Brexit

What I don't 'believe' is assertions without facts to back them up. Whether or not I believe you or them is neither here nor there. If we want to get technical, we could say that I refuse to believe that you are right until you present the necessary evidence.

Of course, this is different from flatly denying your assertions by saying you are wrong. I admit that perhaps I got a bit heated by being flatly told I was wrong every post without evidence to back it up, and for that I do carry some blame.



I'm not saying that there is no regulation that requires things like what you've described. I'm simply trying to ascertain whether they are because of the CFP or because of the national governments own policies or other factors. Fines in particular could be because of national governmental rules and regulations and not the CFP.

Fishing locations could be a matter of profitability, regulations on minimum catch size, life cycle habits of the fish in question, accessibility, or any number of other factors.

As for it being 'coincidence' that the countries catch the same amount in the same areas year after year, no I don't actually. Each country gets a percentage of the total, by design and as was agreed to by the participating members, so that solves one part of the 'coincidence'. Factor in 'traditional' fishing grounds, which are of course tradition due to economic and feasibility factors, and we get the same relative output in the same areas without having to be mandated.



Thank you for the information, but some of it seems to be off or something. I'm honestly not sure. Here is something where I could find the numbers, which are themselves pulled from here . These numbers seem to be referencing something different from how you indicated it. For instance, the numbers for anglerfish given are themselves correct, but it doesn't seem to be for just Fishing zone VIId, but all of fishing zone VII. A minor discrepancy, but one that makes me wonder if we're ACTUALLY looking at the same data here.

Putting that aside though, we can now look at the bigger picture. In light of this information, it seems to suggest that the EU approaches the question of accessibility and fishing separately. That is to say, the EU's CFP has a policy of allowing all licensed fishing vessels access to MOST of the EU's waters, but the question of whether or not they are allowed to fish there is determined by national quota. This distinction is what tripped up my initial search. As I said earlier, an annoying system that could theoretically have tons of security holes in it, but it is the system they apparently went for.

Now bringing this back to the point that started this in the first place, what evidence do we have that suggests that the opening of these areas will result in a resurgence of the fishing industry?

So you're saying that when people vote for a party and that party wins, they are also voting for anyone in that party potentially becoming PM or any other executive member? So the people endorse anyone in a given winning party or coalition becoming an executive? That seems like a rather odd assertion. Since MP's are split by district and are not subject to a national vote, doesn't that in itself imply that each voting member of the public must take into account the parties national stance, AND the other members individual stances when voting for their own local representatives to Westminster? What you're essentially arguing is that if someone didn't want BJ to win then they shouldn't even vote for their own conservative MP.



Legally it is, which is precisely why so many of the EU directives are designed as 'suggestions' rather than 'orders'. Remember that the elected EU officials are given the task of crafting legislation. Since all of these officials have nationalistic interests to consider, they typically won't endorse things that legally tie their own hands. Oh sure there may be a fine or something, but there is no real political consequence, other than soured relations between individual member states, to disobeying a good chunk of EU laws. A lot of them are relatively toothless when it comes to enforcement, and seem to rely more on good faith than consequence for enforcement.

For instance, it could be argued that Covid support made by individual governments goes against certain principles of non-discrimination and national protectionism. The only reprisal I've heard over it, however, is a fine and some strongly worded comments from other heads of state. Not really a reprisal designed to enforce obedience.

Do I automatically trust pollies or bureaucrats? Hell no.

Anyway...

Civil servants are answerable to their elected ministers. Their role is to:
* offer advice
* help prepare and draft new legislation under direction from the Government and
* to help the Government run the country according to the legislation passed by Parliament.

So civil servants do effectively makes promises. For example they effectively promise to carry out the expressed will of the government of the day.


I never said to have faith in TM and her team. I have explained many times in the past why i thought they were doing such a bad job at negotiating with the EU and getting Brexit done as per the expressed wishes of the people.


