Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I think Westminster and Holyrood underestimate how tough and messy unravelling the union is going to be

Unpossible.

If the British government will be stupid enough to allow a 2nd indyref amidst a (hopefully receding) pandemic and fresh Brexit chaos it will be the knockout punch for the whole island.

I mean if the SNP win a majority next year (in an electoral system designed to encourage coalitions/avoid majority rule) and there's still 2/3 support for having a second referendum I don't think it's easy or sensible to turn that down. Especially because I think the situation has materially changed since 2014. They'd have a democratic mandate and the facts have changed. Now having said that Boris Johnson is Prime Minister and I can well see a situation where he just point blank refuses to consider it to avoid being the PM who lost the union, which I think would drive support for independence and radicalise the situation. That could see us sliding into a Catalonia situation.

But other bits of that poll showed 55% of Scots want to keep the pound (only 25% want a Scottish currency and 10% the Euro). Scotland has a very big deficit. Add into that the complications of unravelling and allocating national debt, pensions and benefits, defence, tax system, trade policy etc. It will be messy

[Josquius]

Weird how much hate there is for the euro. 2011 fades slowly

[Sheilbh]

Weird how much hate there is for the euro. 2011 fades slowly

I mean practically Scotland is nowhere near the convergence criteria given the deficit of almost 9% and I could be wrong but I feel like you'd need to have your own independent central bank to properly be measured for the other criteria like long-term interest rates etc?

Support for joining the Euro has never been that high in the UK I think it's peaked at about 33% but the Eurozone crisis did really hit it:

[The Larch]

Yeah, fisheries is a devilish topic to negotiate. It is extremely complicated and there are tons of stakeholders and interests to balance, and with an extremely low political return, you will never see anyone coming satisfied with what they've achieved in the EU quota negotiations, they are cutthroat.

Yeah - low political return but high political costs given how localised the impact is and (in France) how militant fishermen can be

Our fishermen know a thing or two about being militant as well...  But political impact has more to do with the political prospects in fishing communities of whoever is in charge in each country. Nobody wants to be the party that "betrayed our fishermen" or whatever slogan might be conjured.

It is definitely an issue that punches way above its (economic) weight in these negotiations. In any case I doubt it'll be the final dealbreaker, as it's not such a crucial economic topic for any of the parts to make the negotiations fail because of it, but it'll surely be a thorn on the side for the foreseeable future.

The RTE journalist today had a quote from an EU official saying "the UK position on fisheries is quite strong, but there are also connections. Sometimes the UK is interested in having access to the single market on energy or financial services. The EU has an interest in fisheries. So I expect leaders to [explain] their sensitivities [at tomorrow's #EUCO]. Fishing is highly political, highly sensitive in member states."

So it feels like there's a hint at linking fisheries to other bits of the deal which could be a way to get a result (and I think the UK government is far more comfortable shafting fishermen than EU governments because UK fishermen already feel like they're losing in the status quo).

That's the "fish for finance" trade off that has been rumoured for a while, in which the UK would give allowances in fisheries to EU countries in exchange of being given allowances in finance market topics.

As for UK fishermen feeling like they're loosing in the status quo, fishermen all over the world will always tell you that they're always loosing out. You'll never hear a fisherman saying that he's having a good year. They are always down on their luck for whatever reason, if they catch a lot of fish they'll complain that prices are too low, if prices rise they'll complain that they don't catch enough fish to be profitable, or that fuel is too expensive. It's never good times for them, ever.

At the end of the day fishing is, for the most part, an economic area that can't really survive without public support, which they already receive tons of directly and indirectly. There will always be heavy public involvement because only a very small % of the sector is truly profitable. Just like farming.

If anyone is even remotely interested on this I can give a very quick and brief overview on the basis of my relatively small knowledge and experience in this field.

Do! Always interested in people who actually know things and have real knowledge

You were warned, I'll prepare a separate post for that so this won't get too cluttered. 

[HVC]

I think a lot of people get that Scottish independence will be a mess.
But they don't care. There's already a cluster fuck with brexit. At least with Scottish independence it will be a cluster fuck for positive principles they can believe in rather than for hatred, xenophobia, English nationalism, and all that jazz.

the only difference is replacing english nationalism with scottish, rest is basically the same from what i can gather.

[Sheilbh]

As for UK fishermen feeling like they're loosing in the status quo, fishermen all over the world will always tell you that they're always loosing out. You'll never hear a fisherman saying that he's having a good year. They are always down on their luck for whatever reason, if they catch a lot of fish they'll complain that prices are too low, if prices rise they'll complain that they don't catch enough fish to be profitable, or that fuel is too expensive. It's never good times for them, ever.

This is also true of farmers in my experience - showing my urbanite biases

I think the crucial differences is farmers and fishermen aren't really that important or pandered to a group in the UK. Maybe they will be after Brexit. The fishermen were very, very pro-Brexit - but as I say I would expect any UK government to shaft them.

