Brexit

That's not how it works.

The EU divide up 'their' waters into fishing zones. TACs are then individually determined for these zones and most species of fish found in said zones are subject to a TAC. The EU then allocate a portion of the total TAC for each zone (by species) to applicable member states. So yes applicable member states have an overall TAC by species but the CFP dictates exactly how much of their TAC by species can be caught in any particular area. For example under the CFP the French have 80% of the cod quota in the Channel. In the Celtic Sea they gets nearly three times the UK's allocation of dover sole, roughly four times more cod and five times more haddock.


Well clearly it isnt.

If the CFP operated how you think it does then there would be nothing to stop Dutch super trawlers (as an example) from getting all of their cod quota from the Channel. The effect of this would be to potentially wipe out a large portion of the shore based French fishing industry. The way you think it works would basically destroy traditional shore based fishing and restrict fishing almost entirely to large commercial trawlers. One of the reasons the EU structure the CFP as I have described is in order to help sustain traditional shore based fishing and their communities.


I have never said that there are no economic risks re leaving the EU. Of course there are. But there is a world of difference btw acknowledging (and preparing for) potential risks, and assuming that a course of action is reckless. Again, you think the course of action is reckless. Fine, that's your opinion, but it isnt fact. Anyway, I don't see any point discussing this further. You think the UK under BJ have acted recklessly in regards to Brexit. I don't. We hold different opinions. End of.


Nope, they were attempts by the 'establishment' to thwart the will of the people. A reckless general election however sorted things out.


No, I havent just now said leavers knew the risks. I said that last year on a number of occasions. It was you who were claiming they didnt acknowledge that there were any risks. Remember? I quoted some polls if that helps to jog your memory.

Furthermore, in these past posts I specified what were the potential risks that were acknowledged by leave supporters.


You mean I still don't give any credence to all of the project fear predictions of economic armageddon? Correct.


And yet you have constantly implied that say French access to EU waters should be maintained under the CFP going into the future.


Really? You were replying to a post that was all about fishing rights in UK waters. You said "While looking through how quotas were assigned...". You then went on to say:
"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."

And then you said:
"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"

Enough said.


Putting something in bold text and then underlining it doesnt magically change the facts. Put simply you are wrong re how the CFP works.



In this case through EU treaties. I have never said otherwise. It was a condition of the UK joining the EEC that it make it's fisheries accessible to member states. They also had to agree to allow the EEC/EC/EU through the CFP to control fishing in their waters as i have previously detailed.


Not in this case. If you are a member of the EU then you are bound by EU law that dictates not only that you have to share your fisheries with other member states but you also have to abide by decisions made by the CFP, which of course includes quotas.


Nope, the restrictions are set by the EU, not national governments.


This is simply untrue. I have used French on shore fishermen as an example as to why what you say isnt true. Again, the CFP is designed to ensure sustainable fishing, to protect local, traditional on shore fishing whilst providing a 'fair' share of the TAC within 'EU waters' for applicable member states. Now I would argue they fail on all counts but anyway...


You can think that if you like but that's how the CFP has operated for decades.


Nope. The 'cod wars' were simply driven by over fishing on the UK's part and a battle for access to the North Sea fisheries around Iceland.


As previously stated, EU law dictates that the UK must treat all bids for a portion of it's assigned quota equally if the fishing vessels are registered in the UK. This has resulted in nearly half of the UK's quota being caught by foreign vessels that are simply registered in the UK...and there is nothing the government can do about it. At least not until next year.

Anyway, we can go on and on about fishing quotas. All that matters is that the British people voted for the country to take back control of her waters (among many other things) and hopefully this will happen at the beginning of next year.

Note: as previously stated (and even anti Brexit media sources accept this) 93% of British fishermen voted leave. So the ones most impacted by the CFP are the ones who overwhelmingly want out.

Pay particular attention to 1:37 to 2:00

"Fishing in the EU is highly regulated, and those regulations can be complex. Each member state has a specific quota for each species, and that quota CHANGES in DIFFERENT parts of EU waters. Fishermen in some countries can also sail further into foreign territory than others."

Oh, and you're welcome.

So nothing to say re the ECB and the issue (or non issue) of Euro bonds? Nothing to say about the crisis facing the Eurozone? Nothing to say about the EU's lack of action re helping member states deal with the Covid-19 emergency? Nothing to say over the EU's treatment of countries like Italy and Spain? Nothing to say re the EU's treatment of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic?

