Its time to leave Europe

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

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

Do we have more than one? Anyway, is the crew on that super trawler not made up of Poles, Latvians and Russians?

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

Far more serious matters actually to worry about - read here:

But the CCCTB is an acronym still little heard even though, privately, the Irish Bankers Federation and some sections of Ibec, the employers' organisation, describe the plans as the single largest threat to Irish prosperity and the 12.5% corporation tax rate that has anchored that prosperity here during the past decade.

From today's Sunday Tribune.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jul/20/lisbon-sides-should-tell-sarkozy-non-to-common-tax/

Wonder what the Irish Taxation Institute think of this?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Do we have more than one? Anyway, is the crew on that super trawler not made up of Poles, Latvians and Russians?

Indeed, nothing to stop us having more than one though!

thehighground wrote:

From today's Sunday Tribune.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2...to-common-tax/

Wonder what the Irish Taxation Institute think of this?

You mean they didn't know this before?

Jaysus, you did, I did, Ganley did etc. etc.

Think we've been here before, over and over and over.

Anyway, moving this forward, how has Norways economy got on outside the EU?

carveone

Seanies32 wrote: »

Anyway, moving this forward, how has Norways economy got on outside the EU?

Population similar to that of Ireland; third largest oil exporter. Um. Lemme guess...

thebman

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Isn't that a huge problem?

Eh, am I the only one that sees a problem with the body deciding the quota's passing the buck to the individual governments to enforce the treaties.

Just makes it look like they have no power and so defeats the purpose of having quota's at all if there are no penalties for not enforcing them.

Scofflaw

brim4brim wrote: »

Isn't that a huge problem?

Eh, am I the only one that sees a problem with the body deciding the quota's passing the buck to the individual governments to enforce the treaties.

Just makes it look like they have no power and so defeats the purpose of having quota's at all if there are no penalties for not enforcing them.

Quotas are actually negotiated between the governments - an independent body setting them would actually represent one possible path for improvement of the CFP, since it might be more likely to take the scientific advice on quotas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

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

Well, sure - that's because the €100bn+ figures are not only unrealistic, but were also unsupported. Even Sinn Fein only put forward a figure of €36bn.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Indeed - come to think of it you've not put forward an alternative set of calculations of your own.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Yes, and as I've pointed out you can do the calculations based on benefit to the economy, but the numbers are more speculative, and come out even more heavily against the fisheries.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

Which no-one has claimed. Ireland have been a net beneficiary, but it hasn't been a one-way street. Nor am I sure why you think anyone here might be a Eurocrat?

thehighground wrote: »

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).

Such claims have indeed been made, by some of those posters who claim we would be perfectly OK outside the EU. They are also being made by people like Prendiville, have been made in letters to the papers, and are found in many of the comments sections of news sites.

thehighground wrote: »

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

Mm...cheap.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

If fishing quotas are reduced, having been fully taken up, it goes without saying that they are inadequate to support the existing capacity. The government, as a result, does its best to negotiate higher Irish quotas - as does every other EU government. The net result has been persistent over-fishing even without illegal fishing.

thehighground wrote: »

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.

As if one doesn't recognise the beal bocht when someone is putting it on.

I'm not arguing that Ireland might not look after its national fisheries better if it had them completely within national control. It is possible that it might, although Irish waters have suffered from illegal fishing since the beginning of the State (mostly Spanish all along), the vessels the EU paid for constitute over half our fisheries protection fleet.

If waters were returned to national control, we would need to more than double our naval spending to achieve the same level of fishery protection vessels we currently have. Nor would we have the same mechanisms for putting pressure on the Spanish fishing industry, or the same level of Europe-wide cooperation we currently have. None of that is insuperable, of course - nor has its existence wiped out illegal fishing, which is still estimated at €1.1 billion annually across the whole EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

carveone wrote: »

Population similar to that of Ireland; third largest oil exporter. Um. Lemme guess...

