The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...39 40 41 42 · >>
Jennifer1984 On about 7 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#601New 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.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#602New Post! Mar 08, 2020 @ 14:56:24
I wish to take this opportunity to register my disgust at the latest utterance from the extreme right wing Tory Nazi party. I am referring to the UK government's announcement that they have plans in place to protect the natural resources found within their EEZ, and to specifically seek to stop illegal fishing in their waters. To paraphrase the great Greta "how dare they". Such evil intent is to be expected from such a racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, woman hating party. This outrageous patriarchal policy is the result of a particularly vile form of toxic masculinity being championed by bigots like Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel.

Now some fascists might argue that UN law states that nations have the sole power to decide what activities are permitted within their territorial waters and what happens to the natural resources within their EEZ. They might further point out that under international law the UK is permitted to use reasonable force in dealing with those acting illegally within their EEZ. We however know that the UK isnt really concerned about protecting their natural resources. In reality their stated intention to prevent illegal fishing within their EEZ is driven by a sense of imperialism and a hatred of foreigners.

I think that, as an act of good will (and to show the world that they are not irredeemably racist) the UK should send their entire fleet of RN and fishing vessels to Scapa Flow where they would be ceremonially scuttled. The UK should then announce that anyone (other than British people) would be free to fish in their waters. Having done this the Government should resign and hand power over to Labour. After all, Labour won the argument during last years election campaign, and as R L-B rightly points out, they would have won the election itself if traditional Labour voters were smart enough to understand Labour's manifesto.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#603New Post! Mar 17, 2020 @ 15:01:14
So in 2016, and again in 2019, the British people voted to leave the customs union and the single market. They voted to remove the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK and to take back control of their waters and border. But the EU are acting like that never happened. Their 'red lines' are such that they may as well just ask the UK government to sign an Article 49 document.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#604New Post! Mar 17, 2020 @ 15:08:43
Meanwhile basic EU strategy is becoming pretty obvious. You make things as complex as possible and seek to delay, delay, delay. All the while you keep saying how committed you are to a FTA but that there needs to be more time to make this happen. They will claim that the process needs to be extended by 12-24 months...I think that they believe that the longer the UK can be effectively kept in the EU the closer the EU can bind the UK to itself. The end game is still of course to effectively stop the UK from removing itself from EU control.
nooneinparticular On March 27, 2020




, Hawaii
#605New Post! Mar 21, 2020 @ 17:30:51
@shadowen Said

Who is saying this is the case?


I agree that both sides would prefer a FTA.


Would you PLEASE pay attention? I was specifically saying that IF the situation was as simple as 'we don't want anything to do with each other', then this would have ended a long time ago. Obviously, it's not that simple, and I never claimed that it was.
nooneinparticular On March 27, 2020




, Hawaii
#606New Post! Mar 21, 2020 @ 18:09:42
@shadowen Said

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.


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.


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


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'.


I'm aware of and am not disputing any of that. I'm simply saying that whether they want to go with a restructuring of quotas or not doesn't change the fact that if there is no agreement by the 31st then all of the contracts that were agreed to around quotas becomes null and void. This means that the respective governments voided an agreed contract between private entities, and might become a sore spot later down the line. Voided contracts means lost capital and trust after all.

As I stated at the end, the UK is perfectly within their rights to do this, but it won't come without cost. To say that they have no claim whatsoever is quite different from saying that a government can revoke those claims. Like you yourself stated, "Who the hell would pay for a quota if they didn't have the means to catch that quota?" The quota assumes access, otherwise it's worthless.

Quote:

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.


UK fisherman fish outside of the UK's EEZ, so it stands to reason that their own access to foreign waters might be put at risk.

I would like to also note that regardless of whether the quotas themselves are good or bad ideas, the UK government has ALWAYS had final say on the division of the quotas themselves. They've ALWAYS had the option to 'prioritize their own fishing industry over foreign fishing industries', they had simply chosen not to until now, when it's politically convenient for them to do so.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#607New Post! Mar 22, 2020 @ 17:29:03
@nooneinparticular Said

I'm aware of and am not disputing any of that.

Well it didn't seem like you were.

In response to mrmhead saying that "it sounds like the French don't have any grounds to claim continued fishing in UK waters without an agreement" you replied with "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". The simple reality is that under international LAW the French have NO legal right to fish in the UK's EEZ without the permission of the UK. This is not a matter for debate. It's straightforward. The waters aren't muddied, they are crystal clear.

You also said "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." That simply is not true. Fishing in the UK's EEZ has been covered by both EU LAW and international LAW. Re EU law, it was always understood that EU law would naturally only apply to fishing in the UK's EEZ for as long as the UK was a part of the EU.

Further on you said "Now that those traditions have come into question, it's presented an odd sort of legal discussion on the practices based on them." Well it hasnt. The applicable international LAW is unambiguous.

You went on to say "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". The reality is that such a 'tradition' doesn't amount to ANY sort of a legal claim on the area for any period of time, never mind perpetuity. Again, who may or may not have fished where in the days before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was enacted is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is what the relevant international law states, and that law categorically bans any nation from fishing in the EEZ of any other nation's EEZ without their permission. This is pretty black and white.

Finally you said " 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". Well we were discussing whether or not French vessels could fish in the UK's EEZ without permission. This is a matter that is subject to international LAW and, until January 1st next year, by EU law. So fishing rights within the UK's EEZ has been codified into law and i don't know why you would say otherwise. Oh, and yes there may be some resentment, but there is certainly no misunderstanding.

