Its time to leave Europe

thelordofcheese

a5y wrote: »

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.

Are you kidding, that's the best part.

Flamed Diving

I declare Scofflaw the winner in this bout.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Shame. Quite aside from anything else, the report I quoted (and based my figures on) was from 2004, which would be the last credible year according to Connolly, who said, if you recall, that the corrections became too large to be credible in 2005 & 2006. The figures in question, then, are figures corrected for illegal fishing already.

cordially,
Scofflaw

legendkiller1

The EU is a pile of ****. We cant control industry, taxes and ****ing interest rates. They havent even got a real ****ing parliament. We are going into a ****ing economic crisis because of the EU. We need to get the **** out before its too late.

Kane-N-Nite

legendkiller1 wrote: »

The EU is a pile of ****. We cant control industry, taxes and ****ing interest rates. They havent even got a real ****ing parliament. We are going into a ****ing economic crisis because of the EU. We need to get the **** out before its too late.

Gimme a hell yeah!!

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Shame. Quite aside from anything else, the report I quoted (and based my figures on) was from 2004, which would be the last credible year according to Connolly, who said, if you recall, that the corrections became too large to be credible in 2005 & 2006. The figures in question, then, are figures corrected for illegal fishing already.

cordially,
Scofflaw

To be strictly accurate, the only indication that Connolly gave of the inaccuracy of the figures you were using was when he stated that in the Irish Sea 20 years ago, fishermen were taking 13,000 tons of cod a year. At the moment they are now taking 1,000 tons a year.
So, in 1988 = 13,000 tons of cod
2008 = 1,000 tons of cod (i.e., 1/13th of the catch of 20 years ago)

Which figure were you using?

And guess what, you base your calculations on the 2004 figure (when it seems that the EU actually decided to fund proper monitoring of Irish fishing grounds, when its all too late).

The RTE reporter mentioned the 4 times the figures, and the illegal landings in Peterhead which amounted to €40m worth.He also reported that according to the Dept. of Marine 75% of this catch came from Irish fishing boats so not accounted for anywhere in the figures you presented, not to mention the €500k worth of fish that was caught on a 'black landing' in Rosaveal on one occasion.

So, I'll say it once again, your calculations are based on made up figures given by fishermen to match whatever fishing quota they had in 2004.

Your calculations (of which I find your chosen method far too simplistic, based as it is on the tax take the Irish Gov. would have got on declared landings in 2004) and does not recognise that according to Irish fishermen that would have been about 1/10th of the catch, and according to Connolly Cod fishing in the Irish Sea would have been 13 times greater 20 years ago, which in fairness you would not have known until recently.

By the way, Connolly also stated that off the coast of Scotland, 20 years ago they were taking 20,000 tons, now the quota is 500 tons of cod.

And just to clear this up, in an earlier post you asked for holes to be picked in your figures, so I'm not the one who restarted this, though I am curious as to why not one politician has denied that our fishing grounds were more than enough payment for any financial aid we received from the EU over the last 35 years.

Mise le meas
thehighground

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

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

No I didn't. I stopped after the bolded bit below (where I asked if Connolly & RTE were credible). Best to include my post and not be selected to just twist what I wrote to suit your own agenda.

Thanks very much.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scofflaw View Post
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.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

To be strictly accurate, the only indication that Connolly gave of the inaccuracy of the figures you were using was when he stated that in the Irish Sea 20 years ago, fishermen were taking 13,000 tons of cod a year. At the moment they are now taking 1,000 tons a year.
So, in 1988 = 13,000 tons of cod
2008 = 1,000 tons of cod (i.e., 1/13th of the catch of 20 years ago)

Which figure were you using?

And guess what, you base your calculations on the 2004 figure (when it seems that the EU actually decided to fund proper monitoring of Irish fishing grounds, when its all too late).

The RTE reporter mentioned the 4 times the figures, and the illegal landings in Peterhead which amounted to €40m worth.He also reported that according to the Dept. of Marine 75% of this catch came from Irish fishing boats so not accounted for anywhere in the figures you presented, not to mention the €500k worth of fish that was caught on a 'black landing' in Rosaveal on one occasion.

