Fishing: the threat goes right up to the shoreline.

When the Prime Minister gave her first major speech outlining Brexit at the Conservative Party conference on 2nd. October 2016, Fishing for Leave rapidly produced an analysis,  pointing out the pitfalls within the Prime Minister’s plan.

Invoking Article 50 was fine. This would create  a clean break, with no repercussions from the other 27 Member States because they had accepted the terms in the Lisbon Treaty  and the Croatian Accession Treaty What was of great concern was the Prime Minister’s quest for a “deep and special” relationship, which like David Cameron’s red lines, would never be on offer or available, so such a policy would be chasing rainbows.

While FfL could understand the reason  for bringing all EU existing legislation into domestic Legislation, (otherwise on Brexit day there would be vast sections of UK legislation missing), we had serious concerns. This procedure was satisfactory for internal law, but it would cause problems with joint EU external legislation (Regulation) such as the Common Fishing Policy.

This concern was heightened when the Prime Minister stated that all rules and Laws would be the same the day before Brexit as after. The rules can be made to be the same, but the laws cannot be the same, simply because the UK will no longer be an EU member state, but treated as a third country, with no obligation for the EU to treat the UK as compatible.

Because of the huge mount of time wasted at the start of the Brexit process, the UK is having to  go through the process of an implementation/transition period (21 months) and  if the terms agreed with the EU are formally adopted, we face a serious risk of a legal action through the Vienna Convention on Treaties, which could tie us down to the status quo for many years.

By surrendering fishing, the Nation’s resource, for the 21 months of the transition period, instead of leaving the CFP on 29th. March 2019 and introducing a sensible scientific and environmentally sound British policy, we would be continuing with the CFP management, meaning that UKfioshermen would have to be subject to the final stages of the discard ban, which will be introduced at the start of 2019. If it is strictly enforced, by the UK Government’s own findings, 60% of the UK fleet will face bankruptcy, opening up the possibility for the EU to catch more fish in our waters in 2021,. Under International Law  UNCLOS3, Article 62 (3), because the UK would no longer have sufficient catching capacity, what we can’t catch must  have to be handed to our neighbours – in other words, the EU.

If that was not bad enough, the UK government, under the draft withdrawal agreement of 19th. March has agreed Article 125, and section 4, though paragraph 1, to allow the European Commission to propose to the Council that they can adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.  This includes the waters right up to UK beaches, as the derogation for the 6 and 12 nautical mile limit will have fallen, so the UK can say goodbye to the inshore lucrative squid fishery, and  shellfish  industry.

Our coastal communities will continue to decline, in spite of the token Government support of the Coastal  Communities Fund which, since 2012, has encouraged the economic development of coastal communities. So far £170 million has been spent and the scheme is now to be extended to 2021 with a possible further £90 million spend. That  is a pittance compared to the possible potential of over £6 billion annually our UK marine life could generate.

The only success which the UK Government can claim is leaving the 1964 London Convention, but that will  be tested July 2019, when all EU vessels should be excluded from the 12 nautical mile zone. That will be a test on whose law is superior EU or UK, as July 2019 will be during the transitional period.

There is no doubt that during the 21 month period, the UK fishing Industry, thanks entirely to UK Government policy, will be worse off than if we had stayed in the CFP . For the Prime Minister to say we will come out of the CFP in 2021, taking control of our Nation’s waters, to run our own affairs, is chasing rainbows, as the European Parliament has made it clear there will be no trade deal without EU access to UK waters. There is strong evidence to suggest that the EU was not prepared to consider any transitional agreement if we regained control of fisheries. Having capitulated once for the 21 month transition, a second capitulation – trade deal for fisheries access, is inevitable.

Without a legally watertight binding document in the next few months stating that nothing within our EEZ will be given away, the Prime Minister will not be believed.

This is not the fault of the EU, which will strive for the best deal for the benefit and unity of the remaining 27 member states. Our Government  has been told, and warned of the consequences of their actions, but it seems determined to push our maritime heritage beyond the point of recovery – to become global Britain, a land mass only. To repeat, it was the decision of our government to capitulate. The European Commission’s “notice to stakeholders“, published today (9th April) could not have been clearer, “As of the withdrawal date, the Common fisheries policy rules no longer apply to the United Kingdom…In accordance with international law of the sea, fishing vessels wishing to engage in fishing activities in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of a third country are required to obtain a fishing authorisation from that third country.” This could not be clearer. The government held all the trump cards, but threw them away.