@nooneinparticular Said

I'm simply saying that whether they want to go with a restructuring of quotas or not doesn't change the fact that if there is no agreement by the 31st then all of the contracts that were agreed to around quotas becomes null and void. This means that the respective governments voided an agreed contract between private entities, and might become a sore spot later down the line. Voided contracts means lost capital and trust after all.

Only they won't be voiding any "agreed contract(s) between private entities" as these contracts were made in the knowledge that they would ONLY apply whilst the UK was a member of the EU. That is, and always has been, a key condition of said contracts. Even back in 2015 the French knew that they could lose their current access to UK waters if the UK chose to leave the EU...which of course they did.


@nooneinparticular Said

To say that they have no claim whatsoever is quite different from saying that a government can revoke those claims.

Legally the French (and all other nations) have NO claim whatsoever re fishing in the UK's EEZ. That is the very simple legal reality. Again, specific companies were granted access to the UK's EEZ under EU law. This law only applies to member states. If a country leaves the EU then they are not subject to EU law (unless they choose to be). This is no secret to anyone. All contracts made under EU law are made in the knowledge that they shall only apply whilst all parties are subject to EU law. Pretty simple really.


@nooneinparticular Said

UK fisherman fish outside of the UK's EEZ, so it stands to reason that their own access to foreign waters might be put at risk.

Of course UK fishermen would lose access to some of the waters they currently fish in the event that the UK government remain true to their word. However, under the current 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. Looking specifically at France, between 2012-2016 they caught (according to Marine Management Organisation figures) 120,000 tonnes of fish worth £171 million in the UK's EEZ. During this same period the UK only gained £17 million's worth of landing from French waters.

@nooneinparticular Said

I would like to also note that regardless of whether the quotas themselves are good or bad ideas, the UK government has ALWAYS had final say on the division of the quotas themselves. They've ALWAYS had the option to 'prioritize their own fishing industry over foreign fishing industries', they had simply chosen not to until now, when it's politically convenient for them to do so.

That is simply untrue. Yes the UK government can control what happens to their own quota BUT it's the EU, through the CFP, that determines what their quota is in the first place.

A condition for joining the EEC (as it was then) was that the UK opened it's EEZ to member states for the purpose of fishing. They furthermore agreed to the EEC determining quotas, rules, regulations and policies for fishing in the UK's waters.

As previously stated it is the EU through the CFP that set the quotas NOT the UK government. The ONLY reason why the UK government is now in a position to determine what happens in it's own EEZ is because they have left the EU and, come January 1st, will no longer be subject to the authority of the CFP.

Note, the EU control fishing in the UK's EEZ by:
* enacting rules on access to waters – to control which vessels have access to which waters and areas
* fishing effort controls – limiting fishing capacity and vessel usage
* technical measures - regulating gear usage and where and when fishermen can fish.

As an aside the way fishing rights are allocated in the UK needs a significant overhaul. The vast majority of the UK's existing quota is allocated to just 25 businesses which makes it incredibly hard for small, private operators to survive. This needs to be addressed by the UK government if they are serious about helping their fishing communities. Little will change for the ordinary fishermen after December 31 if this issue isnt addressed. All that will happen is that the rich will get richer.

Finally, having a TAC is absolutely necessary. As it is European fisheries are generally in a poor state and have shown little or no sign of recovery over the past 25 years.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#608New Post! Mar 23, 2020 @ 15:58:23
Interesting to hear the unelected Eurocrats of Brussels criticising Hungary for the 'undemocratic' measures that they have taken in order to combat the spread of covid-19.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#609New Post! Mar 23, 2020 @ 15:59:56
Was also interesting to hear Brussels criticisng the UK for their state aid measures...and then say nothing when France did the same thing just days later.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#610New Post! Mar 23, 2020 @ 16:00:25
There are some very interesting times ahead for the Eurozone...
nooneinparticular On March 27, 2020




, Hawaii
#611New Post! Mar 23, 2020 @ 22:35:05
@shadowen Said

Well it didn't seem like you were.

In response to mrmhead saying that "it sounds like the French don't have any grounds to claim continued fishing in UK waters without an agreement" you replied with "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". The simple reality is that under international LAW the French have NO legal right to fish in the UK's EEZ without the permission of the UK. This is not a matter for debate. It's straightforward. The waters aren't muddied, they are crystal clear.


Correct, legally they can do whatever they like come exit. I never said otherwise. The only thing I said was that I wouldn't go so far as to say the French have no grounds to claim access. We could theoretically argue that the French (and others) bought access when they bought the quotas. We don't really know what was actually in all of those contracts so who can say?

Put differently, let's think back to our conversations about the nature of democracy. You argued how a great many things SHOULD work in a democracy. I never challenged that, nor did I say that you have no grounds to believe in them. I only said that it's not how it currently works. Let's take your stance here and apply it to that conversation.

Legally speaking, the UK has a republic in which representatives vote in place of their constituents on various issues. Typically, they vote based on their own re-election chances, but that's not necessarily always the case. It is not illegal for a representative to vote counter to their constituencies wishes. It is not illegal for a representative to make closed door deals out of the public eye. Would we say that a constituency who has a representative that does these things has no grounds to call for that representative to be ousted? Legally speaking, such a representative would be in the right, after all.

Quote:

You also said "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." That simply is not true. Fishing in the UK's EEZ has been covered by both EU LAW and international LAW. Re EU law, it was always understood that EU law would naturally only apply to fishing in the UK's EEZ for as long as the UK was a part of the EU.


If it was not assumed that such things would exist in perpetuity then why is there no ordered process to dictate how everything falls in the event that it ends? Surely if there is money changing hands between citizens, then the question of government intervention that can end them should be an important question, right?