So, I'll say it once again, your calculations are based on made up figures given by fishermen to match whatever fishing quota they had in 2004.

Your calculations (of which I find your chosen method far too simplistic, based as it is on the tax take the Irish Gov. would have got on declared landings in 2004) and does not recognise that according to Irish fishermen that would have been about 1/10th of the catch, and according to Connolly Cod fishing in the Irish Sea would have been 13 times greater 20 years ago, which in fairness you would not have known until recently.

By the way, Connolly also stated that off the coast of Scotland, 20 years ago they were taking 20,000 tons, now the quota is 500 tons of cod.

And just to clear this up, in an earlier post you asked for holes to be picked in your figures, so I'm not the one who restarted this, though I am curious as to why not one politician has denied that our fishing grounds were more than enough payment for any financial aid we received from the EU over the last 35 years.

Mise le meas
thehighground

Hmm. A series of irrelevant comparisons. The figures I use are the ones in the thread - I gave the paper in question, so you could simply have read it had you chosen to do so.

The 2004 figures are landing figures corrected for illegal fishing as per Connolly's remarks on how they derived total catch figures. They represent the best available estimate of the actual catch taken from the Irish EEZ for the year in question.

The rest of the calculations are explained in my original post, which it is becoming clearer and clearer you never bothered reading. In it, I explain that I have backtracked the 2004 figures, and the low Irish take from the Irish EEZ, even though the Irish Box was not "open access" to other EU nations until 2002, and Spain (the biggest offender) did not even join the EU until 1986. The figures thereby err heavily on the side of generosity to the value of the Irish EEZ.

Comparisons of modern quotas with historical catches are completely irrelevant, I'm afraid, because what counts is the value of the fish - and the smaller modern catches are actually worth more, so much has the price of fish risen. So, again, my figures err on the side of generosity, and your figures are, well, red herrings.


cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. A series of irrelevant comparisons.

in your opinion. I'm not suprised really at your response. I should have known when you responded the first time when you obviously hadn't bother to listen to the programme, confirmed when you actually didn't even notice that Connolly didn't mention anything about 1/10th.

You walked into that one nicely.

Now, you still haven't explained why all the politicians don't use calculations that you have come up with, particularly as the fishermen are giving them such a hard time about how the goverment gave away our very important natural resource.

Surely you can come up with a credible explanation as to why they don't use your figures, Scofflaw?

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

I should have known when you responded the first time when you obviously hadn't bother to listen to the programme, confirmed when you actually didn't even notice that Connolly didn't mention anything about 1/10th.

You walked into that one nicely.

On a point of order: the charter states that a link to a video clip (or an audio clip, for that matter) isn't a substitute for argument, and that if you wish to introduce one into the debate, that you must be prepared to discuss its contents with those who are unable or willing to play it.

If you've deliberately misrepresented the contents of a clip you've linked to in order to catch someone out, you're bang out of order.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

On a point of order: the charter states that a link to a video clip (or an audio clip, for that matter) isn't a substitute for argument, and that if you wish to introduce one into the debate, that you must be prepared to discuss its contents with those who are unable or willing to play it.

If you've deliberately misrepresented the contents of a clip you've linked to in order to catch someone out, you're bang out of order.

If you look back through the thread you will see that Scafflaw :

1. Scafflaw first of all asked for any holes that could be found in his argument.
2. A bit reluctantly I might add, as I just seen the programme on RTE I mentioned the findings in very general terms (that the recorded landings are unreliable).
3. I was asked for the source so I gave the link.
4. Then having been given the link the particular poster commented on something he obviously didn't watch having requested a link to view/read it (sorry, I find that really annoying).

And no, I didn't deliberately misrepresent the contents of a tv programme. And if you check the thread, it will be fairly obvious that I didn't.

So, how about rapping a few poster's knuckles for wasting people's times digging up sources for them when they are obviously not going to bother watching or debating the contents

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

in your opinion. I'm not suprised really at your response. I should have known when you responded the first time when you obviously hadn't bother to listen to the programme, confirmed when you actually didn't even notice that Connolly didn't mention anything about 1/10th.

You walked into that one nicely.

