Nigel Farage vows to ‘rip up’ Brexit fishing deal – ‘get back control of British waters!’ . HYN

British fishing waters would be reinstated should Nigel Farage become prime minister in a future general election. Speaking at a rally in the fishing town of Plymouth, the Reform UK leader announced that he would get rid of a deal signed by Sir Keir Starmer.

That deal, signed as part of plans to reset the country’s relationship with the European Union, meant foreign fishermen were allowed to pillage British waters just six miles off the coast. Branding that bargain as an “absolute betrayal”, Mr Farage told fans he would “rip up” the deal and impose traditional fishing waters once again. The Daily Express is campaigning to see a 12-mile border around the United Kingdom in which only British fishermen can work.

That is part of the paper’s Give Us A Proper Brexit crusade, which demands politicians respect the result of the historic vote to leave the EU. More than 17million people voted to Leave, making the ballot the largest democratic mandate in British history.

The Express is also calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Humand Rights (ECHR) to enable control of the borders, as well as the tearing up of eurocrat red tape which is throttling businesses. Speaking at the rally, Mr Farage said: “One of the sensible beliefs that we had was that we would start to get back control of our territorial waters.”

He added that the “minimum” the country could have expected following the vote was to “get back control of our 12-mile line”. Ahead of Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s planned meeting next month with eurocrats in Brussels, Mr Farage warned: “If they don’t like it in Brussels, tough luck!”

Mr Burnham has already opened the door to a number of Brexit betrayals when he heads to the continent to reopen talks more than 10 years after the vote. He campaigned to Remain in the EU, called for a second referendum when his side lost, and then said he wanted the country to rejoin “in my lifetime” last year.

When standing in the Makerfield by-election, a seat which voted 65% to Leave, the ardent Remainer chose to run away when challenged by this paper on his evolving position on the topic. The Government was approached for comment.

Farage Says Britain Must Regain Control of Its Fishing Waters

Speaking at a Reform UK rally in Plymouth, Farage argued that leaving the European Union should have allowed Britain to exercise greater control over fishing in its territorial waters. He described the current arrangement as a betrayal of expectations associated with Brexit and said a future Reform government would seek to reverse it. <Cite refs={[“turn764068search0″,”turn764068search4”]}/>

For Farage, fishing is about more than the number of boats allowed to operate off the British coast. It represents a wider question about national sovereignty, the promises made during the Brexit campaign and whether successive governments have delivered the changes voters expected.

Many fishing communities supported leaving the EU partly because of dissatisfaction with the Common Fisheries Policy and the distribution of fishing opportunities. Brexit supporters argued that an independent UK could set its own rules, negotiate access arrangements and give domestic fishing businesses a greater share of available opportunities.

Farage’s latest pledge draws directly on those expectations. He argues that Britain should not continue granting EU fleets access under an agreement negotiated after Brexit, particularly when the issue was presented as one of the potential benefits of leaving the bloc.

However, the legal and economic consequences of cancelling the agreement would need to be considered carefully. The UK–EU relationship involves interconnected arrangements covering trade, food exports and other areas. Changing one part of the agreement could affect negotiations elsewhere, depending on the terms and the response from European partners.

What Does the 12-Year Agreement Mean?

The fishing agreement formed part of the broader UK–EU reset announced in May 2025. It provides a longer period of certainty for EU fishing access to British waters, while the wider package aims to reduce trade barriers and strengthen cooperation in other areas. <Cite refs={[“turn764068news5″,”turn764068search1”]}/>

The arrangement has attracted criticism from Brexit supporters who believe that continued access for European fishing fleets undermines the promise of taking back control. Some fishing representatives have also raised concerns about whether the agreement delivers sufficient benefits to British coastal communities in return.

The Government’s position has been that the deal offers stability for fishing businesses on both sides of the Channel. British seafood producers rely heavily on European markets, and ministers have argued that improved trading arrangements can help exporters by reducing bureaucracy and making it easier to sell products overseas. <Cite refs={[“turn764068search1″,”turn764068news5”]}/>

That creates a difficult balance. Restricting access for foreign vessels could give UK authorities greater freedom to decide who fishes in British waters, but any change would also need to account for the interests of British exporters, coastal employers and international trading partners.

