I ****ing loathe these people. Lowlife scum.
Who comes up with this shit?
Although the offshore patrol ships carry machine guns, they would not be expected to use weapons against EU fishing boats.
Why are we even saying this. It's just ****ing insane.
Why are we even saying this
Because it was a possibility during the Cod Wars...
Just to be clear, it's the the Graunads that I have the issue with, it's whoever decided to rattle their sabre at this moment in time.
To be honest it swings both ways. If that line hadn't been included the charge against the journalist would be that they were insinuating that the Royal Navy was going to be used in their armed capacity against EU fishing boats.
For the love of god - how did we get to this point (actually you don't need to answer that, I know too well).
It frustrates me to tears that all we're going to do for the next 30 years is work out deals and agreements in a bid to get back to where we were pre-Brexit.
The damage will be felt for generations, while those that have directing it will never personally be impacted.
That's the worse bit, that people continue to support an elite that will never suffer in the way they will.
i always feel the guardian make little jabs like that in cheeky retort to the mindless shit that Daily-Heil-Online are publishing on the other side.
Just to be clear, it’s the the Graunads that I have the issue with, it’s whoever decided to rattle their sabre at this moment in time.
Oh the ironing. What I tried to write was
Just to be clear, it’s not the Graunads that I have the issue with, it’s whoever decided to rattle their sabre at this moment in time.
In Cod War I (as it will become known), i think there was some "gun play". Perhaps it's alluding to that stellar moment in our (UKs) glorious maritime history?
There are some pretty tight definitions of Rules of Engagement and the use of lethal force and I'm pretty sure that fishing isn't one of them.
I did some back of fag packet calculations on how effective our maritime patrol force are given the fleet of 3 vessels and the assumption that at most, 2 are at sea at any one time and they'd have an effective operating radius of something like 20 miles at any one time and move at 10 knots - then it would take them about 6 months to patrol the entire UK territorial waters. I'm sure Johnny Foreigner the fisherman is quaking in their collective boots that they might get caught a couple of times of year...
Given that the RAF and royal navy/marines could all seat in Twickenham with seats left over. I'd say we're outnumbered by the French fishing fleet.
I'm surprised we still have any armed patrol boats.
Thought it was all high-tec aircraft carriers and destroyers nowadays.
Why are we even saying this. It’s just **** insane.
Because this is what they do. Nationalist populists love creating enemies for their petty, small-minded, racist and scared little followers to rail against. And if they get to parade some military hardware at the same time then that's a massive bonus
Give it a couple of months and Boris will be doing press conferences dressed like Colonel Gadaffi, complete with rows of medals he's awarded himself
I worked in Portsmouth Naval Base for a while - I'd regularly see the 'fleet' of the Fishery Protection Squadron moored up - all 3 of them. Particularly on Fridays as it was quite apparent that they didn't do weekends, as well as a month over Christmas and New Year plus most of August.
Whats particularly amusing to me is that we are attempting to do what Iceland ( with more justification) did way back then in the cod wars.
Given we barely eat any fish bought in UK waters and presumably the tariffs on the UK fishermen selling into the EU is going to hugely cut demand the silver lining of all this bollox might be UK waters seeing a significant improvement in stocks and environmental diversity.
We might be leaving/have left the EU but we are still in the UN and signed up to OSPAR.
Without an agreement between the UK and the EU, the UK would have full control over its EEZ (as the EU would over its). EU vessels would have no right to catch fish in UK waters and UK vessels would lose their right to fish in EU waters. In theory, this could be advantageous to UK fishers, since EU vessels catch substantially more fish in UK waters than the other way around.
