John Bull is having one of his fits about foreigners. This time it is over their being compensated for his failed attempts to stop them stealing his fish. He is even taling of leaving the common fisheries policy (CFP) of the European Union altogether. There is only one problem with all of this it is nonsense.

First, leaving the CFP would mean leaving the European Union. It is possible to imagine circumstances in which the UK might want to do so. Protecting an industry that general generates O.1 per cent of gross domestic product and a still smaller share of employment is not among them.

Second, fish do not recognise frontiers. If the stocks of the European continental shelf are to be converved, there must be a European-wide policy. The UK does have a high proportion of fully grown fish in its waters, but many of them spawn and grow elsewhere. It is senseless to demand 100 per cent of what could turn out to be nothing.

Third, scientists insist that European politicians continue to grant dangerously large quotas. The threat to stocks is a real one. Prior to the introduction of the CFP, the herring catch fell from 1.4m tonnes a year in the mid 1960s to only 0.5m tonnes a decade later. The impact of overfishing can also be sudden and total, as the disappearance of cod off Canada's Atlantic coast demonstrates.

Fourth, monitoring and policing are too lax. The only sensible way to remedy the consequences for the conservation of fish is to create and fund a European wide system that would be less partial to particular national interests.

Fifth, national quotas are, quite reasonably, divided on the basis of shares in catches in 1983, when the CFP was agreed. Quite rightly, it is possible for fishermen to tranfer the quotas among themselves by buying and selling licenses to fish. Under European law it is impossible, however, to prevent nationals of other member states from purchasing these licenses, since discrimination on the basis of nationality was rules out by the European Court of Justice in 1991. The case recently lost by the UK merely requires it to compensate foreign fishermen for what turned out to be illegal attempts to exclude them between 1988 and the date of that ruling.

Finally, however upsetting the outcome may be for the UK industry, the sale of licenses is a market transaction. They could have been bought by UK nationals. More significantly, this is surely just an example of direct investment across frontiers, which is fundamental to the single market favoured by the UK government.

Jingoism may stir the blood, but it will fail to conserve the fish. The only way to do so is to create a stronger common fisheries policy. That is not a sell out of British interests. It is the only effective way to protect them.