Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Who asked you ? Wes mentioned 'a majority of the electorate', and I responded. I didn't lose, I wasn't in the contest. Do you think a no-deal Brexit is 'winning' ?

Do be a bit more careful about reading what I said before commenting on it. I invite you to read it again and then reconsider your response. 

[badgerx16]

34 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Do be a bit more careful about reading what I said before commenting on it. I invite you to read it again and then reconsider your response. 

"......you have to accept that there is probably a majority of the electorate currently who do not wish for us to cave in to EU demands (particularly from the French) that they have undiminished access to our coastal waters. Neither do those "people" want us to continue to be subservient to EU rules on how we should govern ourselves, or subject to the jurisdiction of their law courts. "

That reads as if you are claiming a 'majority of the electorate' want to leave the EU, under WTO if necessary. I contend that you are wrong.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Do you think a no-deal Brexit is 'winning' ?

Bingo. 

[Wes Tender]

5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

"......you have to accept that there is probably a majority of the electorate currently who do not wish for us to cave in to EU demands (particularly from the French) that they have undiminished access to our coastal waters. Neither do those "people" want us to continue to be subservient to EU rules on how we should govern ourselves, or subject to the jurisdiction of their law courts. "

That reads as if you are claiming a 'majority of the electorate' want to leave the EU, under WTO if necessary. I contend that you are wrong.

 

That might be how you read it to mean, but that's you. I meant it to convey the current situation whereby we left the EU at the start of the year, have since then been involved in talks with the EU over a FTA, and have met a brick wall in those negotiations over several months because they will not treat us as an independent sovereign equal. We only require a similar deal to that signed by the EU with Canada, Japan, S. Korea. We have told them time and time again that we will not budge on our entirely reasonable insistence on retaining our fundamental right to govern ourselves and our coastal waters as we see fit, without interference from them and their rules and laws.

It is against this background of the total intransigence of the EU and the belligerent attitude of the French in particular over fisheries, that I express the opinion that probably a majority of the electorate (who care either way) are heartily fed up with the EU's shenanigans and don't wish us to surrender to these bullying tactics, preferring instead to just walk away from the talks rather than waste time going round in circles.

I expect that most, like me, would prefer a FTA, but not one that scraps those red lines of ours. If we allowed that to occur, it would cross the threshold of becoming a bad deal, the sort that a no deal WTO would be preferable to.

[Verbal]

7 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

That might be how you read it to mean, but that's you. I meant it to convey the current situation whereby we left the EU at the start of the year, have since then been involved in talks with the EU over a FTA, and have met a brick wall in those negotiations over several months because they will not treat us as an independent sovereign equal. We only require a similar deal to that signed by the EU with Canada, Japan, S. Korea. We have told them time and time again that we will not budge on our entirely reasonable insistence on retaining our fundamental right to govern ourselves and our coastal waters as we see fit, without interference from them and their rules and laws.

It is against this background of the total intransigence of the EU and the belligerent attitude of the French in particular over fisheries, that I express the opinion that probably a majority of the electorate (who care either way) are heartily fed up with the EU's shenanigans and don't wish us to surrender to these bullying tactics, preferring instead to just walk away from the talks rather than waste time going round in circles.

I expect that most, like me, would prefer a FTA, but not one that scraps those red lines of ours. If we allowed that to occur, it would cross the threshold of becoming a bad deal, the sort that a no deal WTO would be preferable to.

Read and be warned. This is what happens to you when you combine a gold-plated pension and Facebook.  

[Wes Tender]

8 hours ago, Verbal said:

Read and be warned. This is what happens to you when you combine a gold-plated pension and Facebook.  

What happens? Being of pensionable age means one has had life experience of the whole sorry episode of the Common Market/EEC and the creeping development of the federal EU? That one has experienced the decline of our manufacturing industries and the problems caused by the CAP and the CFP to our agriculture and fisheries until we have a trade deficit with the EU of some £100 billion, as the proportion of our trade with them reduces and our trade with the rest of the world increases?

This current negotiations situation and our robust stance on not surrendering to your beloved EU's bullying  is obviously riling you remoaners who still over four years after the referendum result have never been able to accept the electorate's decision and are reduced to hurling the usual insults. You know the ones, that Brexiteers are old and thick. The usual arrogant tosh, the sort that lost you remoaners the referendum, but you still haven't learnt from it even now.

 

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

You know the ones, that Brexiteers are old and thick. 

 

To be fair, you are not doing much to dispel the stereotype with your thousands of crazy rants about fish.

Edited 20 November, 2020 by aintforever

[Wes Tender]

19 minutes ago, aintforever said:

To be fair, you are not doing much to dispel the stereotype with your thousands of crazy rants about fish.

I've told you a thousand times not to exaggerate. Pardon me for mentioning in posts one of the three major subjects that are preventing the signing of a FTA with the EU. If you think that I'm indulging in "crazy rants" about fish, what must you think of Macron's outbursts? He's threatening all sorts of crazy measures in a vain attempt to browbeat us into submission over fisheries, so it must be important to him, even if you dismiss it so lightly.

[buctootim]

Here's a little homily for you Wes. 

