Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/bda8d086-2dc6-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4
Of all the concessions that the UK government has made to the EU in Brexit negotiations thus far, the one exercising hardline Brexiters the most is about fish. They saw taking back control of UK territorial waters as an obvious quick victory in the longer battle to repatriate sovereign powers from the EU. They are therefore furious that the UK has accepted EU demands to keep British fishermen’s share of the total catch unchanged as part of the post-Brexit transition agreement.
As with other Brexit-related issues, the Brexiters have failed to articulate what taking back control might entail in an area where a degree of shared management is environmentally essential and practically speaking necessary. Fish, after all, do not respect international boundaries.
Nor is the UK’s negotiating hand on fisheries as strong as some would like to believe. True, EU vessels catch far more fish in UK waters than UK vessels’ catch in EU waters by a factor of four to one. British fishermen, however, export most of the fish they catch to Europe.
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/bda8d086-2dc6-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4
If Britain plays hard ball over EU access to UK waters, the bloc can easily retaliate by slapping tariffs on British exports. This would potentially be more damaging to UK fishermen and fish-processing industries than extending the current arrangement.
What is more, if the UK plays tough on fish, the EU can chose to penalise the UK in other areas such as the financial sector or aviation. How fisheries are managed post-Brexit was, in other words, always likely to be part of a broader trade arrangement the UK hopes to negotiate during the 21-month transition period.
Given that fishing contributes only a tiny proportion of the UK’s gross domestic product, it was always likely that the government would use it as leverage for the benefit of other more strategic sectors.
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/bda8d086-2dc6-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4
Not for the first time, fishing communities have been sold a dud in this case by the Brexiters promising them something that was not in their gift to deliver. Ever since the UK signed up to the Common Fisheries Policy in 1973, British fishermen have complained about being unfairly restricted by EU quotas.
Coastal communities have been in decline for much of the time since. The fading fortunes of fishermen are a compelling part of that story.
That does not mean that they would be better off in the event of the kind of tough Brexit stance that the likes of former Ukip leader Nigel Farage was championing this week at a farcical fish-slinging stunt in front of parliament. For one, technological change not the EU favouring industrial-scale trawlers has caused many job losses. It is within the UK government’s gift to redress the balance by allocating more of its quota to smaller boats in the fleet.
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/bda8d086-2dc6-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4
The CFP may have its faults. But its recent success in restoring cod stocks show the immense benefits of a collaborative approach between governments, the fishing industry and scientists. By 2006 North Sea cod was in danger of disappearing altogether. In a remarkable turnround, last month it was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council as sustainable. Tearing up existing treaties before new ones are in place risks undoing all that progress and encouraging a free for all.
Theoretically, withdrawing from the CFP will give the UK an opportunity to develop a framework that is tailored to its waters and that gives it an independent voice, along with Norway and the EU, in setting quotas for allowable catches. Like other trading arrangements, that requires negotiations. The transition allows some time for that.
The Financial Times Limited 2018