THAT SINKING FEELING
Does the good ship EU simply have too many quirks and problems to be seaworthy any more?
Guy Grieve nails his colours to the mast on the future of the EU
Ihave had the fortune, or perhaps misfortune, to have owned quite a few boats over the years and each one has taught me that there is no such thing as a perfect boat. Every ship, no matter how large or small, old or new, has pros and cons, and part of the art of owning and running a boat is learning how to turn each quirk into an asset.
The good skipper must also ensure that he knows the limits of the vessel, and will not allow any grand passage plans to persuade him to take his ship out of her safe working limits. This comes to mind when considering the immense dilemma that is Europe, and whether we should, or should not, remain members.
Much like everyone else, I imagine, when I consider the issue of EU membership there are aspects that I approve of and others I don’t. As a small rural business based in a remote location, we have been very fortunate to benefit from EU grant funding.
In marine conservation, we heartily approve of the impetus given to the Scottish Government’s increased marine protection by EU directives. And there is the management of humanitarian issues, a sense of shared problems on the world stage.
On the down side, however, there have been some incredibly silly and costly regulations imposed upon us, which have been maddening in their stupidity. When we have sought redress on these issues, it has been near impossible for the simple reason that Brussels is so far away, and therefore our problems have been distant and of no real relevance to those in power.
We’ve all heard of the impact of Europe on small UK businesses – well, here is a concrete example.
According to EU law, all bivalves (such as mussels, oysters and scallops) must be tested for the presence of algal toxins, chiefly the dreaded Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning (ASP).
This is basically a good idea, apart from the fact that the law stipulates that when testing for the toxins the producer has to place the whole animal into a blender and then test the blended material.
‘So what?’ I hear you mutter. But here’s the rub – it costs us thousands and has hamstrung our business for years. Oysters and mussels are eaten whole, so it is therefore logical to test the whole animal as stipulated, but the King Scallop is not eaten whole – the meat and gonad only are eaten, not the attached viscera which is removed by all chefs.
Logically, it should only be necessary to test the edible parts of the scallop. Instead, we are forced to test the inedible guts and faecal matter, which will obviously often fail. Why? Could we not simply demand that chefs properly ‘gut’ the scallop, just as they would be required to do with fish, chicken or game?
Backed by our MSP, we went to the Food Standards Agency with this query and to our relief they saw the logic. They carried out a study which concluded that chefs could indeed safely prepare scallops (no surprises there) and even gained official verification, via the Committee on Toxicity, of the fact that once a scallop is properly shucked it is safe, even given very elevated toxin levels.
Good solid British logic came into play, and we all thought that this obvious problem would be dealt with. But then, when the findings were taken to Europe, it was all thrown back at us. The answer was ‘non!’
And that was that. There was no recourse to anyone, nobody we could appeal to or reason with – the decision had been made and we had little choice but to suck it up.
What we are faced with is a faceless institution, a ‘one size fits all’ EU, which is attempting to create regulations that apply to a dizzyingly diverse range of member states. Despite some of the UK’s greatest chefs tearing their hair out over this issue, outraged that they are not trusted to safely shuck a scallop, it seems nothing can be done.
As someone who makes his living from the sea, I am particularly badly affected by the EU’s nonsensical and byzantine management of fishing in Europe’s seas. In particular, we are blighted by the sad fact that the idiot Ted Heath gave away our entirely sensible threemile limit, a provision put in place to ensure that intensive fishing could not go on close to the shore. Our inshore shallows, which used to act as a nursery for young fish, are now vastly denuded of their fecundity thanks to the loss of this protection.
The three-mile limit will never return and I doubt whether we will ever get the stupid toxin law revoked either. It is impossible. No one can afford to wade against the endless tide of polyglot lawyers, lobbyists and opportunists that flows from Brussels.
I don’t really buy the arguments about the export opportunities or travel and residence options offered by the EU. We would always have a market in Europe and, like Norway, we would be able to have various security and economic links with the EU. Norway, incidentally, has the best fishery in the world – as we once did – because it is able to draw up its own regulations. Indeed, Norwegian fish farming companies such as Marine Harvest still use practices in British waters that are illegal in their home country of Norway.
If we left Europe, we could draw up our own regulations, applicable to our own situation, with that old British logic applied. More importantly, if we were no longer dealing with remote, unelected bureaucrats, we would be able to react to regulations and would stand a far better chance of changing them if they made no sense. As for those EU grants, I think we might see a net benefit if the amount we pay to the EU – more than £300 million a week, as it currently stands – were to be spent ourselves, as our needs dictate, rather than by the EU.
So all in all, I am inclined to say that the ship named the EU perhaps has too many problems and quirks to live with. Time for the dry-dock, or maybe even the scrapyard. The great ocean, just like the global markets, will always be there, ready for a new boat to be launched.
‘But when the findings were taken to Europe, it was all thrown back at us. The answer was “non!”’