A transition will void all international agreements

Press Release from Fishing for Leave, 20th February 2018

The implications of the transition should be of grave concern. What is proposed is not only an existential threat that could see our fishing industry culled, but a diplomatic and constitutional suicide pill the result of which would be an anathema not only to “taking back control” but to the point of a transition itself.

A transition is not part of leaving the EU under Article 50 – it is part of a new ‘transition’ treaty as both David Davis and Steve Baker have candidly admitted.  This is significant as it means we will not be party to current agreements, but the transition is a new treaty that stands alone.

The EU terms are the UK must adhere to all EU law but as we will no longer be an EU member should have no say. This is the EU sensibly safeguarding its interests – our government is doing the opposite.

The implications of Clause 14 and 15 of the transition terms have a severe impact on all international agreements the UK is party to through the EU.

They defeat the whole raison-d’etre of HM Governments for a transition – trade.  For the fishing industry it means the “transition” could void UK participation in all international fisheries agreements that we were party to as a member of the EU.

TRADE

Clause 14. During the transition period the United Kingdom will remain bound by the obligations stemming from the agreements concluded by the Union…while the United Kingdom should however no longer participate in any bodies set up by those agreements.

The intention is that the UK will still have obligations to the EU to adhere to the consequences of agreements concluded with non-EU countries in respect of the EU vs UK transitional relationship. In doing so this maintains the integrity of the EUs dominions and also appears to placate the UK position of everything continuing as is.

However, since the withdrawal agreement cannot bind non-EU countries, they will no longer have obligations to the UK as we will no longer be an official member of the EU but merely maintaining regulatory alignment in an EU vs UK deal.

The UK would only be able to be recognised within such agreements if other non-EU countries agree to continuing existing obligations in force through another agreement with the UK.

The negotiation of such an agreement between the UK and non-EU ‘third countries’ is the subject of the next transition Clause 15 which seemingly makes that an impossible contradiction.

Clause 15. Any transitional arrangements require the United Kingdom’s continued participation in the Customs Union and the Single Market (with all four freedoms) during the transition. During the transition period, the United Kingdom may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.

The UK will be unable to negotiate and sign treaties within the transitional period, even if those treaties only come into force afterward – we will only be able to begin to negotiate treaties AFTER the transition period.

This means that other non-EU nations will have no obligations to recognise the UK being party to agreements signed by the EU as the UK will no longer be an official member but also a ‘third country’ when the ‘treaties shall cease to apply’ under Article 50 and our membership terminates on the 29th March 2019.

However, the catch 22 paradox is that to obey the transition the UK will not be able to enter into any agreements with other non-EU countries to seek recognition that the UK is party to EU arrangements with those countries even if they wanted to.

THIS MEANS WE WILL BE ON WTO TERMS FOR 65% OF OUR TRADE AND UNABLE TO SIGN NEW DEALS…………………..WHICH IS THE WHOLE REASON LOCKING OURSELVES INTO THE EU WAS MEANT TO AVOID! 

In respect of fisheries this could mean any agreements the EU has signed with other coastal states would no longer be binding for the UK as we wouldn’t be officially a member only a vassal state which has agreed to maintain regulatory alignment with the CFP.

This catch 22 between Clause 14 and 15 means the UK could lose agreements on access to Norwegian and Faroese waters for our pelagic and largest whitefish vessels.

The EU can’t be any clearer that this is the case;

As part of the EU Commission document ‘Internal EU27 preparatory discussions on the framework for the future relationship: “International Agreements” 6th February 2018’ the EU makes explicit the consequences regarding international agreements concluded by the EU:

Point 13: “Following the withdrawal, the United Kingdom will no longer be covered by agreements concluded by the Union or by Member States acting on its behalf or by the Union and its Member States acting jointly”.

The EU then continues;

In principle, as a non-Member State, the UK would be able to negotiate international agreements But

  1. the bona fide application of the Withdrawal Agreement prohibits conflicting obligations
  2. duty of sincere cooperation

iii. explicit provisions in the Withdrawal Agreement: “During the transition period, the UK may not become bound by international agreements entered into in its own capacity in the fields of competence of Union law, unless authorised to do so by the Union.”

