THREAD: Fishing and Sovereignty - Why the prospect of fishing rights sinking a Brexit deal really is as stupid as it sounds. 1/

As the EU and UK find themselves in the final hours of the Brexit Trade Deal negotiations, the UK chattering classes find themselves debating whether accepting non-preferred terms of fishing is a price worth paying for a deal.

2/

The short answer is:

Yes.

The slightly longer answer is:

Why the hell is this even a question?

3/

As has been noted, the value of fishing to the UK economy is far less than that of Harrods.

One of the sensational headlines is that £160m worth of the English quota (55%) is in the hands of EU owned companies.

That's the "benefit" of a "no deal" Brexit. £160 million.
4/

And the costs?

£134 billion.

So, net that would be a loss ofone hundred thirty-three billion eight hundred thirty-six million.

Does that make financial sense?

Obviously not! https://www.researchandmarkets.com/issues/new-research-no-deal-brexit?utm_source=GNOM&utm_medium=PressRelease&utm_code=5gl8xl&utm_campaign=1451452+-+New+Research+Finds+No+Deal+Brexit+Could+Cost+Britain+%24174+Billion+a+Year&utm_exec=jamu273prd

But perhaps one hundred thirty-three billion eight hundred thirty-six million is a price worth paying for sovereignty?

Right?

The stated goal of the UK is to decide "who fishes in our waters and on what terms."

Fair enough. 6/

But what people fail to understand that this is exactly what the UK is doing right now.

As part of its deal with the EU, it will do just that and decide "who fishes in our waters and on what terms."

This all comes back to a very wonky conceptualisation of sovereignty.

7/

Right-leaning commentators in the UK seem to imagine that the UK utilising its sovereignty to agree to allow EU fishermen fish some of the catch within the UK waters and not being able to kick them out on a whim would constitute an undermining of its sovereignty.

8/

(I can't believe I have to say this) This is not true!

When sovereign states make deals, they always agree to limit the way in which the use their sovereignty. That's why it is called a deal.

Even free countries are not free from the consequences of their actions.

9/

But according to this wonky Brexiter version of sovereignty, the UK losing the benefits of a deal in circumstances where it broke a deal would constitute not being sovereign.

And make no mistake, that's all we are talking about.

10/

If the UK agrees to a trade deal with the EU, it can still kick French or Dutch boats out of its waters.

But if that is against the deal, it will lose (at least some of) the benefits of the deal. It will face tariffs on its goods entering the single market.

11/

Earlier, I heard @MaajidNawaz on #lbc talking (frankly) utter nonsense (seemingly) about how allocating EU fishing companies part of the UK's quotas could mean that a French EU army ship could then enter UK waters.

Such a statement is even more ridiculous than it seems.

12/

To put these concerns about sovereignty and fishing waters into context:

There are 13 US military bases in the UK today. There used to be over 100. There are circa 10,000 US soldiers based in the UK. There used to be many, many times that number - even during peacetime.

13/

Brexiter and right-leaning commentators understand that when sovereign countries agree to host foreign military bases in their country, they remain sovereign.

14/

But these same folks think that agreeing to allow foreign fishery companies access to some of your catch, constitutes a loss of sovereignty?

15/

So to get back to the original question:

Yes. Fishing sinking a UK-EU trade deal would be exactly as stupid as it sounds.

Even if you quadrupled the value of fishing (which would involve overfishing to the point of exhausting stocks) it would still not make financial sense.16/

And it makes absolutely no sense to be concerned about the impact on sovereignty of permitting foreign boats to fish in your waters, while you host multiple military bases for a foreign power within your territory!

17/17

PS1: I've not really dived into the question of UK fishing policy more generally, but it is worth noting a few things.

1. Currently, small fishermen only receive 6% of the national quota.

http://www.marinet.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-fishing-industry-and-its-fishing-quotas.html

2. Approximately, a third is in the hands of just 5 ST Rich list families.
3. Scotland (the biggest fishing nation within the UK) holds 66% of its quota.
4. Many of the Rich List "Codfathers" were significant supporters of Brexit.

PS2: One can feel sympathy for British fisherfolk but there main problem has always been the way that fishing stocks were privatised and how this resulted in a small number of people making massive profits while smaller fishing companies faced tougher trading conditions.

PS3: For a good overview of the potential impacts of ending quota-hopping and its development see:

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X01000355