Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Gerry T

RobMc59 wrote:

Assuming the EU wants to retain current arrangements regarding fishing I'd say apart from sabre rattling the UK would gain nothing imo from having exclusive access to the fishing grounds. No pun intended but it could also be a red herring being used as a bargaining tool to gain access to things like financial services etc?

In reality how does this work, going back decades the UK had their fishing quota, for reasons a lot of UK fishermen sold these quotas to EU fishermen, this sometimes involved selling boats as quotas were tied to them.
Does this mean legal ownership to fish in UK waters is owned by EU nationals and would have to be bought back by uk fishermen. Would Johnson stop an EU fishing boat from entering uk waters to fish an area they legally own. If this was land or property we were talking about people would have a better idea how it would be handled, but fishing is much greyer than that.
My understanding is the eu is looking to protect the existing rights for theses fishermen and also trying to secure fishing rights for other eu fishermen that don't own uk quotas.
Remember it wasn't long ago after the cod wars when the uk saw all waters as free game but Iceland fought off the royal navy and claimed back its waters. Most of those UK long boat fishermen just tied up their boats and took compensation from the uk govt rather than finding new fishing grounds in New available waters (North Atlantic over NI). This more than anything was the decline in UK fishing, again the failings of the uk are conveniently blamed on the eu, i think if I grew up in the UK I would be a hardened brexiteer with the constant eu bashing from politicians and uk media over the past 50 yrs .

Peregrinus

SFAIK the legal position is that when the transition ends the laws (including fisheries law) in the UK remains unchanged unless and until the UK changes it. So the opening position is that the quotas are still in place, they are still owned by the people who own them now, etc, etc. What has changed is that the UK is now free to alter any or all of this without being constrained by EU law or (if there is no FTA dealing with it) by the terms of the FTA.

The UK government has not announced what changes it would make in that situation, that I know of. But there would certainly be pressure to make changes, and an expectation that they would make changes.

It's unlikely that they would simply expropriate existing quotas without compensation; they'd get sued to buggery in the UK courts by the expropriated owners. But there are lots of other less drastic things that they could do.

Leroy42

But isn't it amazing that this far into it they still haven't actually been able to state what it is they would be looking to change.

We are going to fight hard to get this, but have no idea what we are going to do with it, and certainly aren't going to tell anyone.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't it amazing that this far into it they still haven't actually been able to state what it is they would be looking to change.

We are going to fight hard to get this, but have no idea what we are going to do with it, and certainly aren't going to tell anyone.

Because it's not about change, it was about a percieved loss of sovereignty that people forgot about the day after the vote. It leads me to believe that most Brexit and Tory voters do so based primarily on cultural rather than political or economic issue. Of course, their often being older and enjoying triple-locked pensions helps a bit.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But isn't it amazing that this far into it they still haven't actually been able to state what it is they would be looking to change.

We are going to fight hard to get this, but have no idea what we are going to do with it, and certainly aren't going to tell anyone.

I believe they have indicated to the EU what kind of fisheries regime they would like to agree with the EU, but I don't recall the details. You might reckon that that would give you some kind of clue about what they want, and therefore some kind of clue about what they would do, if unconstrained by any agreement with the EU.

But they don't actually say what they would do if they had their druthers; that would be to give a hostage to fortune because, if they did manage to reach an agreement with the EU and there was any difference at all between what they agreed with the EU and what they said they would do if there was no agreement, the Faragisti would denounce that as a cave and a cwaven submission and a shameful betwayal of Bwitish soveweignty. And they don't want to expose themselves to that.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

If no deal is done, and UK does indeed take back control of their waters, what is the situation with regards to the foreign owned quota's? I assume the quota's are gone as the UK is no longer part of the agreement?

I believe I read an article on fishing quotas sometime last year that pointed out that the UK's quotas are awarded annually - the point being that even since the referendum, the Tory government has willingly allocated them to EU companies over British fishermen, year after year after year.