The Withdrawal Agreement can oblige the UK to respect “the obligations stemming from the agreements” However, the Withdrawal Agreement cannot guarantee the extension of the benefits from those international agreements to the UK!

IT CANNOT BE ANY CLEARER! How will the UK be party to continuing EU deals?

How will the UK be able to seek and agree recognition with other non-EU third countries?

It would be interesting to hear a proper government and DexEU response to how the UK can conclude a future “deep and special” trade deal with the EU under the transition as David Davis professes is required if Clause 15 bars us from concluding agreements… the Government tried (and miserably failed) to do so in;

HM GOVERNMENT – TECHNICAL NOTE: INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD – 8th February

In this document the Government asserts that

  1. …the implementation (transition) period would be based on the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. In its negotiating directives, the EU has adopted the same position. It has stated that “the Union acquis should apply to and in the United Kingdom [during the implementation period] as if it were a Member State”. This is echoed in the Commission’s paper on Transitional Arrangements in the Withdrawal Agreement, which states that EU law “shall be binding upon and applicable in the United Kingdom” during the implementation period.

EU law and agreements are binding on the UK as agreed in a transition treaty between the UK and EU. Such a treaty cannot bind the other non-EU ‘third country’ nations who the EU has an agreement with.

  1. This would be achieved by agreement of the parties to interpret relevant terms in these international agreements, such as “European Union” or “EU Member State”, to include the UK.
  2. Such an approach could be used both to ensure the UK’s continued participation in mixed EU third country agreements… At present the UK as an EU Member State is bound by obligations, and benefits from the rights… It is proposed, with the agreement of relevant third countries, that those rights and obligations continue to apply to the UK on the EU side of the agreements for the duration of the implementation period.

The UK can’t sign agreements with other parties as Clause 15 of the Transition terms forbid the UK from entering any agreements, deals or treaties with other non-EU ‘third countries’. In addition to this the words ‘proposed’, ‘could’…… would…. should….. mean that the position the government is digging itself into relies on the EU and other countries benevolently recognising the UK to be party to EU agreements.

Rather than leaving cleanly and being free to operate as an independent sovereign nation the transition (by the governments own admission) digs this country into a subservient position with no guarantee of being party to any international agreements through the EU.

The position the government is digging itself into relies on the EU and other countries benevolently recognising the UK to be party to EU agreements.

Rather than leaving cleanly and being free to operate as an independent sovereign nation the transition (by the governments own admission) digs this country into a subservient position with no guarantee of being party to any international agreements through the EU.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE FISHING INDUSTRY

In respect of fisheries all the Clauses above means that although the UK will follow the CFP as a vassal state (through the terms of a transition treaty between the EU and UK) countries such as Norway, Faroe and Iceland have no obligation to recognise the UK being party to EU arrangements and even if they wanted to Clause 15 means the UK can’t sign any deal as an EU satellite.

Yet because the UK will have submitted to an EU vs UK “transition” agreement we will have agreed to re-obey the CFP where we re-agree to give the EU our fishing waters and resources to divide out as the EU see’s fit through relative stability and agreements it reaches internationally.

This would mean the UK would still have the EU catching 60% of the resources from our waters and the EU would be able to use UK whitefish and pelagic quota as negotiating capital but we would be unable to take back control and then use our position of strength as a new independent coastal state to make our own mutually beneficial agreements with our Nordic neighbours.

The UK would continue to lose out in the CFP but also lose access to Norwegian and Faroese waters for the most powerful catchers in the UK fleet. We would lose twice rather than gain twice by walking away. We would be hit 4 times over in a transition where we loose international agreements but are still in the CFP;

We would see some of the most powerful catchers in the UK Whitefish fleet displaced from Faroese and Norwegian sector waters.

 These vessels would be back into an already stretched UK sector with the EU still pocketing half of our whitefish resources.