The actions of the UK Government is proving that it has a very different interpretation  of  Brexit from those who voted leave. The problems that will arise for the UK stem from  our own Government’s policy, no one else.

Fishing for Leave has constantly pointed out the pitfalls of Government Brexit policy, and one extra concern which we wish to highlight is the fate of the 12 nautical mile zone during the possible transitional period from 30 March 2019 to 1 January 2021.

One has to remember that basis on which the UK has exclusive rights in the 6 and 12 nautical mile zones  zones is a derogation, by regulation, from our EU Accession Treaty (which gave the EU rights up to our  low water mark.)

On the 29th March 2019 the EU treaties cease to apply, which in turn takes out the regulations, so at that point we are our cleanly out, with no repercussions. However, if we find ourselves subject to the CFP in all but name, there will be no derogation this time.This means that EU vessels can fish in the 12 miles around our coasts – wht out the limitation of quota. This would ruin our   shellfish and squid fisheries. Much of this catch is sold to the EU, but it now looks like EU vessels can catch and harvest it themselves.

The only saving grace, could be what Fishing for Leave tirelessly campaigned for, the removal of the 1964 London Convention, which allows foreign vessels into our 6 and 12 nautical mile zone. This should take effect on the 4th July 2019, and it will be a huge test of Government resolve, to see if they capitulate 100% and continue EU vessel access. If they do, EU vessels will be up to the beaches, and like the Kent Kirk case in January 1983, thanks to our Government’s own actions, there will be nothing we can do about it.

Michael Gove, the secretary for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was living in a fantasy world when he replied to Alastair Carmichael with these weasel words:-

“There is a significant prize at the end of the implementation period, and it is important that all of us in every area accept that the implementation period is a necessary step towards securing that prize. For our coastal communities, it is an opportunity to revive economically. For our marine environment, it is an opportunity to be managed sustainably. It is critical that all of us, in the interests of the whole nation, keep our eyes on that prize.”

Both Mr Gove and the Prime Minister had previously stated categorically that we would leave the CFP on the 29th March 2019 and take back control of our Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 nautical mile/median line, but in order to secure what will be a disastrous 21 month transition to buy moew time (in other words, to cover up the fact that they didn’t have any idea about a final settlement), the Government surrendered our EEZ to the EU.

Just to remind ourselves, here are Mrs May’s words:-

We will be leaving the common fisheries policy—and, as I indicated, the CAP—on 29th March 2019. The arrangements that pertain to fisheries during that implementation period will, of course, be part of the negotiations for that implementation period. Leaving the CFP and the CAP gives us the opportunity, post-implementation period, to introduce arrangements that work for the United Kingdom. The Environment Secretary is discussing with the fishing and agriculture industries what those future arrangements should be.

Can we trust her? After recent events, no amount of words, promises, assurances, will convince coastal communities that come 2021, the people’s marine resource will back under national control. After such a volte-face, they are justified in assuming that it will be given away for a trade deal, just as it has been given away now for the 21 months transition. The EU will demand that position for a trade deal and the UK Government will capitulate, and hand it over.

Just look at Article 125  part 3 of the draft UK draft leaving document :

The Union may exceptionally invite the UK to attend, as part of the Union delegation, international consultations and negotiations referred to in paragragh  1 of this article, to the extent allowed for Member States and permitted by the specific forum.

What a degrading, humilitating position the UK Government has placed our nation in.

Finally, part 4 states:   Without prejudice to article122(1) , the relative stability keys for the allocation of fishing opportunites  referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be maintained.

Paragraph 1 relates to article 43(3) TFEU : The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall  adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantative limitations and on the fixing and allocaion of fishing opportunities.

As relative stability keys can be changed, the EU can take what they like out of UK waters.

DEFRA (the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, claims that it had reached a deal with the EU whereby the UK’s share of the catch in our waters wold not be reduced during the transitional deal, which includes keeping the 12-mile limit exclusively for UK fishermen. Whatever DEFRA might, however, as far as the 12 nautical mile zone is concerned, based on the draft Withdrawal Agreement Article 125, it is wrong.

