Its time to leave Europe

Scofflaw

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Heh. And inevitably it swings back to the question of the fishing grounds, as it always does. I've heard reports of as much as €200 billion and €400 billion in subsidiary industries, some 12 times as much as the EU has given to us, and I've heard figures as low as €15 billion all told. I believe Scofflaw put together a fairly comprehensive rebuttal to the €600 billion figure, but there were some significant holes in the reasoning there, so I'm prepared to argue from at least a parity position in that case. Financially, we owe Europe nothing.

If you have evidence of 'significant holes' in my reasoning, feel free to point them out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

djpbarry wrote: »

Pretty much the same as every other country in the world so.

I love the idea that such 'culture' is neatly bundled up into political lines on a map. Cork, Donegal, Louth. All one homogenous; IRISH.

:rolleyes:

turly

I spend a lot of my time in Barcelona now, and the press in Spain regarding Ireland's No vote has been in the main fairly negative, if not a bit simplistic ("How dare they, the greedy bastards" etc. etc.) Many people have commented to me in a similar vein. However, a small minority have agreed with the vote, saying in effect - why should we give power to a bunch of failed politicians? A significant percentage of MEPs are failed national politicians. Look at the calibre of MEPs voted in by Ireland. It's similar in Spain and in the UK (or was when I lived there...) I don't know what it's like in the rest of Europe, but just looking at the, err, members we return to the European Parliament is enough to give one pause for thought. At the very least.

I believe in devolution as local as is practical. Unlike Scofflaw, however, I don't think the EU is the way to achieve it. I still don't know what is.

molloyjh

turly wrote: »

I spend a lot of my time in Barcelona now, and the press in Spain regarding Ireland's No vote has been in the main fairly negative, if not a bit simplistic ("How dare they, the greedy bastards" etc. etc.) Many people have commented to me in a similar vein. However, a small minority have agreed with the vote, saying in effect - why should we give power to a bunch of failed politicians? A significant percentage of MEPs are failed national politicians. Look at the calibre of MEPs voted in by Ireland. It's similar in Spain and in the UK (or was when I lived there...) I don't know what it's like in the rest of Europe, but just looking at the, err, members we return to the European Parliament is enough to give one pause for thought. At the very least.

I believe in devolution as local as is practical. Unlike Scofflaw, however, I don't think the EU is the way to achieve it. I still don't know what is.

I see your point, but the fault in it is actually contained within your post. We elect the MEPs, noone else. And if we elect poor ones or don't demand some form of results then we're never really going to see MEPs elected that are worth a toss. Just like here at home it is up to us to ensure that these people are working for their vote and are worth it.

Scofflaw

turly wrote: »

I spend a lot of my time in Barcelona now, and the press in Spain regarding Ireland's No vote has been in the main fairly negative, if not a bit simplistic ("How dare they, the greedy bastards" etc. etc.) Many people have commented to me in a similar vein. However, a small minority have agreed with the vote, saying in effect - why should we give power to a bunch of failed politicians? A significant percentage of MEPs are failed national politicians. Look at the calibre of MEPs voted in by Ireland. It's similar in Spain and in the UK (or was when I lived there...) I don't know what it's like in the rest of Europe, but just looking at the, err, members we return to the European Parliament is enough to give one pause for thought. At the very least.

I believe in devolution as local as is practical. Unlike Scofflaw, however, I don't think the EU is the way to achieve it. I still don't know what is.

Well, I ought to qualify that I don't think the EU will achieve it left entirely to its own devices - bureaucracies are naturally centripetal. I do think that it contains mechanisms that can be used to promote a "Europe of the Regions".

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I ought to qualify that I don't think the EU will achieve it left entirely to its own devices - bureaucracies are naturally centripetal. I do think that it contains mechanisms that can be used to promote a "Europe of the Regions".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that bureaucracies are naturally greeedy for more and more power. The promotion of a "Europe of the Regions" seems to have little to commend it, and there is a suspicion that it is being promoted by the EU more as a means of diluting national parliaments rather than the EU promoting great democracy. For the EU to promote greater and greater democracy seems to be ironic indeed!