Quote:

Further on you said "Now that those traditions have come into question, it's presented an odd sort of legal discussion on the practices based on them." Well it hasnt. The applicable international LAW is unambiguous.


Which in itself assumes that things like agreements over fishing rights never occurred before the EU, or are no longer applicable.

Quote:

You went on to say "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". The reality is that such a 'tradition' doesn't amount to ANY sort of a legal claim on the area for any period of time, never mind perpetuity. Again, who may or may not have fished where in the days before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was enacted is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is what the relevant international law states, and that law categorically bans any nation from fishing in the EEZ of any other nation's EEZ without their permission. This is pretty black and white.


If that's the way you and they want to go, then more power to ya, but what that effectively means is that the government can decide to pull the rug out from under any fishing endeavor just because it says so and the lost capital just disappears into the UK economy. If we interpret these laws as 'black and white', then a conniving government experiencing money shortfalls could effectively sell quotas to other companies only to turn around and deny them access to the waters where those quotas are worthwhile.

If we are going to argue that the quotas don't amount to consent of access, then the value of any future quotas the UK might wish to sell could vary wildly in price.

Quote:

Finally you said " 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". Well we were discussing whether or not French vessels could fish in the UK's EEZ without permission. This is a matter that is subject to international LAW and, until January 1st next year, by EU law. So fishing rights within the UK's EEZ has been codified into law and i don't know why you would say otherwise. Oh, and yes there may be some resentment, but there is certainly no misunderstanding.


Yes that may have been what WE were talking about. If you'll remember however, the things that you're pulling from this quote and several others were not directed at THIS discussion in particular. If it was, I would have quoted it and talked about in those terms. A lot of them were just more general observations from a bigger picture perspective.

Quote:

Only they won't be voiding any "agreed contract(s) between private entities" as these contracts were made in the knowledge that they would ONLY apply whilst the UK was a member of the EU. That is, and always has been, a key condition of said contracts. Even back in 2015 the French knew that they could lose their current access to UK waters if the UK chose to leave the EU...which of course they did.


Was that an implicit or explicit understanding? Was it written in the documents themselves, or is it an assumed outcome?

Quote:

Legally the French (and all other nations) have NO claim whatsoever re fishing in the UK's EEZ. That is the very simple legal reality. Again, specific companies were granted access to the UK's EEZ under EU law. This law only applies to member states. If a country leaves the EU then they are not subject to EU law (unless they choose to be). This is no secret to anyone. All contracts made under EU law are made in the knowledge that they shall only apply whilst all parties are subject to EU law. Pretty simple really.


Not a legally incorrect stance by any means, however, looking at it from a different angle, what you (and in affect the UK government) are saying is that 'we reserve the right to grant or revoke access however we please irregardless of how that affects both our own citizens and those of foreign countries'. A stance you, and they, have every right to take. However, doing so could potentially devalue the worth of those quotas heavily. As you said earlier, 'Who would pay for a quota that they can't fish'. If a quota can be rendered worthless so relatively quickly, then what does that mean for the market value of that quota?

Either way, I'm not learned enough in European politics to say WITH CERTAINTY that there are NO agreements still in place that might take precedence over international law.

Quote:

Of course UK fishermen would lose access to some of the waters they currently fish in the event that the UK government remain true to their word. However, under the current 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. Looking specifically at France, between 2012-2016 they caught (according to Marine Management Organisation figures) 120,000 tonnes of fish worth £171 million in the UK's EEZ. During this same period the UK only gained £17 million's worth of landing from French waters.


And how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place? If you want to look at relative gain, then you need to look at more than just the value of the fish caught.

Regardless of that consideration however, as you so helpfully pointed out further on, this isn't really a question about volume or mass gain. It's a question about individual gain. Certain fisheries will be impacted negatively if the EU (or any other country) decides to reciprocate by 'restructuring access'. If it WERE a question of total gain, then the logical solution would be to give even more quotas to the fisheries that can most efficiently handle them (aka one of the bigger ones that already have a lions share of them).

Ultimately, as I have been continually saying for the past 2+ years now, whether the UK chooses to do something or not is no skin of my back either way, but they should understand the risks involved. If the UK fishing industry and the UK people are okay with potentially sacrificing some fisheries to attempt to save or bolster others, then that decision, and those consequences, rest squarely on their shoulders.

Quote:

That is simply untrue. Yes the UK government can control what happens to their own quota BUT it's the EU, through the CFP, that determines what their quota is in the first place.

A condition for joining the EEC (as it was then) was that the UK opened it's EEZ to member states for the purpose of fishing. They furthermore agreed to the EEC determining quotas, rules, regulations and policies for fishing in the UK's waters.

As previously stated it is the EU through the CFP that set the quotas NOT the UK government. The ONLY reason why the UK government is now in a position to determine what happens in it's own EEZ is because they have left the EU and, come January 1st, will no longer be subject to the authority of the CFP.

Note, the EU control fishing in the UK's EEZ by:
* enacting rules on access to waters – to control which vessels have access to which waters and areas
* fishing effort controls – limiting fishing capacity and vessel usage
* technical measures - regulating gear usage and where and when fishermen can fish.

As an aside the way fishing rights are allocated in the UK needs a significant overhaul. The vast majority of the UK's existing quota is allocated to just 25 businesses which makes it incredibly hard for small, private operators to survive. This needs to be addressed by the UK government if they are serious about helping their fishing communities. Little will change for the ordinary fishermen after December 31 if this issue isnt addressed. All that will happen is that the rich will get richer.

Finally, having a TAC is absolutely necessary. As it is European fisheries are generally in a poor state and have shown little or no sign of recovery over the past 25 years.