The 6 and partial 6 to 12 nautical mile zone is protected presently by a derogation within Regulation 1380/2013. That Regulation ceases to apply to the UK when we leave the EU on 29 March 2019.

DEFRA will argue that this isn’t the case because through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill this Regulation has been incorporated into domestic legislation.

Not just DEFRA but the UK Government as a whole is making a huge mistake in this thinking. While our rules might be identical, as we have pointed out, the legal basis is not the same, simply because we will no longer be a member state. In order for this arrangement to be acceptable with the EU, it would have to be incorporated in a treaty.

Until that happens, the wording of Article 125 relates from the base line (Low water mark) out to 200 nautical mile/median line.

Even if the EU agrees by handshake to maintain the existing arrangements, without a legal basis, EU vessels will enter our 12 nautical mile limit to take non quota species, such as squid, cuttlefish and scallops.

The only saving grace, could be the UK’s withdrawal from the London 1964 Fisheries Convention, commencing 4th July 2019, which withdrawal excludes all EU vessels from within the 12 mile zone. A determination to enforce this exclusion will be another test of the Government’s resolve. Will it stand firm, or capitulate? If it is the latter, then as with the 21 month implementation period, it will be certain capitulation over any trade deal which might come into effect at the end of 2020.

The fishing industry is not going roll over and Fishing for Leave will be organising a series of protests in ports up and down the country to highlight the plight of the industry – to be betrayed a second time by a Conservative government. Details of the location and dates of protests will be found in this article, which will updated regularly.

What angers fishermen and their supporters is that this surrender is totally unnecessary. If the government needs more time to negotiate a long-term deal, then why not go for the EEA/EFTA route as a holding position?   As far as fisheries is concerned, it would mean that we could take back control and the EU would be powerless to stop us. It could not stop us signing up to an arrangement which it has already signed with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein and would also mean that any negotiations on a long-term trade deal would be starting from a much better position. Having regained control of fishing, we could make it clear to the EU that sharing our resource once again, to the detriment of our national fishing industry, will not be on the table. Indeed, it could not be on the table as the electoral price would simply be too high.

Why the government is sticking so rigidly to its suicidal course remains a mystery, but yesterday’s protests are only the start. Our fishermen have their backs against the wall. They have nothing to lose. The government – and the Conservative party in general – by contrast has everything to lose.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 3:- fisheries shows the need for exemptions

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was designed to ensure that life continues as normal the day we leave the EU.  In an earlier post, we explained the rationale behind this bill. While Labour in particular is concerned about the “repatriated” legislation being tweaked for political ends, a far more serious problem concerns legislation which will need tweaking because of the new status of the UK as an independent sovereign nation outside the EU. Indeed, the degree of tweaking required for some legislation which does not concern merely domestic issues is so great that we believe that it is best that there should be exemptions included in the Great Repeal Bill – in other words, replacement legislation should come into force on Brexit day and the regulation, decision or directive  in question should not be put onto the statute books at all.

Regulation 1380/2013 is the main piece of EU legislation which governs the Common Fisheries Policy. Leaving the EU will free us from this iniquitous, environmentally damaging piece of legislation which has wrought havoc to our fishing industry.  All we have to do is exempt this one single Regulation from the EU (Withdrawal) Bill and our fishermen will be freed from control by Brussels. Even if no agreement on fishing is signed by Brexit day, this would be better than the current set-up. We would find ourselves excluded from EU waters, but the exclusion of EU vessels from our Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 nautical miles from the shoreline, or the median point where the sea is less than 400 nautical miles wide) would be more than a compensation.

In other words, unlike customs arrangements, trade in goods and services or mutual recognition of standards, fisheries is one area where we really don’t have to worry if there is no agreement with the EU by 29th March 2019. We would revert to UN guidelines which would allow us to manage our own waters.

So the current plans by the government to include Regulation 1380/2013 make no sense whatsoever – all the more when analysis of the actual document shows that a massive re-write would be needed before it could be incorporated into UK law or else a tremendous muddle would ensue. You only have to go as far as paragraph (2) on the first page before encountering the terms “Union waters” and “Union fishing vessels.” At the moment, these terms refer to the boats and EEZs of all EU28 countries – at least, all those which have a coastline and therefore a maritime fishing industry. On Brexit day, the term will mean something different as phrase containing the word “Union” will refer to EU27 – in other words, not the UK.

