The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...38 39 40 41 42 ...73 74 75 · >>
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#586New Post! Mar 03, 2020 @ 14:38:55
Historically Europeans have fished in all waters around the continent. This was in accordance with the the principle of "open seas". Advances in technology in the late 1800s saw fishing fleets able to significantly increase the size of their catches. The growth of the railways also meant that fish could now be transported to more markets. These factors resulted in significant over fishing in the coastal waters of most European countries.

In the 20th century, in response to over fishing, some nations started to enforce an exclusive zone around their coastlines. At this point in time for example French fishermen were prohibited from fishing in the UK's 'territorial' waters and vice versa.

When the UK officially joined the EEC in 1973 they agreed to a policy of sharing access to its waters with all member states. At this point in time a nations fishing waters were quite limited. This changed in 1982 when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, gave all sovereign nations control over the waters off their coast. This new UN law effectively created official "exclusive economic zones" (EEZ). This was the first time that the international community had recognised that nations could own all of the resources that existed within the seas that surrounded them and exclude other nations from exploiting these resources. Of course this was all academic for the UK as, by this time, they were already required to share their fisheries with all other EC member states.

Anyway, to specifically answer your question. Historically French and British fishermen had fished in each others waters. The concept of territorial waters then developed and some countries (including the UK and France) introduced exclusive fishing zones and prohibited other nations from fishing in their waters. At the time the UK joined the EEC French fishermen did not have an agreement with the UK to fish in the latter's 'territorial' waters. Hope that answers your question.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#587New Post! Mar 03, 2020 @ 14:50:57
@shadowen Said

Historically Europeans have fished in all waters around the continent. This was in accordance with the the principle of "open seas". Advances in technology in the late 1800s saw fishing fleets able to significantly increase the size of their catches. The growth of the railways also meant that fish could now be transported to more markets. These factors resulted in significant over fishing in the coastal waters of most European countries.

In the 20th century, in response to over fishing, some nations started to enforce an exclusive zone around their coastlines. At this point in time for example French fishermen were prohibited from fishing in the UK's 'territorial' waters and vice versa.

When the UK officially joined the EEC in 1973 they agreed to a policy of sharing access to its waters with all member states. At this point in time a nations fishing waters were quite limited. This changed in 1982 when the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, gave all sovereign nations control over the waters off their coast. This new UN law effectively created official "exclusive economic zones" (EEZ). This was the first time that the international community had recognised that nations could own all of the resources that existed within the seas that surrounded them and exclude other nations from exploiting these resources. Of course this was all academic for the UK as, by this time, they were already required to share their fisheries with all other EC member states.

Anyway, to specifically answer your question. Historically French and British fishermen had fished in each others waters. The concept of territorial waters then developed and some countries (including the UK and France) introduced exclusive fishing zones and prohibited other nations from fishing in their waters. At the time the UK joined the EEC French fishermen did not have an agreement with the UK to fish in the latter's 'territorial' waters. Hope that answers your question.


Thanks
So it sounds like the French don't have any grounds to claim continued fishing in UK waters without an agreement.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#588New Post! Mar 03, 2020 @ 14:54:35
When discussing fishing rights one needs to mention the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which was introduced in 1983. The CFP gives each member state a quota for what it is allowed to catch.

Under the CFP UK fishermen are only allowed to catch 32% of fish caught in the UK's EEZ. The remaining 68% of fish (approx 700,000 tonnes) are caught by non UK vessels. In return, the UK fleet lands about 92,000 tonnes a year from other EU countries’ waters.

The CFP itself was brought in to improve the management of fish stock resources in the EEZ of member states. Unfortunately it hasnt. Recent reports have shown that the CFP has not improved the management of fish stock resources in any of its 17 criteria, and was actually making things worse in seven areas.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#589New Post! Mar 03, 2020 @ 14:55:16
@mrmhead Said

Thanks
So it sounds like the French don't have any grounds to claim continued fishing in UK waters without an agreement.


