of the CFP are only unclear to those who wish it to be otherwise.

Thank you for the prompt response and for the explanation of the constraints under which you were operating. I withdraw my ‘British nationalist’ jibe! Apologies.

David Cameron, before his resignation stated quite clearly that all the devolved parliaments would be fully involved in the negotiations. But, the undemocratic and frankly authoritarian, Theresa May has simply ignored this. As Ken Clark said to Malcolm Rifkind in the eavesdropped conversation in the Sky studio, “she’s a bloody difficult woman”.

What your informed article demonstrates is the need for a new constitutional settlement for the UK. Perasonally, I would prefer Scotland to become independent. Although it is for themselves to decide, I think Ireland should reunite and Wales make its own way, too. I think that only in this way can the majority of the people of England free themselves from this fuzzy ‘Britain’ myth and its inherent dominance of a particular class and its concept of a nation and create an England of the regions within which power and wealth is more equitably distributed and in which the many valid cultures can flourish.

Although you are an economist, it is a discipline which is based on cultural and social values. As you have pointed out clearly, there is a significant class divide amongst fishermen and amongst processors. There is a wealthy (self-proclaimed) elite and there are many others who ‘make a living’. By redistributing power then the different national fishing communities as wholes could begin to use your framework and fact base to
negotiate, with our European neighbour’s a sustainable deal which provides better returns for all.

A similar argument could be made with regard to agriculture.

When these powers are ‘returned from Brussels’ they should, of course, be returned to the devolved governments. But, of course, Westminster will not permit this. It clearly intends to hold these powers to be used in the negotiations with the EU and to be used as a bargaining chip. It is likely that fishings rights, agriculture, etc, which in principle rest in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh will be traded in the interests of maintaining rights for the City of London financial sector to have access to the single financial market.

You are right of course, to skewer the mendacity of the claims about the Common Fisheries Policy and to point out the hypocrisy of the wealthy Scottish fishing skippers in joining the flotilla of lies on the Thames.

On the news in Scotland, it is the views of the clique which runs the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation – a pretty right wing, racist, sectarian mob – which is presented as the view of the entire fishing community. It should be remembered that every constituency in Scotland including those with the fishing industry voted to REMAIN – every one!

You are also right to point out the contribution of fish processing. Like agriculture, this depends heavily on European workers. In parts of Shetland which have large numbers of processing workers, the indigenous population voted heavily LEAVE, no doubt influenced by the anti immigrant rhetoric of Farage et al. All parts of Scotland have benefitted from immigration; we need MORE immigrants.

There is a lot of sense in your article, but please recast it in the context of how the authorities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales can determine how things will develop in relation to Europe. Westminster should of course, negotiate on behalf of the fleets and processors in England, only.