That's...peculiar. I seem to remember pointing out to you that Connolly didn't mention ten times - rather that it was the skipper. And looking back over the posts, that's exactly what it looks like too.

So, what did I walk into? A cunningly prepared trap which consisted of you saying people like Paul Connolly said illegal landings were ten times higher than legal ones - in support of which you gave an RTE link which featured Paul Connolly saying no such thing.

I'm perplexed as to why you think I "walked into" something. Perhaps the force of wishful thinking is strong with you?

thehighground wrote: »

Now, you still haven't explained why all the politicians don't use calculations that you have come up with, particularly as the fishermen are giving them such a hard time about how the goverment gave away our very important natural resource.

Surely you can come up with a credible explanation as to why they don't use your figures, Scofflaw?

They're a lot less smart than me, as well as busier. Besides, the fishermen are giving them a hard time about fuel prices, if you pay attention to the real world for a moment.

amused,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's...peculiar. I seem to remember pointing out to you that Connolly didn't mention ten times - rather that it was the skipper. And looking back over the posts, that's exactly what it looks like too.

So, what did I walk into? A cunningly prepared trap which consisted of you saying people like Paul Connolly said illegal landings were ten times higher than legal ones - in support of which you gave an RTE link which featured Paul Connolly saying no such thing.

I'm perplexed as to why you think I "walked into" something. Perhaps the force of wishful thinking is strong with you?

This is my post on the subject:

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 fisherman said x 10 times - Connolly talked about the 13,000 now 1,000 in the Irish Sea which would indicate that the 2004 figures you use are way-off. But of course you won't accept that.

They're a lot less smart than me, as well as busier. Besides, the fishermen are giving them a hard time about fuel prices, if you pay attention to the real world for a moment.

Better contact RTE and bring them into the real world because they think its all about fish quotas

kevteljeur

The title of this thread is 'Its time to leave Europe'. Now, at page 9, with no reasonable supporting arguments in favour of the motion, it has become the 'We might have made slightly more money from fishing if we'd stayed outside of the EU, even at the cost of everything else we've now got and there's a world-wide food shortage, nobody thought of that, huh?' thread.

I've decided, that I was wrong. Maybe we should leave Europe. We could move to South America, for example - we could trade much better with them if we were there, and the climate would be great for all the bio-fuels farming we would be doing. Or, since we are so very dependent on imports of hydrocarbon fuels, and with our permanent ban on nuclear fuels, couldn't we leave Europe for the Gulf? Maybe with a very, very large sail.

It would be another great Irish innovation, up there with the Orbo - we could sell a few of those, right, thehighground?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote:

To be strictly accurate, the only indication that Connolly gave of the inaccuracy of the figures you were using was when he stated that in the Irish Sea 20 years ago, fishermen were taking 13,000 tons of cod a year. At the moment they are now taking 1,000 tons a year.
So, in 1988 = 13,000 tons of cod
2008 = 1,000 tons of cod (i.e., 1/13th of the catch of 20 years ago)

I see where my confusion arises, anyway. You think that because Connolly states that the catch in 1988 was 13,000 tons, and the official catch is now 1,000 tons, he is supporting your contention that illegal catches are 10 times (or 13 times, say) the legal catch?

You've simply assumed that the "real catch" now is the same as it was 20 years of overfishing ago, and that if the legal quota is less than that, the rest must be being landed illegally? That's like assuming that because there aren't as many donkeys as we know there were 40 years ago, they must be being hidden.

Those two figures aren't even relevant. Did you miss the fact that fish stocks are collapsing? That's where you can't actually get as many fish out, because there aren't as many fish, in case you were confused. It was, to a large extent, the point of the video you linked to.

