• REMINDER - COVID-19

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as YBW, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health and liberty is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

    Users who are found to promulgate FAKE NEWS on the forum in regard to this issue, intentional or otherwise, may find their access terminated. It is your responsibility to provide references to bona fide sources.

    FAKE NEWS, in this regard, is that which is posited by organisations, media, etc., that is repeated on the forum, or used to support personal opinion/hypothesis posted by users - FAKE NEWS is not necessarily the personal opinion/hypothesis being posted in itself, any issues with such should be challenged respectfully.

Is anyone concerned about the inevitable French fishing boat anger.after Brexit.

KompetentKrew

Active member
Joined
27 May 2018
Messages
834
As far as I know fishing quoters have no resemblance to property rights.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I'm pretty sure it was a British court that decided otherwise.

I think it was UK Assocation of Fish Producer Organisations vs the Secretary of State [PDF], but I'm not certain.

That's why FindAFishingBoat has whole sections of quota for sale or lease.

You might say that the stockmarket is nothing like owning a house either, but they are both equity as the term is understood and arbitrated by the courts. If you buy 100 BP shares then you own about a millionth of the company, if my maths is right - you are entitled to a share in BP's profits and that can't be taken away from you simply by (for example) the UK leaving a trade agreement. Those shares are property.

Please understand me - I don't like it either, that fishing quotas were effectively privatised. They should have been kept on 3- to 6-year leases so that the government could redistribute them and (for example) use them to support the fishing fleet in economically disadvantaged areas. But they weren't.

BBC News Article said:
But Dr Emma Cardwell, from the University of Glasgow, told the BBC that an enforced change in ownership would be "legally tricky" for the government.​
Many parts of the quota were sold by English fishermen in the 1990s when fishing rights were cut dramatically. Cod fishing, for instance, was almost entirely stopped for several years.​
Foreign companies then bought it up as a long-term investment, and experts say the quota market has been allowed to develop in an unregulated way ever since.​
"There's a lack of clarity on the legal status of fishing rights," Dr Cardwell said, "meaning the government is very vulnerable to litigation if it tries to reallocate quota.​
"Any foreign fishing companies that purchased UK quota in good faith would be very likely to sue if this was now taken away from them."​
link

Another article: Selling the Silver: the enclosure of the UK's fisheries | The Land Magazine


In economics and finance, the difference between developed ("western") countries and developing countries ("third word") is that developed countries respect things like property rights and the rule of law.

Fishing quotas have now been bought and sold, fair and square, on the open market for decades. As I understand them, they are very similar to shares, in that a quota entitles the holder to a specific share, e.g. 1/1000, of the UK's cod catch. If we do things like revoking people's quotas, that they bought fairly, then we will be regarded as less economically developed, and it will increase the government's cost of borrowing (i.e. increase the cost of the national debt).

Whether you or I think fishing quotas are property or not, that's how international investors see them - if we take quotas away from big multinational companies who bought them fair and square, then investors will see us as less economically trustworthy.
 

BurnitBlue

Well-known member
Joined
22 Oct 2005
Messages
3,869
Location
In Transit
Sorry to repeat myself, but I'm pretty sure it was a British court that decided otherwise.

I think it was UK Assocation of Fish Producer Organisations vs the Secretary of State [PDF], but I'm not certain.

That's why FindAFishingBoat has whole sections of quota for sale or lease.

You might say that the stockmarket is nothing like owning a house either, but they are both equity as the term is understood and arbitrated by the courts. If you buy 100 BP shares then you own about a millionth of the company, if my maths is right - you are entitled to a share in BP's profits and that can't be taken away from you simply by (for example) the UK leaving a trade agreement. Those shares are property.

Please understand me - I don't like it either, that fishing quotas were effectively privatised. They should have been kept on 3- to 6-year leases so that the government could redistribute them and (for example) use them to support the fishing fleet in economically disadvantaged areas. But they weren't.


Another article: Selling the Silver: the enclosure of the UK's fisheries | The Land Magazine


In economics and finance, the difference between developed ("western") countries and developing countries ("third word") is that developed countries respect things like property rights and the rule of law.

Fishing quotas have now been bought and sold, fair and square, on the open market for decades. As I understand them, they are very similar to shares, in that a quota entitles the holder to a specific share, e.g. 1/1000, of the UK's cod catch. If we do things like revoking people's quotas, that they bought fairly, then we will be regarded as less economically developed, and it will increase the government's cost of borrowing (i.e. increase the cost of the national debt).