The EU is going from strength to strength. The latest news is that Professor Mauro Ferrari, president of the European Research Council, has resigned with immediate effect. Ferrari came into the job as an enthusiastic supporter of the EU. How things can change within a very short space of time. Upon announcing his resignation he said he had "been extremely disappointed by the European response" to the Covid-19 pandemic. He spoke of continuously running into institutional and political obstacles as he sought to swiftly set up a scientific programme to combat the virus.

Ferrari also stated that "I have seen enough of both the governance of science, and the political operations at the European Union. I have lost faith in the system itself."

In other news Austria, Denmark and the Czech Republic are looking at slowly easing some of their lock down restrictions. Interestingly, all three countries were quick to implement lock down procedures, including closing their borders, well before most other member states. At the time they were heavily criticised by the EU for doing so. The same EU that still can't agree on measures to assist member states.

Meanwhile there is still strong northern opposition to the issuing of Euro bonds to raise capital in order to help countries like Italy and Spain.

I can't find ANY collaboration for this except for news paper articles and every single one of them I've seen never cites where the relevant laws and regulations that actually dictate what gets carved up and how can be found. Not even your video was of any help, because it never cited anything in that regard.

On the other hand, attempting to dig through relevant EU law and data only seemed to confirm my own suspicions. Namely that the EU only dictates TAC and I could find no indication that they actually divided up the sea into areas that they put individual quotas on. Literally, the only thing I could find on the matter was a discussion about how the British and Irish wanted such a system to be put in place in the 80's but never succeeded.

Now, I'm not saying that you or they are wrong, but I need something more than trust here.



I was under the impression that it's the heavy regulation, specifically the one that prohibits trawlers from fishing near coastlines, that keeps trawlers out of traditional shore based fishing areas.



If I saw any indication of preparation, I might agree with you there. If I had seen any indication of a plan BEFORE enacting Article 50, I might agree with you there. If I had seen anything other than talk about 'making Britain Great Again', or any sort of discussion from either the supporters or the politicians in regards to how to actually prepare for potential risks other than bracing itself, then I would agree with you there. But the fact of the matter is that none of those things happened. Bracing for a hit is not a plan, it's a reaction.

As a side note, it's not, and never really has been, about Boris for me. I thought that this whole thing was a dangerous road to travel when the referendum itself was announced. As I've also said numerous times, a dangerous road doesn't necessarily mean an ill advised one, but the risks are great, and those risks should be acknowledged and planned for.



Which of course no body could have seen coming at all...especially not the people who already distrust 'the establishment' to begin with.



Did you? I don't actually remember seeing any of that at all.



I don't actually remember ever saying or even implying that? But if you got that impression, I'm sorry for the confusion.

The only thing I said was that to say they have no claim to the area might be a bit of a stretch. I said that to potentially void contracts would be risky to do. Now that doesn't mean that they can't do it, but I said that it might come at a cost. Whether that cost be political, financial, or both I can't say, but it does run the risk of coming at a cost.

If the UK want's to do this then more power to them, but every action has a consequence.



Yes. WHILE LOOKING THROUGH HOW QUOTAS ARE ASSIGNED is not the same as saying fishing in EU waters.



If you'd stop ignoring 80% of what I write, you might have realized that I already addressed this.



Then perhaps you can point me to the relevant law that shows where I am wrong? Because I've looked through both the CFP's rules and multiple maritime fishing laws enacted by the EU within the past 30 years and couldn't find anything indicating that what you're saying is true.



Hey, you're the one who said to always discuss 'all relevant points of the law' when discussing it. It's not my fault that you took it as me saying you didn't know that. I was just doing what you asked me to.





Some of them definitely are certainly, but not all of them.



So in other words, they were partly driven by countries in close proximity to each other attempting to keep their own waters sovereign without any possibility of a negotiation, which only becomes an issue if you insist on keeping everyone out.

As an aside, were you the one that said that the UK government were planning on giving limited, controlled access of their waters to foreign vessels? Because from what I've seen on the Express lately, that decision doesn't seem to have gone over too well with 'the fisherman who overwhelmingly voted for Brexit'



It's almost as if it's some sort of non-discrimination policy that otherwise could result in protectionism or something.

It's almost as if the EU is a collection of self-interested countries who have banded together to prevent being swallowed by other countries or something, and not a United States of Europe.

Democracies are notoriously slow to react to crisis situations the world over. Kind of a side effect of having checks and balances and needing to discuss everything beforehand.

This isn't to defend the EU's response or anything, but this type of scenario is by no means exclusive to the EU or even unusual for this type of governance.