Oh oil, that's very comparable!

They seem to be extremely dependent on fishing and oil.
I'll see if I dig out something tomorrow!

djpbarry

Summary of the preceding 159 posts:


Gareth37: The time has come for Ireland to leave the EU.

thehighground: Absolutely. There's a World Food Shortage - we can make a killing with our beef exports!

Scofflaw et al. : You think the Irish economy should be entirely based on agriculture?

thehighground: Nobody said that; don't be silly. Sure don't we have fish too? We'll be grand.

Scofflaw: The value of Irish fisheries has been greatly exaggerated - I have looked at the figures in some detail in this here thread. Do you really think Ireland could survive on a fish-based economy?

thehighground: Nobody's saying Ireland should have a fish-based economy; don't be silly. Sure haven't we got loads of lovely land to grow biofuels and horses that we can trade for oil from the Arabs?

djpbarry et al.: You think we can base our economy on horse-breeding?

thehighground: Sure doesn't everyone work on stud farms? Who doesn't need a horse?

djpbarry et al.: If we're using all the land for horses and beef cattle, where will we grow all the biofuels? Will we really be able to meet our energy needs with biofuels?

thehighground: Nobody's saying that; don't be silly.

Flamed Diving

djpbarry wrote: »

Summary of the preceding 159 posts:


Gareth37: The time has come for Ireland to leave the EU.

thehighground: Absolutely. There's a World Food Shortage - we can make a killing with our beef exports!

Scofflaw et al. : You think the Irish economy should be entirely based on agriculture?

thehighground: Nobody said that; don't be silly. Sure don't we have fish too? We'll be grand.

Scofflaw: The value of Irish fisheries has been greatly exaggerated - I have looked at the figures in some detail in this here thread. Do you really think Ireland could survive on a fish-based economy?

thehighground: Nobody's saying Ireland should have a fish-based economy; don't be silly. Sure haven't we got loads of lovely land to grow biofuels and horses that we can trade for oil from the Arabs?

djpbarry et al.: You think we can base our economy on horse-breeding?

thehighground: Sure doesn't everyone work on stud farms? Who doesn't need a horse?

djpbarry et al.: If we're using all the land for horses and beef cattle, where will we grow all the biofuels? Will we really be able to meet our energy needs with biofuels?

thehighground: Nobody's saying that; don't be silly.

Summary of the summary:

Everyone is stupid except thehighground.

kevteljeur

djpbarry wrote: »

Summary of the preceding 159 posts:


Gareth37: The time has come for Ireland to leave the EU.

thehighground: Absolutely. There's a World Food Shortage - we can make a killing with our beef exports!

Scofflaw et al. : You think the Irish economy should be entirely based on agriculture?

<snip />

thehighground: Nobody's saying that; don't be silly.

ROFL. This was actually as good as the feedback thread about the immigration thread getting locked. Hats off to you sir.


Edit: Still laughing. Wouldn't mind seeing the djpbarry edit of 'why so afraid to go it alone'; featuring 'We'll export food, gas, oil and jobs'. I shouldn't make light of this stuff, I guess, but it's been pretty circular now for at least a month.

deepspace

djpbarry wrote: »

Summary of the preceding 159 posts:


Gareth37: The time has come for Ireland to leave the EU.

thehighground: Absolutely. There's a World Food Shortage - we can make a killing with our beef exports!

Scofflaw et al. : You think the Irish economy should be entirely based on agriculture?

thehighground: Nobody said that; don't be silly. Sure don't we have fish too? We'll be grand.

