‘Brexit’ case founders on uncertain future
The votes of British fishermen are unlikely to sway the UK’s referendum result one way or the other, but their oftvoiced plight is a test case for the arguments over EU membership.
The UK could follow Norway in retaining control of its own waters, alleviating the immediate struggles of fishermen and coastal regions. But a future deal with EU neighbours would be needed and there is no guarantee of better terms.
The votes of British fishermen are unlikely to sway the UK’s referendum result one way or the other, but their oftvoiced plight is a test case for the arguments over EU membership.
The UK could follow Norway in retaining control of its own waters, alleviating the immediate struggles of fishermen and coastal regions. But a future deal with EU neighbours would be needed and there is no guarantee of better terms.
The contention in fishing has always been balancing the interests of trawlermen and conservationists. This is made more difficult by the powerful voices of the Spanish industry and the Nordic countries (some of whom, like Greenland and Norway, aren’t in the EU) and the rest of the bloc.
In short, either fish stocks are in danger or the livelihoods of the fishermen are. And at the heart of this dispute is the Common Fisheries Policy, or CFP. It governs how many fish can be caught, where, when and by whom. It also oversees technical measures such as mesh sizes, and relations with nonEU trading partners.
The much-maligned policy has been accused of aggravating overfishing in European waters. And it is often linked with the controversial practice of throwing dead fish back into the sea to avoid contravening a quota.
The CFP’s place in Britain’s fishing industry will once again come to the fore when on June 15 a flotilla of trawlers and small vessels is expected to sail up the Thames to highlight opposition to EU membership.
If the UK left the EU, and therefore the CFP, it would regain control over its own fishing waters, Leave campaigners argue. Currently, vessels from other European countries plunder UK waters, the Leave campaign suggests, curtailing the catches and the livelihoods of British fishermen.
They bewail the way Spain polices its own fishermen (loosely, they say), and subsidies go to large-scale operations, not the coastal communities that matter. For smaller fishing operations, the CFP is the archetype of Brussels meddling. Distant eurocrats tell them what they can fish and where, wrapping vessels in red tape and technical specifications that burden smaller operations, they say.
Conversely, large fishing operations voice cautious support, knowing that stocks must be managed across the bloc to make the industry sustainable.
Take back our waters
If the UK were to leave the bloc, it may once again rule its waves. Or, at least, it would take back “national control over the 200 nautical mile limit and all waters and resources therein,” according to campaigning group Fishing for Leave.
At issue is the provision of common access to each other’s waters – a fundamental principle of EU fisheries policy. This hits countries with longer coastline – such as the UK – more than others, such as the Netherlands or Belgium. A quota system manages this setup to ensure each country and each stock has set limits.
Leave campaigners say a 2014 overhaul of the CFP allows “quota hopping” which means larger fleets from Spain can “grab quota” that should go to smaller British boats. Some UK fishermen say leaving the EU would give them power over managing their own stocks, pointing towards Norway, whose ships often fish the same or neighbouring waters. Norway is outside of the CFP and been a success story in recent years, they say.
If the UK wanted to expel foreign ships from its waters (which might be tricky under international law), British fishermen would likely be subject to the same treatment by other countries. For some, this might be a price worth paying, given it is said to be only about 20 per cent of business. But that loss may be compounded by fish sales, as well, when countries remaining in the EU are less open to UK imports, which they then subject to tariffs.
Norway and Greenland
The UK will also need a new agreement with the remaining EU countries over fishing rights, which could be a major headache. There has been little debate during the referendum campaign on what such an agreement would look like.
Remain campaigners say that a future deal would follow the contours of the existing CFP and still have to resolve the question of quotas and how they are calculated. This is because stocks don’t recognise maritime borders and easily swim between jurisdictions.
Without an agreement, a shared stock could be overfished in the various waters it passes through. Even if the UK were to follow Norway’s lead, fishing relations outside the EU aren’t straightforward.
There are a series annual fisheries arrangements, some bilateral, some involving more parties such as the Faroe Islands, and these oversee quotas for shared stocks, reciprocal fishing rights, joint technical measures and enforcement mechanisms.
If the UK were to leave the EU and adopt a relationship in the mold of Norway, it might gain back its waters, but there would have to be a profound and detailed agreement on cooperation.
Leave campaigners will say this is possible. Remain campaigners will cast doubt over the UK succeeding in any kind of negotiation. Greenland’s departure from the EU in 1985 was the last time a country left, and there its fishing rights were the main area of negotiation.
What the UK’s fishermen must hope for is that their demands will feature as highly on the exit agenda during talks, and won’t be subsumed by more powerful industries such as banking or insurance.
While fishing is crucial for those concerned and of important social and regional value, its contribution to gross domestic product is slight. And it was estimated to employ around 12,000 people in 2014, so is hardly a major industry nationwide.
Fishing for Leave seem aware of this risk. One of its stated aims is to make certain that, “in the ensuing British withdrawal, malevolent interests are held to account, and not one tonne of British fish is bartered away in the extrication process.”
Aqualife goes on
Leave campaigners stress that shunning EU membership won’t leave the UK isolated. It will still be a member of international bodies — the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN and the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea — that would be forums for protecting its interests.
As with many EU policies, the referendum debate comes down to the same decision. Do voters stick with the EU and try to change an imperfect policy from within, or step away in the hope that it will have more control.
Lewis Crofts, chief correspondent at Mlex
