What does the new EU deal mean for Britain's fishing industry?

Independent

19-05-2025

Having been a fundamental factor in Britain's negotiations to join the European Union in the 1960s, and in the debates that surrounded the Brexit referendum in 2016, fisheries have once again become central to the UK's relationship with the rest of Europe. The 'Common Understanding' deal that has now been secured by Keir Starmer was held up by a dispute about fishing rights, and few, if any, of the many complex issues in UK-EU relations arouse such strong emotions.
Some wonder if this is rational...
What's the new deal?
That the rules about fishing rights contained in the 2020 EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) – Boris Johnson's 'oven ready' Brexit deal – should hold for a further 12 years. The TCA provided for a review in 2026, so Starmer's deal effectively pre-empts that. The 2026 review was planned by Johnson as a compromise on the way, he hoped, to the UK regaining even more of the exclusive territorial fisheries it had previously ceded under EU membership and the old EU Common Fisheries Policy.
The provisions in the TCA were for 25 per cent of the overall existing EU quota in UK waters to be transferred to the UK by June 2026. After that point, annual negotiations were supposed to take place over various types of fish and national quotas (with the hope of the UK gaining more of its own waters back).
What's wrong with that?
Well, it's not 100 per cent British fish for British fisherfolk, and according to critics, British fishing communities have been betrayed once again.
In the words of Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation: 'This deal is a horror show for Scottish fishermen, far worse than Boris Johnson's botched Brexit agreement. This highlights the total indifference of the British political establishment to the interests of our fishing sector, with Keir Starmer becoming the third prime minister after Edward Heath and Johnson to betray the industry.'
Is it a betrayal?
Not really. For reasons of culture and taste, the British couldn't consume all of the abundant fish in the seas around these isles, because they tend not to be of the species they like the most. Thus, farmed salmon isn't even part of the fisheries debate, while cod, our second favourite, tends to come from more northerly waters, outside those belonging to the UK and the EU – off Norway and towards Svalbard.
On the other hand, Europeans like the herring and mackerel and other types that the British have lots of but tend not to favour, and there's no real market in Britain for the 'native' sand eels and blue whiting – low value, low-margin species.
But even if British boats caught all of the plentiful fish liked by Europeans and landed them in British ports, they'd still need to transport and sell their catches to the EU – something that's been made much harder by Brexit. Now, salmon and shellfish, as well as other raw and processed fish, can be more easily sent to European markets.
A gigantic captive national fishery is of no use if the British won't eat its produce and the EU won't buy it. Hence the need for a deal.
But why can't we go back to the old days?
It's true that, for example, Grimsby, at its peak in the 1950s, was the biggest fishing port in the world. The heyday of Lowestoft, to take another example, came in 1955 when the Birdseye company perfected the fish finger. But since then the extension of territorial waters by the likes of Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and the EU, increased international competition – especially from Russia and Spain – plus periods of persistent overfishing have transformed the situation.
Why don't the British eat more fish?
Some put it down to the Reformation and the association of 'fish on Friday' with Catholicism. But it's a bit of a mystery, given the superb range and quality available and the status of the national dish of fish and chips (a cheap and filling dish that became popular in the hungry 1930s). Japan, for example, another maritime power, plotted a very different course in its cuisine.
Why is it so emotive?
Because no one wants to see proud coastal communities with brave fishermen and women suffer, and be regarded so contemptuously as disposable. Nonetheless, the hard fact is that fisheries account for only about half a billion pounds a year, as opposed to the 'winners' in Starmer's latest deal – the defence and food-processing sectors, which generate hundreds of billions of pounds in annual output.
Every trade deal has winners and losers, as does trade more generally, and no economy can resist change for ever.