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

Nigel Farage has vowed to tear up the UK’s existing fishing arrangements with the European Union if Reform UK wins power, declaring that Britain must regain control of its territorial waters and restore what he considers a central promise of Brexit.

Speaking at a rally in Plymouth, the Reform UK leader attacked the agreement signed by Sir Keir Starmer as part of efforts to reset Britain’s relationship with Brussels. He described the deal as an “absolute betrayal” and promised to restore the traditional 12-mile territorial fishing zone in which, under his proposed policy, only British fishermen would be permitted to operate.

The announcement puts fishing rights back at the centre of the political argument over Brexit, more than a decade after the referendum that resulted in Britain voting to leave the European Union.

Farage used the rally in the historic fishing city to argue that leaving the EU should have delivered greater national control over British waters. He claimed that allowing foreign fishing vessels to operate closer to the British coast under the current arrangements fell short of what voters had been promised.

“One of the sensible beliefs that we had was that we would start to get back control of our territorial waters,” Farage told supporters.

He argued that the minimum Britain should have expected after the referendum was to regain control of its 12-mile territorial limit. Referring to Brussels, he added: “If they don’t like it in Brussels, tough luck!”

The remarks form part of Reform UK’s wider effort to position itself as the party most willing to challenge the terms of Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU. They also set up a potential confrontation with Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who is expected to meet European officials next month as his Government pursues a renewed dialogue with Brussels.

For fishing communities, the dispute is about more than the symbolism of Brexit. Access to fishing grounds can affect the livelihoods of vessel owners, crew members, seafood processors and businesses operating in coastal towns. Decisions about who can fish, where they can operate and how catches are managed can have lasting economic consequences.

But Farage’s pledge also raises difficult practical questions. Any attempt to change existing arrangements would need to account for the terms of the UK’s agreements with the EU, the management of shared fish stocks and the wider diplomatic and commercial consequences.

The promise is clear politically. Delivering it would require decisions about law, negotiations and enforcement that go beyond a rally speech.

Farage targets the fishing agreement with Brussels

The Reform UK leader’s central demand is that Britain should restore a 12-mile zone around its coastline in which only UK fishing vessels could operate.

The proposal is linked to the Daily Express’s campaign for a 12-mile fishing border and its broader call for politicians to deliver what it describes as a “proper Brexit”.

The original article says the agreement signed under Starmer’s Government allows foreign fishermen to operate as close as six miles off the British coast in relevant waters. Farage argues that such access undermines the principle that Britain should control its territorial waters following its departure from the EU.

His proposed response would be to “rip up” the agreement and reinstate the traditional fishing restrictions.

The distinction between territorial waters and exclusive fishing rights is important, however. A country’s territorial sea generally extends up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, subject to international law and relevant maritime boundaries. But the existence of territorial waters does not automatically mean that every fishing activity by a foreign vessel is prohibited under all circumstances. Access can be affected by international agreements and specific legal arrangements.

That means Farage’s proposal would require a clear explanation of how the UK intended to change the existing rules and what legal steps would be necessary.

It would also require decisions about how the new policy would apply across different parts of the British coastline and in waters where maritime boundaries or fishing arrangements are shared with neighbouring countries.

Farage pledges to bring back British fishing waters (Image: Getty)

For Reform UK supporters, the promise is likely to resonate because it connects a practical economic issue with the wider Brexit argument. Fishing became one of the most recognisable symbols of the referendum campaign, with supporters of leaving the EU arguing that Britain should regain control of its waters and the resources within them.

Farage is now using that symbolism to argue that the country has not fully delivered on the referendum’s promise.

The question is whether a new government could translate that political message into a workable policy without creating wider problems for the fishing industry.

A direct challenge to Andy Burnham

Farage’s announcement comes ahead of Burnham’s planned meeting with EU officials in Brussels, where the Prime Minister is expected to pursue further discussions about Britain’s relationship with the bloc.

The Reform leader has portrayed those talks as a risk to the sovereignty promised by Brexit. He argues that the Government should not make concessions that would allow European fishing fleets to retain access to British waters.