Whether you or I think fishing quotas are property or not, that's how international investors see them - if we take quotas away from big multinational companies who bought them fair and square, then investors will see us as less economically trustworthy.
Thanks for taking the time to explain in more detail. It seems to be a part of the fisheries I was not even aware of. It also seems that the UK will have to take a position that will be unpopular for a lot of people no matter what position we end up with. Frankly I think that a clean break and a fresh start would be better in the long run. When one considers the unspeakable things the German military did, even they have rode the after effects and are the darlings of the financial world again. The commercial world has a short memory and new money making schemes obliterate past memories if they are no longer profitable. This is definitely not my field so it is only an opinion.
 

Seven Spades

Well-known member
Joined
30 Aug 2003
Messages
4,064
Location
Surrey
And how should the flag affect that, exactly?
If you want your fishing ground to recover, you should ban vessels from fishing regardless of their flag, surely.
Or at least limit quantities, but ALSO to UK flagged vessels, otherwise what's the point? :unsure:
Britain only holds 10% of the fishing rights to our waters. Allowing those rights to continue whilst cancelling all other fishing rights would result in a 90% drop in fish take. That is more than enough to allow for a good recovery. You have to remember the Spanish are notorious for taking undersized fish and it is not policed when they land the fish in Spain.
 

Frogmogman

Well-known member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
689
I imagine the French press no doubt were stoking this attitude if the British press coverage on this subject was an indication.
It is true that the UK tabloid press has spent the last 45 odd years making up nonsense about other European countries and trying to stir up hatred against the UK's friends and neighbors over the channel, but I can't say that I've noticed it being reciprocated in the same way from this side.

I've just finished Dick Durham's book "Guttersnipe" about his time as a tabloid hack. It is an appalling catalogue of all that is wrong with the UK print media, full of stories about Brian Hitchen pressing his staff for "Dago bashing stories" and so on. With decades of that sort of nonsense dripped into the ears of the credulous, it's little wonder that we ended up with Brexit.

Still, now I'm a Frenchman I don't even care that much any more.
 

Frogmogman

Well-known member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
689
I seem to recall the Icelanders upset us enough to send the navy up there, then they got their own way and now they have excellent fish stocks. You and your cohorts are just the sort of snivelling defeatist that Ollie Robbins was relying upon to sell us out. Spineless.
My Dad went up there with the Grey Funnel Line to bully the Icelanders over their fishing limits.

If you ask him about it now, he'll tell you that he thinks the Icelanders were right.
 

Sandy

Well-known member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
16,326
Location
On the Celtic Fringe
When did you last encounter them? I've kept my boat in Brittany since 2013 and the increasing antipathy of the French to Brits is obvious. Marina staff who speak perfect English now frown and shrug when a Brit starts up a conversation without attempting French. I was insulted by two drunk fisherman in L'Aber Wrach before I'd said a word whilst my Irish crew was warmly welcomed. Brits will end up as welcome as Germans in Greece: tolerated for their money and reviled behind their backs.
Only just last week, saying that I am Scottish (Auld Alliance and all that) and Mrs Sandy speaks fluent French having a combined French and German first degree.

I feel your pain.
 

25931

Well-known member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
2,925
Location
Portugal-Algarve
Again I didn't make the initial comparison, although bringing in terrorism seems an even sillier comparison
Why when you said that you are against any state action seizing property legitimately paid for ? or do you believe that a terrorist has a right to property purchased ? I merely wish to establish that there is no absolute right to something just because it has been paid for.
 
Last edited:

TernVI

Well-known member
Joined
8 Jul 2020
Messages
2,604
Sorry to repeat myself, but I'm pretty sure it was a British court that decided otherwise.

I think it was UK Assocation of Fish Producer Organisations vs the Secretary of State [PDF], but I'm not certain.

That's why FindAFishingBoat has whole sections of quota for sale or lease.

You might say that the stockmarket is nothing like owning a house either, but they are both equity as the term is understood and arbitrated by the courts. If you buy 100 BP shares then you own about a millionth of the company, if my maths is right - you are entitled to a share in BP's profits and that can't be taken away from you simply by (for example) the UK leaving a trade agreement. Those shares are property.

Please understand me - I don't like it either, that fishing quotas were effectively privatised. They should have been kept on 3- to 6-year leases so that the government could redistribute them and (for example) use them to support the fishing fleet in economically disadvantaged areas. But they weren't.


Another article: Selling the Silver: the enclosure of the UK's fisheries | The Land Magazine


In economics and finance, the difference between developed ("western") countries and developing countries ("third word") is that developed countries respect things like property rights and the rule of law.

Fishing quotas have now been bought and sold, fair and square, on the open market for decades. As I understand them, they are very similar to shares, in that a quota entitles the holder to a specific share, e.g. 1/1000, of the UK's cod catch. If we do things like revoking people's quotas, that they bought fairly, then we will be regarded as less economically developed, and it will increase the government's cost of borrowing (i.e. increase the cost of the national debt).

