What happens if UK takes legal action over post-Brexit fishing row with France?

Published

4 years ago

November 2, 2021

admin

The French government has stepped back from a threat to impose disruptive port checks on lorries and boats after the UK threatened to take legal action in a row over post-Brexit fishing licences.

Key talks between the two sides will take place later this week aimed at resolving the disagreement, but the risk of further escalation remains.

Sky News examines what is behind the row between the UK and France and what measures London could take if the impasse rumbles on.

What is the dispute about?

Under the terms of the Brexit trade deal, which came into force on 1 January, EU access to UK waters and UK access to EU waters is now managed through a licensing system for fishing vessels.

The current row erupted after the UK authorities refused to give licences to some French fishing vessels to operate in UK waters because they believed they did not meet the requirements.

According to the French government, the UK has only issued half the fishing licences that Paris believes it is entitled to.

Environment Secretary George Eustice told Sky News last week that the UK has issued post-Brexit licences to 1,700 vessels, including 750 French fishing boats, which amounts to 98% of applicants.

But the row deepened when the Cornelis Gert Jan scallop trawler was detained by French authorities last Thursday near the port of Le Havre.

The owners of the British vessel denied French claims that it did not have the correct licence to fish in French waters and said the Cornelis was being used as a “pawn” in the wider UK-France fishing dispute.

France initially said that if the UK did not grant more licences for its fishing vessels it would, from Tuesday, block its ports, carry out security checks on British vessels, reinforce controls of lorries to and from the UK, reinforce customs and hygiene controls, and raise tariffs.

However, Paris has stepped back from introducing these measures.

Downing Street says talks will take place with France on Wednesday about the situation, as well as other “issues important to the UK-EU relationship, including the Northern Ireland Protocol”.

What are dispute resolution measures?

It is against this backdrop that the UK has threatened to take legal action.

The prospect was raised by Prime Minister Boris Johnson last week and repeated by the Foreign Secretary Liz Truss in a Sky News interview on Monday.

The foreign secretary set a 48-hour deadline for the fishing dispute to be resolved, although it’s not clear if that deadline still stands in light of recent moves from Paris.

If legal action were to be taken, this would involve the UK triggering the dispute resolution measures contained in the Brexit trade deal, officially known as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

The measures are designed to be used when one side feels that the other is in breach of the TCA.

Initially, this would mean a 30-day period of consultation between the two sides which can be extended if both parties agree.

The aim of this first step is to resolve any disagreement through dialogue.

But if a solution cannot be found, the complainant can progress things further and ask for an independent arbitration tribunal to be set up.

This would be made up of three members: one nominated by the UK, one put forward by the EU and a jointly-agreed chair.

The tribunal would then rule within 130 days of being set up, although an interim report would be issued earlier.

One side can ask for this timeline to be sped up, which would see it cut in half.

Tribunal rulings are legally binding and if a side is found to have breached the agreement they have 30 days to set out how they will comply.

Sam Lowe, a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think-tank, said of the process: “In terms of the legal mechanisms we are very much talking about a process here that could drag on for a while.”

What happens if one side does not comply?

The other party can ask for compensation or suspend certain obligations contained in the agreement in areas like trade, aviation, road transport and fisheries.

The tribunal can be asked to rule on whether the suspension is appropriate, while the suspension should be rescinded if the other side then decides to follow its ruling.

There are also specific steps that one side can take in relation to fishing.

What measures can be taken on fishing?

One side could decide to entirely suspend access to its waters and scrap the preferential tariff agreement that applies to fishery products.

Again, an arbitration tribunal could end up getting involved, with it ruling if the measure is a proportionate response.

The UK, or indeed France, could choose to go further and apply tariffs on fisheries and non-fisheries products or even suspend elements of the TCA relating to trade and road transport.

Either side can also decide to bin the agreement on fisheries with a notice period of nine months.

What would the impact be on UK-EU relations long-term?

According to Sam Lowe: “If the UK feels the diplomatic route has been exhausted, proceeding with dispute resolution within the confines of the TCA is the proper way to go about things.

