Getting brexit done!

[WigstonWanderer]

This Guardian article seems quite a good summary of where negotiations are at. Sounds like there’s a lot of posturing, but that a deal is likely, though both sides will be worse off. Probably much as most people here would expect.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/13/brexit-deadline-drama-uk-bad-deal-trade-agreement-friction

 

Bye bye frictionless trade and freedom of movement, and hello red tape and bureaucracy. Should create a few new jobs for border official and bureaucrats I suppose.

Edited 13 December 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[dsr-burnley]

10 hours ago, Stivo said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It might be worth mentioning that the fish put back are dead.  The quote system doesn't stop them killing the wrong sort of fish, it just stops them bringing them back to port.  

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

This Guardian article seems quite a good summary of where negotiations are at. Sounds like there’s a lot of posturing, but that a deal is likely, though both sides will be worse off. Probably much as most people here would expect.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/13/brexit-deadline-drama-uk-bad-deal-trade-agreement-friction

 

Bye bye frictionless trade and freedom of movement, and hello red tape and bureaucracy. Should create a few new jobs for border official and bureaucrats I suppose.

It is encouraging to know that the EU is concerned about undercutting by having lower employment standards.  When the EU rectifies this position by introducing a minimum wage and other employment rights to match what we have in the UK, it can only be a good thing for the people from eastern Europe who come over here to do minimum wage jobs for long hours because their own countries' pay and conditions are so poor.

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

It might be worth mentioning that the fish put back are dead.  The quote system doesn't stop them killing the wrong sort of fish, it just stops them bringing them back to port.  

Presumably the intention is to stop the incentive to “accidentally” overfish or catch the wrong fish.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It is encouraging to know that the EU is concerned about undercutting by having lower employment standards.  When the EU rectifies this position by introducing a minimum wage and other employment rights to match what we have in the UK, it can only be a good thing for the people from eastern Europe who come over here to do minimum wage jobs for long hours because their own countries' pay and conditions are so poor.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument comparing the UK to eastern European economies and conditions.

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument comparing the UK to eastern European economies and conditions.

I'm not concerned at all about Eastern European economies.  It's the pro-EU faction who bring up the worry that one party to the negotiations may be undercutting the other on pay and conditions.  

[dsr-burnley]

6 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Presumably the intention is to stop the incentive to “accidentally” overfish or catch the wrong fish.

I'm sure it is.  But the result is that if they allocate a quota of 1,000 haddock to one trawler and 1,000 cod to another, then the result may be that they each catch 2,000 fish - 1,000 haddock and 1,000 cod.  The haddock fishermen have to throw back the dead cod, and the cod fishermen have to throw back the dead haddock.  The argument "that's not our intention" does not bring the fish back to life, nor does it put them on our plates.

 

(Excuse in advance - "cod" and "haddock" are just words.  The numbers are invented for the sake of example.  I know one of cod and haddock is much bigger than the other, but I don't know which way round.!)

[Alf Bentley]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It is encouraging to know that the EU is concerned about undercutting by having lower employment standards.  When the EU rectifies this position by introducing a minimum wage and other employment rights to match what we have in the UK, it can only be a good thing for the people from eastern Europe who come over here to do minimum wage jobs for long hours because their own countries' pay and conditions are so poor.

 

That's a completely unrealistic argument. How the hell would it be workable for the EU to have a single minimum wage when EU27 national economies, living standards and costs of living range so widely for historic reasons? 

£5 per hour would be megabucks in Bulgaria but unsustainable poverty in northern Europe. 

 

Most EU countries do have a minimum wage. They're just at different levels to suit their national living standards/cost of living. You know, they employ their "national sovereignty" to that end. 

I suppose the most that the EU could do would be to introduce a minimum wage as a % of per capita national income or national average pay or something? But they'd probably need universal or near-universal support among member states.

 

Here are the different national minimum wages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage

As you'll see, the wealthier EU nations have minimum wages similar to ours or higher, whereas the poorer countries have much lower levels.....inevitable until convergence brings living standards closer together (as has happened with Spain, Ireland etc.)

 

Of course, we didn't have a minimum wage in the UK until Labour introduced it in 1998 - in the face of fierce opposition from the Tories, who declared that any minimum wage would destroy business and jobs.

This was 3-4 years after I'd been doing bar work in Manchester. We were getting £2.50 per hour and tried to get it increased to £3, before eventually compromising on £2.75.....worth more now, due to inflation, but we've not had 300%+ inflation since....

