• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
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.
 

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
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.
After the transition period ends we will be free to set our own regulation and quotas without the EU having any say.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
What other organisation is able to impose *enforceable* limits on European fishing fleets?
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.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
After the transition period ends we will be free to set our own regulation and quotas without the EU having any say.
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.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
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.
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.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
It's an independent court, unlike what Johnson wants for the UK.
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.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
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.
So what alternative do you propose to resolve those disagreements?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
How does the EU currently resolve a fishing dispute with another non EU country?
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?
 

nidave

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2011
Messages
923
https://www.statista.com/chart/2054...-compared-to-the-uks-eu-budget-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 it looks like to prepare for brexit we have spent nearly the total amount in EU membership contributions.

Its going to take decades to cover this cost plus the economic harm of leaving. Sigh.

20544.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
398
Incidentally fishing is about 0.1 % of GDP, and most of what is caught is actually exported to the EU anyway.

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, full steam ahead.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,045
OK instead of my rather flippant remarks about blocks of battered, nondescript fish, let’s be more detailed.

The UK has some of the most productive fishing grounds in Europe. There is huge demand for foreign vessels to access UK waters but not much value in UK vessels traipsing all over the place when they can (or rather could, if uninhibited by EU legislation) catch much of the fish they need in home waters. The way that the quotas are devised is extremely unfair to the UK fishing industry. Some examples:

  • 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.
That’s a few of the (many) reasons why the issue of fishing is so important to the EU. The Common Fisheries Policy was not originally devised to preserve fishing stocks. That’s the camouflage. It is about preserving other EU nations’ rights to plunder what have been declared “common resources”. It's bit like opening a joint bank account with Jeff Bezos and declaring your £500 overdraft and his $100bn as "common resources". There is no more justification to declare fish found in UK territorial waters as common resources than there is to do the same with a field of potatoes in the middle of Gloucestershire. But that’s what membership of the EU provides.

It's little wonder, when one nation has the right to almost ten times as much fish from UK waters as the UK has, that there are concerns when that arrangement might end and that's why the fisheries issue is such a big deal to the EU.

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

It got to this stage because over the past 47 years, since the country joined what seemed a good idea (a trading union), the electorate has watched successive governments cede political control of the country's affairs to the EU (the fisheries issue, above, being just one example). It is now subject to a treaty which contains, among many other contentious clauses, a determination that, in the event of any dispute, EU law retains primacy over UK law. The electorate was asked if it was content to see this situation continue and the majority of those who voted decided they did not. With a previous government having asked the question and at the same time assuring the electorate that whatever they decided would be implemented, the latest administration is determined to honour that pledge and plough on with the implementation of the result.
 

Peter Kelford

Member
Joined
29 Nov 2017
Messages
903
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.

And what about our fishermen taking Irish and French fish stock? Not to mention some fishing zones further afield?
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
I sold you something and now I complain how unfair it is that I don't have it any more. :rolleyes:
I don't think quotas have been sold to other countries but to individuals and companies from other countries.

I see no reason why they cannot continue provided they register in the UK.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
I think it will be a fair trade with Ireland and France but let's not even talk about Iceland.

That'll be the Iceland that's outside the EU where we have even less leverage in the future than when we did as a member of a huge trading block?
 

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
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.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
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.

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?
 

burneside

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
231
Location
Isle of Dogs, London
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.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
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.

If I understand correctly, you don't like it, even though there has been no direct harm to you and you can't even name the treaties that you don't like. That was enough for you to support an action that will cost many people their jobs and undermine the economic stability of the country?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top