Downloading A Programme Without The...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Britain's Fishing Industry Post-Brexit
If you would like to protect the future of British fishing you can sign here;
https:/
https:/
Answers
The rules on EEZs are straightforw
14:00 Sun 12th Nov 2017
You didn't provide the link, but I assume you are referring to this article:
http://
I remain confused, though, by the claim that, "After Brexit, the UK will be entitled under international law to lay claim to an EEZ up to 200 miles from its coast, within which the British Government will police how fishing operates."
As I said, the UK already has a large EEZ, one of the largest in the world, but locally the 200-mile limit clearly doesn't apply (since, after all, a good deal of that limit would overlap with the same claims made by France, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain etc). International law covers these cases, but I think that the UK's EEZ is already locally as large as it will ever be.
In the long run it makes sense that the UK leaves the EU's fisheries policy, but I wonder if people are assuming that this also means expanding our own personal waters when that's almost certainly impossible.
http://
I remain confused, though, by the claim that, "After Brexit, the UK will be entitled under international law to lay claim to an EEZ up to 200 miles from its coast, within which the British Government will police how fishing operates."
As I said, the UK already has a large EEZ, one of the largest in the world, but locally the 200-mile limit clearly doesn't apply (since, after all, a good deal of that limit would overlap with the same claims made by France, Norway, Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain etc). International law covers these cases, but I think that the UK's EEZ is already locally as large as it will ever be.
In the long run it makes sense that the UK leaves the EU's fisheries policy, but I wonder if people are assuming that this also means expanding our own personal waters when that's almost certainly impossible.
But we can exclude non British vessels from fishing in our EEZ as recognised under International law. Just like the Chinese, Japanese, Americans, Brazilians, ICELANDIC, etc. etc. do. No more Spanish and French trawlers raping our fish stocks and rendering them as dead as their own after years of overfishing. Make the Inshore protection fleet effective and in sufficient numbers again, get the boat builders working again and the supply industry that goes with it revived. In short a huge job creation opportunity is going begging.
The rules on EEZs are straightforward. Where the 200 mile limit is impractical because there is not 200 miles of sea to claim, the EEZ extends to the midpoint between the two countries concerned (so in the Straits of Dover the UK’s EEZ would extend for about 11 miles only).
The problem with the CFP is that it creates a single EEZ for the entire EU. This means the UK has no exclusive area of its own and fishing vessels from elsewhere in the EU are permitted to fish in what were UK waters. More than that, despite around half the EU’s total fish quota being taken from “UK” waters, the permitted catch for UK vessels is only about 25% of that tonnage.
The CFP purports to “ensure that fishing is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and that they provide a source of healthy food for EU citizens.” It does nothing of the sort. Its “sustainability” rules dictate that around 1.5m tons of dead fish annually are thrown back into the sea as they are too small to be taken. It also aims to “foster a dynamic fishing industry and ensure a fair standard of living for fishing communities.” Well that may well be true for the Spanish, French and Portuguese fisheries. But the UK has seen the decimation of its industry as the fishing grounds that were formerly the exclusive preserve of UK fishermen have been “shared” between all the nations as a common resource.
If the UK rescinds its membership of the CFP its EEZ will revert to the exclusive use of UK trawlers. The 50% of the EU’s fish quota that is currently taken from UK waters will be there for the taking solely by UK fishermen. The CFP is yet another example of the UK’s resources being “pooled” for the common good of the EU whilst the interests of the UK play second fiddle. And I nearly forgot, it costs over €1bn a year to administer and enforce. With the UK being the second largest contributor to the EU budget a healthy chunk of that sum obviously comes from UK taxpayers. Not a bad price to pay in order to see the devastation of a once proud industry.
The problem with the CFP is that it creates a single EEZ for the entire EU. This means the UK has no exclusive area of its own and fishing vessels from elsewhere in the EU are permitted to fish in what were UK waters. More than that, despite around half the EU’s total fish quota being taken from “UK” waters, the permitted catch for UK vessels is only about 25% of that tonnage.
