Where our Brexit negotiators are going wrong – and it’s not just fishing!

When anyone says they want “a deep and special relationship you know they are only looking at their side of negotiations and are oblivious of the other side’s position.

The EU isn’t in a position to give us such a relationship. The project must come first – in other words, the first duty of the European Commission and Parliament is to preserve the unity of the remaining 27 members. They don’t want other countries leaving and expecting a special deal.

The UK Government also states that The same rules and laws will apply before and after Brexit. There is nothing wrong in moving the EU acquis across into domestic legislation through the European Union (Withdrawal) bill for areas that apply only within the UK. It is a different matter with any legislation which include a degree of interaction with EU27 – fisheries policy, for example. We may point out that we are maintaining regulatory convergence but the laws are not compatible from the EU prospective because in March 2019, we will no longer be an EU member state.

At the bottom of the majority of EU regulations it states: This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. As we will be no longer a member the regulation is neither binding nor applicable on the UK.

So while the two highlighted statements sound convincing at first glance, they are not and the fact that our negotiating team keeps repeating them shows that in reality, they are very vulnerable.

The Transitional deal

The above comments apply equally to the proposed two year transitional period. Because of the time which has already been lost, many in the establishment are hailing this as an important step forward but in reality, they have failed to appreciate how catastrophic the terms of such a deal are likely to be.

Fishing for Leave believes that only when the negotiations reach the point when a transitional arrangement can be discussed – which David Davis expects us to have reached by end of March 2018 – will it become apparent just how severe the conditions that will be imposed on the UK actually are.

The European Parliament has made its position clear in this document.  There will be no UK representation in any EU institution during that period, but we will have to accept the full rigours of EU institutions, and who is to say it will only last two years? We could well find ourselves no further forward in March 2021. Far from being Brexit, these two years (or perhaps longer) could well be the worst two years of our involvement with the EU project.

Let us consider some of the evidence for this:-

Firstly, from the House of Commons Department for Exiting the EU Committee 25th October 2017 (Our comments in Italics)

Q67            Joanna Cherry: Can I go back to the transitional period or the implementation period?  What is your understanding of the legal basis for a transitional deal or an implementation period?

Mr Davis: The presumption we have been working on is that it comes under the Article 50 proposal.  It was raised with us by the Commission.  The European Parliament sees it in those terms.  I am assuming the Commission legal service does.  But in many ways it is a question almost for the Commission rather than me.

If you are to negotiate, you have to know the legal basis under which you are working and not leave it to the other side.

Q68            Joanna Cherry: Do you have any legal advice of your own as to the basis of a transitional deal or implementation period?

Mr Davis: I am not going to share the legal advice for the reason I gave earlier: that is the convention.  But our belief is that it fits under Article 50.

Q69            Joanna Cherry: Legal advice exists, and it is your belief that it is under Article 50.

Mr Davis: I am not going to be drawn any further on that.  I said I believe it is going to be under Article 50.

As Article 50 comes from the Lisbon Treaty – TEU, it will cease to apply on 30th March 2019, so the transition period can be negotiated under article 50, but the implementation of the transition period will have to be under another EU legal basis.

Q70            Joanna Cherry: Article 50 does not actually say anything about transitional deals or implementation periods.

Mr Davis: Article 50 does not say very much about anything, if you read it.  It is the blandest and unhelpful phrase you are ever likely to come across, but there we are: that is that.

Article 50 is clearly laid out, and does not make reference to a transitional period.

Q71            Joanna Cherry: What it does make clear is that, during any period of deferred withdrawal, the treaties would continue to apply, so if we went into a period of deferred withdrawal under Article 50 we would still be in the single market; we would still be in the customs union; and we would still be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.  That is correct, isn’t it?

Mr Davis: My response to that is the same as my response to Mr Bone: we are not looking for deferred withdrawal; we are looking for an implementation period.