If that is indeed the case, then they'll have all of next year to figure out how they want to renew these quota "leases" ... though I suspect there won't be much figuring out done in Whitehall - just a lot of rubber-stamping "as before" on every agreement.

reslfj

Leroy42 wrote: »

If no deal is done, and UK does indeed take back control of their waters, what is the situation with regards to the foreign owned quota's?

I assume the quota's are gone as the UK is no longer part of the agreement?

The total catch in the waters between the UK and surrounding countries is based on UNCLOS and biological advice. This will not change.
The Uk will have to negotiate their share of these total quotas (currently for 53 fish stocks iirc) with Norway, Faeroe Islands, and the EU27

The UK registered fishing companies owned by non-UK owners - with mostly English and Welsh registered boats - will continue to have their UK quotas for one or more species of fish (at least as long as their quotas are actively used).

This is 100% not a Brexit matter, but following from UK law and not from EU law.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Will foreign companies automatically lose their rights to fish in UK waters, or will they have to UK registered?

As written above these are UK companies - mostly English and Welsh with UK registered boats. The company owners just happen to be non-UK citizens.

bob mcbob wrote: »

They could retain all the rules already in place but just insist that all fish caught in UK waters must be landed at UK ports.

Easy to say, but and example ....

In terms of volume the largest catches in UK waters are small fish e.g. Sand Eel not used for human consumption but processed into fishmeal and oil.
Must be landed where the fishmeal factories are and most happen to be in Danish fishing harbours, where the industrial fish can be pumped directly from the fishing boats into the factory.

It's a common but wrong way of thinking 'fish is fish'. This is very far from true when considering the use of the different fish species.

Herring&Chips anyone?

Lars

PS! The share of each total quota is derived from historical landings by each country. The UK did not have a bad deal - the totals to share are just smaller.

Joe_ Public

The only thing that is decided annually is what the UK can fish as per the CFP. This quota is then shared out among the british fishing fleets as per the Fixed Quota Allocation (FQA) which doesnt change. It is these FQAs which will become the contested ground if or when a new fisheries agreement is signed. Or not, as the case may be. Can they just burn them, as some have suggested? Doubt it. Most of these quotas are actually in the hands of a tiny few mega companies and wouldn't be very easily brushed aside.

reslfj

CelticRambler wrote: »

....the point being that even since the referendum, the Tory government has willingly allocated them to EU companies over British fishermen, year after year after year.

If that is indeed the case, ...

But that is indeed not the case. These are UK quotas 'owned' UK companies and used by UK registered boats.

This has nothing to do with the EU. It follows from UK law for passing/selling UK quotas.

Lars

PS! Scottish quotas are mostly owned/sold to by a very few rich fishing families in Scotland.

NI quotas ???

bob mcbob

reslfj wrote: »

The total catch in the waters between the UK and surrounding countries is based on UNCLOS and biological advice. This will not change.
The Uk will have to negotiate their share of these total quotas (currently for 53 fish stocks iirc) with Norway, Faeroe Islands, and the EU27

The UK registered fishing companies owned by non-UK owners - with mostly English and Welsh registered boats - will continue to have their UK quotas for one or more species of fish (at least as long as their quotas are actively used).

This is 100% not a Brexit matter, but following from UK law and not from EU law.



As written above these are UK companies - mostly English and Welsh with UK registered boats. The company owners just happen to be non-UK citizens.



Easy to say, but and example ....

In terms of volume the largest catches in UK waters are small fish e.g. Sand Eel not used for human consumption but processed into fishmeal and oil.
Must be landed where the fishmeal factories are and most happen to be in Danish fishing harbours, where the industrial fish can be pumped directly from the fishing boats into the factory.

It's a common but wrong way of thinking 'fish is fish'. This is very far from true when considering the use of the different fish species.

Herring&Chips anyone?

