Scottish fishermen react to Brexit vote
One of Scotland’s most Eurosceptic industries has reacted to the UK vote to leave the European Union.
A poll ahead of the referendum from Aberdeen University showed 95% of fishermen across the UK would vote to leave the EU.
That’s after years of struggling with the European Commission on catch allocations for fishing stocks, and other Common Fisheries Policy measures like the landing obligation (or discards ban).
The Fishing for Leave campaign had argued a Brexit vote would mean the UK got a seat at the negotiating table for quota allocations, as Norway and the Faroe Islands do during discussion with the EU.
Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, said: “The result of the referendum brings both opportunities and challenges for the fishing industry and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation will be doing everything in its power to ensure that the best possible deal is achieved for fishing during the exit negotiations.
“To aid this process, it is vital that we have clarity from both the UK and Scottish Governments on their future intentions for fishing.
“Our national governments must work closely with the industry over the coming months and years to ensure that the right framework is put in place to deliver a prosperous future.”
http://www.originalfm.com/scottish-fishermen-react-to-brexit-vote/I still don't quite get it.
Fishermen had been wrangling over quotas and the discards issue.
Ok. Got that. Except that the discard ban has existed since Jan 1 2014 via the CFP reform.
I can understand the gripes with the old CFP (the perception - probably quite valid - that it was run by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the Commission, but that has substantially changed now.
The 2013 reform led to a greater role for the European Parliament, involving the convening of a trilateral dialogue (or ‘trilogue’) between the European Council, European Commission and the Parliament, to work towards general agreement on reforming the CFP.[26]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_PolicyIn their view, Brexit would mean that they'd have more say on quotas via some form of future UK - EU bilateral agreement, citing the example of Norway and Iceland.
Yes, ok, both Norway and Iceland have the right to be consulted, but they can't vote.
Hmm... Whatever agreement they reach, it would still have to be in line with the CFP and UN conventions, though.
The latest agreement between Norway and the EU was swopping a bit of blue whiting for a bit of cod fished in each other's waters.
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/norway/doc/2016-agreed-record-eu-norway-north-sea-supplement-01-2016.pdf The UK wouldn't be eligible for EU subsidies, so the UK would have to fork out. I can see John's point about cutting out the middleman, but both Iceland and Norway still pay substantial contributions to the EU budget as EFTA members. If the UK rejoined EFTA (which might have advantages), the UK would have to do so as well, in which case I don't see where the money for subsidies would come from.
I'm therefore still mystified as to what the advantages would actually be...
A bit more reading:
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htmhttp://www.eu-norway.org/eu/norway_and_the_eu/#.V4WkW47w4Uwhttp://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/iceland/eu_iceland/political_relations/index_en.htmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association