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 commen

Nigel Farage Vows to ‘Rip Up’ Brexit Fishing Deal – ‘Get Back Control of British Waters!’

Nigel Farage has vowed to scrap the UK’s post-Brexit fishing agreement with the European Union, promising to restore greater British control over the country’s territorial waters if Reform UK enters government.

Speaking at a political rally in Plymouth, the Reform UK leader criticised the agreement negotiated by Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s government as part of its attempt to reset relations with Brussels. Farage argued that Britain had failed to secure the level of control over its fishing grounds that many Brexit supporters expected when the country voted to leave the EU in 2016.

His intervention has reopened one of the most contentious arguments surrounding Brexit: whether the economic benefits of closer cooperation with Europe justify concessions over fishing rights, regulatory alignment and access to British waters.

For fishing communities along the British coastline, the debate is about more than political promises. It concerns the future of local fleets, employment, coastal economies and the ability of British fishermen to compete for access to valuable fishing grounds.

Farage’s promise to reclaim British waters

At the Plymouth rally, Farage said a Reform UK government would seek to reverse the fishing arrangements agreed with the EU. He argued that restoring control over British waters was a basic expectation of Brexit and accused successive governments of failing to deliver it.

Farage’s comments focused on the principle that Britain should determine which foreign vessels can fish in its territorial waters. He maintained that the country should be able to establish stronger protections for domestic fishermen rather than continue arrangements that permit European fleets to operate in designated areas.

The Reform leader’s language was deliberately forceful, promising to “rip up” the agreement and insisting that objections from Brussels would not prevent his government from pursuing the change.

However, the practical consequences would depend on the precise legal measures taken, the terms of the existing agreement and the response from European governments. Reversing an international agreement would not necessarily be as straightforward as announcing that it had been cancelled.

The pledge nevertheless places fishing rights firmly back on the political agenda at a time when Britain’s future relationship with the EU is becoming a subject of renewed debate.

What does the Brexit fishing agreement allow?

Fishing rights were among the most sensitive issues during the original Brexit negotiations. The UK left the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, gaining the ability to manage its own fisheries, but the subsequent UK-EU trade agreement preserved access for European vessels under negotiated arrangements.

The agreement included a transition period during which fishing opportunities were gradually adjusted. Although the UK acquired greater formal control over its fisheries, it did not immediately exclude EU vessels from British waters.

In May 2025, the UK and EU reached a further agreement as part of a broader diplomatic and economic reset. The arrangement extended EU fishing access to UK waters until 2038, a provision that attracted criticism from opponents who believed it limited the benefits of Brexit for the fishing industry.

Supporters of the wider agreement argued that maintaining access to fishing grounds formed part of a broader bargain intended to improve cooperation and provide greater certainty for businesses. Critics, including representatives of parts of the British fishing industry, questioned whether the concessions were justified.

Farage has placed himself firmly on the critical side of that debate. His position is that British control should translate into stronger restrictions on foreign access, rather than arrangements that continue to permit EU fleets to fish in UK waters for many years.

Why fishing rights matter to coastal communities

Fishing remains economically and culturally important to many coastal communities, even though the industry represents a relatively small share of the overall British economy.

Ports such as Plymouth depend on a network of fishermen, processors, wholesalers, transport companies, equipment suppliers and local businesses. When fishing activity declines, the effects can extend beyond the vessels themselves.

Access to fishing grounds is therefore a significant concern for local fleets. Fishermen need predictable rules governing where they can operate, what species they can catch and how much they are permitted to land. Changes in those rules can influence investment decisions, employment and the long-term viability of fishing businesses.

For some fishermen, the promise of Brexit was that Britain would regain the ability to manage its waters in ways that prioritised domestic interests. They argue that greater control should give the government more flexibility to support British fleets and coastal employment.

Others recognise that access arrangements with neighbouring countries can also benefit British businesses. Some UK vessels depend on opportunities to fish in European waters, while seafood exporters rely on access to important European markets.

This creates a difficult policy balance. Restricting EU vessels could provide additional opportunities for some British fishermen, but a confrontation over fishing rights could also lead to retaliatory measures or complications for UK vessels operating elsewhere.

The outcome would depend on the details of any replacement agreement, rather than simply on whether the existing arrangement was scrapped.

