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

Pretty obvious who sold them in the first place.

Perhaps they needed the money for some reason...

spinfight when a fisherman sell a licence, it's not for the government to dictate who they sell it too. Am not involved in it so I don't know about licenses changing between member states.

our waters are the richest due to the continental shelf. Am sorry, am really not sure what you are getting at there. We certainly don't have exclusive rights to the continental shelf (Ireland and Spain for example). Our waters are not renowned as being richer than other member states. There are some famous, productive fisheries but the same is true of elsewhere in European waters. If you are talking about water to the west, Ireland and spain take a fair chunk of that.

Fishing in massively subsidised across the EU. To say we don't get much of it is simply untrue.

The vast majority of our fish is not caught by foreign flagged vessels.

Seriously, where do you get this stuff from?

Am not sure where spin blames the uk government? Her argument seems to be that pretty much every problem appears to be due to foreign boats stealing our fish.

Fisheries policy, economics and science are massively complicated. To suggest that they could be managed in isolation from the rest of the north Sea/NE Atlantic and somehow lead to a massive boon for fisheries is frankly deluded.

"Our waters are not renowned as being richer than other member states. "

My understanding is that they are. Very much so. Think I even posted a map showing the shelf and how Spain etc didn't benefit much. Spain has the largest fleet in Europe, but it mainly fishes in our waters.

"Fishing in massively subsidised across the EU. To say we don't get much of it is simply untrue."

Figures I've seen indicates that EU fishermen get considerably more. Feel free to find your own figures.

"The vast majority of our fish is not caught by foreign flagged vessels."

Are you being obsequious here? Are you saying that Huge Dutch factory ship is not foreign flagged or that it is? Or that foreign firms do not fish from our quota? Or that our EEZ rights under Brexit would not see a many fold increase in fish we 'own'?

Simply put our fishermen currently see very little from the potential fishing available in our waters due to EU policies / quotas / subsidies and european court rulings.

"It's the link that you gave spin that said it was our governments fault, for not implementing EU reforms that would, according to your link, redress the issue somewhat."

They haven't sorted it out in 30 years, but Brexit would!!

I'm not myself blaming our government, I think that is a red herring.

tish tish boom

No I'm not being obsequious. Strange comment.

Just that fishery politics, fisheries and fish stocks are a little more complicated than your above (factually inaccurate) comments understand.

BTW will make sure I tell that fish about to cross into french waters that we own it and it needs to stop swimming.

I imagine the government haven't sorted that one aspect out because they would be over ruled by the European courts sixinabed.

Previous cases where the government has attempted to find some justice for our fishermen have seen them pay large damages to EU fishermen.

Greenpeace's article is, I think, an attempt to bash the government when the fault is the EU's. Granted they may have introduced some reforms though 30 years too late.

Posit a scenario where reforms were inacted, pending European court action, the British fishermen would then have access to their quota, which is only a small part of that which they would have in the case of Brexit.

There is a clear ecological, economic, social and moral case for Brexit here.

"BTW will make sure I tell that fish about to cross into french waters that we own it and it needs to stop swimming."

Now now, we both know the EU solution would be to give every fish a passport, demand health checks on them every day and then expect us to comply with their rules whilst every other nation ignored them.

There is nothing too complicated here, Heath signed away our fishing grounds to the EEC as a price for entry, Brexit will bring them back under our control.

In doing so he sucked at least £100 billion out of the rural economy so that London and the South East could benefit.

BTW will make sure I tell that fish about to cross into french waters that we own it and it needs to stop swimming

What a crass comment to make when everyone knows the Common Fisheries Policy is a disaster for fishing. Yes, they now throw them overboard if they don't match the required standard - but they are already dead by then. Exactly the sort of nonsense the EU encourages.

SpringingIntoAction

Yes, they now throw them overboard if they don't match the required standard - but they are already dead by then. Exactly the sort of nonsense the EU encourages.

It's called 'discards' - and its banned:

www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-fishermen-see-next-phase-of-the-discard-ban-take-effect

So, not only do we have Spinflight unable to read the very links she pastes in, but we've got you posting demonstrable lies.

