What other organisation is able to impose *enforceable* limits on European fishing fleets?You think the EU is the body to conserve stocks?
What other organisation is able to impose *enforceable* limits on European fishing fleets?You think the EU is the body to conserve stocks?
After the transition period ends we will be free to set our own regulation and quotas without the EU having any say.Much as Brexiters may wish it otherwise, fish will continue to enjoy free movement between the waters of different nations. So a single nation can't regulate them in isolation.
The UK will police its own seas and the EU can police theirs. I'm sure the EU will set its own quotas in its own area as the UK will do likewise. Iceland has not had a problem ever since they won the cod war.What other organisation is able to impose *enforceable* limits on European fishing fleets?
Except that they can apply sanctions such as barring entry of British-caught fish to the EU market, if they decide we are in breach of whatever is agreed.After the transition period ends we will be free to set our own regulation and quotas without the EU having any say.
Mutual co-operation to the benefit of both parties is quite possible. You do not need to be in a political union to achieve this.Except that they can apply sanctions such as barring entry of British-caught fish to the EU market, if they decide we are in breach of whatever is agreed.
Your post doesn't address my point that you quoted. Most British waters border those of other countries, the fish cross those borders freely, so regulation is ineffective unless co-ordinated between those nations. Unilateral quotas might benefit British fishing in the short term but could ultimately result in fish populations being irreversibly depleted and the total demise of the fishing industry British or otherwise. Not to mention the ecological impacts and the need to source alternative foods.
But how are disagreements resolved if the UK refuses to be subject to the ECJ?Mutual co-operation to the benefit of both parties is quite possible. You do not need to be in a political union to achieve this.
So your answer is to submit to the authority of a court run by, and for the benefit of, one of the two parties involved?But how are disagreements resolved if the UK refuses to be subject to the ECJ?
It's an independent court, unlike what Johnson wants for the UK.So your answer is to submit to the authority of a court run by, and for the benefit of, one of the two parties involved?
Unbelievable!
We could debate that! However it is a court established by the EU to arbitrate disputes BETWEEN EU members. It has never had any legal remit in the past to arbitrate between its paymasters, the EU, and a third country.It's an independent court, unlike what Johnson wants for the UK.
So what alternative do you propose to resolve those disagreements?We could debate that! However it is a court established by the EU to arbitrate disputes BETWEEN EU members. It has never had any legal remit in the past to arbitrate between its paymasters, the EU, and a third country.
Looking at the actions of the EU over the past 3+ years with regard to Brexit (OK, protecting EU interests if you call it that) I have no faith that its own court could possibly be neutral.
How does the EU currently resolve a fishing dispute with another non EU country?So what alternative do you propose to resolve those disagreements?
I don't believe there currently are any - the only EU or EEA and third-party territorial waters overlaps are the around the Straits of Gibraltar, Finland/Russia and maybe Greece/Turkey, no?How does the EU currently resolve a fishing dispute with another non EU country?
You mean like following the rules and agreeing extension after extension because we couldn't get our ducks in a row?Looking at the actions of the EU over the past 3+ years with regard to Brexit...
So it looks like to prepare for brexit we have spent nearly the total amount in EU membership contributions.In the not too distant future, Brexit is set to cost more than all of the UK's payments to the EU's budget over the past 47 years. A Bloomberg Economics analysis covered by Business Insider found that that economic losses due to the UK decision to leave the EU have already reached £130 billion, a figure that's expected to climb to £203 billion by the end of this year.
Since 1973, total UK payments to the EU's budgets amounted to £215 billion when adjusted for inflation according to figures from the House of Commons Library. The scale of those payments were central to the Leave campaign's case for Brexit and it now looks like the divorce bill itself is going to be significantly higher than those 47 years of financial contributions.
So what alternative do you propose to resolve those disagreements?
I'm still scratching my head trying to work out exactly how the UK managed to get to this stage and I'm even more baffled that it wants to plough on
Maybe it's tiny because we have to share the fish stocks with 27 other countries.
After the transition period ends we will be free to set our own regulation and quotas without the EU having any say.
- 40% of Denmark’s entire fishing take comes from UK Territorial Waters.
- France has 84% of the Cod quota from the English Channel. The UK has 9%.
- European fishermen take 173 times more herring, 45 times more whiting, 16 times more mackerel and 14 times more haddock and cod out of UK waters than UK fishermen do.
I sold you something and now I complain how unfair it is that I don't have it any more.The way that the quotas are devised is extremely unfair to the UK fishing industry.
I think it will be a fair trade with Ireland and France but let's not even talk about Iceland.And what about our fishermen taking Irish and French fish stock? Not to mention some fishing zones further afield?
I don't think quotas have been sold to other countries but to individuals and companies from other countries.I sold you something and now I complain how unfair it is that I don't have it any more.
I sold you something and now I complain how unfair it is that I don't have it any more.
I think it will be a fair trade with Ireland and France but let's not even talk about Iceland.
The Brexit vote is an attempt to rectify the wrongs of past governments.
What specifically was wrong and directly affected you?
The myriad treaties that were signed by various governments which took us ever deeper into the EEC/EC/EU, without any reference to the people as to whether we agreed with them. We were taken into a trading bloc and ended up with a political union, all without being asked.
The various treaties created the EU and stripped our sovereignty. I prefer our laws to be made by MPs in Westminster and not by MEPs from 27 other countries based in Brussels, that's enough for me to despise the EU and it's why I voted to leave.That's non-specific treaties and no specific effect on you. Please - what specifically has the EU done wrong and how has that impacted on you?
The various treaties created the EU and stripped our sovereignty. I prefer our laws to be made by MPs in Westminster and not by MEPs from 27 other countries based in Brussels, that's enough for me to despise the EU and it's why I voted to leave.
Name 3 wrongsThe Brexit vote is an attempt to rectify the wrongs of past governments.