Getting brexit done!

[Stivo]

20 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Genuine not wumming question - why are the French insisting on still using British fishing waters as part of the negotiations? Bit like us insisting on part of Brittany as part of a trade deal.

Because of history?

 

from  1888 to 1963  European fishing limits were 3 miles based on the North Sea fishing convention of 1888.
 

in 1963 we denounced that and extended our limits to 12 miles.

 

This upset  other countries who had fished in those grounds for centuries.  (In the same way much later 1970s we got very upset when Iceland extended their fishing limits and we sent the Royal Navy to protect our fishing vessels in their “traditional”fishing grounds)

 

We invited everyone to London  and agreed the London Fishing Convention in 1964.  This allowed countries to fish between 6-12 miles who had fished there between in the 1950s.

 

That then was the situation when we joined the common market. So eg the French could then fish up to 6 mile off the uk coast. 

 

When we left the EU the situation would thus have reverted to the 1963 situation.  So Gove gave 2 years notice to leave the 1964 London treaty thus staking out the full 12 miles as exclusive.

 

So the current situation is that we are leaving with more than we joined with and the French have lost out.  That is why they are somewhat upset.

 

The takeaway is that  Fisheries have always been somewhat contentious and subject to negotiation.  The mistake on our part is to allow this minor issue to become a red line and left ourselves with no wriggle room.

 

 

[CosbehFox]

Sweeping statement in coming here 

 

But sadly this is exactly what a small section of the public want. They love the idea of hostility and something akin to a war. Thing is in recent memory war has been something conducted in a place far from here and ‘the lads get out there, get it done’. No Deal is a fantasy of that. (On here there is a lot of rationalism on both sides of the argument). 

Ironicqlly when the British public has been asked to carry out behaviour akin to if there was an ongoing war with a threat of attack to us this year, they’ve have consistently ignored the rules. 

 

[Nick]

50 minutes ago, Stivo said:

Because of history?

 

from  1888 to 1963  European fishing limits were 3 miles based on the North Sea fishing convention of 1888.
 

in 1963 we denounced that and extended our limits to 12 miles.

 

This upset  other countries who had fished in those grounds for centuries.  (In the same way much later 1970s we got very upset when Iceland extended their fishing limits and we sent the Royal Navy to protect our fishing vessels in their “traditional”fishing grounds)

 

We invited everyone to London  and agreed the London Fishing Convention in 1964.  This allowed countries to fish between 6-12 miles who had fished there between in the 1950s.

 

That then was the situation when we joined the common market. So eg the French could then fish up to 6 mile off the uk coast. 

 

When we left the EU the situation would thus have reverted to the 1963 situation.  So Gove gave 2 years notice to leave the 1964 London treaty thus staking out the full 12 miles as exclusive.

 

So the current situation is that we are leaving with more than we joined with and the French have lost out.  That is why they are somewhat upset.

 

The takeaway is that  Fisheries have always been somewhat contentious and subject to negotiation.  The mistake on our part is to allow this minor issue to become a red line and left ourselves with no wriggle room.

 

 

So rare I learn shit on FT  

 

Great post!

 

Thanks Stivo!

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Stivo said:

The takeaway is that  Fisheries have always been somewhat contentious and subject to negotiation.  The mistake on our part is to allow this minor issue to become a red line and left ourselves with no wriggle room.

 

 

I would argue differently. The mistake was when Barnier announced at the beginning of the negotiation that a trade would not be concluded without agreement on fisheries. This immediately presented the UK with leverage and Macron with a self made problem. 

 

A minor issue has turned into something much bigger which could possibly have been avoided if the EU negotiators hadn't shown their hand so early. 

 

Only a small card but political dynamite. 

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Spudulike said:

I think these boats are already on patrol protecting waters from illegal fishing by non EU boats. Seems their remit has changed. 

 

Perhaps more fish will be sold into the UK market instead of importing fish from the EU of those caught in UK territorial waters. The seafood that other Europeans like to consume (that we don't) we be left in the sea if it can't be exported. Good chance for marine recovery which I'm sure the Greens must approve of. 

There's nothing environmental about Brexit, it's being implemented to lower standards which is one of the main sticking points, take the pesticide story which came out yesterday.

 

Also if seafood is being left in the sea then we're not making money, so what's the point? Let other countries fish their, export and take a small % of the sell on price. Send me to Brussels. 

