Yes won decisively, with the argument turning less on fish than on who gets the final say over the UK’s coastal waters. The strongest Yes case was a charge that the May deal surrendered leverage and left fishing communities paying for it.
The floor’s most-respected Yes voice said the agreement “threw our fleet under the bus for a staggering 12 years”. Others made the case in plainer terms: “we should have control of our territorial waters”. Beneath the sovereignty language ran a practical promise, too: rebuild the fleet, support fishing communities and secure domestic food supplies.
No voters did not deny the appeal of control so much as question its price. One of their most-respected arguments warned that excluding EU boats could mean “tariffs and veterinary red tape on seafood exports”; another urged the UK to honour its commitments, saying “what's done is done”. The sides talked past each other: Yes focused on control within the 12-mile zone, while No voices stressed market access, reciprocity and the cost of unilateral action.
That tension made the debate a compact version of the UK’s argument over how to use its post-Brexit powers: as leverage to set terms, or as a reason to keep agreements intact. One reply on the Yes side drew a distinction the wider debate often blurred: “If access beyond territorial waters benefits both sides, negotiate it separately.”
The chamber’s verdict was clear; its argument was not that cooperation had no value, but that control over the inshore zone should not be traded away by default.
35 Opinions
Yes it's our asset to protect and prosper f6om
We need to negotiate with the EU. If we impose something unilaterally, they will just retaliate. We need to reach common agreement on protecting fish stocks from overfishing,. Negotiating with determination is the only way.
Yes we must have control of our waters for fisherman, perhaps a part of a new agreement if we rejoin the EU and even if not we should still find a way to make such an agreement.
We must stick to our agreement. Maybe as fishing stocks are dropping we could arrange no fishing areas, or perhaps no fishing months, to allow fish stocks to increase. No idea if it would work, it's just me trying to think of ways to get around a difficulty.
We need to stick to the agreements that we've made if we want to make any functional deals in the future. In 2038 we can revisit this question, but for now what's done is done.
You just know the fact we agreed to hand these fishing rights away only to be immediately denied any reciprocal benefits in negotiations is because our traitorous leaders want to make a point for rejoining the EU! Either that or they are literally r_tarded and have no place in leadership
Fishing Rights is probably the most powerful weapon we have regarding the EU and Especially France. The French as busy raping our fisheries because their fisheries are played out.
We should enforce all our territorial limits. This benefits our traditional fishing communities, protecting their livelihoods. It will also better enable us to protect our Immediate marine environment.
Yes...I want good relations with neighbours but no, what's behind my fence is mine, unless I feel like sharing every now & then. This isn't that. Also we would need to support the fishermen before they set off to fish...(fuel, equipment maintenance etc) & after they bring the catch in (storage, transport, etc) I would support any functional system that is good to hard working fishing folk. 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟
Our Political class & media have played us for years about the EU. Heath was so desperate to join this latter day incarnation of the Soviet Union that he just gave our fishing away. One of the many steps that impoverish us. Allowing sub par ideologues to trade our wealth for ephemeral promises always ends badly. Why are the left so desperate to join an authoritarian failing body with no real purpose save promoting Globalisr elites interests? Ask yourself. Gunboats!