In practice, this might turn out to be less useful for three reasons. Firstly, the UK would still be required under UNCLOS to allow other states access to that share of the TAC it established for its EEZ that its own fleet did not have capacity to harvest. Secondly, it would still have to co-operate with the EU, as well as Norway, to manage the very large number of fish stocks which would be shared between the two EEZs. Without that co-operation, there would be a risk that the individual (sustainable) TACs would be unsustainable when added together.[6]
Even if the UK could catch more fish, it might find itself unable to sell it. Without a deal, the EU would impose its most favoured nation tariffs on UK exports of fish and fisheries products. Fish tariffs vary from species to species: on some major UK catches such as herring and mackerel they are zero. On other species like salmon and certain shellfish, however, they exceed 10%. Given that around 70% of UK seafood exports go to the EU, this could have a serious adverse effect on fishers’ businesses. One study by Wageningen University suggests that while UK fishing would gain US$420 million (just under £ 400m at current exchange rates) from having exclusive access to UK waters, it would lose US$500 million from the imposition of tariffs and non-tariff barriers on its exports.[7]
For the love of god – how did we get to this point (actually you don’t need to answer that, I know too well).
Well to be fair before we joined the EU Grimsby was the biggest fishing port in the world. So in joining the EU we sacrificed our significant fishing industry and the French and Spanish fishing fleets happily took the place of. So in leaving he EU the French and Spanish (mainly the French) fishing fleets face the same decimation and destruction of their livelihoods and industry as we did back then. So no surprise it has become a major sticking point of the negotiations. The med is hugely fished out and the North Sea fishing rights is a significant prize in the negotiations.
Obviously not enough to start firing off machine guns at each other but in the event of no deal and overnight cessation of French and Spanish fishing activities in British waters is understandably a significant concern for the French and Spanish fishing industries and something, given their record on ignoring and breaking international agreements, might be something the Royal Navy will have to defend.
I worked in Portsmouth Naval Base for a while – I’d regularly see the ‘fleet’ of the Fishery Protection Squadron moored up – all 3 of them. Particularly on Fridays as it was quite apparent that they didn’t do weekends, as well as a month over Christmas and New Year plus most of August.
A quick wiki search indicates 12 MCA vessels, as well as the RN's 5 river class OPV's. So that's 17 patrol vessels without considering other operational commitments and high end platforms. While a return to the cod wars is unlikely, I can imagine a few small scale spats along the fishing boudaries.
Legally, what can our boats actually do? If a (say) Spanish boat refused to stop, can they actually fire on unarmed civilians?
And FWIW we've got the same debate here: the Spanish "Vox" far-right party are calling on the (left-wing) government to send in the navy to stop immigration from Morocco - and I'm equally unsure as to what the navy can actually do under international law... but I'm pretty sure shooting up unarmed boats full of immigrants isn't part of it.
Well to be fair before we joined the EU Grimsby was the biggest fishing port in the world. So in joining the EU we sacrificed our significant fishing industry and the French and Spanish fishing fleets happily took the place of.
I’m no scholar of such matters but I think a little fact checking and source referencing might be good here.
I’m sure that it was to do with the British fleet fishing different areas (more Atlantic or northerly) and the mainland fleets doing more in the channel and North Sea.
Could be wrong.
It’s pretty irrelevant unless, as Boris our American prime minister does, you want to pick a fight.
The existing fleets today, markets for consuming fish, economics and transportation, never mind tariffs, mean we can’t really restore our fisheries - all we can do it trash other peoples.
But if you want to pick a fight I suppose.
12 MCA vessels, as well as the RN’s 5 river class OPV’s. So that’s 17 patrol vessels without considering other operational commitments and high end platforms.
Firstly, the MCA are not a military force or law enforcement agency so have limited powers.
In terms of the River Class vessels, OK they've got one new ship but one is permanently on station in the Falklands, so typically leaving 2 in active service at any one time - 2 boats to patrol the entire UK waters of approximately 2,000,000 sq nm. The UK also has 4 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft - so again, typically 2 operational at any one time. They might be able to deploy a couple of Type 23s but they're seriously broken, as are Type 45s. They're going to be busy!
Just waiting for the archer class to see active duty.....