 

Sovereignty is the only thing holding this silly little island back from being a big player on the world stage.

[Bellend Sebastian]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

There's nothing environmental about Brexit, it's being implemented to lower standards which is one of the main sticking points, take the pesticide story which came out yesterday.

 

Also if seafood is being left in the sea then we're not making money, so what's the point? Let other countries fish their, export and take a small % of the sell on price. Send me to Brussels. 

 

Sovereignty is the only thing holding this silly little island back from being a big player on the world stage.

Has that been widely reported? Bloody terrified me, that did

[Spudulike]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, would you mind terribly elaborating on this seeming conservationist argument for trade protectionism?

 

I've gotta say that the arguments I've heard so far tend to be "they're our resources to exploit" rather than ones in favour of not exploiting them at all.

There is a really good paper produced by the British Ecological Society (its Googlable) that discusses this in depth. It boils down to funding, as most things, but suggests there are advantages to be had in the right circumstances. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

There is a really good paper produced by the British Ecological Society (its Googlable) that discusses this in depth. It boils down to funding, as most things, but suggests there are advantages to be had in the right circumstances. 

Thank you, I'll take a look.

 

I'd agree that there are advantages to be had in the right circumstances, but also I see no reason why a country priding itself on protectionism would be ecologically inclined to take those circumstances anyway - it goes against their ethos of economic independence.

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, Stivo said:

Because of history?

 

from  1888 to 1963  European fishing limits were 3 miles based on the North Sea fishing convention of 1888.
 

in 1963 we denounced that and extended our limits to 12 miles.

 

This upset  other countries who had fished in those grounds for centuries.  (In the same way much later 1970s we got very upset when Iceland extended their fishing limits and we sent the Royal Navy to protect our fishing vessels in their “traditional”fishing grounds)

 

We invited everyone to London  and agreed the London Fishing Convention in 1964.  This allowed countries to fish between 6-12 miles who had fished there between in the 1950s.

 

That then was the situation when we joined the common market. So eg the French could then fish up to 6 mile off the uk coast. 

 

When we left the EU the situation would thus have reverted to the 1963 situation.  So Gove gave 2 years notice to leave the 1964 London treaty thus staking out the full 12 miles as exclusive.

 

So the current situation is that we are leaving with more than we joined with and the French have lost out.  That is why they are somewhat upset.

 

The takeaway is that  Fisheries have always been somewhat contentious and subject to negotiation.  The mistake on our part is to allow this minor issue to become a red line and left ourselves with no wriggle room.

 

 

I didn't know any of that.

 

So does it work both ways?  If there is no deal, we can fish in all EU waters right up to 6 miiles from the coast?

[dsr-burnley]

 

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

There's nothing environmental about Brexit, it's being implemented to lower standards which is one of the main sticking points, take the pesticide story which came out yesterday.

Do you have a link?  I can only find this, which needs a subscription.

 

https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/12621/17

[Buce]

 

Poll shows swing towards Labour among Elderly and Leave voters:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/12/keir-starmer-winning-over-tory-leave-voters-to-labour-poll

[Spudulike]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

There's nothing environmental about Brexit, it's being implemented to lower standards which is one of the main sticking points, take the pesticide story which came out yesterday.

 

Also if seafood is being left in the sea then we're not making money, so what's the point? Let other countries fish their, export and take a small % of the sell on price. Send me to Brussels. 

 

Sovereignty is the only thing holding this silly little island back from being a big player on the world stage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/54716970

 

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

I didn't know any of that.

 

So does it work both ways?  If there is no deal, we can fish in all EU waters right up to 6 miiles from the coast?

In theory yes but it’s moot because you could give 2 years notice from 1984 onwards and we did give notice in 2017....

 

 None of this means that our fishermen were treated fairly whilst we were in the EU or that the detail of the current EU offer is fair, I was merely answering Nalis who asked why the French think that they have a right to fish in our waters.

[surrifox]

I'm not sure who benefits by the distillation of this down to an argument over fish . The EU's own estimates show that 700,000 jobs in the EU are at risk if the UK departs with no deal. I haven't seen statistics for how no deal  would impact UK but I'm guessing that will be bloody too.

If I was an Italian wine producer , a Spanish farmer , a Dutch market gardener or a Greek hotelier I would be wondering how the EU and its negotiators and the eminences grises Macron and Merkel  are acting in my best interests by engaging in the sort of sophistry we are seeing here. 