You keep jumping around here. Can we stick to one issue at a time, please? Is the problem the existence of quotas, their division based on country, or their division based on company? Is it all three?

If it's the first, that's a sustainability argument that neither of us are really qualified to seriously comment on. If it's the second, then that's an argument against the EU's management system, HOWEVER, as you yourself stated, leaving alone doesn't really change anything for the small fisheries struggling because the quotas are still divided by the UK government the way they are. If it's the third, then that's entirely on the UK government's own head. If it's all 3, then leaving really only addresses the first one, and even then it will only really matter in the end if the UK's own assessments (which they seemingly have yet to do) veer significantly from the EU.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#612New Post! Mar 24, 2020 @ 13:07:00
@nooneinparticular Said

Correct, legally they can do whatever they like come exit. I never said otherwise. The only thing I said was that I wouldn't go so far as to say the French have no grounds to claim access. We could theoretically argue that the French (and others) bought access when they bought the quotas.

The French and other nations DIDN'T buy any access to UK waters as they didn't buy any quotas from the UK. That's not how the CFP works. The EU ALLOCATE quotas to different countries. The countries then sell parts of their quotas to commercial fishermen. Fishermen buy a share of a country's quota on the very clear understanding that the country's quota is allocated by the EU with said quotas only available whilst the country is in the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

Legally speaking, the UK has a republic

Nope, legally speaking the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.

@nooneinparticular Said

If it was not assumed that such things would exist in perpetuity then why is there no ordered process to dictate how everything falls in the event that it ends?

Access to the UK's waters by EU member states is covered by EU law. Only a great fool would have thought that the UK would remain in the EU forever. And only a greater fool would have thought that EU law would still apply to the UK if it wasn't in the EU. So no reasonable person could have thought that access to the UK's waters would be controlled by the EU in perpetuity.

Under EU law access to the UK's waters, as dictated by the EU, only continues for as long as the UK is a member of the EU. Pretty straight forward. Whilst the UK was a member of the EU they agreed to allow the EU to control who can fish in their waters, how much fish they can take (TAC) and even how the fish were caught. Once the UK left the EU (and the transition phase was over) these things would be controlled by the UK as per international law. No one thought that EU member states would continue to have access to UK waters under EU terms if the UK was no longer a part of the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

Surely if there is money changing hands between citizens, then the question of government intervention that can end them should be an important question, right?

This is how it works. The EU (NOT the UK) determine how much fish member states can catch in British waters. For example the UK was allocated 32% of total fish caught in their waters. The UK government then allows companies and individuals to bid for a share of this 32%. The same process occurs in the other EU member states. So the contracts are between companies/individuals and the Government. These contracts are based on the quota allocated to the individual member state by the EU, and it is understood that the EU has the power to vary these quotas and/or the TAC. It is also understood that these EU dictated quotas only apply for as long as the UK is a member of the EU. This is a conditional part of the contract that everyone involved understands.

@nooneinparticular Said

If that's the way you and they want to go, then more power to ya, but what that effectively means is that the government can decide to pull the rug out from under any fishing endeavor just because it says so

No it doesnt. It's absurd to think that companies can (or should be allowed) to continue to fish in the UK's EEZ under EU law if the UK is no longer a part of the EU. French fishermen for example were operating in British waters under EU law. This law was applicable ONLY whilst the UK was a member of the EU. Now that the UK is no longer a member of the EU any future access to British waters will be determined by the UK government, be that under a FTA or under WTO terms. I really can't understand why you seem to think this somehow improper.

@nooneinparticular Said

If we interpret these laws as 'black and white', then a conniving government experiencing money shortfalls could effectively sell quotas to other companies only to turn around and deny them access to the waters where those quotas are worthwhile.

It's not a matter of interpreting the applicable international law as being black and white. The simple fact is that it is black and white.

As for your 'conniving' government scenario. First of all you would have to have a pretty bad lawyer involved in the negotiations you have with the government to sign a contract whereby you pay for a quota without being able to legally catch that quota. And there are many avenues of appeal you could take were your 'conniving' government to try and pull a fast one.

Secondly, even if the government somehow got away with shafting the companies there may be some short term gain but going forward who the hell would want to deal with them? Indeed i have never heard of a scenario like the one you mention occurring in a western country. If you have any examples I would love to hear them.

It seems to me that you are of the opinion that the UK government should bind itself to fishing rights to their waters, as determined by the EU, even though they are not a member of the EU. You seem to be saying that the UK government should forgo it's international right to control it's own EEZ and instead allow their EEZ to continue to be controlled by the EU.


@nooneinparticular Said

If we are going to argue that the quotas don't amount to consent of access, then the value of any future quotas the UK might wish to sell could vary wildly in price.

Well I am definitely not arguing that "quotas don't amount to consent of access". What I am saying is that it is unreasonable to expect the UK to be tied to EU laws when they arent a member of the EU, and this including fishing.

As for the price of quotas...that is something that the market will determine.

@nooneinparticular Said

Yes that may have been what WE were talking about. If you'll remember however, the things that you're pulling from this quote and several others were not directed at THIS discussion in particular. If it was, I would have quoted it and talked about in those terms. A lot of them were just more general observations from a bigger picture perspective.

Even if that were so your 'observations' are clearly at odds with the facts eg inferring that fishing in UK waters isnt subject to law. Like when you said "I've never really understood the entire areas seeming deference to tradition without codifying them into law". The reality is that there a few things the EU love more than making laws.