They'll just bump into each other. A fishing boat can put a destroyer out of action for a while if the destroyer oversteps the mark.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/japanese-destroyer-collides-with-chinese-fishing-boat
The channel is not just about fishing, it's one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Any strop will overflow into maritime disruption. Another potential joy of Brexit.
jonnystorm - under international law I thought that if someone had historically fished in your 200 mile limit then they have the right to continue.
Most the fisheries are in Scottish not English waters - and fishing is devolved. that adds another layer of complexity
Just like Brexit in general. It's a gordian knot inside an enigma machine.
Sold as the easiest deal ever, national delusion.
Have they got the cash to buy the bullets?
Surely we can scramble the Spitfires?
Whats the cost of these extra naval patrols vs the value of the fishing industry?
@tjagain
I believe you're right. Part of the agreement is that you cannot suddenly change the situation/access overnight without allowing time for users to adapt.
Because the DM posts headlines saying we are sending Gun Boats if there is a no deal. The Guardian wants to be clear they have no influence in gammons going to war.
TBF I'd actually expect a naval vessel to carry weapons, it's sort of the point of them. And it's not completely unreasonable to expect a nation to patrol their territorial waters using their Navy...
Bumping up the numbers seems unnecessary, but what do I know?
It really comes down to the editorial spin a publication chooses to put on news like this...
But yeah, Navy has guns, Navy opperate primarily in the sea, Navy not really expecting to shoot any fishermen...
Not the worst bit of news I've heard this week...
It's so frustrating watching history repeat. Iceland had a decent museum on the cod wars and these Brexit loonies would do well to visit it.
The bottom line is paying for many Navy or Coastguard boats to chase round loads of little fishing boats is eye wateringly expensive and unsustainable long term.
Like the cod wars, nationalistic fervour will only get you so far and once the costs mount up folk realise we're spending more policing it than the fish are worth.
I can more or less guarantee that they'll use the archer class in some capacity. The URNU ones can only do about 20 knots though! Haha!
Anyone with any sense in the navy will see that this can only end up as an international PR disaster and that they will be made to look stupid in some way or another.
Either by sallying forth and going round and round in circles for a bit before coming back to shore, or by pointing the business end of a heavy weapon at a french chap in waterproof dungarees and having the image splashed across every news site in the world.
I'll bet that all the EU fishing lads will be making sure their phones are fully charged and Go Pros are at the ready to capture the moment of Trafalgar-esque triumph too.
What a ridiculous little backwater we have become.
Is this actually any extra vessels or just the fisheries protection squad continuing to do what they have always done?
Remember the little spat between the EU and Canada in the mid 1990s over fishing in the waters off Newfoundland?
I had a contract (for the EU) as an observer on one of the trawlers concerned. Both sides reckoned that the cost of "monitoring" was several times that of the actual catch.
Commercial ships carry transponders that radar/monitoring systems can pick up so the RN wouldn't be operating "blind" and would target those areas where the fishing vessels are heading. If the transponder is turned off then there's a big clue that something fishy (sic) is going on - something similar is already done when enforcing no-catch zones. (this doesn't mean I think the deployment is anything other than jingoistic flag waving)
mean we can’t really restore our fisheries – all we can do it trash other peoples.
There are quite a few people who would be happy enough with that, there is still a lot of bitterness in some fishing communities.
Give it a couple of months and Boris will be doing press conferences dressed like Colonel Gadaffi, complete with rows of medals he’s awarded himself
Johnson hasn't got the figure, at least Gazaffi kept himself in decent trim.
However, given Johnson's girth he could take the opportunity to create a whole new line of unbelievably camp uniforms just for himself. That Goering chap did it well, white and powder blue uniforms, I reckon De Pfeffel might go in for a bit of that.
This is not a story.
The RN routinely patrols and checks on fishing vessels in UK waters.
In Scotland they have civilian boats to do it but they carry warrant cards and have powers of arrest.
They all have the power to board and inspect any fishing boat.
Regardless of hoew the UK responded any issues would primarily be the fault of any EU fishermen who chose to ignore the law.