It would see our pelagic fleet lose access to Norwegian waters for mackerel and atlanto-scandiv herring

The EU can further exploit UK quota (especially pelagic) to make deals to benefit the EU27 fleet due to our compliance with the CFP.

To stick the final nail in the coffin a continuation of the quota system where fishermen have to discard in order to find the species their quota allows them to keep conjoined with a fully enforced discard ban can be used by the EU to finish the UK fleet.

Under the discard ban rather than address the cause of the discard problem, that a quota system does not work in mixed fisheries, the symptom of discards is banned. Under the discard ban a vessel must stop fishing when it exhausts its smallest quota allocation – these “choke species” will bankrupt 60% of the UK fleet as detailed by the governments own figures through Seafish.

This would destroy our catching capacity and allowing the EU to claim the “surplus” of our resources we would no longer be able to catch under terms of UNCLOS Article 62.2 due to such a culling of our fleet.

Signing up to a transition on will see the ruination of what is left of the UK fishing industry when Brexit should be its salvation. Another 2 years of the CFP and a continuation of the quota system will see our fishing industry become yet another British industry consigned to museum and memory.

CONCLUSION

Under the auspices of this proposed transition “deal” (more an edict to obey) the UK will be on WTO with the rest of the world, unable to conclude deals with the rest of the world until after the transition and will be locked into maintaining regulatory alignment whilst obeying the entire Acquis (with continued freedom of movement).

The UK will be trapped in the CFP where our fishing industry will be culled to make way for the EU fleet whilst also losing any access to Faroe and Norway which will diminish fishing opportunities further.

It is nearly unbelievable that the political establishment could contemplate locking the 5th most powerful nation in the world into such a subservient position especially against the expressed wish of the British people to leave the EU in its entirety as voted for in the biggest vote in British history.

A TRANSITION MEANS BRITISH FISHERMEN ARE STARING DOWN THE BARREL OF A GUN!

DEFRA Collusion With Dutch Pulse Fishers

Press release by Fishing for Leave

Row over the highly controversial technique escalated following a meeting held in DEFRAs London headquarters Nobel House between the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) and Dutch VisNed representatives to agree voluntary areas closed to pulse trawlers off South Eastern England.

Local fishermen accuse DEFRA of colluding with pulse trawler owners by acquiescing & hosting a ‘rigged’ meeting that the government now touts as being a solution.

Local East Anglia fishermen say the agreement has no legitimacy, citing that the NFFO far from representing “British” fishermen is actually majority controlled by EU owned but UK resisted “Flagship” Companies.

Local fishermen’s representative Paul Lines of the East Anglia Fishermen’s Alliance blasted;

“Mr. Eustice recently refers to a completely illegitimate “voluntary agreement” between the Dutch fishing industry and UK “fishing interest representatives”, namely the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)”.

“This agreement was secretly drafted by the NFFO with the Dutch fishing industry during the Christmas period and without consulting British fishermen” denounced Paul Lines.

“This deal is a complete fraud. It has no standing,” Paul Lines added. “This ‘British’ federations membership is mostly large-scale EU “flagship” interests.

“There is a direct conflict of interests where the NFFO is brokering agreements which involves a form of fishing highly detrimental to east coast fisheries and environment which is pursued by Dutch companies that fund the NFFO!”

“That the government knows the NFFO is flagship controlled and touts it as an authority to speak on an issue whilst concocting agreements in government offices makes DEFRA culpable in this too.”

“The vast majority of British fishing professionals are not members of the NFFO and are vocally in support of a complete ban of electric pulse fishing whilst the NFFO is not.“

“The NFFO had no mandate to negotiate a scandalous deal that did not reflect the will of fishermen: the NFFO manoeuvre to secure the future of the Dutch fishing industry in British waters, and to lock a DEFRA position touted by the fisheries Minister in favour of the Dutch, is damned disgraceful”.

“George Eustice has to defend British fishermen from destructive fishing practices by foreign vessels, full stop, taking an organistion that is Dutch funded as the voice of British fishermen is untenable.” concluded Paul Lines.