 If that is the case, whether you call it a transition deal or an implementation period, the bottom line is that it will not be covered by Article 50 because, along with the rest of the EU treaties, it will cease to apply on 29th March 2019

Q72            Joanna Cherry: But if it is the case that, as a matter of law, all you could have under Article 50 was a deferred withdrawal, we would not be leaving on 29th March 2019, would we?

Mr Davis: That is not what we have been negotiating for.  The phrase “deferred withdrawal” has never been used to me by the Commission.  The phrase they use is “transition period”.  Our term of art is “implementation period”.

(FfL believes Joanna Cherry is correct)

Then we move onto who will actually be running the country during the transitional period

Q58            Mr Rees-Mogg: To follow on from Mr Bone’s question, the worry is when we get to 29th March 2019 we stay under the auspices of the European Court; we are still in the customs union; we accept new rules as they come through; and we keep on paying money with the promise of a trade deal on the never‑never.

We are still therefore within the European Union for a further two years.  All that has happened is the endpoint has been delayed and the uncertainty in 2021, which the aim is to avoid, is just as great—but we have stayed in the European Union for two years longer and not achieved what we are aiming for.

Mr Davis: There are ways around that, but, if you forgive me, I am not going to detail them here today.

Q89            Mr Djanogly: During that period, will the UK have to accept new EU laws made during that period?

Mr Davis: One of the practical points of this, which anybody who has dealt with the European Union knows—as you will have done, I guess—is that it takes two to five years from inception to outcome for laws to make it through the process.

Anything that would have impact during those two years we are talking about will already have been agreed with us in advance.  Anything that happens during it will be something for subsequent discussion as to whether we propose to follow it or not.

This is another area where FfL believes Davis is wrong. As far as we understand things,  it is the acquis which has passed onto the UK statute books on or before 29th March 2019 that will be covered by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, not work in progress, that is moved across to domestic legislation, and as cherry picking is supposedly not on, Davis’s answer is unusual, and Rees-Mogg and Djanogly were in order to ask those questions.

Michel Barnier’s comments to House of Lords Committee 12th July 2017

  1. Barnier made it quite clear that the transition period would see us under the thumb of the ECJ:-

“You talked about the risk of divergence. It is a risk, not a certainty. The repeal Bill is meant to bring EU legislation into British laws, and that is very good and important, but what will happen D plus 10 or D plus 20? How will your law and your standards develop? ……

That period will be set in a framework, a transition period, and then there will be a new relationship. I cannot give you a time more precisely than that. I cannot even tell you the nature of it. All that I can say—and I can say this in the name of the EU—is that during that period we will maintain, in relation to the internal market, the regulatory architecture and supervision of the Court of Justice.”

The European Parliament said exactly the same thing three months earlier:-

From European Parliament resolution of 5th April 2017

Transitional arrangements

  1. Believes that transitional arrangements ensuring legal certainty and continuity can only be agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom if they contain the right balance of rights and obligations for both parties and preserve the integrity of the European Union’s legal order, with the Court of Justice of the European Union responsible for settling any legal challenges; believes, moreover, that any such arrangements must also be strictly limited both in time – not exceeding three years – and in scope, as they can never be a substitute for European Union membership;

Michel Barnier raised further complications about the transitional deal:-

  • We will be able to apply absolutely no pressure on the EU during this time.

Speech by Michel Barnier at the press conference following the third round of Article 50 negotiations with the United Kingdom

Brussels, 31st August 2017

“…but it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. That is what UK papers ask for. This is simply impossible.”

  • Even a transitional deal would require a treaty

Speech by Michel Barnier in front of the Committees of Foreign Affairs and the Committees of European Affairs of the Italian Parliament

Rome, 21st September 2017

The dialogue we are having here today – as in all national parliaments – is essential because our future partnership with the United Kingdom, and its legal text in the form of a treaty, will have to be ratified by you, when the time comes.  Once again, the future of the Union is our priority, not Brexit

Finally, the implication for fisheries

FfL believes the Government is heading into uncharted waters; creating problems for which they and not the EU are responsible.