On the UK side 

This Lord Palmerston -like gunboat nonsense is so Boris and so unhelpful . He thinks it plays well back at home , I suspect most people think he looks like a prat.

[l444ry]

Brexit and fishing: the issues explained | The New European

 

[Alf Bentley]

I reckon that I should apply this sovereignty principle to my relationship with LCFC.

 

It is an absolute infringement of my personal sovereignty that LCFC demands that, in part-exchange for giving me a season ticket, I refrain from flogging my seat to others at a profit. It's outrageous that they'd punish me if I did that. Of course, just as the Tory Govt has no intention of competing with the EU by cutting employment or environmental standards, I have no intention of competing with LCFC unfairly by flogging my seat. But it's the principle that matters. Accepting hypothetical punishments for actions that I don't plan to take would be an infringement of my sovereignty. Of course, this applies on both sides. It would be an infringement of LCFC sovereignty if I wanted compensation for them selling my season ticket to someone else who'd pay more. Total sovereignty is all. Based on that principle, it obviously makes sense for me to destroy my season ticket.

 

Likewise, it's about time that I got credit for resolving problems. A few weeks ago, I threatened to smash up the club shop if they didn't allow me to unilaterally change the terms of my existing season ticket. I've now generously withdrawn that threat but am I getting any credit? Just as the UK Govt is getting no credit for resolving a problem by reversing the UK threat to unilaterally change the Withdrawal Agreement, I'm getting no applause for reversing my club shop carnage threat. 

 

Sorry, folks, just ignore me! I made the mistake of listening to that shiny-faced, grinning goon Raab on Andrew Marr this morning and had to let off a bit of steam.... 

[BKLFox]

On 12/12/2020 at 11:25, Stivo said:

Because of history?

 

from  1888 to 1963  European fishing limits were 3 miles based on the North Sea fishing convention of 1888.
 

in 1963 we denounced that and extended our limits to 12 miles.

 

This upset  other countries who had fished in those grounds for centuries.  (In the same way much later 1970s we got very upset when Iceland extended their fishing limits and we sent the Royal Navy to protect our fishing vessels in their “traditional”fishing grounds)

 

We invited everyone to London  and agreed the London Fishing Convention in 1964.  This allowed countries to fish between 6-12 miles who had fished there between in the 1950s.

 

That then was the situation when we joined the common market. So eg the French could then fish up to 6 mile off the uk coast. 

 

When we left the EU the situation would thus have reverted to the 1963 situation.  So Gove gave 2 years notice to leave the 1964 London treaty thus staking out the full 12 miles as exclusive.

 

So the current situation is that we are leaving with more than we joined with and the French have lost out.  That is why they are somewhat upset.

 

The takeaway is that  Fisheries have always been somewhat contentious and subject to negotiation.  The mistake on our part is to allow this minor issue to become a red line and left ourselves with no wriggle room.

 

 

Thanks Stivo, to continue the learning what is it with the quotas?
From the outside it seems British fishermen can only fish in a certain size boat and have to adhere to strict guidelines on how much of a particular type and size of fish they can catch where as the boats from the EU countries are these huge dredging machines that can catch what they want and how much they want....is it something the UK puts on British fishermen or something within the small detail of the agreement you mention?

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

I reckon that I should apply this sovereignty principle to my relationship with LCFC.

 

It is an absolute infringement of my personal sovereignty that LCFC demands that, in part-exchange for giving me a season ticket, I refrain from flogging my seat to others at a profit. It's outrageous that they'd punish me if I did that. Of course, just as the Tory Govt has no intention of competing with the EU by cutting employment or environmental standards, I have no intention of competing with LCFC unfairly by flogging my seat. But it's the principle that matters. Accepting hypothetical punishments for actions that I don't plan to take would be an infringement of my sovereignty. Of course, this applies on both sides. It would be an infringement of LCFC sovereignty if I wanted compensation for them selling my season ticket to someone else who'd pay more. Total sovereignty is all. Based on that principle, it obviously makes sense for me to destroy my season ticket.

 

Likewise, it's about time that I got credit for resolving problems. A few weeks ago, I threatened to smash up the club shop if they didn't allow me to unilaterally change the terms of my existing season ticket. I've now generously withdrawn that threat but am I getting any credit? Just as the UK Govt is getting no credit for resolving a problem by reversing the UK threat to unilaterally change the Withdrawal Agreement, I'm getting no applause for reversing my club shop carnage threat. 