No I don't as you can make as many preparations as you like but you won't know for certain whether or not you effectively covered every possible contingency until after the fact.


Nope. I have never said nor implied that the French fishermen are morons. Unlike you they understand the conditions of the contracts they signed with their national government.


I know you don't understand how the CFP works. In this instance you seem to be of the opinion that French fishermen sign contracts with the UK government if they are fishing in UK waters. They don't. That's not how it works. That's not how the CFP has ever worked.


Only it is here or there as 'close proximity' was an important part of your original statement.


Ok so we can obviously add not understanding the cod wars to not understanding the CFP. The three cod wars all took part BEFORE the UN's laws of the sea decreed that coastal states had exclusive rights to waters up to 200 miles from their shore. During the cod wars there was no internationally recognised EEZ. So the British fishermen were NOT violating Iceland's INTERNATIONALLY recognised waters.

During the course of the three cod wars Iceland kept on expanding her claims to territorial waters. They did this without any international agreement being in existence. The UK didn't recognise Iceland's ever expanding EEZ. Nor did almost all European countries.

The tensions caused by the cod wars did however play a major part in the UN finally deciding to specify the EEZ of coastal states. As stated, this was done AFTER the last of the cod wars.


Who says an increase in illegal fishing in UK waters would be inevitable? Certainly the UK is not, and would not be okay with any illegal fishing in her waters.


In all three cod wars it was NATO and NOT the EEC/EC (now EU) who acted as mediator btw Iceland and the UK. In reality NATO forced the UK to accept Iceland's conditions. Each of the three cod wars resulted in an undeniable victory for Iceland.


Big differences. During the cod wars British fishermen for example were operating in waters that were claimed by Iceland but NOT internationally recognised as such. At the time the UN's Law of the Sea didnt exist. That is no longer the case.

The RN will only be used to protect the UK's territorial waters if there is a significant number of foreign vessels illegally fishing in her internationally recognised EEZ. Again, i know you love to try and compare the cod wars with the UK exercising control over her internationally defined and recognised EEZ but the two situations are just different.

You have posted many times how you think the CFP works and every time you have been wrong.


You have maintained all along that yes the EU specify quotas but fishermen from all member states are free to catch their quotas at any time, and anywhere, in EU waters. This is simply WRONG.


The CFP is the authority that controls ALL aspects of fishing in EU waters. End of. There is no mystery. There is no grey area here.


The CFP does take into account things like breeding patterns etc but it's the CFP that controls fishing in EU waters. This is hardly a secret.


Utter bollocks. Your claim has always been that fishermen from member states are free to catch their quota wherever they like within EU waters. This is NOT how the CFP works.

Furthermore, member states don't decide among themselves what the various quotas will be. The quotas are on a pre-determined basis as set by the EU.


Seriously, WTF.

If you look at the quotas (percentage of TACs) for fish in the English Channel you find (and i have given you an example) that the French catch the bulk of the fish whilst the UK's catch is often very small. So are you seriously arguing that this is because most British fishermen from Ports that front the Channel traditionally fish in areas hundreds of miles away? That rather than fish on their door step British fishermen have traditionally found it to be more economic and feasible to fish hundreds of miles away whilst the French prefer to fish closer to home. Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?


So why are they mandated then? Oops, I forgot, you don't believe there are specific TACs and quotas for each of the areas that make up the EU's waters.


I am supremely confident in the data I posted. Anyway, the important issue here is do you finally agree that you were wrong in believing that their are no individual quotas and TACs in the various areas that make up the EU's waters or are you still somehow holding onto the belief that member states can catch their quota wherever they like within said waters?


Ok. So is that you FINALLY admitting that you have been completely wrong in your previous posts re how you believe the CFP works? If so it took a lot longer than it should have.