Better contact RTE and bring them into the real world because they think its all about fish quotas

As to what the fishermen are protesting, try this Google search. I'll assist you - here are the first few results:

Galway News | GALWAY FISHERMEN PROTEST OUTSIDE THE DAIL | www ...
5 Jun 2008 ... A number of Galway fishermen are protesting outside the dail this afternoon over the rising cost of fuel and the low prices charged for fish

Fishermen protest over fuel costs - The Irish Times - Fri, May 30 ...
Dozens of protesting fishermen angry at the rising cost of fuel prices today gave away free fillets to shoppers in central Dublin. ...
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0530/breaking61.htm - 34k -


RTÉ News: Fishermen protest over fuel prices
RTÉ news brings you the latest Irish news, world news, international news and up to the minute reports on breaking Irish news stories and news from around ...
www.rte.ie/news/2008/0605/fishing.html

All of those, including the RTE one, are about rising fuel prices. Keep digging - 'tis a lovely pit you have made.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

To be strictly accurate, the only indication that Connolly gave of the inaccuracy of the figures you were using was when he stated that in the Irish Sea 20 years ago, fishermen were taking 13,000 tons of cod a year. At the moment they are now taking 1,000 tons a year.
So, in 1988 = 13,000 tons of cod
2008 = 1,000 tons of cod (i.e., 1/13th of the catch of 20 years ago)

Which figure were you using?

And guess what, you base your calculations on the 2004 figure (when it seems that the EU actually decided to fund proper monitoring of Irish fishing grounds, when its all too late).

The RTE reporter mentioned the 4 times the figures, and the illegal landings in Peterhead which amounted to €40m worth.He also reported that according to the Dept. of Marine 75% of this catch came from Irish fishing boats so not accounted for anywhere in the figures you presented, not to mention the €500k worth of fish that was caught on a 'black landing' in Rosaveal on one occasion.

So, I'll say it once again, your calculations are based on made up figures given by fishermen to match whatever fishing quota they had in 2004.

Your calculations (of which I find your chosen method far too simplistic, based as it is on the tax take the Irish Gov. would have got on declared landings in 2004) and does not recognise that according to Irish fishermen that would have been about 1/10th of the catch, and according to Connolly Cod fishing in the Irish Sea would have been 13 times greater 20 years ago, which in fairness you would not have known until recently.

By the way, Connolly also stated that off the coast of Scotland, 20 years ago they were taking 20,000 tons, now the quota is 500 tons of cod.

And just to clear this up, in an earlier post you asked for holes to be picked in your figures, so I'm not the one who restarted this, though I am curious as to why not one politician has denied that our fishing grounds were more than enough payment for any financial aid we received from the EU over the last 35 years.

Mise le meas
thehighground

One thing, why are we landing 1/13th of the amount of cod that we did 20 years ago?

Would overfishing have anything to do with it?

molloyjh

Seanies32 wrote: »

One thing, why are we landing 1/13th of the amount of cod that we did 20 years ago?

Would overfishing have anything to do with it?

Just out of curiousity, was I the only one that saw that report on the RTE news (I think it was last week) where fishermen were complaining about the low quota and how they have to throw large amounts of their catch back into the sea even though that catch is already dead? See the clip entitled Fishermen call for urgent action on quota system.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0710/9news.html

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, was I the only one that saw that report on the RTE news (I think it was last week) where fishermen were complaining about the low quota and how they have to throw large amounts of their catch back into the sea even though that catch is already dead? See the clip entitled Fishermen call for urgent action on quota system.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0710/9news.html

I didn't see the report, but that's undeniably one of the (many) problems with the CFP. If you let the fishermen sell the bycatch, though, there's no point in having quotas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

I didn't see the report, but that's undeniably one of the (many) problems with the CFP. If you let the fishermen sell the bycatch, though, there's no point in having quotas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I also thought that in some ways it helps to counter the illegal catch argument, showing that plenty of fishermen are just throwing the (dead) fish back.

thehighground

kevteljeur wrote: »

The title of this thread is 'Its time to leave Europe'. Now, at page 9, with no reasonable supporting arguments in favour of the motion, it has become the 'We might have made slightly more money from fishing if we'd stayed outside of the EU, even at the cost of everything else we've now got and there's a world-wide food shortage, nobody thought of that, huh?' thread.

I've decided, that I was wrong. Maybe we should leave Europe. We could move to South America, for example - we could trade much better with them if we were there, and the climate would be great for all the bio-fuels farming we would be doing. Or, since we are so very dependent on imports of hydrocarbon fuels, and with our permanent ban on nuclear fuels, couldn't we leave Europe for the Gulf? Maybe with a very, very large sail.