1) Article 50 takes us cleanly out of the EU and the CFP, with no legal repercussions.

2) The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill takes us back in all but name if we include the fisheries regulations of the acquis. What we have just left, our own UK Parliament intends fully to take us back into again.

3) The proposed two year transitional/implementation period will require a treaty and during that time, we will be subject to the CFP.

Furthermore, FfL believe that it wouldn’t just be fisheries which would be affected by this “out and in” process, which could cause us to fall foul of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a notoriously grey area, which could bog down the system with lengthy and complex legal cases.

While it is the intention of HMG to produce a Fisheries Bill, we don’t know what will be in the Bill. Can it be made watertight? This could be difficult in view of the EU stating there can be  no cherry picking in any transitional arrangement. We can be sure that the EU would  not allow the present fishery arrangements to be exempted from such a deal and worse still, EU control of our fisheries could become permanent if the Government does not change course and exempt the EU fisheries regulation from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Fishing:- Template letter to MPs

A number of our members and supporters have been in touch after signing the petition to stop the Common Fisheries Policy being adopted into UK law post-Brexit.

They have received a reply from the government e-petitions site which includes the following:-

A group of MPs called the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are investigating how possible changes to the fisheries and seafood trading arrangements between the UK and the EU will affect fishers, seafood processors, consumers, coastal communities and the environment.

To help them with their investigation, they’d like to hear from you.

The Committee are particularly interested in these questions:

1. What are the most important things that the Government need to look at when thinking about UK fisheries?

2. What are the challenges and opportunities that UK fisheries will face after the UK leaves the European Union, Common Fisheries Policy and London Fisheries Convention?

3. What stock management objectives should the Government establish in order to achieve the right balance between the interests of seafood consumers, fishers, seafood processors and the environment?

4. What trade policy objectives should the Government establish in order to achieve the right balance between the interests of consumers, fishers, seafood processors, and the environment?

5. How effective are the Government’s arrangements for representing the interests of the UK’s constituent nations within the UK’s negotiations for fisheries?

Please see this attachment which we believe provides a suitable template for your reply. In our opinion, these five questions raised above do not get to the core of one important issue – that UK authorities alone must determine who fish in our waters. This letter does make that point and strongly endorses the “Faeroe-Islands-Plus-Plus” model advocated by Fishing for Leave.

We would strongly recommend not sending it verbatim as politicians are more likely to ignore large numbers of identically-worded e-mails or letters, but on the other hand, we also suggest that you largely stick to the subjects covered in the template, as much of the content originates with Fishing for Leave, which includes the most experienced fisheries campaigners in the country.

 

As a post script, if you would prefer to stick more closely to the five questions, John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave has provided the following suggestions:-

1) What are the most important things that the Government need to look at when thinking about UK fisheries?

  • That the UK becomes a world leader in fisheries management
  • Do not copy the Common Fisheries Policy
  • Re-establish our coastal communities
  • Address the issue of discarding of dead fish
  • The Nation’s resource must not end up in the hands of a few

2) What are the challenges and opportunities that UK fisheries will face after the UK leaves the European Union, Common Fisheries Policy and London Fisheries Convention?

  • Establish the UK as a maritime nation again
  • Create a multi billion pound industry, plus ancillary, including recreation and tourism
  • Get rid of the quota system
  • Abide by international law
  • Work with nature, not against
  • Create a policy that unites fishermen, fishery officers, and scientists

3) What stock management objectives should the Government establish in order to achieve the right balance between the interests of seafood consumers, fishers, seafood processors and the environment?

  • Use sea-time limit, not quota allocation, as that causes dumping
  • Maintain a balance between small, medium and large vessels
  • All marine resource caught in the UK’s EEZ must be landed in UK, unless individual permission is given by the UK government

4) What trade policy objectives should the Government establish in order to achieve the right balance between the interests of consumers, fishers, seafood processors, and the environment?