The CFP purports to “ensure that fishing is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable and that they provide a source of healthy food for EU citizens.” It does nothing of the sort. Its “sustainability” rules dictate that around 1.5m tons of dead fish annually are thrown back into the sea as they are too small to be taken. It also aims to “foster a dynamic fishing industry and ensure a fair standard of living for fishing communities.” Well that may well be true for the Spanish, French and Portuguese fisheries. But the UK has seen the decimation of its industry as the fishing grounds that were formerly the exclusive preserve of UK fishermen have been “shared” between all the nations as a common resource.
If the UK rescinds its membership of the CFP its EEZ will revert to the exclusive use of UK trawlers. The 50% of the EU’s fish quota that is currently taken from UK waters will be there for the taking solely by UK fishermen. The CFP is yet another example of the UK’s resources being “pooled” for the common good of the EU whilst the interests of the UK play second fiddle. And I nearly forgot, it costs over €1bn a year to administer and enforce. With the UK being the second largest contributor to the EU budget a healthy chunk of that sum obviously comes from UK taxpayers. Not a bad price to pay in order to see the devastation of a once proud industry.
"As I said, the UK already has a large EEZ, one of the largest in the world,..."
I also forgot to emphasise, Jim, that the UK has no EEZ of its own. There is an EU EEZ which extends from the mid-point between Turkey and Cyprus, through the Mediterranean (half way between southern Europe and North Africa), round the Iberian peninsula, across the Bay of Biscay before encircling the entire UK and finishing off in the Baltic.
I also forgot to emphasise, Jim, that the UK has no EEZ of its own. There is an EU EEZ which extends from the mid-point between Turkey and Cyprus, through the Mediterranean (half way between southern Europe and North Africa), round the Iberian peninsula, across the Bay of Biscay before encircling the entire UK and finishing off in the Baltic.
I think technically though that's not actually true. The UK does have its own EEZ -- however, it agrees to rescind the "exclusive" part because of EU membership and under the CFP. Once we leave the EU (or, possibly, a couple of years after that) then, assuming no further arrangements, control of our EEZ would return to us.
Again, it's a consequence of the principle, that Brexiters seem determined to ignore, that any such restrictions that the UK is under as a result of EU membership were entered into voluntarily.
Again, it's a consequence of the principle, that Brexiters seem determined to ignore, that any such restrictions that the UK is under as a result of EU membership were entered into voluntarily.
Signed. I live near a fishing town which voted, almost unanimously, 'Leave'. The mood in the streets next day was ecstatic. They want their jobs and boats back and to be a thriving economy again instead of struggling and depressed. Going back many years I remember the complaints about over-fishing by foreign vessels. It may take a little while to rebuild our fishing fleet, so we may have to allow some fishing by EU countries for a time. But we will be the ones to dictate who can fish, what can be fished and how much can be fished.
The Sea Cadets are quite excited at their prospects, they have a future. :)
The Sea Cadets are quite excited at their prospects, they have a future. :)
I live bang slap in between what were once huge fishing ports.
The fishing packed up long before we joined the EU.It was going down the pan in the fifties and my Dad ,a trawlerman was out of work .
It might be nice to see the fleets in the harbours again but I doubt it'll happen.What young chap wants to go to sea these days? Fishing is hard dangerous work.
All the boat building that goes on round here is for luxury cruisers.
The fishing packed up long before we joined the EU.It was going down the pan in the fifties and my Dad ,a trawlerman was out of work .
It might be nice to see the fleets in the harbours again but I doubt it'll happen.What young chap wants to go to sea these days? Fishing is hard dangerous work.
All the boat building that goes on round here is for luxury cruisers.
"I think technically though that's not actually true. The UK does have its own EEZ -- however, it agrees to rescind the "exclusive" part because of EU membership and under the CFP."
So what's the difference? The EU calls that area the EU EEZ. It controls what goes on within it. The UK does not.
