I would suggest that this tweet is indicative either of a lack of understanding of the issue of fisheries or (more likely) of a problematic rhetoric that will come back to haunt us (short thread)
States‘ rights and borders in the seas are now largely codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, UNCLOS.
Fish, annoying little creatures they are, seem to not care very much about the borders. Lawyers, annoying little creatures we are, have a name for them: straddling fish stocks.
What would happen, economically speaking, if we would leave things at that? The national incentive is to fish as much as you can. Call it tragedy of the commons.
So states try to get together and negotiate solutions to this issue. Such as UNCLOS or the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement. Or (the horror) even modern EU fisheries rules.
It is important to understand that the source of a problem for sovereignty here is a factual issue. International law is an attempt to resolve a problem that exists outside of it, in a world of “complete complete control”.
We can (and will) leave the EU. But “our” fish will continue to cross borders. The problem remains. And public international law solutions will remain. We will not have “complete complete” control. Period.
This was recognized immediately by Gove: after we get out of the EU, we need to negotiate bilaterally with our partners. See here bbc.com/news/uk-scotla…
Any agreement reached will limit “complete complete control”, of course.
This is quite apart from the fact that 80% of the fish the UK catches is exported, 66% by volume of that (49% of the total catch) to the EU. Freedom to catch stuff we then do not want to eat and cannot sell is a beatiful theoretical hill to argue on. publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ld…
All of this goes to say that complete complete control is not what we’ll get and either used by the MP due to lack of understanding or more likely as a rhetorical figure.
And now you’ll say “you’re splitting hairs, these figures of speech are common”. But my point is this: common maybe, but not harmless. They will come back to haunt us for any and all international agreements. They all limit control. And agree we must to resolve real problems.
Quite apart from the fact that I am a lawyer so splitting hairs, yeah, it’s sort of what I do...