Lars

PS! The share of each total quota is derived from historical landings by each country. The UK did not have a bad deal - the totals to share are just smaller.

Oh I agree it would be completely unacceptable to fishermen (additional costs) and their communities (jobs lost in processing fish, maintaining boats, etc, etc) but it is probably the only negotiating position the UK have.

reslfj

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The only thing that is decided annually is what the UK can fish as per the CFP. This quota is then shared out among the british fishing fleets as per the Fixed Quota Allocation (FQA) which doesnt change. It is these FQAs which will become the contested ground if or when a new fisheries agreement is signed.....

The annual total quotas are based on UNCLOS (sustainable catches) and biological advise (with some politically agreed over-fishing added).

This totals are by fish stock living in bordering waters/EEZs
Now negotiating for 2021 the UK, Norway, Faeroe Islands and the EU (with each member in the background)

The FQAs are however not an EU matter - iirc, but entirely controlled by UK law (devolved). It is not a matter for the ongoing(?) UK-EU negotiations.

Lars

Joe_ Public

reslfj wrote: »

The annual total quotas are based on UNCLOS (sustainable catches) and biological advise (with some politically agreed over-fishing added).

This totals are by fish stock living in bordering waters/EEZs
Now negotiating for 2021 the UK, Norway, Faeroe Islands and the EU (with each member in the background)

The FQAs are however not an EU matter - iirc, but entirely controlled by UK law (devolved). It is not a matter for the ongoing(?) UK-EU negotiations.

Lars

Yes, entirely correct. I didnt intend to give any impression it was of concern to the EU, its an internal uk matter. I think a lot of brexit supporting uk fishermen had some notion that taking back control meant taking on these foreign based investors but i suspect they'll be feeling let down before too long, like a whole lot of others.

reslfj

bob mcbob wrote: »

Oh I agree it would be completely unacceptable to fishermen (additional costs) and their communities (jobs lost in processing fish, maintaining boats, etc, etc) but it is probably the only negotiating position the UK have.

The UK needs to think in preserving (just a little of) its auto industry. Far more jobs, far more UK economy. Fish is way down the list.

The UK is weak around fish as 70-80% of its catch is exported to the EU27.
There will - deal or no deal - be huge new NTBs on fish and in addition expensive tariffs without a deal.

In the UK...
You can't afford to substitute haddock with lobster for an ordinary evening meal or in Lobster&Chips.
You can't sell mackerel or herring in huge volumes to UK consumers - unless they actually starve.

And you can't take quotas from UK companies that legally acquired them unless you pay compensation in full - and what's the point then?

Lars

RobMc59

Gerry T wrote: »

In reality how does this work, going back decades the UK had their fishing quota, for reasons a lot of UK fishermen sold these quotas to EU fishermen, this sometimes involved selling boats as quotas were tied to them.
Does this mean legal ownership to fish in UK waters is owned by EU nationals and would have to be bought back by uk fishermen. Would Johnson stop an EU fishing boat from entering uk waters to fish an area they legally own. If this was land or property we were talking about people would have a better idea how it would be handled, but fishing is much greyer than that.
My understanding is the eu is looking to protect the existing rights for theses fishermen and also trying to secure fishing rights for other eu fishermen that don't own uk quotas.
Remember it wasn't long ago after the cod wars when the uk saw all waters as free game but Iceland fought off the royal navy and claimed back its waters. Most of those UK long boat fishermen just tied up their boats and took compensation from the uk govt rather than finding new fishing grounds in New available waters (North Atlantic over NI). This more than anything was the decline in UK fishing, again the failings of the uk are conveniently blamed on the eu, i think if I grew up in the UK I would be a hardened brexiteer with the constant eu bashing from politicians and uk media over the past 50 yrs .