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you have evidence of 'significant holes' in my reasoning, feel free to point them out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Apart from your rather limited method of calculating the value of Irish fisheries, you base your calculations on fish landings that are widely acknowledged (by Dr Paul Connolly, Marine Institute and Irish fishermen) to be completely bogus. Marine Institute personnel suggest that fish landings in Ireland were at least 10 times what was reported for Irish landings and probably even greater than that when applied to other EU fishing port landings.

The other hole in your argument is that fish breeding grounds (cod, whiting & haddoch) are just off the SW coast of Ireland and where most EU fish are caught (i.e., not 200 miles off the coast of Ireland).

kevteljeur

thehighground wrote: »

Apart from your rather limited method of calculating the value of Irish fisheries, you base your calculations on fish landings that are widely acknowledged (by Dr Paul Connolly, Marine Institute and Irish fishermen) to be completely bogus. Marine Institute personnel suggest that fish landings in Ireland were at least 10 times what was reported for Irish landings and probably even greater than that when applied to other EU fishing port landings.

The other hole in your argument is that fish breeding grounds (cod, whiting & haddoch) are just off the SW coast of Ireland and where most EU fish are caught (i.e., not 200 miles off the coast of Ireland).

If you can come back to me and explain with figures and sound, proven theory how I'm going to be paying the rent within a fishery-based economy when Ireland is safely out of the EU and beyond the tariff-wall, instead of the well-paid job with which I can just about make ends meet in what is generally agreed to be an over-valued country, go right ahead. I'd love to hear it. No anecdotes please, I have a real job with real bills to pay.

If you can't, then it's safe to say that I have nothing to fear, since the decisions are being made by people with a better grasp of the long-term impact of decisions such as these.

Flamed Diving

No, its cause they are evil, you see. These people are evil...

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Apart from your rather limited method of calculating the value of Irish fisheries, you base your calculations on fish landings that are widely acknowledged (by Dr Paul Connolly, Marine Institute and Irish fishermen) to be completely bogus. Marine Institute personnel suggest that fish landings in Ireland were at least 10 times what was reported for Irish landings and probably even greater than that when applied to other EU fishing port landings.

OK - source? I can't find any such comment by Paul Connolly or the Marine Institute. Everything I can find suggests that your ten-to-one figure is not merely unsubstantiated, but actually ridiculous. All the reports I have been able to find suggest that even off poor African countries, the illegal catch is only somewhat larger than the legal catch. In the Baltic, IUU fishing is reckoned as 40% of the legally landed catch - largely as a result of illegal Russian fishing. The UN FAO view is that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing may be as much as 30% of catches in some major fisheries (source).

As to our waters - here's the comment from www.illegal-fishing.info - run by the UK's Chatham House Research body:

"Illegal fishing is not a major problem in Irish waters or for Irish vessels fishing in other waters; however, there have been a few recent cases of Irish-registered vessels being detained for illegal landing of fish by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority."

Now, you can't square illegal catches ten times the legal ones with "illegal fishing is not a major problem in Irish waters" - but since you have made the claim, let's see some sources.

thehighground wrote: »

The other hole in your argument is that fish breeding grounds (cod, whiting & haddoch) are just off the SW coast of Ireland and where most EU fish are caught (i.e., not 200 miles off the coast of Ireland).

All my calculations are based on exclusively Irish waters. There would be no point in calculating on any other basis, since those are the ones we opened to the EU and which would not otherwise be open.

I have also pointed out that one can attempt to estimate the correct multiplier for each euro of fish landed, but that one then has to do the same for each euro of EU funds - and since fishing is a relatively simple industry compared to farming or infrastructural civil engineering, the value of fishing suffers by the comparison.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

I agree that bureaucracies are naturally greeedy for more and more power. The promotion of a "Europe of the Regions" seems to have little to commend it, and there is a suspicion that it is being promoted by the EU more as a means of diluting national parliaments rather than the EU promoting great democracy. For the EU to promote greater and greater democracy seems to be ironic indeed!