  • Trade deals should not be linked to access to UK fishing waters. Keep trade/access seperate
  • What marine resource the EU buys from UK cannot be readily obtained from elsewhere.
  • Must abide by internatonal law
  • You have to catch marine resource before you can process or sell it

5) How effective are the Government’s arrangements for representing the interests of the UK’s constituent nations within the UK’s negotiations for fisheries?

  • We don’t know as to date we have heard very little. I suspect the department would prefer the UK territorial waters out to 12 nautical.miles to continue to be devolved but the EEZ of 12 to 200n. Mile/median line as one unit.
  • Four separate EEZs would be a nightmare as international reciprocal arrangements have to be agreed.

 

Fishing – a step backwards

A Brexit that will work for nobody

“Brexit means Brexit,” Theresa May famously said on a number of occasions last year, “And I intend it to work for everybody.”  With the half-way point between the referendum vote and Brexit day looming next month, current pronouncements from the Government suggest that on the contrary, we could end up with a Brexit that works for no one.

Our fishermen have good reason to be worried. Unless the Fisheries Regulation 1380/2013 is exempted from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – and there is no sign that this is the Government’s plan – we will end up leaving the Common Fisheries Policy only to revert to what is in effect a shadow CFP, including all the access arrangements which would continue to give away our nation’s resource to the EU. Last week, when asked about fisheries, the Prime Minister said,

“When we leave the European Union, we will be leaving the common fisheries policy. As part of the agreement that we need to enter into for the implementation period, obviously that and other issues will be part of that agreement.”.

While this “implementation period” may exist only in Mrs May’s imagination, she should instead have given an unequivocal statement that upon Brexit, we will not only immediately take full control of our Exclusive Economic Zone, but will not be running it on a quota basis.

At least as far as fisheries is concerned, there is hope that ultimately it will be Michael Gove who determines post-Brexit policy. He has shown himself sympathetic to the plight of our fishermen and his mention of John Ashworth in person during a fringe meeting at the Tory Party Conference is a recognition that the fishing community is running a well-organised campaign that not going to take no for an answer.

Another area of concern is the reluctance of this government to disentangle ourselves from the EU’s military machine. Our friends in Veterans for Britain  were understandably critical of the Government’s recent  “future partnership” paper on defence, which would limit our independence. They also do not want to see is tied in to PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) a key factor in the EU’s military ambitions to create a defence union. It appears from an earlier briefing put out by VfB that many MPs are still in the dark about the very limited military autonomy with which government ministers plan to allow us. This is unacceptable. As an independent country, our political objectives will inevitably diverge from those of the EU. We will no longer be interested in its empire building in the Balkans or among the former soviet republics. Our defence policy must be disentangled from that of the EU before we leave. If Mrs May is planning a reshuffle, as is widely being rumoured, the appointment of a genuine Brexiteer to  replace the most unsatisfactory Micharl Fallon as Defence Secretary would be a very good move.

We also need to make a clean break with the EU on criminal justice matters.  Torquil Dick-Erikson has raised the issue of the European Arrest Warrant on this website before. We agree with him that it is totally unacceptable for the Government to keep us as a signatory to the EAW and to be a member of Europol. More than that, Torquil has pointed out that the Government has also declared its willingness to allow “special intervention units” from the EU to set foot on British soil, and under a smokescreen of “ensuring security.”

In these three areas – fishing, defence and criminal justice, Brexit must be as “hard” as possible and the Government’s shortcomings will be highlighted over and over again on this website until there is a change of heart. This is not the Brexit we voted for.  As last year’s Vote.Leave slogan said so graphically, it was all about “taking back control”. If our fishing grounds are shared with the EU, our defence is bound up with that of the EU and EU judges still have the power to haul us off to any one of 27 member countries on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, we are not in control at all.