[Jon the Hat]

Not quite correct info on here on the fishing rights.  While the Sovereign waters are 12 miles, the Exclusive economic zone EEZ which means the right to exploit the resources is 200 nautical miles.  This is global UN agreement.  The EU under the CFP chooses to share these zones, but Norway for example has its own EEZ and operates the approach we are proposing for ours to allow access to EU boats.  So the bit about us trying to deny Eu fisherman their traditional fishing rights you can take up with the UN...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

Edited 14 December 2020 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

While I am on the subject, the EEZ ALSO menas the rights to build offshore power whether than we wind wave or oil & gas, to exploit future opportunities to "farm" the seas like we do the land.  This is about a lot more than the current fishing value.

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not quite correct info on here on the fishing rights.  While the Sovereign waters are 12 miles, the Exclusive economic zone EEZ which means the right to exploit the resources is 200 nautical miles.  This is global UN agreement.  The EU under the CFP chooses to share these zones, but Norway for example has its own EEZ and operates the approach we are proposing four ours to allow access to EU boats.  So the bit about us trying to deny Eu fisherman their traditional fishing rights you can take up with the UN...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

 

As that Wiki article points out, there is an obvious exception to this:

"The exception to this rule occurs when exclusive economic zones would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nmi (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary. Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state".

 

Otherwise, UK fishermen would be sailing up the Seine to fish salmon next to the remains of Notre Dame! 

 

Here's the Norway EEZ map - areas up to 200 nm out in the Atlantic, but not in the vicinity of Sweden, Denmark, UK etc.

 

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As that Wiki article points out, there is an obvious exception to this:

"The exception to this rule occurs when exclusive economic zones would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nmi (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary. Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state".

 

Otherwise, UK fishermen would be sailing up the Seine to fish salmon next to the remains of Notre Dame! 

 

Here's the Norway EEZ map - areas up to 200 nm out in the Atlantic, but not in the vicinity of Sweden, Denmark, UK etc.

 

Yes of course, so in the channel and up into the North Sea there is effectively a line down the middle split between the UK and the EU / Norway. Then the Faroe islands to the North etc.

[dsr-burnley]

29 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's a completely unrealistic argument. How the hell would it be workable for the EU to have a single minimum wage when EU27 national economies, living standards and costs of living range so widely for historic reasons? 

£5 per hour would be megabucks in Bulgaria but unsustainable poverty in northern Europe. 

 

Most EU countries do have a minimum wage. They're just at different levels to suit their national living standards/cost of living. You know, they employ their "national sovereignty" to that end. 

I suppose the most that the EU could do would be to introduce a minimum wage as a % of per capita national income or national average pay or something? But they'd probably need universal or near-universal support among member states.

 

Here are the different national minimum wages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_minimum_wage

As you'll see, the wealthier EU nations have minimum wages similar to ours or higher, whereas the poorer countries have much lower levels.....inevitable until convergence brings living standards closer together (as has happened with Spain, Ireland etc.)

 

Of course, we didn't have a minimum wage in the UK until Labour introduced it in 1998 - in the face of fierce opposition from the Tories, who declared that any minimum wage would destroy business and jobs.

This was 3-4 years after I'd been doing bar work in Manchester. We were getting £2.50 per hour and tried to get it increased to £3, before eventually compromising on £2.75.....worth more now, due to inflation, but we've not had 300%+ inflation since....

Exactly.  People worrying about the UK undercutting EU employment rights rules are worrying about a nonsense.  That's been my point all along.

[dsr-burnley]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes of course, so in the channel and up into the North Sea there is effectively a line down the middle split between the UK and the EU / Norway. Then the Faroe islands to the North etc.

I think fishing rights is why the UK declared Rockall to be a British island, and why a patriotic but nutty SAS man spent a few days there to cement the claim.  A Faroese tour guide was still slightly miffed (as miffed as those very friendly people can be!) about that when I was on holiday there a few years back.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall#cite_note-senti-66

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument comparing the UK to eastern European economies and conditions.

Why? When the conversation is about a level playing field.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Exactly.  People worrying about the UK undercutting EU employment rights rules are worrying about a nonsense.  That's been my point all along.

 

It's true that, even if the UK did deregulate so as to reduce labour costs, it wouldn't be competing with Bulgaria by undercutting any time soon.

 

But, in a world of fierce competition and tight profit margins, cuts in UK labour costs could quickly undercut firms in France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland etc. - especially given proximity.