Really? Whose suspicion?

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK - source? I can't find any such comment by Paul Connolly or the Marine Institute. Everything I can find suggests that your ten-to-one figure is not merely unsubstantiated, but actually ridiculous. All the reports I have been able to find suggest that even off poor African countries, the illegal catch is only somewhat larger than the legal catch. In the Baltic, IUU fishing is reckoned as 40% of the legally landed catch - largely as a result of illegal Russian fishing. The UN FAO view is that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing may be as much as 30% of catches in some major fisheries (source).

As to our waters - here's the comment from www.illegal-fishing.info - run by the UK's Chatham House Research body:

"Illegal fishing is not a major problem in Irish waters or for Irish vessels fishing in other waters; however, there have been a few recent cases of Irish-registered vessels being detained for illegal landing of fish by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority."

Now, you can't square illegal catches ten times the legal ones with "illegal fishing is not a major problem in Irish waters" - but since you have made the claim, let's see some sources.

All those reports just goes to show how easy it is to fool the EU and how ineffective the EU 'management' of natural resources is. Amazing when quotas are being sorted, the truth comes out. :rolleyes:


Primetime RTE 1 - 10 July, 2008

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0710/primetime_av.html?2397476,null,230

All my calculations are based on exclusively Irish waters. There would be no point in calculating on any other basis, since those are the ones we opened to the EU and which would not otherwise be open.

I have also pointed out that one can attempt to estimate the correct multiplier for each euro of fish landed, but that one then has to do the same for each euro of EU funds - and since fishing is a relatively simple industry compared to farming or infrastructural civil engineering, the value of fishing suffers by the comparison.

Did you account for Irish boats landing fish in Scotland and other EU ports? And did you build into your estimates that the richest fishing grounds (where the fish come to breed) are just off the south coast of Ireland? (i.e., the place where all the boats head because its like netting fish in a goalfish bowl! And what is so different between farming and fishing? Both supply food that can be used as raw material to provide jobs in places around this island that are unlikely to attract the Intels and Googles of this world.

That was a fairly simplistic method of calculating the value of the fishing industry you used by basing it on the tax take on declared landings to the Irish Gov.

thehighground

kevteljeur wrote: »

If you can come back to me and explain with figures and sound, proven theory how I'm going to be paying the rent within a fishery-based economy when Ireland is safely out of the EU and beyond the tariff-wall, instead of the well-paid job with which I can just about make ends meet in what is generally agreed to be an over-valued country, go right ahead. I'd love to hear it. No anecdotes please, I have a real job with real bills to pay.

From another thread ( why so afraid to go it alone Post No. 679) I posted.

Quote: thehighground
I view food production as being very important to us (as one of our very few natural resources) because that particular industry cannot pack its bags and move to India. Its a bit late for the fishing now.

Most of the concern has been that we would have to pay very high tariffs to sell to the EU - and I've been pointing out that the EU would be very happy to trade with us as they will need our food.

As regards IT/pharmaceutical exports into the EU from Ireland - all US companies will move out if there is tax harmonisation in the EU (as France and Germany want). We would be better off paying EU tariffs (if applied) than losing our 12.5 corporate tax rate.

I hope that clears that up for you. As a matter of instance, how come the EU did nothing about those Hibernian jobs going to India? How do you think the EU are going to protect your job?

If you can't, then it's safe to say that I have nothing to fear, since the decisions are being made by people with a better grasp of the long-term impact of decisions such as these.

