We 100% agree there.

sure, fish stocks are not recovering at the promised / projected / desired rates, if at all - despite all the 'unfair' EU regulations british fishers and brexiteers opposed so prominently. but i think you're mistaken if you assume that the fishermen supporting brexit did that in an effort to protect their fish even more and to apply even harsher quotas, you'll find it's the exact opposite.

due to fish migration and environmental policy standards i think an international approach is still more promising than individual countries taking care of their domain only. the latter inevitably leads to less protection (for political, economic, and competitive reasons) considering how relatively small the areas we're talking about are compared to the number of countries involved - and that's not just common sense, history is a great teacher in that regard as well...

hmm. I disagree






We're failing hard to manage it internationally.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Mar 22 2018 07:14pm

could you elaborate which part you disagree with? just posting a 40 minute of someone else talking isn't really helpful here...

that the international approach is more promising. We're literally over fishing in the entire world, with the current approach.

true, we kind of are still - and i already acknowledged that we're somewhat failing and not protecting the stocks efficiently. and i fully agree with the sentiment that MORE has to be done to save our seas - but again, i think you are completely mistaken if you think that was the intention of british fishermen opposing EU quotas and regulations.

also, the fact that we're not having the desired success yet does NOT necessarily lead to the conclusion that a national approach is more promising, it could also mean that we have to refine and even TIGHTEN our approach - again, the massive decline and overfishing close to the point of no recovery happened BEFORE the CFP focused on quotas and protecting stock against national and industry interest.

a national approach might work for countries with huge coastlines entailing whole ecosystems and fish populations, but given the relatively small areas and the many countries having access to basically the same stocks (in the north sea, baltic sea, and mediterranean in particular), it is a recipe for disaster since you can't effectively protect the stocks by just regulating yourself.

The local fishermen probably want to fish more and have more jobs stability. Easy campaign issue as we've seen before, with the experiment of Brexit I might want to see the experiment in giving them a form of national fishing waters tbh. Economically less efficient than making longer fishing rounds over international water, yet easier to sustain, being able increase fines (desperately needed) and have a small area to protect yourself, more responsibility for the government in office. Downside is that you cannot expect to enter foreign waters with your fishing vessels. Upside is that governments like the UK would be able to create areas where fishing is prohibited, with fewer international resistance. (I'm actually not sure what the possibilities are for reserves in current international laws ^^).

Other answers for the depletion is better international cooperation, stop the unfair subsidies and increase fines and chances to be caught (international fishing police ?) reduce quotas ans perhaps even ban super trawlers
But we desperately need progress, bigtime.

This post was edited by Knoppie on Mar 22 2018 08:34pm

Or maybe the fishing industry hasn't returned to the UK in a big way yet because we won't have control of them until post-transition.

What would the desired "control" imply ?

Control of the fishing areas that are ours by territorial rights, would be ours had we not been in the EU, and should be ours when we leave.