Getting brexit done!

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

If anything having control of the waters gets us away from the insanity of the CFP which has been very much the tragedy of the commons.

I hear a lot about the "tragedy of the commons" and it does have negative consequences for resources, but I'm yet to be in any way convinced that "enclosed" ownership of a finite resource - particularly living ones - does anything other than exhaust them due to the consideration of short-term gain over long-term planning too.

[Spudulike]

Foreign trawlers accused of 'ecocide' as Brexit deadline looms. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-55317719

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Foreign trawlers accused of 'ecocide' as Brexit deadline looms. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-55317719

This is exactly what I mean.

 

Right to point out that what is going on is unsustainable resource exploitation, wrong to infer things over time would turn out any differently if it were UK vessel territory only.

[Spudulike]

54 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is exactly what I mean.

 

Right to point out that what is going on is unsustainable resource exploitation, wrong to infer things over time would turn out any differently if it were UK vessel territory only.

If it was UK boats causing this sort of marine vandalism in the future then surely our Government will have the power to stop it immediately. Currently they can't unilaterally do that under EU law when it's clear that foreign vessels are the culprits. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

If it was UK boats causing this sort of marine vandalism in the future then surely our Government will have the power to stop it immediately. Currently they can't unilaterally do that under EU law when it's clear that foreign vessels are the culprits. 

 

Is it that simple and is the UK fishing industry so pure, when England & Wales have sold vast swathes of their quota to foreign-owned trawlers (much more than almost any other EU nation)?

Is it really true that lots of cute, noble British fishermen in little boats are out there being environmentally-friendly, while the brutal foreigners do all the damage, providing a reason for Brexit?

 

These links suggest that it ain't that simple:

 

http://www.marinet.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-fishing-industry-and-its-fishing-quotas.html

"At present, small boat fishermen receive just 6% of the national quota".

 

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/

"The investigation found:

• The five largest quota-holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota
• Four of the top five belong to families on the Sunday Times Rich List
• The fifth is a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary – North Atlantic Fishing Company – controls around a quarter of England’s fishing quota
• Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests
• More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “black fish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel
• One of the flagships of the “Brexit flotilla” – which sailed up the Thames in 2016 to demand the UK’s exit from the EU – is among the UK’s 10 biggest quota-holders
• Around 29% of UK fishing quota is directly controlled by Rich List families. Some of these families have investments in dozens of other fishing companies, meaning companies holding 37% of UK quota are wholly or partly owned by these Rich List families.

[davieG]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Is it that simple and is the UK fishing industry so pure, when England & Wales have sold vast swathes of their quota to foreign-owned trawlers (much more than almost any other EU nation)?

Is it really true that lots of cute, noble British fishermen in little boats are out there being environmentally-friendly, while the brutal foreigners do all the damage, providing a reason for Brexit?

 

These links suggest that it ain't that simple:

 

http://www.marinet.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-fishing-industry-and-its-fishing-quotas.html

"At present, small boat fishermen receive just 6% of the national quota".

 

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/

"The investigation found:

• The five largest quota-holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota
• Four of the top five belong to families on the Sunday Times Rich List
• The fifth is a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary – North Atlantic Fishing Company – controls around a quarter of England’s fishing quota
• Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests
• More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “black fish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel
• One of the flagships of the “Brexit flotilla” – which sailed up the Thames in 2016 to demand the UK’s exit from the EU – is among the UK’s 10 biggest quota-holders
• Around 29% of UK fishing quota is directly controlled by Rich List families. Some of these families have investments in dozens of other fishing companies, meaning companies holding 37% of UK quota are wholly or partly owned by these Rich List families.

Probably the same as most of the big companies in the UK sort of par for the course. Real Estate seems to be heading in the same direction. 

 

One thing Brexit has done is expose some of the truth behind the way this Country is now existing. So much of it is hidden still and so much hidden corruption. 

 

It seems to be totally out of anyone's control least of all any elected government who are probably part of it all anyway.

 

I don't feel any affinity with the Country any more it's become alien and I've got to a point where I trust no one in what they say or do.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Spudulike said:

If it was UK boats causing this sort of marine vandalism in the future then surely our Government will have the power to stop it immediately. Currently they can't unilaterally do that under EU law when it's clear that foreign vessels are the culprits. 

Of course, they could stop it.

 

As Alf points out above, however, whether they *would* is quite a different matter.

 

Being British doesn't automatically make one somehow more ethically minded towards doing environmentally friendly stuff nor more inclined towards seeing such matters in the long term rather than the short term, which seems th be the implication here. Best leave that kind of chat about exceptionalism to the Americans, really.

[Spudulike]

I'm not saying that. My point is the Government could stop this sort of destruction in the future if it wanted to and I'm sure that marine ecologists would put huge pressure on them to do so. Its all about votes, isn't it. 