The government’s wider European strategy

The fishing dispute is part of a broader argument over the government’s approach to the European Union.

Burnham’s government has pursued closer cooperation with Brussels in areas including trade, food standards, energy and security. Supporters of this approach argue that reducing barriers can help British businesses and improve economic cooperation without necessarily returning the UK to EU membership.

Opponents fear that closer alignment could gradually weaken the independence promised during the Brexit campaign. They point to the fishing agreement as an example of what they regard as an unacceptable concession in exchange for improved relations.

Farage has made opposition to such arrangements a central part of Reform UK’s political message. By focusing on fishing, he is seeking to connect a specific policy dispute with the wider question of whether Brexit has delivered the control voters were promised.

The debate is likely to intensify if the government continues negotiating with Brussels on other areas of cooperation. Every agreement may create a new argument about the balance between economic benefits and national decision-making.

However, the fishing agreement cannot be assessed in isolation from the wider relationship. Any decision to withdraw from it would need to consider the possible effects on trade, diplomacy and British fishing businesses that operate internationally.

Could Reform actually scrap the deal?

Farage’s pledge is a political commitment, not a change that has already taken place. Implementing it would require a government with the authority and willingness to pursue the necessary legal and diplomatic steps.

The first challenge would be determining how to alter or terminate the existing arrangements. International agreements generally contain provisions governing their operation, review and termination. The government would need to establish the available options and consider any legal consequences.

The second challenge would involve negotiations with the EU. European governments would have their own interests to defend, including the fishing opportunities currently available to their fleets. They could resist changes that reduced access to British waters.

A dispute might also affect negotiations in other areas. Fishing rights have historically been linked to broader UK-EU relations, meaning a confrontation over access could complicate cooperation elsewhere.

Finally, ministers would need to decide what system should replace the existing agreement. Stronger restrictions might benefit some British vessels, but the government would also have to consider sustainable fish stocks, enforcement costs, quotas and the interests of different parts of the UK fishing industry.

A workable policy would need to address these questions in detail. A promise to reclaim control may be politically clear, but turning it into a durable fisheries settlement would require more than a declaration of intent.

The risk of another confrontation with Brussels

Any attempt to overturn the fishing agreement would test the relationship between London and Brussels. The EU could argue that existing commitments should be respected, while a British government seeking to change them might insist that national interests require a different approach.

Neither side would necessarily benefit from prolonged uncertainty. Fishing businesses need to plan investments and operating schedules, while seafood markets depend on reliable supply chains and predictable regulations.

A breakdown in negotiations could also create pressure in other sectors if governments began linking fishing rights to wider economic cooperation. That possibility does not mean retaliation would automatically follow, but it is a factor policymakers would need to consider.

The British government would therefore face a choice between pursuing a unilateral change, negotiating revised terms or retaining the current framework while seeking adjustments within it.

Each route would involve different trade-offs. A unilateral approach might demonstrate political resolve but create legal and diplomatic risks. Negotiations could produce a compromise, although the result might fall short of Reform UK’s stated objective.

A renewed test of what Brexit was meant to achieve

The fishing dispute highlights a continuing disagreement over the meaning of Brexit. For some voters, leaving the EU was principally about restoring national control over laws, borders and economic policy. For others, the priority was to preserve the practical advantages of cooperation with Britain’s closest European neighbours.

Fishing became a powerful symbol of that argument because the industry is closely connected to coastal identity and the promise of national sovereignty.

Farage’s pledge to reverse the agreement is likely to appeal to those who believe the UK has conceded too much since leaving the EU. His opponents may argue that the existing arrangement reflects the compromises necessary to secure wider benefits from the relationship.

Ultimately, the question is not simply whether Britain should control its waters. The UK already has important powers over its fisheries. The debate concerns how those powers should be exercised, what access should be granted to foreign vessels and how fishing rights should fit into the wider relationship with Europe.

If Reform UK were to form a government, its proposed changes would face legal, economic and diplomatic tests. The effects on British fishermen would depend on the replacement rules, the response from the EU and the extent to which domestic fleets could make use of any additional opportunities.

For now, Farage’s announcement marks another escalation in the political battle over Brexit. His promise to “rip up” the fishing deal has placed British waters at the centre of a renewed argument about sovereignty, economic cooperation and the future direction of UK-EU relations.