In 1983 Thailand's main export, by a factor of three ahead of fruit, was rice.  Now rice and fruit don't even make the top 10. Why? because they've been displaced by computers, followed by electronics, machinery, vehicles, chemicals, plastics, gems, metals and medical supplies. Rinse and repeat for China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, India etc etc 

The rest of the world has industrialised in the past 50 years. As a consequence Britain's share of world trade has declined, along with the share of every other developed nation. We haven't got poorer, its just we haven't got more wealthy at the same rate as those countries starting from a low base. Why? global capitalism which wants to find the lowest costs of production. As a nation we have been saved by the growth in service exports  - banking, insurance, accountancy, law which has offset losses from manufacturing.  

The UK, US and Western Europe doesn't have the industrialised playground to itself anymore - that's the cause of the changes you've seen in your lifetime. Yes the EU is to some extent a protectionist bubble. It has created a way for wealthy countries to stay wealthy and sell to each other without having their industries totally ripped apart by Chinese and Indian cars produced for £5,000 instead of £30,000. The US has done the same. You can blame the EU for the effects of globalisation all you want -  but it was one of the things we had going for us in a competitive world. If you think we can compete on a level playing field with China or India you are wrong.

NB. I know you won't get it, indeed won't even try to think about the issues - but them's the facts. The whole world economy has changed since you were a boy, no matter how facile the 'Global Britain' bluster you come back with.  

 

 

     

 Share of world trade 

 

Edited 20 November, 2020 by buctootim

[Verbal]

5 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

What happens? Being of pensionable age means one has had life experience of the whole sorry episode of the Common Market/EEC and the creeping development of the federal EU? That one has experienced the decline of our manufacturing industries and the problems caused by the CAP and the CFP to our agriculture and fisheries until we have a trade deficit with the EU of some £100 billion, as the proportion of our trade with them reduces and our trade with the rest of the world increases?

This current negotiations situation and our robust stance on not surrendering to your beloved EU's bullying  is obviously riling you remoaners who still over four years after the referendum result have never been able to accept the electorate's decision and are reduced to hurling the usual insults. You know the ones, that Brexiteers are old and thick. The usual arrogant tosh, the sort that lost you remoaners the referendum, but you still haven't learnt from it even now.

 

Text book Facebook echo chamber.  Combined, as I say, with complete inoculation from the severe damage that withdrawal is actually causing.  Your radicalisation is a small wonder to behold.  This is probably the only place where your zealotry is challenged -  and nothing on here will perpetrate through all that spoonfed sloganising you regurgitate from FB.  

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

The EU is to some extent a protectionist bubble. It has created a way for wealthy countries to stay wealthy and sell to each other without having their industries totally ripped apart by Chinese and Indian cars produced for £5,000 instead of £30,000. The US has done the same. 

The UK, US and Western Europe doesn't have the industrialised playground to itself anymore - that's the cause of the changes you've seen in your lifetime. You can blame the EU all you want, but it was the one of the things we had going for us in a competitive world. If you think we can compete on a level playing field with China or India, you are wrong.

Not really sure what your argument is meant to be, but these bits of your post seem like a pretty good reason why you wouldn't want to be tied to a protectionist economy and would be happy to forge your own trading relationships with the rest of the world.

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not really sure what your argument is meant to be, but these bits of your post seem like a pretty good reason why you wouldn't want to be tied to a protectionist economy and would be happy to forge your own trading relationships with the rest of the world.

I believe you 

[Super_Uwe]

41 days until the end of the transition period. Still no real idea where we are going. Public generally doesn't seem particularly engaged with it all either. Strange times.

[Tamesaint]

21 minutes ago, Super_Uwe said:

41 days until the end of the transition period. Still no real idea where we are going. Public generally doesn't seem particularly engaged with it all either. Strange times.

Its all very strange. No end of adverts telling businesses to get ready for 1 January but it must be difficult to plan if you don't know what to plan for. It all looks like there will be a massive cock up in early January. Perhaps it will be best , Covid permitting , to leave the country for a few weeks.

 

 

 

[Wes Tender]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Here's a little homily for you Wes. 

In 1983 Thailand's main export, by a factor of three ahead of fruit, was rice.  Now rice and fruit don't even make the top 10. Why? because they've been displaced by computers, followed by electronics, machinery, vehicles, chemicals, plastics, gems, metals and medical supplies. Rinse and repeat for China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, India etc etc 

The rest of the world has industrialised in the past 50 years. As a consequence Britain's share of world trade has declined, along with the share of every other developed nation. We haven't got poorer, its just we haven't got more wealthy at the same rate as those countries starting from a low base. Why? global capitalism which wants to find the lowest costs of production. As a nation we have been saved by the growth in service exports  - banking, insurance, accountancy, law which has offset losses from manufacturing.  

The UK, US and Western Europe doesn't have the industrialised playground to itself anymore - that's the cause of the changes you've seen in your lifetime. Yes the EU is to some extent a protectionist bubble. It has created a way for wealthy countries to stay wealthy and sell to each other without having their industries totally ripped apart by Chinese and Indian cars produced for £5,000 instead of £30,000. The US has done the same. You can blame the EU for the effects of globalisation all you want -  but it was one of the things we had going for us in a competitive world. If you think we can compete on a level playing field with China or India you are wrong.

NB. I know you won't get it, indeed won't even try to think about the issues - but them's the facts. The whole world economy has changed since you were a boy, no matter how facile the 'Global Britain' bluster you come back with.  