Your comments regarding the cod wars are relevant today. The British fishing industry was all but killed off by loosing access to the grounds disputed with Iceland.This hasn't been lost on the UK or the EU.I hope I'm not out of order pointing out that many EU heads of state and EU fishermen have expressed grave concerns about access to UK fishing grounds as it could potentially decimate the fishing industry in some EU countries.
As a footnote,there were no toe to toe all out naval battles in the cod wars,just a lot of pushing and shoving.In the end, the UK conceded as Iceland threatened to leave NATO which would mean submarines couldn't use Icelandic waters to enter arctic and Russian waters.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

In the end, the UK conceded as Iceland threatened to leave NATO which would mean submarines couldn't use Icelandic waters to enter arctic and Russian waters.

The UK didn't "concede"- it was told to shut up by the US - you really need to come to terms with getting bossed around - you'll be getting a lot of it.

Gerry T

RobMc59 wrote: »

Your comments regarding the cod wars are relevant today. The British fishing industry was all but killed off by loosing access to the grounds disputed with Iceland.This hasn't been lost on the UK or the EU.I hope I'm not out of order pointing out that many EU heads of state and EU fishermen have expressed grave concerns about access to UK fishing grounds as it could potentially decimate the fishing industry in some EU countries.
As a footnote,there were no toe to toe all out naval battles in the cod wars,just a lot of pushing and shoving.In the end, the UK conceded as Iceland threatened to leave NATO which would mean submarines couldn't use Icelandic waters to enter arctic and Russian waters.

It wasn't really grounds disputed with Iceland, more Iceland getting the UK out of their waters, which they did. I think EU heads and fishermen are more concerned about the UK rewriting the rules and shafting companies that have bough fishing quotas. The EU are looking after their own and will continue to do so over a trade agreement.
I'm surprised there's so much talk about fishing, in the grand scheme of things fishing is a tiny part of the UK or EU economy, the UK should be more worried about their car industry and doing their best to not disrupt the JIT process.

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

The UK didn't "concede"- it was told to shut up by the US - you really need to come to terms with getting bossed around - you'll be getting a lot of it.

That is what the 'special relationship' is all about.

I saw a documentary about the cod wars. The clips showed the Icelandic trawler skippers were far better at seamanship than either the British trawler skippers the the British Navy captains. One clip showed an Icelandic trawler passing between a British frigate and the trawler it was protecting (very closely) and cutting the nets of the British trawler.

I think the British side were glad to withdraw.

reslfj

fash wrote: »

The UK didn't "concede"- it was told to shut up by the US - you really need to come to terms with getting bossed around - you'll be getting a lot of it.

Suez 1956 - same story.
Eisenhower told - in no uncertain terms - France and UK went back home.

Both with a to be lost /lost Empire


Lars

PS! Know your history

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

many EU heads of state and EU fishermen have expressed grave concerns about access to UK fishing grounds as it could potentially decimate the fishing industry in some EU countries.

Well, yes ... no ... maybe ... In fact, this is another example of how being part of a club makes for great negotiations. Countries like Romania, Austria and Slovenia really couldn't give a damn about whether or not they have access to the UK's waters, but they're quite happy for France to make a lot of noise about their fishermen having that access, and we all know how disruptive the French trawlermen can be - not just to British fishermen, but to all traffic across the English Channel, the very same traffic that underpins JIT supply chains for GB's industry.

Here's the thing, though: the combined value of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries in France represents just 1.62% of France's GDP (2018, source)

So the Brexiters unilaterally made fishing into a Really Big Deal, a position from which they'll find it very difficult to back down, even though it's almost an irrelevance to the economies on both sides of the table. They handed a real "win" to the EU even before Johnson signed the WA - the EU can happily say "OK, will concede ground on 'fisheries' if you concede [insert something of real value here]"

And if there's no-deal, well then: the French fishermen will make the Brits pay for their intransigence.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, yes ... no ... maybe ... In fact, this is another example of how being part of a club makes for great negotiations. Countries like Romania, Austria and Slovenia really couldn't give a damn about whether or not they have access to the UK's waters, but they're quite happy for France to make a lot of noise about their fishermen having that access, and we all know how disruptive the French trawlermen can be - not just to British fishermen, but to all traffic across the English Channel, the very same traffic that underpins JIT supply chains for GB's industry.

