Yhyjyk

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?

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.

As you mentioned the EU does exert some control over fishing quotas in UK waters through the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This policy has lead to or at least some feel is has lead to some of the following unfortunate situations involving strict fishing quotas

• The wasting of fish by throwing them back into the water (when the quotas are exceeded)


• The mass loss of jobs in the fishing business and associated damage to communities and so on


• The assignment of fishing quotas to countries with no territorial waters thus many countries that would otherwise not have a fishing fleet are allowed to fish in what would have been UK waters instead of the above people who lost their livelihoods

So as with much of the EU question its not about more or less or better or worse its about the UK getting control over the UKs resources, boarders, waters and so on.

With this said after the UK leaves the EU it is likely that fishing quotas will remain and much of the negative feeling about fishing quotas and management continue. It is even possible that stricter quotas will come into force to try and combat over fishing. This is more about short term politics than the rational and responsible management of global resources.

Much of the discussion around the CFP during the referendum and the ensuing years is/was around talking up the benefits of leaving the EU by blaming the EU for the problems in UK fishing in an attempt to gain leave votes. Whether the expected benefits turn out or not is a separate question and only time will tell, currently its unclear whether or not we will leave the CFP (or the EU at all).