More reasons for opposing our involvement in the European Arrest Warrant

Campaigners on this issue will be familiar with names like Andrew Symeou and Edmond Arapi, who have fallen foul of the European Arrest Warrant, suffering considerable distress as a result of being accused of  crimes they did not commit.

Our attention has been recently drawn to two further miscarriages of justice. Firstly, some people will remember the King family, whose son Ashya suffered from a brain tumour. They were arrested under an EAW because they took him to be be treated abroad with proton therapy rather than the radiotherapy on offer from the NHS .The young boy is now apparently “clear of cancer”.

Secondly,  Gary Owens, a former British rock star is about to launch a lawsuit of  $5.2m. against the Spanish government after being extradited to Spain, imprisoned for two and a half years and placed under criminal investigation, all for a crime he did not commit. He too was the victim of an EAW in 2008,  fifteen years after being freed without charge.

It is ABSURD that our government is not using Brexit as an opportunity to set ourselves free from this failed scheme.  Michel Barnier insisted that if we leave the EU, we will of necessity leave Europol and by extension, presumably the EAW as well. On this issue, we can but hope that he will not waver in any way and, in spite of the worst intentions of our government, mo more UK citizens will find themselves falling victim of this flawed arrangement when we leave the EU in a year’s time.

EU Turns Up The Heat: Threatens to ‘Punish’ British Fishermen

Press release from Fishing for Leave

Fishing for Leave lambasted comments made in the Danish Media following the visit of EU Chief negotiator Michel Barnier to Denmark’s main fishing port Thyboron, saying; “You can keep your “Harshness!! – International law confers Britain full sovereignty and control over all our waters and resources!”

– EU Fishermen say; “Brexit has incredibly big impact on our company and all of Denmark’s fisheries. We rely on getting into British waters, he says, saying that 85 percent of the catch of the species of sand eel caught in Thyborøn takes place in British waters”.

Fishing for Leave spokesman Alan Hastings said; “As much as no British fishermen wishes personal ill on other fishermen, where were the EU tears when our resources robbed and communities decimated?”

“Does no one in the EU feel guilty that you built a future for the EU industry on robbing UK coastal communities of theirs?”

“Time for Michael Gove robustly to defend UK interests so we can rejuvenate our communities that were sacrificed with a detrimental deal that benefited the EU”.

Britain has the formal opportunity under international law to stop fishermen from Denmark and other EU countries fishing in British waters post-Brexit.

But fishermen in the EU, along with Michel Barnier, say such a decision could also have a negative impact on British fishing.

They say the EU would look to close EU markets to force Britain to continue current shares and access that see’s EU vessels catch EIGHT times more fish in UK waters as UK vessels do in EU waters 780,000 tons vs 90,000 tons.

“When it comes to fishing, we will talk about the topics that are directly related. Our access to British waters and their access to our market”, said the EU’s Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier aboard the fisherman Meilsø when he visited fishermen in Thyborøn today (3rd March 18).

 “Monsier Barnier made it clear that there will be a negotiation with EU fishermen’s access to fishing in British waters and allowing British fishermen to sell their products on the EU’s internal market” says DR’s correspondent Ole Ryborg.

At this point, according to Ryborg’s Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen the Danish government; “will help Barnier to be harsh in negotiations with Britain in the fishing industry”.

Fishing for Leave responded to the threat by pointing out that the EU markets dependency on UK fish exports combined with EU losing the ability to catch 60% of the fish in UK waters would only increase EU markets necessity on UK fish.

Alan Hastings from FFL said “What the EU thinks is a position of strength is actually a weakness and that is their dependency on our resources as a critical part of their food supply”.

“This is no different from the cod wars when British vessels lost access to Norwegian and Icelandic grounds but almost immediately UK processors on Humberside started to import fish direct from Norway”.

“Remainers and the EU cite tariffs but when the cost of tariffs is weighed against the £3-4bn worth of resources which we can repatriate this offsets tariffs by a huge margin as UK fishermen will be able to land more of what they are otherwise forced to discard”

Alan concluded “Michel Barnier’s comments are a shot across the bow and the battle to restore our sovereignty & governance of UK waters is very much alive!

“Will the government capitulate to EU demands or stand up for British coastal communities and not use them as an ‘expendable’ bargaining chip for 2nd time in the face of EU belligerence?

“The big question for Michel Barnier is, why should the EU get continued access? The UK provides 50% of waters but EU relative stability only gives us 25% of our fish”.