 

 

     

 Share of world trade 

 

Really typical of you, Timmy, produce reams of graphs and statistics to cloud the argument and then go into patronise overdrive, attempting to show how clever you are and how thick your opponent must be. And all because I had the gall to mention that our trade with the EU had declined over the past decade, whereas it had increased with the rest of the world; at least I assume that must have been what triggered your little diatribe. Having lived through the time since before we joined the EEC, I know perfectly well how and why our manufacturing industry declined, the part that the trade unions played in its decline and our inability to compete with cheap labour in the developing world, especially the Far East. I know of the rise of the tiger economies of the Far East, and am grateful to that because it really boosted my pension which partly speculated on that growth. I am also perfectly well aware of where our strengths are, in banking, finance, service industries, high tech industries, science and pharmaceuticals, etc, so I don't need to be patronised by you about that

I don't recall saying that we should try and compete with China or India, but we can certainly benefit from arranging our own trade deals with those growing rival trading blocs, now that we are free from the declining EU and able to forge our own future.

[Wes Tender]

Great news that we have agreed a trade deal with Canada, rolling over the EU deal. It is expected that next year an even better deal will be negotiated. Some remoaners on here made the ridiculous assertion that because it took the EU over 8 years to arrange the FTA with Canada, it would therefore follow that it would take the same amount of time for us to get one. Australia and New Zealand next and then a bloc deal between all of them with us to follow.

[badgerx16]

44 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Great news that we have agreed a trade deal with Canada, rolling over the EU deal. It is expected that next year an even better deal will be negotiated. Some remoaners on here made the ridiculous assertion that because it took the EU over 8 years to arrange the FTA with Canada, it would therefore follow that it would take the same amount of time for us to get one. Australia and New Zealand next and then a bloc deal between all of them with us to follow.

Trudeau says it will take "years".

[Fan The Flames]

On 20/11/2020 at 16:25, Wes Tender said:

Really typical of you, Timmy, produce reams of graphs and statistics to cloud the argument and then go into patronise overdrive, attempting to show how clever you are and how thick your opponent must be. And all because I had the gall to mention that our trade with the EU had declined over the past decade, whereas it had increased with the rest of the world; at least I assume that must have been what triggered your little diatribe. Having lived through the time since before we joined the EEC, I know perfectly well how and why our manufacturing industry declined, the part that the trade unions played in its decline and our inability to compete with cheap labour in the developing world, especially the Far East. I know of the rise of the tiger economies of the Far East, and am grateful to that because it really boosted my pension which partly speculated on that growth. I am also perfectly well aware of where our strengths are, in banking, finance, service industries, high tech industries, science and pharmaceuticals, etc, so I don't need to be patronised by you about that

I don't recall saying that we should try and compete with China or India, but we can certainly benefit from arranging our own trade deals with those growing rival trading blocs, now that we are free from the declining EU and able to forge our own future.

Is your drive for all this economic destruction really only about your pension.

[Wes Tender]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flagship-fisheries-bill-becomes-law

The Fisheries Bill receives Royal Assent and passes into law. Naturally there isn't much of a fanfare from our main broadcasting media about it.

 

[badgerx16]

58 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flagship-fisheries-bill-becomes-law

The Fisheries Bill receives Royal Assent and passes into law. Naturally there isn't much of a fanfare from our main broadcasting media about it.

 

Because legislation covering such a miniscule proportion of our economy pales so far into insignificance when compared to the disaster looming at midnight on December 31st if we cannot sort out our mutual intransigence with the EU.

Edited 24 November, 2020 by badgerx16

[The Cat]

2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flagship-fisheries-bill-becomes-law

The Fisheries Bill receives Royal Assent and passes into law. Naturally there isn't much of a fanfare from our main broadcasting media about it.

 

Maybe that's because there's only about 17 fishermen left in the country and no one cares?

[Wes Tender]

13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Because legislation covering such a miniscule proportion of our economy pales so far into insignificance when compared to the disaster looming at midnight on December 31st if we cannot sort out our mutual intransigence with the EU.

Naturally it's insignificant to you remoaners, but it is one of the three red lines that we are unwilling to concede to the EU, so one would have thought that on that basis alone it would warrant some interest from the mainstream media. 

But as the mainstream media is so out of touch with the rest of the country outside of their own metropolitan bubble, it comes as no surprise. Thankfully there are plenty of other online news sources prepared to cover these topics, so all that the mainstream media is achieving, is the reduction of their credibility, their audience and influence.

[Wes Tender]

12 hours ago, The Cat said:

Maybe that's because there's only about 17 fishermen left in the country and no one cares?

So you'll celebrate the revival of our fishing enterprises and the economic boost it brings to our coastal communities once we regain control of our territorial waters, won't you?

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

So you'll celebrate the revival of our fishing enterprises and the economic boost it brings to our coastal communities once we regain control of our territorial waters, won't you?

The bulk of the UK's catch is caught outside our 'territorial waters', which is why the agreements with Norway and Iceland are so important. The bulk of the catch inside is not commercial in the UK. As has been pointed out previously, the decline in the economies of fishing communities is not going to reverse simply because of Brexit; the facilities are no longer there, the crews are no longer there.

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Naturally it's insignificant to you remoaners, .

It's "insignificant" because statistically that is exactly what it is.

[buctootim]

30 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It's "insignificant" because statistically that is exactly what it is.

Wes doesn't like facts, so here is one just for him. BP makes more in one day than the entire British fishing industry does in a year.  

