How is fishing in the European Union structured?
As an island in the Atlantic the UK has the right to fish large swathes of ocean off its coast: a 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
I think this is how it works inside the EU: the UK relinquishes the right to the EEZ. Up to 12 miles offshore is exclusive to UK boats and the rest is shared via a system of quotas with the other EU member states.
How are quotas shared among member states - does everyone get an equal catch quota?
And why is this resource shared in this way? The coal fields in Germany and the oil in the North Sea are not shared in this way. So why are the fish in the UK EEZ?
united-kingdom european-union fishing
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
|
show 4 more comments
As an island in the Atlantic the UK has the right to fish large swathes of ocean off its coast: a 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
I think this is how it works inside the EU: the UK relinquishes the right to the EEZ. Up to 12 miles offshore is exclusive to UK boats and the rest is shared via a system of quotas with the other EU member states.
How are quotas shared among member states - does everyone get an equal catch quota?
And why is this resource shared in this way? The coal fields in Germany and the oil in the North Sea are not shared in this way. So why are the fish in the UK EEZ?
united-kingdom european-union fishing
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
1
Steel and coal were among the first to be covered by the predecessors of the EU ...
– o.m.
7 hours ago
2
It was a question of sharing market access, so that previously national companies were no longer national companies but European ones acting in a supranational market. Instead of a German of French steel industry, there was an European steel industry with facilities in different countries. Read about the ECSC. The infrastructure still belonged to capitalists and shareholders.
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Thank you. So I think my question still stands. Why is the fishing resource itself shared, unlike, for example, coal?
– Ben
6 hours ago
2
The EU rules allow tradespeople or bankers to work in any state of the Union. Why make an exception for fishermen?
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Shouldn't those distances be nautical miles, rather than miles?
– origimbo
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
As an island in the Atlantic the UK has the right to fish large swathes of ocean off its coast: a 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
I think this is how it works inside the EU: the UK relinquishes the right to the EEZ. Up to 12 miles offshore is exclusive to UK boats and the rest is shared via a system of quotas with the other EU member states.
How are quotas shared among member states - does everyone get an equal catch quota?
And why is this resource shared in this way? The coal fields in Germany and the oil in the North Sea are not shared in this way. So why are the fish in the UK EEZ?
united-kingdom european-union fishing
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
As an island in the Atlantic the UK has the right to fish large swathes of ocean off its coast: a 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
I think this is how it works inside the EU: the UK relinquishes the right to the EEZ. Up to 12 miles offshore is exclusive to UK boats and the rest is shared via a system of quotas with the other EU member states.
How are quotas shared among member states - does everyone get an equal catch quota?
And why is this resource shared in this way? The coal fields in Germany and the oil in the North Sea are not shared in this way. So why are the fish in the UK EEZ?
united-kingdom european-union fishing
united-kingdom european-union fishing
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
edited 7 hours ago
Ben
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
asked 8 hours ago
BenBen
2,7201233
2,7201233
1
Steel and coal were among the first to be covered by the predecessors of the EU ...
– o.m.
7 hours ago
2
It was a question of sharing market access, so that previously national companies were no longer national companies but European ones acting in a supranational market. Instead of a German of French steel industry, there was an European steel industry with facilities in different countries. Read about the ECSC. The infrastructure still belonged to capitalists and shareholders.
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Thank you. So I think my question still stands. Why is the fishing resource itself shared, unlike, for example, coal?
– Ben
6 hours ago
2
The EU rules allow tradespeople or bankers to work in any state of the Union. Why make an exception for fishermen?
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Shouldn't those distances be nautical miles, rather than miles?
– origimbo
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
Steel and coal were among the first to be covered by the predecessors of the EU ...
– o.m.
7 hours ago
2
It was a question of sharing market access, so that previously national companies were no longer national companies but European ones acting in a supranational market. Instead of a German of French steel industry, there was an European steel industry with facilities in different countries. Read about the ECSC. The infrastructure still belonged to capitalists and shareholders.
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Thank you. So I think my question still stands. Why is the fishing resource itself shared, unlike, for example, coal?