 

However, under the current CFP they can do nothing.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I'm not saying that. My point is the Government could stop this sort of destruction in the future if it wanted to and I'm sure that marine ecologists would put huge pressure on them to do so. Its all about votes, isn't it. 

 

However, under the current CFP they can do nothing.

I know, but with respect, it was (and is) being inferred.

 

I do not share your confidence in the UK government or the people that elect them doing the right thing in sufficient numbers on this one simply because they're human just like everyone else. As important as conservation is, the cynic in me knows it isn't enough of a vote winner. Therefore, there is little difference IMO in terms of ecology and conservation between CFP and no CFP.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I know, but with respect, it was (and is) being inferred.

 

I do not share your confidence in the UK government or the people that elect them doing the right thing in sufficient numbers on this one simply because they're human just like everyone else. As important as conservation is, the cynic in me knows it isn't enough of a vote winner. Therefore, there is little difference IMO in terms of ecology and conservation between CFP and no CFP.

Fair enough, I’ll keep that in mind if my eco conscience crops up around voting time.

Not worth it.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Fair enough, I’ll keep that in mind if my eco conscience crops up around voting time.

Not worth it.

....what eco-conscience?

 

[Spudulike]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I know, but with respect, it was (and is) being inferred.

 

I do not share your confidence in the UK government or the people that elect them doing the right thing in sufficient numbers on this one simply because they're human just like everyone else. As important as conservation is, the cynic in me knows it isn't enough of a vote winner. Therefore, there is little difference IMO in terms of ecology and conservation between CFP and no CFP.

I was inferring it because without the CFP the British public can have a say in matters. The Government will U-turn if enough pressure is applied (note the Rashford school meals win). Don't underestimate the public when it comes down to killing dolphins. 

 

The public have more chance of influencing the Government than EU rule makers. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I was inferring it because without the CFP the British public can have a say in matters. The Government will U-turn if enough pressure is applied (note the Rashford school meals win). Don't underestimate the public when it comes down to killing dolphins. 

 

The public have more chance of influencing the Government than EU rule makers. 

If this issue concerned the immediate welfare of other people - specifically UK people, like the Rashford campaign - then I'd agree with you more. As it is, I honestly think that conservation efforts, as with other global issues, are most effective when addressed with globally, if possible, even if it's an agreement for "local" governments to enforce it.

 

In any case, whichever pathway is chosen I hope it's the right one, because the future's a lot more important than being right.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

I was inferring it because without the CFP the British public can have a say in matters. The Government will U-turn if enough pressure is applied (note the Rashford school meals win). Don't underestimate the public when it comes down to killing dolphins. 

 

The public have more chance of influencing the Government than EU rule makers. 

The EU are more likely to take a stance against climate change than lobby-courting Tories

[Spudulike]

27 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The EU are more likely to take a stance against climate change than lobby-courting Tories

Sorry, I worded that last sentence badly. I meant the public can have a greater influence on the UK Government of the day than they can ever have on the EU bureaucrats. Easier to turn up waving placards in Parliament Square than in Brussels. 

[Stivo]

7 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Sorry, I worded that last sentence badly. I meant the public can have a greater influence on the UK Government of the day than they can ever have on the EU bureaucrats. Easier to turn up waving placards in Parliament Square than in Brussels. 

 

There  was a British led popular campaign to stop throwing fish away ( led by Hugh from River cottage) which was taken up by the UK in Brussels and   successfully changed the CFP to ban this practise and ensure that all caught fish were landed across the whole of the North Sea and channel.
 

Having  done that our government then decided not to enforce it by installing cameras on fishing boats as it would unfairly disadvantage our fisherman who hated the idea...

 

The underlying problem (which doesn’t change by leaving Europe) is that fish stocks need to be managed to avoid over fishing.  That requires quotas of some description which are always unpopular with fishermen.  Trawling doesn’t neatly catch one species, and if boats are forced to land all their catch they may reach a limit on a specific species and be prevented from going out again. 
 

it isn’t clear to me why our Westminster bureaucrats  are suddenly going to be able to invent better improved  rules when we couldn’t seem to think of any when we were on the cfp committee.

[Spudulike]

37 minutes ago, Stivo said:

 

There  was a British led popular campaign to stop throwing fish away ( led by Hugh from River cottage) which was taken up by the UK in Brussels and   successfully changed the CFP to ban this practise and ensure that all caught fish were landed across the whole of the North Sea and channel.
 

Having  done that our government then decided not to enforce it by installing cameras on fishing boats as it would unfairly disadvantage our fisherman who hated the idea...