No need to escalate things eh?
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fantastic to see the Royal Navy is ready to step in with armed vessels and protect our waters from illegal foreign fishermen after a No Deal Brexit. If Macron wants to play the big man and talk tough on fishing, then let's get tough!</p>— Leave.EU (@LeaveEUOfficial) December 12, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Regardless of hoew the UK responded any issues would primarily be the fault of any EU fishermen who chose to ignore the law.
New to the perception management game, are we?
Apart from the fact that the French have a right under international law to continue fishing in UK waters
As dovebiker pointed out on pg1 there will be a maximum of 4 fisheries protection vessels in operation at any point in time; not enough for effective operation.
Do the crews really want to get involved in this and be used as political pawns in johnson's game? I doubt it.
This has now moved beyond farce.
Apart from the fact that the French have a right under international law to continue fishing in UK waters
No they do not.
They have the right of free passage. They are not allowed to fish in the Extended Economic Zone, which is a maximum 200 miles off the UK coast.
Exactly the same principle as not been able to just and build an oil platform off the Norwegian coast.
United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea.
Article 51
Existing agreements, traditional fishing rights
and existing submarine cables
1. Without prejudice to article 49, an archipelagic State shall respect
existing agreements with other States and shall recognize traditional fishing
rights and other legitimate activities of the immediately adjacent neighbouring
States in certain areas falling within archipelagic waters. The terms and
conditions for the exercise of such rights and activities, including the nature,
the extent and the areas to which they apply, shall, at the request of any of the
States concerned, be regulated by bilateral agreements between them. Such
rights shall not be transferred to or shared with third States or their nationals
The agreement no longer exists once the UK leaves the EU.
The French are hardley in "archiplagic waters with the UK.
The rules of the EEZ applies.
That is international law. Nothing to do with the eu. It's the same law we used to justify fishing in Icelandic waters in the cold wars
That is international law. Nothing to do with the eu. It’s the same law we used to justify fishing in Icelandic waters in the cold wars
Going look up Extended Economic Zone.
It's been debated and challenged by many nations but it's pretty solid now.
TJ- I'm a Master Mariner I studied this stuff.
You have the reference above. Why do you think a long established convention does not apply?
What proportion of the UK fishing quota is already in the hands of Spanish, Danish, French.. operators, sold off to the highest bidder by the same families who lately campaigned vociferously for Brexit to get back control..?
Sorry. Looking to learn here not being nippy as it sounds
In reality this is all unimportant. The EU know that as a threat it's totally impotent. There are so many ways they could retaliate lawfully/economically (not to mention what the French fishing fleet could do!) that it's just a farcical ploy to keep the Faithful on board in England. Pun sort of intended.
Just a diversion by Flo Bo to distract from the utter sh*t storm about to hit.
Also reinforces EU opinion that we are basically a malignant tumour on the EU's arse and the sooner we are gone the better.
I can't help but agree with them.
we are basically a malignant tumour on the EU’s arse
"We" are not. Our current government is.
Four boats should be enough to protect the waters around England and Wales. The Scottish Government are responsible for fishery protection in Scottish waters (see the map below) and have said they will not be deploying RN gunboats.
All irrelevant, all the French fishermen need to do Is blockade the port of Calais, throw in some farmers on the A16 and the UK will come to an agreement fairly quickly.
Four boats should be enough to protect the waters around England and Wales.
Four boats means 2 operational/ ready to go to sea at at one time. The RN currently has an acute skills shortage in many areas (I spent 2 years trying to help the RN sort the problem) that makes it difficult to keep boats at sea as stuff keeps breaking.
Dovebiker, with regard to your previous comment I can assure you that the Rivers are often at sea over the weekend. Furthermore, I'm sorry that you also feel we don't deserve time with our families over Christmas and the Summer. If you'd like to discuss this further feel free to get on an aircraft and join me here where I'm spending the second Christmas in three years away from my kids.