Fishing rights cannot be considered in isolation from the broader economic relationship. The effects of a policy change would depend on how it was implemented, whether alternative agreements were negotiated and how European governments responded.

Why Fishing Matters to Coastal Communities

For towns such as Plymouth, fishing is part of a wider maritime economy that includes ports, processing businesses, transport, equipment suppliers and hospitality. Changes to fishing opportunities can affect not only vessel owners but also people employed throughout the supply chain.

Supporters of Farage’s proposal argue that British fishermen should receive greater opportunities to catch fish in UK waters. They say domestic businesses need a predictable regulatory framework and a fair chance to compete for quotas and access.

Yet controlling access to waters does not automatically guarantee that every British fishing business will become more profitable. The industry’s performance also depends on fish stocks, operating costs, fuel prices, quotas, market demand and the ability to sell catches at sustainable prices.

Any future government seeking to change the agreement would therefore need to explain how it planned to translate greater national control into practical benefits for fishermen. That would include decisions about access rights, licensing, conservation, enforcement and the allocation of fishing opportunities among UK vessels.

There would also be questions about how different parts of the United Kingdom would be affected. Fisheries policy has devolved elements, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have significant interests in the industry. A major change would require attention to the circumstances of different coastal communities rather than assuming that one approach would suit every fleet.

The Risks of Tearing Up the Deal

Farage’s pledge is a political commitment, not an implemented policy. If a future government attempted to cancel or renegotiate the fishing provisions, it would need to examine the legal terms of the wider agreement and determine what options were available.

A unilateral move could lead to a diplomatic dispute with the EU. It could also create uncertainty for fishing businesses that depend on stable rules when making investment decisions, planning their operations or negotiating contracts with buyers.

Supporters of the proposal may argue that these risks are justified if the existing agreement prevents Britain from exercising the control it expected to obtain after Brexit. They may also contend that a government should be willing to renegotiate arrangements that it considers unfavourable to domestic interests.

Critics, however, may question whether cancelling the deal would deliver enough practical benefit to offset the risk of damaging wider cooperation. British seafood exporters have an interest in maintaining access to European customers, while importers and retailers depend on reliable supplies across the market.

The precise consequences would depend on the legal route taken and any replacement arrangement. It would be premature to assume either that the deal could be discarded without wider consequences or that any attempt to change it would necessarily damage the industry.

Brexit Promises Return to the Political Spotlight

The fishing row demonstrates how Brexit continues to shape British political debate more than six years after the UK formally left the European Union. For some voters, the issue is evidence that the promises made during the referendum have not been fully delivered. For others, the continued relationship with European markets shows why cooperation remains economically important.

Farage has made clear that he wants a different approach from the one adopted by the current government. By pledging to scrap the fishing agreement, he is presenting Reform UK as a party willing to revisit the terms of the post-Brexit settlement.

The Government, meanwhile, has defended the broader reset as a way to improve stability and reduce barriers to trade. Its argument is that agreements with European partners can support British businesses while maintaining the UK’s status outside the EU.

The disagreement ultimately concerns what taking back control should mean in practice. Does it require the UK to restrict foreign access as far as possible, or can Britain exercise sovereignty while negotiating reciprocal arrangements that support trade and industry?

Those questions will be central to any serious debate about the future of British fisheries.

What Happens Next?

Farage’s pledge is likely to keep fishing rights in the political spotlight as parties debate the consequences of the UK–EU reset. The key test will be whether Reform UK can set out a detailed alternative explaining how it would change access arrangements, support British fishing businesses and manage the potential economic and diplomatic consequences.

For fishing communities, the most important outcome will be whether policy changes produce sustainable benefits: viable businesses, dependable access to markets, healthy fish stocks and long-term employment in coastal towns.

The promise to “get back control of British waters” is a powerful political message, but turning it into a workable policy would require more than cancelling an agreement. It would involve difficult decisions about international relations, conservation, quotas and the future of the UK’s seafood trade.

For now, the 12-year fishing arrangement remains in place, and Farage’s commitment represents a proposed change rather than a completed decision. The debate will continue to revolve around whether the current settlement delivers sufficient benefits for Britain—and what consequences could follow if a future government chooses to replace it.