The Common Fisheries Policy & Brexit: Why is the European Union So Obsessed with Fish? - TLDR News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2024
- TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
With the UK leaving the EU fully at the end of the year there are some big changes ahead when it comes to EU waters. Before Brexit, most of Europe shared their waters through the EU's Common Fisheries Policy - but that's all set to change. In this video, we explain how the CFA works, the controversy around it and how Brexit's expected to change this equilibrium.
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR Store: www.tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-spring
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
////////////////////////////////////////
1 - www.instituteforgovernment.or...
2 - ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en
3 - www.instituteforgovernment.or...
4 - ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fi...
5 - ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/in...
6 - ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/ma...
7 - ec.europa.eu/commission/press...
8 - foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/28/...
9 - www.researchgate.net/publicat...
10 - www.instituteforgovernment.or...
11 - www.politicshome.com/news/art...
12 - assets.publishing.service.gov...
13 - foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/28/...
14 - core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71428...
15 - www.instituteforgovernment.or...
16 - neweconomics.org/2020/03/land...
17 - www.instituteforgovernment.or...
18 - researchbriefings.files.parlia...
19 - researchbriefings.files.parlia...
20 - assets.publishing.service.gov...
21 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...
22 - www.gov.uk/government/news/ne...
23 - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...
24 - www.theguardian.com/business/...
Actually the EU fishing-policy, has been a big part of the reason why both Norway and Iceland are worried about joining the EU.
Yeah. They want to keep their fish for them and hunt whales as well.
@@marcmarc8524 yea those 6 whales a year, Norway hunts 6 a year and no not the blue whales
@My Phone But the dutch economy is based on export. Less eu members would mean less export and less economic growth.
@@kwin9649 Why would the dutch not be able to export to a non eu country?
@@bathtap91 customs, import taxes, burocracy... There are several reasons that made exports in the EU easier and cheaper
They've destroyed the fish stocks in the Mediterranean and now want to ruin other stocks. Keep them out and let the fishing recover.
Overfishing and pollution which began long before the EU existed destroy the Mediterranean fish
Irish European Citizen You won't mind them fishing your waters then. Good luck with it.
@@annoyingbstard9407 they all ready do and I don't
Irish European Citizen Good boy. Brussels needs more people like y
Who's "they"?
You forgot to mention the EUs approval of extremely destructive fishing practices such as pulse trawling. Handing out exemptions to a supposed ban as a political favour in exchange for compliance elsewhere.
Allowing Danish vessels for instance to engage in highly destructive pulse trawling in UK waters despite the UK having its own ban on pulse trawling in UK waters
To say nothing of the underlying assumption that quotas is the only way to conserve the resource. An alternative policy is to have time limited fishing, which is (a) much, much simpler to enforce (b) better from a fish life cycle perspective.
1. The EU has banned pulse trawling.
2. Pulse trawling, while more damaging to fish stocks, is less destructive to sea beds than beam trawling.
Why you lie?
@@Pasteurpipette not a lie
There is an eu ban on pulse trawling but the eu awards exceptions to the ban to nations like Denmark
And it is less destructive according to its advocates who are in general scum
@@myririmyri6639 1. Show me one source proving this Danish exception. The only country to see large adoption numbers is the Netherlands, under an exception rule that will be phased out by July 2021.
Pulse fishing involves dragging a trawl net across the sea floor. In beam trawling, the conventional alternative, a metal beam or chain is dragged along the sea floor. I think the difference in sea floor disturbance between these two methods would seem obvious.
@@Pasteurpipette You said it was banned in the EU and later gave an example in the EU of it taking place that you knew about. Yet you accuse others of lying.
EU quotas result in dead fish being thrown overboard after being caught. The quotas are per species, but fishermen can only partly control what species they catch. Species with full quota get thrown back into the water, even though they've already been killed. This is a wasteful policy and has resulted in the depletion of fish stocks in UK waters. Greenpeace has argued against this policy for many years, as it is extremely damaging to the marine ecology and the quotas themselves are set so high that they promote the over-fishing of many fish species. Whether the EU like it or not, the UK will stop this practice of over-fishing and allow far more access to the UK fishing industry, which has been depeleted. The Uk fishing industry has shrunk by 51% and this has devasted many coastal communities, especially those in Scotland and Northern England.
Just imagine, if the UK could have it's waters, then old deprived coastal towns could be redeveloped and reduce poverty.
do you really think that leaving the EU will make such a difference for those coastal towns? I'm Cornish so I really hope you are right... but I can't see the effect you want any time soon. On the contrary, I see a lot of EU money that used to flow to Cornwall drying up with no clear plans to replace it at a national level.
@@RyakkiBaka ''Europeans eat british fish and there will be no profit in selling it to them if we dont have a trade deal'' - yes they eat British fish, but they are caught by French and dutch vessels so in what way do we in the UK benefit from that?
@@lostintashkent Are you a member of the CNP?
@@markrichards636 No, I'm an economist by qualification and profession. I consider myself Cornish, British and European. Unicorns are something best left in folk tales.
@@lostintashkent" EU money flow to Cornwall" WTF
If you give me £100 and I give you back £30 of your own money for improvenents, I havent given you anything, i've stole £70 of your money..
makes you really wonder: how much is the fish? *Scooter intensifies*
this was good, real good
one pound, one fish
come on ladies, come on ladies
one pound, one fish
3,80 Mark.
wow, such a throwback that my hair bleached itself and I've heard music on MTV
As much as the painted cow
Funny how much TLDR News Fishing brings up the EU.
EU bias....add in no clue...no info on history...Woke...and what do u expect
@@roymichaeldeanable Do you have a coherent thought that was betrayed by your unfamiliarity with the English language ?
It's a problem that would be addressed by going into the NEAFC (where the EU's own quota are negotiated, together with those of Iceland, Norway, Russia etc).
Considering its a economic union
Kind of a duh question.
Also I believe brexit has occurred. So they shouldn't have access to the waters around the island for fishing.
@@thewingedhussar4188 That is where UNCLOS and the NEAFC come in. Not only can the UK not exclude fishing vessels from the EU, it can not determine their quota (or its own) independently.
The suptrawlers should be banned
Ask the UK government to not allow them, maybe they could buy back the licenses they willingly sold to their rich party donors.
and why?
It's like banning double-decker buses - because they carry too many people at once and do not create as many bus driver job vacancies...
@@mikez2779 bit of a shit example if you dont mind me saying
Maybe robots also........???
All EU fishing vessels should be banned.
If memory serves, it was the UK that brought up fish first when Nigel cussed at a EU trawler during the referendum campaign.
When did he cuss? His opponents cuss at him a lot, the worst thing I've heard him say about someone was comparing them to a 'wet rag'
@@o00nemesis00o When he asked to be part of the EP's fisheries commission, and then didn't sit in it. Or maybe, when he complained in the British press about decision taken by the same commission, having not taken part in the talks. Or maybe that would be when he advocated contradictory policies like protect UK fishing communities, but simultaneously denounce overfishing... The heart of the tragedy of the commons, is that people want the benefits for themselves but reject the responsibility on others. Farage is an excellent example of that.
it won't be an issue when the fish are gone...
it would still be a national security, sovereignty and immigration issue
What would that EEZ map like:
a) If Scotland went independent?
b) If Scotland joined the EU?