Here's the thing, though: the combined value of the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industries in France represents just 1.62% of France's GDP (2018, source)

So the Brexiters unilaterally made fishing into a Really Big Deal, a position from which they'll find it very difficult to back down, even though it's almost an irrelevance to the economies on both sides of the table. They handed a real "win" to the EU even before Johnson signed the WA - the EU can happily say "OK, will concede ground on 'fisheries' if you concede [insert something of real value here]"

And if there's no-deal, well then: the French fishermen will make the Brits pay for their intransigence.

I've definitely observed increasing activity locally in the port and shipyard..I'd suggest that if the UK government is serious about no deal there will be some degree of planning for things like French fishermen blocking the ports,they have done it before after all.If it does go down to the wire and Johnson does have to make a humiliating climbdown at least his days as prime minister will be numbered.If the electorate don't get rid of him his own party probably will.I already believe the whole idea of brexit is an unattainable pipe dream,the unfortunate thing would be when that finally dawns on those who voted for Johnson,it's too late.

An Ciarraioch

RobMc59 wrote: »

I've definitely observed increasing activity locally in the port and shipyard..I'd suggest that if the UK government is serious about no deal there will be some degree of planning for things like French fishermen blocking the ports,they have done it before after all.If it does go down to the wire and Johnson does have to make a humiliating climbdown at least his days as prime minister will be numbered.If the electorate don't get rid of him his own party probably will.I already believe the whole idea of brexit is an unattainable pipe dream,the unfortunate thing would be when that finally dawns on those who voted for Johnson,it's too late.

There was a brief rehearsal of the standoff in January, when Guernsey banned French fishermen from their waters, the Islanders were blockaded from French ports, and ultimately a permit system was agreed:

https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2020-02-07/guernsey-fishermen-able-to-return-to-french-waters

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

How fishing waters would look next year:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/09/03/16/32743196-8693405-image-a-61_1599148299613.jpg

Fisheries is generally a devolved matter - Devolved Administrations regulate fisheries in their waters and regulate their vessels wherever they fish.
Map of Scottish waters
https://sp-bpr-en-prod-cdnep.azureedge.net/published/2020/4/1/The-revised-UK-Fisheries-Bill/202002-SPICe-Rural-UK-Fisheries-bill-Devolved-competence-of-Scottish-waters.png

reslfj wrote: »

PS! Scottish quotas are mostly owned/sold to by a very few rich fishing families in Scotland.

NI quotas ???

One boat Voyager operating out of Donegal has most of the NI quota by itself.


the smaller inshore vessels that make up 77% of the fleet had ended up with “less than 4% of the quota”.
“This is privatisation of a public resource,”


And there's lots of historical precedence and agreements for access to UK waters though IIRC only six countries have rights to inshore fishing.
Belgium says 1666 royal charter grants its fishermen “eternal rights” to English waters


It should be noted that the trade deal with that economic superpower the Faroe Islands (not in the UK's top 100 trading partners) means they can fish in UK waters but not visa-versa. Back in the day Iceland had to fight and win three Cod Wars to secure their waters.

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

There was a brief rehearsal of the standoff in January, when Guernsey banned French fishermen from their waters, the Islanders were blockaded from French ports, and ultimately a permit system was agreed:

Ultimately ?

The dispute started on 1st of Feb. "But the wet fish boats have to sell our catch within three or four days,"

Guess when the dispute ended ? Go on take a wild guess :pac:

Hint : The processing factories are in France.


It's another example of what happens when Brexit crashes into reality.

RobMc59

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is what the 'special relationship' is all about.

