The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

NOTE! This site uses cookies and similar technologies.

If you not change browser settings, you agree to it. Learn more

I understand

Cookies are a technology which we use to provide you with tailored information on our website. A cookie is a piece of code that is sent to your internet browser and is stored on your system.

Please see below for a list of cookies this website uses:

Cookie name: _utma, _utmb, _utmc, _utmz

Purpose: Google Analytics cookies. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information. To opt out of these cookies, please visit Google's website.

Cookie name: Sitecore

Purpose: Stores information, such as language and regional preferences, that our content management system (the system we use to update our website) relies on to function.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: ASP.net_session

Purpose: Allows the website to save your session state across different pages. For example, if you have completed a survey, the website will remember that you have done so and will not ask you to complete it again when you view another page on the website.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: website#sc_wede

Purpose: Indicates whether the user's browser supports inline editing of content. This indicates whether our content management system will work for our website administrators in their internet browsers.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: redirected

Purpose: Remembers when the site forwards you from one page to another, so you can return to the first page. For example, go back to the home page after viewing a special 'splash' page.

Function: This is a session cookie, which your browser will destroy when it shuts down. The website needs this cookie to function.

Cookie name: tccookiesprefs

Purpose: Remembers when you respond to the site cookie policy, so you do not see the cookie preferences notice on every page.

Function: If you choose to remember your preference with a temporary cookie, your browser will remove it when you shut it down, otherwise the cookie will be stored for about a year.

Cookie name: _ga

Purpose: Additional Google Analytics cookie. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information.

Cookie name: SC_ANALYTICS_GLOBAL_COOKIE, SC_ANALYTICS_SESSION_COOKIE

Purpose: Sitecore Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. When you close your browser, it will delete the 'session' cookie; it will keep the 'global' cookie for about one year.

Facebook cookies

We use Facebook 'Like' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Facebook's cookie policy page.

Twitter cookies

We use Twitter 'Tweet' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Twitter's privacy statement.

YouTube cookies

We embed videos from our official YouTube channel. YouTube uses cookies to help maintain the integrity of video statistics, prevent fraud and to improve their site experience. If you view a video, YouTube may set cookies on your computer once you click on the video player.

Cookies pop-up

When you close the cookies pop-up box by clicking "OK", a permanent cookie will be set on your machine. This will remember your preference so that the pop-up doesn't display across any pages whenever you visit the website.

Opting out/removing cookies

To opt out of Google Analytics cookies, please visit Google’s website.

You can also control what cookies you accept through your internet browser. For details on how to do this, please visit aboutcookies.org. Please note that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our website.

mailing list
donate now
join now
shop

Bruges Group Blog

Spearheading the intellectual battle against the EU. And for new thinking in international affairs.

Fishing: it has to be cast iron guaranteed

All that is required is to exempt any fisheries acquis from the withdrawal bill.

John Ashworth

7th September 2017
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

Having spent the past 25 years against the European Union, I never thought I would see the day I would agree with Barnier and Junker, that our side has become an embarrassment.

 

It is no good expecting the EU to be flexible, where their structure is one of rigidity. Even if Barnier wanted to bow to British demands, he can't, the system doesn't allow it.

 

On the home front, we now start what was to be called the Great Repeal Bill, and is now called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. This is a dangerous bill, not because it is repealing the European Communities 1972 Act and its amendments, but because it is turning the acquis, the 34   individual subject contents, into domestic law on the assumption by doing so, will mean the EU regulations we are presently controlled by will continue from day before today after exit, and create a smooth transition. However, it is not that simple.

 

The bizarre process then starts. Article 50 has taken us cleanly out of the CFP, and no one EU member can complain because all members have accepted this process by Treaty. Our own Westminster Parliament, by bringing the Fisheries acquis across, our parliament has endorsed   the CFP we have just left, and carried it forward as if nothing has happened, in the process giving 59% of our marine resource away again.

 

So, we have come out of the CFP, all bar name gone back in with the acquis, and then to come out again a fishiness bill has to be created on time and very accurate to counter the withdrawal bill.

 

If there is a withdrawal agreement, which is looking highly unlikely because of time, but if there is, it will have to be written to match the fisheries bill.

 

We are heading to the situation Parliamentarians will have to vote on the withdrawal bill not knowing what is coming up in the Fisheries Bill, nor knowing if a withdrawal agreement will be finalised, thereby giving HMG a blank piece of paper based on trust, where anything can go wrong, and the nations resource could be lost for good whereas all that is required is to exempt any fisheries acquis from the withdrawal bill.

