@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.
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.
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.