They definitely don't.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#590New Post! Mar 03, 2020 @ 15:04:03
The French are now saying that the EU could ban the importation of all British fish into the bloc if the UK don't come up with a fisheries deal that is acceptable to Brussels. Bare in mind that at the moment Brussels are saying that the only acceptable deal is the one that restricts the UK to just 32% of all fish caught in it's EEZ.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#591New Post! Mar 03, 2020 @ 15:13:51
France's de Montchalin has again insisted that there can be no FTA unless ALL of the demands the EU have laid out are met.
"We linked four subjects. We linked the free trade agreement, conditions of competition ('level playing field', meaning the UK have to follow EU law, policy, regulations etc), governance of the whole deal (meaning the UK would have to accept the authority of the ECJ) and fishing. We feel we cannot agree on any of these subjects if we cannot agree on the whole of the four points."
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#592New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 02:22:35
@shadowen Said

The EU seemed to think that, with help from the establishment in the UK, Brexit could be thwarted. They seemed to be of the belief that if they made everything as difficult as possible that the establishment in the UK (esp London) would be able to take control. MPs would say they tried to respect the will of the people but it all proved to be just too hard and in the end Brexit was just unachievable. Until BJ came to power there seemed a real chance that this scenario might play out.

The British voters however ruined everything by giving BJ a stonking majority. For the first time negotiations will be btw the EU and a UK delegation that actually wants to deliver the type of Brexit that the people voted for. The UK delegation can also negotiate in the knowledge that the government have a large majority. This is highly significant.

For the EU it is extremely important that the UK not succeed outside of the Union. This is why they are fighting so hard to tie the UK as closely to the EU as possible. In many member states there is a sizable portion of the population that are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated with how the EU operates, their ever expanding power, and their march towards the creation of a super state. They are being held at bay by people who tell them that the economic pros of being in the EU outweigh the various cons. If the UK do well economically outside of the EU more and more people will start to question whether staying in the Union is really worth the price they are being asked to pay.


Whatever anyone chooses to believe about either sides motivations, the fact of the matter is at the end of the day that neither side has much incentive to concede anything of note to the other for free to make negotiations flow smoothly.

Honestly, if the UK's or EU's positions were as simple as 'we don't really want anything to do with the other anymore' then they could completely end all of this right now. The fact that both sides still want things from the other is what is necessitating negotiation.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#593New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 03:04:49
@mrmhead Said

Thanks
So it sounds like the French don't have any grounds to claim continued fishing in UK waters without an agreement.


I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they don't have any grounds. A particular practice has been common with the UK that has muddied the debate a bit. Fisheries are given quotas by the government, and those quotas can be sold to others at the fisheries discretion. Say that a fishery can only catch so much cod in a year. They can, at their own discretion, choose to sell some, or even all, of that allotment to another fishery, be they domestic or foreign.

In further consideration, I suppose we could argue that just because a foreign fishery bought a quota doesn't necessarily mean that they will have access to the grounds, but that in itself is just a simple, if costly, workaround. Either way, the conversation will then probably change to 'does revocation of access amount to property seizure'.

At the end of the day though, if the UK wishes to go with this stance, as is their right, then their own fisheries which are also benefiting from the same system will likewise receive push back from the EU.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#594New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 05:02:29
@shadowen Said

France's de Montchalin has again insisted that there can be no FTA unless ALL of the demands the EU have laid out are met.
"We linked four subjects. We linked the free trade agreement, conditions of competition ('level playing field', meaning the UK have to follow EU law, policy, regulations etc), governance of the whole deal (meaning the UK would have to accept the authority of the ECJ) and fishing. We feel we cannot agree on any of these subjects if we cannot agree on the whole of the four points."



Which is precisely what they've been saying all along, since the very first day Cameron began this entire fiasco.

The EU's position is not new. It is the position they have had since day one, have repeated over and over and over, and have not altered one bit.

UK, however, told the British people that the EU would give Britain all it wanted with no strings attached. Dominic Raab, in his (then) capacity of DExEU (Department for Exiting the EU) went so far as to say "This will be the easiest trade deal in history".

The EU replied, quite famously, that there would be "Having your cake and eat it".