Also its been said before but bears repeating. Brits mostly don't like the fish found in British waters. Thats why British owners sold the permits. This is where our fish and chips comes from - at sea for nine weeks near the Arctic nad only comes into Hull one every two months to unload and refuel - almost zero benefit to the local economy. Little blue boats bobbing around in coastal communities as in Wes' dreams, not so much.    

 

Edited 25 November, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

Both of you totally don't get the significance of what significant means, as you are only capable of comprehending it in an economic sense, but apparently because you do not balance your arguments to include them, you are both completely ignorant of the political implications. Produce as many graphs, bar charts and as much statistical analysis as you like, but that doesn't alter the political landscape one jot. Just to simplify it for you two, there are political implications affecting several coastal EU states. The French in particular are worried about Macron's chances of reelection if they have to surrender much of their rights that they had under the CFP and Boris is also worried politically at the implications for the Tories if he doesn't fulfill his manifesto promise to take back control of our coastal waters.

As I have already pointed out, but you two have not argued to the contrary, the whole negotiation of a FTA with the EU could collapse because of just this one issue. This would be for political reasons, not because of economic ones. Does the penny drop yet?

[buctootim]

7 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Both of you totally don't get the significance of what significant means, as you are only capable of comprehending it in an economic sense, but apparently because you do not balance your arguments to include them, you are both completely ignorant of the political implications. Produce as many graphs, bar charts and as much statistical analysis as you like, but that doesn't alter the political landscape one jot. Just to simplify it for you two, there are political implications affecting several coastal EU states. The French in particular are worried about Macron's chances of reelection if they have to surrender much of their rights that they had under the CFP and Boris is also worried politically at the implications for the Tories if he doesn't fulfill his manifesto promise to take back control of our coastal waters.

As I have already pointed out, but you two have not argued to the contrary, the whole negotiation of a FTA with the EU could collapse because of just this one issue. This would be for political reasons, not because of economic ones. Does the penny drop yet?

Politically important to Brexiteers that's all. Trouble for you is the problems were caused primarily by UK government policy. Leaving the EU wont fix them. NB complaining about graphs and texts just shows you up along with your desire to be unemcumbered by knowledge. 

 

an occasional magazine about land rights

Selling the Silver: the enclosure of the UK's fisheries

download
as pdf

Fishing quotas result in concentration rather than conservation, writes Emma Cardwell.

The UK’s fisheries quota system, introduced in 1999 and comprising the creation of a private market for the right to catch fish, has been called “the biggest property grab since the Norman invasion”.¹ The UK government use the quota system to control how many fish can be taken from the sea. It does this by dividing up the right to catch fish between a limited number of companies, and then allowing this right to be bought and sold. This privatisation of the produce of the sea has many parallels with the parliamentary enclosure of land in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In the press, the quota system is often unquestioningly presented as a conservation measure: a means by which governments can limit the catches of fishermen and protect fish stocks. Policy documents and academic literature tell a different story. Here, the argument for fisheries quotas closely echoes the economic improvement justifications of enclosure, and is based on those classical Ricardian principles formulated in England during the era of the Enclosure Acts: it is a way to increase the efficiency of the industry, and a means to capture untapped resource rent.

The quota system, which was implemented gradually between 1980 and 2000, has led to widespread dispossession. This is in part because of what is widely considered a calculative error on the part of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA – previously MAFF) that led to the small boat fleet (made up of vessels under ten metres long, and the vast majority of British fishermen) being allocated less than five per cent of the right to fish.²

It is also because of the ‘grandfathering’ nature of rights allocation to larger boats, which implicitly favoured high-catching vessels. Larger vessel owners were given property rights over fish based on their historic catches. The proportion they took of the total recorded catch then remained stable as the overall amount fluctuated, meaning the same amount of quota would allow the right to (as an example) 3% of 100 tonnes of cod in 2003, and 3% of 25 tonnes of cod in 2005. Applying Hardin’s tragedy of the commons analogy, this system is akin to tackling overgrazing by allocating property rights based on the number of cattle someone owns: it rewards overexploitation, and penalises restraint.

SUPER TRAWLERS AND MILLIONAIRES

This allocation method led to many low-catching fishermen being forced out of the industry as quota levels fell and they found themselves unable to survive during lean periods. Larger companies could then use their holdings as leverage for loans to buy up this quota, and ownership of the right to fish was consolidated. A stark example of this is the fishery for herring and mackerel. At one time made up of thousands of boats around the coast, over 99 per cent of this valuable fishery – which accounts for almost half of total landings by UK registered vessels — is now caught by only 33 trawlers.³ The value of these boats, and more importantly their share of UK fishing rights, runs to hundreds of millions of pounds.

This increase in costs – the manifestation of the ‘resource rent’ promised by economic theorists – is turning fishing into a millionaires’ club⁴ and means that the traditionally widespread small business structure of the fishing industry, in which a boat owner/skipper employs a crew on a share (or ‘lay’) system, is gradually shifting to a model of large company ownership with significant involvement from financial institutions. Of the 33 mackerel and herring boats mentioned above, 14 are owned by just five large companies, a share that increases with every boat sale. Two of these companies (and their associated rights to fish) are owned by non-UK multinationals.⁵

COMMUNITIES AND MULTINATIONALS

It is hard to know the extent of quota consolidation and foreign ownership in the fleet as a whole, as the government keeps no public register of fishing rights, although one has been promised since 2011. (See Stop Press below.) It is known that foreign ownership of fishing rights is widespread – at a conservative estimate, around 20 per cent of English and Welsh fishing rights are owned by a handful of Spanish, Dutch and Icelandic companies, although this number could be higher.⁶ Within the UK, much quota ownership is now consolidated in a small number of industrial ports (such as Peterhead, Lerwick and Brixham) from which large, high-powered vessels travel many miles to fish.