Resurgence - to reappear and grow, a new increase of activity

I think there will undoubtedly be some form of resurgence (assuming the government don't sell them out). Not great but some. Why? Hmm, let me see. Well firstly if UK fishermen go from being able to catch 32% of fish in the country's EEZ to being able to catch 100% then that's an indication. Secondly. if the UK lost all access to EU waters that they currently have this amount would still be significantly less than what they will gain.

Now as I have stated previously no one (that i have ever heard) is suggesting that 100% of the UK's quota will be taken up by British fishermen. The thought is that the UK will act like Norway and exchange some of it's TAC for a share of the TAC in the EU's waters.

The most important thing here though is that the UK will regain control over her territorial waters.

That's the reality of it. Now of course each party has a leader (and a cabinet or shadow cabinet if they are a major party) and the assumption is that this leader will be the PM if their party wins a majority.


Like I said, the major parties will have a cabinet or a shadow cabinet so voters have an idea as to who will be in the executive arm of government. People however are primarily voting for the party, the leader of that party, and commitments made at a local level by candidates in their electoral seat.


In national elections national issues tend to take precedence over local issues. Not for everyone but as a general rule.


It's up to the individual voter to weigh up the relative importance of local and national issues. Having said that, if for them the most important thing is ensuring that BJ doesn't become PM then obviously they wouldn't vote for their local Tory candidate.


Remember that Executive power within the EU resides with UNELECTED bureaucrats.


The problem for the EU was that ALL member states ignored the EU's directives at around the same time. Taking one or two countries to task is one thing, trying to take all member states to task is something very different.

The second round of negotiations take place next week with issues such as fishing, movement of people, the level playing field and the role of the ECJ up for discussion.

So far the UK are publicly holding firm on no extension. Hopefully they do as they say.

@nooneinparticular

When talking about fishing in EU waters in general, and UK waters in particular you have 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."
False. Fishing in EU waters is covered by EU LAW.

"This means that the respective governments voided an agreed contract between private entities"
The EU allocate fishing quotas to applicable member states. The member states then allocate a percentage of their quota to individual fishing vessels registered in a port of the relevant nation. The contracts are btw the member states and the fishermen. These contracts are based on EU quotas for fishing in EU waters. The UK is no longer a part of the EU and so her waters are no longer a part of the EU's waters. If the UK take back control over fishing in their EEZ (just like every other sovereign coastal state) then contracts btw foreign fishing vessels and their government as it pertains to fishing in the UK's waters obviously will no longer be valid. This was always going to be the case. All parties knew that the contracts re fishing in the UK's waters under the CFP were dependent upon the UK being a member of the EU.

"I'm just stating that potentially ripping up contracts in the process is a risky position to take"
Again, the UK government doesn't have any contracts with foreign fishermen. None. So if the UK take back control of their waters next year the result won't be that they will be voiding contracts with French fishermen (as an example) as they never had any contracts with them in the first place.

"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"
False. The quotas for fishing in the UK's EEZ were (and until the end of the year still are) determined by the EU and NOT the UK. It was not for example the UK government who determined that French fishermen could catch 84% of cod in Fishing Zone VIId whilst UK fishermen could only catch 9%. The EU decided this. The UK government can only determine what fishermen are able to catch what share of the UK's 9% EU allocation. Even here though they can't prioritise British fishermen as EU law states that all vessels registered in UK ports must be treated equally. This has seen for example Dutch and Spanish trawlers being registered in UK ports and then taking around 45% of the total British quota. And under EU law the UK government could (and until the end of the year can't) do nothing to stop this from happening.

"how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place?"
Again, the UK government do not set the quotas for fishing in their waters. This is done by the EU through the CFP. The CFP is the reason for the disparity in the first place. End of.

"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.

"I was under the impression that each member state of the EU is assigned species quotas and then were allowed to fish in any waters the EU have access to"
This is absolutely wrong. I don't know why you have that impression but that is definitely not how the CFP works. Not even close.

