Britain catches between 10% and 15% of the fish landed by EU vessels, making it one of the largest fishing countries in Europe. Currently, their fishing vessels have access to the waters of third countries, in accordance with their agreements with the EU. Leaving the EU means London must now conclude its own fisheries agreements. Iceland`s work to resolve this impasse through diplomatic efforts has not been fruitful. Iceland has not been involved in discussions on the collective agreement on mackerel since 2014. [Shutterstock] On the other hand, the European Union and Norway blame Iceland and the ferocious for the failure of the negotiations so far. In particular, Scotland and Ireland, whose fishing is an extremely important mackerel, have insisted that the EU finally take action and take action against the unilateral action of the two “troublemakers”. The EU was even obliged to do so, as the INN Directive required that all countries that do not practice apparent sustainability in the management of fish stocks be excluded from trade with the Community. After months of threats, the EU finally took action in September 2012. The European Parliament has adopted a series of sanctions against Iceland and the ferocious ones that prohibit or, at the very least, severely restrict imports of mackerel from both countries. Ships from both countries can no longer land their mackerel catches at EU ports, which has been in place for some time at Norwegian ports. These restrictions may also be extended to other fish species caught as bycatter during mackerel fishing. The main outcome of the agreement signed on Monday is that the two countries will discuss the management of common fish stocks, but similar agreements signed in recent months with Norway and the Faroe Islands set conditions for access to the other country`s waters and meet annually to set bilateral quotas.
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the European Union (EU) fisheries policy.  It sets quotas for which Member States are allowed to fish each species of fish and encourages the fishing industry through various market interventions. In 2004, it had a budget of 931 million euros, or about 0.75% of the EU budget. [Citation required] “This is the established model of cooperation between coastal states that have common stocks to ensure that fish stocks are harvested responsibly and sustainably. Annual agreements provide the flexibility to deal with changes in stocks and science, while the framework agreement ensures continuity and a framework for cooperation,” said Barrie Deas, NFFO`s Managing Director. The Common Fisheries Policy has been criticised by some fishermen who believe it threatens their threat of existence.  “This agreement allows for good and solid cooperation in fisheries for the future. The best way to manage common fish stocks is to allow coastal states to agree on how to proceed,” ingebrigtsen said. In 2009, the European Commission launched a wide-ranging debate on the eu`s fishing method. It has received contributions from EU citizens, organisations and countries and has published a report on the consultation. So many of the stocks involved are jointly exploited and quotas are exchanged to ensure that they are not wasted.
Some of these stocks are managed by the Intergovernmental Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Agreement, established for the management of fisheries resources in the region, while others are managed by agreements between coastal states. “Fishing control is what I`m afraid of. I do not see how the government is bringing young people into this area. The requirement to apply the principle of subsidiarity to the CFP is part of the argument of its decentralization. Decentralisation played an important role in the discussions on the 2002 CFP reform, but the reform itself has effectively strengthened centralisation within the CFP, depriving Member States of the right to block quota proposals and strengthening the EU`s role in enforcing legislation.