The EU has consistently told Britain its position honestly, openly and truthfully. Britain has repeatedly told the British people lies. Who is in the wrong here..?

The EU will protect the single market, the four freedoms and it's own interests. Why should they do otherwise for the benefit of a truculent, abusive former member whose stated intention has been to bring the entire EU down if it can.

Why should the EU help to facilitate its own downfall...??

We must remember above all other things, that this is a mess of the British Conservative government's making. The EU didn't throw Britain out. The EU didn't lie to the British people. The EU has never, at any point, changed from its position from what it is now.

The Aussie says the EU is trying to make Brexit fail. It doesn't have to try. The British are doing that quite adequately for themselves.

On the other hand, why should the EU try to make Brexit a success..?

Britain's interests are secondary to the interests of the EU and they owe Britain nothing. Sure, they will lose out too, but again, as has been stated all along, they will not lose as much as Britain and their loss will be spread over 27 countries. Britain will lose far more than the EU and will have to take the hit entirely on their own shoulders.

Tough luck mate. You voted for it. Not just once in June 2016, but you, in effect, ratified that 2016 vote in December 2019.

The British people - or more accurately, the ENGLISH people - have made it quite clear, in two nation wide votes that they want this.

The EU is only giving the British people what they voted for. If it is to Britain's disadvantage, who can they blame but themselves...??
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#595New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 05:59:31
@mrmhead Said

Before the EU, did the French have access to UK fisheries? .. maybe through some previous agreement?



Traditionally, and before the EU, there never was any formal agreement. British and European fishermen trawled the waters all around European coastlines quite freely. Of course, fishing wasn't on the industrial scale that it is now and fishing stocks weren't under any pressure.

How times change.

Now there is a need for all sorts of things such as fishing rights and quotas and all that jazz. It is Britain that is claiming exclusive rights to its territorial waters. This is in conflict to European interests and they are therefore making this an important point in negotiations. As they have said they would all along.

They have repeated this point over and over and over. It should come as no surprise to Britain that they are doing what they said they would. They have been quite honest and open about it from the very start.

The British don't even eat all the fish they catch. We are not talking about a major domestic market here. A huge part of the British catch is sold to European customers. That is the only reason we catch as much as we do.

And not only that, but around 80% of the fish that Britons do like to eat is imported from the EU and without a trade deal, prices will increase dramatically. For instance, the UK consumes about 115,000 tonnes of cod each year. Only 15,000 tonnes comes from the North Sea, with the rest imported mainly from the fertile grounds in the Barents Sea and around Norway and Iceland. Other species of fish that are popular with Britons come into the same equation hence the 80% of British consumption from EU sources which we will no longer have tariff-free access to without a deal. Sure, British fish will be cheaper for British customers, but telling people "You can't have cod but you can have this, like it or lump it" isn't quite what Brexit was sold to the voter as.

Why should Europe restrict its own fishing practices, and allow Britain free access to its markets when it is no longer a member..? It's a very simple question and there is only one answer: Either have a deal or don't have a deal. If you want a deal you have to make concessions. If you don't, you won't get a deal and you will have to suffer the consequences.

It really is that simple.

Getting all high and mighty about the Europeans getting tough with Britain is quite hypocritical when it is the British who have held the aggressive stance all along. I come back to the same point again and again and again:

We started this fight. We wanted this. We voted for it. Twice.

The EU owes Britain nothing.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#596New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 06:21:37
There seems to be this pervading sentiment, and I apologize if this is wrong, that a lot of the rules and regulations are based at least partly on precedent and that everyone's been taking advantage of that. While looking through how quotas were assigned, one of the things that stuck out to me was that one of the considerations was tradition. Now, I can understand why such a consideration was made, even if personally I find such a thing irrational. Be that as it may, it seems like a lot of these 'traditions' both in the UK system and the wider EU one were never codified into actual law. That it was just assumed that such traditions would exist in perpetuity.

Now that those traditions have come into question, it's presented an odd sort of legal discussion on the practices based on them. For instance, as Jennifer says, lots of the fishing grounds that are within the UK's jurisdiction were traditionally fished by both sides of the channel, but such a tradition doesn't necessarily amount to a valid claim on the area in perpetuity from a legal perspective.