EdgyNumber1 all i know is, if scotland went independent, the shetlands and Orkney would want independence from scotland, taking their oil and fishing grounds with them.
@@Kratos-005 I doubt they would manage to get independent. A country heavily dependent on fossil fuel as a resource also seems to be a bad idea. That's not a long term strategy for a first world nation.
@@MrUnicorn15
Yeah, the USA might have to bring them some freedom lol.
Maybe they'd get lucky and become the 51st state! It would be like reverse colonizing!
@@MrUnicorn15 - The Hebrides and Islands have always been a little different from mainland Scotland. I mean in the outer hebrides we speak a different language lol. This is actually something that creeps up in conversation quite regularly with people, as quite a few favour returning to a time when the isles were not part of the kingdom of alba.
Anyway, an independent Scotland will always have one huge barrier for getting into the EU... That being Spain. They won't look favourably on Scotland because Scotland has repeatedly voiced support for Catalonia.
@@jamescopeland6428 James... that arguement is completely flawed. Spain allowing Scotland to join the EU does not force Spain to (potentially) allow an independent Catalonia to join the EU. Member states can veto new members for whatever reason they want. This is in no small part to protect the territorial integrity of member states. However, that protection does not extend to non-member states, like the UK has now become. That's why Greece will forever block Turkey from joining (over its activities in Cyprus). It's not about precedent nor about people voicing support for Catalonia. The reality is that Spain has no reason to block Scotland from joining the EU. In fact, it is entirely in their interests to allow it.
If Boris sells out on this ...he will be out of office quicker than he thinks.
Don’t worry yourself, mate. Boris will be gone, for a raft of reasons, fisheries being the least of them.
If he sell's us out he will be known to history as "Boris Chamberlain Quisling Johnson" and his political party will never be in power again.
Yall dont seem to realize that without some willingness to compromise youre crashing out with no deal
@@aucontraire4717 that's what the uk people wanted, no deals chaining them to the Eu just freedom to trade with who they please, and the right to decide what happens within their own waters. Just think of it as a uk version of the American revolution.
He will sell out on it
4:13 - Corsica is French, not Italian.
prolly just an error, but good point.
Corsica is non-entity.
Did you never notice that green part on the bottom right corner of the french flag :O??
@@willc1294 without the French subsidies this little island would immediately go down the drain!
@@emilobe it's basically the French Sicily 😉
Omitted from this and critically important is that a majority of British fishermen sold their quotas off to foreign fishermen to make some quick money decades ago. That's why this imbalance exists, and it's entirely the UK's own doing. Now, I'm not a fan of the CFP for many of the reasons outlined in the video, but omitting that key fact is a big deal as it greatly changes the complexion of the argument: the quotas are property, and part of what the EU are doing is prevent the UK from effectively seizing people's property. At a minimum, the UK needs to buy back those quotas at market prices.
so someone sold our sea to some foriegners and now they can commit environmental genocide.
the government should make it illegal to sell UK territory to other countries.
The country is not for sell. time to protest and riot.
@@kaiyu7687
Guess twice Which nation wanted the quotas to be sellable commodity
That’s true they did sell off their rights to fish WHILE in the EU!
No longer in the Eu so it’s no longer an issue
@@MrAckers75
Theres an small issue, namely that no one forced your companies to sell those things.
And if you think you leaving EU invalidates those licenses then youd be opening a whole pandoras box worth of problems, namely guestions of businesses being able to rely on UK law as it so willingly nullifies legally binding permissions
@@MrAckers75 The Brexiteer government has already said they're not going to try to get back fishing rights, but instead want to introduce rules like 50% of the crew being British, or 50% of the fish being landed at British ports to ensure there's an economic connection to the UK. It may be that although the UK has more control, little changes in reality.
Two points:
1. While fishing only take a small fraction of our economy, how much does it contribute to our daily food consumption. Not exactly the same thing. Also can the increase of food price be calculated if we ran out of fish?
2. If we have a no-deal Brexit, to what default will the fishing map set back to? Is there even one to begin with?
There is definitely a map for what waters each country controls
1. From what I heard from British friends, along with a bit of theorizing considering the GDP, not a whole lot. And you will not run out of fish as imports still exist and fishing will continue.
2. It will fall back on UN laws most likely, though the British fishers actually sold their quotas off a few years ago, creating the current imbalance.
@@thyrussendria8198 Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was talking of the food supply provided by fishing on the European level, not the UK level. And I am interested on how impacted the rest of the EU fishing would be if they would no longer be allowed to fish in the UK water, according to UN rules.
@@leGUIGUI Most likely... It wouldn't be a big impact as the largest fishing grounds are in Scandinavian waters
Well I do not know about these days but during my working life I did a spell as a specialist in the Decca Navigator. The electronic navigation system that was the top navigator from D-Day until the satellite GPS came into being.
Every fishing boat had it's Decca Navigator and the skippers had their, (paper), notebooks full of their personal best fishing places. Set up properly a Decca Navigator could navigate to a few metres of a location. So there may not have been actual official fishing maps but every skipper of a fishing boat had their best fishing places recorded to less than 10 metres.
The Canadian Turbot war was all about EU fishing vessels exceeding quotas.
I like how this channel takes memes and explains them really clearly 🙂 As always... it always comes down to the fish...
It remminds of how on sci-show there alwas was some commentee asking on why he had hair in his butt, and they eventually did a video about it
This is what I learn at school, cfp seems to be half of my classes at times
That means your school is worse than shit. And you can learn more from watching UA-cam while taking a shit then from School.
At this point i think Boris is using this as a way to legitimise a no deal end to the transition period .
Maybe you should also look at the fishing supply chain, also the amount of fish consumed by member states this may shed more light on this issue.
Portugal on top
Quite right... also you should look at the species distribution within territorial waters and how this is changing with climate change. Is it possible the uk might take exclusive control only to find they are devoid of the varieties the consumer wants.
@@CTCTraining1 They already are.
I think a lot of focus has been on how fishing is a tiny part of GDP for the UK and the EU and that it is non-sense to make such big issue over it.
Initially I was on the fence about this particular issue, but now that is been raised so many times and for so many year even pre-Brexit, I've been noticing information from all camps and... I think there is a very valid point on why it *is* such a big topic.
Now... I don't think its a big topic for the reasons stated...but in reality fishing is a good example of how some sovereign nations can have their resources tapped by other sovereign nations with impunity. Something you could never do in that same way if the resource were land-based.
And I think THAT is a real reason to make a big fuss...
Didn't the Uk auction off some of the quota they got ? All this talk over other nations fishing in your water when you sell them that right is kind of insane.
As i understand, UK sold off about 29% of their fishing quotas with half of that being England's quotas
The little fishermen sold their quotas when fish stocks were down, plus youngster don't want to be fisherman. These little fishermen sold to UKs big fisher companies.
Later on these UK companies sold their quoters to EU fisher companies...
So if the little fishermen didn't sell their original quotas then.... Well ok... they'll still moan about foreigners.
From 1st Jan 2021 all quotas are history...fresh start
@@roymichaeldeanable Sorry, not quite. It just puts the issue under an international maritime body rather than being an EU managed process.
@@roymichaeldeanable blue passport... Unicorns.... Bring back control so they can break the laws....
Yay... Fish... More fish.. that's only 0.1% of GDP. Fish that we don't eat, that need to be sold fresh - to the EU...