– Ben
6 hours ago
2
The EU rules allow tradespeople or bankers to work in any state of the Union. Why make an exception for fishermen?
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Shouldn't those distances be nautical miles, rather than miles?
– origimbo
6 hours ago
1
1
Steel and coal were among the first to be covered by the predecessors of the EU ...
– o.m.
7 hours ago
Steel and coal were among the first to be covered by the predecessors of the EU ...
– o.m.
7 hours ago
2
2
It was a question of sharing market access, so that previously national companies were no longer national companies but European ones acting in a supranational market. Instead of a German of French steel industry, there was an European steel industry with facilities in different countries. Read about the ECSC. The infrastructure still belonged to capitalists and shareholders.
– o.m.
6 hours ago
It was a question of sharing market access, so that previously national companies were no longer national companies but European ones acting in a supranational market. Instead of a German of French steel industry, there was an European steel industry with facilities in different countries. Read about the ECSC. The infrastructure still belonged to capitalists and shareholders.
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
1
Thank you. So I think my question still stands. Why is the fishing resource itself shared, unlike, for example, coal?
– Ben
6 hours ago
Thank you. So I think my question still stands. Why is the fishing resource itself shared, unlike, for example, coal?
– Ben
6 hours ago
2
2
The EU rules allow tradespeople or bankers to work in any state of the Union. Why make an exception for fishermen?
– o.m.
6 hours ago
The EU rules allow tradespeople or bankers to work in any state of the Union. Why make an exception for fishermen?
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
1
Shouldn't those distances be nautical miles, rather than miles?
– origimbo
6 hours ago
Shouldn't those distances be nautical miles, rather than miles?
– origimbo
6 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's only part of the story but it's easy to find a justification for a Common Fisheries Policy: Fish moves around and depletion of the resource impacts everybody. So much so that there are in fact other international organisations dealing with this issue to which the EU defers in part when setting its “total allowable catch”. Beyond that, the story is somewhat similar to the Common Agricultural Policy: It was there from the start (and as such a “take it or leave it” proposition for subsequent would-be members) and is sustained by powerful constituencies.
Besides, it's not just the “fish of the UK EEZ” that is being shared and the UK hasn't “relinquished” anything. The regulation and resources are pooled, which is not quite the same. The sector-by-sector zero-sum view of EU policies that is so common in the UK is short-sighted but in this case the UK might be a net beneficiary: UK quotas are the second largest in the EU and their overall share of the total allowable catch is larger than what is being caught in the UK EEZ. As always with trade, what's really at stake are competing local interests (big boats vs. large boats, specific fisheries, supermarkets, consumers…) and long-term sustainability rather than the interests of the country as a whole.
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38539%2fhow-is-fishing-in-the-european-union-structured%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's only part of the story but it's easy to find a justification for a Common Fisheries Policy: Fish moves around and depletion of the resource impacts everybody. So much so that there are in fact other international organisations dealing with this issue to which the EU defers in part when setting its “total allowable catch”. Beyond that, the story is somewhat similar to the Common Agricultural Policy: It was there from the start (and as such a “take it or leave it” proposition for subsequent would-be members) and is sustained by powerful constituencies.
Besides, it's not just the “fish of the UK EEZ” that is being shared and the UK hasn't “relinquished” anything. The regulation and resources are pooled, which is not quite the same. The sector-by-sector zero-sum view of EU policies that is so common in the UK is short-sighted but in this case the UK might be a net beneficiary: UK quotas are the second largest in the EU and their overall share of the total allowable catch is larger than what is being caught in the UK EEZ. As always with trade, what's really at stake are competing local interests (big boats vs. large boats, specific fisheries, supermarkets, consumers…) and long-term sustainability rather than the interests of the country as a whole.
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It's only part of the story but it's easy to find a justification for a Common Fisheries Policy: Fish moves around and depletion of the resource impacts everybody. So much so that there are in fact other international organisations dealing with this issue to which the EU defers in part when setting its “total allowable catch”. Beyond that, the story is somewhat similar to the Common Agricultural Policy: It was there from the start (and as such a “take it or leave it” proposition for subsequent would-be members) and is sustained by powerful constituencies.