This shift towards the concentrated, private ownership of fishing rights, which has taken place only over the last two decades, has decimated fishing communities around the country. As one small-scale fisherman based in Scarborough put it to me:

“We can’t catch a mackerel now because all the mackerel that swim past our front door are owned by 12 Scotchmen. It’s killed the community. There’s no community left”.

This destruction of communities is particularly marked in remote areas. The Hebrides was once home to a vibrant fishing industry, but has now lost the vast majority of the right to fish and is entirely dependent on shellfish. Alarmed by these developments and afraid of losing their traditional livelihood and a lynchpin of local culture, in the late 1990s the Shetland Islands Council invested £17 million to form a community-based whitefish quota scheme and retain fishing rights in the islands. In 2003, the European Commission declared this action illegal under European competition law.⁷

SEALORDS AND TENANTS

The promised ‘rent’ of quota has manifested itself in the practice of investors leasing the right to fish to working fishers, creating a situation akin to landlords and tenants. This is particularly the case for those in the small-scale, under ten metre fleet. These boats fish against a small government allocated pool and, due to the vagaries of the law, are not allowed to supplement this allocation by purchasing extra fishing rights, but can only take these on loan from larger vessels or quota investors. Again, the lack of public data on ownership means that the exact extent of this practice is unclear, but it is recognised as endemic throughout the industry. As a fisherman I interviewed on what was once the fish docks at Whitby, and is now a coach and car park, remarked:

“It’s all investors now. I’m fifth generation. My eldest son, who takes the boat out, is sixth generation, and we’re having to go to these people cap in hand. It makes a mockery of the entire system.”

Currently, the law is muddy as to whether the right to fish has been truly privatised, or if quota holdings simply represent a temporary allocation of a public resource. An extensive political battle between small-scale fishers and quota owners (centred around the diminutive government allocations of fishing rights to smaller boats) culminated in the High Court of Justice of England in summer 2013, but the verdict remained inconclusive as to whether the legal standing of the right to fish was as a private possession or a common good.⁸ Regardless of intention, attempts to bring quotas, which have been the subject of multi-million pound investments and used as collateral for bank loans, back into public ownership would prove highly problematic.

BEST-CASE SCENARIO?

A bleak illustration of these potential problems can be found in Iceland, often held up as the exemplar of successful quota management. Iceland is highly fisheries dependent, with fish providing 40 percent of national export earnings, and over 12 percent of GDP. The price bubble created by the privatisation of Icelandic fisheries — a model that has been enthusiastically followed around the world — can be directly implicated in the nation’s economic boom, and its consequent financial collapse in 2008.⁹

After the economic collapse, Icelanders became alarmed by the extent of consolidation in their huge fishing industry. By 2011, around 20 companies controlled the majority of Icelandic fishing, and therefore a significant proportion of the country’s economy. These fishing companies were linked to politicians and ownership of the national media. The extensive dispossession this represented even meant the Icelandic government being accused of human rights violations by the United Nations Court of Human Rights. The Court dropped its case against Iceland in 2012, when the government proposed that 15 percent of fishing rights should be returned to public ownership and the remainder subject to higher taxes. However, such a large proportion of fishing rights were being used as collateral for loans that even this small reclamation threatened to create a crisis for the Icelandic national bank, which since the crash had been funded by the taxpayer. A renationalisation proposal, presented in February 2013, suggested companies retain quota rights for only 20 years, but this has not yet been agreed by Parliament, and has been the source of extensive protest and public clashes between vessel owners and other Icelandic citizens.

MACKEREL WARS

The upshot of these developments can be seen in the ongoing ‘mackerel wars’ between the UK, Norway and other EU states on one hand, and Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the other.  Echoing the cod wars of the 1970s, it is perhaps difficult to understand the political vehemence with which the UK fishing industry is battling to retain their customary share of the right to fish mackerel, which (probably due to climate change) has begun to shoal further north in Icelandic and Faroese waters – representing a potential windfall for the troubled Icelandic economy. The economic fragility of the heavily consolidated UK industry, and particularly that of vulnerable, remote, fisheries-dependent areas such as far North-East Scotland and Shetland, which now rely economically on just a handful of large boats, can go a long way to explain the high political pitch of these negotiations. If cuts in quota led to just one mackerel boat becoming unprofitable and being put up for sale, and if this boat were then to be purchased (as is likely) by a foreign (such as a newly-rich Icelandic) company, a significant proportion of the national right to fish would disappear, and whole regions could permanently lose the right to make a living from the sea.

