Hopefully it’s confusion rather than betrayal

Michael Gove’s comments to Danish fishermen about access to UK waters after Brexit have attracted some adverse criticism. We have not been provided with a full record of his actual words and it is quite likely he has been misquoted. Furthermore, he has only been in the job a few weeks and there is a lot of detail for him to take on board.

The same cannot be said for the Civil Servants of DEFRA, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who should know better, A statement by one of their spokesman is therefore far more of a cause for concern than Mr Gove’s comments in Denmark. The spokesman said:-

“Leaving the EU means we will take back control of our territorial waters. As we have always said, other countries will be able to access our waters – but for the first time in 50 years it will be on our terms and under our control…..We will allocate quotas on the basis of what is scientifically sustainable, making sure we have a healthy marine environment and profitable fishing industry in the UK.”

The fishing industry has always been concerned that the Government will only allow British vessels the exclusive use of the 12 nautical mile zone – in other words, out territorial waters. This is  what the DEFRA statement has indicated and the recent the Conservative manifesto said the same thing. Taking the DEFRA statement at face value, it would appear that arrangements regarding our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covering the area from 12 nautical miles up to 200 nautical miles/median line will continue as at present. This means that EU vessels will continue to take around 59% of the British people’s resource and the failed quota system will continue. Is this really what Mr Gove has in mind?

So why did the department use the word “Territorial”?

This is where confusion is creeping in. This doesn’t apply just to fishing but right across the whole range of Brexit-related issues. The public is stating to get restless and are wondering whether those at the top know what they are doing or else fear that they are deceiving us again. This is unhealthy, and proves once again the importance of detail.

Consequentially, Gove, probably for no fault of his own, will be under pressure now not only to explain his own comments but also the actions of his department. The burden on Gove’s shoulders cannot be exaggerated. The survival of the Government  – and indeed, the Conservative party – could rest in his hands. If the EEZ is traded away, then Brexit isn’t Brexit. DEFRA may state, “it will be on our terms and under our control”, but if the existing quota system of the CFP is used, the expected benefits will not materialise. Life after Brexit has to be a success for our fishing industry, not a continuation of the present story of decline.

The confusion stems directly from the DEFRA statement – “As we have always said, other countries will be able to access our water”. There is nothing wrong with these words as all free and independent fishing nations have reciprocal arrangements with their neighbours. Under international Law, UNCLOS3 article 62(2) states that if you haven’t the fishing capacity to take the resource, the amount you can’t catch can be given to your neighbours. The problem here is the civil servants will have advised Gove that we haven’t the capacity, whereas in reality we have.

The confusion centres around this word “Territorial.” UNCLOS3 has different rules for the territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles from the coastline and the Exclusive Economic Zone reaching out to 200 nautical miles/median line zone.

No one is saying that we should throw all EU vessels out on 30th March 2019, but no permanent rights must be given, only temporary transitional rights on a declining annual basis. What is vital, however, is that we need to know whether DEFRA is making the common mistake of using the term “Territorial waters”  when it actually means EEZ or whether it really does mean that we will only control the 12 nautical mile limit.

If so, it would be a shameful betrayal of our fishermen on a par with Fisheries Minister Peter Walker, who told Parliament in January 1983 – “the reality is that if the UK, instead of demanding anything like the historic proportions of Europe’s fish that it had caught, demanded a 200 mile limit and 50% or 60 % of Europe’s fish, that would mean the destruction of the fishing industries of most of our friends and partners in western Europe”.

Unfortunately the attitude that fishermen in other countries come before our own still prevails in some quarters. Thankfully, in Michael Gove, we have a person who has hit the deck running and is prepared to listen and learn. He has already shown in denouncing the London Convention  that he is someone who can and will take action. Ultimately, it is the job of civil servants to implement, not decide policy, so we can but hope that when Mr Gove really has his feet under the table that there will be a change of tone from DEFRA.

The way his Danish visit has been reported in the press will also underline to him how important it is for his department to issue clear, unambiguous statements, leaving no room for confusion over a very delicate subject.

Who will blink first?