“Fishing is massively important to UK communities too and the CFP has been an economic, social & environmental disaster. Brexit also allows environmentally and economically decent UK policy where we become equal of Norway & Iceland.”

“Taking back control is an “acid test” Michael Gove for this government in coastal constituencies. Will the government hold fast or face electoral oblivion in areas like Cornwall, Kent, East Anglia, Yorkshire and the NE of Scotland?”

Is the end night for Angela Merkel and her disastrous EU?

By Professor Arthur Noble

‘Après moi, le déluge’

The EU is in chaos after German Chancellor Angela Merkel, once dubbed ‘the most powerful woman in Europe’, stormed out of the Bundestag on 22 February 2018 when Dr Alice Weidel, the new (though in her personal life controversial) leader of the anti-EU and anti-Islam Alternative für Deutschland party (AfD), blasted her for threatening to “punish” the UK over Brexit and for squandering German taxpayers’ money to finance “her” [Merkel’s own] EU project. The speech drew huge applause.

In her fiery address,1 Weidel demanded that Merkel should “stop issuing threats” against the UK: “The EU wants to make an example of Great Britain, a punishment beyond any economic or political reason. This is not how one treats a European partner.” She pointed out that the predicted recession in the wake of the Brexit vote did not happen, but that on the contrary the British economy showed growth. Rodney Atkinson, who is well known for his incisive analyses and accurate predictions, has summarised the already positive results of Brexit for the UK even before it happens, and its negative effect on the EU.2

Weidel then denounced the Chancellor’s refugee quota system for immigrants and refugees; but it was a comment by the AfD co-founder, Alexander Gauland, that provoked Merkel’s hasty flight from the chamber: “Countries want to decide for themselves whom they take in. There is no national duty with regard to multiculturalism.”

Money

Weidel warned that the European Commission was planning to restrict Britain’s access to the single market, even during the transition period, specifically because of the fear that other countries in Europe could follow suit and “take back their sovereignty”: “By supporting these plans to ostracise Germany’s biggest trading partner in the EU, you [Merkel] are taking free trade and competition hostage and establishing a failed EU ideology. The good trading relationship with Great Britain and the rest of the Continent must be maintained; otherwise Europe will be disadvantaged in global trade.”

The speech also attacked Merkel’s plan to transfer “more money and sovereignty” away from the Europe’s nation states to Brussels because Brexit has drained the financial coffers of the EU and would leave “a huge financial black hole” in its budget, which she said should be “cut” instead. In fact, the EU Statistics Office Eurostat has discovered and admitted that the EU already has a debt of “at least 21.5 trillion Euro”.3

Brussels is now trying to solve its looming post-Brexit financial bankruptcy by targeting Central and Eastern Europe countries (the so-called Visegrad nations – the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary) with drastic cutbacks on agricultural subsidies. Czech State Secretary for European Affairs Aleš Chmelař says that this will put the whole EU project at risk. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, in an angry confrontation with the EU elite, is demanding a massive refund of 1bn Euro from Brussels’ coffers as compensation for his country’s having been on the front lines of the EU’s borders and forced to build a wall to keep migrants out.4

Revolt

The rise of populist movements across Europe has been slow but steady. The recent spate of electoral defeats which they inflicted on the EU actually started with Merkel herself, where the AfD gained record electoral support and won seats in the Bundestag for the first time in the January 2018 election, severely damaging her and her CDU. The AfD is now more popular in the polls than the Social Democrats (SPD), with whom Merkel is desperately trying to form a Grand Coalition. Recent elections across Europe nevertheless testify to her coming demise as Chancellor.

Despite the narrow defeat of the National Front’s (FN) Marine Le Pen by the EU’s globalist plant in the French Presidential elections, she did beat the two major French parties. Her niece Marion Maréchal Le Pen, who is “waiting in the wings” to become FN leader, has blasted the EU and proposed that France should follow in the footsteps of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump by putting “France first”.