I saw a documentary about the cod wars. The clips showed the Icelandic trawler skippers were far better at seamanship than either the British trawler skippers the the British Navy captains. One clip showed an Icelandic trawler passing between a British frigate and the trawler it was protecting (very closely) and cutting the nets of the British trawler.

I think the British side were glad to withdraw.

I`d say this is more what the special relationship is all about Sam..
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1045519685?-17465:2771

L1011

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`d say this is more what the special relationship is all about Sam..
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1045519685?-17465:2771

Being bounced in to buying unsuitable, unreliable aircraft?

Igotadose

In his article earlier this week, Barnier also stated that as of today, on 1 Jan 2021 Financial passporting ends. I expect this will have a very hard impact on the UK economy, much more than fishing. If passporting ends, does tge City of London just close up shop? That comment from Barnier seems very important yet I'm mostly seeing discussions on fishing in the press

RobMc59

L1011 wrote: »

Being bounced in to buying unsuitable, unreliable aircraft?

Perhaps someone should tell the russians manning the supposedly invincible S-400 missile battery that failed to detect the israeli airforce stealth F35s when they entered syrian airspace on a successful mission to destroy iranian targets.

Enzokk

Tony Abbott has been appointed as a UK Trade adviser by Liz Truss.

Former Australian PM Tony Abbott confirmed as UK trade adviser

Boris Johnson has appointed Tony Abbott as an official UK trade adviser, defying widespread condemnation of the former Australian prime minister’s record of misogyny and homophobia and his views on the climate emergency.

Abbott, whose consideration for the role prompted criticism from opposition parties, charities and LGBT and environmental activists, is among nine external advisers appointed to the Board of Trade. The board, revived by Theresa May, is intended to help shape post-Brexit trade policy.

Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, who declined to defend Abbott’s views when asked about them in a TV interview last week, said the advisers were “a diverse group of people who share Britain’s belief in free enterprise, democracy and high standards and rules-based trade”.

Other external unpaid advisers to the board include the former Conservative MEP and fervent Brexiter Daniel Hannan, and the former Labour health secretary Patricia Hewitt.

Judge someone by their actions and not their words. The UK have appointed a bigoted misogynist to represent them as trade adviser. I assume it is because Johnson and Cummings would be comfortable with his views and having him around them.

This is Labour's response to his appointment,

Following news of the appointment, Emily Thornberry, the shadow international trade secretary, said: “First, his history of offensive statements is so long and repetitive that it speaks to serious defects in his character, which is not one I think should be representing Britain on the world stage.

“And second, the fact that he has no experience of detailed trade negotiations, no understanding of Brexit, no belief in climate change, no concern for workers’ rights, and no compunction about killing off Australia’s car industry mean, to my mind, that he has no credentials for this role.

“Tony Abbott is therefore the wrong appointment on every level.”

So they have Abbott and Hannan in roles in the Trade Department. That is Daniel Hannan who proclaimed that nobody was talking about threatening the UK's place in the single market when it came to voting for Brexit.

Edit: Not sure Grant Schapps is looking forward to his next appearance with Kay Burley,

https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1301771342015062018?s=20

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`d say this is more what the special relationship is all about Sam..
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1045519685?-17465:2771

Being bounced in to buying unsuitable, unreliable aircraft?

Being bounced into building a huge expensive aircraft carrier for which they have no need, and then buying some aircraft that are not quite right, and accepting that USA fighters can use it, and deploying he carrier just off the British coast in the South Chins sea.

That is a very good example of a special relationship - all one way. Soon they will have hormone fed beef, chlorine washed chicken, and GMO cereals. Good stuff, all because of their special relationship.

L1011

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps someone should tell the russians manning the supposedly invincible S-400 missile battery that failed to detect the israeli airforce stealth F35s when they entered syrian airspace on a successful mission to destroy iranian targets.

And that makes them suitable for UK use and reliable, how exactly?

You're not really following the basics of debate here. They're an atrocious buy the UK was bullied in to by the US.