It would be another great Irish innovation, up there with the Orbo - we could sell a few of those, right, thehighground?

You have to blame Scofflaw for going down this route on this thread, I'm afraid. He asked for holes to be picked in his argument. How was I to know he actually didn't want anyone to respond :rolleyes:

Now, before you get dug into this thread, perhaps you might revisit the thread 'Why so afraid to go it alone" and respond to Post No. 710, p.48 (16.07.2008.15.25). You'll save us all a lot of time. Thanks very much.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055316887&page=48

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

You think that because Connolly states that the catch in 1988 was 13,000 tons, and the official catch is now 1,000 tons, he is supporting your contention that illegal catches are 10 times (or 13 times, say) the legal catch?

You've simply assumed that the "real catch" now is the same as it was 20 years of overfishing ago, and that if the legal quota is less than that, the rest must be being landed illegally? That's like assuming that because there aren't as many donkeys as we know there were 40 years ago, they must be being hidden.

Those two figures aren't even relevant. Did you miss the fact that fish stocks are collapsing? That's where you can't actually get as many fish out, because there aren't as many fish, in case you were confused. It was, to a large extent, the point of the video you linked to.

What I'm saying is that the year you choose to base your calculations on, 2004 had a very low quota in comparison to that of 20 years ago. Quotas were only first introduced in the late '80s. If you used say for instance 1992 or 1993, you would get a much higher value for fish landings. And it seems that it is only in the last 2/3 years that quotas are actually enforced. Also, it goes without saying that if the Spanish hadn't over exploited the EU fishing grounds, Irish fishermen would be in a much better position now as they would have higher fish quotas. The EU turned a blind eye to unsustainable fishing, mainly by the huge Spanish & French fishing fleets.[/QUOTE]

As to what the fishermen are protesting, try this Google search. I'll assist you - here are the first few results:

Galway News | GALWAY FISHERMEN PROTEST OUTSIDE THE DAIL | www ...
5 Jun 2008 ... A number of Galway fishermen are protesting outside the dail this afternoon over the rising cost of fuel and the low prices charged for fish

Fishermen protest over fuel costs - The Irish Times - Fri, May 30 ...
Dozens of protesting fishermen angry at the rising cost of fuel prices today gave away free fillets to shoppers in central Dublin. ...
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0530/breaking61.htm - 34k -


RTÉ News: Fishermen protest over fuel prices
RTÉ news brings you the latest Irish news, world news, international news and up to the minute reports on breaking Irish news stories and news from around ...
www.rte.ie/news/2008/0605/fishing.html

All of those, including the RTE one, are about rising fuel prices. Keep digging - 'tis a lovely pit you have made.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Additionally I've seen two investigative programmes by RTE (The Week in Politics & that Prime Time Programme + the News item where they are seen throwing fish overboard), and the impression I get is that it is more about the small fishing quota that Irish fishermen have. They are speaking up now because the EU only started enforcing the quotas in the last 2/3 years (by threats to fine the Irish Gov.)

Also, one of the fishermen said at the end of the programme that they want each country to take back their own fishing rights and manage themselves, as the EU wasn't doing it properly. Another fisherman mentioned that there are 4:1 Spanish:Irish boats in one particular ground of the coast of Ireland and the Spanish quota for that particular fish (cod I think) is half that of the Irish boats! I wonder are the Spanish also throwing fish overboard to stay within their quotas?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

One thing, why are we landing 1/13th of the amount of cod that we did 20 years ago?

Would overfishing have anything to do with it?

You're correct there Seanies, overfishing has everything to do with it - the EU were very negligent in its failure to enforce quotas since the late 80s which has lead to this happening. By far the worst offenders are the Spanish and French fleets.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

You're correct there Seanies, overfishing has everything to do with it - the EU were very negligent in its failure to enforce quotas since the late 80s which has lead to this happening. By far the worst offenders are the Spanish and French fleets.

But the problem is we cannot go back to the levels of 1988 etc. even if we got our own rights. Overfishing prevents that.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

What I'm saying is that the year you choose to base your calculations on, 2004 had a very low quota in comparison to that of 20 years ago. Quotas were only first introduced in the late '80s. If you used say for instance 1992 or 1993, you would get a much higher value for fish landings.