"If the quotas were set up in the way you describe, keeping track of mobile fishing populations in relation to those quotas would be next to impossible, and fishing them would be incredibly difficult."
And yet somehow it works. Maybe your understanding of fish behaviour is overly limited. Anyway, doesn't matter if you don't see how the system can work, what matters is that's how it does work.

"it says that the UK cannot exceed 32% of the total EU mandated TAC in total and not specifically in UK waters"
No it doesn't. The 32% quota specifically relates to the Uk's share of the total TAC for her waters.

"quotas are assigned by country as a political entity and not as a geographical location"
Nope. Quotas are assigned by country but they are also assigned by area/geographical location.

"The EU doesn't dictate where countries can fish for how long, it only dictates how much they can catch in total"
Absolute rubbish.

"Each country is NOT given a portion of leeway to fish in other countries waters."
If by 'portion of leeway' you mean quota then bollocks. As I have said so many times, applicable member states are allocated a portion (quota) of the total TAC for individual species of fish in individual fishing areas. The quota for nations re fish species varies from area to area.

"Each country is given access to other countries waters through treaties."
They are given access via the CFP.

"The quotas are a separate issue."
No they're not.

"Everyone in the EU can fish in the same waters, regardless of nationality, with limited restrictions set by national governments."
No. Again, fishing in EU waters is controlled by the EU through the CFP. It is not in any way controlled by national governments.

"fish are mobile resources, and as such erecting limits on what can be caught in certain areas is preposterous and extremely difficult."
That may be your opinion but it doesn't change how the CFP works.

"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"
Well you didnt look very hard then.

And as an aside you said:
"Legally speaking, the UK has a republic"
Again, no they don't. They have a Constitutional Monarchy which isn't the same thing as a republic.

Fishing in the Irish Sea

Roundnose grenadier
Total TAC: 4010
French TAC: 3302
British TAC: 194

Pollack
Total TAC: 13495
French TAC: 9667
British TAC: 2353

Blue ling
Total EU TAC: 4746
French TAC: 3586
British TAC: 912

Hake
Total TAC: 50944
French TAC: 23192
British TAC: 9155

and so on it goes...different areas, different TACs, different quotas...

Such is the degree of derangement among BJ opponents that a number of them have claimed that:
He was never admitted to hospital or,
He was admitted to hospital but didnt need to go or,
Maybe he did need to be admitted but his condition was never all that serious.

Apparently all of the doctors, nurses, orderlies etc were a part of a massive plan to deceive the British public.

Had he died then they would probably have claimed that he deliberately put himself in a position to die in order to boost his popularity!

It must really annoy these people that his popularity and that of his government so high.

For example, as preferred PM the results of a YouGov poll just published shows BJ well ahead of KS...

BJ: 46%
KS: 22%

Voting intention

Conservative: 53%
Labour: 32%

Things are still bubbling away in Italy...

and the issue of Eurobonds seems no closer to being resolved now than it was 2 weeks ago.

One caveat to the offering of advice is that the advice must be lawful. If a minister wants to do something that is not supportable within the law, then the Civil Servant must advise against it.

Civil Servants are not bound by an oath to any politician. I know that Sajid Javid wanted to introduce an oath to "British Values" (now, there's a nebulous concept if ever there was), but Parliament chucked it out.

There is an Oath of Office, but that only extends to having loyalty to the Monarch. Politicians - even Boris Johnson, you will be disappointed to know - are not King.

You may argue that that Civil Servants make a promise, in effect, but I don't think they make any such promise in fact. No such words are ever actually spoken.

What they ARE bound by is ethics, which is different to an oath. They are bound by an ethical code a part of which is to conduct the business of State in a lawful manner.

Example: The Civil Service advised Boris Johnson against attempting to prorogue Parliament. He ignored them. They told him it would be an unlawful thing to do. He still ignored them.

He was taken to court and told that proroguing Parliament was unlawful and if he did it he would be in contempt of court and could possibly go to prison.

He backed off.

Don't you think he should have listened to his Civil Servants in the first place..?