Our attention has been drawn to an interesting article which appeared on the Conservative Home website. The author, James Arnell, claims that we in the UK have a different mindset when it comes to negotiations. “In the UK”, he claims, “parties generally start from a position which is more or less reasonable on each side and move together to a deal relatively quickly, seeking to avoid unnecessary escalation up the chain of command.”

The Continental approach is very different:- “Negotiations generally start with almost ridiculously extreme positions on each side….It is not at all unusual for these steps….to be accompanied by walkouts, requiring bosses to get things ‘back on track’. Ultimately, this continental form of negotiation culminates in a relatively rapid final phase of negotiations between the ‘head honchos’, in which, after months or years of painful posturing on both sides, points are traded embarrassingly quickly and a deal is sealed.”

Mr Arnell says that we should really start worrying if the negotiations are going smoothly at this stage as it means that the UK side would have been giving too much away.

The author works for Charterhouse, a private equity firm.  His biographical page on that firm’s website states that he is a barrister who speaks French and German fluently. All things considered, this article on ConHome sounds like it has been written by someone with first-hand experience of the Continental mindset with which David Davis and his team are having to deal during the Brexit negotiations. Maybe this is why not a lot is being given away by the UK government. While such tactics may ultimately turn out to be the best way of getting a favourable deal with the EU, as we have pointed out the lack of the details of any Brexit masterplan is causing concern for a number of business figures who are keen to know in far more detail what the government’s exit plans actually are.

A little extra piece of detail did emerge yesterday morning. According to Open Europe, Theresa May was adamant that even any transitional deal would not involve membership of the Single Market.  “We said we would no longer be members of the single market because we will no longer be members of the European Union.,” she said. Fair enough, but if there is another plan, not only organisations such as the Campaign for an Independent Britain but more importantly, some big names in the business world are straining at the leash for some reassurance.

Some confirmation of Mr Arnell’s analysis of the Continental mindset has surfaced in the shape of a  reference document of the Workshop on “Common Fisheries Policy and BREXIT” held on 21th June 2017, by the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries.  Concern has already been voiced about our denunciation of the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, an agreement which pre-dated our joining the EU allowing limited access to vessels from other Western European nations to certain areas of the waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles from our coastline.

As the wording of the original document was vessel-specific and no boats permitted to access our waters in 1964 are likely still to be active, denouncing this Convention could turn out to have been little more than a precautionary measure. The message it conveyed, however, was that the UK is serious about regaining control of all of our waters right up to the 200 nautical mile/median point limit and it was not well received. The response of Geert Bourgeois, the Flemish Prime Minister, was to wave around an ancient charter signed by Charles II in 1666 allowing fifty herring boats from Bruges “eternal rights” to fish in UK waters.  A bit of research showed this action to be nothing more than sabre-rattling. Even nearby Zeebrugge, a far more important fishing port than Bruges these days, could only muster 43 fishing boats in total four years ago.

So it comes as no surprise that the European Parliament is keen to see EU boats continue to plunder our waters. Although trade and fisheries will be handled separately, the report says, “The fact that these issues will be negotiated in separate legal frameworks should not lead to the fragmentation of fisheries issues, which should be addressed in their entirety and together, so as to ensure that the free movement of fishery products is linked to free access to waters and resources and vice versa”. As John Ashworth of Fishing for Leave commented, “The EU will want to tie the whole package together using blackmail on trade” –  In other words,  let us fish in your waters more or less as before or we’ll make it hard for you to sell fisheries products in the EU.

John has studied the issue of historic rights and has concluded that we can take back control of our waters without being open to a legal challenge over this issue. Nonetheless, the European Parliament document says “These historical fishing rights should be taken into account in the negotiations to facilitate preferential access by Member State fleets.” I shan’t repeat his rather forthright comments about this for fear of offending anyone’s sensitivity, but suffice it to say that he is distinctly unimpressed with the reasoning of the European Parliament! As an aside, it is worth pointing out that the European Parliament has a relatively minor role to play in the Brexit process, but its attitude is unlikely to be different from that of other EU institutions.

The bottom line is that if there is no agreement on fishing, the EU will be the clear loser. We would have full control of our waters right up to the 200 nautical mile/median point on Brexit day and no EU vessel would be able to fish anywhere within it. The loss of access to EU waters by our fishermen would be more than compensated by having exclusive access to our own.