Been hearing EU is not THAT obsessed with fish and it's some kind of ploy.
Not fish. It's sovereignty. If any ships, especially war ships will need British permission to move through their EEZ. Totally political as the money for fishing brought in is negligible compared to the British GDP.
@@gregorydoran2777 "...If any ships, especially war ships will need British permission to move through their EEZ...."
That is not how EEZs works; russian warships are passing through all kinds of EEZs all the time and they are allowed to do so under international law. EEZs are international waters, unlike the 12 miles zones...
@@gregorydoran2777 How's the fish industry doing in Britain? How is Brexit working for the fisherman? How popular is it now?
@@robertn2951 They got what they wanted... they can now catch more fish... unfortunately nobody ever talked about selling said fish. The shellfish industry in the UK is pretty much dead now. Welcome to the brexit sir.
The total retail value of fish caught in British waters is about the same size as the French Champagne industry. But two thirds of this value is realised outside of the British economy. (I am British btw)
Whoa! There! Which British economy do you speak about?
The non UK-Republic of Ireland, The non UK-Bailiwick of Jersey, The Non-UK Bailiwick of Guernsey, The Non-UK Isle of Man(n), or the Westminster bipartite United Kingdom economy? By the way the people of all those states I mention are all also British.
@@TheAuldBob Hi there! i'm wondering how to put the sound of a horse rearing into letters. Add up the total value of fishing from within British waters and include the processing (just as for Champagne - you wouldn't only measure the value of the grapes picked), this comes to an amount almost (about 90%) of the size of the Champagne Industry. However - whereas the Champagne Industry goes 100% to the French Economy and of this about 70% is exported - only one third of the fishing industry from British waters goes to the UK economy, and two thirds of the catching and processing of fish from British waters goes to the economies of other countries.
@@TheAuldBob sorry bob and it's not out of hate or anger or anything like that, but you just couldn't help yourself, could you. Ireland is not part of Britain never has been, not since the last ice age anyway, when britain was connected to Europe, British people are not Irish and Irish people are not British but we are all Europeans. If it was said by you, out of just shit stiring, well your just a piece of shit and if not, then please bobby get it right and try and educate yourself before you write something so factually untrue.
Never thought about fish before but now I'm obsessed. Get our waters back!
Problem is these quota's get broken all the time because of the lack of enforcement. Where foreign fishing vessels could cheekily over fish in another EU Country's local waters without giving one iota. Well of course they'd wouldn't be happy with this current development.
The line on the map looks suspiciously nearer the UK coast than the French around Cornwall.
They've drawn the map inaccurately
sensible driver
Well, they've got longer fishing rods.
Isn’t it a mater of principle that as a sovereign country we control our own waters and fish contained there in and do not have to give access to the EU?
That principle will be nothing more than a bargaining chip on the table in the framework of an overall trade deal. We (the UK ) can enforce the principle if we so choose, but then we have to accept it when the EU starts protecting it's financial sector etc "on principle".
lostintashkent the price on sovereignty has gone up, some people don't understand the idea of its undervaluation.
it's more then fish.
if you give free access to your fishing waters as an independent nation you may as well give up your sovereignty especially as an island nation.
Iceland didn't fight the cod wars just for the fish. We the British just about still have a standing navy which is more then you say for the whole EU.
our waters are our own & the EU should jog on or grow a pair.
Even if you look at that territory map you showed it looks a lot different from post ww2 Britain home territory.
why we Brits keep giving concession to the mainland I will never understand. wasted goodwill as it's not long ago they where trying to capitulate us at one point or another.
know they have just joined up in an attempt of conquest though diplomacy & pen; not war & sword for a change.
motives rarely change. Just different method & dates.
@Boing Boing territory is sovereignty!
Banks & data are economic's
data/information is whats called a soft commodity.
In the 21st century? it may be a different date on the calendar but people & leader's are much the same; just technology from the few has given convenience & luxury for the masses.
You're kidding right ?
You want to compare the whole of the EU navies against the UK's ??? That isn't a competition.
It couldn't even defend it own crews and let the Iranians nab them in international waters.
@@ldno3747 only two EU navies with destroyers are France & Italy & not a single aircraft carrier & the only one with WMD's is France though they are near antiques.
Britain is the for front of biological warfare, ship & aircraft design. Who do think designed 5th generation Jets for the yanks. that's a large chunk of our economy.
Besides London the global centre of soft trade: All we do is design weapon systems.
The Eu would likely fall to just Russia solo if not for the UN & Nato.
Who do you think the US & common wealth will join if another European war broke out?
this video is too vague without going into any details
TL,DR
Its a broad overview man, im here for 10 minutes not hours
@@AnotherConscript Im here to understand world better, small pice by piece. Not to get even more confused after 10min video.
I want to see big picture, then focus on one small sub-topic and have it explained. Not just sit here idle for entertainment of listening to random words.
@@Yaroldd There is quite a lot of information. You unfortunately are not receptive.
Also, TL;DR MEANS TOO LONG DIDN'T READ. AKA YOUR COMPLAINING THAT A SUMMARY IS A SUMMARY
@@Yaroldd I guess you want a documentary on the daily
Fish and inflated contributions to the EU budget were the price the UK had to pay for the French to allow entry. Ted Heath expected British Leyland would export more cars to Europe to make up for the fish
Ted Heath trying to be a bigger joke than Leyland itself.
The eu. have repeatedly ignored their own rules set to ensure sustainable fishing and appropriate quotas ! This has not happened! The factory ships from Denmark, Holland and Spain all take everything from the bottom of the ocean ! This is not sustainable fishing . The CFP. have just agreed to ignore the levels set for 2021 and continue to destroy the fish stocks !
THIS HAS TO STOP !
It would seem the only way to do that is for the U.K. to control its waters as the eu . couldn’t or wouldn’t .
The eu fishing fleets have already destroyed their own waters .( France states it spends 60/70% of its time in U.K. waters).
The U.K. must leave the stupidity of the eu. To control its own fishing grounds ,and by doing so may even help the eu. fisheries to recover
Actually really important to know, thanks guys!
What I missed is the fact that the CFP existed before the EEC had even become the EU and that the UK was also part of the agreements BEFORE they had even joined the EEC.
The CFP is for now a necessity and a joined interest.
The CFP was never based on sound economic and environmental management principles.
@@physiocrat7143 Can't say I studied the science the CFP was based on in details. But what I've read and seen is that the CFP is based on expert recommendations to preserve the stocks. However when quotas and such were determined polictics raised it's ugly head and often more quotas were assigned than recommended.
Not pretty maybe, but IMO still better than nothing and every man for himself.
@@passais It's not about going to nothing. We want to take our waters and regulate/control them ourselves.
Why is there is crappy argument that without the CFP, the UK is going to fish to extinction?
@@InsanitiesBrother Because that has been proven in the past. Even with the CFP in place the fishing stocks have been in a very bad place. As soon as there are no agreements and common interest anymore you will see that no one is willing to compromise when things go south. Fishermen (foreign and British) will feel the pressure to capture fish before it migrates and thus is still too small.
I know there is a section of the brexiteers that just love the conflict model and would not mind to see the royal navy charging toward any foreign vessel. But in the end this is not sustainable and might lead to real escalation.
Cod wars ring a bell?