You mean you want Sarkozy to make our decisions for us, who if he is bright, wants another 'No' to Lisbon by his statements today. He certainly wasn't very clever if he wants a 'Yes'! That indescretion is surely going to cost him:D

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

All those reports just goes to show how easy it is to fool the EU and how ineffective the EU 'management' of natural resources is. Amazing when quotas are being sorted, the truth comes out. :rolleyes:

Primetime RTE 1 - 10 July, 2008

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0710/primetime_av.html?2397476,null,230

In other words, you don't have any sources, really - you're simply going to claim that all the official figures aren't true.

thehighground wrote: »

Did you account for Irish boats landing fish in Scotland and other EU ports? And did you build into your estimates that the richest fishing grounds (where the fish come to breed) are just off the south coast of Ireland? (i.e., the place where all the boats head because its like netting fish in a goalfish bowl! And what is so different between farming and fishing? Both supply food that can be used as raw material to provide jobs in places around this island that are unlikely to attract the Intels and Googles of this world.

Sigh. Yes, that's all accounted for in the figures, which are derived from the total EU catches from exclusively Irish waters, wherever landed - because the figures I used are from a paper that estimates exactly that figure (for 2004). There will undoubtedly be some component of error, but it is entirely insufficient to get from €16bn to several hundred billion, particularly when you consider that for much of the time we've been in the EU Irish waters have not been completely open to other EU vessels - still aren't, in fact.

thehighground wrote: »

That was a fairly simplistic method of calculating the value of the fishing industry you used by basing it on the tax take on declared landings to the Irish Gov.

It's one of the most sensible possible comparisons. The EU funds we received replaced money that would otherwise have come from the Irish exchequer, and allowed it to flow out into the wider economy. Leaving aside the possible multipliers (which, as pointed out, are also rather larger for the EU funds than the fisheries), that is what allowed the government to reduce taxes (attracting FDI and fostering business) while still building the infrastructure necessary to support those businesses.

Now, let's have some sources for your various claims. Personally, I think it's relatively obvious you're arguing the toss because the conclusions don't suit your claims.

regards,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

In other words, you don't have any sources, really - you're simply going to claim that all the official figures aren't true.

So, Dr Paul Connolly of the Marine Institute and Irish fishermen speaking on national TV are not a proper source?

Sigh. Yes, that's all accounted for in the figures, which are derived from the total EU catches from exclusively Irish waters, wherever landed - because the figures I used are from a paper that estimates exactly that figure (for 2004). There will undoubtedly be some component of error, but it is entirely insufficient to get from €16bn to several hundred billion, particularly when you consider that for much of the time we've been in the EU Irish waters have not been completely open to other EU vessels - still aren't, in fact.

It's one of the most sensible possible comparisons. The EU funds we received replaced money that would otherwise have come from the Irish exchequer, and allowed it to flow out into the wider economy. Leaving aside the possible multipliers (which, as pointed out, are also rather larger for the EU funds than the fisheries), that is what allowed the government to reduce taxes (attracting FDI and fostering business) while still building the infrastructure necessary to support those businesses.

Would you do us all a favour please Scofflaw and watch the programme. And would you please explain to us all why Irish Public Representatives who have been involved in recent times in these fishing discussions do not refute what a great loss the fishing industry has been to Ireland. Also interesting is Sarkozy & Co. have not been mouthing off about the 'ungrateful' Irish and how much we have received from the EU.

Now, let's have some sources for your various claims. Personally, I think it's relatively obvious you're arguing the toss because the conclusions don't suit your claims.

*Sigh* Sources are: Dr Paul Connolly of the Marine Institute and Irish fishermen speaking on national TV.

As for arguing the toss, direct quote from you - Post No. 92 on 9/7/08 @ 22.13

"If you have evidence of 'significant holes' in my reasoning, feel free to point them out. cordially, Scofflaw"

Sorry for responding to your request. Obviously you know better than the Irish Gov. who I have yet to hear putting forward any of the figures that you suggest. Maybe you should give them a digout.

bringitdown

Regardless of what figures are where I for one don't believe for a second that we could have built an economy on fupping fishing ... seriously its a joke.

