Britain says will move to control EU fishing in its waters

[7by7]

8 hours ago, nontabury said:

As you correctly state,this dispute carried on for 20yrs, finally resolved (sacrificed) at the time of the U.K. entry into the EEC. It was all about pressure. The Heath government were intent on getting us into the EEC at any cost. And the EEC was sold to the British people as a trading block. Or should I say, the Brittish people, were CONNED  into thinking it was a trading block. We now know differently.

  Regarding the fishing industry,hopefully more jobs will be created ( though not in London) when we are fully out of this so called Union. 

 You still don't seem to understand that the result of the Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland had nothing to do with the EEC! The pressure did not come from the EEC, and why would it when Iceland was not a member and had no desire to be one?

 

As said by both myself and others, the pressure came from the USA!

 

Iceland was not a member of the EEC, is not a member of the EU. The EU has no control over their Exclusive Economic Zone and who can and cannot fish there and never has had.

 

I can only assume that your continued attempts to blame the EU for  the UK losing the Cod Wars are due to the misinformation peddled by Farage and similar during the referendum campaign.

 

Another thing the Brexit campaign didn't tell you is that under the reformed CFP, much of the control over who catches what in each member states EEZ is up to the individual government concerned. What would Brexit really mean for the UK’s fishing industry?

Quote

Who actually owns “our” fish?

Ownership of UK fishing quotas is controversial and often misunderstood. After total EU fishing limits are decided by the Council of fisheries ministers, it is up to each member state to distribute its share among its own fleet.

This is not an EU decision. The fact that a single giant Dutch-owned vessel nets a quarter of the English quota (6% of the UK total) might be shocking, especially considering the UK’s quota is in theory shared between more than 6,000 vessels, but the UK government could easily change how it allocates fish. In fact, the alternative allocation systems suggested by some pro-Brexit groups are already in place elsewhere in Europe.

 

Of course, the UK fishing fleet does not only fish in our EEZ, it fishes in that of other EU countries as well. Were the UK to stop the EU from fishing in our EEZ, what will happen to the British ships which fish in other parts of the EU?

 

From the article linked to above

Quote

20% of the fish caught by the UK fleet is landed elsewhere in the EU.

 

What about trade with the EU?

 

From the same article

Quote

At present the UK exports around 80% of its wild-caught seafood, with four of the top five destinations being European countries

 

Be careful what you wish for!

Edited July 4, 2017 by 7by7

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 You still don't seem to understand that the result of the Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland had nothing to do with the EEC! The pressure did not come from the EEC, and why would it when Iceland was not a member and had no desire to be one?

 

As said by both myself and others, the pressure came from the USA!

 

Iceland was not a member of the EEC, is not a member of the EU. The EU has no control over their Exclusive Economic Zone and who can and cannot fish there and never has had.

 

I can only assume that your continued attempts to blame the EU for  the UK losing the Cod Wars are due to the misinformation peddled by Farage and similar during the referendum campaign.

 

Another thing the Brexit campaign didn't tell you is that under the reformed CFP, much of the control over who catches what in each member states EEZ is up to the individual government concerned. What would Brexit really mean for the UK’s fishing industry?

 

Of course, the UK fishing fleet does not only fish in our EEZ, it fishes in that of other EU countries as well. Were the UK to stop the EU from fishing in our EEZ, what will happen to the British ships which fish in other parts of the EU?

 

From the article linked to above

 

What about trade with the EU?

 

From the same article

 

Be careful what you wish for!

I come from one of these Trawler communities. With many of my family being directly employed in, what was considered the most dangerous of occupations. We din't get our information from the Guardian, but from knowledge on the ground, or should that be the sea. Pressure was brought to bear, that in order to help our entry into what was then the EEC trade pack, the U.K. had to relinquish certain fishing rights. Part of that agreement included settling the Iceland dispute, and yes the Americans were involved, but so was the EEC.

If what you say, that the British fishing fleets right,to fish in other countries waters is so favorable to the UK. Then please explain why British fishermen are so in favour of Brexit, while the fishermen of Spain and France are up in arms, threatening all sorts of retaliatory measures, and to simple ignore any ruling in order that they can continue to deplete our stocks to their advantage.

 We were sold out, sorry! Conned by our elected members in 73/75, but do not expect that to happen again, certainly not to appease the London Remoaners  lobby.

