Yes, it's that time of year again: the annual setting of the fishing quotas. And it is shaping up to follow the usual pattern: scientific advice is that over-fishing has led to dwindling stocks and that drastic cuts (even, some say, a complete moratorium on cod fishing) should be introduced. The European Commission then puts forward a tough proposal (though not quite as tough as the scientists would like), which is then watered down by national fishing ministers in the EU Council. The result will be that, next year, lo and behold, they find that this year's cuts were insufficient, stocks are still dwindling and the whole cycle starts again.

It is right, of course, to agree a common policy on this. A unilateral effort by Britain alone to save stocks by cutting fishing quotas would be pointless if our neighbouring countries were not doing likewise. Fish have the unfortunate habit of swimming from one country's waters to another, so common action is essential.

Arguably, then, we would get a more sensible policy if powers were handed to the European Commission to decide a common line. Instead, we have interminable haggling in the Council of Ministers, where each minister agrees with the principle cutting quotas, but wants some exceptions for his country. Inevitably, they all end up agreeing with each other's exceptions and derogations, thereby undermining the policy as a whole.

Fish have been dominating the news this week with good news for salmon countered by a stark warning that the world’s fishing stock will be exhausted by 2050 if current levels of fishing continues.

Following a complaint to the European Commission, the Irish government acted to ban drift-net fishing off the country’s coast which was seriously depleting European salmon rivers, not least in Britain – a good example of how fishing policy cannot be a purely national matter.

Anyone who saw the BBC’s excellent documentary Trawlermen earlier in the year can empathise with the fisherman who do an incredibly hard job for increasingly little reward. Without fish there will be no fishing industry. Like it or not, strict limits on fishing, agreed and applied by all, are essential to the survival of the industry.

Each year the Commission proposes a quota for the Common Fishing Policy and almost without fail the governments of Member States ignore the scientific advice to stem criticism from back home and agree on more lax quotas.

By trying to keep everyone happy in the short term we are failing to safeguard fish stocks for the future. But without fish there will be no fishing industry.

Interesting to see that Eurosceptics are focusing on a recent European Court of Justice judgement that confirmed that the EU is entitled to require member states to treat certain violations of European legislation as criminal offences. Needless to say, Eurosceptics have gone way over the top and referred to the European Commission being able to determine sentences, claiming that "Brussels" will determine criminal penalties.

If they thought a little bit further than the next tabloid headline, they might get involved in a sensible discussion about what this ruling actually means - and, who knows, they might even welcome it! Do they really think that, for instance, Spain should merely give token fines to fishermen who catch more than their quota in British waters? Or that people who put toxic substances into waterways, in violation of EU law, should not be subject to any criminal court proceedings in their country?

Essentially, the ruling confirms that member states can be required to get tough with those who violate the law. This is a good thing for everyone. When we agree common European laws with our neighbouring countries in the EU, surely it is our right to expect our partners to implement it properly, and to sanction those who violate the law in their country just as we would sanction those who violate it in our country? What would be the point in agreeing those common laws if our neighbours were free to leave violations unpunished?

Rather than welcome this positive feature of the EU - or even debate it - Eurosceptics would rather stir up unfounded fears that the European Commission, and not the national courts, will determine sentences or, at the very least, that we are going to have a "harmonised criminal law across the union" (to quote UKIP's press officer, Gawain Towler).

Mr Towler even berates a law firm for its supposed ignorance when they rightly say that "the European Court's ruling does not give the Commission powers to jail people…. Any laws involving criminal sanctions will have to be adopted and passed by the national Parliament's of each member state. All the Commission can do is to propose new laws for member states to adopt". Yet, the lawyers are exactly right and UKIP is completely wrong.

This year, as every year, fishing ministers have announced their agreement on the following year’s quotas just before Christmas. This year, as every year, there is a reduction in quotas for many species. This year, as every year, it is a smaller reduction than proposed by the European Commission, which is itself less than recommended by scientists.

The big problem with fishing is declining stocks - due both to years of over-fishing and to new technologies able to pinpoint fish locations relatively easily. The only possible response is to limit fishing, giving stocks a chance to recover. This has to be a commonly agreed system: if each country set its own quota, there would be free-loading and the policy would be totally ineffectual. Fish have an unfortunate habit of swimming from one country’s waters to another, so efforts by one country will be wasted unless everyone takes part.

But in the process of reaching agreement, ministers all have the same objective: they want to minimise cuts to their own fishermen (because immediate cuts mean immediate job losses, instead of possible job losses next year). Each country's ministers wants to get other countries' quotas down while maintaining those of our own fishermen. In the end, the annual deal is always too lax, meaning that the following year there will be still more pain, and ultimately the whole industry is put in jeopardy.

This year, scientists recommended a total ban on cod fishing, arguing that there is a real danger of stocks falling to a level from which they will never recover, as happened in North America. In the end, ministers meeting in Brussels agreed only on a 15% cut in the catch levels for cod (and for herring and whiting, with a 13% cut in haddock).

Will this be enough?

Mike Park, vice-president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, said that in political terms the deal was as good as could have been achieved, and he believed the industry had turned the corner:

"In reality, it does mean a reduction in the income of some sections of the fleet. But it's a balanced package and I think there are opportunities at the start of next year where we could maybe recover some ground. Cod is only one of the stocks and every other stock in the North Sea now is on the way up."

And indeed, ministers agreed a 30% increase in North Sea prawn quotas, a 5% rise in Irish Sea monkfish and a 3% increase in the catch level for hake in most fishing grounds.

But the long-term trends suggest we should be cautious about such optimism. I notice that the conservation group, WWF, said it made no sense to continue to allow targeted fishing on North Sea cod when it was on the brink of collapse. Their spokeswoman, Claire Pescod, said:

"In doing so, they are ensuring that this iconic British species has virtually no chance of survival or recovery."

For some, though, any cuts are an opportunity to make short term political capital out of the distress that reductions inevitably bring. For them, the long-term is of no interest if they can cash in on this distress.

Take, for instance, the Scottish National Party, whose fisheries spokesman Richard Lochhead railed against the "failure to stop Brussels imposing more damaging cuts on Scotland":

"On top of all the cuts of recent years, these latest cuts will impact on fishermen who only just managed to stay afloat in 2005. The Scots fleet achieved everything asked of it and met all its conservation targets yet has been handed down another unjust anti-Scottish deal.”

Note that the blame is on “Brussels” and, of course, any reduction is only targeted at “us”. No hint of any shared responsibility to protect our resources. No mention of the fact that over-fishing has brought about this situation in the first place. No recognition that a failure to act now will only cause further pain in the longer run. Could there possibly be any better example of an irresponsible political statement?