Stop Press: The Government has finally released the UK Quota Registry. This can be found at
https://www.fqaregister.service.gov.uk

 

Edited 25 November, 2020 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

Wes, simply because somebody voted remain does not mean they fail to understand the mechanics and politics of the current situation regarding Brexit.  The passing of the Fisheries Act does not alter anything regarding a final FTA with the EU, it was always going to happen as the UK Government repaints it's 'red line'. What the Act does not do is provide any form of 'fix' for the UK fishing industry, because the aforementioned economic realities of the industry remain; UK fishermen catch most of their catch outside our waters, so the Act does nothing to support them, per se. Most of the catch inside UK waters is not economic within the UK, so the Act does nothing to help there, unless the Government is going to commence a propaganda campaign to alter the buying / eating habits of our populace. If we are actually going to boost the industry within our waters then the fishermen are going to need aid to re-equip their boats so that they can use the necessary techniques required, and be granted access to the foreign markets where the species caught have a ready market - hence an agreement with the EU is preferable to avoid tariffs. In such a scenario, a bit of 'give and take' is almost certain to be required.

You cannot simnply blame Johnny Foreigner for all the complications resulting from the mis-managed transition since the referendum, both by the May regime and the current bunch of buffoons.

[hypochondriac]

Whilst I do believe there should be a transition period for fisheries and a quota system, it would be ridiculous to financially ruin some of the European fishing industry overnight. Its not their fault that this imbalance has existed. I'm in favour of a transition period for fishing. 

[hypochondriac]

Having said that, the French really are a bunch of smug arseholes so maybe just ban them

[Super_Uwe]

37 days to go until the end of the transition period.

It will be interesting to see if there is a fully operational border in force from 1 January. That's the default position and so far the EU/UK haven't said anything much about the implementation of border/customs controls, other than "we're ready".

Scratch the surface and you'll find many with a background in customs/haulage/transport who are concerned. Because being prepared for customs/regulatory changes isn't the same as having a guaranteed smooth flow of lorries in Kent, for example.

The flip side is we are currently in alignment with the SM and CU as part of the transition period. It doesn't necessarily *have* to change if a deal is reached and both sides agree to some sort of new "implementation period". Maybe it could be sold as an agreement to get us all through the worst of Covid? I'm in no way expecting that to happen, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did...remember, both sides need to save face.

[Wes Tender]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Politically important to Brexiteers that's all. Trouble for you is the problems were caused primarily by UK government policy. Leaving the EU wont fix them. NB complaining about graphs and texts just shows you up along with your desire to be unemcumbered (sic) by knowledge. 

Well done for dismissing the concerns of such a large proportion of the electorate; the usual remoaner arrogance. I accept that the current situation on fisheries has been caused by successive UK governments, much in the same way that the current situation of our membership of the Federal United States of Europe evolved. It started with the betrayal of the industry by Grocer Heath when we joined the Common Market, and then via the CFP, in parallel with the morphing of the Common Market/EEC into the EU via the machinations of the successive governments, whether Conservative or Labour, without the electorate having any say in it via a referendum.

The situation caused by those governments is now finally being redressed, isn't it, and fisheries is just a part of it. 

Leaving the EU will enable us to take control of our own fisheries situation to our advantage in the same way that it will enable us to take control over our borders, laws and money. The Fisheries Act gives us that legal certainty. Yes, it will take time to make those changes, and it will initially perhaps be prudent to have some interim gradual transition in hand, but it will be up to us legally how we manage that transition, who we allow to fish in our waters, the quotas that can be fished, how we conserve our fisheries resources. If we cannot arrive at that accord as part of a FTA, then the EU will have no right to any sort of access at all, so we hold the cards there

Your usual obsession with graphs and charts gives an outline of the current situation, but makes no forecasts of how the situation will change now that we are in control. The remoaner establishment have always been only too happy to make doom-laden forecasts about the economy and industry, but seem to be reluctant to predict the future of fisheries. It seems that as far as you are concerned, because the situation in one thing now, it cannot be another in the ensuing decades. And yet the French don't think that way. They are worried sick that the end of their rights to treat our waters as a common EU resource will devastate their fisheries industry, as it will also be detrimental to Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Their problems are exacerbated by an EU decision to land 15% less fish from the Mediterranean. Could it be perhaps that the decline in the fortunes of the those EU coastal states' fisheries will coincide with an increase in the fortunes of ours? Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we as a nation might develop more of an appetite in years to come for those species of fish and crustaceans that we export to the EU? Tastes in foods broaden with travel and also because of health concerns, as well as on economic grounds, so it will happen.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

..... then the EU will have no right to any sort of access at all, so we hold the cards there

 

No we don't, as UK fishermen wouldn't have access to EU waters, where they currently fish, either.

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

No we don't, as UK fishermen wouldn't have access to EU waters, where they currently fish, either.

We hold by far the stronger hand, as the percentage of our catch in EU waters is minuscule compared to their catch in our waters.

https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

No we don't, as UK fishermen wouldn't have access to EU waters, where they currently fish, either.

Hang on a minute, which one is it, do we fish in EU waters or in Norwegian or Icelandic waters?

 

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

The bulk of the UK's catch is caught outside our 'territorial waters', which is why the agreements with Norway and Iceland are so important. The bulk of the catch inside is not commercial in the UK. 

 

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Hang on a minute, which one is it, do we fish in EU waters or in Norwegian or Icelandic waters?

 

 

Both. UK fishermen catch fish in Irish, French, Danish, and Dutch waters, they also catch in Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese waters. They also catch in UK waters.

Ultimately, the most important statistics are that the UK is a net importer of fish, with a significant global trade gap. ( China is actually by far our largest source of fish imports ).

 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Both. UK fishermen catch fish in Irish, French, Danish, and Dutch waters, they also catch in Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese waters. They also catch in UK waters.