As a fence sitter, I am grateful to you all for setting this issue out, with good points made on both sides. From my point of view:-

Our fishing industry was royally screwed by the EU. Leave might address that issue & our fishing fleet might reform over the medium term;

Something needed / needs to be done about overfishing, and quotas are by and large a good thing. As someone who does not vote Green, but has Greenish leanings, I tend to agree with the new rules re landing all fish that are caught as it may result in better fishing methods (and I hate waste);

I'm old enough to remember some very bad feeing over fishing rights with other countries - possibly Spain - many, many years ago - so would imagine leave would re-ignite those issues.

Points taken about Farage & the ineptitude of our own government.

I'm still finding this very difficult.

PS, just a general point, as an intelligent, educated undecider, I take arguments which are well made and supported from either side. As soon as someone attacks the player rather than the ball, I tend to switch off. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Hugo, your "UKIP Briefing Pack" comments do not help your cause.

OK, last post. The misinformation and half truths posted here are shocking.

Fish ecology, fisheries, the science and the politics are horrendously complicated. Different positions and priorities. There is no silver bullet that would appease everyone. Anyone who tells you otherwise is deluded.

As I have said before, the way things are managed at present is not perfect. I speak from a scientific perspective. There have been some major breakthroughs but still short term thinking in other areas. Politicians of all colours don't always like or take scientific advice on board

Everyone has different priorities and trying to balance the scientific argument (fish less or change the net or don't fish there etc) with the economic (I want more fish or I want more of that fish or I want bigger fish) is very difficult.

What I do know unequivocally is that fish stocks across the North Sea (NE Atlantic scale if you like) need to be managed coherently. Not piecemeal by different countries. In cooperation. Things do seem slowly to be moving in a much more sustainable direction.

Epic post, sorry. Would also say yes I massively sympathise with fisherman. It's a hard, dangerous job. A very different job to that undertaken by previous generations though. A boat now can catch far more fish than a boat the same size 50 years ago.

muddledmuse

Hugo - your briefing pack comments do not help your cause

I don't have a cause.

This is a complex issue with no easy answers, and it's not helped by people who have obviously reached an opinion first and then go looking for something that can back them up.

Ok, I take your point, but lumping everyone who makes a pro leave argument with UKIP is unhelpful AND offensive to those who are or may vote leave but who do not associate themselves with UKIP. I feel that sort of comment is likely to push some people in the opposite direction. That's all I'm saying.

Please continue with the debate .

There are other issues here too, locked behind the clear economic and ecological benefits that daring to manage our own soveriegn resources would bring.

Taking back control would allow us to finally police our waters. Little point managing fish stocks if we don't know about EU vessels plundering them.

This is the responsibility of the Royal Navy and Border Force, the latter being responsible mainly for immigration controls.

These competencies have been woefully underfunded, though given the European courts penchant for undermining our rights this is unsurprising.

Patrolling our 80,000 square miles is currently undertaken by a tiny fleet of vessels from both agencies. The Navy has a few patrol vessels for fisheries protection and the Border force a few of it's own. At present they are as likely to be deployed to the Mediterranean or Caribbean as our own waters on either EU or NATO duties. At any one time I doubt there are more than 2 or 3 at sea around our coasts.

Small and hardly armed, these aren't warships but an aspect of our armed forces which is almost entirely lacking. The low end, mundane and every day stuff which doesn't directly add to our teeth arms. Most countries take this side very seriously, the US coast guard for instance could alone be described as the seventh largest Navy in the world.

It would take a few years for our own fishing industry to grow, in which time the depleted fish stocks would have ample time to recover. Increasing the number of policing vessels in the interim would allow a more watchful stance to be taken.

You'd have to be rather unlucky to be stopped by one of the three Border force vessels at present if you were taking passengers no questions asked, and I rather doubt the number of illegals landing at our ports is even known. You'd also have to be very unlucky to receive a hail from the Royal Navy if you had made a navigational error and strayed into our territorial waters whilst fishing.