Edited July 4, 2017 by nontabury

[7by7]

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

Pressure was brought to bear, that in order to help our entry into what was then the EEC trade pack, the U.K. had to relinquish certain fishing rights. Part of that agreement included settling the Iceland dispute, and yes the Americans were involved, but so was the EEC.

 Please explain why the EEC would want to be on the side of a non member, Iceland, rather than the side of a prospective member, the UK, in the dispute.

 

After all, Iceland winning and so extending it's EEZ out to 200 miles stopped EEC fleets from fishing there, too!

 

Remember that the CFP did not come into existence until 1983, 10 years after this dispute was settled.

 

The CFP was by no means perfect, much was wrong with it; although amendments since have improved it and made it more fit for purpose.

 

What is it's purpose?  T o control commercial fishing in order to establish and then maintain some form of sustainability. Prior to it, overfishing meant that stocks were reducing to zero. Commercial fishing vessels, including British ones were catching fish faster than they could breed. If nothing had been done our fishing industry would have ended up like the Canadian Atlantic one; virtually extinct because there are no more fish to catch! Canada's fishery in severe decline, warns ocean watch group

 

There are other factors involved in the decline of some UK fishing ports, as well as the growth and continued success of others; see Don’t blame the EU for the decline in some British fishing ports.

 

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

If what you say, that the British fishing fleets right,to fish in other countries waters is so favorable to the UK. Then please explain why British fishermen are so in favour of Brexit,

Yes, many, perhaps the majority, but by no means all, British fishermen were in favour of Brexit. Why? Lots of reasons, one being that they fell for the 'blame all our troubles on the EU' aspect of certain campaigners hook, line and sinker!

 

As shown previously, 20% of the catch of British fleet is landed in other EU countries. Of the fish landed in the UK around 75% is then exported to other EU countries (source). Even if a proportion of that 75% was caught by non British ships, it still provides onshore work for British workers.

 

Perhaps you can explain why the UK fishing industry wants to lose this market. I suspect that most of them don't!

 

4 hours ago, nontabury said:

while the fishermen of Spain and France are up in arms, threatening all sorts of retaliatory measures, and to simple ignore any ruling in order that they can continue to deplete our stocks to their advantage.

Firstly, 'our' stocks are not being depleted, as shown previously they are increasing due largely to the quota system.

 

I have found articles about French and Spanish fishermen and ports being concerned about the future post Brexit, remember their ports could lose the work from the fish landed by British vessels;  but nothing to say they are 'up in arms' or making the threats you claim. Can you provide a link to support your claim?

[nontabury]

On July 5, 2017 at 0:29 AM, 7by7 said:

 Please explain why the EEC would want to be on the side of a non member, Iceland, rather than the side of a prospective member, the UK, in the dispute.

 

After all, Iceland winning and so extending it's EEZ out to 200 miles stopped EEC fleets from fishing there, too!

 

Remember that the CFP did not come into existence until 1983, 10 years after this dispute was settled.

 

The CFP was by no means perfect, much was wrong with it; although amendments since have improved it and made it more fit for purpose.

 

What is it's purpose?  T o control commercial fishing in order to establish and then maintain some form of sustainability. Prior to it, overfishing meant that stocks were reducing to zero. Commercial fishing vessels, including British ones were catching fish faster than they could breed. If nothing had been done our fishing industry would have ended up like the Canadian Atlantic one; virtually extinct because there are no more fish to catch! Canada's fishery in severe decline, warns ocean watch group

 

There are other factors involved in the decline of some UK fishing ports, as well as the growth and continued success of others; see Don’t blame the EU for the decline in some British fishing ports.

 

Yes, many, perhaps the majority, but by no means all, British fishermen were in favour of Brexit. Why? Lots of reasons, one being that they fell for the 'blame all our troubles on the EU' aspect of certain campaigners hook, line and sinker!

 

As shown previously, 20% of the catch of British fleet is landed in other EU countries. Of the fish landed in the UK around 75% is then exported to other EU countries (source). Even if a proportion of that 75% was caught by non British ships, it still provides onshore work for British workers.

 

Perhaps you can explain why the UK fishing industry wants to lose this market. I suspect that most of them don't!

 

Firstly, 'our' stocks are not being depleted, as shown previously they are increasing due largely to the quota system.

 

I have found articles about French and Spanish fishermen and ports being concerned about the future post Brexit, remember their ports could lose the work from the fish landed by British vessels;  but nothing to say they are 'up in arms' or making the threats you claim. Can you provide a link to support your claim?

At that time the UK was trying to gain entry to the Trading club called the EEC.

