Ttyjukl

How to creep the reader out with what seems like a normal person?

French for 'It must be my imagination'?

web3.py web3.isConnected() returns false always

How to get a plain text file version of a CP/M .BAS (M-BASIC) program?

Does holding a wand and speaking its command word count as V/S/M spell components?

How would one muzzle a full grown polar bear in the 13th century?

Map of water taps to fill bottles

A Strange Latex Symbol

Will tsunami waves travel forever if there was no land?

How can I practically buy stocks?

Critique of timeline aesthetic

Realistic Necromancy?

Does a semiconductor follow Ohm's law?

Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?

How much cash can I safely carry into the USA and avoid civil forfeiture?

Was there a Viking Exchange as well as a Columbian one?

How to write a column outside the braces in a matrix?

Is it possible to determine the symmetric encryption method used by output size?

Do I have to worry about players making “bad” choices on level up?

Rivers without rain

Combinable filters

How to pronounce 'C++' in Spanish

Symbolic Multivariate Distribution

Was there a shared-world project before "Thieves World"?

What is the strongest case that can be made in favour of the UK regaining some control over fishing policy after Brexit?

What does 'regaining control of our borders' in Brexit campaigns actually mean for non-EU immigrants to the UK?Why are some British politicians pushing for Brexit? What do they stand to gain from Britain's exit from the EU?After Brexit, can the UK deal with individual countries of the EU?Who made this comment about Brexit and in what context?Can the UK realistically back out of Brexit?Is the UK asking for increased influence over the EU post-Brexit?Would the UK have to pay anything to the EU in case of a no-deal Brexit?What could happen to Scotland after Brexit?What are the arguments in favour of Brexit?Can a Brexit deal be accepted after Brexit?

3

I am a little baffled by the prominence of fishing in the debates over the UK's decision to leave the EU. The fact that the UK may regain control over fishing policy has had high visibility. However, the benefits of this have been poorly communicated. The primary association is being able to set fishing quotas. But it is unclear why this is a good thing. Fishing stocks have been declining over the last decades.

Fish do not stay within the geographical boundaries of nation states. Fishing is a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons. If each country's fishing industry fishes as much as is rational, all will suffer, as stocks dwindle. Up until this point, there is no controversy.

Some form of fishing quotas, agreed on a supranational basis, seems like a logical way round this predicament. The quotas the UK sticks to currently, within the EU framework, do not appear to be sufficiently stringent. UK fishing stocks are not being managed as sustainably as they could be. Even now, they face a long term existential threat of over-fishing.

From the above, it seems like EU-level management of stocks is a necessary, albeit insufficient, aspect of responsible fishing.

So what is the strongest case to be made in favour of the view that the UK setting fishing policy independently is a good thing? From my (limited) understanding of the stance of those who favour this, the UK ought to set its own policy so that we can raise quotas for our fishing fleets. This will be a short term commercial benefit but, as shown by the above, does not make a lot of sense long term.

Is there a more sympathetic basis for wanting more control at a UK level?

united-kingdom european-union brexit fishing

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Guambra Feo

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It's not just about the amount that is allowed to be fished. It's that there is significant amount of fishing by non-UK fishers happening in UK waters. That is, it's not just about the UK setting quota -- it's giving the entire quota to UK fishers.
  
  – Abigail
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Abigail 80% of the England (not uk) fishing quota is owned by either 1 of 5 families by or foreign owners. The UK does not have the fishing industry capacity to fish its existing quota. If UK gov wanted UK fishers to fish more, it could do so as a member of the EU by giving them that quota.
  
  – Jontia
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

I am a little baffled by the prominence of fishing in the debates over the UK's decision to leave the EU. The fact that the UK may regain control over fishing policy has had high visibility. However, the benefits of this have been poorly communicated. The primary association is being able to set fishing quotas. But it is unclear why this is a good thing. Fishing stocks have been declining over the last decades.

Fish do not stay within the geographical boundaries of nation states. Fishing is a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons. If each country's fishing industry fishes as much as is rational, all will suffer, as stocks dwindle. Up until this point, there is no controversy.