Read on to paragraphs (3) and (4) on the same page and they talk about the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. Unless the government wants us to be in the CFP even though we will be out of the EU, these two paragraphs can be struck through as irrelevant.

Paragraph (5) begins by mentioning “the Union”. Well, we happen to be a signatory to the same UN agreement, so perhaps our Civil Servants can just cross this out and put in “the UK” instead. Sadly, it’s not that simple. Read on a few lines and you come across a reference to a decision by the EU Council. That doesn’t apply to us any more so that needs to be changed.

Given the document is 40 pages long, I won’t bore you with going through the other pages in detail, but the absurdity of repatriating this Regulation must already be apparent. Every reference to “union”, “member states” “Commission” and so on will need alteration. Why bother with a piece of legislation which is so flawed? Scroll through it in its entirety and there are numerous references to quotas. UK fishermen do not want a quota system on independence. Our booklet Seizing the Moment,written by John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave proposes a “days-at-sea” basis, modelled on Faeroese practise, which is far better than any quota system for preventing discards, while at the same time enables a much better management of the environment.

Three further objections to the incorporation of this Regulation into the EU (Withdrawal) Bill should, however, be mentioned. Firstly, the final 12 pages comprise an annex listing the access to coastal waters by different member states. This obviously includes the UK’s territorial waters which the Government indicated it intended to return to UK control by denouncing the 1964 London Convention.  If these pages are included, then the good done by doing this is essentially undone and the government would have broken a promise.

Secondly, this Regulation is the latest of a series of regulations enshrining the UK’s 10-year derogration restricting access to the waters up to 12 nautical miles from the shore, which currently expires on 31st December 2022. If the Regulation is included in UK law featuring any wording implying that restricting access to any part of the waters around the UK is subject to agreement with Brussels, then we have in effect granted the EU a right to continue dictating who may or may not fish in our waters. This is unacceptable.

Finally, if anything resembling Regulation 1380/2013 ends up on the UK statute books after Brexit, even if it has been heavily amended, it will be scrutinised in minute detail by, among others, the French, who will seek to find any opportunity they can to take us to an international court and challenge our decision to repatriate our fishing policy.  Given that so much of this document needs to be deleted or amended to make any sense and that there is plenty of scope for ambiguity creeping in, the threat of a legal challenge adds still further to the reasons for saying that excluding it from the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in its entirety is the only sensible approach to take. Fishing for Leave has the expertise to devise a fishing policy in 18 months – one which will revitalise our coastal communities after years of decline. If even a heavily amended version of this Regulation finds its way onto the UK statute books, it will not be truly Brexit for an industry that has campaigned so long for the return of fisheries to UK control. Given the appalling way in which previous Conservative governments have betrayed our fishermen, this present administration must not be allowed to bungle this great opportunity to right an historic wrong. Thankfully, one Conservative MP has already flagged up the potential problems a bungled fisheries Brexit would cause. We can but hope his colleagues will take heed.

 

Conservative Manifesto – PM May Fail on Fishing

Conservatives Must Exorcise the Betrayal of Britain’s Fishing

Press release from Fishing for Leave

Fishermen’s organisation Fishing for Leave have questioned the government’s electoral resolve on repatriating Britain’s fishing waters and resources that were so shamefully surrendered by Edward Heath as “expendable” in the rush to join the EEC.

They cite that the government’s continued failure to rescind the London Fisheries Convention 1964 is a tangible example that there is no commitment or resolve in government to take back national control of one of Britain’s greatest national resources.

Fishing for Leave spokesman Alan Hastings said “By failing to serve the 2 years notice it the London Convention requires at the same time as Article 50, EU vessels will still have unfettered access to fish in UK waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles after UK withdrawal from the EU”.

“By continuing to prevaricate on scrapping this Convention the government has squandered the opportunity to take back control of all our fishing waters as per international law and in doing so secure the strongest diplomatic hand of controlling all access”.

“Reclaiming our fishing waters and resources can give more sustainable management and would be worth £6.3 billion and which will rejuvenate coastal communities by creating tens of thousands of jobs”.

“A Conservative government must exorcise the abject betrayal of Britain’s fishing and coastal communities and correct the past injustices inflicted on them as they were sacrificed to the EU by politicians complicit in the EUs agenda”.