 

It's possible that EU fears are excessive as there are plenty of other factors in competition aside from labour costs and regulatory requirements.

But it's entirely logical that they'd see undercutting of labour costs as an issue for western Europe - and wouldn't want tariff/quota-free trade with a country that might well compete on that basis.

[WigstonWanderer]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Why? When the conversation is about a level playing field.

Why be talking about Eastern European conditions and not those of Germany, France etc?

[dsr-burnley]

30 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's true that, even if the UK did deregulate so as to reduce labour costs, it wouldn't be competing with Bulgaria by undercutting any time soon.

 

But, in a world of fierce competition and tight profit margins, cuts in UK labour costs could quickly undercut firms in France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland etc. - especially given proximity.

 

It's possible that EU fears are excessive as there are plenty of other factors in competition aside from labour costs and regulatory requirements.

But it's entirely logical that they'd see undercutting of labour costs as an issue for western Europe - and wouldn't want tariff/quota-free trade with a country that might well compete on that basis.

France, Germany etc. allow free trade with Bulgaria etc. as it stands.  There is no logic to the idea that they would give up the right to tariff-free exports to the UK simply because they fear undercutting on Labour costs by one more country added to the many that already do undercut them.

 

There is also no logic to the idea that an entity that already severely undercuts us on employment conditions would or should enforce a clause that stops us undercutting them.  Surely for it to be a sensible clause it would have to work both ways?  There is no sensible way in which the UK would allow the EU to impose terms on our employment rules which they do not apply to themselves.

 

Even to the EU, employment rights are a non-issue so far as I know.  It's only the UK-based ardent Remainers who are concerned.that the EU might lose out.

[Innovindil]

27 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Why be talking about Eastern European conditions and not those of Germany, France etc?

Because currently there are no trade barriers between Eastern European countries and Germany, France etc. 

 

It's not a level playing field to begin with. 

[WigstonWanderer]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Because currently there are no trade barriers between Eastern European countries and Germany, France etc. 

 

It's not a level playing field to begin with. 

They are inside the club and not seeking to leave and negotiate an FTA.

 

Besides, at the end of the day, this doesn’t really have anything to do with some perceived fairness. The UK is a middle ranking  power which will in future be up against much more powerful entities such as the EU, US, China, etc when trying to negotiate trade agreements. Expect to be bullied.

Edited 14 December 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

France, Germany etc. allow free trade with Bulgaria etc. as it stands.  There is no logic to the idea that they would give up the right to tariff-free exports to the UK simply because they fear undercutting on Labour costs by one more country added to the many that already do undercut them.

 

There is also no logic to the idea that an entity that already severely undercuts us on employment conditions would or should enforce a clause that stops us undercutting them.  Surely for it to be a sensible clause it would have to work both ways?  There is no sensible way in which the UK would allow the EU to impose terms on our employment rules which they do not apply to themselves.

 

Even to the EU, employment rights are a non-issue so far as I know.  It's only the UK-based ardent Remainers who are concerned.that the EU might lose out.

 

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Because currently there are no trade barriers between Eastern European countries and Germany, France etc. 

 

It's not a level playing field to begin with. 

 

Bulgaria and other Eastern European countries in the EU are in the Single Market, so they are already signed up to a very specific level playing field on employment conditions.

 

That does not include equal pay or identical minimum wages, as I've already pointed out.

It includes stuff relating to working hours, overtime, holidays, health & safety, consultation of workers, sick/parental leave, pensions, social security (I think - no time to check precise content, but that's the gist).

 

Yes, that means that Eastern Europe can compete with western Europe through lower labour costs in some sectors. That's presumably one of the reasons why several large car plants have been set up there.

However, there are limits to the impact of lower labour costs as other factors come into competition - location of customer, location of suppliers, raw materials, skills/education, expertise/existing relationships, stability of workforce & nation, currency etc.

Plus, one of the EU aims is to ensure that less developed EU nations grow economically - as happened with Spain, Portugal, Greece & Ireland (albeit imperfectly) - providing more developed partners, richer customers & more stable neighbours.

 

Given their more distant location, smaller populations, comparatively lower skills & doubts over stability in some cases, East Europe is less of a competitive threat overall - especially as it is obliged to comply with enforceable SM regulations.

For slightly different reasons, Canada is also less of a threat (even more distant, high transport costs, 10% of trade with EU27 that UK has).