@@passais First the science has to be got right, which establishes limits of the resource, and then the economics has to be got right. I have done a couple of videos on the latter aspect.
Constructive criticism:
6:53 the information about how much fish was overfished should've been given as a percentage. I have no clue if 79,800 tonnes is very much or very little
Love your channels
Sounds like a lot of fish to me
Percentages are meaningless figures unless you know the initial numbers they refer to. 79,800 tones of fish could make over 80,000,000 fish based dinners .
Well I move to Ireland in 2001 and I love to fish. I could go down to the beach and catch 2 or 3 nice sized cod say 5 or 6 pound fish. I would be lucky if I could catch one that size in the year now. These quotas have killed fishing in Ireland.
@@watkinsrory Yeah the CFP is imperfect, but without the CFP there wouldn't have been anything left to catch in 2001, it was predicted in the 70s that without change all European waters would become dead zones by the mid 1990s hence why the CFP was made in the first place.
This landlubber would love to know how it has come about that Russian super-trawlers and fish-factories are operating in UK waters
EU making deals without our knowledge
brian rodney
With a noble seafaring name like Rodney, you must a very frustrated landlubber.
Fishing is of interest to the UK as it featured heavily in the Brexit debate. It is not just an EU concern. It is on the table for resolution because both sides cannot agree on the way forward.
If you're interested in Europe's plans for a post-coronavirus world I've done an analysis that looks into the future prospects of the EU after the pandemic on my channel.
It was a good campaigning message .. In truth the Tories don't give a fudge about fishing .. many in Britain don't even eat the stuff
@@95winston That is the fun part: Most fish catched by british vesals is sold in the EU.
So for british fishermen, leaving the single market removes demand and increases supply.
@@sarowie The schools [ hospitals and prisons will be having fish lunches everyday
Which of course the Scottish Government Ministers are excluded, as usual, by Westminster and are not even allowed in the room when fishing matters are being haggled over by the so called United Kingdom which looks less united by every general Election.
In the December 2019 General Election the SNP took 81% of available Westminster Scottish Seats replacing 7 of the 13 unionist Tory in Scotland seats with SNP MPs. Leaving Labour in Scotland just one unionist Labour MP and for good measure they replaced the unionist UK LibDem leader as an MP with an SNP MP. Subsequent accredited opinion polls all show an increasing trend for Westminster, Holyrood and even Scottish local council SNP voting intentions and the current Westminster debate which Westminster with 533 English MPs and only 59 Scottish MPs, (some few of which are Unionist MPs), will undoubtedly win the vote but lose the argument in Scotland effectively increasing support for Scottish Independence.
Added to which is the illegal actions being proposed at Westminster which will result in a hard border in Ireland and probably force Irish reunification. The so called United Kingdom is as good as ended already - it just hasn't realised it yet.
Thank for making a dedicated fishing video, guys. The topic might not be big money, but it is big in politics. However, I regret saying this isn't one of your best videos. You explain what the CFP is, and what the Tragedy of the Commons is, but then you just repeated Brexiteer and NGO propaganda as fact, and didn't go any deeper. You also apparently didn't bother finding out what fishermen think, either in the UK or in the EU, which is a glaring flaw. Even the title is extremely slanted, accusing the EU of being obsessed with fish, omitting that the Brexit campaign is the one who made a huge fuss about it, and crucially made promises it now can't keep. If all I had seen about this subject was your video I wouldn't know that Brexiteers and NGOs attack the CFP for diametrically opposing reasons - Brexiteers want more catches and boats, NGOs want less catches and boats. I wouldn't know the CFP, TAC and Quota systems predate current maritime borders. I wouldn't know cross border fish trade is a bigger business than catching fish. I wouldn't know the main English fishing associations were Remainers and the Scottish ones were Leavers. I wouldn't know Brexiteers promised british fishermen that they'd catch multiple times more fish than they do now. I wouldn't know why fleets catch fish in some parts of the ocean and not in others, even when the fish travel across borders. I wouldn't know the scary sounding 79,300 tons are meaningless in the more 6.000.000 tons the EU catches every year. I wouldn't know "scientific advice" is just that - advice - and obviously doesn't factor in social and economical considerations (because it can't) and politicians' job is to balance out economic, social and environmental sustainability. And most importantly I wouldn't know what are the actual specific fisheries issues currently affecting the Brexit deal (or lack thereof). Finally, there are some factual mistakes of note: you talk about "landing" in waters, which doesn't make sense. Fleets do "catches" in waters, and "landings" in ports. A spanish boat can catch fish in british waters and land it in irish ports, for ex. Also, not all country quotas are split by individual boats. Some countries (ex: Portugal) have almost no individual boat quotas at all.
This comment is underrated and I appreciate the fact that you spent time writing it. I also agree with most of your points so that's a plus.
Also the points brought up above: the main bone of contention being French/British competition in the channel, with the French working still fishing to quotas and the British (probably?) not; along with the fact that British fisheries sold off their quotas to Europeans for quick cash, making this potentially a "grab back without paying" move for them. You know a lot: would you agree with these?
@@blixten2928 Good questions. I wouldn't say the channel fisheries are the main bone of contention, because there are a lot more boats from more countries involved around the North Sea, but it is certainly one of the flash points, and the geographic proximity between the two fleets makes things more tense. And I don't see how the french would ever accept to be limited by quotas while the english are not. It would be political suicide to try to impose those unilateral restrictions on european fishermen, and lets be real: fishermen would never accept to follow such an unbalanced rule, even if it was somehow approved by politicians.
Regarding the "sold off their quotas" argument, the thing to note is that this expression is a convenient but inaccurate simplification. AFAIK you can't actually permanently sell british quotas to another country. What you can do is sell a british boat with X tons of quota to a foreign owner, and that happened a lot. So you have, for example, legaly british boats, with the UK flag, being operated by Spanish owners and crews and landing their catches in Spain. You can understand why this is called "selling off the quota to foreigners" but technically the quotas are still british. Now, notice that Brexit doesn't solve this problem at all, unless the British government is going to start nationalizing boats on the basis of owner nationality, which would be a *terrible* precedent in terms of dealing with foreign investments in the UK. On the other hand, if the UK government unilaterally declares it will let British flagged boats catch a lot more, some of the main beneficiaries will be those foreign owners of british boats.
So the scenario of the UK unilaterally abandoning quotas is filled with dangers. And I'm not even getting into the environmental concerns, and into the fact that some of the strongest "fish less" NGOs are British and would massively lobby against it.
@@th3freakie Thank you so much for your long and very informative answer! The "how to sell a quota"-thing is fascinating. I'll have to learn more about all this stuff, it's like learning to watch people play chess. Keep on commenting please!
This is a squabble among rent seekers.
Ahhhhh finally new content from my favorite fishing chanel!
Name any sovereign nation that trades with the EU that allows unristricted access to its waters, has to follow a level playing field? And follow EU court of justice laws and rulings? None, yet the EU think it could pressure and bully the UK.. Loool. Shows how out of touch they are. The EU fishing industry has devastated fishing stocks, and now won't have access to the UK waters.
Norway.
Ew eurosceptic
Interesting, my idea was always that it was the UK that wouldn't shut up about fish
A question of perspectives, I guess
Both sides won't stop about it. For the UK it's mostly about economics, for EU it's about enviromental - preserving the fish.