A pertinent letter

Enoch Powell was a consistent opponent of our membership of the European Union and one of our supporters has drawn our attention to an excellent  – indeed, prophetic  – letter sent to the Daily Telegraph over a quarter of a century ago, which we felt was worth reproducing

Daily Telegraph, June 20, 1991
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Britain has lived ‘lie’ since 1972

SIR – I am sorry that Edward Heath appears to have caught the epidemic disease of using the words “lie” and “liar” in political debate (report, June 19). His tussle with Margaret Thatcher came home to me personally because, in a sense, Britain, since 1972 has been “living a lie” – a phrase which I happened to use over the weekend when addressing a meeting of the Stafford Constituency Conservative Association.

   It was in 1971 that I took it upon myself to tour the principal member states of the EC to warn anyone who would listen, and in their own languages, that the British could not possibly intend what was involved in legislating themselves into the Common Market. “They don’t mean it.” I said, “because they can’t mean it.”

   However, in 1972, albeit by a majority of as little as eight votes, the Commons divested itself of every essential part of its own sovereignty – legislation, taxation, control of expenditure, jurisdiction, the lot. The public was assured, both then and when it came to the referendum in 1975, that the sovereignty of Parliament would be unimpaired.

   That is the context for the word “lie”, if one must use it. The facts have turned out otherwise. The laws of the Community now override the law made by Parliament; the courts of the Community overrule the courts of this country. What may have been on the part of some a sincere expectation in 1972 has turned out to be false, and from this false position, now clear for all to see, the Government has to extricate itself and the United Kingdom.

   The issue ought to be placed again, without prejudice, prevarication or pressure, before the electorate at the next general election.

   They want to opportunity to vote for a party which promises to give back to them their former right to decide the laws, the taxes and the policies of the country through their own Parliament.

   The Act of 1972 must be amended to restrict its operation to these areas which are defined by British courts as indispensable to freedom of trade.

   That is what the British people were led to expect 19 years ago. They have a right now to fair, sincere and open dealing, at least from the Tory party.

ENOCH POWELL             London SW1

 

 

Photo by HonestReporting.com

Support a proper military Brexit – sign this petition

If the UK is to separate fully from the EU, this must include cutting any ties with the EU’s military which might compromise our ability to act independently.

In order to achieve this, the UK’s independent military capacity must be retained. We therefore encourage our members and supporters to sign this petition, which calls for a halt to proposed cuts to the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy’s amphibious assault ships

Photo by conner395

A Nation Once Again!

By Alan Smith. This article is used with full permission of the author.

Now that Parliament has agreed that the Government may negotiate the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, discussion on the subject is concentrating on the degrees of hardness that Brexit should take. I think we should step back from the detail and define the essence of Brexit, for which I offer the following, in the language of the Book of Common Prayer: “The Queen in Parliament has the chief power in the United Kingdom and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.”

Should the solution agreed with the EU leave the UK under the jurisdiction of any European court or under rules that give the EU the power to decide unilaterally the terms of future transactions between us, then the government will have violated the referendum decision. Any future agreement between the UK and the EU or its constituent states should be on the basis of two, or more, sovereign states freely agreeing one or more joint actions. The UK would then be free to negotiate treaties with other states throughout the world, taking care to ensure that we protect our essential industries against hostile trade policies.

The withdrawal of the UK from the jurisdiction of the various European  courts is necessary but not sufficient for our freedom. In my opinion it is also necessary to abolish our own Supreme Court and transfer its powers back to the House of Lords, reinstating the post of Lord Chancellor to the powers it held before Tony Blair’s ill-fated attempt to abolish it. That ws one of hte lighter moments in political life this century when Mr Blair announced the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor  and was then advised that it could not be done because certain actions had to be performed by the holder of that post. He quickly backtracked and now we have the post of “Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice”. I do not wish to belittle any of the holders of this post but the position is listed seventh in the  list of members of the Cabinet and may be held by politicians with ambitions to hold higher office. This contrasts with the previous post of Lord Chancellor held by a politician with no further political ambitions, who was a lawyer respected by the profession and who was therefore in a position to speak truth to power.