 

All we know on the fisheries bill, is the regulations will be adjusted accordingly, but we don't know what or how., which bits will be taken out or left in. If all reference to the EU is taken out, such as “member State” “Union” “Commission”, on the main Fisheries regulation 1380.2013 there will be hardly anything left, So why take the difficult route.

 

When Fishing for Leave campaigned on the subject of the London Fisheries Convention 1964 we did so as a precautionary measurer, so as to avoid legal challenges at a later day.  We appreciate the Minister took that advice.

 

The same applies to this torturous route HMG are attempting. Our fear, by bringing the fisheries acquis into domestic legislation, the present CFP measures are being endorsed by our parliament, and could run us foul of the Vienna Convention, which convention is about Treaties, and it is not treaties that are being moved into domestic legislation, but regulation, and by de-coupling the regulation from the treaty, the Vienna Convention does not apply.

 

However, EU regulations take their authority from the Treaties and can't be de-coupled, but the process of the acquis being moved to domestic provides the evidence of our parliament supporting the CFP, and it is the withdrawal agreement (if there is one), which will be a legal agreement, and it is that, that could bring us foul of the Vienna Convention.

 

Just as our argument over the London Convention was to take a cautionary approach to avoid any legal challenge, the same applies here, why take the risk because if we are faced with a challenge, it could drag on for years, which would see the final nail in the coffin for the British fishing Industry and the inability to rejuvenate our coastal communities.

 

Just as Barnier is saying the British position lacks detail, so we have the same situation here, you can't expect parliamentarians to vote for something without the detail. The importance of this nation's resource goes beyond “trust” it has to be cast iron guaranteed.

By John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave

Continue reading
808 Hits
0 Comments

Fishing: The forgotten industry and the acid-test of Brexit

Does Brexit mean Brexit, with the change that we need, or will it just be business as usual

20th November 2016
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

The EU's Common Fisheries Policy is a drain on the British economy. A condition of entry into the EEC, as it was then, the British government was required to surrender control over its fishing waters on 1st January 1973. Under United Nations rules a country now has the right, even the responsibility, to control the sea around its coast stretching out for a total of 200 miles or until the median line between two adjacent nations.

 

The European Commission opened UK waters to all other member states fishing fleets, apportioning fishing rights as they see fit. The Common Fisheries Policy costs Britain more than £3.7 billion per year caused through the EU depriving the UK of its valuable fishing grounds.


 

In 2012 UK fishing vessels landed 627,000 tonnes of sea fish (including shellfish) this yearly catch has a value of £770 million.[i] This is 13% of the value for the total EU catch.[ii] In 2012 British vessels account for approximately 12% - 13% of the total size of the EU catch.[iii] This figure remains relatively constant. In 2010 the total EU catch amounted to 4,923,000 tonnes, the share of this going to UK fishermen is 608,000 tonnes.[iv] The British catch in 2010 was again approximately 12% - 13% of the total for the EU.


 

This means that the EU fishing industry is worth £6.4 billion. Approximately 70% of this catch is taken in what were once British fishing grounds, now governed by the EU and open to vessels from other EU member states. This means that if these waters were fully reserved for UK fishermen, which would be legal under international law, then British fishing vessels would be able to land nearly £4.5 billion worth of fish. Yet the clear majority is being lost to our competitors in the EU, with British fisherman only being able to land £770,000 worth of fish.


 

Other estimates suggest that 80% of the total EU catch comes from what are, by United Nations standards, British waters. This would put the figure of the total resource taken from UK control by the EU at more than £5 billion.


 

The problems of the CFP are not just economic. The EU’s quota restrictions have had a disastrous environmental impact. For decades, if a vessel landed more than its allotted amounted they must then discard the fish that exceed the EU’s legal limit. The result was that as much as two thirds were returned to sea dead. Subsequently fish stocks declined significantly; further reducing the bounty of the sea. This policy has turned the once abundant North Sea into an ecological crisis zone. After more than four decades there has finally been some change, but the discard ban will only address the symptom of the EU’s disastrous free for all policy, the discarding of fish, rather than the actual cause, the EU’s control over quotas. The British fishing fleet will again be decimated as vessels must stop fishing when they exhaust their quota allocation.


 

The devastation on this industry can be measured by its human impact. In 1970 there were 21,443 fishermen in the UK; by 2012 that figure had been cut back to just 12,445.[v] The loss of jobs and the once active fishing fleet also had a detrimental effect on secondary industries that supported the fishing fleet and benefitted from the proceeds from this once sizeable business.[vi]


 

The effect of EU control via the Common Fisheries Policy has been to seriously damage a once strong industry. Landings into the UK have fallen from 1,039,100 tonnes in 1970 to just 489,100 in 2012. This steady decline has led to a growing dependency upon imports. In 2010, a total of 687,054 tonnes of seafood worth £2.23 billion was imported into Britain.[vii] That is British people having to buy back our own fish form foreign competitors. This must change, and with Brexit it should, but will it…?