@nooneinparticular Said

Not a legally incorrect stance by any means, however, looking at it from a different angle, what you (and in affect the UK government) are saying is that 'we reserve the right to grant or revoke access however we please irregardless of how that affects both our own citizens and those of foreign countries'. A stance you, and they, have every right to take. However, doing so could potentially devalue the worth of those quotas heavily. As you said earlier, 'Who would pay for a quota that they can't fish'. If a quota can be rendered worthless so relatively quickly, then what does that mean for the market value of that quota?

You make it sound like the UK government granted quotas to companies to fish in their waters and are now looking at modifying or preventing these companies from having future access to said waters. This simply isnt the case. Again, the UK government NEVER granted or determined ANY quotas at a national level. This was done by the EU under EU law. The UK government only contracted out TACs to companies re their EU allocated quota. There has been no suggestion that the UK government are going to change these internal arrangements.

What the UK government is looking at changing is what the TAC in it's waters are and who has what share of any said TAC. This is something ALL sovereign nations do. It is hardly unreasonable. Again, the UK is no longer a part of the EU and so they are rightly saying that, going forward, the EU will no longer determine what happens in British waters. Why taking back control of their waters, as per international law, would in any way "devalue the worth of those quotas heavily" is a mystery.

'we reserve the right to grant or revoke access however we please irregardless of how that affects both our own citizens and those of foreign countries'
It's not a case of "however we please". The government are simply saying that as we are no longer a member of the EU we shall no longer allow the EU to control fishing in our waters. Instead, and in accordance with international law, we shall determine what happens in our EEZ. Now if the UK government make decisions that adversely impact upon their citizens then those citizens can hold them to account at the ballot box. Something they couldn't do re the EU. As for how decisions made by the UK government impact upon other countries. Well you want to take this into account but ultimately your first responsibility is to your own people. That's the same in all countries.

@nooneinparticular Said

And how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place? If you want to look at relative gain, then you need to look at more than just the value of the fish caught.

You still sound like you think the UK sold fishing quotas to other nations. They didnt. The EU, and the EU alone determined exactly how much fish any country could take within the UK's EEZ. The UK government then simply sold fishing rights to companies consistent with the EU mandated quota. Same as the French, Danish, and Dutch governments etc did.

When the UK was a member of the EU (and up until the end of this year) the EU allocated quotas. The UK's quota for catching fish in their own waters was 32%. Come January 1st next year their 'quota' will be 100%. Now the UK government, and indeed the UK fishing industry, are not looking at excluding all foreign fishing in their EEZ. Instead they will set their own TAC. They will then sell TACs to British fishermen first before selling TACs to fishermen in other countries. If you were a British fisherman this would seem like a much better arrangement than the one they have had under the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

And how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place? If you want to look at relative gain, then you need to look at more than just the value of the fish caught.

The disparity is down to EU mandated quotas. The disparity has nothing to do with the UK government selling their quota (or part thereof). Again, the EU sets the quotas for fishing in British waters NOT the UK government.

@nooneinparticular Said

If the UK fishing industry and the UK people are okay with potentially sacrificing some fisheries to attempt to save or bolster others, then that decision, and those consequences, rest squarely on their shoulders.

Most UK citizen and UK fishermen are very happy for the country to take back control of their EEZ.

@nooneinparticular Said

You keep jumping around here. Can we stick to one issue at a time, please?

Hardly jumping around. I prefaced my comments re how the UK's quota is contracted out by saying "as an aside". Everything i wrote before that was consistent with what we have been discussing. So again, no jumping around. Just an aside added.

@nooneinparticular Said

Is the problem the existence of quotas, their division based on country, or their division based on company? Is it all three?

The existence of quotas and TACs is certainly not a problem in general. They are necessary in order to allow for sustainable fishing. That said the EU's CFP has failed quite badly in it's attempts to improve the health of EU waters re fishing. Hopefully the UK will manage their waters better than the EU have (and better than they did in the past). The division based on country was clearly a problem. Having the EU tell the UK how much fish they could catch in their own waters was a problem. Having the EU determine how much fish other nations could catch in UK waters was also a problem. And yes the allocation of TACs needs to be reformed so that it is fairer and more transparent.

@nooneinparticular Said

If it's the first, that's a sustainability argument that neither of us are really qualified to seriously comment on.

The EU have not managed their waters well re fish stocks which according to multiple reports have shown little sign of recovery over the past 25 yrs. Come January 1st the UK will be responsible for the health of their own waters. Hopefully they do a better job than the EU. We shall have to wait and see.

@nooneinparticular Said

If it's the second, then that's an argument against the EU's management system

The issue isnt so much the EU's management system but rather the fact that the EU has exercised control the UK's national waters. The UK is a coastal state and it should have control over what happens in it's own waters. It did once and, providing BJ doesn't sell out those who voted for him, it soon will again.

@nooneinparticular Said

If it's the third, then that's entirely on the UK government's own head.

Yes it is.

@nooneinparticular Said

If it's all 3, then leaving really only addresses the first one

No it doesn't.

Leaving does indeed address the first issue as it allows the UK to take back control of their waters and set their own TACs and quotas instead of having these things determined by the EU. Leaving however also addresses the second issue, which is how the EU allocate fishing quotas, as such quotas will now be allocated by the UK. Now leaving doesnt directly impact on the third point but it will mean the UK government wont be able to hide behind the EU when it suits. With increased power will come increased responsibility, scrutiny and accountability. All good things.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#613New Post! Mar 25, 2020 @ 15:08:16
The EU have been very slow to react to the Covid-19 pandemic. The ECB is only now looking at taking some action. Meanwhile the EU is still deadlocked over how much money individual member states should be given to help them battle the crisis.