[The Larch]

As for UK fishermen feeling like they're loosing in the status quo, fishermen all over the world will always tell you that they're always loosing out. You'll never hear a fisherman saying that he's having a good year. They are always down on their luck for whatever reason, if they catch a lot of fish they'll complain that prices are too low, if prices rise they'll complain that they don't catch enough fish to be profitable, or that fuel is too expensive. It's never good times for them, ever.

This is also true of farmers in my experience - showing my urbanite biases

It's not really an urbanite bias, it's reality. I have farmers on my mother's side and fishermen on my father's, and the arguments are exactly the same. 

I think the crucial differences is farmers and fishermen aren't really that important or pandered to a group in the UK. Maybe they will be after Brexit. The fishermen were very, very pro-Brexit - but as I say I would expect any UK government to shaft them.

In any case the UK's fishermen (I assume "rank and file" fishermen rather than professional associations and the like) Brexity approach was rather knee-jerk, right? More of a "Get those furriner boats out of our waters" kind of approach that a more reasoned proposal for change. With that kind of attitude pandering to them gets quite difficult unless you go for a No Deal.

[Sheilbh]

So a pub on the Wirral in Merseyside has temporarily re-named itself The Three Bellends

[Richard Hakluyt]

 

It must be such fun being a tory in Liverpool right now 

[Sheilbh]

It must be such fun being a tory in Liverpool right now 

Blows my mind that the Tories controlled Liverpool Council as recently as the 1970s and it used to be a 50/50 city. Given that it's the only place in mainland Britain to elect an Irish nationalist MP I assume part of it was the Irish vote v the Lancastrian/Welsh vote. But still

[The Larch]

If anyone is even remotely interested on this I can give a very quick and brief overview on the basis of my relatively small knowledge and experience in this field.

Do! Always interested in people who actually know things and have real knowledge

You were warned, I'll prepare a separate post for that so this won't get too cluttered. 

So, EU, fishing and Brexit! Time for such a thrilling subject. Brace yourselves, I'll try to be as clear as possible, and if there are any questions I'll be happy to try to answer them.


First of all, some history. The EU (the EEC at that time) only started regulating fisheries in 1970. This was pushed by the candidacies presented by the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, as the possible incorporation of those countries would force the EU to deal much more with fisheries as a common policy. Thus, the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) was born. These first regulations, which were initially aimed mostly at creating a common market for fish and seafood products, already enshrines what is one of the basic pillars of EU fisheries policy, free access to fishermen from any member state to all common waters*, with an exception that has been maintained over time, that coastal waters were reserved for local fishermen only**.

(* another exception, which I don't know if it's maintained or not, was that Irish fishermen were initially blocked from fishing in the North Sea. Certain areas were also kept off-limits later, such as the waters surrounding the Shetlands, where only certain licensed ships could operate after 1983)

(** with caveats, as member states can allow ships from other member states that traditionally operate within 12 miles from the member state's coast to access those coastal waters and fish on them)

Back then this was limited to territorial waters within a 12 mile limit from the coast, and was only expanded to 200 miles in 1976, in line with international developments related to the creation of UNCLOS, the UN's Convention on the Law of the Sea. The 12 mile limit is kept in the Mediterranean sea, though, but this doesn't apply to the UK's case.

It also has to be said that what this common access policy does is basically putting to paper what were already traditional and historical realities, as fishermen from different countries had been fishing in each other's waters for centuries.

The other big historical development was in 1983, ahead of, this time, Spain and Portugal's accession. This year, another of the CFP's pillars was created, the "Principle of Relative Stability". This principle establishes that the relative % of the main fish catches of each country will be fixed, according to historical catches, the needs of local communities highly dependant on fishing and compensation for fishing losses in non EU areas. This principle is set in stone and gave the UK around 1/4th of all EU fish catches. It is only reviewed when new MS join the EU, in order to incorporate them. Of course, and this can be taken for granted, every single country states as a matter of fact that the principle benefits other countries and harms them more than anybody else.

In case anyone is interested in knowing how fishing quotas are decided, this is done yearly on the basis of each fish stock in a particular geographical area. A "Total Allowable Catch" (the amount of fish that can be fished that year in that area) is decided (theoretically on the basis of scientific advice, although the reality is that economic interests tend to prevail) and then split on the basis of the Principle of Relative Stability.

Here's an easy example, anchovies in the Bay of Biscay: https://player.slideplayer.com/16/5130795/data/images/img34.jpg
Here's a more complicated one, mackerel over a broad area of the North Atlantic: https://player.slideplayer.com/16/5130795/data/images/img35.jpg

Once a member state has been given a quota, then it can split it amongst its different fishing fleets and/or trade or swap them with other countries for quotas that are of more interest to them. These quotas are decided in a yearly summit of EU fisheries' ministers and is said to be the most exhausting negotiation in the EU. Horse trading is massive.