They are not allowed to fish in the Extended Economic Zone, which is a maximum 200 miles off the UK coast.
Genuine question - does France have an extended economic zone too?
Furthermore, I’m sorry that you also feel we don’t deserve time with our families over Christmas and the Summer.
Really don't think that's what Dovebiker meant.
Four boats means 2 operational/ ready to go to sea at at one time. The RN currently has an acute skills shortage in many areas (I spent 2 years trying to help the RN sort the problem) that makes it difficult to keep boats at sea as stuff keeps breaking.
Add to that, as soon as a ship conducting Fisheries Protection has to arrest a vessel it will have to escort it into port. Then the arresting officer (who will be one of the ships officers), will need to present evidence in the next available majistrates court. Therefore that vessel is stuck in port until case is heard.
All irrelevant, all the French fishermen need to do Is blockade the port of Calais, throw in some farmers on the A16 and the UK will come to an agreement fairly quickly.
Given that there are currently rather long queues of lorries in Calais, I think the farmers can take it easy.
I completely understand how important the livelihood of all involved in the fishing industry is, a close friend's father is a retired fisherman, another close friend's father was a fishmonger. To be talking about Naval vessels machine-gunning * fishing boats for something that is worth 0.1% of our GDP is * batshit crazy. Unless NoJo is gaffer-tapped to an otherwise unmanned one.
This isn't about fish, it's about a symbolic incursion into "our" territory. It's the same as the regular news stories about those Russian bombers flying idly past in international airspace and the RAF aircraft we send to "intercept" them.
Also reinforces EU opinion that we are basically a malignant tumour on the EU’s arse and the sooner we are gone the better.
“We” are not. Our current government is.
Erm. I think you'll find we are. Roughly in the proportion of 13:12
You have the reference above. Why do you think a long established convention does not apply?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
Countries are in dispute all over the World. I think the Dutch and the Germans have some dispute over their waters in the North Sea? Don't think anyone is going to get bomby about it.
In 1973 "UNCLOS III" redefined the further territorial waters zones. This was mainly a response to the rise of offshore oil exploration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#UNCLOS_III
Exclusive economic zone
Main article: Exclusive economic zone
An exclusive economic zone extends from the baseline to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi), thus it includes the contiguous zone.[5] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters.
I think the whole thing is just shameful; trying to pretend that our closest trading partner is suddenly a sworn enemy who deserves military action.
The EU must just look on the UK as a petulant child, throwing their toys out the pram because they can't have everything they want.
This really must be one of the lowest points in the UK's international standing - we're making Trump look rational.
I did see an article and video footage of UK fishing boats being "attacked by French boats" at night, firing flares and throwing objects at them (including oil which seemed unlikely given the distance) so perhaps there is justification for navy boats...but not until 1 Jan?
Lots of countries use naval vessels to enforce territorial waters and rules of engagement are pretty clear.
I somehow doubt our navy has any intention of becoming the next Iran or North Korea in the world's eyes.
The fact that the media is hyping this up and so many on both extremes of the argument are focusing on it just shows it's a very effective smokescreen for the fundamental failure of the Tories to deal with the matter since the vote to Leave in 2016.
The British diplomat and naval thinker James Cable spelled out the nature of gunboat diplomacy in a series of works published between 1971 and 1993. In these, he defined the phenomenon as "the use or threat of limited naval force, otherwise than as an act of war, in order to secure advantage or to avert loss, either in the furtherance of an international dispute or else against foreign nationals within the territory or the jurisdiction of their own state."[2] He further broke down the concept into four key areas:
Definitive Force: the use of gunboat diplomacy to create or remove a fait accompli.
Purposeful Force: application of naval force to change the policy or character of the target government or group.
Catalytic Force: a mechanism designed to buy a breathing space or present policy makers with an increased range of options.
Expressive Force: use of navies to send a political message. This aspect of gunboat diplomacy is undervalued and almost dismissed by Cable.
He missed out:
"Oh look, a squirrel" Force: to distract your own side from your failures.