MORE fish. Since my Boxing Day fish thread attracted great attention – and some controversy – I thought I’d try to clear up one or two disputed points. I would first of all heartily recommend the blog below by Dr Bryce Stewart, a true fisheries expert. 1/12
https://twitter.com/BD_Stew/status/1343245141147004929
Dr Stewart reaches the same conclusions that I did. Boris Johnson misled the nation when he said on 24 Dec that, from 2026, “there is no theoretical limit beyond those placed by science or conservation on the quantity of our own fish that we can fish in our waters.” 2/12
The treaty agreed by the UK on Christmas Eve explicitly assumes NO extra cut in EU quotas in British waters after June 2026 – ie it DOES put limits on UK catches from “2026 onwards”. What happens if Britain does refuse access to European boats?
3/12
3/12
The treaty states that the EU can “take compensatory measures commensurate to the economic and societal impact of the change…Such impact shall be measured on the basis of reliable evidence and not merely on conjecture and remote possibility.” 4/12
Dr Stewart interprets this to mean that the “EU can reduce reciprocal fishing access and place tariffs on fish imports and on other goods, or ultimately suspend other parts of the trade and economic partnership.” 5/12
If so Boris Johnson’s misleading statement/lie on 24 Dec was an even bigger whopper than I thought. If Britain shuts out EU boats, or cuts their quotas, the EU can impose tariffs not just on fish but on other UK experts. 6/12
However…
I’m no lawyer. I may have missed something. But I find it hard to see this greater potential punishment in the text.
It says an aggrieved party should give “priority to those compensatory measures which will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.” 7/12
I’m no lawyer. I may have missed something. But I find it hard to see this greater potential punishment in the text.
It says an aggrieved party should give “priority to those compensatory measures which will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.” 7/12
The treaty goes on: “The Party may suspend...preferential tariff treatment granted to fishery products.” In other words, the assumption is that any retaliation would be limited to UK fish exports – bad enough but not as effective as tariffs on other goods. 8/12
The agreement cuts EU quotas over 5 years by 25%. This is a reasonable compromise but “repatriates” only £140m worth of fish – less than a tenth of the absurdly exaggerated figures promised by Brexiteers. It amounts, on average, to a 2% a year increase in UK quotas. 9/12
And which fish? The biggest UK increases, as Dr Stewart says, go to the kinds of fish – ie hake in the N. Sea (36% up) Norway pout (20%), sprat in the Channel (32%), mackerel west of Scotland – which will benefit large fishing interests and big boats. 10/12
The smaller boats in the Channel fleet – from Hastings, Brixham, Newlyn etc - appear to have gained only small increases of sole, plaice etc. To their anger, Fr. and Belgian boats will continue to fish up to 6 miles from the S English shore – compared to 12 miles elsewhere. 11/12
A final point. Fish fans will recall that Tory MPs often banged on about the fact that English boats got only 9% of the cod in the Eastern Channel (forgetting to mention that we got the sea-lion’s share of cod elsewhere and that there is little cod in the Channel anyway).12/13
After all the fuss about fish in the last 5 years – after the Farage flotillas on the Thames etc – the new quota shares give…
90.25% of the tiny number of cod in the Channel to EU boats (mostly the French) and 9.25% to the UK.
Result: no change.
13/13
90.25% of the tiny number of cod in the Channel to EU boats (mostly the French) and 9.25% to the UK.
Result: no change.
13/13
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
