So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish ...

[AtW]

Brexit: EU fishing row threatens to snag May’s customs union plan

Theresa May is facing fresh opposition from EU countries with large fishing communities to her demands for agreement before Brexit day on a temporary customs union to solve the Irish border problem.

A number of key member states are set to oppose a commitment to an all-UK customs deal on the basis that negotiations are yet to start on what access European fishermen will have to British waters after Brexit.

The EU has repeatedly said it will only allow British seafood exporters tariff- and quota-free access to the European market in return for agreement that its fishing fleets can continue to operate around the UK.

Brexit: EU fishing row threatens to snag May’s customs union plan | Politics | The Guardian

[GreenMirror]

I thought from the title you were leaving CUK?

[shaunbhoy]

I thought from the title you were leaving CUK?

We should be so lucky.

[Mordac]

We should be so lucky.

Oh I dunno, he's "mostly harmless"...

[DimPrawn]

Oh I dunno, he's "mostly gormless"...

FTFY

[Eirikur]

Unicorn and chips will be available from a chippy near you soon

[GreenMirror]

Oh I dunno, he's "mostly harmless"...

Most walls disagree after seeing his driving.

[Mordac]

Well done to all those who totally missed the H2GT reference...

[Paddy]

Britain's fishy role in the quota-hopping scandal | The Independent

(21 December 1996)

The middle-distance and inshore fleets, which are covered by the EU policy, increased in size for most of the Eighties and have started to decline rapidly only in the past few years (when fish stocks all over the world have been under severe pressure). If you exclude the quota-hoppers from the UK figures, the decline is steeper. But the economics of fish is local and variable. Some British ports and some types of vessel have done very well indeed. Huge sums are being paid by British fishermen at this moment, for new super-trawlers.

The demise of the huge trawler ports, such as Hull, Grimsby and Lowestoft, often blamed on Brussels, was caused by the Icelandic and Norwegian cod wars of the Sixties and Seventies. Those two nations extended their fisheries limits to 12, then 50, then 200 miles, ejecting our traditional, long- distance trawler fleets from once-rich hunting grounds for cod and haddock. This had nothing to do with the EU. Euro-sceptics who argue that Britain should join the Icelanders and declare our own 200-mile limit are arguing, in effect, for withdrawal from the EU. It would be politically impossible to squeeze the fish paste back into the tube in any other way.

There can be no doubt that the Common Fisheries Policy has miserably failed to deliver the flourishing fish stocks it promised. Why? Poor policing by national governments; overfishing by all fleets, Britain included; the setting of quotas too high, under political pressure. (This week's quota deal is another classic example of myopia: short-term good news for the industry, at the expense of longer-term pain as stocks decline further.)

But these are arguments for a tougher and more rational fisheries policy; not for British withdrawal. In any case, the quota-hopper problem results directly from British government double-think and double-talk, rather than EU rules.