And what I have pointed out several times now is that what is a stake is the value of the catch, which has stayed the same (even risen) even though the catch has fallen. I didn't use tonnage figures, because they're meaningless in the context. So 2004's "low quota" is irrelevant, because the value of the fish landed was the same.

thehighground wrote: »

And it seems that it is only in the last 2/3 years that quotas are actually enforced. Also, it goes without saying that if the Spanish hadn't over exploited the EU fishing grounds, Irish fishermen would be in a much better position now as they would have higher fish quotas. The EU turned a blind eye to unsustainable fishing, mainly by the huge Spanish & French fishing fleets.

According to the EU at least, the worst offenders are Ireland and Spain, not France.

Had the Irish had the quotas that the French and Spanish had, the stocks would have been exactly as overfished. It doesn't work out better because it's us doing it.

thehighground wrote: »

Additionally I've seen two investigative programmes by RTE (The Week in Politics & that Prime Time Programme + the News item where they are seen throwing fish overboard), and the impression I get is that it is more about the small fishing quota that Irish fishermen have. They are speaking up now because the EU only started enforcing the quotas in the last 2/3 years (by threats to fine the Irish Gov.)

You may get that impression, but the protests have been about rising fuel costs. It seems silly to keep insisting in the face of the facts.

Further, the reason the EU has started 'getting tough' on the governments is because the governments haven't been enforcing quotas - it's not a job for the EU, which has no navy.

Also, one of the fishermen said at the end of the programme that they want each country to take back their own fishing rights and manage themselves, as the EU wasn't doing it properly. Another fisherman mentioned that there are 4:1 Spanish:Irish boats in one particular ground of the coast of Ireland and the Spanish quota for that particular fish (cod I think) is half that of the Irish boats! I wonder are the Spanish also throwing fish overboard to stay within their quotas?

I would think so - everyone does. Again, though, the experience of one fisherman that there were 4 Spanish for each Irish boat is meaningless, since there could equally well be another fisherman whose experience was exactly the reverse. As they say, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

There's a good deal to be said for letting the fishermen manage it themselves, but the legal framework would be enormously difficult, I would think. However, it might get to the root of the problem, which is that the quotas are set by politicians, and grossly exceed the scientific recommendations every single time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

But the problem is we cannot go back to the levels of 1988 etc. even if we got our own rights. Overfishing prevents that.

No one is suggesting going back to the quotas of 1988.

From that report on Prime Time, Irish fishing boats get 25% of the fishing quota in Irish waters (other EU countries like UK, France, Spain & Portugal) get 75% of the quota. Redistribution of the quotas would make a huge difference - or in fact, restricting some countries from Irish waters (the breeding grounds) would be far more effective in improving fish stocks - throwing dead fish back into the sea isn't going to help with improving stocks.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

And what I have pointed out several times now is that what is a stake is the value of the catch, which has stayed the same (even risen) even though the catch has fallen. I didn't use tonnage figures, because they're meaningless in the context. So 2004's "low quota" is irrelevant, because the value of the fish landed was the same.

I've told you before, I find your method of calculation far too simplistic and sympathetic to the answers that you just want to get. We're going to have to agree to disagree on whether it is tonnage, exploitation/bad management of a renewable resource (unlike oil or gas).

According to the EU at least, the worst offenders are Ireland and Spain, not France.

Most people agree that Irish fishermen did shockingly bad in the distribution of quotas (which is usually explained away that we did well in other ways) which comes around to my original point that it wasn't exactly a one way street between Ireland and the EU.

Had the Irish had the quotas that the French and Spanish had, the stocks would have been exactly as overfished. It doesn't work out better because it's us doing it.

It could have been managed better maybe. If the Irish boats had a better quota and perhaps if fleets were given licences to fish in particular fishing areas we'd get less fish being thrown overboard.

You may get that impression, but the protests have been about rising fuel costs. It seems silly to keep insisting in the face of the facts.

Unlike you, I'm not insisting on anything.

Further, the reason the EU has started 'getting tough' on the governments is because the governments haven't been enforcing quotas - it's not a job for the EU, which has no navy.