Leaving the EU does not mean that the UK is leaving Europe: in the Middle Ages, England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland were part of Christendom without being part of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no need  for us to have bad relations with those states that remain within the EU, but that depends, in part, on those states realizing that their interests are not necessarily the same as those of the great wen of Brussels. In particular, there is no reason for us not to continue to maintain armed forces on the continent of Europe for the defence of these states and ourselves. However, should Brussels seek to impose severe financial penalties on the UK for daring ot leave the EU it may be necessary for us to reappraise this position. In addition, should the EU proceed with the project of a “European Army” in such a way that it makes cooperation with NATO impossible, that too would raise the question of continued British forces on the continent as well as those of the USA.

The principal objection to the EU is that it is a project ploughing on towards a “United States of Europe” regardless of circumstances or the wishes of its member states. Europe is not eighteenth century America; the original thirteen states of the USA spoke the same language and joined together in a successful revolt against the same mother country. What worked there and then may not work here and now.

Was there an alternative to the EU and would it still be possible? Certainly there was significant support in the UK for the Gaullist idea of l’Europe des patries, a “Europe of nations.”  This would operate like the Commonwealth, with the nations of Europe cooperating on a variety of projects with a minimal secretariat to coordinate activities, unlike the vast army employed in Brussels. Whatever happens to Europe, we should maintain the idea of l’Europe des patries as a hope for the future.

The chaotic appearance of the present negotiations over Brexit may tempt us traditionalists to remain where we are. the drawback to this view is that “where we are” is on a moving train and only the illuminati know the destination.

Transition will eradicate British fishing Industry

Press release from Fishing for Leave
  • Fishermen’s Organistation Fishing for Leave say it is now unequivocal fact that the “Transition” means we will be trapped obeying all EU law including the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as some sort of vassal state
  • FFL cite EU could trap UK in protracted legal claims for ‘continuity of rights’. Continued CFP is existential threat to what is left of the British fishing industry and coastal communities.
  • Group claims EU will have little charity as the UK will be locked into “legal purgatory” in the CFP where EU could cull UK fleet and claim ‘surplus’ UK hasn’t capacity to catch.
  • FFL implore government and MP’s to refuse the “transition” terms and to exempt fisheries from them

Fishermen’s organization Fishing for Leave say the proposed “transition” is a grave constitutional danger and an “existential threat” to the survival of Britain’s fishing industry and coastal communities.

The group say it is now clear that the “transition”, which they have been warning for months, would give the UK a Brexit in name only. In a position of neither remaining as a member, as Article 50 terminates the UKs current membership on the 29th of March 2019, nor leaving as the terms of the transition say the UK must obey the entire Acquis (all EU law -old and new) including the disastrous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

**NOTES
The EU clearly stated their terms as announced on 29th of January;

12. any transitional arrangements…. should cover the whole of the Union Acquis…Any changes to the Acquis should automatically apply to and in the United Kingdom during the transition period.

17. The UK will no longer participate in or nominate or elect members of the Union institutions, nor participate in the decision-making or the governance of the Union bodies, offices and agencies.

20. Specific consultations should also be foreseen with regard to for the fixing of fishing opportunities during the transition period, in full respect of the Union acquis.

CLAUSE 12 & 20 CLEARLY SAYS WE WILL STILL HAVE TO RESPECT THE ACQUIS (i.e. THE CFP). CLAUSE 17 SAYS WE’LL HAVE NO SAY OR RECOURSE

Veteran Campaigner John Ashworth said
“Our primary concerns  is ‘Continuity of Rights’ under treaty law. We have always been concerned that adoption of all EU law onto the UK statute book could allow the EU to cite that rights acquired under the Acquis should continue to apply – the EU has stated this since its parliamentary briefing notes on Brexit in February 2016”.