So a very quick internet search finds interview after interview of not only British, but Irish and French fisherman talking about how the CFP determines their allocation of the TAC by species and by area. The fishermen talk about how the CFP controls what they can catch, how much they can catch, where they can catch it, when they can catch it and how they can catch it. But why would they understand how the CFP works. And funny how newspapers from the Independent and Guardian through to the Express and the Daily Mail all say the same thing re how the CFP works. All quote the same basic stats. And so do tv segments like the one I posted. Are they all wrong? And why is it for example that year after year French fishermen catch 80% of the TAC for cod in the Channel? Coincidence? Are they pretty much the only ones who know there is cod in the Channel? Do English fishermen prefer to travel hundreds of miles to catch their cod in the North Sea rather than a few miles off shore? How does that all fit with how you think the CFP works? Just wondering.


There is an entire department dedicated to preparing for the UK leaving under WTO terms. To say there has been no risk mitigation, no planning and preparation is absurd. If you somehow don't see it then it's because you refuse to look.


There are some, primarily economic, risks. To call them great is entirely subjective. Many would argue that the overall risks of remaining in the EU were great. Again, that's a subjective judgment. Anyway, as previously stated, the potential risks have been acknowledged, and there has been (since BJ became PM) appropriate planning and preparations (which are still ongoing).



Well the public didnt expect the establishment to seek to deny the will of the people. That's true. BJ however was very confident that the people would give him the power he needed via a GE to in return give them the Brexit they voted for. They did their part, the rest is up to him.


Only it's not which is why the French (among others) are so concerned.


And yet again you show that you don't understand how the CFP works. As I have previously stated, the UK government wouldn't be voiding any bloody contracts as they don't have any contracts with, for example, France or French fishermen. I have explained all of this previously and so shan't do so again.


Most things come at a cost of some description.


You have got to be gaggin'.

How the EU quotas are assigned is ALL about fishing in EU waters. You can't talk about EU fishing quotas without talking about fishing in EU waters, and you can't talk about fishing in EU waters without bloody talking about EU quotas. Fair dinkum...


Seriously. Close proximity? The shortest distance btw the UK and Iceland is over 1,000km. Now to me that doesn't qualify as close proximity.


Nice try.

The issues re the cod wars were pretty simple. The UK over fished in their own waters and so started heading further and further out into the Atlantic. As they went they cleared out fish stocks (of select species like cod) until they got to the traditional waters of Iceland. Over a number of years Iceland incrementally increased the size of their claimed territorial waters in order to protect their fisheries from UK vessels. In the end geography and the cold war gave Iceland the winning hand. And good for them. But to equate the cod wars with the UK looking to re-assert control over her EEZ as a coastal state is an indication that either you don't understand the nature of the cod wars, you don't understand the UN's laws of the sea, you don't understand how the CFP works, or all three.


The UK government have said that they will look to take back control over their EEZ from the beginning of 2021. This means they will set the TACs and various fishing rules and regulations that will govern fishing within their EEZ. They said that British fishermen will be prioritised and that any unused quota will be offered to interested foreign parties. This would be re-negotiated on a yearly basis. A little like how things work with Norway.

Now I have seen many interviews with UK fishermen and all of them have said they would be ok with the expressed intent of the UK government. Their concern is that the government's words won't be consistent with their actions. Having been shafted by successive governments for nigh on 50 years I can understand why they are vary wary.


The whole idea of the CFP only allowing governments to assign quotas to vessels registered in their ports was to ensure that said governments didnt sell off parts of their TAC to the detriment of their nation's fishermen. However some foreign operators (primarily Dutch and Spanish) have found a loop hole. What they have done is found a way to register their trawlers in UK ports and thus be eligible to bid for a portion of the UK's TAC. The portion they have accumulated amounts to close on half of the UK's total quota. And there is nothing the government can do about it. There have been some attempts in the past by UK governments to get the loophole closed but without success. It's interesting however that you seem to think that this situation is not only ok but seemingly desirable. Fair to say UK fishermen hold a different view.

Really? Firstly the EU isn't a democracy. The people for example don't get to vote for the Executive. You know, the ones who actually make the rules. The EU if anything is closer to the old Soviet Union than anything else in terms of the relationship btw the Executive, the parliament and the people. Or you could perhaps more generously see it as an inversion of the UK Parliament.

Now ALL of the democracies that are signed up to the EU have long since made major decisions (independent of the EU) re dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. The democracies of Austria, Denmark and the Czech Republic were for example quick to take action (and were criticised by the EU and threatened with fines for doing so). And still here we are, over a month since member states independently starting taking significant measures to deal with Covid-19 and still nothing but talk from the EU.

The question of Euro bonds is a really important one. It will show countries like Italy and Spain exactly were they sit within the bloc.

The EU seem to be of the view that the governments of member states will ensure that EU will is followed and the people will all herded in the direction the EU want them to go. It's like they have learnt nothing from Brexit.