Whilst the EU has largely floundered individual countries have taken back control and are setting their own policies. They are closing their borders independent of the EU. They are going into lock down, they are creating stimulus packages...all independent of the EU. In a time of crisis the EU has failed whilst it has been individual countries who have taken action to protect themselves as best they can.

Meanwhile Putin has scored a great PR coup re Italy. With the EU Parliament still in gridlock an increasingly desperate Conte contacted Putin on Saturday asking for help. The next day Russian planes were landing at an Italian Air Force base carrying protective masks and coats, ventilators, swabs and testing equipment. There were also doctors and disinfection teams onboard.

In a time of great crisis the EU has thus far been found wanting. The unelected bureaucratic executive of the EU has talked in general terms about doing a number of things without actually doing much of anything. Instead, as stated earlier, it's been the nation states who have taken control.
nooneinparticular On March 27, 2020




, Hawaii
#614New Post! Mar 25, 2020 @ 20:52:11
@shadowen Said

The French and other nations DIDN'T buy any access to UK waters as they didn't buy any quotas from the UK. That's not how the CFP works. The EU ALLOCATE quotas to different countries. The countries then sell parts of their quotas to commercial fishermen. Fishermen buy a share of a country's quota on the very clear understanding that the country's quota is allocated by the EU with said quotas only available whilst the country is in the EU.


Yes, and these commercial fisherman (who are French or Chinese or whatever),

Quote:

Nope, legally speaking the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.


Which operates as a republic.

Quote:

Access to the UK's waters by EU member states is covered by EU law. Only a great fool would have thought that the UK would remain in the EU forever. And only a greater fool would have thought that EU law would still apply to the UK if it wasn't in the EU. So no reasonable person could have thought that access to the UK's waters would be controlled by the EU in perpetuity.

Under EU law access to the UK's waters, as dictated by the EU, only continues for as long as the UK is a member of the EU. Pretty straight forward. Whilst the UK was a member of the EU they agreed to allow the EU to control who can fish in their waters, how much fish they can take (TAC) and even how the fish were caught. Once the UK left the EU (and the transition phase was over) these things would be controlled by the UK as per international law. No one thought that EU member states would continue to have access to UK waters under EU terms if the UK was no longer a part of the EU.

This is how it works. The EU (NOT the UK) determine how much fish member states can catch in British waters. For example the UK was allocated 32% of total fish caught in their waters. The UK government then allows companies and individuals to bid for a share of this 32%. The same process occurs in the other EU member states. So the contracts are between companies/individuals and the Government. These contracts are based on the quota allocated to the individual member state by the EU, and it is understood that the EU has the power to vary these quotas and/or the TAC. It is also understood that these EU dictated quotas only apply for as long as the UK is a member of the EU. This is a conditional part of the contract that everyone involved understands.


You sure about that? "The UK government was allocated 32% of total fish caught in their waters"? I ask because the only thing I can find is that 'the UK lands 32% of the total fish caught in their waters'. I actually can't find any statistic specifically and clearly measuring the percentage of UK fish caught by UK fishermen vs the UK's total quota allotment dictated by the EU.

Quote:

No it doesnt. It's absurd to think that companies can (or should be allowed) to continue to fish in the UK's EEZ under EU law if the UK is no longer a part of the EU. French fishermen for example were operating in British waters under EU law. This law was applicable ONLY whilst the UK was a member of the EU. Now that the UK is no longer a member of the EU any future access to British waters will be determined by the UK government, be that under a FTA or under WTO terms. I really can't understand why you seem to think this somehow improper.


It's not a matter of interpreting the applicable international law as being black and white. The simple fact is that it is black and white.

As for your 'conniving' government scenario. First of all you would have to have a pretty bad lawyer involved in the negotiations you have with the government to sign a contract whereby you pay for a quota without being able to legally catch that quota. And there are many avenues of appeal you could take were your 'conniving' government to try and pull a fast one.

Secondly, even if the government somehow got away with shafting the companies there may be some short term gain but going forward who the hell would want to deal with them? Indeed i have never heard of a scenario like the one you mention occurring in a western country. If you have any examples I would love to hear them.


You do realize that arguing that 'it's absurd to think that foreign companies have ANY right to argue over access' at the same time as arguing things like 'any company who was stupid enough to buy a quota without being able to legally catch that quota would have a piss poor legal team' and 'there would be multiple avenues for appeals' are counter to each other right?

IF the companies in question did sign an access agreement for their quotas, then there is room for argument in the discussion around whether or not they have legal right to access.

Your second point is actually what I'VE been saying for a little while now.

Quote:

It seems to me that you are of the opinion that the UK government should bind itself to fishing rights to their waters, as determined by the EU, even though they are not a member of the EU. You seem to be saying that the UK government should forgo it's international right to control it's own EEZ and instead allow their EEZ to continue to be controlled by the EU.


I am of no such opinion whatsoever. I'm simply saying, as I have been for a while now, that if the UK government wants to 'restructure quotas' with complete disregard to previous arrangements, then it's most likely going to come at a cost.

I'm going to say the same thing I have literally been saying for 2+ years. There's a relatively safe and measured way to go about Brexit and there is a dangerous and reckless way to go about Brexit. If the people want to take the dangerous route then that is their right, but they should know the dangers and take the responsibility for that choice.

Quote:

Well I am definitely not arguing that "quotas don't amount to consent of access". What I am saying is that it is unreasonable to expect the UK to be tied to EU laws when they arent a member of the EU, and this including fishing.

As for the price of quotas...that is something that the market will determine.


I agree. I'm just stating that potentially ripping up contracts in the process is a risky position to take.