@@Berek71182 XD right...
thank you for your comment, I cannot stand this populist UK stuff about fishing either. UK is the one talking all the time about it, because it is nearly the only leverage in their negotiations with the EU they have. They are behaving like criminals breaking international law, making a huge theater since 2016 binding the diplomatic ressources of dozens of European countries of negotiating their Brexit, but pointing the finger to the "bad" EU. Hope this is finally finished in 2021 preferably with their hard brexit they always threaten with. They dont deserve entrance to European market, throw them out. And let the UK politicians explain why their economy collapses, plus they cant blame the "EU" for their own incompetence like it has become tradition in UK politics since the 70s. "Oh we would do our policies different, but the bad bad EU doesnt let us!" Well go along as single country and recreate your commonwealth, good luck.
@@tyrilex9448 it'll always be the EUs fault to them. With the backtracking on the Withdrawal agreement, it's the EU that government says is to blame. Not the fact that the bill was ushered through as great for the UK and only now does BoJo and his cabinet appear to have actually read it. They will never take the blame and insist that the EU should role over and accept what our middling, formerly 'great' nation says. They're stuck with a 19th century version of what the UK is and still think it's relevant when negotiating with a bloc of 27 countries
@@Berek71182 No. It was said the EU would properly manage quotas to preserve sustainable stocks. But the EU has not. The EU has let member states vastly overfish without controls, arguably to glean support from EU fishermen. For both sideshaving control is matter of pride. Fishing contributes a very small percentage of the GDP for both the UK and EU.
You missed the point in this video. There are internationally recognised fishing rights that are afforded to all maritime nations. Known as Exclusive Economic Zones. Broadly speaking an independant country may claim an EEZ of say 200 miles from the coastline as a historically traditional fishing area. This works fine if all countries are islands, and none are within 400 miles of each other. But when you have adjoining countries, or fishing zones that overlap, there is an obvious problem. In this context, the whole English channel is within both France, and the UK's international exclusive fishing areas. So you arrive at a situation of a shared fishing zone. Normally countries that operate fisheries in shared zones have agreements that do not give one country an advantage over another. Usually in the form of quotas on the amount of fish each country can harvest from the shared area. The EU have a EU wide agreement that is decided in the European Parliament. Basically that any European country can fish in any European waters within the restrictions of quotas. But if the European Parliament are making these decisions, where does that leave the UK, which has no representation in the European Parliament ? So, taking the English Channel as an example, French fisherman have equal rights to the waters as the UK, but are restricted on their catch by decisions made in the European Parliament. The UK on the other hand, can fish the same waters, but are not restricted by the same rules, or, if the UK government so wished, could have a complete free for all, on any amount of catch. The EU are insisting that in the case of shared waters, then UK fisherman must operate according to the same laws as European fisherman for fairness. The UK are responding that they will not be subject to fishing laws dictated by a body in which they are not represented. This is the stalemate that is causing disproportionate problems. This is particularly relevant to French, Irish, Belgian, Spanish, and Dutch fishing fleets. They could literally be fishing to a strict quota, alongside a British vessel which is fishing with no quota.
Mark Edwards NOW it all makes sense, this was an excellent and much-needed clarification. OK, now I got it. THANKS.
I don't think that is correct. The Exclusive Economic Zones cannot overlap. They are "exclusive" after all. In case the 200 miles boundaries of two countries overlap, like the English Channel, each country will get half the area as their exclusive zone, and they still cannot cross that boundary for economic purpose, like fishing, without negotiation with the other side. So if the EU and UK don't have a deal over fishing, UK fishermen will only be fishing on their half of the Channel, and French on the other half. They do not share the same water.
This is covered propernly by the International Law of the Seas. So how does the United Kingdom(de facto parliament of the country of England manage to take every single penny of the oil & gas equivalence revenue and not a single penny of it has ever come Scotland's way?
Well they do it like this:-
From day one, (way back in 1969), when the first drip of oil and whiff of gas equivalence was comming ashore the United Kingdom, de facto Parliament of the country of England classed all oil & gas equivalence revenue as being extracted from, "UNITED KINGDOM , extra regio territory".
so, being a person who never lets an unclear word or phrase pass without finding what it actually means, I looked it up. Not then in the Oxford Dictionary but tracked it down in , "The Office of National Statistics" (and I paraphrase here), it means, "Not identifiable as being from any particular UNITED KINGDOM REGION". Now back then in 1996/7 few people knew anything about this new fangled oil & gas undersea business and now with my curiosity aroused I investigated further and here was what I found out.
"The International Law of the Seas", had absolutely ne problems whatsoever in identifying 98% of that oil & gas beaned revenue as being extracted from what the International Law of the Seas identifies as bein under, "Scottish Legal Jurisdiction", (a.k.a. Scottish territorial waters).
To this day not one penny of that 98% recovered from Scottish waters revenue has ever come to Scotland. Nor has it ever been recorded as part of the Scottish per capita GDP, (Gross Domestic Product).
Which has always generated a very wry smile when the price of oil & gas equivalence has fallen and some idiot Englander or even some ignorant Scottish unionist, (or 100 or so of them), pop up immediately on social media or MSM claiming gleefully that the Scottish Economy is taking a great big hit and we should all be grateful of those great big broad shoulders of the English taxpayers who so kindly subsidise our extremely poor Scottish economy, (that the Holyrood parliament only controls next to nothing of because they only control the non- reserved Westminster Ministry functions West minster so, (cough!) generously allows them to control.
Westminster, not Holyrood, controls the Scottish economy and Scotland, like Wales and N.I. only have a few, (devolved from Westminster ministry), functions which they must provide an annual balance sheet for to prove they have not overspent - - - WHICH MEANS SCOTLAND, WALES AND N.I. cannot possibly run a deficit as they balance their books for the few functions devolved to them by Westminster Ministries. If deficit there is then only Westminster ran it up.
These idiots have no concept of the things they so arrogantly pontificate upon and they are mystified as to why the devolved administrations are all now tending to end the union when Westminster simultaneously attempts to tell us they subsidise us yet when we say, "sorry England to be such a burden upon you so we will leave you and take the burden from your ever so broad shoulders they immediately go into panic mode screaming painfully, "Oh No you won't for we forbid you to go off and leave us.
As we say here it Scotland:-
AYE!
RICHT!
@@TheAuldBob pal not a single penny goes to Scotland? You know how fucking much Scotland has in debt to the English? I mean the figures were released recently. Very odd that you claim not a single penny. And I can speak confidently when saying the border constitutuents of Scotland identify more with England politically at this point. Now isn't that some nice tension when the rest scuk off the SNP and their speech restrictions.
@@Secret_Moon yep you are right, the clue is in the word exclusive. Where EEZs would overlap a median line is used to delineate the sovereignty of waters. You can Google it.
it was interesting to learn about the CFP, top-down approaches and stuff. but i expected information about the two different aims that are pursued on the negotiation table.
From January 1st 2021 the UK should only allow British fishermen to fish our waters. This will allow our fish stocks to recover from the disaster that has been 45 years of the CFP.
Just a thing I noticed, Corsica I'm owned by Italy in the map visual, lovely video other than that though
For me, taking back control of the UK's waters may not have a great economic impact, but is a very important, if not the most important, symbol of final freedom from EU controls.