Whether you or I think fishing quotas are property or not, that's how international investors see them - if we take quotas away from big multinational companies who bought them fair and square, then investors will see us as less economically trustworthy.
But people's equity or property gets compulsorily purchased by governments all the time.
Whether it's a bit of land needed for a road or your Railtrack shares.
Brexit is a government level action.
Fishing quotas cannot stop it.
The only question is whether the owners of the quota are entitled to any compo, how much and who pays.

What happened with milk quotas? AIUI, they were bought and sold in much the same way, then the scheme was stopped.
Did the people who'd bought quota get any compo? From whom?

I doubt it's an original problem.
Of course in a sensible world, there would be solutions like tapering away the old quotas or making quota holders pay annually as happens with other resources like spectrum.
 

jordanbasset

Well-known member
Joined
31 Dec 2007
Messages
30,751
Location
UK, sometimes Greece and Spain
Why when you said that you are against any state action seizing property legitimately paid for ? or do you believe that a terrorist has a right to property purchased ? I merely wish to establish that there is no absolute right to something just because it has been paid for.
As far as I am aware the trawlers are not engaged in terrorist activity. But if they were the people responsible can be arrested and if the trawlers were being used to further terrorism they could be seized. But the comparison has gone from silly to ridiculous

But if it helps I will clarify my comments, if person or company legitimately buys property and used that property within the law then I am against the state seizing such property in most circumstances. There are very limited exceptions, such as compulsory purchase orders where it is necessary for infrastructure improvements etc. But there is a right of appeal in that through an independent adjudicator and fair compensation has to be paid

PS this discussion would be better off in the lounge
 
Last edited:

Achosenman

Active member
Joined
25 Jun 2018
Messages
374
As far as I am aware the trawlers are not engaged in terrorist activity. But if they were the people responsible can be arrested and if the trawlers were being used to further terrorism they could be seized. But the comparison has gone from silly to ridiculous

But if it helps I will clarify my comments, if person or company legitimately buys property and used that property within the law then I am against the state seizing such property in most circumstances. There are very limited exceptions, such as compulsory purchase orders where it is necessary for infrastructure improvements etc. But there is a right of appeal in that through an independent adjudicator and fair compensation has to be paid

PS this discussion would be better off in the lounge
I suspect the quota's will be treated in the same manner as a compulsory purchase order. If current legislation does not cater for the situation then I expect new legislation will be enacted fast.
 
Last edited:
Joined
6 May 2020
Messages
1,324
My Dad went up there with the Grey Funnel Line to bully the Icelanders over their fishing limits.

If you ask him about it now, he'll tell you that he thinks the Icelanders were right.
My next door neighbour was first lieutenant on one of the Leanders that went up there. He thought the Icelanders were right at the time. I've always thought so, it was their waters. Today we're talking about our waters.
 
Last edited:

Kelpie

Well-known member
Joined
15 May 2005
Messages
5,549
Location
Loch Snizort, Isle of Skye
Will we start eating it most is exported
The current Covid crisis saw an immediate halt in live shellfish exports for several weeks. The fishermen switched to selling directly from the pier to locals, but at a very substantial drop in price- £10/kg for prawns vs £16-18 for export.
Markets have opened up again and guess what, prices are getting back to normal and the locals have stopped buying.
 

Koeketiene

Well-known member
Joined
24 Sep 2003
Messages
16,548
Location
Finistère
The current Covid crisis saw an immediate halt in live shellfish exports for several weeks. The fishermen switched to selling directly from the pier to locals, but at a very substantial drop in price- £10/kg for prawns vs £16-18 for export.
Markets have opened up again and guess what, prices are getting back to normal and the locals have stopped buying.
Fish/seafood is overpriced in the UK.
It was a rare luxury when we lived in Britain, it's part of our staple diet in Brittany (2-3 times / week).
 

Kelpie

Well-known member
Joined
15 May 2005
Messages
5,549
Location
Loch Snizort, Isle of Skye
One thing that strikes me as on oversimplification is the idea of an entirely "French" or "British" fishing boat. It's not always as clear cut as that.

A big trawler might be owned by a multinational. The quota is likely to be owned by another company, and leased out via yet another organisation (a Producers Organisation). Then the boat will be flagged somewhere, it's skipper might be a different nationality, the crew often another still.
Next you have the question of where the boat actually fishes, and where it lands its catch, where that is processed and where it is eventually consumed.

This is very much an international industry, and is much more complex than many people think.

For a good example of the complications involved, look up the Spanish owned trawlers in the Falklands!
 

chanelyacht

Well-known member
Joined
25 Dec 2007
Messages
14,192
Location
Essex amongst the seals!
Upsetting your opposite number really isn't a good way to negotiate.
In fact, it's a really good way to ensure no-one else wants to have any dealing with you in future.



Why do I need to explain this? :rolleyes:
Perhaps for the same reason I have to explain that giving someone all they want isn't negotiation?
 
Top