The EU doesn't have a navy yet But it already has member states who do have naval services. Its possible to fund/hire them to help them out on defending/policing its fishing grounds.

I would think so - everyone does. Again, though, the experience of one fisherman that there were 4 Spanish for each Irish boat is meaningless, since there could equally well be another fisherman whose experience was exactly the reverse. As they say, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

It should be easy enough to check out (by satellite / overflights); I'd say the naval services (and British naval intelligence) knows exactly who is fishing where. Strange the Irish Government and various politicians don't refute anything the fishermen are saying.

There's a good deal to be said for letting the fishermen manage it themselves, but the legal framework would be enormously difficult, I would think. However, it might get to the root of the problem, which is that the quotas are set by politicians, and grossly exceed the scientific recommendations every single time.

Its an Irish national resource, not just Irish fishermens. The Irish Government should have more control over it, but work with Irish fishermen. What is annoying is that other European countries don't have a problem with overfishing in Irish waters, because when there is none left they will move off and overfish the west coast of Africa.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

I've told you before, I find your method of calculation far too simplistic and sympathetic to the answers that you just want to get. We're going to have to agree to disagree on whether it is tonnage, exploitation/bad management of a renewable resource (unlike oil or gas).

Indeed - after all, as I've pointed out, what I've done is one form of comparison, comparing 'benefits to the exchequer'. We can do the 'benefits to the economy' version, but you'd need to get the appropriate multipliers for all the various different economic activities. I pointed this out in the original thread - I also pointed out that the fishing industry, even including packing and processing, is an industry of relatively few steps compared to some elements of farming, and definitely much simpler than infrastructural spending - and since the multiplier effect is larger the more complex the industry, fishing will come out even worse there, euro for euro.

The multiplier effect is what Tom Prendiville's figure of €200 billion is based on (and I see you seem to have no problem with his calculations) - but he compares his total estimated value-to-the-economy for fishing with the direct inputs only from the EU. I am at least comparing like with like.

Tonnage, however you do the calculations, remains entirely irrelevant, as does the fact that it is a renewable resource.

thehighground wrote: »

Most people agree that Irish fishermen did shockingly bad in the distribution of quotas (which is usually explained away that we did well in other ways) which comes around to my original point that it wasn't exactly a one way street between Ireland and the EU.

CFP quotas are based on the 'traditional' size of the fishing industries at accession - which means that the Irish fishing industry got a quota in line with its size at the time. The Irish quota is small because, despite these glorious fantasies of a fish-supported economy, we didn't really have much of a fishing industry before we joined the EU.

A better complaint would be that the CFP 'traditional industry' quota system has 'fossilised' the fishing industries of the EU - so the Irish fishing industry was prevented from expanding, and the Spanish one, in effect, from shrinking.

thehighground wrote: »

It could have been managed better maybe. If the Irish boats had a better quota and perhaps if fleets were given licences to fish in particular fishing areas we'd get less fish being thrown overboard.

Possibly so. There are a lot of ways the CFP could be improved (and relatively few in which it could be made worse).

thehighground wrote: »

Unlike you, I'm not insisting on anything.

The exercise of discrimination is left to the reader...

thehighground wrote: »

The EU doesn't have a navy yet But it already has member states who do have naval services. Its possible to fund/hire them to help them out on defending/policing its fishing grounds.

Indeed - out of our 8 boats, for example, 5 were paid for by the EU.

thehighground wrote: »

It should be easy enough to check out (by satellite / overflights); I'd say the naval services (and British naval intelligence) knows exactly who is fishing where. Strange the Irish Government and various politicians don't refute anything the fishermen are saying.

The argument that Irish fisheries were worth more than EU funding isn't being put forward by fishermen. The rise in fuel prices about which they are protesting is rather inarguable.

thehighground wrote: »

Its an Irish national resource, not just Irish fishermens. The Irish Government should have more control over it, but work with Irish fishermen. What is annoying is that other European countries don't have a problem with overfishing in Irish waters, because when there is none left they will move off and overfish the west coast of Africa.

