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.