Ultimately, the most important statistics are that the UK is a net importer of fish, with a significant global trade gap. ( China is actually by far our largest source of fish imports ).

 

I'd argue, along with marinedevelopments.blog.gov that the overwhelming majority of fish caught by UK fisherman is in UK waters  

https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/

Quote

In 2017, UK fishing vessels landed the majority of their catch from UK waters; 80 per cent by quantity and 83 per cent by value.

80% of the industry doesn't sound like it's 'insignificant' to me...

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

80% of the industry doesn't sound like it's 'insignificant' to me...

Less than 0.2% of the UK economy seems insignificant to me, though. Is that worth risking an FTA deal over, or should we allow our 'red line' to be smudged ?

[Weston Super Saint]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Less than 0.2% of the UK economy seems insignificant to me, though. Is that worth risking an FTA deal over, or should we allow our 'red line' to be smudged ?

Well, one man's 'insignificant' is apparently another man's 'fundamentally wrong'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55064019

Quote

The UK has ditched its policy of spending 0.7% of national income on overseas aid to help deal with the coronavirus crisis at home.....

The cut - to 0.5% of national income - will save about £4bn a year.

Don't know what all the fuss is about, after all, the cut is an insignificant 0.2% of the national income  

[buctootim]

Wild caught fish is less than 0.1% of GDP. It is fish processing and fish farming which are both outside the cope of any agreement which brings it up 

[buctootim]

6 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Blah, freedom, fish, no idea, sovreignty, blah. Repeat. 

Why do you not engage with the issues? Why always default to everybody before was crap but now we're going to be winners again - until you get peed off with them, decide they were also crap and move on to the next hero. The underlying issues don't change. Whoever is in charge has to deal with the same facts. 

Given the failings over decades are largely UK government not the EU why will this Government be any different? Do you even know why industrialised fishing has driven out more sustainable small boat fishing? How are you going to resolve the essential problem that the fish we like to eat are found in far north waters and the fish other nations like to eat is caught in UK waters.

Fresh fish attracts a higher price than frozen. For catches in 'local' North sea and channel approaches landing in EU ports will always make more sense than going in the opposite direction to UK ports, freezing it, then driving it by truck for hundreds of miles back across the channel.   

Edited 25 November, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

11 hours ago, buctootim said:

Fish move around,blah,statistic,blah, bar chart, blah, patronising comment, blah, I'm really clever, blah blah blah.

Why don't you engage with all of the issues instead of boring with only one side of it? As a typical dyed in the wool remoaner, you persist in this argument like a stuck record that fisheries is a tiny part of the economy, whilst refusing to acknowledge or argue the main reason why we don't roll over and surrender control of our coastal waters; the political dimension. Do you even recognise that although fisheries is a small part of both the economies of the UK and the EU coastal states, the political implications of the negotiations over fisheries for all of them are immense, and go beyond the votes in those coastal constituencies? As I already said, the fact that both we and the EU are prepared to accept the breakdown of a FTA deal just on this issue ought to give you a clue to the importance of this politically.

As for your comments on industrialised fishing v small boats, and the price of fresh fish v frozen, nobody patronises on here quite as well as you do.

Regarding the preferences for the types of fish that we like to eat, you seem to believe that people's tastes don't change at all. 25 years ago Thai food was largely unknown in the UK and is now in the top three cuisines. Most cities have restaurants serving cuisines from many countries, like Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Nepal, Eastern Europe, etc. People don't just holiday in the UK anymore; they travel to destinations all around the continent and the world, sampling the local cuisine. Television programming schedules are overloaded with cookery programmes featuring all varieties of fish and crustaceans. But there you go, we only like to eat what we have always eaten historically, so we're never going to develop a taste for other varieties of seafood, are we?

[spyinthesky]

I have been following this thread with interest as I try to understand both sides of the argument.
With regard to Fisheries, I am sympathetic to the idea that we have control over our waters in line with international arrangements.
In practical terms, however, how will this work if French, Dutch, Spanish etc fishermen decide to continue fishing?
Are gunboats (if available and not focussing on illegal immigrants) sent out to deal with the matter, with the possibility of an international incident?
How will those UK based fishermen who sell their catch into European markets deal with the expected blockade of European ports when they try to transport their produce into the European market?
Further on, as and when the Scots get Independence and decide to remain in the EU, will this not 'muddy the water'(!!) in respect to fishing rights?
Interested in views (from both sides)

[Wes Tender]

On 26/11/2020 at 11:29, spyinthesky said:

I have been following this thread with interest as I try to understand both sides of the argument.
With regard to Fisheries, I am sympathetic to the idea that we have control over our waters in line with international arrangements.
In practical terms, however, how will this work if French, Dutch, Spanish etc fishermen decide to continue fishing?
Are gunboats (if available and not focussing on illegal immigrants) sent out to deal with the matter, with the possibility of an international incident?
How will those UK based fishermen who sell their catch into European markets deal with the expected blockade of European ports when they try to transport their produce into the European market?
Further on, as and when the Scots get Independence and decide to remain in the EU, will this not 'muddy the water'(!!) in respect to fishing rights?
Interested in views (from both sides)

As our resident fisheries expert doesn't deign to respond, I might as well get the ball rolling again in light of the developments within the last few hours.