"Again, it's a consequence of the principle, that Brexiters seem determined to ignore, that any such restrictions that the UK is under as a result of EU membership were entered into voluntarily."
I don't ignore that principle, Jim, because it's perfectly true. The UK signed up to the EEC and in 1975 its politicians persuaded the electorate (including, I'm ashamed to say, me) to reinforce that decision. What was not widely known then was that the EEC would morph into the would-be superstate that is now the EU. Alas the "voluntary" aspect of us abiding by the conditions of membership have long since passed into history. In 1975, PM Harold Wilson said this in his pamphlet to voters:
"No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament."
This is now blantantly untrue. Since 1992 and especially since the Lisbon Treaty, Qualified Majority Voting has seen the powers of "...a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament" substantially diminished. Time and again decisions made in Brussels against the wishes of UK representatives are passed into EU law. Although these are "voluntarily" subsumed into UK law (often with "gold plating") that process is about as voluntary as National Service was up to 1960. Failure to comply would see the UK in default, be hauled before the ECJ and, because the Lisbon Treaty (which we voluntarily signed) provides for the supremacy of EU law, the ruling would go against the UK.
Time for a change, methinks, and thankfully we have the opportunity to see it happen.
So what's the difference? The EU calls that area the EU EEZ. It controls what goes on within it. The UK does not.
"Again, it's a consequence of the principle, that Brexiters seem determined to ignore, that any such restrictions that the UK is under as a result of EU membership were entered into voluntarily."
I don't ignore that principle, Jim, because it's perfectly true. The UK signed up to the EEC and in 1975 its politicians persuaded the electorate (including, I'm ashamed to say, me) to reinforce that decision. What was not widely known then was that the EEC would morph into the would-be superstate that is now the EU. Alas the "voluntary" aspect of us abiding by the conditions of membership have long since passed into history. In 1975, PM Harold Wilson said this in his pamphlet to voters:
"No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament."
This is now blantantly untrue. Since 1992 and especially since the Lisbon Treaty, Qualified Majority Voting has seen the powers of "...a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament" substantially diminished. Time and again decisions made in Brussels against the wishes of UK representatives are passed into EU law. Although these are "voluntarily" subsumed into UK law (often with "gold plating") that process is about as voluntary as National Service was up to 1960. Failure to comply would see the UK in default, be hauled before the ECJ and, because the Lisbon Treaty (which we voluntarily signed) provides for the supremacy of EU law, the ruling would go against the UK.
Time for a change, methinks, and thankfully we have the opportunity to see it happen.
Young Jim was the cabin-boy.
https:/
https:/
It is important to note that having exclusive rights to a piece of sea is fine for the ego but if it has been overfished and mismanaged for many decades (since before joining the Common Market/EU, as shaneystar2 points out) then it will be a long time before it can generously yield sustainably. If the fishing fleet is not kept at bay (i.e. no significant expansion for many years) then that time will be a long way off.
The 200 mile limit (instead of a free-for-all) is of course a concept that the UK fought against tooth and nail, against Iceland who introduced it and rigorously and successfully manages its waters and enjoys catching in large quantities species not previously anticipated, such as mackerel which due to environmental changes moved very recently from UK waters to Icelandic territory and some in the UK insisted Icelanders were not entitled to catch these UK fish even though large schools of them were clogging Icelandic harbours. Logic, common sense, etc. is not always obvious in some quarters.
The 200 mile limit (instead of a free-for-all) is of course a concept that the UK fought against tooth and nail, against Iceland who introduced it and rigorously and successfully manages its waters and enjoys catching in large quantities species not previously anticipated, such as mackerel which due to environmental changes moved very recently from UK waters to Icelandic territory and some in the UK insisted Icelanders were not entitled to catch these UK fish even though large schools of them were clogging Icelandic harbours. Logic, common sense, etc. is not always obvious in some quarters.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Body & Soul3 mins ago
Kemi Badenoch's First Approval...
News4 mins ago
Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.