Personally I've never really understood the entire areas seeming deference to tradition without codifying them into law. Failing to do so seems, to me at least, have created a lot of misunderstanding and resentment.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#597New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 11:05:23
@nooneinparticular Said

Honestly, if the UK's or EU's positions were as simple as 'we don't really want anything to do with the other anymore'

Who is saying this is the case?

@nooneinparticular Said

The fact that both sides still want things from the other is what is necessitating negotiation.

I agree that both sides would prefer a FTA.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#598New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 12:14:16
@nooneinparticular Said

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they don't have any grounds. A particular practice has been common with the UK that has muddied the debate a bit.

Not really. Things are infact pretty clear. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives ALL sovereign nations CONTROL over the waters off THEIR coast. This area is called a "exclusive economic zone" (EEZ).

Whilst the UK was a MEMBER of the EU they agreed to allow member states to fish in their EEZ. They also agreed to allow Brussels to determine the quotas for each nation. They further agreed to allow Brussels to determine fishing policies, rules and regulations. All of these things however ONLY applied whilst the UK was a MEMBER of the EU.

Last year the UK agreed that, during the transition stage of the WA, they would continue to allow member states access to their EEZ for the purpose of commercial fishing. Such access would be as it was on the last day that the UK was a member of the EU. This meant that they agreed that quotas, policies, rules and regulations set by Brussels would continue to apply. ALL of these things however CEASE once the transition stage is complete. So from January 1st, 2021 the UK shall have the SOLE right to determine who fishes in their EEZ, how much fish they can take and what rules will be applicable to vessels fishing in their waters. Again, international LAW states that the UK will have sole power over what happens in their EEZ. I really fail to see what possible legal claim the French, or anyone else, could have that would successfully overturn the UN's Law of the Sea.

@nooneinparticular Said

Fisheries are given quotas by the government

Yes. No one disputes this. The key difference here is that when the UK was in the EU quotas re fishing in the UK's EEZ were set by the bureaucracy in Brussels. From the start of 2021 quotas re fishing in the UK's EEZ will be set by the UK government.

@nooneinparticular Said

quotas can be sold to others at the fisheries discretion.

Not necessarily. It is up to the government to decide if quotas can be on sold to a third party.

@nooneinparticular Said

Most government quotas Say that a fishery can only catch so much cod in a year. They can, at their own discretion, choose to sell some, or even all, of that allotment to another fishery, be they domestic or foreign.

If you are talking about the government selling (directly or indirectly) quotas to other countries then of course this is true. This was not in question. What was being discussed was not whether or not the UK could sell fishing quotas to foreign powers. What was being discussed was whether or not the French could (after December 31) carry on as before, re fishing in the UK's EEZ, if they had NO agreement with the UK to do so.

@nooneinparticular Said

In further consideration, I suppose we could argue that just because a foreign fishery bought a quota doesn't necessarily mean that they will have access to the grounds

Who the hell would pay for a quota if they didn't have the means to catch that quota? That is bizarre.

@nooneinparticular Said

Either way, the conversation will then probably change to 'does revocation of access amount to property seizure'.

Are you serious? The UN's Law of the Sea is very clear. The UK, as a sovereign state, has SOLE authority over what happens in it's EEZ. Under international law ALL resources in a nations EEZ (including fish) BELONG to said nation.

Whilst the UK was in the EU they agreed to allow fellow member states access to her fisheries. The UK is no longer a member of the EU and come January 1st will not be subject to any of the EU's rules and regulations, including their CFP. This will only change if the UK decide to sell out their fishing industry, and their voters, once more. Seriously, good luck trying to overturn the UN's Law of the Sea by claiming that 'revocation of access amount(s) to property seizure'.

@nooneinparticular Said

At the end of the day though, if the UK wishes to go with this stance, as is their right, then their own fisheries which are also benefiting from the same system will likewise receive push back from the EU.