"Freedom from EU control" you're talking about it like it was some foreign invasion. You were the one begging for 20 years to be part of the union :)
@@alioshax7797 I think that being in the EU was like some foreign invasion and there certainly didn't seem to be any advantage to Britain being in the EU. Far from it but I'm sure you'll disagree
@@ruthbashford3176 Any advantages for Britain...well, considering that Britain never payed its fair share and benefited from the common market and the subventions, it didn't bring any advantage to the EU neither.
Remeber, Italy paid more than UK to Europe, even with half of its GDP, because Tatcher complained in the 80's that UK "was paying too much".
Well, you'll see in the next decade if the EU was really useless for the UK. All I can say is, we don't really hear Farage, theses times.
@@alioshax7797 it was an invasion of our waters ,we were sucker punched in the 70s TAKE BACK CONTROL IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.
@@alioshax7797 LOL spot he eu luvvie
No mention of trading of quotas which I think is a shame ( unless I zoned out). It does add another complication
Indeed the sale of quota licences will play a big part in the negotiation failure.
There is no trading of quotas, for the simple reason that from 1st Jan 2021 everything starts with a clean sheet. Did you not know..??
Ah, I see you correctly included Corsica as part of Italy ;)
Lol
Don’t tell that to CORSICANS, they don’t really like the “FRENCH” except for retirement pensions system, but they hate the ITALIANS.
Fishing policy or how Californians call it "the sea is f******* living"
A new innovative bottom up approach in combination with more environmentally friendly quotas would be great
And what exactly would a "bottom-up approach" look like?
Can you expand? I don't disagree, but I would like to know if there is a practical solution and how would it work?
I think we can all rightly criticize when something is wrong, but we need to put it into context with some idea of real alternatives.
@@stephenconway2468
According to the Bangkok Post witch summarised Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom There are seven principles for successful common resource management:
1. Rules, set up by the community, clearly define who has what rights over the common goods.
2. There must be a clear protocol for solving conflicts.
3. Responsibilities assigned to each member of the community must be in reasonable proportion to benefits they receive.
4. Monitoring and punishment are carried out by the members themselves, not outside authorities.
5. The penalty for a first violation is mild, but the severity gradually increases for subsequent violations.
6. The decision-making processes are democratic.
7. The rights of users to self-organise are clearly recognised by outside authorities and the government.
The thing is I am personally not sure if the EU is to big for a decentralized community approach, especially when there would be a power difference between small fishermen and large multinationals in such a community.
This and other reasons lead me to believe the current system may be faulty but right now it seems to be no alternative
@@keksentdecker and how does it include scientific data and fish stocks?
@@keksentdecker
Yeah in this case "communities" would be the fishing companies.
Which might lead to some conflict of interest in protecting fish stocks and setting up quotas as their profits are directly tied to catching more and more
If the fishing industry is so small, why does the EU so badly want to keep UK waters? It’s obviously a big thing. The fishing industry would be bigger for the UK if it rightfully got back full access to its waters again.
0:47 end of commercial - start of "news"
Sorry, but it makes little sense to discuss the CFP without discussing how it fits within the NEAFC, the UN's body to manage shared fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic.
It's probably worth it to do a separate video explaining why most of the supertrawlers that fish in the UK EEZ are Russian. Another video could "dive" into the species of fish that are *actually* in the EEZ, i.e. little cod and a lot of herring, mackerel, plaice and horse mackerel, and what that means for the need to trade.
I was going to say much the same, that it is the Russian supertrawlers and floating fish factories that are depleting the fish in UK waters. Johnson, a couple of weeks ago, had the word 'Sustainability' taken out of all UK fishing laws. I don't know what his game is but I can't believe his fiancé is very happy as she is an activist and works for Oceana .
@@cuevasbazavista3550
Contrary to his empty threats directed at the EU, his threats to kick her to the curb are quite believable. She's his 5th or 6th baby mama....
This is genuinely something I would like to see!
Vote this guy up!
there are no Russian super trawlers in UK waters fishing illegally. The fleet is operating legally, according to the Scottish government. The area, to the west of the Shetland Islands, is within waters shared by the UK and the Faroe Islands. It is managed jointly, but governed by the Faroese government under a special treaty. Its designation as a SAC by the European Union does not prevent commercial fishing in the area.
@@timboleicester1 That is correct, and I didn't say they were acting illegally.
My hope is that this should make clear to people that other countries fishing in the British EEZ has nothing to do with the CFP or the EU in general.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
*_Now I see, no wonder my Birds Eye Fish fingers have only 52% cod and it's getting less!_*
Looks like you forgot the Channel Islands in your fishing map. 🤔
A nest of finance pirates.
Having our Sovereign waters back is as much to do with defence and security as it is to do about fish, but you fail to mention this consideration.
How, the UK has always been free to patrol and police its water, nothing has ever stopped that. So to answer your question... it has nothing to do with ‘sovereign waters’ or ‘security’.
What age are you, 105?
@@jamest5149 of course it has lol wow im pleased ur not in control of defences.
@@jeffex1960
What defences and who are we defending it from?
I think you know nothing about Chinese and Russian hypersonic and nuclear engined missiles. This is 2020, not 1850. You are alone now, enjoy the Brexit and Scottish fish.
This and agricultural issues are the main two reasons why Norway never joined the EU.
Of course the union having federal ambitions rather than confederate ones doesn't help...
Speaking as a non-European, if the Union didn't have Federal ambitions, what would be the point? If the goal is not to have a single European nation, eventually, then why surrender all that sovereignty to begin with? I've never understood that.
@@jesseberg3271 he just said norway never joined Why are you asking him this rethorical question?
@@fiddibelow Because it's his part of the world, not mine, and he seems to have put some thought into the matter.
@@jesseberg3271 its done the same way as everywhere else media manupilation and lies. the eu was started as a trade union now its going for united states of europe.
@@jesseberg3271
What he means it is that Europe is too socially , culturally and economically diverse to be a single country and should remain a trade union.
My country , Portugal , national dish and main source of animal protein is Norwegian and Icelandic cod and our main economic and military ally is the U.K. and none of them is a member state of that European country that we were told it was going to be just a free trade association.
Portugal is part of that country and Norway is not but we trade at 0% tax and if I want I can live and work in Norway with the same rights as the natives and a Norwegian can move to Portugal due to a treaty signed by our nations , what we don't need and we don't want is to be in a European supra-nation just to have Germany and France telling us what to do.
4:12 DID YOU JUST GIVE CORSICA TO ITALY ‽
I'm French.
You can keep it 😁
@@SlonnerTV non, vous ne pouvez pas avoir corsica
@@frose1980 La Corse
He added jerseys and Guernsey to the French to make up for it ;)
Sees title: Fisheries
Me: Ahhh shit, here we go again
The french are over fishing our WATERS with super trowlers ??????
Heh, the fact that you're being accused of being both EU-biased and UK-biased proves you're actually being pretty impartial. Keep it up, guys!
It really doesn't. One side can easily be more unreasonable than another. It's like saying if communists call you a fascist then it's at least somewhat true.
this seemed to overestimate the 'intentions' of the policy as for years, scientists have been saying they are overfishing.
it also did not list what % of the catch GB is allowed to ... WAS allowed to catch in their own waters.
what is not listed is the common agricultural policy. it seems that British harvesters are not allowed to harvest the grapes in france, their rights to the harvest should parallel that of the rights of fishermen. after all, we are talking about a dispute over territory as the real bottom line.