Quote:

Even if that were so your 'observations' are clearly at odds with the facts eg inferring that fishing in UK waters isnt subject to law. Like when you said "I've never really understood the entire areas seeming deference to tradition without codifying them into law". The reality is that there a few things the EU love more than making laws.


No, I just said that the relevant laws seem to have been drawn up with deference to tradition rather than things like national borders or international considerations, which has caused a dust-up of sorts over the issue.

Quote:

You make it sound like the UK government granted quotas to companies to fish in their waters and are now looking at modifying or preventing these companies from having future access to said waters. This simply isnt the case. Again, the UK government NEVER granted or determined ANY quotas at a national level. This was done by the EU under EU law. The UK government only contracted out TACs to companies re their EU allocated quota. There has been no suggestion that the UK government are going to change these internal arrangements.


You sure about that? Isn't there an entire framework of rules and regulations about how each country will distribute their national quotas to individual companies?

Quote:

What the UK government is looking at changing is what the TAC in it's waters are and who has what share of any said TAC. This is something ALL sovereign nations do. It is hardly unreasonable. Again, the UK is no longer a part of the EU and so they are rightly saying that, going forward, the EU will no longer determine what happens in British waters. Why taking back control of their waters, as per international law, would in any way "devalue the worth of those quotas heavily" is a mystery.


'we reserve the right to grant or revoke access however we please irregardless of how that affects both our own citizens and those of foreign countries'
It's not a case of "however we please". The government are simply saying that as we are no longer a member of the EU we shall no longer allow the EU to control fishing in our waters. Instead, and in accordance with international law, we shall determine what happens in our EEZ. Now if the UK government make decisions that adversely impact upon their citizens then those citizens can hold them to account at the ballot box. Something they couldn't do re the EU. As for how decisions made by the UK government impact upon other countries. Well you want to take this into account but ultimately your first responsibility is to your own people. That's the same in all countries.



You still sound like you think the UK sold fishing quotas to other nations. They didnt. The EU, and the EU alone determined exactly how much fish any country could take within the UK's EEZ. The UK government then simply sold fishing rights to companies consistent with the EU mandated quota. Same as the French, Danish, and Dutch governments etc did.


UK fisherman DEFINITELY sold their own allotments to foreign entities.

Also, I'm pretty sure that the UK is the only EU nation where selling quotas to other entities is allowed.

Quote:

When the UK was a member of the EU (and up until the end of this year) the EU allocated quotas. The UK's quota for catching fish in their own waters was 32%. Come January 1st next year their 'quota' will be 100%. Now the UK government, and indeed the UK fishing industry, are not looking at excluding all foreign fishing in their EEZ. Instead they will set their own TAC. They will then sell TACs to British fishermen first before selling TACs to fishermen in other countries. If you were a British fisherman this would seem like a much better arrangement than the one they have had under the EU.


Again, I can't find anything to back this particular scenario.

Quote:

The disparity is down to EU mandated quotas. The disparity has nothing to do with the UK government selling their quota (or part thereof). Again, the EU sets the quotas for fishing in British waters NOT the UK government.


Most UK citizen and UK fishermen are very happy for the country to take back control of their EEZ.


Here's a fun fact. Around 90% of the quotas allotted by the government are in the hands of the biggest fisheries in the UK.

Quote:

Hardly jumping around. I prefaced my comments re how the UK's quota is contracted out by saying "as an aside". Everything i wrote before that was consistent with what we have been discussing. So again, no jumping around. Just an aside added.


There are like 4 asides in this one post...

Quote:

The existence of quotas and TACs is certainly not a problem in general. They are necessary in order to allow for sustainable fishing. That said the EU's CFP has failed quite badly in it's attempts to improve the health of EU waters re fishing. Hopefully the UK will manage their waters better than the EU have (and better than they did in the past). The division based on country was clearly a problem. Having the EU tell the UK how much fish they could catch in their own waters was a problem. Having the EU determine how much fish other nations could catch in UK waters was also a problem. And yes the allocation of TACs needs to be reformed so that it is fairer and more transparent.


The EU have not managed their waters well re fish stocks which according to multiple reports have shown little sign of recovery over the past 25 yrs. Come January 1st the UK will be responsible for the health of their own waters. Hopefully they do a better job than the EU. We shall have to wait and see.


The issue isnt so much the EU's management system but rather the fact that the EU has exercised control the UK's national waters. The UK is a coastal state and it should have control over what happens in it's own waters. It did once and, providing BJ doesn't sell out those who voted for him, it soon will again.


Yes it is.


No it doesn't.

Leaving does indeed address the first issue as it allows the UK to take back control of their waters and set their own TACs and quotas instead of having these things determined by the EU. Leaving however also addresses the second issue, which is how the EU allocate fishing quotas, as such quotas will now be allocated by the UK.


The EU only determined the lump quota allotted to each country, it was up to the countries themselves to distribute that lump quota among its fisheries.

Quote:

Now leaving doesnt directly impact on the third point but it will mean the UK government wont be able to hide behind the EU when it suits. With increased power will come increased responsibility, scrutiny and accountability. All good things.


Scapegoats are abound everywhere, and can even be fictitious. If you honestly believe that taking away the EU as a shield will mean anything for politics, then that is your right, but personally I'm not nearly that optimistic.
shadowen On about 9 hours ago




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#615New Post! Mar 26, 2020 @ 15:48:13
@nooneinparticular Said

Yes, and these commercial fisherman (who are French or Chinese or whatever),

In the UK fishing rights are conferred on UK-registered vessels by means of a licensing system.

@nooneinparticular Said

Which operates as a republic.

No, it operates as a constitutional monarchy.