Even *IF* we are to believe the argument for a fish based economy (jaysus its absurd) we have fished the ****e out of it by now and still be in a state. And if we left now ... kicked the (other) european fishermen out of our waters would we all be instant millionaires, wandering around hip deep in fish cash? .... a pity you lads weren't around in 1973 ... we'd have been set by now.

Can we drop the fish debate its moot and not an argument for leaving Europe *now* as that ship has (apologies for the pun) sailed.

thehighground

bringitdown wrote: »

Regardless of what figures are where I for one don't believe for a second that we could have built an economy on fupping fishing ... seriously its a joke.

Even *IF* we are to believe the argument for a fish based economy (jaysus its absurd) we have fished the ****e out of it by now and still be in a state. And if we left now ... kicked the (other) european fishermen out of our waters would we all be instant millionaires, wandering around hip deep in fish cash? .... a pity you lads weren't around in 1973 ... we'd have been set by now.

Can we drop the fish debate its moot and not an argument for leaving Europe *now* as that ship has (apologies for the pun) sailed.

The argument was not that we could have had a fishing based economy - rather it was a response to the 'ungrateful Irish' comments made by our Brussels colleagues (and some 'Yes to Lisbon' posters here). Our dowry to the EU marriage was our only major natural resource - our fishing grounds. Could someone tell me what Spain brought to the table?

bringitdown

Well we are an ungrateful bunch of begrudgers ....

That aside I wouldn't debate the merits of Europe on that comment or similar.

This debate is not about what we may have had or didn't have or could have had.

Its 2008, we are in Europe now, what is the compelling reason to leave now?

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

From another thread ( why so afraid to go it alone Post No. 679) I posted.


I hope that clears that up for you. As a matter of instance, how come the EU did nothing about those Hibernian jobs going to India? How do you think the EU are going to protect your job?



You mean you want Sarkozy to make our decisions for us, who if he is bright, wants another 'No' to Lisbon by his statements today. He certainly wasn't very clever if he wants a 'Yes'! That indescretion is surely going to cost him:D

Can you edit that post please, as it looks like I'm being mis-quoted. My comment was:

lenny_leonard wrote:

Originally Posted by lenny_leonard View Post
I have to say, I'm getting really confused about what you're arguing. The title of the thread is "why so afraid to go it alone". Are you just arguing that Irish agriculture would be better off without the EU CAP, or that if Ireland were out of the EU, Irish agriculture could become a much bigger asset to our economy? Or are you arguing something else entirely?

I'm not trying to be picky; I've just lost your viewpoint somewhere along the way. It's an intriguing, if somewhat messy, thread.

I didn't say the following, but it looks like the comment is being attributed to me:

I'm not arguing that Agriculture is the answer to all our problems. Just the timing at the moment with worldwide food shortages is good from a trading point of view. Most European countries import more food than they produce. Some people on the 'Yes' to Lisbon side see agriculture/farming/food production as a major liability. Unfortunately the debate has centred on people's view of food production.

thehighground

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Can you edit that post please, as it looks like I'm being mis-quoted. My comment was:

I didn't say the following, but it looks like the comment is being attributed to me:

I've deleted your comments now in that post as they are not really necessary anyway. Hopefully that should clear up any confusion.

Flamed Diving

Was having access to the common market of no benefit to Ireland? Why are people only referring to structural funds. It was trade within this market that brought the bulk of Ireland's good fortune, not fish or funds. Ye are looking in the wrong place.

molloyjh

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Was having access to the common market of no benefit to Ireland? Why are people only referring to structural funds. It was trade within this market that brought the bulk of Ireland's good fortune, not fish or funds. Ye are looking in the wrong place.

It has been mentioned, however it is less measurable than the fish catches and funds and therefore difficult to quantify. However you are totally correct. The two combined provided us with far more than fishing ever could have. And should we leave the EU now structural funds would also be the least of our worries. Foreign companies, here for the low Corporation Tax and free access to the rest of the EU in roughly equal measure, would do one serious runner and we'd be rightly buggered. Its not like we can make up the employment numbers and monetary value with fishing alone.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

So, Dr Paul Connolly of the Marine Institute and Irish fishermen speaking on national TV are not a proper source?