What is more, these issues must not be swept under the carpet while all the media focus being on trade talks – or rather, the lack of trade talks. Thankfully, as far as trade is concerned, a number of senior figures from industry, supported by a small but growing number of MPs are expressing their concern that the “No deal is better than a bad deal” mantra is unrealistic and dangerous. Leaving the EU without a deal would be a calamity for our economy, even though one recent opinion poll suggested that as many as 74% of voters would prefer this to a supposed “bad deal”. Do they realise that planes would be unable to fly? That the M20 in Kent would be turned into a lorry park overnight?

Of course, it is possible that the Government is engaging in brinkmanship to try to twist the EU’s arm and get it to start trade talks before the three contentious issues of the Irish border, the “divorce bill” and the rights of EU citizens have been agreed, but it is a high-risk strategy and one that looks unlikely to succeed. It is based on a long-standing failure to perceive that the EU is first and foremost a political project, not a trading bloc.

This mistaken perception of the EU’s nature suggests that the transitional arrangement mentioned recently by Mrs May (where we would be able to trade seamlessly with the EU after Brexit in return for being subject to most of the EU’s rules and policed by the European Court of Justice) is mercifully a non-starter.  It is an unsatisfactory pick-and-mix deal which violates the EU’s political integrity while being an extremely bad arrangement for the UK. It remains a mystery why the EEA/EFTA option is still being ruled out of court by all senior government figures when something far worse is being publicly advocated instead.

While no sane person would disagree with the statement by David Davis that Brexit is “the most complex peacetime operation in our history”, it is now nearly 14 months since the referendum vote and we do not yet have any indication that the Government has come up with a strategy which will deliver a satisfactory break with the EU.  Thanks to David Cameron’s ban on allowing the Civil Service to work on any Brexit plan before the  referendum, the Government and Whitehall have found themselves on a sharp learning curve, but some campaigners, such as John Ashworth have been active for 20 years or more and have considerable knowledge their specialist subjects. Why are their recommendations not being adopted? Why, after all this time, is the government still seemingly confused about the difference between the Customs Union and customs clearance agreements? Why has the defence integration continued since the Brexit vote without any consultation with the military, who actually understand the issues?

It does not help when anyone who dares to stick their heads above the parapet and suggest that we are heading for a disaster is labelled a “traitor” – as was the case with Philip Hammond last week. Of course, Mr Hammond supported remain during the referendum and some ardent Brexiteers refuse to believe that anyone who did not campaign for Brexit can possibly be genuinely committed to making it happen, in spite of our own soundings which suggested that most MPs, whatever side they took in the referendum campaign, have accepted the result and will not seek to be obstructive over Brexit. More worryingly, a veteran leave supporter like Christopher Booker, whose pro-Brexit credentials are impeccable, has been tarred with the same brush for expressing concern about the direction of Brexit talks. What is the point in saying things are looking good when there is every evidence that they are not?

There are two very big worries which force concerned Brexiteers like Mr Booker – and indeed, your author – to stick to their guns. The first is that a calamitous Brexit would be grist to the mill of the hard-core remainiacs who have never accepted the result of last year’s referendum. A spike in unemployment and inflation coupled with possible food shortages would lead to calls for us to start negotiations to re-join the EU, even though we would lose our opt-outs on the €uro and Schengen along with the Fontainebleau rebate won for us by Mrs Thatcher. This would be a disaster.

Secondly, it would lead to unprecedented political upheaval. Less than a year ago, some Conservatives were convinced not just that Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable but that the Labour Party was in its death throes. Last June’s election was a rude awakening for the Tories, proving their optimism to be very wide of the mark. The mood at the Party conference was apparently very sombre indeed.