Some form of fishing quotas, agreed on a supranational basis, seems like a logical way round this predicament. The quotas the UK sticks to currently, within the EU framework, do not appear to be sufficiently stringent. UK fishing stocks are not being managed as sustainably as they could be. Even now, they face a long term existential threat of over-fishing.

From the above, it seems like EU-level management of stocks is a necessary, albeit insufficient, aspect of responsible fishing.

So what is the strongest case to be made in favour of the view that the UK setting fishing policy independently is a good thing? From my (limited) understanding of the stance of those who favour this, the UK ought to set its own policy so that we can raise quotas for our fishing fleets. This will be a short term commercial benefit but, as shown by the above, does not make a lot of sense long term.

Is there a more sympathetic basis for wanting more control at a UK level?

united-kingdom european-union brexit fishing

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Guambra Feo

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It's not just about the amount that is allowed to be fished. It's that there is significant amount of fishing by non-UK fishers happening in UK waters. That is, it's not just about the UK setting quota -- it's giving the entire quota to UK fishers.
  
  – Abigail
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Abigail 80% of the England (not uk) fishing quota is owned by either 1 of 5 families by or foreign owners. The UK does not have the fishing industry capacity to fish its existing quota. If UK gov wanted UK fishers to fish more, it could do so as a member of the EU by giving them that quota.
  
  – Jontia
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

I am a little baffled by the prominence of fishing in the debates over the UK's decision to leave the EU. The fact that the UK may regain control over fishing policy has had high visibility. However, the benefits of this have been poorly communicated. The primary association is being able to set fishing quotas. But it is unclear why this is a good thing. Fishing stocks have been declining over the last decades.

Fish do not stay within the geographical boundaries of nation states. Fishing is a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons. If each country's fishing industry fishes as much as is rational, all will suffer, as stocks dwindle. Up until this point, there is no controversy.

Some form of fishing quotas, agreed on a supranational basis, seems like a logical way round this predicament. The quotas the UK sticks to currently, within the EU framework, do not appear to be sufficiently stringent. UK fishing stocks are not being managed as sustainably as they could be. Even now, they face a long term existential threat of over-fishing.

From the above, it seems like EU-level management of stocks is a necessary, albeit insufficient, aspect of responsible fishing.

So what is the strongest case to be made in favour of the view that the UK setting fishing policy independently is a good thing? From my (limited) understanding of the stance of those who favour this, the UK ought to set its own policy so that we can raise quotas for our fishing fleets. This will be a short term commercial benefit but, as shown by the above, does not make a lot of sense long term.

Is there a more sympathetic basis for wanting more control at a UK level?

united-kingdom european-union brexit fishing

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Guambra Feo

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Guambra Feo

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

share|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Guambra Feo

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

asked 3 hours ago

Guambra FeoGuambra Feo

704

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

3

The most charitable answer would be: none whatsoever.

As things stand 80% of UK fish is sold in the EU -- this is about overall catch, not UK water catch. The UK basically eats imported fish, and exports its own catches.

So much so that they went ahead and sold their shipping rights for their own local waters.

There's just no way whatsoever to twist this into something positive. If they lose access to EU fishing waters, they basically lose their (presumably higher value) export catches and instead need to focus on their (hopefully high enough value) local water catches, and try to sell that to whoever those who they sold their rights to is currently selling their local caches to now (themselves?). However one wants to spin this it doesn't look like a positive development.

share|improve this answer

edited 49 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Your answer seems to conflate export of fish and fishing quotas and fails to mention British access to EU waters. What the UK eats is beside the point. I think your conclusion still holds but you ought to clarify all that to actually answer the question.
  
  – Relaxed
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Also the UK has sold much of the quota it has to non nationals. unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/…
  
  – Jontia
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And as a whole fishing contribute 0.05% of GDP, whilst summing all fishing related industries comes to only 0.12% of GDP. Even tripling this, which is way above the amount of fishing done in UK waters by non UK boats, is on a national scale fairly insignificant.
  
  – Jontia
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  +1 to @Relaxed. A good analysis should include the current amount of fish accessible to UK fishermen, compared to the total amount of fish that could be sustainably extracted from UK waters alone.
  
  – JonathanReez
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Jontia: Your link seems to make the situation even worse, not better. And per my answer, the overall positive impact of "taking back control", as Brexiters would put it, would likely be none whatsoever -- epsilon at best.
  