The Austrian People’s Party’s (ÖVP) Sebastian Kurz took his country’s electorate by storm to form a rightwing coalition with the Freedom Party’s (FPÖ) Heinz-Christian Strache in a centre-right coalition government for the first time since World War II – a coalition which Deutsche Welle says “threatens the EU”.5 In the Czech Republic, the ANO’s Andrej Babiš, who rails against EU migrant quotas and has repeatedly stated that Euroscepticism would grow in his country, garnered 30% of the vote to defeat seven other candidates, while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who has consistently expressed his uncompromising defence of national sovereignty and his opposition to so-called ‘political correctness’, built anti-immigrant razor wire fences with water cannons stationed on his borders and denounced Merkel’s demand for the rest of the EU to follow her unilateral opening of its borders as “moral imperialism”.6

Similar revolts have occurred in the Netherlands, where, in the opinion of The Atlantic,7 Geert Wilders with his Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) actually “won by losing”, and “still poses a grave threat” to the EU with his demographic warning that ‘the bell tolls for Europe’ as Muslim immigration is in danger of replacing Europeans.8 Finland’s right-wing populist party True Finns has had great success with its Eurosceptic programme and is now urging Helsinki to hold a Brexit-style referendum reflecting a growing anti-EU backlash across Brussels.

In 2017 Spain reacted with brutality when the Catalan regional Parliament became the first area of the EU to declare actual independence from the staunch EU puppets in Madrid and therefore symbolically from Brussels, while referenda in the richer regions of northern Italy – Veneto and Lombardy – revealed overwhelming support in favour of more autonomy if not outright secession.

Auf Wiedersehen, Angela!

Merkel’s hasty exit from the Bundestag on 22 February may well become a potent historical symbol of the break-up of the EU. The populist revolt against her disastrous policies make it more difficult, if not impossible, for Germany to dictate to the rest of the EU in the way that she and her globalist supporters like Tony Blair and global mischief-maker billionaire George Soros want. The latter interfered with a donation of £400,000, and when criticized contributed a further £100,000, in a last-ditched attempt to thwart Brexit and overturn the democratic will of the British people.

As the de facto leader – or rather ‘misleader’ – of a Union which is disintegrating under the weight of her dictatorship, Merkel can now no longer convince or win with her policies of ‘more Europe’ which are the very cause of the Europe’s disintegration. Europeans have rejected her policies on security and immigration, making it impossible for a bankrupt EU9 to provide debt relief for countries such as Italy and Spain or to secure control over the EU’s insubordinate eastern members.

Merkel has suffered a series of deadly blows from which she cannot recover, and yet, obviously oblivious of reality, she continues to parrot the same incessant rant about her plans to create an EU superstate. She calls it “a new dawn for Europe”, but it is nothing but the old one dressed up like the legendary Emperor in his new clothes. Speaking ahead of the most recent EU summit, symbolically unattended by the UK, she said rather laughably: “We want to have a Europe capable of action that is in solidarity and has self-confidence.”10 It clearly has neither. “To achieve this we must be ready to strengthen Europe where a European solution is better than a purely nationalist one.” There you have it: ‘Nation states are out; the European model must prevail.’ No change then!

FOOTNOTES

1 https://youtu.be/uTNAr_k4k9M
2 http://freenations.net/massive-eu-losses-of-no-deal-brexit-german-industry-expects-free-trade/
3 http://www.eutimes.net/2018/02/eurostat-discovers-that-the-eu-has-at-least-e12-5-trillion-debt/
4 https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/923338/EU-finances-Viktor-Orban-Hungary-Brussels-450m-border-protection
5 http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-a-right-wing-coalition-in-austria-threatens-the-eu/a-40962645
6 https://www.politico.eu/list/politico-28/viktor-orban/
7 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/03/geert-wilders-won-by-losing-netherlands-vote/519834/
8 http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/06/02/wilders-europeans-danger-replaced/; http://www.eutimes.net/2017/06/wilders-surgingdemographic-
change-means-europeans-are-in-danger-of-being-replaced/
9 See fn. 3
10 https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/922389/Angela-Merkel-EU-latest-news-Germany-coalition-SPD-EU-superstate-Bundestag

Photo by Glyn Lowe Photoworks.

The United States of Europe – an aspiration since???

Congratulations to long-standing CIB member and independence campaigner Sonya Porter, whose letter (below) was published in last Friday’s Daily Mail.

 

Back in 1960, I learned which country was destined to be the organ grinder to whose tune the monkeys of Brussels would have to dance.

I was a shorthand typist with the International Labour Office, one of the UN agencies in Geneva.

One morning my boss took me to a conference by the European Coal and Steel Community, a forerunner of the EU.   It was extremely dull and, after putting on the translation headphones, I dozed off.

I woke with a start when the German delegate said:  ‘And we hope within a few years, Europe will be one country.’   I thought:  Goodness, gracious, they’re at it again!   That delegate might have meant it in the nicest possible way, but it was only 15 years after World War II, and that was not the way I took it.

I think I was right, wasn’t I?

Sonya Porter

Photo by fdecomite

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.