How exactly are their own fisheries benefiting under the current arrangement? For example, since joining what is now the EU the size of the UK fishing industry has almost halved. If you listen to spokesmen for UK fishing associations you won't find a lot of love for the CFP.

The Government have said a number of times that they want to conduct new scientific studies of the UK's EEZ and determine if the current quotas are reasonable or if there possibly needs to be a reduction in the short term re the total number of fish caught (by volume and species). The UK will then look at how much fish the current UK fishing industry can reasonably catch. This will be noticeably less than the current total quota for fish caught in the UK's EEZ. The remaining quota will then be for sale (either directly or indirectly) to third parties. These quotas, for both domestic and foreign vessels would be renegotiated either annually or every two years.

The point here being that the UK are not saying they want to ban anyone else from fishing in their waters, but rather they want to prioritise their own fishing industry over foreign fishing industries. Not an unreasonable stance i would have thought.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#599New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 12:27:28
@nooneinparticular Said

such a tradition doesn't necessarily amount to a valid claim on the area in perpetuity from a legal perspective.

Personally I've never really understood the entire areas seeming deference to tradition without codifying them into law. Failing to do so seems, to me at least, have created a lot of misunderstanding and resentment.


Legal access to a nations EEZ is covered by international LAW.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#600New Post! Mar 05, 2020 @ 19:15:18
@nooneinparticular Said

There seems to be this pervading sentiment, and I apologize if this is wrong, that a lot of the rules and regulations are based at least partly on precedent and that everyone's been taking advantage of that. While looking through how quotas were assigned, one of the things that stuck out to me was that one of the considerations was tradition. Now, I can understand why such a consideration was made, even if personally I find such a thing irrational. Be that as it may, it seems like a lot of these 'traditions' both in the UK system and the wider EU one were never codified into actual law. That it was just assumed that such traditions would exist in perpetuity.

Now that those traditions have come into question, it's presented an odd sort of legal discussion on the practices based on them. For instance, as Jennifer says, lots of the fishing grounds that are within the UK's jurisdiction were traditionally fished by both sides of the channel, but such a tradition doesn't necessarily amount to a valid claim on the area in perpetuity from a legal perspective.

Personally I've never really understood the entire areas seeming deference to tradition without codifying them into law. Failing to do so seems, to me at least, have created a lot of misunderstanding and resentment.


My point regarding the traditional "all nations access to all waters" was a pre-WWII thing which was, in fact, codified into - not necessarily a 'law' a such, but a part of the treaty which all nations signed on entering the EU.

The UK signed up to the Common Fisheries Policy when they joined the EU in 1973 and actually, it has worked very well for Britain's fishermen.

When we tried to go poaching in Icelandic waters in the early 1970's on the pre-war principle mentioned above. Iceland was not (and still isn't) a member of the EU and closed their waters. When British boats began poaching in those waters the Icelanders retaliated.

This became known as the Cod War and Britain most certainly came out of it second best. Trawlers had their net cables cut which, as I'm sure you'll know, is a very dangerous thing to do to cables under high tension such as those being dragged behind trawlers and full of fish.

Britain sent warships to protect the trawlers and Iceland responded by sending its navy out. The Royal Navy tried to put itself between the Icelandic vessels and the trawlers, but the Icelandic warships rammed them causing a great deal of damage to British warships.

Britain backed down.

It has been mooted here in Britain on a number of occasions that I have heard - sometimes first hand - that all Britain is doing now that it is out of the EU is adopting the same position that the Icelanders did in the 1970's.

The counter to that argument is that the Cod Wars were never an EU issue and the EU (then EEC) did not support the British action. Conflating historic disputes with Brexit is not tenable.

Britain got its arse kicked in the 1970s and it's likely it we will get the worse end of this situation all over again.

We never learn.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...38 39 40 41 42 ...73 74 75 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Mon Apr 03, 2017 @ 04:16
0 310
New posts   Poetry
Tue Jan 27, 2009 @ 16:35
3 399
New posts   Environment
Tue Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:53
0 773
New posts   Politics
Wed Oct 18, 2006 @ 19:11
37 1413
New posts   Music
Mon Oct 31, 2005 @ 14:16
6 657