The source article also criticises Burnham’s previous position on Europe. It notes that he campaigned for Remain in the 2016 referendum, supported calls for a second referendum after Leave won and subsequently said he wanted Britain to rejoin the EU within his lifetime.

Those positions are being used by Farage’s supporters to question whether Burnham will prioritise national control in negotiations with Brussels.

However, the Prime Minister’s current negotiating objectives cannot be established solely from his past referendum position. The details of any proposed agreement, including the Government’s position on fishing access, would need to be assessed on their own terms.

For Burnham, the challenge is to demonstrate that closer cooperation with European partners can deliver practical benefits without surrendering control over decisions that the Government believes should remain in British hands.

Fishing could become a particularly difficult test because it combines economic interests, coastal livelihoods and a powerful political symbol of Brexit.

If the Government agrees to continued access for EU fishing vessels, critics may argue that it has failed to deliver the control promised during the referendum campaign. If it seeks to restrict access sharply, it could face resistance from European governments and potentially affect negotiations in other areas.

The precise consequences would depend on the existing agreement, the terms of any replacement and the response from the EU.

Farage’s message is that Britain should be prepared to accept that confrontation rather than preserve arrangements he regards as unfair.

Why fishing remains a Brexit flashpoint

Fishing has occupied a distinctive place in the Brexit debate because the industry became a visible symbol of the argument over national sovereignty.

During the referendum campaign, supporters of leaving the EU argued that Britain should regain the ability to determine who could fish in its waters and how its marine resources were managed. For many coastal communities, the issue was closely connected to longstanding concerns about access to fishing grounds, competition and the future of local industries.

However, the relationship between Brexit and fishing rights has proved more complicated than the political slogan of taking back control might suggest.

Fishing arrangements can involve access rights, quotas, licensing, conservation measures and agreements governing shared stocks. Even when a country has greater authority over its waters, it must still decide how to manage those resources sustainably and how to deal with neighbouring countries whose fishing industries have historically operated in the same region.

A sudden change to access arrangements could therefore affect not only foreign vessels but also British businesses that depend on stable markets and predictable rules.

The industry itself is not uniform. Some fishermen may prioritise exclusive access to local waters, while others may be more concerned about the availability of fish stocks, the price received for their catches, operating costs or the ability to sell seafood abroad.

That makes the economic consequences of Farage’s proposal an important part of the debate.

Restricting access could provide opportunities for some British vessels if fishing grounds became less crowded and the relevant catches were available to them. But the extent of any benefit would depend on quotas, stock levels, vessel capacity, regulations and the commercial viability of catching and processing additional fish.

There is also a distinction between controlling access to waters and guaranteeing that fishing businesses become more profitable. A change in fishing rights alone would not automatically resolve every difficulty facing the industry.

Farage’s proposal will therefore need to be judged not only by its political appeal but also by its potential effects on fishing communities and the long-term management of marine resources.

What could happen if Farage tore up the deal?

If Reform UK entered government and attempted to withdraw from the existing fishing arrangements, the first challenge would be determining precisely which commitments could be changed, through what legal process and on what timetable.

The source article does not provide the full text of the agreement or identify every provision that would need to be repealed or renegotiated. It is therefore not possible to establish from the supplied information exactly how quickly the policy could be implemented or what consequences would follow.

Nevertheless, several questions would need to be addressed.

First, ministers would need to establish the legal basis for ending or modifying the existing access arrangements. Depending on the agreement’s terms, this could involve negotiations, formal notice requirements or other procedures rather than an immediate unilateral decision.

Second, the Government would need to decide how fishing access would be administered. A policy restricting foreign vessels would require clear licensing rules, effective monitoring and a process for dealing with suspected violations.

Third, Britain would need to consider the diplomatic response. EU governments could object to a change that affected their fishing industries, and the dispute could become part of wider negotiations over the future relationship between the UK and the bloc.

That does not mean the UK would be unable to pursue a tougher policy. It means that the practical consequences would depend on the legal arrangements and the choices made by both sides.