 

This subsidising of foreign fleets by British consumers could be reduced if UK fishermen had their exclusive rights restored to them. There must be the full repatriation of UK resources and a fit for purpose UK policy implemented to allow the rejuvenation of this multi-billion-pound industry.


 

However, it is proposed by the Prime Minister Theresa May to incorporate the entire body of EU law, known as the Acquis Communautaire, into UK law. This will be via the so-called Great Repeal Bill. Yet, all EU law will include the legislation that underpins the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).


 

The CFP is a reprehensible policy, both in terms of conservational and in operation. It would be expedient and advisable diplomatically and politically, that no facet of it is replicated, transposed or continued into UK law. Doing so would be to risk recognising in UK law the mechanisms of the EU’s policy – especially EU “equal access” and resources shares. That would be an abject betrayal of Brexit.


 

The CFP is constructed entirely of Regulations (direct EU law). Under the terms of Article 50, section 3, “the treaties shall cease to apply”, consequently so will the regulations and therefore the entire CFP and all mechanisms of it. The UK would revert to full control of our waters and all resources therein under international law (UNCLOS 3), with a clean slate to implement our own policy like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands successfully manage.


 

The proposed Great Repeal Bill, as it stands, however, would negate this by adopting the CFP onto the UK statute book. This may prevent us from rebuilding and rejuvenating the industry and our long suffering coastal communities. If Parliament passes a bill that adopts into UK law the Common Fisheries Policy, along with all its iniquities, then our Members of Parliament will be betraying the industry again, just as they did in 1972 when the European Communities Act was passed into law.


 

To make sure that our fisheries are protected, the adoption of EU law into British law must exclude the Common Fisheries Policy. It is an area where UK law, and a sustainable policy for the benefit of our home fleet, should be put into place as soon as we leave the European Union. There must be no transition, it must be instantaneous.


 

Future policy must scrap all EU mechanisms, move to a Days-at-Sea, keep what you catch system, that is applicable to mixed fisheries – the Faroe Islands set this precedent in 1996.


 

The UK’s fishing industry could be a triumph for Brexit and Britain. The fishing industry and the communities that depend upon it can be saved as long as the Government exempts fisheries from the Great Repeal Bill, and puts into place our own policy. Indeed, British fishing can thrive as a world leader alongside other independent nations who fish the North Sea; Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands.


 

The British fishing industry was betrayed and bartered as expendable by Edward Heath when he sought to join the EEC. Fishing has become a microcosm and epitomises both the disaster of EU interference and incompetency. Due to this, fishing will be symbolic of withdrawal and will be the acid test of whether Brexit mean Brexit, with the change that we need, or will it just be business as usual.


 

Fishing could be held up as a beacon of the Government’s resolve and whether they can make a success of Brexit. As a nation, we should be bold. Aside from the London Convention of 1964, which granted rights to those who had habitually fished between the 6 and 12-mile limit for the 10 years prior to 1964, there is no provision for historic rights under international law on fisheries for the fishing limits from 12 to the 200-mile limit. It is the 200-mile limit that was snatched by the EEC as the price for admission into what became the EU. All current ‘rights’ for other EU fleets, and anyone else the European Commission has sold access to fish in our waters, comes via EU law. We can take back control from those interlopers, unless we are foolish enough to put those same regulations into force ourselves.

 

We need a British fishing policy ready to replace the failed EU system.


 

With the assistance of Fishing for Leave, Save Britain’s Fish


[i] http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2012/final.pdf

[ii] The European Fishing Industry, Struan Stevenson MEP, President of the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament, page 9 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Total_catches_in_all_fishing_regions,_2000-2010_(1_000_tonnes_live_weight).png&filetimestamp=20121022153701

[iii] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.3.9.html

[iv] http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Total_catches_in_all_fishing_regions,_2000-2010_(1_000_tonnes_live_weight).png&filetimestamp=20121022153701

[v] UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 2007, Marine & Fisheries Agency, 2012, page 24

  http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/documents/ukseafish/2012/final.pdf

[vi] Batten, Gerard, How Much Does the European Union Cost Britain? 2008, the Bruges Group

[vii] http://www.seafish.org/media/486918/faqs%20web%20version%20010711.pdf

 

Recent Comments
Robert Oulds
This article argues that first, by accepting the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) regime, coastal States have given up any claims the... Read More
Monday, 12 December 2016 20:27
Continue reading
6120 Hits
6 Comments