 

The underlying problem (which doesn’t change by leaving Europe) is that fish stocks need to be managed to avoid over fishing.  That requires quotas of some description which are always unpopular with fishermen.  Trawling doesn’t neatly catch one species, and if boats are forced to land all their catch they may reach a limit on a specific species and be prevented from going out again. 
 

it isn’t clear to me why our Westminster bureaucrats  are suddenly going to be able to invent better improved  rules when we couldn’t seem to think of any when we were on the cfp committee.

Perhaps they could invent some better improved rules to protect MCZ's from Super trawler destruction? Such as banning them. 

[Alf Bentley]

17 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Perhaps they could invent some better improved rules to protect MCZ's from Super trawler destruction? Such as banning them. 

 

It would be a start if they hadn't allowed a large proportion of the English & Welsh fishing quotas to be sold off to fishing/investment firms from other EU countries.

 

In particular, it seems that a full 20% of the entire English fishing quota was sold to a single Dutch super trawler!

 

Most EU countries have not allowed a near-indiscriminate sell-off of national quotas like this.

 

Your faith that ethical standards will be higher in the UK than in the EU doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence of past conduct.

Similarly, the links I quoted before describe how 13 of the 25 biggest UK quota holders had been involved in a massive fraud to land 170,000 tonnes of over-quota fish in Scotland.

 

Of course, UK Govt & big fishing/financial interests could suddenly develop much higher ethical standards.....but billions of tax revenues handed out to contacts of MPs for PPE contracts doesn't suggest we're heading in that direction:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54978460

[Stivo]

19 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Perhaps they could invent some better improved rules to protect MCZ's from Super trawler destruction? Such as banning them. 

The article that you posted explained that the MCZs protect the sea bed only from anchoring and bottom trawling ( dragging a dredge along the bottom to catch bottom feeding fish) and do not prohibit fishing with nets as that doesn’t damage the sea bed ecosystem.

 

Mobile fish caught by nets are instead protected by the CFP quota system ...  it’s reasonable to suggest that quotas should be reduced, but don’t expect British fishermen to agree!
 

The vessels involved ( as was made plain) were legally trawling with nets and so no different to what British trawlers would have done  if they owned the quota.  Ie from the perspective of a ton of fish does it matter if you are caught by one Dutch super trawler or 5 smaller British vessels?

 

The biggest Dutch trawler  is 114m in length, the British trawler that took part in Farage’s protest was 72m.

 

 

 

[yorkie1999]

Lets face it, it's going to be the biggest fvck up of all fvck ups. If only the government could suppress the population and then double suppress the population in an area that's going to have 50 miles of wall to wall lorries. 

[davieG]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It would be a start if they hadn't allowed a large proportion of the English & Welsh fishing quotas to be sold off to fishing/investment firms from other EU countries.

 

In particular, it seems that a full 20% of the entire English fishing quota was sold to a single Dutch super trawler!

 

Most EU countries have not allowed a near-indiscriminate sell-off of national quotas like this.

 

Your faith that ethical standards will be higher in the UK than in the EU doesn't seem to be borne out by the evidence of past conduct.

Similarly, the links I quoted before describe how 13 of the 25 biggest UK quota holders had been involved in a massive fraud to land 170,000 tonnes of over-quota fish in Scotland.

 

Of course, UK Govt & big fishing/financial interests could suddenly develop much higher ethical standards.....but billions of tax revenues handed out to contacts of MPs for PPE contracts doesn't suggest we're heading in that direction:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54978460

Are we in a position in the EU to stop these sort of buyouts, as long as there is a competitive market for Europe then there would be no grounds. So maybe we've sold more because it's a better source of fish than other Countries can offer. Just a thought or two>

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Are we in a position in the EU to stop these sort of buyouts, as long as there is a competitive market for Europe then there would be no grounds. So maybe we've sold more because it's a better source of fish than other Countries can offer. Just a thought or two>

 

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), but EU states clearly have a lot of freedom as to who can acquire their national quotas and on what basis - and UK imposes fewer conditions than most EU nations.

Foreign boats fishing "British" quotas have to land a certain percentage in the UK or have a certain percentage of British crew, I think.

 

Hence, some countries like France, Spain & Ireland have almost no foreign ownership of their quotas. Similar is true of Scotland & N. Ireland, though that seems to be partly down to a more widespread tradition of small-scale family fishing concerns (& maybe distance?). Some other EU nations (Belgium, Denmark) have more foreign ownership: 18-25%. But England has about 50% and Wales 85%.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116

 

I've posted this before - interesting history of British fishing: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/07/fishing-brexit-uk-fleetwood/

 

According to that history, some of this dates back to pre-CFP days of the Cod Wars, when English trawlers lost access to Icelandic fisheries and many took govt compensation and left the industry.

 

But the more recent issue seems to relate to UK Govt decisions in 1980s & early 90s to allow British quotas to be commoditized & then to be sold pretty freely without being attached to a particular boat.