Who in turn were negotiating an agreement with Iceland. They would not allow any exception,we either had to tow the line,or forget about joining.

I repeat the vast majority of British fishermen are fully behind Brexit, to imply otherwise, is to be living in cloud cooko land. 

Allthough to be fair not all, the London millionaire set, support our fishermen.

 

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

At that time the UK was trying to gain entry to the Trading club called the EEC.

Who in turn were negotiating an agreement with Iceland. They would not allow any exception,we either had to tow the line,or forget about joining.

I repeat the vast majority of British fishermen are fully behind Brexit, to imply otherwise, is to be living in cloud cooko land. 

Allthough to be fair not all, the London millionaire set, support our fishermen.

 

 

It is nonsense.

 

Iceland threatened to withdraw from NATO, which the US could not allow

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

At that time the UK was trying to gain entry to the Trading club called the EEC.

Who in turn were negotiating an agreement with Iceland. They would not allow any exception,we either had to tow the line,or forget about joining.

Your evidence for this is?

 

Iceland and the EEC did not begin negotiations over fishing until 1980; but no agreement was reached until 1992 when the EFTA states and the EU formed the EEA together. See Who gets what?

 

The main reason why Iceland has not joined the EU is that Iceland does not want to join the CFP!

 

See under 'EU Common Fisheries Policy' in this document and 'Why have Iceland's fisheries been a success?' in this, firmly anti EU, one.

 

Britain was once described as 'An island of coal surrounded by a sea of fish." But the coal ran out, and the fish would have done so as well if fishing had carried on at the pre war levels. To put it simply, more fish were being caught than could be replaced by breeding. Something needed to be done or, like the Atlantic coast off Canada, the stocks would simply have fallen below renewable levels and there would have been no more fish to catch.

 

Wet fish and damp squids

Quote

in 1948, herring comprised 25% of wet fish landed, compared with almost
50% 20 years before. By this point, the majority of herring was being caught by Scottish vessels, better placed to make the treacherous journey towards the Arctic Circle, where stocks remained plentiful.........

 

Where herring went, other fish followed, and stocks of North Sea cod and haddock fell rapidly after the War, with technological advances on boats concealing the true extent of the decline. Today, the challenge is to balance the needs of fishermen with the demands of conservation so depleted stocks do not wipe out the industry entirely.

 

The CFP in 1983 was far from perfect, hence it's many amendments since; but it was, and still is, an effort to keep fishing at sustainable levels. Remember, too, that although the EU sets the quotas for UK waters, it is up to the British government to decide who can and cannot fish here; a decision based on the 1964 agreement. 

 

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

I repeat the vast majority of British fishermen are fully behind Brexit, to imply otherwise, is to be living in cloud cooko land. 

Says the man who is such an expert on the UK fishing industry that he didn't know Fleetwood is a deep sea fishing port!

 

I see that, yet again, you have not only  totally ignored the questions asked of you, but also all the facts in my previous posts; typical of the 'Blame it all on the EU' brigade; ignore the difficult questions and the facts which destroy their argument!

 

Instead you are forced to resort to silly comments like

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Allthough to be fair not all, the London millionaire set, support our fishermen.

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by 7by7

[Thongkorn]

Coming from Grimsby , i can reassure you that 99% of people in this area are for Brexit, While Our fishermen stand on the shore and beach out of work in a run down town < once the biggest fishing port in the world.  watch Spanish german  Belgian  french trawlers catching fish while they are not allowed by the EU to go to sea becasue the fishing quota was sold off,

[Khun Han]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

At that time the UK was trying to gain entry to the Trading club called the EEC.

Who in turn were negotiating an agreement with Iceland. They would not allow any exception,we either had to tow the line,or forget about joining.

Your evidence for this is?

 

Iceland and the EEC did not begin negotiations over fishing until 1980; but no agreement was reached until 1992 when the EFTA states and the EU formed the EEA together. See Who gets what?

 

The main reason why Iceland has not joined the EU is that Iceland does not want to join the CFP!

 

See under 'EU Common Fisheries Policy' in this document and 'Why have Iceland's fisheries been a success?' in this, firmly anti EU, one.

 

Britain was once described as 'An island of coal surrounded by a sea of fish." But the coal ran out, and the fish would have done so as well if fishing had carried on at the pre war levels. To put it simply, more fish were being caught than could be replaced by breeding. Something needed to be done or, like the Atlantic coast off Canada, the stocks would simply have fallen below renewable levels and there would have been no more fish to catch.