This, or course, assumes that Michael Gove does not blink first and give way. The denunciation of the 1964 Convention was a move in the right direction, but the howls of protest from across the Channel are a warning to him that he will need to hold his nerve.

Indeed, it may not just be Mr Gove who needs to take James Arnell’s advice on board. Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek Finance Minister has written a book called Adults in the Room based on his personal experience of how awkward he found EU officials to be.  On the other hand, while we have the upper hand on fisheries, we certainly don’t when it comes to other important areas of trade. Our negotiators must hold their nerve and not be intimidated, but they know that the mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal” is no more rooted in reality than the prospect of fifty 350-year old herring boats from Bruges suddenly appearing in the Channel demanding their eternal rights to fish in our waters.

Photo by waltercolor

A small step – the denunciation of the 1964 Fisheries Convention at last!

Within a week of taking up his new post as Secretary of State Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, has finally denounced the London 1964 Fisheries Convention. This is a small and welcome step towards Brexit, but one which should have been done at the same time as Article 50, as both require two years’ notice of termination. It means that unless we get a time extension to the Article 50 process, there will be a 3-month overlap.

The 1964 Convention was an agreement between the UK and some other European countries about fishing rights in each other’s waters. It was disadvantageous to UK fishermen and very beneficial to the French, possibly as a sop to General de Gaulle, who was not at all keen to see us join the European Community, with which we were currently in negotiations with at the time.

There are some grounds for saying it may make little difference as the Convention is vessel-specific and very few, if any, boats mentioned in the 1964 agreement are likely to be commercially active.

Of course, our membership of the EU has superseded it. Michel Barnier tweeted yesterday:-

UK denunciation of London Convention=no change: EU law/Common Fisheries Policy had superseded it. EU 27 interests=my priority for negs

This is a very telling. In one sense, Barnier is correct, as the detail of the Convention was transferred into EU regulation. On Brexit day, however, the regulation ceases to apply, and we revert to previous domestic legislation which, if it had not been denounced today, would have continued the right of access to our 6 to 12 nautical mile limit.

Note again, “EU 27 interests=my priority for negs.” Given that France gained most from the 1964 Convention, in any negotiations for a post-Brexit fishing settlement, you can expect France to demand access rights to fish in UK waters.

So while today’s move has cleared the way for UK control of our waters up to 12 nautical miles from the coast, there is still the question of control of our seas between 12 and 200 nautical miles (or the median point where the sea is less than 400 nautical miles wide). The Great Repeal Bill will repeal the European Communities 1972 Act, but at the same time will repatriate EU law into UK law – in other words, EU legislation will still be on our statute books but will take its authority from Westminster and not Brussels. This means that while Article 50 would take us out of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Great Repeal Bill, unless it excludes fisheries, would more or less take us straight back in again.

The separate Fisheries Bill will counter that, as long as it takes effect at exactly the same time as, or before, the Great Repeal Bill. If there is any overlap, this will result in huge problems of continuity and legal challenges.

As the time ticks away towards 30th March 2019, ministers need to remember the Kent Kirk case. This Danish skipper deliberately fished in UK waters to test the situation when there were uncertainties following the termination of a fisheries agreement without anything being put in its place.

Once we reach the end of the Article 50 period in March 2019, all EU treaties and regulations will cease to apply to the UK, and we revert to our own UK legislation. It is vital to sort out a fisheries policy before then and the timetable is short. Under Article 50, unless there is unanimous agreement among the 27 members to extend the two year period, we have 21 months left to achieve a withdrawal agreement. When you consider all that needs to be done in such a short space of time, it raises the question as to whether this is possible.

The EU is in the driving seat when it comes to determining the terms of withdrawal. The UK can say yes or no and even then, the Council and the European Parliament have a vote. While the EU is obliged by treaty to conclude a deal, it could make life so difficult that the UK either has to submit or say no.

However, circumstances have dealt us a strong hand as far as fisheries is concerned. If there is no fisheries agreement, no EU vessel will be able to fish in our waters. Given the French fishing Industry needs access to UK waters to survive, it will be putting a lot of pressure on the EU’s negotiators to fight hard on its behalf. It is vital that our side does not give in. Gove has thrown down the gauntlet and even today’s action has ruffled a few feathers. He will need to steel himself for a far worse reaction if he is to see this through to the bitter end and reclaim full control out to the 200 nautical mile/median point limit.

