Farage pledges to bring back British fishing waters (Image: Getty)
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!”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
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.
Nigel Farage Vows to ‘Rip Up’ Brexit Fishing Deal – ‘Get Back Control of British Waters!’
Nigel Farage has reignited the debate over Brexit and Britain’s fishing industry, promising to take a much tougher approach to the agreements governing access to British waters. The Reform UK leader has repeatedly argued that leaving the European Union should have delivered greater control over the country’s fishing grounds, stronger opportunities for British fishermen and a fairer future for coastal communities.
For many fishermen, the promise of Brexit was about more than trade agreements or political independence. It was about restoring an industry that had spent decades feeling overlooked, restricted and disadvantaged by decisions made far from the communities most affected by them.
Farage’s latest pledge reflects that continuing frustration. His message is clear: if existing arrangements fail to deliver what British fishermen were promised, the government should be prepared to reconsider them and negotiate a deal that places British interests first.
However, changing fishing agreements would be a complicated undertaking, with consequences for Britain’s relationship with European neighbours, the seafood industry and the wider economy.
A promise to take back control
Fishing became one of the most recognisable symbols of the Brexit campaign. Supporters of leaving the EU argued that Britain should regain control over its territorial waters and decide independently how fishing opportunities were distributed.
The slogan about taking back control resonated particularly strongly in coastal towns where fishing has traditionally provided employment, supported local businesses and helped shape community identity.
Yet many fishermen have argued that the practical benefits of Brexit have not matched the expectations created during the referendum campaign.
Although Britain left the EU’s common fisheries policy, the subsequent arrangements continued to include agreements governing access to waters, fishing opportunities and cooperation with European countries. These arrangements reflected the reality that fishing stocks do not respect national borders and that the UK and EU remain closely connected through the seafood trade.
For Farage, the continued existence of negotiated access arrangements provides an opportunity to question whether Britain has secured the best possible outcome.
His political argument is that formal sovereignty means little if British fishermen continue to believe that they are not receiving a fair share of the opportunities available in their own waters.
Reform UK has sought to turn this frustration into a wider political message about Brexit, national independence and the government’s responsibility to deliver on its promises.
Why fishing remains such a sensitive issue
Britain’s fishing industry is relatively small compared with many other parts of the national economy, but its political importance is considerably greater than its size might suggest.
Fishing communities have long argued that decisions about quotas, access rights and regulations can determine whether a family business survives or disappears.
A fishing vessel represents a substantial investment. Owners must pay for fuel, equipment, maintenance, insurance and crew members, while dealing with unpredictable weather and changing market conditions.
When access to fishing grounds becomes uncertain, the consequences can be severe.
Small businesses may struggle to plan their operations, while processors, transport companies, fish markets and local suppliers can also suffer.
For communities that have depended on fishing for generations, the decline of the industry can mean the loss of skills, jobs and a distinctive way of life.
This helps explain why political promises about British waters continue to attract attention long after the formal departure from the EU.
Fishermen who supported Brexit expected a decisive change. Those who believe that the system has not delivered enough may now be receptive to politicians promising a more aggressive negotiating strategy.
Nevertheless, the challenges facing the industry cannot all be attributed to European access arrangements. Fuel prices, labour shortages, environmental pressures, changing consumer demand and the cost of operating vessels also influence profitability.
Any serious plan to revive fishing would need to address these wider pressures alongside questions of sovereignty.
What would ripping up the deal actually mean?
Farage’s pledge raises an important question: what would happen if a future British government attempted to replace or fundamentally renegotiate existing fishing arrangements?
The answer would depend on the specific agreement involved, its legal provisions and the circumstances in which Britain sought to change it.
Fishing arrangements are connected to broader UK-EU relations. They can involve reciprocal access, annual negotiations, quotas and commitments designed to provide a degree of predictability for businesses on both sides.
A decision to abandon an agreement without securing a workable replacement could create uncertainty for fishermen, seafood exporters and coastal businesses.
European governments could also respond by reconsidering their own arrangements with Britain. That could affect British companies that sell seafood to European markets or depend on established cross-border supply chains.
The government would therefore need to weigh the potential benefits of greater restrictions on foreign access against the possibility of economic and diplomatic consequences.
Supporters of Farage’s approach might argue that such risks should not prevent Britain from defending its national interests. They could maintain that a tougher negotiating position would encourage European partners to offer more favourable terms.
Critics, however, would warn that dramatic political promises do not automatically translate into better commercial outcomes.
The central issue would be whether a new agreement could provide British fishermen with meaningful additional opportunities while maintaining stable markets and sustainable fish stocks.