As will the Irish boats - as indeed they already do. This whole 'victim' shtick is pure drivel.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

I
I What is annoying is that other European countries don't have a problem with overfishing in Irish waters, because when there is none left they will move off and overfish the west coast of Africa.

Do our super trawlers not fish of Africa, or do they not count?

Scofflaw

Seanies32 wrote: »

Do our super trawlers not fish of Africa, or do they not count?

Not when one is making the case that 'poor little Ireland' has been comprehensively robbed by the 'big bad EU'. We are the poor little orphan, they are the wicked uncle tossing us scraps (of fish) and crusts out of our stolen inheritance and telling us we should be grateful. Classic story. Soon we will be forced into marriage, or tied to the railway tracks.

amused,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed - after all, as I've pointed out, what I've done is one form of comparison, comparing 'benefits to the exchequer'. We can do the 'benefits to the economy' version, but you'd need to get the appropriate multipliers for all the various different economic activities. I pointed this out in the original thread - I also pointed out that the fishing industry, even including packing and processing, is an industry of relatively few steps compared to some elements of farming, and definitely much simpler than infrastructural spending - and since the multiplier effect is larger the more complex the industry, fishing will come out even worse there, euro for euro.

This is what I thought you were trying to do: (quote from yourself in thread 'Value of Irish fisheries':)
Since this seems to come up a lot as "well, they got more out of us than we got out of them", and the value put on Irish fisheries "lost to the EU" seems to have inflated to €120 billion, I thought this might be worth a thread on its own. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055314533

The multiplier effect is what Tom Prendiville's figure of €200 billion is based on (and I see you seem to have no problem with his calculations) - but he compares his total estimated value-to-the-economy for fishing with the direct inputs only from the EU. I am at least comparing like with like.

Tonnage, however you do the calculations, remains entirely irrelevant, as does the fact that it is a renewable resource.

Jumping to conclusions here - I don't agree with all of Tom Prendiville's method of calculation (and have never supported it in any of these threads :rolleyes:) though I think overall he has made a better stab at it than you.

For the record, your method does work for coming up with a figure of 'benefits to the exchequer'. But, Ireland isn't just an exchequer.

My interest in this debate was to argue against some Eurocrat/poster comments here that Ireland was just at the receiving end of EU funding for the last 35 years.

CFP quotas are based on the 'traditional' size of the fishing industries at accession - which means that the Irish fishing industry got a quota in line with its size at the time. The Irish quota is small because, despite these glorious fantasies of a fish-supported economy, we didn't really have much of a fishing industry before we joined the EU.

A better complaint would be that the CFP 'traditional industry' quota system has 'fossilised' the fishing industries of the EU - so the Irish fishing industry was prevented from expanding, and the Spanish one, in effect, from shrinking.

I don't know what the quotas were based on - all I know is that the Irish fishing industry (and coastal communities dependent on fishing) has decreased in size since 1973.

And by the way, you are not doing yourself any favours by making such widely inaccurate comments such as 'despite these glorious fantasies of a fish-supported economy' . . . Not one poster here has even hinted at a fish-supported economy, (perhaps not least because that particular renewable natural resource is now depleted).

Indeed - out of our 8 boats, for example, 5 were paid for by the EU.

Obviously, not enough. See, the EU doesn't need a navy (or army). :rolleyes:

The argument that Irish fisheries were worth more than EU funding isn't being put forward by fishermen. The rise in fuel prices about which they are protesting is rather inarguable.

The fishermen have won that argument. Government officials/politicians all readily admit it. Everyone has moved on about it now (except you and a few posters here). You probably won't hear too much about fuel prices anymore now because EU fishermen have got 600m of EU aid (we might hear something about distribution of those funds though). And I will repeat again, all of the discussions on RTE about fishing have ended up with the fishermen insisting that their fishing quotas are inadequate. They castigate the Irish Gov. for encouraging them to invest in boats so that they are now in such a position.

As will the Irish boats - as indeed they already do. This whole 'victim' shtick is pure drivel.

You are jumping to the wrong conclusion yet again - just shows how your mind works. Nothing to do with being a victim at all - was more a comment on most people tend to look after their own patch better because they want their children to have a future in that particular place.