 

Sorry, folks, just ignore me! I made the mistake of listening to that shiny-faced, grinning goon Raab on Andrew Marr this morning and had to let off a bit of steam.... 

[Alf Bentley]

"Constructive and useful phone call" between Johnson and von der Leyen means that the negotiations continue.....

 

Let's hope sanity prevails and a deal is done at some point before 31st December.

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

"Constructive and useful phone call" between Johnson and von der Leyen means that the negotiations continue.....

 

Let's hope sanity prevails and a deal is done at some point before 31st December.

She's starting to concede their position with the use of 'mile' as in "going the extra mile" 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

She's starting to concede their position with the use of 'mile' as in "going the extra mile" 

 

If she'd promised to go "the extra 1 kilometre, 609.344 metres", it would have been deemed a provocation and the talks would have collapsed. 

[Spudulike]

Loving the photo of von lederhosen with angel wings. Ah bless. 

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, BKLFox said:

Thanks Stivo, to continue the learning what is it with the quotas?
From the outside it seems British fishermen can only fish in a certain size boat and have to adhere to strict guidelines on how much of a particular type and size of fish they can catch where as the boats from the EU countries are these huge dredging machines that can catch what they want and how much they want....is it something the UK puts on British fishermen or something within the small detail of the agreement you mention?

Best to follow the link I444ry posted -  I really don’t know that much about fishing!

 

I believe that in the 60s and 70s the uk had lots of massive trawlers which caught cod off Iceland. When we lost the cod wars that devastated the uk large trawler fleet in places like Hull, most of which were then scrapped.  

 

The biggest fishing port in England is now Newlyn which has some substantial trawlers, and there are a few that operate out of Brixham, but generally most uk fishing boats these days are small. 

 

Not all trawlers are dragging a dredge along the bottom by the way.  They only do that if they are designed to catch bottom feeding fish.  Often trawlers are dragging large floating nets to target different species.  Since there is talk of those Dutch boats last week catching dolphins I imagine that they were trawling nets.

 

The  other thing to note is that an awful lot of “fishing boats”  are not after  fish but instead maintain a string of pot buoys trying to catch lobsters, crabs and the like.  

 

The North Sea is an example of the tragedy of the commons, where in the  past  has been overfished.  Currently based on scientific advice catches  are established for various fish  stocks and allocated to European countries based on historical takings etc ( obviously open to debate and dispute). Countries allocate their quotas as they see fit. As we have lots of small boats that’s who our quota is given to.  The Dutch clearly give theirs to a few larger trawlers.  We have stated that we intend to continue this after brexit.

 

All boats ( whatever their size)  are subject to the same rules and must put back undersized fish or fish from a stock that they do not have a quota for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Stivo said:

As we have lots of small boats that’s who our quota is given to.  The Dutch clearly give theirs to a few larger trawlers.  We have stated that we intend to continue this after brexit.

 

All boats ( whatever their size)  are subject to the same rules and must put back undersized fish or fish from a stock that they do not have a quota for.

 

 

Like you, I'm no expert on fishing. But England & Wales (not Scotland & N. Ireland) having allowed more than half their fishing quota to be sold to foreign-owned firms is obviously part of the equation:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116 @BKLFox

 

According to that article, it seems to have been particularly prevalent from the 1990s, when some quotas were temporarily stopped completely due to lack of fish stocks - and fishermen quit the industry, often selling their quotas to foreign firms who bought them as a long-term investment. Though I've read elsewhere that it started even earlier than that.

 

It seems that sales of quotas to foreign firms were subject to certain conditions (half of catch landed in UK or half of crew British etc.), but the conditions were much less strict than in other countries.

 

This hasn't happened with the Scottish or Northern Irish quotas (due to distance from continent?) - or with most other EU countries, it seems.

 

That BBC article reckons that a single Dutch super-trawler now owns 20% of the entire English fishing quota!

[Stivo]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

That BBC article reckons that a single Dutch super-trawler now owns 20% of the entire English fishing quota!

The European article mentioned that vessel too.  
 

Ok @BKLFox  I have found the experts for you, if you want to know how many KW of fishing boats are deploying in the north sea it’s all in here!!!

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/920110/UK_sea_fisheries_statistics_2018_002.pdf