The question of fishing in the English Channel, the first case of conflict after Brexit

 The first real conflict, after the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, takes place on the subject of fishing and on access to portions of the sea, considered confidential by some subjects; in particular, the problem arose between France and the island of Jersey, which, although it is not part of the United Kingdom, is represented by London in relations with foreign countries: the islands of the channel, in fact, are autonomous English dependencies and have administrations own. It appears significant that the first diplomatic conflict, from the agreements between London and Brussels, concerns precisely the matter of fisheries, which was one of the hardest obstacles in the negotiation and in any case one of the last to be defined. The Jersey administration has implemented a series of restrictions against French fishing vessels, delaying the issuance of fishing licenses, introducing limitations and controls to French fishermen, such as the number of days in which to operate, which types of prey can be caught and with what gear; in essence, according to Paris, we wanted to introduce new elements, which are intended to hinder the French fishing activity and which are in stark contrast to the fisheries agreements stipulated between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The impression is that the Jersey administration wanted to take advantage of the beginning of the period following the agreement, perhaps interpreted as an interlocutory and uncertain phase, to counter French fishermen, who are the main patrons of its waters; however, every action corresponds to a reaction and that of France was to threaten the interruption of the supply of electricity, which reaches the island of Jersey with submarine cables from the French country. The threat from Paris was perceived as disproportionate by the island of Jersey, despite the action of the British dependence being in clear violation of the post-Brexit agreements, and this resulted in the dispatch of two patrol boats of the London Navy, which has helped raise the tension between the two sides; but, if on the one hand, London has shown strength, justifying the presence of its military ships only as a precautionary measure and with the aim of monitoring the situation, on the other hand it wanted to balance with a diplomatic attitude coinciding with the need to reduce tensions through constructive dialogue between France and the Jersey administration. The defense of fisheries must remain a fixed point in the post-Brexit attitude of the London government, since among the English fishermen there were the greatest supporters of leaving Europe due to the interests of the English fishing sector. France, too, but expressed the total determination possible that the fisheries agreement, an issue equally felt in French soil, is respected and implemented in a manner consistent with what is enshrined in the agreements signed after Brexit, while Paris did not want to comment on the threats of the interruption of electricity to Jersey, a fact which, perhaps, makes it possible to establish that the retaliation could be out of proportion, compared to the obstacles against French fishermen. The question highlights how the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union after the signing of the agreements resulting from Brexit, is not yet fully defined and also how the silence of Brussels on this specific matter catches the central European institutions completely unprepared for the to particular facts concerning the subject matter of the treaty; even the French attitude, the threat to cut off electricity does not seem to be shared by the Union, focuses on possible actions by individual states to defend the violations of the rights of citizens as national citizens, in this case French rather than in the sense of European citizens. The distinction is not insignificant because it indicates that in the first instance, the individual state seems to prefer to act in the first person, rather than resorting to Brussels; it would be interesting to know the reasons for this type of reaction, that is, if they are attributable to a lack of confidence in the European response, both for the reaction times and for the effective effectiveness or if they are due to the need to highlight a superior national capacity for action to the community one, functional to affirm the policy of the government in office. The salient fact is that Europe, once the agreement has been signed, gives it as in force without considering any exceptions as in this case. Still better than the United Kingdom, which took the opportunity to flex its muscles: a clear admission of the inadequacy of the London government.