There is good reason for this, as today’s young people in particular are far more likely to support Labour than the Tories, suggesting that far from Corbyn being unelectable, he is likely to become Prime Minister in 2022, bringing with him a team of MPs who are in the main, even more reluctant Brexiteers than the Tories. The best way  – indeed, probably the only way – of avoiding this is for the Tories to deliver a successful Brexit. Analysis of voter intentions suggest that the most popular reason why voters opted for the Conservatives last June was a conviction that they would deliver on Brexit. To betray the voters’ trust  would not just hand over the keys of No. 10 Downing Street to Jeremy Corbyn in 2022; it would produce the biggest crisis in the Conservative Party since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.

As  Anthony Scholefield, a CIB Committee member, pointed out in his 2011 critique of Cameronism, “Too ‘nice’ to be Tories – how the modernisers have damaged the Conservative party“,  attempts by the Tory leadership since 2005 to reach out to urban touchy-feely politically correct types have served rather to alienate many traditional supporters. As I argued a few years ago, there are plenty of people who genuinely want to vote for what Mrs May famously called a “nasty” party. I was wrong in predicting that Cameron wouldn’t win the 2015 election, but he only won it because he was forced to give in to the mounting pressure within his party to hold a referendum on our membership of the EU. It was the EU issue which also saved Mrs May’s bacon two years later. Given that a good few Tory voters (and indeed activists) still remain most uncomfortable about this move to the supposed centre ground since Cameron became leader, I believe that nothing else can save the Conservatives from calamity in 2022 except a smooth, well-managed and complete Brexit that will enable our businesses to keep trading while at the same time revitalising our fishing industry and freeing us from the clutches of the EU’s military and the EAW.

To put it another way, the Tories have a long list of EU-related sins for which they need to repent collectively, going back to the deceit of Edward Heath in the 1970s. This is their one and only opportunity to make atonement. They created the mess; it is poetic justice that they are being saddled with the task of getting us out of it. If they succeed, the country can move on after over 40 years in our unhappy relationship with Brussels and the party need never again “bang on about Europe”.  If they fail, our country may well end up marking the centenary of the resignation in 1922 of David Lloyd George, the last ever Liberal Prime Minister,  with the resignation of the last ever Conservative Premier. It really is as serious as that

 

The British fishing industry – the present situation

The British fishing industry faces a worrying future, as it is not clear what will happen post-Brexit. However, even before we leave the EU, next year could see many vessels put out of business, losing the very people we need to rebuild the fleet and infrastructure once we leave the EU.

2018 brings the next stage of the EU’s discard ban into operation, resulting in fishermen having to stop fishing once they have caught the full complement of the species for which they have the least quota – known as the choke species. Some estimate tie-ups could start by the end of February and last for the rest of the calendar year. It doesn’t matter how much quota you have on others species. The rules state that as soon as the species with minimum quota is reached, you and your organization will be forced to lay up.

On top of that, the fisheries plans for Brexit itself are confusing, causing confusion and doubt. The one glimmer of light is that the Secretary of State Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Environment, Agriculture, Fisheries), the Rt. Hon. Michael Gove, whose brief covers three important areas of EU competency, made a flying start after taking this post in June, denouncing the London 1964 Fishery Convention, which will, in due course, keep foreign vessels out of our 6/12 nautical mile zone.

The past week has been encouraging with two oral question to the Prime Minister, and an excellent House of Commons Exit Committee session, (especially the first half), which took place on Wednesday 11th. October. It was good to get clarity from the four witnesses – Sir Stephen Laws, Sir Konrad Schiemann, Dr. Charlotte O’Brien and Professor Richard Ekins.

We in Fishing for Leave have maintained that when Article 50 terminates on 29th. March 2019, and the EU Treaties and Regulations cease to apply to the UK, we are out of the CFP. We then revert back to the 1976 Fishery Limits Act, and International Law – UNCLOS 3. However, from this Committee session came clarity that when the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, becomes an Act, it is this Act we revert back to, the Act that has brought all the EU acquis back into domestic legislation, including fisheries regulation 1380/2013, re-establishing the right for EU vessels to continue taking around 60% of our Nation’s marine resource.