Isn't it the UK that is so obsessed with fishing? At least that's what I get from your video.
I mean most people nowadays have no idea the damage that has already been done to fisheries around Europe or the ocean in general. It is staggering. Fisheries if destroyed don't bounce back, they don't recover, they die off permanently, it would cost trillions to manually rebuild them.
The tragedy of the commons (which is such a misnomer, it should be the tragedy of open access) and the way capitalism forces such extreme responses from fishermen means that these fisheries are always on the brink of some short-sighted and desperate or greedy company or fisherman destroying a fishery in a matter of years. These fisheries are that fragile, they're all on life support compared to their historical health even as recently as a century ago. No one alive now remembers them as they were. So no one has the experience necessary to properly manage them.
Hey! I beg your pardon, but as a boy I went to primary school in Edinburgh's Granton Harbour where the herring fishing fleet was a 24/7/365 industry and just along the road was Newhaven which kept the same business hours as Granton. These are the fishers that fished our waters almost to extinction and it was the EU quota system that saw the partial recovery.
But remember the fish don't keep to borders and the current climate change see the fish follow the colder waters and the current fishing grounds are moving northwards with the climate changes.
There was no tragedy of the commons. The author of the book with that title was spinning a line.
Our waters, bugger off, Simples.
Where do you think the COD and HADDOCK that's sold in Fish & Chip shops comes from?
@@jayonenote7527 From British waters
@@watkinsrory Wrong.
@@jayonenote7527 Nearly all of the cod and haddock consumed in this country is caught in international waters off the coasts of Norway and Iceland.
The channel islands aren't considered in the thumbnail
You miss out the most important part! UK is no longer a part of the EU & therefore under any measure of international law it's terratorial waters can not be part of the cfp!
Am glad you get it as it seems this video certainly dosent
CFP predates the EU, but ok.
5:47 There is no Nobel Prize in economics, as Alfred Nobel had great distaste for the field. There is an award called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences", awarded by the swedish Riksbank, which is sometimes considered the nobel prize of economics. This fact surely makes the old man himself rollover in his grave.
well, to be... fair? When his brother died, misunderstanding let some to believe that he died. Mistakes happen.
Unfortunallty, his memorial focused on his invention of TNT. Realizing that he did not want to be remembered as the guy that invented TNT, he made up the nobelprice.
So: Given that he did not want to be remembered as the guy that invited TNT, being "falsely" "accused" of funding a price for economics sound like minor issue in an overall succes.
@@sarowie Dynamite not TNT. Couldn't even get that one right, did you now?
Alan Greenspan got that one of those tells how much worth that is.
On the other hand Obama got the Peace Nobel Price while drone bombing civilians in Afghanistan, shows how much *that* is worth as well. Or may be it was his effort expanding from 2 to 7 wars that got him that ... if nobody is around everbody is at peace, or something like that.
@@darknase given he was nominated 11 days after taking office, you sound like you have a big case of sour grapes. Obama 1 Trump 0.
Thank you very much for the video, we really all have an interest in this topic.
I know you know that in Europe not only English is spoken, I hope you will soon enable subtitles.
Good video. Could have done with a bit more about how the catch is shared among nations - I'd like to see who gets the most in general and who gets the most from the UK waters specifically, as well as where the UK takes it's catch from (UK, EU or outside waters). Is there reciprocity, or is the UK getting hammered?
So if we'd wanted to catch more of our own fish we could simply increase our fleet? I can't help wondering why our very own Fisheries MEP didn't mention it after one of his many meetings on the subject?
4:12I see TITOslavia and Ukbelruusia
The UK: Other countries are fishing in our waters! They are trying to take control over our waters!
Iceland: 👀
You are probably not getting your hint to the Englanders across,
Rúnar Berg Baugsson Sigríðarson
, the English are rather poor at taking hints - you really have to hit them over the head with the facts and even then only around 0.05 of them get the message.
;-))
Rockall lads. Definitely an island, didn't you see that one guy made a house on it just to say its inhabitable for those waters?
Let's ban commercial fishing altogether.
great content
So.. Brexit good for Fisheries?
Good for the fish, they're happier now
@@theunwardedlock8319 Obviously, they now get to live.
Percentage of EU fishing waters are far greater than UK waters.
So EU can carry on fishing in theirs and the British fishermen in ours .
It realy is that simple !
Man this it´s so stupid, and a Country should only fish in his waters.
Is France proposing that they are free to fish in our waters and the U.K. is free to help itself to French vineyards?
You actually have to do work to maintain the vineyard,not just plunder it like the British do to the fish and in the past to India and other places..
@@texx1985 What a plonker you are.
To be fair it's Brexiteers an the EU talking fish
Nobody says/said that CFP is perfect. It has been rightly condemned over the years. Yet, what is the alternative? Is there a proper UK proposal?
If you look at the smartly titled "Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement)" ..... the UK is obligated to negotiate surplus stocks with neighbouring nations. This is no matter what happens with the Trade Deal.
So, where is that proposal?
Key word there being negotiate, though.
@@jamescopeland6428 I think (and I am not an expert on this) that the UK can only determine if there is a surplus or not. If the total catch collapses then it will be difficult to state that.
@@stephenconway2468 - The quota applies to the catch, but they are instead looking to have control of where the catch happens more so than the quota.
That's why you'll hear the reference "access to waters" very often, because that's ultimately the sticking point.
In terms of wildlife longevity, the CFP is viewed negatively, particularly in Scotland, because of the imbalance. For instance, if all Scottish vessels were to fish in Scottish waters, and no one else, then they would be catching the same amount of fish, but removing far, far less from Scottish waters, thereby prolonging wildlife reproduction for longterm fish stocks.
If vessels from within the EU were to catch the same amount of fish, but elsewhere, then their own fish stocks would depreciate and thats why there is a huge push from them trying to secure access to British waters.
The UK Gov wants to have arrangement on access to UK waters permitted on an annual basis, whereas the EU want it to be permanent.
The logic that doing it annually would be for environmental and wildlife benefit in order that they can tackle localised fish stocks more effectively and handle them accordingly (which is difficult to do when it's a blanket approach on a large scale with little remit for change or adaption).
Truthfully speaking, anyone who is pro-environment and wildlife would really be supporting the UK stance if they understood the whole picture. The fishing communities will also support the UK stance because it allows for work to continue while imrpoving the fish stock over time.
It may not seem as important inland, but on coastal towns, this will be a huge issue (I come from a fishing town myself in the outer hebrides, so a lot of this topic is very common talk and has been for decades now).
@@jamescopeland6428 I understand but the conventions as determined by the UN are to area and that is what is happening here. The same fish tend to come in and don't live their lives within the catchment area.
It is one of those lovely things. Should the EU overfish young fish, then it will deplete British stocks.
It does not answer the question, why is the UK not negotiating?
I found the post interesting as to the current state of things as to the mechanics of the Common Fisheries and EU/ UK relations regarding the contention that has been suborned by politicians when it really should be a science lead problem.
I would have liked to have known more about [who] actually holds the licences to fish in UK territorial waters; ever since the Factortame case(s) this has been of interest because there seems to be a cartel of quota licensing that has effectively awarded/heaped catches of fish in to the hands of a few big companies at the expense of smaller family owned concerns; this is crucial to understanding the inequity felt by small boat fishermen who are projecting their difficulties on to the EU which seems to have tried to square the circle by addressing both the science and economics of the subject but has been blamed for the compromises it has had to make.