“A Conservative government must categorically commit to reclaiming all sovereignty and control over UK waters. To scrapping the London Convention, to not adopting the CFP with the Great Repeal Bill for political convenience and to commit to implementing an entirely new, uniform UK policy that will rejuvenate the industry across the whole UK and end the shameful rules that force fishermen to discard upto 50% of their catch”.

 “All it would take is for Mrs May, Conservative MPs and party to show political will and determination by giving a cast iron manifesto commitment on fishing which can be a beacon of success and one of the “acid tests” for the government on Brexit”.

MIKE HOOKEM

EU Fisheries Committee MEP Mike Hookem joined in the criticism of the governments inaction and commitment on Fishing saying “I am yet to be convinced that Theresa Mays government has any intention of repatriating UK fishing to our sovereignty”.

“Time and again in the EU parliament we see British MEPs voting down amendments that aim to repatriate sovereignty to this country.  The fact is the political establishment are so intertwined with the EU that they cannot see the wood from the trees and understand what is best for Britain”.

“Look at towns Like Grimsby, Lowestoft, Whitby, Fleetwood and any of the other traditional port that have had their livelihoods decimated and their communities destroyed through the political establishment sell out to the CFP”.

“We now have an opportunity to regenerate and reinvest in these fishing communities and make them the thriving hubs of industry once more. All it would take is the political will and determination to rebuild the ports and towns that have suffered at politicians hands in the past”

Fisheries: Oral questions following the Prime Minister’s statement

Following on from Mrs May’s announcement last week that Article 50 had finally been triggered, it was encouraging to note how many oral and written questions on the subject of fisheries were asked. Equally encouraging were the answers from the Prime Minister. We are still some way off from any definitive statement about future fisheries policies, but there seems to be a growing recognition of the problems that would ensue by transposing fisheries Regulation 1380/2013 onto the UK statute books.   Here are the questions and answers in full, with my observations and comments in italics:-

 ORAL QUESTIONS

(1) Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)

May I thank my right hon. Friend for and congratulate her on resolutely sticking to her promise to the British people to trigger article 50 before the end of March? There will be celebrations all around the country, nowhere more so than in our remote coastal communities, where the health and wealth of our fishing grounds has been trashed by the common fisheries policy. To re-establish fully our national control of the full exclusive economic zone, we will have to abrogate our membership of the 1964 London convention on fisheries, which requires two years’ notice. Does my right hon. Friend intend to trigger that soon?

The Prime Minister

I know that my right hon. Friend has always had a particular interest in the impact of the common fisheries policy, and he has looked at that issue very carefully. We are looking very carefully at the London fisheries convention and at what action needs to be taken. He is right that this would require two years, but we of course expect to conclude the deal with the European Union within two years and there will then, as I have indicated, be an implementation period beyond that particular time. We hope to be able to say something about the London fisheries convention soon

(At least we have confirmation that they know all about London convention – JA)

(2) Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)

On what is a genuinely historic day for our country, may I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and to the Brexit Ministers for their determination and dedication in getting to this stage today to implement the will of the British people? Does she agree that one area on which we should be able to move forward very quickly in negotiations is getting back control of our fishing grounds?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, mentioned the London fisheries convention. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at this issue and we hope to be able to say something soon. As we look at the whole raft of negotiations, we will be looking at policies that affect not just trade in goods and services, but agriculture and fisheries here in the United Kingdom, and security and crime. We will be looking particularly at the London fisheries convention in due course

(Further confirmation that Fisheries are being looked into)

(3) Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)

For those of us who campaigned and voted for Brexit not just last year, but in 1975 this is a great day and one for celebration. Some 70% of my Cleethorpes constituents and of those in neighbouring Grimsby voted for Brexit last June, partly as a result of continuing anger and resentment at the sell-out of the fishing industry in the original negotiations. The Prime Minister has already reassured me that the fishing industry will be looked after, but the associated seafood industry is very much dependent on the fishing industry. I have already met industry leaders in my constituency who see both opportunities and concerns, so will she reassure me that the seafood processing industry will be a key part of the negotiations?

The Prime Minister

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we want to ensure not only that we get a good future for our fishing industry, but that those parts of industry that rely on fishing will also have a good future here in the UK. We will be taking that into account.

