Why Does The E U S S R Think It Has A Right To Our Waters?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-eu-proposes-no-deal-contingency-measures-for-plans-lorries-and-fishing-boats-12156764
Can someone please explain to me why the EUSSR thinks it has any right to demand access to our waters for fishing. On what basis? ok so the French/Spanish fishermen will be annoyed if we stop them hoovering up the sea but that's not basis for claiming a right is it?

[Old_Geezer]

Mmmm... mackerel ;-)

[Atheist]

What percentage of UK economy is tied up in fish? This is all about hufing and puffing, not economics.

[THECORBYLOON]

From the BBC a week ago, "But it's worth remembering that fishing is only a tiny fraction of the overall economy both in the UK (less than 0.1%) and in the EU (some landlocked countries have no fishing fleets at all)."

[Togo]

It is not about "fish" at all. That is just the blind being used by the EUSSR to have unlimited access to our territorial waters. No Sovereign State would allow it. Name me one Country or State that does not have full jurisdiction and responsibility for it's Internationally recognised territorial seaboard. No indeed, the French losing their "right" to plunder our waters is just a happy consequence. The fish have free will and can go to French waters if they are inclined and the frogs can catch em there, and see if we care. What they can't do is enter British territorial waters without express permission and valid reason. Just like we cannot enter theirs.

[New Judge]

//This is all about hufing and puffing, not economics.//

No it isn't. It is about getting the EU to understand that we are no longer a supplicant state negotiating how much of our assets we shall be kindly allowed to retain. Fish in UK waters are no longer a "Common Resource" for the EU to distribute as it thinks fit. It doesn't matter how much or little fishing contributes to our economy. It is not about economics; it is not about trade. It is about the EU seeking to retain political control over the UK so that its remaining members are not inconvenienced by Brexit.

[jourdain2]

^^^ I wish I knew how to do the hand-clapping video N.J..

[piggynose]

But jackdaw the USSR broke up years ago.

[Jackdaw33]

Exactly. From being a mega superstate it collapsed like a pack of cards. Let us hope that Britain's exit causes the EU to suffer a similar fate.

[Untitled]

I am not "anti-British" khandro I care deeply about the UK and believe it was in our interests to remain or Brexit softly if we must. If I were anti-British I would be cheering on Brexit and looking forward to no deal: loss of our biggest export markets, chaos at dover, driving apart the union, begging the usa for a desperately needed trade deal. If I were anti-british those things would delight me but they dont. I care deeply about this country's fortunes.

[emmie]

as do many of the Brexiteers -

[emmie]

who is driving apart the Union?

[Khandro]

untitled: //it was in our interests to remain or Brexit softly if we must.//

There is no 'Soft Brexit', it would be BRINO, you can't be a little bit EU like you can't a little bit pregnant.
It's going to be a bit rough at first like any divorce, what you have to do now, is extract your digit, muck in, & make it work.

[KARL]

"No sovereign state would allow it..."

Is it not ironic that the UK is now championing a concept which they fiercely fought against ("it's international waters, we have an undeniable right"), despatched the navy no less (against an unarmed nation, a fellow NATO founding member and ally), and (repeatedly over the years) suffered an ignominious defeat only quite recently ? The balanced, sensible, magnanimous even, and eminently reasonable British are quite astonished at the affront.....

[Untitled]

Brexit is driving apart the union emmie half of England and most of Wales wanted it, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not.

[Untitled]

There is such a thing as soft Brexit. Norway option, separate customs union... but the Brexists didn't want it and they got their way as they always do.

[New Judge]

The "Norway option" would not be equivalent to Brexit for very good reason. About a quarter of all EU legislation - much of it unrelated to trade - applies in Norway. Norway must adopt any legislation that the EU determines that they must. Free movement of people between the EU and Norway is required as part of their membership of the European Economic Area.

Ironically Norway's most recent referendum on EU membership (in 1994) resulted in almost the same percentage of votes (c. 52%)against joining as our result showed for leaving. It seems there was no widespread attempts in Norway to reverse the result, no campaigns to declare the vote invalid. The country just accepted the decision and carried on. Very relevant to this question is that one of the principle objections in Norway to EU membership is fishing rights. EEA membership does not entail participation in the Common Fisheries Policy. Norway retains control of its fishing grounds. Another is contributions. Norway has quite a high per capital GDP and would almost certainly be required to part with large sums of money as subscriptions.

The "alternative customs union" which Norway enjoys would be of little benefit to the UK. Norway's arrangement does not include food and drink which are still subject to tariffs. A huge chunk of the UK:EU trade is food and drink.

I think many people totally misunderstand why many people who voted to leave did so. They didn't vote for some sort of alternative or associate membership; they didn't vote to retain the status quo in any respects that the EU thinks fit. They voted to leave. It is unfortunate that a trade deal cannot be agreed but I can understand the UK's position. The negotiations were never about trade and it is incredible that it has take UK politicians four and a half years to realise that they were not.

[Zacs-Master]

They didn't vote for some sort of alternative or associate membership; they didn't vote to retain the status quo in any respects that the EU thinks fit. They voted for old fashioned lightbulbs! And, by God, I’ll defend any man’s right to do that in a free world!!!

For Funks Sake.

[New Judge]

I forgot to add:

//...but the Brexists didn't want it and they got their way as they always do.//

Why shouldn't they? The Leave vote prevailed. We should have left thirty months ago (having given the required two years notice) so they didn't get their way quite as quickly as they should have. The question on the paper was "Remain or Leave?" It was not "Remain or Remain in some other form?" It is often said that no accommodation has been made for the 48% who voted to Remain. I often respond by asking, if 48% voted to Leave, what accommodation would have been made for them? The answer is almost certainly none whatsoever. Mr Cameron would have appeared on the doorstep on No 10 the next morning declaring that "the people have spoken, let's now move on." And that would have been that.

[Jackdaw33]

As I have said on another thread, a significant number of the 48% were scared into doing so by the government propaganda machine which, but for the grace of God, was nearly successful.

[Untitled]

Norway is not a member of the EU and a transition to their status would have been leaving it regardless of your opinion on how satisfactory that would be.