@nooneinparticular Said

You sure about that? "The UK government was allocated 32% of total fish caught in their waters"?

It is a little bit complicated as quotas include TAC by species. So in any given area subject to EU control, and the CFP, different countries are allocated different quotas/TACs by species. That said, under the EU quotas that cover British waters the TAC for British fishermen in UK waters was 32% of the overall EU mandated TAC. This is taking into account all fish species covered by the CFP.

@nooneinparticular Said

You do realize that arguing that 'it's absurd to think that foreign companies have ANY right to argue over access' at the same time as arguing things like 'any company who was stupid enough to buy a quota without being able to legally catch that quota would have a piss poor legal team' and 'there would be multiple avenues for appeals' are counter to each other right?

No they're not. Again, the companies have contracts with their national government. So British registered companies have a contract with the UK government re their 'right' to fish in British waters. The UK government have already said they will honour these contracts which are in fact renewed every 12 months. French fishermen have contracts with the French government for their right to fish in the UK's water. The amount of fish they are allowed to catch is a negotiated percentage of France's quota as allocated by the EU. So their access to UK waters is on the condition that the UK is a part of the EU. Which they aren't.

Point One...I am saying that it's absurd for foreign fishermen to think they should be allowed to fish UK waters under EU laws when the UK isnt a part of the EU.
Point Two...foreign fishermen don't have any contract with the UK government to fish in their waters. Their contract is with their national government based on EU set quotas. These contracts are based on EU law which, funnily enough, only applies to EU countries.


@nooneinparticular Said

IF the companies in question did sign an access agreement for their quotas, then there is room for argument in the discussion around whether or not they have legal right to access.

Urgh. Their legal right to access UK waters is based on EU law which only applies to EU member states. Their access therefore is dependent upon the UK being in the EU. If they have any claim at all it's with their own national government. If they have any legal right for compensation etc then it's with their own national government. Again, fishermen sigh contracts with their own national government to fish in UK waters. They don't sign any agreement with the UK government itself. Any contract is for a portion of the national quota determined by the EU re fishing rights to UK waters. So if fishermen in France have contracts permitting them to catch a certain percentage of fish in UK waters beyond 2020 then that's a matter for them to take up with their government.

@nooneinparticular Said

I am of no such opinion whatsoever.

And yet so much of what you say suggests otherwise. Still, I shall take you at your word

@nooneinparticular Said

There's a relatively safe and measured way to go about Brexit and there is a dangerous and reckless way to go about Brexit.

What YOU believe to be a "safe and measured way to go", and what you believe to be a "dangerous and reckless way to go" are simply your opinion. Here I would note that you thought BJ's decisions btw September and December last year were dangerous and reckless and yet those same decisions put an end to the zombie Parliament, delivered his party a huge majority and allowed the UK to finally leave the EU as per the expressed will of the British voter in 2016.

@nooneinparticular Said

I agree. I'm just stating that potentially ripping up contracts in the process is a risky position to take.

For the umpteenth time, the UK won't be ripping up any contracts. The only contracts they have are with British fishermen and they have already stated that these shall be honoured. The contracts French, Danish, Dutch, Belgium and German fishermen have are with their own national governments based on EU mandated quotas that only ever applied for as long as the UK was a member of the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

No, I just said that the relevant laws seem to have been drawn up with deference to tradition rather than things like national borders or international considerations, which has caused a dust-up of sorts over the issue.

"without codifying them into law"

You actually inferred that fishing access to UK waters hadn't been codified into law when clearly they were.


@nooneinparticular Said

You sure about that? Isn't there an entire framework of rules and regulations about how each country will distribute their national quotas to individual companies?

Yes I am sure and yes EU law does set a number of rules that must be followed re how national governments allocated portions of their quota to fishermen.


@nooneinparticular Said

UK fisherman DEFINITELY sold their own allotments to foreign entities.

Yes some UK fishermen did. But the government didnt. This is why the total catch by UK registered vessels is slightly lower than the UK's CFP quota.

Now one of the many good things about the UK leaving the EU will be increased government accountability. In the past some of the problems that fishermen have faced in the UK have been caused, at least in part, by government policies over the years. Yet the government would often blame the EU whilst the EU would blame the UK government. Now there will be no where to hide. If the UK government screw their fishermen over they will have no one else to blame.

@nooneinparticular Said

Here's a fun fact. Around 90% of the quotas allotted by the government are in the hands of the biggest fisheries in the UK.


Here's a fun fact, on the 23rd i wrote:
"The VAST MAJORITY of the UK's existing quota is allocated to just 25 businesses"
This is why i said at the time the way the UK government allocates fishing licenses needs a significant overhaul if they are serious about looking out for coastal communities.

@nooneinparticular Said

There are like 4 asides in this one post...

Nope, just the one which I actually flagged at the time.


@nooneinparticular Said

The EU only determined the lump quota allotted to each country, it was up to the countries themselves to distribute that lump quota among its fisheries.

Seriously? I have been saying this from the very beginning whilst you have been implying that the UK was somehow setting the quotas. Anyway, nice to see you acknowledge a simple fact. By the way, i personally wouldnt call them 'lump' quotas as the quotas themselves are not general but instead specify a nations TACs for a number of different species of fish.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...39 40 41 42 · >>

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   United Kingdom
Mon Feb 13, 2012 @ 13:23
4 1484
New posts   Local
Sat Feb 12, 2011 @ 19:31
22 2877
New posts   History
Thu Jul 08, 2010 @ 08:14
2 1174
New posts   News & Current Events
Fri May 21, 2010 @ 17:48
38 2207
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Wed Apr 21, 2010 @ 22:22
24 1630