 

Wet fish and damp squids

Quote

in 1948, herring comprised 25% of wet fish landed, compared with almost
50% 20 years before. By this point, the majority of herring was being caught by Scottish vessels, better placed to make the treacherous journey towards the Arctic Circle, where stocks remained plentiful.........

 

Where herring went, other fish followed, and stocks of North Sea cod and haddock fell rapidly after the War, with technological advances on boats concealing the true extent of the decline. Today, the challenge is to balance the needs of fishermen with the demands of conservation so depleted stocks do not wipe out the industry entirely.

 

The CFP in 1983 was far from perfect, hence it's many amendments since; but it was, and still is, an effort to keep fishing at sustainable levels. Remember, too, that although the EU sets the quotas for UK waters, it is up to the British government to decide who can and cannot fish here; a decision based on the 1964 agreement. 

 

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

I repeat the vast majority of British fishermen are fully behind Brexit, to imply otherwise, is to be living in cloud cooko land. 

Says the man who is such an expert on the UK fishing industry that he didn't know Fleetwood is a deep sea fishing port!

 

I see that, yet again, you have not only  totally ignored the questions asked of you, but also all the facts in my previous posts; typical of the 'Blame it all on the EU' brigade; ignore the difficult questions and the facts which destroy their argument!

 

Instead you are forced to resort to silly comments like

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

Allthough to be fair not all, the London millionaire set, support our fishermen.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by 7by7

 

 

It doesn't matter how much you prattle on with your (selective) facts and figures. The British fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the British fishing industry understands fishing in British waters far better than you, me or anyone else on this forum. Why don't you take some time out and go and talk to British fishing industry representatives? You might actually get a bigger picture, rather than coming at this and every other brexit discussion armed with your pro-EU bias.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

It doesn't matter how much you prattle on with your (selective) facts and figures. The British fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the British fishing industry understands fishing in British waters far better than you, me or anyone else on this forum. Why don't you take some time out and go and talk to British fishing industry representatives? You might actually get a bigger picture, rather than coming at this and every other brexit discussion armed with your pro-EU bias.

And with his carefully reasoned arguments backed by facts. Away with such talk!

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

It doesn't matter how much you prattle on with your (selective) facts and figures. The British fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the British fishing industry understands fishing in British waters far better than you, me or anyone else on this forum. Why don't you take some time out and go and talk to British fishing industry representatives? You might actually get a bigger picture, rather than coming at this and every other brexit discussion armed with your pro-EU bias.

He probably has talked to the fishermen. Those that fish on the Serpentine.

[rockingrobin]

10 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

It doesn't matter how much you prattle on with your (selective) facts and figures. The British fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the British fishing industry understands fishing in British waters far better than you, me or anyone else on this forum. Why don't you take some time out and go and talk to British fishing industry representatives? You might actually get a bigger picture, rather than coming at this and every other brexit discussion armed with your pro-EU bias.

The scrapping of the convention does little if anything to enhance the British fishing industry, to some extents it could have a detrimental effect, in that post Brexit the UK would be in direct competition with Norway.

To give it some perspective , in 2015 the UK fishing industry provided approx gbp 600M to the GDP, and employ roughly 30,000  , policing the 12 mile limit is going to be disproportionately expensive and not one of the government priorities.

Throw into the mix the UK ratification of the UN Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement , and the announcement amounts to nothing

[dick dasterdly]

At the end of the day, a few things went horribly wrong when it comes to fishing within UK waters.

 

British fishermen used ever more 'productive' ways to enhance their catch, and then agreements were reached to make the situation even worse as other countries were also allowed to trawl in British waters.

 

The best attempt at allowing the 'desired' stock of fish to reproduce is employing limits as to how many of those types of fish can be brought to shore - with the other dead fish thrown back into the sea.  (If I understand correctly).

[7by7]

14 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

It doesn't matter how much you prattle on with your (selective) facts and figures. The British fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the British fishing industry understands fishing in British waters far better than you, me or anyone else on this forum. Why don't you take some time out and go and talk to British fishing industry representatives? You might actually get a bigger picture, rather than coming at this and every other brexit discussion armed with your pro-EU bias.

 Instead of dismissing my facts and figures out of hand, such as the decline of the UK fishing industry beginning well before there was an EEC, let alone before the UK joined, such as the increase in fish caught and landed in the UK by British fishermen in recent years: why don't you produce some form of evidence which disprove them?