“At least in the TCA there are rules, processes to be followed; much better than spilling out into an unconstrained trade war with both the EU and UK free to do whatever they want.”

However, he warned that a simmering dispute could have a wider impact, adding: “These disputes do have political ramifications: they chip away at the good will necessary to reach a compromise on other outstanding issues such as Northern Ireland.”

Are the dispute resolution mechanisms different when it comes to Northern Ireland?

Yes.

The UK and EU are currently locked in talks over potential changes to the protocol, which is designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

The protocol is part of the withdrawal agreement between the two sides and is separate from the TCA.

If these talks break down or do not prove fruitful, either side has the option of activating Article 16 of the protocol.

This states that if the protocol is causing “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”, or leading to a “diversion of trade” then either the UK or EU can introduce “appropriate safeguard measures” to tackle the problems.

Brussels at one stage proposed using Article 16 to stop COVID vaccine exports from the EU moving to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, but stepped back from this after a backlash.

Opponents of the protocol in Northern Ireland have been calling on the UK government to invoke Article 16 to stop checks and controls on goods.

Politics

Watchdog criticises ‘unprecedented’ government offer to delay local elections – as five councils confirm requests for postponement

Published

19 hours ago

December 19, 2025

admin

Watchdog criticises 'unprecedented' government offer to delay local elections – as five councils confirm requests for postponement

The elections watchdog has criticised the government for offering to consider delaying 63 local council elections next year – as five authorities confirmed to Sky News that they would ask for a postponement.

On Thursday, hours before parliament began its Christmas recess, the government revealed that councils were being sent a letter asking if they thought elections should be delayed in their areas due to challenges around delivering local government reorganisation plans.

The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Vijay Rangarajan, hit out at the announcement on Friday, saying he was “concerned” that some elections could be postponed, with some having already been deferred from 2025.

“We are disappointed by both the timing and substance of the statement. Scheduled elections should, as a rule, go ahead as planned, and only be postponed in exceptional circumstances,” he said in a statement.

“Decisions on any postponements will not be taken until mid-January, less than three months before the scheduled May 2026 elections are due to begin.

“This uncertainty is unprecedented and will not help campaigners and administrators who need time to prepare for their important roles.”

Mr Rangarajan added: “We very much recognise the pressures on local government, but these late changes do not help administrators. Parties and candidates have already been preparing for some time, and will be understandably concerned.”

He said “capacity constraints” were not a “legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections”, which risked “affecting the legitimacy of local decision-making and damaging public confidence”.

The watchdog chief also said there was “a clear conflict of interest in asking existing councils to decide how long it will be before they are answerable to voters”.

Sky News contacted the 63 councils that have been sent the letter about potentially delaying their elections.

At the time of publication, 17 authorities had replied with their decisions, while 33 said they would make up their minds before the government’s deadline of 15 January.

Many councils told Sky News they were surprised at yesterday’s announcement, saying that they had been fully intending to hold their polls as scheduled.

They said they were now working to understand the appropriate democratic mechanism for deciding whether to request a postponement of elections. Some local authorities believe it should be a decision made by their full council, while others will leave it up to council leaders or cabinet members to decide.

Multiple councils also emphasised in statements to Sky News that the ultimate decision to delay elections lay with the government.

Reform UK has threatened legal action against ministers, accusing Labour and the Tories of “colluding” to postpone elections in order to lock other parties out of power – a sentiment echoed by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey.

But shadow local government secretary Sir James Cleverly told Sky News this morning that the Conservative Party “wants these elections to go ahead”. Sky News understands that the national party is making that position clear to local leaders.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said it was taking a “locally-led approach”, and emphasised that “councils are in the best position to judge the impact of postponements on their area”.

They added: “These are exceptional circumstances where councils have told us they’re struggling to prepare for resource-intensive elections to councils that will shortly be abolished, while also reorganising into more efficient authorities that can better serve local residents.

“There is a clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisation is in progress, as happened in 2019 and 2022.”