 

In contrast, the UK is leaving the Single Market. It is also right next to the EU27 with a much bigger population than Eastern European EU nations, intense existing trading relationships, better skills, easy transport links, potential to offer tax breaks to attract inward investment etc. Of course, the UK is more of a competitive threat, so it's entirely understandable that the EU want competition to be on a level playing field. That level playing field existed before - it was the Single Market, which Bulgaria & Romania are still in, but which we are leaving.

 

Oh, and my understanding is that any such clauses would work both ways - and there's absolutely no question of the EU imposing conditions on the UK that it does not impose on itself (except, possibly, tariffs if the UK exercises its sovereignty so as to compete through more deregulated employment, environment or other standards).

[dsr-burnley]

47 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

In contrast, the UK is leaving the Single Market. It is also right next to the EU27 with a much bigger population than Eastern European EU nations, intense existing trading relationships, better skills, easy transport links, potential to offer tax breaks to attract inward investment etc. Of course, the UK is more of a competitive threat, so it's entirely understandable that the EU want competition to be on a level playing field. That level playing field existed before - it was the Single Market, which Bulgaria & Romania are still in, but which we are leaving.

 

Oh, and my understanding is that any such clauses would work both ways - and there's absolutely no question of the EU imposing conditions on the UK that it does not impose on itself (except, possibly, tariffs if the UK exercises its sovereignty so as to compete through more deregulated employment, environment or other standards).

The EU isn't opposed to tax breaks.  As I said in an earlier post, between 1995 and 2013, when Jean-Claude Juncker was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Luxembourg made all sorts of dodgy tax deals with coroporation tax as low as 1% for some companies.  Amazon included.  When all this came out a little later, the EU under President Jean-Claude Juncker had every opportunity to put a stop to this sort of thing - and they chose not to.  So potential tax breaks isn't really an issue.

 

I don't think the EU can unilaterally impose tariffs under WTO rules.  There are various rules about favoured nations or some such that stop random tariffs - it's either WTO rules or it's by mutual agreement between the parties.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Oh, and my understanding is that any such clauses would work both ways - and there's absolutely no question of the EU imposing conditions on the UK that it does not impose on itself (except, possibly, tariffs if the UK exercises its sovereignty so as to compete through more deregulated employment, environment or other standards).

That’s not necessarily true. The reports were (idk how accurate they are, nobody really knows what’s true due to a lack of formal transparency) that the EU was looking to exclude state aid spending by its institutions. And the initial reports were that the UK wouldn’t be able to ‘punish’ the EU if it didn’t follow the UK in upping regs.

 

As I say idk what’s true and what’s not but there’s a tendency to paint the EU as rather benign and the UK as the difficult one suffering cakeism. Same has happened with fish

[Alf Bentley]

34 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The EU isn't opposed to tax breaks.  As I said in an earlier post, between 1995 and 2013, when Jean-Claude Juncker was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Luxembourg made all sorts of dodgy tax deals with coroporation tax as low as 1% for some companies.  Amazon included.  When all this came out a little later, the EU under President Jean-Claude Juncker had every opportunity to put a stop to this sort of thing - and they chose not to.  So potential tax breaks isn't really an issue.

 

I don't think the EU can unilaterally impose tariffs under WTO rules.  There are various rules about favoured nations or some such that stop random tariffs - it's either WTO rules or it's by mutual agreement between the parties.

 

Yes, I remember the point you made the other day about Luxembourg - because I replied to it, accepting it and raising Irish corporation tax as a similar but more relevant issue, given the tiny number of jobs syphoned into Luxembourg.

 

But we aren't discussing some non-existent EU opposition to tax breaks. I only mentioned tax as one of a multitude of considerations that might be in the EU's mind when assessing the potential for UK firms to undercut EU firms post-Brexit.

 

What we were discussing was that there's a difference between undercutting by Bulgaria and potential undercutting by the post-Brexit UK:

- Bulgaria: In Single Market so subject to an EU level playing field, population of 7m, 2000 miles from W. Europe, underdeveloped, comparatively low skills

- UK: Leaving Single Market & apparently wanting tariff/quota-free access without any level playing field, population of 67m, right next to W. Europe, highly developed, comparatively high skills

Can you not see the difference in the nature of the potential competition there?

 

I think you're right about the selective imposition of tariffs under WTO rules. But what the EU is presumably seeking is indeed a mutual agreement with penalties attached, be those tariffs as such or of some other legal status?