The danger of this Bill comes not from taking on board into domestic legislation those EU Regulations which only operate internally within an individual country but rather those which deal with interfaces between different countries, like the CFP reglations. The witnesses to the committee made it clear that while article 50 takes us out cleanly of the EU, on 29 March 2019,  the EU (Withdrawal) Bill takes us back in with our parliament’s blessing if the repatriation of the aquis is tied to a “transitional deal” as proposed by Mrs May. For fisheries that means we would be back in the CFP, all bar name and we would remain under ECJ control for up to two further years.

The witnesses also expressed surprise that the withdrawal bill appeared not to cover the eventuality of no agreement being reached.

Given the deliberations of the Committee, we can now understand the context of two important oral questions put to the Prime Minister and her answers. The first was by Kate Hoey, on 9th.October 2017

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)

The European Commission talks continually about the need for Her Majesty’s Government to provide certainty and clarity. Is there not one area in which we could provide that certainty and clarity very plainly, today and in our negotiations? Could we not make clear that in March 2019 we will withdraw from the common fisheries policy, take back all our fisheries, and ensure that our fishing communities actually take back control of who fishes in British waters?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Lady is right to suggest that when we leave the European Union one of the aspects of leaving it will be leaving the common fisheries policy. Of course, we will need to consider the arrangements that we want to put in place here in the United Kingdom for the operation of our coastal waters and the operation of fishing around them.

This does not answer the question regarding when we are going to be leaving the CFP. Will it be on 29th March 2019 as per Article 50? Also, what does Mrs May mean when she talks about our “coastal waters”?All very unsatisfactory.

Further questions were raised on 11th October:-

Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

Is it the Prime Minister’s intention that the United Kingdom should remain part of the common fisheries policy during any transitional period after we leave the European Union? [900931]

The Prime Minister

When we leave the European Union, we will be leaving the common fisheries policy. As part of the agreement that we need to enter into for the implementation period, obviously that and other issues will be part of that agreement. But when we leave the European Union, we will leave the common fisheries policy.

This is a very confusing answer; which date are we leaving? By raising the subject of an implementation period it sounds as if it is to be later than the official Brexit date – 29th March 2019. Fishing is going to be part of the withdrawal agreement which means a final withdrawal treaty, which in turn brings in problems.

Then on the same day 11 October another oral question was asked by Mrs Sheryll Murray, the MP for South East Cornwall, as follows:-

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that once we leave the EU we will have total control over our internationally recognised fisheries limits, that fishermen from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England will benefit from any new management regime, and that this will not be bargained away during any negotiations?

Damian Green  (First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office)

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that when we leave the EU we will be fully responsible under international law for controlling UK waters and the sustainable management of our fisheries. Through the negotiations we will of course work to achieve the best possible deal for the UK fishing industry as a whole.

This answer poses the question as to whether our Government understands our obligations under International law. If it did, you wouldn’t be taking about achieving “the best possible deal”. International law is clear; as far as fishing is concerned, it is the EU which has to ask for a deal, not the UK.

It was nine months ago when Fishing for Leave raised the issue of the Great Repeal Bill (now the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill) with the newly-created Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU). We were concerned about the Exit day being moved through domestic legislation. We have said all along it could bring a legal challenge on acquired rights, bogging us down for years, thanks to the Vienna Convention on Treaties. To this day, DExEU is dismissing this out of hand.

To play safe, just as Michael Gove did with the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, it would be a safer bet to exempt all fisheries regulations from the withdrawal bill.

All this may sound confusing and technical, but having spent over 50 years in the fishing Industry, one issue of which I am convinced is that new UK management system will be based on either the Icelandic model or Fishing for Leave’s model – i.e., Quota or effort limitation. If we go down the Icelandic model, our UK coastal communities will not benefit, and I would not like to sell that to the electorate. We are talking about a national resource, where all the people should benefit, not a few.