For some sort of idea of how things might go in a situation whereby the EU have far more limited access to our coastal waters than they believe they ought to be entitled to, one can look back to how it was historically for us during the Cod Wars with Iceland when we felt that we were the wronged party. There were several skirmishes, ramming of boats, involvement of the RN pitted against their coastguard, cutting of nets, etc. If the French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans decide to continue fishing without our permission, then that will be an illegal act and we will be entitled to take appropriate action against them. I expect that it could get quite nasty, especially against the bolshie French. As for them trying to stop us exporting our fish into their markets, then that will be cutting off their nose to spite their face, as presumably they import our fish because they have a liking and need for it. If they don't want it from us, then where else will they get it from? Initially also, a blockade of ports will work against them exporting their produce to us too, and much more of it is coming in this direction than going in theirs, so it wouldn't be long before they came to their senses. If the Scots manage to rejoin the EU as an independent nation, then  apart from the difficulties that will provide with a border between them and their main market, us, they will have to accept their waters becoming an EU resource under the CFP, apart from the currency and freedom of movement issues.

As to the recent developments, a couple of days ago, Barnier stated that he wouldn't bother to come for talks today unless we were prepared to move on our red lines. We called his bluff and now he looks stupid for coming anyway. It appears that as an excuse, the EU have offered to compromise their stance on fisheries away from expecting to maintain their status quo access under the CFP, to one whereby in a fit of extreme generosity, they will be prepared to return to us between 15 and 18% of the quotas held by EU fishermen in our own territorial waters. Apparently government sources here have told them already that that is a derisory offer and to go and get lost. In return the EU has said that this offer was one that was made some weeks ago, not the last day or so. The other idea the EU stupidly believes that we might accept, is that any fisheries deal should last for 10 years, should be tied together to the trade agreement, and both revisited at the end of that time. Again, it is completely ludicrous and the EU are just wasting their time and ours.

Barnier should be reminded of his threat not to come unless we budged on our red lines, told that we are not budging and inch, and asked why he bothered to come if the EU aren't prepared to treat us as a sovereign independent nation able to have complete control of our own affairs, laws and territorial waters.

[badgerx16]

On 26/11/2020 at 11:29, spyinthesky said:

I have been following this thread with interest as I try to understand both sides of the argument.
With regard to Fisheries, I am sympathetic to the idea that we have control over our waters in line with international arrangements.
In practical terms, however, how will this work if French, Dutch, Spanish etc fishermen decide to continue fishing?
Are gunboats (if available and not focussing on illegal immigrants) sent out to deal with the matter, with the possibility of an international incident?
How will those UK based fishermen who sell their catch into European markets deal with the expected blockade of European ports when they try to transport their produce into the European market?
Further on, as and when the Scots get Independence and decide to remain in the EU, will this not 'muddy the water'(!!) in respect to fishing rights?
Interested in views (from both sides)

If there is no deal then EU fishermen in UK waters are acting illegally unless they are licenced. The same applies to UK fishermen currently accessing EU waters. In terms of market access, there is a similar tit-for-tat situation. Common sense would suggest that both sets of fishermen would want an agreement, whether the politicians are capable of making one seems a long shot. As has been mentioned several times, it isn't simply a case of the foreign boats leaving UK waters and UK fishing boats taklng up the slack; the UK boats catching and landing in EU waters are not necessarily designed or equipped to catch the species that the continentals are lifting in our coastal waters, and the species that are exported to the EU, either directly into EU ports or transported after landing in the UK, are not commercially viable in the UK. ( Despite Wes' contention that it is entirely possible that UK consumers will switch their battered cod for langoustines ).

As for policing things, the UK has a very small number of Fisheries Protection vessels, potentially 8 are available for service, based in Portsmouth. The RN would almost certainly not try using any of the mainline surface fleet as their hulls are not designed for physical confrontation, as was demonstrated on several occasions during the Cod Wars.

Edited 27 November, 2020 by badgerx16

[spyinthesky]

Well informed reply.
However I do wonder why an industry that represents approx 0.02% of our annual revenue should potentially lead to a No Deal Brexit which most informed people seem to think will have a significant adverse affect on our ongoing economy.

[hypochondriac]

9 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

Well informed reply.
However I do wonder why an industry that represents approx 0.02% of our annual revenue should potentially lead to a No Deal Brexit which most informed people seem to think will have a significant adverse affect on our ongoing economy.

If its just fish that remains then its jot going to lead to a no deal. Much more likely as someone else mentioned that fish is being used as a smokescreen for disagreements in other areas. If a deal fails to be reached then imo its to do with the level playing field and the EU being very keen not to allow the UK to have a competitive advantage. 

[buctootim]

40 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If there is no deal then EU fishermen in UK waters are acting illegally unless they are licenced.

Thats the thing though. The permits currently issued by the Gov agency the Marine Management Organisation are not time limited. Brexit notwithstanding there are no grounds to terminate them if they continue to have some kind tie to Britain (normally some token measure like having the boat UK registered and visiting a UK port once a year. If the government tries to unilaterally end the permits they will potentially be in breach of contract. There will either be a flurry of court cases or the gov will end up paying out millions in compensation   

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

Well informed reply.
However I do wonder why an industry that represents approx 0.02% of our annual revenue should potentially lead to a No Deal Brexit which most informed people seem to think will have a significant adverse affect on our ongoing economy.

The industry seems to be reducing by a factor of ten every day 😳

Previously you've stated you've been following this thread, this post suggests you haven't 😉

Edited 27 November, 2020 by Weston Super Saint