Fishing

[jenniren]

Totally agree with you both Suff and Medsec. These people are not our friends. I truly hope Boris sticks to his guns, if he doesn't he must know he's toast.

[Suff]

The pundits like to forget that bringing fishing back was an election manifesto pledge. The same pundits also like to ignore the fact that the EU Commission was handed a negotiating mandate signed by all 27 EU states, which only "allows" the EU to negotiate within the bounds of that mandate. That mandate does not allow the Commission to negotiate away any access of UK fishing waters.

It should have been blatantly obvious, every time the talks broke down and every time the EU said "both sides will need to compromise", yet the EU did not even attempt to modify the negotiating mandate; that it would be impossible for the EU and the UK to come to a deal over fish.

If we can't come to a deal over fish, then we won't come to a deal. Because if anyone were paying attention to what is actually going on, they would realise that fish is the smallest of the 3 problems, the most easily fixed and the least economic impact.

Neither side can move to the centre. Ergo no deal can be struck until the EU come together again and agree a new negotiating mandate, or the UK has another election with another manifesto.

I might be wrong and the UK may cave. But don't bet on it. Why do I say the UK may cave? Because the Commission can't. The Commission doesn't have the mandate to, only the UK has that as a sovereign state whose government can modify their own mandate.

Don't bet on it though.

[Suff]

Keeping the thread on Fishing alone,

It has been mooted that Johnson is going to run off to Brussels, before Thursday (when the council meeting is), to "do a deal" with VDL.

Now let us get back to reality. For those who were not interested, the Negotiating Mandate given by said Council to the Commission, contains some very specific wording on Fishing.

You need pages 24 and 25.

Apart from the paragraphs which burble on about how EU law will be the defining law for all our dealings, this specific paragraph controls the current negotiations on fishing.

88. Besides the cooperation on conservation, management and regulation, the objective of the
provisions on fisheries should be to uphold Union fishing activities. In particular, it should
aim to avoid economic dislocation for Union fishermen that have been engaged in fishing
activities in the United Kingdom waters.

That has to be changed, because that says neither VLD nor Barnier can negotiate anything else and that is the scope of the mandate the Council gave the Commission to negotiate on.

The next paragraph says it all, really.

89. To reach this objective, the provisions on fisheries should uphold existing reciprocal access
conditions, quota shares and the traditional activity of the Union fleet, and therefore:
– uphold continued reciprocal access, for all relevant species, by Union and United
Kingdom vessels to the waters of the Union and the United Kingdom;
– uphold stable quota shares, which can only be adjusted with the consent of both Parties;
– include modalities for transfers and exchanges of quotas and for the setting of annual or
multi-annual total allowable catches (or effort limitations) on the basis of long-term
management strategies;
– organise the modalities for obtaining fishing authorisations and the provisions that
ensure equality of treatment and compliance, including joint control and inspection
activities.

The commission has no mandate to negotiate a deal on fishing which returns the rights to unilaterally decide fishing quota's or to control the catch; to the UK.

If Boris goes before Friday, it is either a capitulation or a waste of time. If the Council does not adjust the mandate, the journey is either a capitulation or a waste of time.

If Boris was going to capitulate, then it would have been much simpler to do it between the negotiators.

Just a few more days....

[Workingman]

Nice bit of cherry picking, but maybe you should read the whole thing.

You call it a 'Negotiating Mandate' when its official title is:
ANNEX to COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a new partnership agreement

The word "Mandate" does not appear anywhere in the document. What does appear in Pt 1 GENERAL CONTEXT, Pt 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ENVISAGED PARTNERSHIP, Pt 3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ENVISAGED PARTNERSHIP - GENERAL PRINCIPLES and Pt 3 ECONOMIC PART
1. OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES D.30. are references to "guidelines" - six in total.

Noun: guideline.
A detailed plan or explanation to guide [you] in setting standards or determining a course of action.

They are a way for parties to negotiate, which is what we are supposed to be doing, but please do not let the facts get in the way of your propaganda - it's the Brexiter way.

Out - not to return.

[Suff]

Actually I took the word mandate from the EU page that hosted the link.

Also, it is quite well. Documented that this "guideline" is the minimum acceptable position.

But do not let me explain what the member states have agreed. That would be very wrong of me.

You can see from this guideline that the EU never had any intention of negotiating anything on fishing. Except for our capitulation.

It is a pity, for the EU that our history is not one of writing documents of capitulation.

[Suff]

I did have another thought today about option 3.

Boris goes to Brussels tomorrow. He could be discussing the changes in stance the council will have to rubber stamp in order to get a deal.

They have been all doom and gloom about a deal when running the clock down to the last 48 hours failed to produce a fundamental move on fishing.

I fully believe that they believed the opposition on fishing was nothing more than posturing to get a better deal.

Bit of a bummer when they realised that none of the statements have been posturing. It must have been a real shocker when they realised that with scant hours to go.

Pity they had not been listening to the government and the people instead of Blair and Major.

[medsec222]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... e-may.html

As I leaver, I really empathise with Stephen Glover's article in the Daily Mail today. I have no reason to believe that Stephen Glover is not a well respected political commentator.

[Suff]

Trying to stay on fishing. Much has been made of the fact that the UK will be hurt more than the EU in a no deal scenario. Figures have been given, the %'s are very low of the EU economy. Not insignificant, but certainly within the annual variability of the EU GDP.

So fishing is not just peanuts, it is crumbs in the bottom of the peanut bowl as far as the GDP of the EU is concerned. So why is the EU so absolutely determined that the UK should be ground into the dirt over fishing?

The reason is politics. Fishing is emotive, tied up vessels on the news every other month, press articles about fishing communities, governments failing due to the fishing lobby. The UK has already been there, nobody else wants to do that now the UK has taken the pain.

There is a bigger reality which we should not ignore when making decisions on fishing. The EU's own figures tell us that

The UK has the lowest trade integration in the single market for goods and the third lowest trade integration for services

Why on earth would we want to give up our fishing waters for access to a market we are barely integrated into.