Why is neither side discussing fishing?

[BritBrit]

Particularly the leave campaign, under international law every country is allowed to control 200 miles off their coast for fishing/oil etc. Being in the EU means we have to open our fishing waters to the entire EU & other nations are given a quota of our fish.

The UK has 70% of all EU fishing stocks but we are only given 13% of the catch by the EU, we are effectively giving away billions of pounds of resources to other EU nations. If we leave the EU we would regain control of our fishing waters, this means we could create thousands of jobs, billions in tax income & create UK industry particularly in UK coastal areas. Iceland, Greenland & Norway refused to join the EU because of the issue of fishing & refused to give their fishing waters away

Please could you reference the claim that the uk has 70% of all eu fishing stocks but only allowed to fish 13%.

Fwiw leaving the EU won't magically result in more fish.

This fishing arguement is very interesting.

I'm firmly in the remain camp and live in London so not hugely affected by this. But I think we should know about it and am ashamed I did not. I agree there should be much more publicity around this. It sounds very bad.

It is interesting and very complicated.

The amount of bollocks posted about fishing is quite shocking. Things were not brilliant before cfp. Massive over fishing. Hence fishermen going bust when limits starting coming in.

Easy to post unsubstantiated bollocks.

This is a bit interesting for the more open minded. www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/griffin-carpenter/eu-common-fisheries-policy-has-helped-not-harmed-uk-fisheries-0

Am quite sure technical fishery reports are a bit too dry (they can be be very boring).

The economies of Iceland, Greenland and Norway rely much more heavily on fishing than the UK's has ever done.

Yes, there may be some small gains to the UK fishing industry, but not enough to justify losses, elsewhere.

Thats an interesting, article, tilder.

I now live in Scotland. The arguments for & against Eu membership are set out by 2 fishermen from Peterhead & their MSP ;-

And then, with some embarrassment, Charles Buchan, a member of Aberdeenshire Council, explained to me why he supported Britain's membership of the European Union, and why in particular he thought it was good for the local fishing industry here in Peterhead.
"Fishermen are allowed to land their catches in Germany, in Denmark… we've got longstanding ties with Europe and it would be terrible to break them," he says.
Mr Buchan describes the various EU grants that have helped develop the harbours at Peterhead and nearby Fraserburgh, tens of millions of pounds worth, he says. Yet he readily acknowledges that his support for the European Union is not popular in the fishing community.
"It's a very, very difficult position."
A difficult position, and also a rare one. It took days of emails and phone calls to find just this one local man to put the In case for the forthcoming EU referendum.
The various organisations that represent fishermen are not taking an official line, but all told me they thought that the majority of their members would be voting to leave.

'Discard ban'
Jimmy Buchan's position is typical (he's no relation of Charles Buchan). He achieved national fame as the star of a BBC TV series, Trawlerman. When we meet on the dockside in Peterhead, he greets me with a cheerful grin, and friendly, avuncular manner. Yet he makes no attempt to hide his contempt for the regulations that the European Union enforces.
"From 2019, we can no longer dispose of any fish at sea - all fish we catch will have to be landed."

This so-called "discard ban" will mean that fish caught by accident will be considered part of the quota that every fisherman is allotted, to limit how much fish they can remove from the sea.
"Unelected bureaucrats who sit in Brussels don't care about local communities," he complains. "I've waited all my life for this EU referendum. I'm voting for Out."
The discard ban and the quota system itself were brought in because of fears that European fish stocks were being depleted too fast. But the system has proved unpopular with many in the industry.
Fishing quotas
The European Commission sets total allowable catches (TACs) or catch limits (expressed in tonnes or numbers) for most commercial fish stocks
TACs are set annually for most stocks (every two years for deep-sea stocks) by the council of fisheries ministers
TACs are shared between EU countries in the form of national quotas. For each stock, a different allocation percentage per EU country is applied for the sharing-out of the quotas
EU countries can exchange quotas with other EU countries
EU countries have to use transparent and objective criteria when they distribute the national quota among their fishermen
EU countries are responsible for ensuring that their quotas are not overfished. When all the available quota of a species is fished, the EU country has to close the fishery
Source: European Commission

And those campaigning to leave the EU have recognised that the plight of fishermen can provide them with ammunition.
"Fishing will be central," says Mev Brown, a Scottish representative from the anti-EU campaign group, Business for Britain.

The fishing industry extends beyond the fishermen themselves, he points out. It includes processing plants and haulage companies. But more than that, Mr Brown believes that people care about fishing communities, and can be mobilised to vote Out if they believe these communities are threatened by EU membership.
"I'll be meeting people face to face," he says, "drumming up support. I may even get a day at sea on a trawler."
The UK's EU vote: All you need to know
Business and Brexit - not as simple as it seems
Special report: EU referendum
The debate about fisheries is a microcosm of the broader arguments around EU membership.
In campaigners point out that British fishermen currently sell most of their catch to other EU member countries. The Out side insist that a new trade agreement would be easy to negotiate.
'Difficult' job
But that suggestion is rejected by the Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the region around Peterhead. Christian Allard is certainly a noteworthy contributor to the EU debate, as he is the only MSP who actually comes from continental Europe - born and raised in the Burgundy region of France, he is now a proud member of the Scottish National Party.