Indeed not. Paul Connolly says that their corrections became too large for the official landings figures to be credible in 2005-2006. The reporter than asks a fishing skipper whether it's true that 3-4 times the quota is being landed. The skipper says that he would say ten times the quota has been landed, and still is by some countries.

Scientific figures become non-credible when the error margin is too large, which would be the case when the error range in the correction became as large as the correction.

What we don't have is Paul Connolly stating that illegal catches are ten times the official landings for Irish waters. What we actually have is an off-the-cuff dramatic anecdotal guesstimate. The skipper is no more a credible source than you or I - any more than a taxi driver is competent to estimate the number of passenger numbers at Dublin airport.

thehighground wrote: »

Would you do us all a favour please Scofflaw and watch the programme. And would you please explain to us all why Irish Public Representatives who have been involved in recent times in these fishing discussions do not refute what a great loss the fishing industry has been to Ireland. Also interesting is Sarkozy & Co. have not been mouthing off about the 'ungrateful' Irish and how much we have received from the EU.

Hmm. Are we talking about the same shower who thought the big countries still had two Commissioners?

thehighground wrote: »

*Sigh* Sources are: Dr Paul Connolly of the Marine Institute and Irish fishermen speaking on national TV.

As for arguing the toss, direct quote from you - Post No. 92 on 9/7/08 @ 22.13

"If you have evidence of 'significant holes' in my reasoning, feel free to point them out. cordially, Scofflaw"

Sorry for responding to your request. Obviously you know better than the Irish Gov. who I have yet to hear putting forward any of the figures that you suggest. Maybe you should give them a digout.

It looks that way. Still, it would be better had the programme actually had Paul Connolly (the credible source) actually saying what you originally claimed. We don't, and nowhere is there any sign that Connolly even thinks illegal fishing is larger than legal landings - nor any credible source for those sorts of figures.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sh1tnamespace

thehighground wrote: »

I've deleted your comments now in that post as they are not really necessary anyway. Hopefully that should clear up any confusion.

Deleting other peoples comments. Woah. Fail.

thehighground

sh1tnamespace wrote: »

Deleting other peoples comments. Woah. Fail.

I didn't delete anyone's comments. I copied them into a post that may have mislead people into thinking that my comments were someone elses. The poster involved asked me to rectify it. I did. They thanked me for doing so.

What have I failed?

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed not. Paul Connolly says that their corrections became too large for the official landings figures to be credible in 2005-2006. The reporter than asks a fishing skipper whether it's true that 3-4 times the quota is being landed. The skipper says that he would say ten times the quota has been landed, and still is by some countries.

I've stopped reading one I read that in your opinion Paul Connolly & the fishing boat skippers are not credible sources speaking on national tv.

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

I've stopped reading one I read that in your opinion Paul Connolly & the fishing boat skippers are not credible sources speaking on national tv.

Don't you mean that you stopped reading when you saw that Scofflaw noticed Connolly himself trashed your point? What a great way to debate! Shut your ears when there is evidence to the contrary.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Don't you mean that you stopped reading when you saw that Scofflaw noticed Connolly himself trashed your point? What a great way to debate! Shut your ears when there is evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, Connolly did not trash the point that I made. Connolly did trash the 'facts' (Marine Institure report) that Scofflaw based his argument on though which is presumably why Scofflaw responded that he did not accept what Connolly & the fishermen said on national tv. Thats why I stopped reading.

a5y

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's time this thread started conforming to the charter, which I recommend everybody read before replying again.

You're stern but reasonable reminder of the importance of the Politics forum charter might carry more sway if your avatar wasn't a baby dressed as Adolf Hitler.

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed not. Paul Connolly says that their corrections became too large for the official landings figures to be credible in 2005-2006.

Paul Connolly himself said it, not Scofflaw. You stopped reading when Scofflaw pointed that out.