[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What's wrong with this is that a different system has operated for 40 years which is not the case in the other territories you mention. You simply damage people's livelihoods overnight by a drastic change and crucially, French fishermen have strong leverage.
The key is a phased change which should be negotiable by a strong UK government with skilled negotiators.

It changed "overnight" when the EEC did a power grab over fishing, just when when countries with large fishing areas such as UK, Ireland, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway were looking to join the EEC.
So why shouldn't it change? The UN agreement says we have control, and any historic fishing rights are invalid.
Why should there have been a drastic change on fishing. The EU are holding out on fishing at the expense of even greater "drastic changes". The initial quotas are unlikely to be that different to now.
Skill or otherwise of negotiators is irrelevant, when the EU is obstinate and doesn't have to agree to anything they don't want to and still keep things as they are for them. Under what they are looking for on EVERYTHING, is for things to be how THEY want them "unless and until" they say otherwise. If instead the EU had to agree or lose access, then they might be more reasonable, as they have something to lose. Eg if the UK wanted to reduce the EUs share, they couldn't unless the EU agreed. No (unarmed) negotiators can get around that.



Link

The Community has three fisheries agreements with Norway, namely the bilateral, the trilateral and the neighbouring agreements. The bilateral arrangement covers the North Sea and the Atlantic, the trilateral agreement covers Skagerrak and Kattegat (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and the neighbourhood arrangement covers the Swedish fishery in Norwegian waters of the North Sea.
...
The agreements are implemented in the form of annual fisheries arrangements. The bilateral and the trilateral arrangements allow for the setting of TACs for joint stocks, transfers of fishing possibilities, joint technical measures and issues related to control and enforcement. The neighbourhood arrangement includes fishing possibilities transferred from Norway to Sweden in accordance with the fisheries agreement between Norway and Sweden of December 1976.
The bilateral agreement is the single most important agreement the Community has with a third party both in terms of exchange of fish possibilities and in terms of joint management measures.

---------- Post added at 12:38 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think there's also been a deliberate positioning of necessary stock management in order to cultivate anti-EU sentiment. I more than appreciate that Brexit is not about economics.
Obviously, fishing impacts small areas quite dramatically which is why it does not make sense for French fishermen for the switch to be turned off overnight but to ensure a managed change to a new system or for British fishermen to lose access to the markets where most of its catches are sold.

Stock management? I doubt there would be any great divergence on that(and many other matters) between the UK and the EU. That is already the subject of several agreements the EU has with non-EU countries, so adding the UK to the list shouldn't be an issue for them.
The central issue is "who decides" on quotas etc.

A deal on fishing could've been done and dusted, if the EU wasn't so obstinate and lacking in "good faith".