The Government would also need to consider whether a fishing dispute could affect cooperation in other areas. Relations between Britain and the EU encompass trade, security, transport and other shared interests. Whether a disagreement over fishing would spill into those areas would depend on the negotiations and the positions adopted by the parties involved.

For Farage, such complications are unlikely to weaken the central appeal of his argument among voters who believe Brexit has not delivered sufficient control over British waters. His pledge presents a clear political choice: prioritise exclusive national control, even if that leads to a confrontation with Brussels.

For his opponents, the relevant question will be whether the potential benefits outweigh the economic and diplomatic costs.

The wider ‘proper Brexit’ campaign

The fishing pledge forms part of the Daily Express’s broader “Give Us A Proper Brexit” campaign, which calls for the UK to pursue a more assertive approach to its post-EU arrangements.

The campaign also advocates leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and reducing what it describes as burdensome European regulatory restrictions on businesses.

These are separate policy questions from fishing access, although they share a common theme: the extent to which Britain should exercise independent authority over its laws, borders and economic decisions.

Farage’s remarks in Plymouth were therefore not simply an announcement about boats operating close to the coastline. They were also an attempt to connect a specific industrial issue with Reform UK’s wider argument that successive governments have failed to use Brexit to its full extent.

The referendum result remains central to that argument. More than 17 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016, a result that transformed British politics and led to the country’s departure from the bloc.

But voters who supported Brexit did not necessarily share identical views on the future relationship with Europe. Some wanted a more distant economic relationship, while others prioritised trade, cooperation or particular domestic reforms.

The political debate has continued because there is no single measure that can establish whether Brexit has delivered all the objectives its supporters envisioned.

Fishing rights offer a tangible test because access to waters can be defined through agreements and regulations. Yet the broader question of what constitutes a “proper Brexit” remains a political judgment that depends on the priorities voters attach to sovereignty, economic cooperation and national prosperity.

Farage is attempting to make fishing a renewed dividing line between Reform UK and the Government. His message is that control over territorial waters should be treated as a non-negotiable part of Britain’s independence.

A test for the Government’s European strategy

Burnham now faces the challenge of explaining how his Government intends to approach Brussels without allowing opponents to define every negotiation as a retreat from Brexit.

His planned meeting with European officials will attract scrutiny because fishing access is likely to be viewed through the wider debate over national sovereignty. Any agreement that preserves or changes existing arrangements will need to be assessed against its actual terms rather than assumptions about what the negotiations will produce.

If the Government prioritises cooperation, ministers will need to explain what Britain gains in return and how the arrangement serves the national interest. If it seeks to restrict access, it will need to explain how the change would be implemented and what impact it could have on British fishermen, European partners and the wider relationship.

Neither course is automatically free of costs. The question is whether the Government can demonstrate that its decisions deliver tangible benefits and reflect the priorities it has set.

Farage’s pledge gives Reform UK a clear message with which to challenge the Prime Minister. By promising to restore a 12-mile fishing zone for British vessels, he is presenting his party as willing to take a harder line with Brussels than the Government.

Whether that promise could be implemented exactly as described remains a separate question. Legal commitments, conservation requirements, maritime boundaries and commercial considerations would all need to be examined before a new policy could be put into effect.

The debate is nevertheless likely to remain politically potent. For fishing communities, access to productive waters can affect livelihoods and the future of coastal businesses. For Brexit supporters, it represents a test of whether leaving the EU has translated into meaningful control over national resources.

Farage has made his position unmistakable. He wants the existing arrangement torn up and British fishing access restored under the rules he advocates.

The Government has yet to respond in the supplied report, leaving the competing positions unresolved. The coming discussions with Brussels will offer a clearer indication of whether Burnham intends to preserve the current approach, seek changes or pursue a different settlement.

Ultimately, the dispute will turn on more than the force of Farage’s language. It will depend on the legal terms of the existing agreement, the negotiating choices made by the UK and the EU, and the practical consequences for the people whose livelihoods depend on Britain’s fishing industry.

For Reform UK, the promise to “get back control” is a rallying cry. For the Government, the challenge is to show what control should mean in practice—and whether its approach can protect British interests while managing the consequences of a renewed dispute with Brussels.