The battle over British waters
The phrase “British waters” carries considerable emotional and political weight. It suggests a clear division between national territory and foreign access, but the management of fisheries is more complicated in practice.
Fish populations move across maritime boundaries, and the long-term health of fishing grounds depends on cooperation, scientific information and effective enforcement.
If one country catches too much of a shared stock, the consequences may affect fishermen in neighbouring countries as well.
For this reason, governments often negotiate arrangements that balance national fishing interests with conservation requirements.
Supporters of a tougher British policy do not necessarily oppose all international cooperation. Their argument is that cooperation should take place on terms that protect British businesses and ensure that domestic fishermen receive a fair opportunity to operate.
Farage’s challenge is to turn that principle into a practical policy.
A successful strategy would need to explain which agreements should be changed, how much additional access British vessels could realistically obtain, and what support would be available to smaller operators.
It would also need to demonstrate how the government would prevent overfishing and protect the long-term future of the industry.
Without those details, critics could argue that the promise to rip up an agreement is more effective as a political slogan than as an economic plan.
The pressure on the government
The debate could place pressure on the government to explain whether existing fishing arrangements are delivering the intended benefits of Brexit.
Ministers would need to consider the concerns of fishermen while also protecting Britain’s wider economic and diplomatic interests.
The government could face demands for stronger negotiating positions, better enforcement against illegal fishing and a greater emphasis on domestic fishing businesses when allocating opportunities.
There could also be calls for investment in coastal infrastructure, including modern processing facilities, improved ports, training and better access to finance for vessel owners.
Such measures might deliver practical benefits even without a complete overhaul of international agreements.
For many coastal communities, the priority is not simply which country has legal access to particular waters. It is whether fishing can provide reliable employment and sustain local businesses.
A government that promises to defend British fishermen would therefore be expected to show measurable progress in these areas.
Farage’s intervention adds another political dimension to that pressure. Reform UK can present itself as the party willing to challenge arrangements that established political leaders may prefer to preserve.
Whether that approach attracts broader support will depend partly on how convincingly the party can demonstrate that its proposals would improve the industry’s prospects.
Brexit’s unfinished argument
Fishing remains one of the most persistent disputes surrounding Britain’s departure from the European Union because it touches on a fundamental question: what should sovereignty deliver in practical terms?
For Brexit supporters, leaving the EU was supposed to give the UK the freedom to make independent decisions and pursue policies suited to its own interests.
For critics, the experience has demonstrated that independence does not remove the need to negotiate with neighbouring countries or manage complex economic relationships.
The fishing industry sits directly between these competing interpretations.
Britain can establish its own policies, but the benefits of those policies depend on the terms of international agreements, the condition of fish stocks and the ability of domestic businesses to compete.
Farage’s promise to revisit the deal is therefore likely to resonate with voters who believe the original Brexit settlement failed to meet expectations.
Yet a fundamental change would require more than a declaration of political determination. It would involve negotiations, legal considerations, economic calculations and difficult choices about trade-offs.
If the aim is to secure a stronger future for British fishing, the ultimate test will be whether fishermen see higher incomes, greater certainty and better opportunities to pass their businesses on to the next generation.
A political fight with real consequences
The prospect of a renewed battle over fishing rights could become another defining issue in the wider contest over Britain’s post-Brexit future.
For Farage, the message offers a straightforward way to connect national sovereignty with the everyday concerns of coastal communities. He can argue that Britain must be prepared to challenge any arrangement that prevents its fishing industry from benefiting fully from the country’s departure from the EU.
For opponents, the challenge will be to explain why existing agreements remain necessary or to demonstrate that alternative arrangements would create more problems than they solve.
The fishing industry itself cannot afford to be reduced to a political symbol. Vessel owners and workers need practical policies that account for operating costs, environmental responsibilities, market access and the realities of modern seafood production.
If a new agreement could improve opportunities for British fishermen without undermining the markets on which they depend, it could represent a meaningful step forward.
If negotiations instead produced prolonged uncertainty or retaliation from trading partners, the industry could face additional difficulties.
Ultimately, Farage’s pledge to “rip up” the Brexit fishing deal is a declaration of intent rather than a complete blueprint for reform. It places the question of British fishing rights back at the centre of the political debate and challenges other parties to explain what they believe Brexit should deliver.
The demand to regain control of British waters is likely to remain powerful among voters who feel that promises made to fishing communities have not been fulfilled.
But the real measure of any new approach will not be the strength of its slogans. It will be whether Britain’s fishermen gain a fairer, more sustainable and more prosperous future.