(See also this press release from Fishing for Leave)

Fishing the first Brexit bright spot as confusion reigns

Fishing photo

Are we going to leave the Single Market or not? And what about the EU’s customs union? – a subject that never cropped up in the referendum debate last year. Do some politicians even know the difference between the two?

At the moment, we are seeing a great deal of confusion about the future direction of Brexit and for those of us outside Mrs May’s new cabinet, what we are reading in the media is leaving us none the wiser. the quality of press reporting has reached an all-time low, with uninformed speculation given free rein and undue weight placed on off-the-cuff comments.

Take, for instance, headline statements that Emmanuel Macron, France’s new President claimed that “Brexit could be reversed.” What he actually said was “Of course the door remains open, always open until talks come to the end. But it was a sovereign decision taken by the people to come out of the EU.” In other words, there remains a theoretical possibility that the UK government might change its mind, but no more than that.  Given the shock of last week’s General Election result, it is hard to see the any rowing back on Brexit given that the consequences for the Conservatives would be the worst crisis since 1846.

The terms “hard” and “soft” Brexit have been bandied about with very few people knowing what they actually mean.  By and large, the terms relate to a future trading arrangement with “hard” meaning leaving the Single Market (or perhaps the Customs Union, or maybe both??) and “soft” means remaining in one or both. But what about criminal justice or foreign policy? There are “hard and “soft” issues here, which few in the media are picking up.

In all this muddle, one thing is clear. From what we could discern of Mrs May’s Brexit agenda, it contained some worrying and unsatisfactory features, including too close a link with the EU’s military plans and an ongoing commitment to remain party to the European Arrest Warrant. The loss of her majority means that she cannot force through her plans for Brexit if they are widely seen as flawed. Indeed, it is possible that we could end up with a better Brexit deal, given that pressure groups and their supporters on the Tory back benches will have a lot more leverage than if we had ended up with a thumping Conservative majority.

In one particular policy area, fishing, we are already seeing evidence of this. Scotland was the one piece of good news for the Conservatives in an otherwise dismal result and several of the seats they won from the SNP include fishing communities. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, campaigned strongly on the fisheries issue and has apparently spoken to Theresa May, insisting that the UK must leave the Common Fisheries Policy and manage its own waters right up to the 200 Nautical Mile/Median Point limit.

Given that Michael Gove, who has recently been appointed Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs , is the son of a man who worked in the fishing industry, there is every reason for being hopeful that the sensible post-Brexit fishing policy proposed by Fishing for Leave has a greater chance of being implemented.

So, amidst the current confusion, we are perhaps seeing the first bright light. As the dust settles, hopefully others will follow

 

Michael Gove’s Appointment – 200 mile Clarity Crucial

Fishing for Leave welcomes Michael Gove’s appointment as Secretary of State for Defra.

Press officer Alan Hastings said “FFL are happy given his family connections to fishing and his Brexit credentials and hope he does both justice”.

“Although Defra is not Mr Gove’s previous specialty his intellectual capacity should surmount not having had the Defra brief before, and we look forward to working with and engaging with him to bring him up to speed on one of the acid tests of Brexit”.

“Fishing can be a £6.3bn beacon of success for Brexit and can exorcise the betrayal by Edward Heath”.

“We must realise the opportunity to automatically repatriate all our waters and resources and to rejuvenate coastal communities with bespoke British policy that husbands our unique ecology, works for all fishermen and ends the policy of discards”.

“This opportunity cannot be squandered for the status quo to appease a minority of vested interests and the EU”.

FFL sounded a warning that, the deliberately ambiguous wording of the Conservative manifesto to describe the waters we will take back control of says those we have “historically exercised sovereign control. This deliberate choice of words can only mean out to 12 miles”.

“When international limits were extended to 200 miles Britain was already bound to the Common Fisheries Policy and therefore the EU automatically took control of our extended fishing limits”.

“Although the previous Secretary of State said the manifesto meant all UK waters Mrs Leadsom is now gone.