 

Is it because you can't?

 

Yes, I do have a pro EU bias, just as you have an anti EU one.

 

I believe the UK electorate, or rather 51% of us, made a huge mistake in the referendum. A mistake based partly on the lies put forth about the EU by certain Brexit campaigners. But being a believer in democracy I accept the result and now hope the negotiations secure the best possible deal for the UK; on all matters, not just fishing.

[Khun Han]

32 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Instead of dismissing my facts and figures out of hand, such as the decline of the UK fishing industry beginning well before there was an EEC, let alone before the UK joined, such as the increase in fish caught and landed in the UK by British fishermen in recent years: why don't you produce some form of evidence which disprove them?

 

Is it because you can't?

 

Yes, I do have a pro EU bias, just as you have an anti EU one.

 

I believe the UK electorate, or rather 51% of us, made a huge mistake in the referendum. A mistake based partly on the lies put forth about the EU by certain Brexit campaigners. But being a believer in democracy I accept the result and now hope the negotiations secure the best possible deal for the UK; on all matters, not just fishing.

 

You didn't answer the main thrust of my post. Which was that the UK fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the UK fishing industry knows far more about the UK fishing industry than you or I. Agree or disagree?

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You didn't answer the main thrust of my post. Which was that the UK fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the UK fishing industry knows far more about the UK fishing industry than you or I. Agree or disagree?

Many years ago in the United States the fishing industry loudly protested against attempts to put limits on the cod and flatfish harvest. After all, they were fishermen whose families had been fishing those waters for generations, so who knew better than they did? They were under a lot of economic pressure to keep making payments on their boats.  And they succeeded in putting a stop to the new limits.  A few  stocks of ground fish collapsed and they have yet to recover. Both the fish and the fishermen.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Many years ago in the United States the fishing industry loudly protested against attempts to put limits on the cod and flatfish harvest. After all, they were fishermen whose families had been fishing those waters for generations, so who knew better than they did? They were under a lot of economic pressure to keep making payments on their boats.  And they succeeded in putting a stop to the new limits.  A few  stocks of ground fish collapsed and they have yet to recover. Both the fish and the fishermen.

 

Do you prefer apples or oranges?

[7by7]

On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 0:22 PM, Khun Han said:

 

You didn't answer the main thrust of my post.

As you have repeatedly failed to answer every point I have made, and ignored the evidence I have produced to support them, you are a fine one to talk!

 

On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 0:22 PM, Khun Han said:

Which was that the UK fishing industry supports the latest government proposal, and the UK fishing industry knows far more about the UK fishing industry than you or I. Agree or disagree?

 

I have read many opinions which would agree with you; but cannot find any from anyone actually involved in the industry; merely the various authors' opinions!

 

Can you provide some solid evidence of the actual, real opinion of the industry?

 

I'd be especially interested in the opinions of the 20%(ish) of British fishermen who fish in the waters of other EU countries.

Edited July 9, 2017 by 7by7

[oldlakey]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

As you have repeatedly failed to answer every point I have made, and ignored the evidence I have produced to support them, you are a fine one to talk!

 

 

I have read many opinions which would agree with you; but cannot find any from anyone actually involved in the industry; merely the various authors' opinions!

 

Can you provide some solid evidence of the actual, real opinion of the industry?

 

I'd be especially interested in the opinions of the 20%(ish) of British fishermen who fish in the waters of other EU countries.

In a democracy 80% will just about carry the day against 20%

The real opinion held in the British fishing industry as regards the EU is up yours, like it or not

[Khun Han]

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

As you have repeatedly failed to answer every point I have made, and ignored the evidence I have produced to support them, you are a fine one to talk!

 

 

I have read many opinions which would agree with you; but cannot find any from anyone actually involved in the industry; merely the various authors' opinions!

 

Can you provide some solid evidence of the actual, real opinion of the industry?

 

I'd be especially interested in the opinions of the 20%(ish) of British fishermen who fish in the waters of other EU countries.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/02/government-pull-eu-fishing-deal-reclaim-uk-waters-british-fishermen/

 

Barrie Deas, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, said: “This is welcome news and an important part of establishing the UK as an independent coastal state with sovereignty over its own exclusive economic zone.”

 

I''m interested in the opinions of the British fishing industry, not a poster on ThaiVisa who cherry picks his info. And, of course you'd be particularly interested in the opinions of a small minority of the industry, because that small minority will likely support your pro-EU opinion .