“A “transition” period compounds this danger. As it is part of the deal after we leave the EU under Article 50 and it will have to be underwritten by a new ‘transition’ treaty between the two parties. Under the terms of the treaty the UK will have agreed to re-obey the entire Acquis after we terminate our current membership”

“As we will either not terminate the new ‘transition’ treaty nor have a clearly defined Article 50 get out  clause where “the treaties cease to apply”, then Article 70 of the Vienna Convention says “unless the treaty otherwise provides…..the termination of a treaty does not affect any rights, obligations or legal situations created through the treaty”..

“In addition to this Article 30 of the Vienna Convention provides that if a previous and latter treaty are not incompatible, and that the old treaty is not terminated then the rights of that treaty will still apply.”

“We will have created a continuity of rights by adopting all EU law and then agreeing to obey it as per the terms of a transition treaty. The EU could then argue for this in protracted litigation that would bind us into the CFP and hamstring the UK for years to come”.   

                                                                                                                                                                                     
Existential Threat to the Fishing Industry
Alan Hastings of FFL continued;
“If we fail to break free from the CFP the EU will be free to implement policy changes to our detriment. We doubt the EU27 would feel charitable to their political prisoner who has no representation but abundant fishing waters”.

The group say that the ill-conceived EU quota system and discard ban is the existential threat that could be used to finish what’s left of our Britain’s fishing fleet allowing the EU to claim the ‘surplus’ that Britain would no longer have the capacity to catch.

Alan highlighted;
“Rather than address the cause of discards – quotas, the EU has banned the symptoms – discards.

Now when a vessel exhausts its lowest quota it must cease fishing. ‘Choke species’ will see vessels tied up early and, according to official government Seafish statistics, 60% of the fleet will go bankrupt”.

If a sizeable portion of the UK fleet is lost international law under UNCLOS Article 62.2 which says;  ‘Where a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall… give other States access to the ‘surplus’.”

Fishing for Leave warns that between the EU having the opportunity to claim “continuity of rights” even if proved wrong they could drag out Britain being trapped in the CFP and its quota system and discard ban for enough time to fishing our fleet off.

Alan concluded;
Once we have lost our industry there is no way back from this Catch 22– if we do not have the fleet we cannot catch the “surplus” and if we do not have the “surplus” we cannot maintain a fleet. With this we will also lose a generation and their skills which are irretrievable.

The UK political establishment of all hues would not be forgiven for betraying coastal communities a second time.

“A transition destroys the opportunity of repatriating all Britain’s waters and resources worth between £6-8bn annually to national control. This would allow bespoke, environmentally fit-for-purpose UK policy that would benefit all fishermen to help rejuvenate our coastal communities”.

“As Minister, Eustice promised we could rebalance the shares of resources where we, have the EU fleet catching 60% of the fish in our waters but receive only 25% of the Total Allowable Catches even though we have 50% of the waters”

“This transition is the reverse of this and something exceptional that is within touching distance and what the public in constituencies across our land expect to see on this totemic and evocative issue”.

“The government and MPs must refuse the “transition” terms and exempt fisheries from them or we will consign another British industry to museum and memory.

“That Theresa May has known this all along means she, and her remain minded officials, are fully complicit in the embryonic stages of a second betrayal and sell out of Britain’s fishing industry”.

NOTE ON PM’s comments

For too long people have bought the government rhetoric. The PM and Ministers have repeated; “We will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy on March 29, 2019”.

This spin has never been a commitment nor indication of a clean Brexit for fisheries. Those who kept citing these words have been either mendacious or naive to the reality of a Transition.

The government has known all along what the transition meant. The PM always continues, that;
“Leaving the CFP and leaving the CAP” wouldn’t give the opportunity until post that implementation (transition) period – to actually introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom. The arrangement that pertains to fisheries during that implementation period will, of course, be part of the negotiations for that implementation period”.

We may officially “leave” the CFP on 29th March 2019 but we’ll re-obey entire EU Acquis as part of the “transition” period after Article 50 officially terminates the UKs membership – we will have left in name only.