The five councils that confirmed they would be seeking postponements were:

Blackburn with Darwen Council (Labour);
Chorley Borough Council (Labour);
East Sussex County Council (Conservative minority);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
West Sussex County Council (Conservative).

The councils in Chorley, and East and West Sussex, had decided prior to Thursday’s government announcement that they would request a delay.

An East Sussex County Council spokesperson told Sky News: “It is welcome that the government is listening to local leaders and has heard the case for focussing our resources on delivery in East Sussex, particularly with devolution and reorganisation of local government, as well as delivering services to residents, such high priorities.”

They also pointed to the cost of electing councillors for a term of just one year, and argued that it would be “more prudent for just one set of elections to be held in 2027”.

West Sussex County Council echoed those reasons and said it would cost taxpayers across the county £9m to hold elections in 2026, 2027, and 2028, as currently planned.

Chorley and Blackburn councils also cited the cost of delivering elections, and said they would prefer that money be spent on delivering the local government reorganisation and delivering services to local residents.

Meanwhile, 12 councils confirmed to Sky News that they would not be requesting delays:

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (Liberal Democrat-Independents);
Broxbourne Borough Council (Conservative);
Colchester City Council (Labour-Liberal Democrat);
Eastleigh Borough Council (Liberal Democrat);
Essex County Council (Conservative);
Hart District Council (Liberal Democrat-Community Campaign);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
Isle of Wight Council (no overall control);
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (Conservative);
Portsmouth City Council (Liberal Democrat minority);
Rushmoor Borough Council (Labour minority);
Southampton City Council (Labour).

Politics

Samourai co-founder claims Biden-era lawfare in calling for Trump pardon

Published

20 hours ago

December 19, 2025

admin

Samourai co-founder claims Biden-era lawfare in calling for Trump pardon

Keonne Rodriguez, who pleaded guilty to one felony count related to his role at Samourai Wallet, is calling on US President Donald Trump to pardon him, citing similar language that has been successful in previous pardon applications.

In a Thursday X post, Rodriguez said he would report to prison on Friday, where he will serve a five-year sentence for operating an illegal money transmitter. The Samourai co-founder claimed there were no “victims” to his crime, and blamed his incarceration on “lawfare perpetrated by a weaponized Biden DOJ.”

In a message tagging Trump, Rodriguez expressed hope that the US president would issue a federal pardon for him and William “Bill” Lonergan Hill, another Samourai executive who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years. Rodriguez blamed “activist judges” for his legal troubles, claiming he was targeted by a “political anti-innovation agenda.”

“I maintain hope that [Trump] is a fair man, a man of the people, who will see this prosecution for what it was: an anti innovation, anti american, attack on the rights and liberties of free people,” said Rodriguez. “I believe his team […] and others truly want to end the weaponization of the DOJ that the previous administration wielded so effectively […] I believe he will continue to wield that power for good and pardon me and Bill.”

Bitcoin Wallet, Law, Politics, Court, Crimes, Donald Trump — *Source:* *Keonne Rodriguez*

Rodriguez’s public plea followed Trump’s statement that he would “take a look” at a pardon for the Samourai co-founder, claiming that he had no knowledge of the case. It’s unclear whether Rodriguez filed an official application for a pardon or is relying on public statements to get the president’s attention.

Other crypto execs successfully lobbied for a Trump pardon

One of Trump’s first acts as president in January was to issue a pardon for Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who had been serving a life sentence for his role in creating and operating the darknet marketplace.

Former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, who pleaded guilty to one felony in 2023 related to the exchange’s Anti-Money Laundering program, served four months in prison but also received a pardon from the president. Trump later said he “[knew] nothing about” Zhao when asked about the pardon in a November interview.

Rodriguez’s language addressing Trump mirrored comments from the White House on previous pardons. For example, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was a “weaponization of justice from the previous administration” when the president commuted the sentence of David Gentile, who was convicted of defrauding “thousands of individual investors in a $1.6 billion” scheme in 2024.