Besides, it's not just the “fish of the UK EEZ” that is being shared and the UK hasn't “relinquished” anything. The regulation and resources are pooled, which is not quite the same. The sector-by-sector zero-sum view of EU policies that is so common in the UK is short-sighted but in this case the UK might be a net beneficiary: UK quotas are the second largest in the EU and their overall share of the total allowable catch is larger than what is being caught in the UK EEZ. As always with trade, what's really at stake are competing local interests (big boats vs. large boats, specific fisheries, supermarkets, consumers…) and long-term sustainability rather than the interests of the country as a whole.
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
add a comment |
It's only part of the story but it's easy to find a justification for a Common Fisheries Policy: Fish moves around and depletion of the resource impacts everybody. So much so that there are in fact other international organisations dealing with this issue to which the EU defers in part when setting its “total allowable catch”. Beyond that, the story is somewhat similar to the Common Agricultural Policy: It was there from the start (and as such a “take it or leave it” proposition for subsequent would-be members) and is sustained by powerful constituencies.
Besides, it's not just the “fish of the UK EEZ” that is being shared and the UK hasn't “relinquished” anything. The regulation and resources are pooled, which is not quite the same. The sector-by-sector zero-sum view of EU policies that is so common in the UK is short-sighted but in this case the UK might be a net beneficiary: UK quotas are the second largest in the EU and their overall share of the total allowable catch is larger than what is being caught in the UK EEZ. As always with trade, what's really at stake are competing local interests (big boats vs. large boats, specific fisheries, supermarkets, consumers…) and long-term sustainability rather than the interests of the country as a whole.
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
It's only part of the story but it's easy to find a justification for a Common Fisheries Policy: Fish moves around and depletion of the resource impacts everybody. So much so that there are in fact other international organisations dealing with this issue to which the EU defers in part when setting its “total allowable catch”. Beyond that, the story is somewhat similar to the Common Agricultural Policy: It was there from the start (and as such a “take it or leave it” proposition for subsequent would-be members) and is sustained by powerful constituencies.
Besides, it's not just the “fish of the UK EEZ” that is being shared and the UK hasn't “relinquished” anything. The regulation and resources are pooled, which is not quite the same. The sector-by-sector zero-sum view of EU policies that is so common in the UK is short-sighted but in this case the UK might be a net beneficiary: UK quotas are the second largest in the EU and their overall share of the total allowable catch is larger than what is being caught in the UK EEZ. As always with trade, what's really at stake are competing local interests (big boats vs. large boats, specific fisheries, supermarkets, consumers…) and long-term sustainability rather than the interests of the country as a whole.
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
answered 6 hours ago
RelaxedRelaxed
17.1k3759
17.1k3759
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
Numerous examples of actions of neighbouring states impacting others eg. CO2 emissions “move” globally - yet EU oil/coal fields are not “pooled resources.” Instead, multilateral agreements ensure fair resource management to avoid too much harm to one another. As to “relinquish”: the definition is “to voluntarily give up claim to.” That is precisely what the UK (and other members) sign up to when they become (or continue to be) members. They relinquish the claim for the duration of their membership to their 200nm EEZ. An island in the Atlantic, I would expect UK quota to be relatively large.
– Ben
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38539%2fhow-is-fishing-in-the-european-union-structured%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Steel and coal were among the first to be covered by the predecessors of the EU ...
– o.m.
7 hours ago
2
It was a question of sharing market access, so that previously national companies were no longer national companies but European ones acting in a supranational market. Instead of a German of French steel industry, there was an European steel industry with facilities in different countries. Read about the ECSC. The infrastructure still belonged to capitalists and shareholders.
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Thank you. So I think my question still stands. Why is the fishing resource itself shared, unlike, for example, coal?
– Ben
6 hours ago
2
The EU rules allow tradespeople or bankers to work in any state of the Union. Why make an exception for fishermen?
– o.m.
6 hours ago
1
Shouldn't those distances be nautical miles, rather than miles?
– origimbo
6 hours ago