If there's a UK-EU deal, I presume that could include such penalties if agreed by both parties - but if there was No Deal, the EU (and the UK) would have to impose the same tariffs on every country with which it didn't have a deal?

 

Going back to the minimum wage....I remember getting the "SMIC", the French minimum wage, when I went grape-picking over there from 1983......15 years before Labour introduced a minimum wage here in the face of Tory opposition.

In fact, I came back and did spud picking in Norfolk - and got paid piece-rate, doing back-breaking work for a fraction of the pay that I got in France.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

That’s not necessarily true. The reports were (idk how accurate they are, nobody really knows what’s true due to a lack of formal transparency) that the EU was looking to exclude state aid spending by its institutions. And the initial reports were that the UK wouldn’t be able to ‘punish’ the EU if it didn’t follow the UK in upping regs.

 

As I say idk what’s true and what’s not but there’s a tendency to paint the EU as rather benign and the UK as the difficult one suffering cakeism. Same has happened with fish

 

Fair point if those rumours about proposals to exclude EU state aid are true. Who knows what is true, what is false rumour and what is negotiating and PR tactics, though.

 

But although the point about even-handedness on state aid is valid, I do find it amusing to hear talk of a Tory-led UK wanting to increase state aid (with debt at record levels) and to regulate business beyond EU levels.

Whatever happened to the free market being the most efficient system? To "getting rid of all that Brussels red tape"? To the party of low tax and efficient public spending? To the need for 10 years of austerity when the deficit/debt was much lower than now? To rejecting the idea of a minimum wage until Labour introduced it? To refusing to sign up to EU social provisions until Labour reversed that?

 

Have I gone through the looking glass and entered some mysterious  world where Corbyn is running the Tory Govt with a mission to take Britain back to the 1970s?

Yes, I know Bozza comes out with all this populist stuff about "levelling up" and loves a grand, ego-boosting project or two....but this is still a party with plenty who are still loyal to Thatcherite values, even if they see the need for the odd bit of populist rhetoric. And Johnson is a PM who'll say anything to anyone, with no moral qualms whatsoever, so long as it gets him more votes, power, ego boosts, applause, laughs, sex or money.

 

Sorry if I come across as naive about the EU. I don't think that I am. I don't really see it as benign. I'd see it as maybe a bit saner than the UK Govt, but very much as an organisation doing everything that it can to protect and promote its own interests and those of its member states. I know that involves dubious rhetoric, demands and negotiating tactics at times - politics is a rough business and there's a lot at stake. Plus, the hard reality is that the EU is a more powerful body than the UK. It would still be damaged by No Deal, of course, but not as much as us (and Ireland, economically).....unless you believe that destructive chaos leads somewhere good in the long-term. I just hope that a deal can be found as the consequences of No Deal for all of us could be horrendous - in terms of relations between UK and EU citizens, not just the economic and logistical fall-out and ongoing tensions and hostility between the respective institutions. 

[Stivo]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not quite correct info on here on the fishing rights.  While the Sovereign waters are 12 miles, the Exclusive economic zone EEZ which means the right to exploit the resources is 200 nautical miles.  This is global UN agreement.  The EU under the CFP chooses to share these zones, but Norway for example has its own EEZ and operates the approach we are proposing for ours to allow access to EU boats.  So the bit about us trying to deny Eu fisherman their traditional fishing rights you can take up with the UN...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone

What was posted was correct, the discussion was about the situation and history leading up to us joining the common market and why that might lead to French fishermen feeling aggrieved just as our fishermen similarly did when they were excluded from Icelandic waters.

 

As stated when we joined the Common Market we had a 12 mile limit subject to the London Fisheries Agreement.

 

Until 1976 we were (violently) against countries extending claims beyond 12 miles and we strongly asserted an “open seas” policy.  In 1976 we gave up the fight against Iceland and reversed our position claiming 200 miles ourselves.   As we were in the Common Market/EEC and subject to the Common Fisheries Policy the main effect was to exclude non European vessels.

 

It was only later in 1982 that the UN convention  formalised the concept of  the 200 mile limit.

 

Clearly when we leave in few weeks we will have full control over our waters to the midline between the UK and France or other countries (  It is only in northern Scotland that our EEZ extends to the full 200 miles)

 

The question that was asked was why did France view fishing rights as something that should be negotiated.  
The answer that I gave explained the history. 

 

I did not state that they had any legal right ( they clearly don’t) but it is a good idea to stay on good terms with your neighbours as we recognised in 1964.