Mr Allard fears that any deal negotiated by a post-EU Britain would be worse than the one fishermen currently have. And while he acknowledges that the current quotas have "sold the Scottish fishing industry down the river", he believes the answer is to stay in the EU and fight for a more just allocation.
"Once you are outside," he says, "you do not negotiate equal to equal."
I ask him whether he thinks he can win over Scotland's fishermen to his way of thinking.
"It will be very, very difficult," he acknowledges somewhat ruefully, saying he wishes he had more time before referendum day. "We might persuade them to change their minds. But I can understand if they won't."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35746323

Yes there was over-fishing before the CFP. But how is the answer to let 27 other countries come and fish around our country too?

he believes the answer is to stay in the EU and fight for a more just allocation.

This hasn't been achieved in the past few decades in the unreformable EU.

Winterbiscuit

Yes there was over-fishing before the CFP. But how is the answer to let 27 other countries come and fish around our country too?

The only way that 27 other countries can come and fish in our waters is if British fishermen sell on the fishing licences that they have.

But this is irrelevant to the subject of overfishing - which can only be dealt with in a multi-national approach.

Are you busy going through your UKIP Briefing Pack to find some 'answers'?

I've been wondering this, too

Aberdeen Uni have done a study showing 92% of UK fishermen will vote leave. I'm on my phone and don't know how to link - sorry.

This hasn't been achieved in the past few decades in the unreformable EU.

EU reform is ongoing. Over 3 years Nigel Farage was a member of the EP Fisheries Committee & made mockery of UKIP’s claim to be standing up for fishermen. He attended one out of 42 meetings. During the 3 major votes to fix the flaws of the CFP, Nigel Farage was in the building but failed to vote in favour of improving the legislation.

In 2013, he was again present but chose not to vote on the part of the reform of the CFP that introduces an obligation on governments to give more fishing quota to sustainable fishermen who contribute the most to the local, coastal economies. This would see the government giving more fishing quota to local, low impact fishing fleets.

Are you busy going through your UKIP Briefing Pack to find some 'answers'?

I've been wondering this, too hmm

Me too! With references to a sea angling publication (Nigel Farage is a sea angler) I do hope UKIP weren't relying upon it for their policy on commercial fishing.

"This so-called "discard ban" will mean that fish caught by accident will be considered part of the quota that every fisherman is allotted"

Because the previous system of allowing fishermen to carry out vast trawls of the ocean, then sort out the catch on deck and chuck the ones they didn't want - now dead - back into the ocean was really great for fish stocks

The notorious common fisheries policy is even worse than I thought...

www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/foreign-businesses-use-nearly-half-england%E2%80%99s-fishing-quota-20141104

A single massive Dutch registered vessel, which lands it's catch in Holland, takes up 23% of our fishing quota!

"Cornelis Vrolijk is a family company which was established by Frank Vrolijk in Scheveningen in 1880. His eldest son Cornelis Vrolijk continued the company in IJmuiden in 1950."

The British government did try to stop foreign companies either buying up registered British fishing vessels or merely claiming British quota as their own but were over ruled in the European courts in 1992. Now more than a third of vessels supposedly British registered are foreign owned and land their catch on the continent.

In the 80s the tory government went as far as confiscating a large Spanish factory ship which was fiishing illegally in our waters. They were taken to the European courts and had to pay the spanish firm tens of millions in compensation.

Our waters are the richest due to the continental shelf. You might think that Spain would have greater stocks in 'their' waters but in fact the continental shelf there drops off quickly resulting in little productive fishing.

Amazingly the EU fleet actually runs at a loss and requires subsidies of well over a Billion quid a year. Naturally we don't get much of this. One figure from a slightly partisan website ( there are one or two rather angry fishermen out there) claims £27,000 in subsidies per Spanish fisherman though.

This raises an interesting thought... We are paying for our fish three times over. The vast majority of our fish are caught either by EU or false flag EU fishermen, who are heavily subsidised by the EU, which is paid for through our taxes. Hence we import more fish than we export, even though it is mainly all ours to begin with.

It starts to look more like subsidized piracy, never mind the ecologically disastrous effects.

So Spinflight - it took you nearly a day to come up with something, and when you do it details how British fishermen sold out their own rights for a quick buck.

And this is somehow the EU's fault.

This just smacks of someone so blinded by hate that they will say anything (or in your case, copy & paste anything) if it seems to fit their agenda.

???

The fishermen are the victims here, as are the fish.

That huge Dutch vessel has never been sold by a British fishermen that I know of.

I know of no occasion where British fishermen have sold out their own rights.

Do you or are you merely trying to slander them?

If the latter could you explain why?

You can't even comprehend your own cut & paste. Jesus Christ.

Sorry am I being dim?

I honestly have no clue what you are asserting.

"...either buying up registered British fishing vessels..."

Pretty obvious who sold them in the first place.

Still waiting to hear all about these Bulgarian fishermen coming over here and taking our cod, Spinflight.

Hugo I think you need to calm down

Norway has said its F industry would be gone now had they joined.

Lol Hugobear.

You've entirely missed the point. That huge factory ship has never been owned by a British fisherman that I know of, most of the British fleet is under 10m. It is the foreign vessels with the subsidies which tend to be the monsters.

No they just claim part of our quota and we can't stop them. The European courts see to that.

The problem wouldn't exist outside the EU and would bring massive economic benefit to areas of the UK which most need it.

Saying it is the government's fault is pretty weak, though they do of course share culpability.