“It is now necessary for clarity and closure that Mr Gove and the Prime Minister commit to the entire UK EEZ out to 200miles or the midline”.

“We hope and wish Mr Gove every success in realising the opportunity for a triumph of Brexit and look forward to meeting with him to help ensure this happens”.

History as pro-immigration propaganda

By Chris McGovern

The EU referendum promised for 2017, or sooner according to some reports, will coincide with the teaching of a new topic for GCSE history – migration to Britain. Given that this topic is, also, likely to have considerable prominence in the public debate it is instructive to consider what will be taught about it in the classroom.

Two of the three major exam boards have included ‘immigration’ in the new exam to be taught from 2016. Currently, the specifications are awaiting final approval by the exam regulator, Ofqual. The version to be offered by the OCR Board – “Immigration to Britain c1000 to 2010”- is illustrative.

The board is very clear about its aim for the new history exam:

“We have updated traditional and popular topics at GCSE and combined them with new and innovative options that aim to address comments in the wider historical community regarding the prevalence of white, male dominated history.

“One of the ways that we have are addressing this is by working with BASA [“The Black and Asian Studies Association”] on our new migration options in paper 2 and paper 3 (J410/08 and J410/11).”

The OCR Board then quotes an endorsement from BASA:

“This course will enable students to learn the long history of how the movement of people – European, African, Asian – to and from these islands has shaped the story of this nation for thousands of years. The history of migration is the story of Britain: in 1984 Peter Fryer wrote: ‘There were Africans in Britain before the English came’…We are delighted to be working with OCR to offer a course which will both open up an analysis of Britain’s place in the modern world and allow every student a personal connection with our shared history.”

A bold BASA ‘kitemark’ is firmly and prominently attached to the top of the syllabus itself.

As Education Secretary, Michael Gove called on schools to stop the trashing of our past. Disastrously, he lost his battle to require the teaching of the landmark personalities and events of British history as part of the national curriculum. Now, we can see that GCSE history, too, is being subverted to provide a vehicle for a politically correct views on history in general and on immigration, in particular.

This new syllabus will ensure that, at the same time as the EU referendum campaign and debates on border controls, pupils will be given some strong and seductive arguments in favour of seeing  current immigration as a natural evolution of a long historical process. According to campaigning think-tank MigrationWatch UK, however, current levels of immigration, resulting from ‘free movement’ within the EU, are at levels unprecedented in the history of Britain and are far from being a natural evolution:

“There have always been episodes of migration to Britain but…those episodes were small and demographically insignificant until the Second World War… In the late 1990s the pace and scale of migration increased to a level without historical precedent… This massive increase dwarfs the scale of any previous inflow in our history.”

This crucial numerical aspect of the immigration narrative is missing from the syllabus. The EU receives a passing ‘fag end’ reference at the end of the syllabus -“issues raised by EU ‘open borders’” – but there is no requirement specifically to consider the issue of numbers raised by MigrationWatch UK.
Pupils will hear a lot about a group of African soldiers stationed on Hadrian’s Wall but less, I suspect, about the enslavement of Britons by the African Emperor, Septimus Severus who died in Eboracum (York). The enslavement of Britons by an African, after all, does not fit the desired narrative of immigrants having a monopoly of being subjugated or maltreated.

19th century Irish ‘ immigration’ fits the subjugation idea much better and is specified for teaching. However, these Irish were born UK citizens as fully as those born in the home counties. The new syllabus veers towards equating deprivation with immigration.

For all its importance, immigration is a political minefield these days and not a straight-forward topic to teach. History GCSE should not be a vehicle for promoting particular viewpoints, such as that of the BASA. Equally, it should not be a vehicle for promoting racism or xenophobia. The OCR should not be in the business of boasting a ‘kitemark’ of political correctness, it should be focusing on a balanced presentation of the past that allows for the input of MigrationWatch UK as much as the Black and Asian Studies Association.

This article first appeared in Conservative Woman. Chris McGovern is Chairman of the Campaign for Real Education.  CIB will be organising an event to launch his recent booklet .A Genaration Betrayed, hopefully some time in June. More details to follow.

Photo by CircaSassy