  – Denis de Bernardy
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41075%2fwhat-is-the-strongest-case-that-can-be-made-in-favour-of-the-uk-regaining-some-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

The most charitable answer would be: none whatsoever.

As things stand 80% of UK fish is sold in the EU -- this is about overall catch, not UK water catch. The UK basically eats imported fish, and exports its own catches.

So much so that they went ahead and sold their shipping rights for their own local waters.

There's just no way whatsoever to twist this into something positive. If they lose access to EU fishing waters, they basically lose their (presumably higher value) export catches and instead need to focus on their (hopefully high enough value) local water catches, and try to sell that to whoever those who they sold their rights to is currently selling their local caches to now (themselves?). However one wants to spin this it doesn't look like a positive development.

share|improve this answer

edited 49 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Your answer seems to conflate export of fish and fishing quotas and fails to mention British access to EU waters. What the UK eats is beside the point. I think your conclusion still holds but you ought to clarify all that to actually answer the question.
  
  – Relaxed
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Also the UK has sold much of the quota it has to non nationals. unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/…
  
  – Jontia
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And as a whole fishing contribute 0.05% of GDP, whilst summing all fishing related industries comes to only 0.12% of GDP. Even tripling this, which is way above the amount of fishing done in UK waters by non UK boats, is on a national scale fairly insignificant.
  
  – Jontia
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  +1 to @Relaxed. A good analysis should include the current amount of fish accessible to UK fishermen, compared to the total amount of fish that could be sustainably extracted from UK waters alone.
  
  – JonathanReez
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Jontia: Your link seems to make the situation even worse, not better. And per my answer, the overall positive impact of "taking back control", as Brexiters would put it, would likely be none whatsoever -- epsilon at best.
  
  – Denis de Bernardy
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

3

The most charitable answer would be: none whatsoever.

As things stand 80% of UK fish is sold in the EU -- this is about overall catch, not UK water catch. The UK basically eats imported fish, and exports its own catches.

So much so that they went ahead and sold their shipping rights for their own local waters.

There's just no way whatsoever to twist this into something positive. If they lose access to EU fishing waters, they basically lose their (presumably higher value) export catches and instead need to focus on their (hopefully high enough value) local water catches, and try to sell that to whoever those who they sold their rights to is currently selling their local caches to now (themselves?). However one wants to spin this it doesn't look like a positive development.

share|improve this answer

edited 49 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Your answer seems to conflate export of fish and fishing quotas and fails to mention British access to EU waters. What the UK eats is beside the point. I think your conclusion still holds but you ought to clarify all that to actually answer the question.
  
  – Relaxed
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Also the UK has sold much of the quota it has to non nationals. unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/…
  
  – Jontia
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  And as a whole fishing contribute 0.05% of GDP, whilst summing all fishing related industries comes to only 0.12% of GDP. Even tripling this, which is way above the amount of fishing done in UK waters by non UK boats, is on a national scale fairly insignificant.
  
  – Jontia
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  +1 to @Relaxed. A good analysis should include the current amount of fish accessible to UK fishermen, compared to the total amount of fish that could be sustainably extracted from UK waters alone.
  
  – JonathanReez
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Jontia: Your link seems to make the situation even worse, not better. And per my answer, the overall positive impact of "taking back control", as Brexiters would put it, would likely be none whatsoever -- epsilon at best.
  
  – Denis de Bernardy
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

The most charitable answer would be: none whatsoever.

As things stand 80% of UK fish is sold in the EU -- this is about overall catch, not UK water catch. The UK basically eats imported fish, and exports its own catches.

So much so that they went ahead and sold their shipping rights for their own local waters.

There's just no way whatsoever to twist this into something positive. If they lose access to EU fishing waters, they basically lose their (presumably higher value) export catches and instead need to focus on their (hopefully high enough value) local water catches, and try to sell that to whoever those who they sold their rights to is currently selling their local caches to now (themselves?). However one wants to spin this it doesn't look like a positive development.

share|improve this answer

edited 49 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573

share|improve this answer

edited 49 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573

answered 2 hours ago

Denis de BernardyDenis de Bernardy

16.2k34573