Now, after Brexit the problems are twofold:
- First, for EU fishermen, it's all about the access to UK's waters. According to some industry sources, around 1/3rd of the catch of the EU's main fishing fleets come from UK waters.
- Secondly, for UK fishermen. They are extremely dependant on access to the EU market for their catches, as currently something like 80% of all UK catches are destined to the EU market. If this is subject to tariffs it could be ruinous.

Thus, it'd be in everyone's interests, theoretically, to reach some agreement that would give EU fishermen access to UK waters and UK fishermen access to EU markets. Moreover, access to UK water issues seem to be focused on some really particular cases (I've read about French cod fishermen in the Channel that traditionally operate as close as 6 miles from the UK's coast being one of the groups that is most affected and most vocal about the topic, to the point of having the ear of the French minister in charge of these negotiations), so in the big picture some kind of agreement *should* be doable.

Now, the CFP covers many other areas, and other actors are involved in the management of fish stocks (mainly international bodies in charge of fisheries management at a regional level, for instance the NE Atlantic) that are not part of the EU), but if I'm not forgetting anything that's the gist of it regarding Brexit.

If you've managed to read until the end, congrats, I owe you a beer.

[Duque de Bragança]

It must be such fun being a tory in Liverpool right now 

Blows my mind that the Tories controlled Liverpool Council as recently as the 1970s and it used to be a 50/50 city. Given that it's the only place in mainland Britain to elect an Irish nationalist MP I assume part of it was the Irish vote v the Lancastrian/Welsh vote. But still

I have better, actually worse. 
All Paris used to be RPR, ancestor party of LR so right/centre-right, back in Chirac time, so from 1983 to 1995.
Chirac was mayor from 1977 on, first Paris mayor, then gave up the position so he could run for President. The left only got to run the city from 2001 on, thanks to deep divisions among the right.
Yes, the 20 arrondissements, each of them city with an arrondissement mayor. Le Grand Chelem or Grand Slam in English.

That was before boboisation/gentrification obviously.

[Josquius]

The one thing that always pissed me off with the fisheries is how cemented the story of the EU letting iberian fishermen setup factory ships just off the coast and completely cleanse the waters is.
When the actual truth of things is totally the opposite. Getting Spain to stop its fishermen invading British waters was a key part of Spains requirements for entering the ec.

Thatcherism gets the blame here of course. Though tbh I don't know exactly when it happened. As british fishermen sold off their fishing rights to the highest bidder whilst most governments were more sensible than allowing this.

[Barrister]

Thatcherism gets the blame here of course.

Of course it does.

Don't ever change Tyr.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah the role of the mythical "Spanish fisherman" runs deep. And I feel the other point of contention for British fishermen - no idea if this is true - is that the UK regulates the size of vessels and they generally for environmental/sustainability reasons should be smaller but they were competing with huge trawlers (largely from Spain ) for the same catch.

And anyone who goes to law school learns about Factortame which was a set of really important cases from a UK constitution point of view. Basically it used to be really easy to register a fishing (or other merchant) vessel in the UK because the law about that was from the 19th century, so lots of non-UK owned vessels were being registered in the UK so they could fish the UK bit of the quota as well as the non-UK bit of the quota (which I think was called quota-hopping). So the Thatcher government introduced a law which required any fishing vessel registered in the UK to be 75% UK-owned. Factortame, who were a company of largely Galician ships who used to quota-hop, sued asking the courts to disapply the law and apply the old (19th century law).

It went all the way to the House of Lords who basically agreed with the fishermen. But then said they had a problem because of Parliamentary sovereignty - this was a piece of legislation that had been passed by parliament and the court has no power under our constitution to disapply Acts of Parliament. They were constitutionally unable from doing what the fishermen wanted, there was nothing within the power of the courts to give effect to direct European rights against primary legislation. So they went to the ECJ who basically said courts have to give effect to direct rights and if there is a rule of local law (including constitutional law) that stops that, then the courts must disapply that local (in this case constitutional) law. This caused shockwaves in the legal world with retired judges and academics coming out and describing at as revolutionary (which it is really). Interestingly many of the lawyers also complained that the English courts were right to follow the ECJ in this case but should have adopted the approach of the German Constitutional Court which is that they, will of course, give effect to direct European rights to the extent they do not conflict with the fundamental principles of the Basic Law. But the view of the English court was that their job was to give effect to those rights and they had no power to balance it against other rights/principles.

It's, in many ways, kind of minor but it was huge news in the mainstream media at the time from what I understand and it came at around the same time as Maastricht and the ERM and is a really important part of the start of modern Tory Euroscepticism and I think it probably drove the UK wanting not just a rebate, which is just about money, but opt outs from, for example, the Social Charter to avoid courts ruling that European laws override UK Acts.