The French

[AngleEyes]

Brexit fishing row fact checked: Real UK and France fishing licence figures exposed (msn.com)
This row mainly pertains to boats under 12m.

This row mainly pertains to boats under 12m.

This is the relevant issue.

“In particular, we note that the United Kingdom requires evidence of geolocation for vessels under 12 metres, whereas such evidence is not provided for in the trade and cooperation agreement and fishermen are not required to have it under EU rules,”
The majority of the fleets concerned are small-scale fishing fleets, dependent on narrow maritime zones with no possibility of moving their activity
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...int-warning-to-uk-over-reduced-fishing-rights​

The UK has engineered a spat between UK and France over the issue of licences to boats under 12 metres, by requiring evidence that UK knows cannot be obtained and is not required under EU regulations.
These types of boats are restricted by their size to narrow maritime activity areas, so their very size means they are unable, and were unable to fish anywhere else.
The intentional engineering of such a spat illustrates the duplicity of UK government.

 

[Notch7]

These types of boats are restricted by their size to narrow maritime activity areas, so their very size means they are unable, and were unable to fish anywhere else.

Tory supporters cling to the argument that if those fisherman they cant provide proof, they must have been fishing there illegally.

brexers, because its a con, brexers need lies to win the argument.

 

[Lower]

No it’s 90%

UK has approved all fishing licenses for EU apart from France.

Whether its 90%, 98% or 95% is just semantics and doesn't really prove any point.

The fact that some Belgian licences haven't been approved does directly refute your point about the UK only refusing french licences though.

However, i'm out of this thread because trying to out fact each other is boring and the respective opinions are so entrenched its become like the vaccine thread. No one is ever going to move from their position however much evidence is provided.

 

[AngleEyes]

Whether its 90%, 98% or 95% is just semantics and doesn't really prove any point.

The fact that some Belgian licences haven't been approved does directly refute your point about the UK only refusing french licences though.

However, i'm out of this thread because trying to out fact each other is boring and the respective opinions are so entrenched its become like the vaccine thread. No one is ever going to move from their position however much evidence is provided.

You're conflating and confusing the issue. The spat is about licences for boats under 12 metres. All this 'fact' about boats larger than 12 metres, which can easily provide the proof that is required, is just noise to confuse the real issue.
It's highly unlikely that any other nation will have boats under 12 metres that have fished and want to fish the waters around the channels islands.

 

[Lower]

You're conflating and confusing the issue. The spat is about licences for boats under 12 metres. All this 'fact' about boats larger than 12 metres, which can easily provide the proof that is required, is just noise to confuse the real issue.
It's highly unlikely that any other nation will have boats under 12 metres that have fished and want to fish the waters around the channels islands.

Which in turn makes the point about approving all licences for countries other than france even more irrelevant if no countries other than France have applied for licences for boats under 12 metres.

 

[AngleEyes]

Which in turn makes the point about approving all licences for countries other than france even more irrelevant if no countries other than France have applied for licences for boats under 12 metres.

Except when you realise that Jersey required evidence that would not exist, because boats under 12 metres are not required to have that equipment installed.
Like I said, it was a requirement which could not be met by the majority of boats, so it was intentionally engineered to cause a dispute, specifically with the French fishermen. Hence the consistent attempts to confuse and conflate the statistics involving larger boats and other nations.

It's really only the Channel Islands that have UK fishing zones accessible for that size of boat from Europe.

 

[Lower]

Except when you realise that Jersey required evidence that would not exist, because boats under 12 metres are not required to have that equipment installed.
Like I said, it was a requirement which could not be met by the majority of boats, so it was intentionally engineered to cause a dispute, specifically with the French fishermen. Hence the consistent attempts to confuse and conflate the statistics involving larger boats and other nations.

It's really only the Channel Islands that have UK fishing zones accessible for that size of boat from Europe.

Except that GPS data isn't the only type of evidence that the channel islands will accept to grant a licence.

Deputy Young said: "We've been flexible in the kinds of positional evidence we've accepted, using VMS [vessel monitoring system] information, commercially available Automatic Identification System data, logbooks, chart plotters and other written information."
"We will continue to have an open door to further data and evidence of fishing activity, including for vessels which have already been considered, and we look forward to working collaboratively to resolve the remaining complex issues,"

I accept that the channel islands have asked for evidence of historic fishing, and that they knew that asking for evidence of historic fishing would limit the number of smaller boats that receive licences. However it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence to prevent speculative licence applications.

I note that a number of French small boat licence applications have been withdrawing after commercially available tracking information showed that some boats hadn't fished in the channel island waters when they had claimed to have been there.

What i don't accept is that this dispute has been intentionally engineered. If the government wanted to do that, it would have been much easier to do it in areas that are less vulnerable than the channel islands. If this dispute has been engineered, its been engineered by the channel islanders themselves.

 

[JohnD]

type of evidence that the channel islands will accept

What types of evidence were specifically agreed by the EU and the UK prior to their signing the agreement?

It is not for one side or the other to invent additional terms subsequently.

 

[transam]

The French are in the wrong and that’s it and all about it

Macron is a Scoundrel looking to grub up support for his re election

 

[Lower]

What types of evidence were specifically agreed by the EU and the UK prior to their signing the agreement?

It is not for one side or the other to invent additional terms subsequently.

Already discussed at length in this thread.

 

[fillyboy]

It appears to be a lot easier for EU vessels to obtain a licence to fish in UK waters than it does a British vessel, in fact, no new licences are being issued at all for British vessels.

Fishing vessel licence requirements - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

[JohnD]

It appears to be a lot easier for EU vessels to obtain a licence to fish in UK waters than it does a British vessel, in fact, no new licences are being issued at all for British vessels.

Fishing vessel licence requirements - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Are you saying that the rules from 2014 are still in force, unchanged?

 

[AngleEyes]

Except that GPS data isn't the only type of evidence that the channel islands will accept to grant a licence.

As John said, it isn't up to one side to decide what evidence will be accepted.

I accept that the channel islands have asked for evidence of historic fishing, and that they knew that asking for evidence of historic fishing would limit the number of smaller boats that receive licences. However it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence to prevent speculative licence applications.

Then that required evidence should have been mutually agreed, not unilaterally applied.

I note that a number of French small boat licence applications have been withdrawing after commercially available tracking information showed that some boats hadn't fished in the channel island waters when they had claimed to have been there.

How do you note this?

What i don't accept is that this dispute has been intentionally engineered. If the government wanted to do that, it would have been much easier to do it in areas that are less vulnerable than the channel islands. If this dispute has been engineered, its been engineered by the channel islanders themselves.

Jersey is a UK Crown Dependency of UK, and it is represented internationally by UK.

 

[AngleEyes]

It appears to be a lot easier for EU vessels to obtain a licence to fish in UK waters than it does a British vessel, in fact, no new licences are being issued at all for British vessels.

Fishing vessel licence requirements - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Fillyboy hasn't a clue what he's on about:

If your vessel is registered in the UK
from filllyboy's link.​

 

[JohnD]

"The problem is that British behaviour to date, including threatening to break international law last year, has sapped the negotiating environment of any of the trust and goodwill that might be needed to finesse the issues.

The current signs are not good. Talks in Brussels do not seem to be going anywhere. The history of Brexit negotiations tells us that when the two sides are negotiating in public — in newspaper opinion columns and on Twitter — deals are not being done."

FT.com