Thus, a lot of English & Welsh fishermen/trawler companies were able to sell their quotas - often to foreign investors. This seems to have been a particular issue later in the 90s onwards, when fishing was severely limited due to low fish stock levels and became non-viable for many......the system then allowed them to flog their quotas to whoever they pleased & many quotas were hoovered up by foreign investors (presumably in anticipation of fishing becoming viable again after a few years?).

 

From that Greenpeace article:

"Meanwhile, successive UK governments took decisions that encouraged and then liberalised trade in fishing rights. From the mid-80s, the UK restricted the issue of new fishing licences, so the only way to get one was to buy it from a fisherman. In these early days, this often meant buying a licence along with the trawler and its track record. But in the early 90s – against the wishes of the main fishermen’s organisations – the government formalised the right of “sector” fishermen to move licences and track records between vessels, opening up a new kind of trade in quota. Detaching track record from vessels in this way ensured quota taken out of the pool would never come back to it. This was followed by other deregulatory moves, like the liberalisation of quota “swaps” between POs. In 1999, the UK replaced track records with “fixed quota allocations”, which give the holder an unchanging share of the UK’s quota. These were dished out to vessels in the sector based on their catches in the mid-nineties. This change discouraged the “race to fish”, but also made quota easier to swap, sell or lease to others".

 

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), but EU states clearly have a lot of freedom as to who can acquire their national quotas and on what basis - and UK imposes fewer conditions than most EU nations.

Foreign boats fishing "British" quotas have to land a certain percentage in the UK or have a certain percentage of British crew, I think.

 

Hence, some countries like France, Spain & Ireland have almost no foreign ownership of their quotas. Similar is true of Scotland & N. Ireland, though that seems to be partly down to a more widespread tradition of small-scale family fishing concerns (& maybe distance?). Some other EU nations (Belgium, Denmark) have more foreign ownership: 18-25%. But England has about 50% and Wales 85%.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116

 

I've posted this before - interesting history of British fishing: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/07/fishing-brexit-uk-fleetwood/

 

According to that history, some of this dates back to pre-CFP days of the Cod Wars, when English trawlers lost access to Icelandic fisheries and many took govt compensation and left the industry.

 

But the more recent issue seems to relate to UK Govt decisions in 1980s & early 90s to allow British quotas to be commoditized & then to be sold pretty freely without being attached to a particular boat.

Thus, a lot of English & Welsh fishermen/trawler companies were able to sell their quotas - often to foreign investors. This seems to have been a particular issue later in the 90s onwards, when fishing was severely limited due to low fish stock levels and became non-viable for many......the system then allowed them to flog their quotas to whoever they pleased & many quotas were hoovered up by foreign investors (presumably in anticipation of fishing becoming viable again after a few years?).

 

From that Greenpeace article:

"Meanwhile, successive UK governments took decisions that encouraged and then liberalised trade in fishing rights. From the mid-80s, the UK restricted the issue of new fishing licences, so the only way to get one was to buy it from a fisherman. In these early days, this often meant buying a licence along with the trawler and its track record. But in the early 90s – against the wishes of the main fishermen’s organisations – the government formalised the right of “sector” fishermen to move licences and track records between vessels, opening up a new kind of trade in quota. Detaching track record from vessels in this way ensured quota taken out of the pool would never come back to it. This was followed by other deregulatory moves, like the liberalisation of quota “swaps” between POs. In 1999, the UK replaced track records with “fixed quota allocations”, which give the holder an unchanging share of the UK’s quota. These were dished out to vessels in the sector based on their catches in the mid-nineties. This change discouraged the “race to fish”, but also made quota easier to swap, sell or lease to others".

 

Sold down the river then. No wonder I have no faith in any politicians. WAFU!

[Nick]

No deal then by the looks of it.

 

Ive always thought it would end up like this. I’ve always questioned this governments appetite for any deal at all.

 

That said, this will cause the most amount of disruption and chaos and heartbreak but in the much longer term, I hope the price we pay now will be the start of something that allows an independent build back that’s bigger and stronger.

 

Never wanted any of this nonsense but all we can do now is make the best of it. What’s so sad is this government and its wealthy benefactors will exploit the markets whilst the little people all go into insolvency. The narrative will remain the same, they’ll just put the word “SADLY” in before announcing the death of livelihoods rather than people.

 

Still hoping there will be a deal but unless the EU have compensatory money they can give to countries losing out from Britain’s exit, then it appears the red lines will hold and chaos will ensue.

 

Have to say, Jimmy Crankee through all this looking Presidential - fair play. I can honestly see Scotland wanting out following Brexit... Sad stuff, we’ll be left Billy no mates.

[Mike Oxlong]

The increasing use of “Australia terms” is typical of this government  

 

Most people know exactly that it is some sort of attempt to dress no deal up but if no deal is something we can go forward with in confidence then why be reticent to call it exactly that ?