Surely, the correct and only fair way to restrict accurately the amount of fish would be to limit the permissible area a specific boat was allowed to fish. Easier for the boat, less travel, more fluctuation in catch size but same on average. They will then look after their specific areas, not compete in same waters and not throw dead small fish away.
4:13 I hope you didn't have too many subscribers in Corsica. They're pretty sensitive about their non-Italianess.
To be fair, their non-frenchness is also heavily mentioned in France...
@@mariomario-dy1kc I've never seen any French say Corsica isn't France, I've only seen Corsican claim the opposite.
@@geraldmerkowitz4360 huh, wierd. Calling them non-French seems almost like a national sport. Maybe just in the south?
@@mariomario-dy1kc I wouldn't be surprised, I come from the north.
Save our fish!
We should definitely.take back.our waters to protect fish
Fishing would be an important issue because it is an important industry for some coastal communities. If Iceland was willing to fight three 'wars' against the UK over fishing than of course the Common Fisheries Policy would be important in the Brexit process.
Between 11 % and 25 % of Iceland’s economy is fishing. It is an important economic issue. With the UK it is almost entirely symbolic. Just something for the Brexiteers to to angry about.
Let the English complete access to their waters. After all, without a deal the EU won't be obliged to allow the catch to be exported to the EU. The English will just be shooting their foot, as previously, 80% of their catch was exported.
how about not stripping the sea of all the fish as soon as it's marginally sustainable.
the uk don't want to do more fishing. they want others to stop fishing in its waters to protect the environment.
WRONG! A: Without a deal just means trading on WTO terms and B; There is a whole world out there we can sell our fish to if the EU wont buy it!
Where do the people of EU get it's fish from then?
@@pinchermartyn3959 Norway, Canada, Iceland btw British fishermen also fish in EU waters Einstein... 😁
And where would the EU get all it’s fish from numbnuts? That would just turn fish into a really expensive luxury item for everyone inside the EU. There isn’t really an angle here, UK waters = UK resource not EU resource.
fine and confiscate any boats and catch fishing with out licence very high fines in our waters sink any boat not complying
'sink any boat not complying' Well done Bill!! Let's have a war over fish! Remember the Cod Wars? and the might of the RN? Clearly not. Which planet are you REALLY from?
Yes but those could not be confiscated as the battle was not for UK waters. After the cod wars they made every state have their own waters and put them on a map. Something the UK did not want . Bet that hurts now. If they enter our waters you just have to pick a few off and impound them. They are going to sail an armada in for the first few weeks but who cares . Just let it go and use the law to pick them off. It's the huge multi national boats that hoover up all the fish and as these are massive corporate business the courts will eventually get rid of them.
And although we could fish we could not enter any military without Iceland's consent and once they threatend to revoke our right for subs we had to back down or let the Russians track our nukes.
Talking of symbology, I note that Jersey has not been included in the map of UK waters. There is talk of them being abandoned in the urge to 'get a deal done'. I am reminded of the last time Jersey and Guernsey were abandoned for expediency, to another European dominating power......
There are some typos on the slides. @2:00 practiCes. @2:11 FLARE POINTS. It was just distracting and detracts from the message.
ban all fishing for ten years, give the fish a chance to recover.
Yep, I think the five years of ww2 saw a big recovery in North Sea fish stocks, ten would be awesome, for the sea, the fish and the planet.
@@philpriestman627 agreed.
All I'm saying is...... Look at all that water Scotland has... And then look at the body of water England has.
🤷♂️😉
And yet scotland wants to be in the EU.
@@DaDunge how interesting is that we would prefer that, than England? 😉 Says a lot.
@@Its-Just-Gizmo Easy, if England decides they want all your fish you can't really do anything about it, if the EU decides they want it, Scotland could always article 20 on their own.
That's what's different between these unions, one can be quit whenever you want to the other cannot.
@Peter Breis that's the point.
@@DaDunge even better: in the EU they could veto.....
No English fish imported in Europe is better than Bad English fish imported in Europe.
Just a question out of curiosity. Does anyone know how fish farms compare in production and profit to fisheries? I'm curious about this because fish farms probably don't have quotas to follow.
This is such a UK tory agenda...Everything discussed is just from a UK point of view lol. They forgot to mention Johnson promised Brexit to those who voted mostly for Brexit, the fishing communities, and voted Brexit because nobody offered them alternatives other than fishing.
Charlatan Johnson's promises are not worth thing
Let's be clear, the EU is making demands on fish because it can.
Brexit'ers, remember how before, during and immediately after the referendum you were all high on "they need us more than we need them", "we hold all the cards", "The EU won't survive without the UK buying cars and wine"? I say this because what you were celebrating/expecting is just what the EU is doing; looking out for itself and using all the leverage it has. Except their leverage is real and not a magical sparkly unicorn made up in the heads of zealots.
Basically, if you're whining about the EU being "mean", you're just like the a**hole boyfriend who demands his partner doesn't see male friends, but calls her "crazy" or "clingy" for asking why there's lipstick on his collar. OK, there is a good chance you're exactly like that ;-)
You can not make any demands in foreign waters you plank!
The UK Government seem to be embracing a no deal anyway as the 'purest' form of Brexit. If that happens the fishing issue will be resolved by January; The EU will be excluded from UK waters and the UK from EU waters, and the two will trade using WTO rules 🙃
Nail on the head there, getnohappy, smack on the nail head. These Brextremist/unionist people generally speaking know little or nothing about anything. they speak, write and think in soundbites and have no idea of what their claims mean. It is rather like an apostolic religion with a series of credos. These, "I believes ... ... ...", are chanted but are never offered with proofs or even logical arguments or explanations. For them just to believe the soundbite is enough proof of their correctness. If you explain their error in detail to them you waste your time and theirs for sometimes, in just minutes, they are back making the very same false claims yet again.
The real problem for the EU will be _sourcing_ goods and services currently supplied from the UK. This will particularly affect Ireland, but we will also have problems here in Scandinavia.
What the hell has the UK got that the EU has not?.
If you had been paying attention, while the UK was doing nothing but crow about keeping Johnny Foreigner out of ENGLAND, and preventing the asylum seekers they called illegal immigrants, out of Merry England many of the financial institutions from the one square mile "City", of London were quietly moving out to continental locations.
It doesn't take much bother nor need setting up factory machinery, (other than their own computers), to move a financial institution to another location. Many banks, insurance companies and such like already had branches in continental locations. What the hell is there in England that cannot be done elsewhere in Europe?
The idiotically titled, "Brexit", where, "Britain is an archipelago and not a nation or a state and not being an EU member state would be exiting nothing was a crazy idea from the start but these fools still think it a good idea. They will rue the day they decided to EXIT the source of much of their fresh fruit and vegetables that, "Britain", simply is not set up to provide and no nearby source is close enough to provide still fresh.
When I, (an octogenarian, was a wee boy the entrire area of the Clyde valley was covered by many acres of glasshouses growing fresh greenhouse vegetables and all over the Scottish central bely were smallholdins doing the same. Where are they now? @@physiocrat7143
How can you have failed to mention what happens in the Med. Also no mention of the London Fisheries Agreement?
I thought EU was more about wine and cheese than fish