Do you read what you write? So you concede the civil service are there to (among other things) help 'implement' government policy. You then imply that if they don't do so then it's not their fault! So who's fault is it then? For example, if Parliament pass new laws on fishing and the civil service don't support the government in implementing these new laws how is that not their fault?
Now the reality is that the civil service attempt to obstruct/delay/stall government policy all the time. They aren't meant to but they do.
No, remember what I said earlier? That unreasonable or unfeasible promises made by politicians should not then become the responsibility of the the civil service to implement, and the blame shouldn't fall on their heads IN THAT CASE.
Yes, you said that whether or not something can be defined as unreasonable or unfeasible is largely subjective, and while I don't believe that, let's accept it for the sake of argument. Such promises neither have to be practical nor possible in order for them to be made, yes? And that in such an event, the civil service should not be held to account for the politicians running their mouths, yes? Or does the civil service share blame with the politicians even in this scenario?
First up very few 'UK' fishermen sell a part of their quota to foreign fishermen.
Anyway, the UK government have already said that they will honour all existing contracts with 'UK' fishermen. So, let's say a UK fisherman on sells 5% of his quota to a French fisherman. Come 2021 the UK fisherman is still receiving (as a min) the same quota as before. So he can continue to on sell 5% of this quota to the French fisherman. So why exactly would the contract btw the UK and the French fisherman be voided by the UK taking back control of her waters? How exactly would HMG be the instigator of any violation? How?
That's news to me.
You have been trying to link the UK taking back control of her waters with the cod wars. The HUGE difference though is that the UK under the UN's Laws of the Sea has an internationally recognised EEZ. This was never the case with Iceland. The difference matters.
How? I legitimately do not understand this point you keep making. Why does that matter here?
Let's see. I said i thought it likely that there would be an increase in fish landed by UK fishermen come 2021 (unless the government sell them out). I said I thought it likely that UK fishermen would land more fish outside of the CFP than what they do currently. This is based on the very simple fact that if you look at the total amount of fish caught in the UK's EEZ, and then look at the total number of fish caught by UK fishermen under the CFP in waters outside of the UK's EEZ, the figures show that UK fishermen will gain far more than they lose. Again, this is provided that the government don't sell them out. So my conclusion is based on simple, verifiable facts. On the other hand your contention that poaching in the UK's waters will increase once the transition phase is over is based on what? The anger of French fishermen? A hunch? Again, my opinion is based on verifiable data, yours isnt. Do you see the difference?
Your data definitely doesn't say what you keep saying it does. The data itself isn't bad, but the conclusions you attempt to draw from them are not supported by said data at all.
So what exactly do you think they were about then? I would have thought the reasons for the cod wars were fairly straightforward.
By the way, have you looked up NATO's role?
No, it wouldn't be at all unusual.
As I said already, I think the cod wars were about the fishing resources themselves and access. The border issue was just something Iceland used to try and get the UK out of those waters.