6 thoughts on “Fisheries are not worth sacrificing a post-Brexit deal over”

  1. Posted 03/12/2020 at 10:43 | Permalink

    Unfortunately, such informed good sense is not shared by the blinkered champions of ‘take back control’. How will they control our energy supply when they give priority to the slippery fish. Just how much of what will they take back control?

  2. Posted 03/12/2020 at 22:45 | Permalink

    Please do not tell me that the IEA has signed up to this “If we cannot achieve our target (and required) decarbonisation in line with our Net Zero carbon pledge”.
    It’s essentially saying that there is a climate emergency and that getting to net zero is a desirable target. These are mutually incompatible claims about reality, for if 420 ppm of CO2 constitutes an emergency then keeping that ratio the same will still be an emergency.
    I expect a pro-market pro-Pigouvian sort of organisation like the IEA to mock the Net Zero carbon pledge, not to be neutral or to possibly support it.
    Good points on the relative importance of fisheries to energy.

  3. Posted 04/12/2020 at 20:13 | Permalink

    This article is ridiculous. It’s saying that the EU should have a degree of control over our sovereign waters, which is not reciprocated, or they will cut off energy supplies (we don’t actually need energy supplies from the EU, it’s just that they have spare (and cheap) capacity available when they don’t need it and when we do).

    What are they going to do with this spare capacity if they don’t sell it to us? Cutting it off would mean us needing to use our own (more expensive) generating capacity (we switch off the most expensive of our energy generation capacity when we don’t need it or can buy cheaper energy from the EU). This would cost us money, of course. However, it would also cost France money as they wouldn’t have a market for their spare capacity when they don’t need it (and France has plenty of spare capacity at non-peak times because they generate so much power from nuclear, which cannot be shut down or increased quickly in line with their domestic demand, unlike, for example, gas-powered generation).

    So the argument is that we should (permanently) give us our own sovereign rights over fishing – which no other non-EU country does – because of an EU threat, when carrying out this threat would hurt them as much as it would us (arguably more).

    A more fundamental point is whether any sovereign country should give up its rights because of a threat. We should not.

    It’s reasonable for the EU/France to argue that we should agree a transition period (because investments in the fishing industry have a payback over many years and they need to plan) as good neighbours. Annual negotiations could, for example, only come into (say) 3 or 5 years hence, thus allowing plenty of notice of change. We could even agree a price for access to fishing waters in the future (on both sides, as we may want access to theirs), but to argue that we should give up rights because of a linkage/threat to some other otherwise unrelated area is simply outrageous.

  4. Posted 05/12/2020 at 09:52 | Permalink

    Those 768,000 jobs in the energy industry are a cost, not a benefit.
    The benefit from energy is what we do with it, not how many jobs it takes to supply it.

  5. Posted 05/12/2020 at 09:58 | Permalink

    ‘If the energy union/agreement that we have is broken … the supply of gas and electricity from the EU [will] be put at risk.’

    Will that supply be put at risk though? Presumably they sell the energy to us. Providing empoyment for French ppl. You seem to imply yourself its a significant industry to the French. They don’t just give us the energy as an act of charity. There would be severe consequences for France’s energy industry if they just cut us off (or whatever you are suggesting). Proverbial noses, faces and cutting things off surely?

    As for the green energy policies you allude to – i think those policies themselves will be the cause of increasing energy supply probems in the medium term.

  6. Posted 28/12/2020 at 18:01 | Permalink

    ” The fishing industry: a mere 0.08% of GDP; employs 12,000 people; are part of the local identity.”

    That’s it? That’s the full argument? Considering the long and ignominious history of British right-wing entitled, gross incompetence its sad to see the Dunning-Krueger effect so clearly on display here.
    I thought this was supposed to be a serious outfit.

    Original UK coastal biomass by species.
    Long-term viable contribution to national protein diet at full original level (1900) and currently.
    Demographic outlook for Africa over the next 30 years and likely immigration impact on the UK.
    Long-term UK/World demographics and implications for national food security.
    Contribution of marine sourced nutrients to national mental vigour and toxicological outlook.
    Current trends in marine species composition and their impact of fishing.
    Current trends in coastal species composition and consequent trends in dependent terrestrial species.
    Trends in marine nitrogen contribution to coastal soil health and fertilizer long-term security.
    Proposed post-Brexit management regime sovereignty/flexibility/costs and econo-political implications.
    Post-Brexit management regime implications for marine reserve designation and fish stock recovery.

    And so go on.
    As this self-appointed think tank takes it upon itself to influence the serious business of management of the UK I strenuously advise it to buck up or give up. Smug know-it-all doesn’t cut muster.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.