During the UK-EU FTA talks, I was frequently asked why the EU were insisting on securing fishing rights as part of that deal, and not in separate subsequent annual negotiations.
This. This is why. It wanted to avoid being in the situation the UK now finds itself in with Norway.
This. This is why. It wanted to avoid being in the situation the UK now finds itself in with Norway.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1388028740547059712
In December, the UK signed a continuity agreement with Norway and Iceland garaunteeing their fish tariff free access to the UK.
The press release even bragged about it.
gov.uk/government/new…
The press release even bragged about it.
gov.uk/government/new…
With tariff free access secured, the fisheries negotiations became a strait swap - access to UK fishing waters vs access to Norwegian waters.
That appears at least to have significantly reduced the UKs leverage. 🤷♂️
That appears at least to have significantly reduced the UKs leverage. 🤷♂️
The inevitable addendum 👇.
Suspect many of the people who told us during TCA negotiations that tying tariffs to fisheries quotas was an unprecedented act of attempted international subjugation will now be signing a somewhat different tune.
eutoday.net/news/business-…
Suspect many of the people who told us during TCA negotiations that tying tariffs to fisheries quotas was an unprecedented act of attempted international subjugation will now be signing a somewhat different tune.
eutoday.net/news/business-…
The reason by the way the UK will find it hard to acquiesce to this request from fisherman is that I don't think the Norway continuity agreement is an all or nothing deal.
I don't think it includes provisions letting you void a part of it in a fit of pique.
I don't think it includes provisions letting you void a part of it in a fit of pique.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