I can't see any downsides in being able to police, surveille and conserve our waters. We currently import more fish that we export so the effect on the exchequer is clear. Eventually our fishing industry would at least quadruple, leading to better rural prospects, tax receipts, lower imports and fresher fish.

Being in control therefore would also reduce illegal immigration and allow us to have a better understanding of our environment. Not to mention better able to respond to maritime emergencies.

But we could increase the number of our border force/coastguard without leaving the EU. And NATO duties wouldn't change if we left.

Yes but the rule of thumb is that for every three ships one is under maintenance or in port, one used in training and the other operational.

Hence it might be a bit of a stretch to argue that we only have one border force cutter preventing illegal immigration but it does give you some idea of the effort our government has put into it. A single unarmed and lightly crewed vessel isn't much of an investment.

Whenever we attempt to police our waters against illegal fishing we get slapped down by the European courts. It seems these vessels are little used for their intended purpose as further European courts decisions actually erode our sovereignty faster. Better to have a distinctly token force and not use it for fear of judgments against us which are irrevocable in effect.

Someone made a good point regarding our participation on EU committees which regulate fishing and the CFP.

These are run on majority decisions, and as we are in a complete minority of one in terms of benefiting the chances of us having any influence here are effectively nil.

Now I'm not a supporter of 'beggar thy neighbour' economics. I think I should state that the effects upon certain countries would be quite large. Spain would lose a lot as it has the largest fleet, despite not having much indigenous capacity for fishing outside our waters, and receives the biggest subsidies.

I could be a bit mischievous and say that if we give £23 to the EU, it steals £1 and gives £1 to Spanish fishermen. We then spend £3 of our other money to buy our own fish back from them!

This isn't entirely fair but does rather demonstrate the unfair mechanism.

I'm sure some interim compromise could be reached as overcapacity in the EU's remaining waters would impact upon our own, and the weak developing nations which allow the EU access.

Buying up some of the over capacity in terms of hulls would be one way though that would leave rural Spanish and other communities greatly out of pocket.

Given Spain's current well documented economic woes this would be a real headache for the EU and I think should be alleviated somewhat.

Nigel Farage is set to sail a fleet of fishing ships up the Thames tomorrow to Parliament for Prime Minister's Questions & protest against the EU & fishing

Here is Gove talking about fishing.

And you get to meet his parents and see their house.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/36513412

Well, Nigel Farage might not want to mention it because, despite being a member of the European Parliament's Fishing committee, and being in receipt of all the added bonuses and monies associates with this role, he has only turned up to one meeting and has singularly failed to contribute anything to the issue and has never voted, despite frequently being in the building at the time. He's not interested in fishing, though

This may prove to be embarrassing to the Leave campaign.

Gove knows a lot more about real life than quite a few other politicians. I think he has come across well in the Brexit campaign.

Well, Nigel Farage might not want to mention it because, despite being a member of the European Parliament's Fishing committee, and being in receipt of all the added bonuses and monies associates with this role, he has only turned up to one meeting and has singularly failed to contribute anything to the issue and has never voted, despite frequently being in the building at the time.

This may surprise you, as it seems to surprise many people I meet, but MEPs cannot initiate any legisaltion and they cannot repeal any legislation. They can only hope to get minor changes made to laws that are put before the European Parliament and with 30,000 lobbysist employed by big corporations and big banks all persuading MEPs to pass laws that suit those lobbyist's clients ,then you start to realise that the European Parliament is little more than a powerless EU rubber stamp.

Dan Hannan MEP says exactly this when he asks you to please vote leave and make him redundant.

This may prove to be embarrassing to the Leave campaign

So, it's not at all embarrassing for the Leave campaign It's embarrassing for Remain that it wants to continue denying us our right to a Parliamentary democracy by scare-mongering the country into surrendering its rights to the EU. That I find quite disgusting.

I am quite happy for any of the MEPs not to attend - at least that saves some of our tax payers money in expenses each time they stay away