(This looks as if they are keen to address the concerns of fishermen, but do they fully understand the pitfalls?)

(4) Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)

I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear commitment to a positive, constructive and respectful approach to the negotiations that lie ahead. May I press her further on behalf of the fishing community in my constituency and around the United Kingdom? She will know that in the past these people have been badly let down during negotiations, so ​will she give an equally clear commitment that the fishing community will receive a sufficiently high priority during the negotiations ahead?

The Prime Minister

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are very conscious of the needs of the fishing industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been talking to the fishing industry. The Secretary of State and others have been looking carefully at the arrangements that will need to be put in place in the interests of the fishing industry, and that will be an important part of our considerations in future.

(I would love to know exactly who within the fishing industry they  have been talking to!)

WRITTEN QUSTIONS

(1) Kevin Hollinrake Conservative, Thirsk and Malton

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which EU fishery regulations will be transferred to domestic legislation through the Great Repeal Bill.

George Eustice The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We are currently analysing all EU fisheries legislation. No decision has yet been made on the extent to which the EU legislation governing the Common Fisheries Policy will be incorporated into domestic law.

The Government remains fully committed to controlling and managing UK waters after we leave the EU in accordance with our rights and obligations under international law.

We are considering the issue of the London Fisheries Convention carefully to ensure we have full control of UK waters after we leave the EU and, as the Prime Minister said on 29th March 2017, we hope to be able to say something about it soon

(2) Lord Pearson of Rannoch UKIP

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what arrangements vessels of other EU member states fish in UK waters between the six and 12 nautical mile limits; and by what process those arrangements could be terminated.

 Lord Gardiner of Kimble The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Under Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, and the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, vessels from Belgium, Germany, France, Netherlands, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland have access to fish in the UK’s six to twelve nautical mile zone.

In order to withdraw from the London Convention signatories must give two years notice

(3) Lord Pearson of Rannoch UKIP

To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what arrangements vessels of other EU member states fish in the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone between the 12 and 200 nautical mile limits; and by what process those arrangements could be terminated.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy regime vessels from EU Member States have access to fisheries in the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) between the 12 and 200 nautical mile limit. When it leaves the EU, the UK will control access to fisheries in its EEZ and will manage its waters in accordance with international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Government will fail the first Brexit test by not scrapping the London Convention

Release: Immediate

 

Words: 382

Contact: Alan Hastings – 07827 399 408

Fishing for Leave recently highlighted the immediate need for the government to denounce the London Convention.

DexEU and DEFRA’s response that “in regard to historical access to waters, no decisions have yet been taken on the UK’s position” and that “we endeavour to reach an agreement…. by the time the two year Article 50 process has concluded”  is pitiful and suggests they have no intention of acting.

As lovely as it was to hear the government reiterate its position of caring for our fishing and coastal communities their response scarcely backs this rhetoric.

The London Convention must be denounced now to secure all access to our waters and obtain the strongest possible diplomatic hand.

This Convention gives historic rights for European vessels to fish in UK waters but only between 6 and 12 nautical miles from our shores.

Failing to scrap this Convention would allow the EU ‘back door’ access to this narrow strip as the convention will still apply to the UK upon withdrawal.

As the Convention requires two years notice it must be denounced immediately, and before Article 50 is triggered, to avoid an overlap allowing EU access to UK waters.

For 8 months there has only been rhetoric and no results. The government is well aware of this issue and their failure to act suggests they have no intention of securing our rich fishing waters.

Why are they not fully committed to securing this strong hand by controlling all access?

If the government does not act immediately on this easy and simple test of Brexit then it evidently has no intention of making a serious stand. The government and MP’s are about to fail this first test on Brexit.

It would show the opportunity of automatic repatriation of an industry, that could double to be worth approximately £6.3bn annually, is to be betrayed a second time. Fisheries will symbolise whether we’ve “taken back control of our borders” and will therefore be the “acid test” of Brexit.

The government must serve notice to denounce this Convention immediately. To demonstrate that it really does intend to repatriate and safeguard the nation’s greatest renewable resource.

If it does not then it looks like we’re going to have a backslide and betrayal of Brexit and that the government is all mouth and no trousers.

There is still time to lobby your MP to act on this – if you want to see our fishing grounds secured please send the letter in this link to them – http://www.ffl.org.uk/letter-to-mp/