Scofflaw: The value of Irish fisheries has been greatly exaggerated - I have looked at the figures in some detail in this here thread. Do you really think Ireland could survive on a fish-based economy?

thehighground: Nobody's saying Ireland should have a fish-based economy; don't be silly. Sure haven't we got loads of lovely land to grow biofuels and horses that we can trade for oil from the Arabs?

djpbarry et al.: You think we can base our economy on horse-breeding?

thehighground: Sure doesn't everyone work on stud farms? Who doesn't need a horse?

djpbarry et al.: If we're using all the land for horses and beef cattle, where will we grow all the biofuels? Will we really be able to meet our energy needs with biofuels?

thehighground: Nobody's saying that; don't be silly.

here is the complicated answer to the fisheries question all based on available data from the past 35 years and the dept. of the marine.

It is an attempt at explanation for posters as for why I believe we have given equal to what we received from the EU in monetary value terms. It is based on fishing alone and does not take into account our allowing new accession countries access to work here etc. which also provided value to EU. All the following is based on the available published data gathered by the scientific authorities. It is not based on Tom Prendivilles unsubstantiated report. Please feel free to question my calculations, but I have given it without exaggeration and in an attempt to provide a solid reference point for discussion.

At various times people appear to have quoted figures from 16 - 200 billion based on their best estimations and also some generalisations. It is difficult to arrive at the closest true figure without a lot of work. The actuality is more complex than simply multiplying a figure obtained in 2004 by 35 years. I hope this will be of interest.

Accounting for the shape of EEZ area versus Fishing zones

The Irish sea is divided into geographical fishing zones VIa, VIb, VIIa, VII b + c and VII f to k. Zone VII d + e is not relevant. The Irish EEZ (our portion within the 200mile limit) is only part of this. The following calculation was exercised on all figures to account for this.

VIa only 25% of catch is in EEZ, VIb 10%, VIIa 33%, VIIb+c 100%, VIIf to k 90%. This is based on the following: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:W8qs__rucsoJ:www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf+irish+eez+fish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie

Price by Type

I looked at the six types of catch, pelagic, demersal, deepwater, industrial, shellfish and elasmobranchs. I assigned them values per tonne based on conservative estimates at 2004 prices as per the Central Statistics Office Price List. http://www.cso.ie/statistics/seafishbyspecies.htm

Demersal: Cod 2970, whiting, 839, haddock 1940, saithe 685, hake 3131, megrim 3250. For these prices I assigned an average value of 1400 euro per tonne. The average in 2004 was 1488 euro per tonne.

Pelagic:Mackerel 446, Horse Mackerel 236, Herring 215. For these I assigned an average of 300 euro per tonne. Average in 2004 was 337 euro per tonne.

Shellfish:Blue mussel 832, Crab 1067, Lobster 12549, Whelk 440. For these the average per tonne is 1281 euro in 2004. I use 1200 euro as my calculation value.

Industrial:Blue Whiting 135. I use 135 euro per tonne as price.

Deep Water and Elasmobranchs:These fall under the term other in the CSO figures. Their average price in 2004 was 1117 euro per tonne. I use a figure of 1000 in my calculation.

Where to start?

We must calculate the value of the stock fished over the period 1973 to 2008. This is now 35.5 years. Different zones contributed different amounts of the six different types for different years as stocks rose and fell. I used the graphs see here:

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf

I choose a year which was representative of the average yield over the time period. This was to save time. I could spend forever working out each year but it is not practical at this stage. From the six graphs for each fish type I choose the following years which gave the best average figure over the time period.

Pelagic 1973, Demersal 1990, Shellfish 1990, Deepwater 1990, Industrial 1989, Elasmobranchs 1973.

Again the reason for this is because in recent years stock catchs have been reduced and so taking 2004 data is to underestimate the average over the time period. Also back in 1973 fishing of industrial stock was minimal but is now much larger. So in this case 1989 represents the average catch when looking at the graph of the time period. This approach saves time, produces slight inaccuracies compared to calculating every year but will give a quite sufficiently accurate accessment of the fish stocks taken.

Using each fish type graph I find the average catchs in tonnes for each part of the EEZ during the average year:

Pelagic 1973 VIa -- 300,000 (EEZ 75,000) 25%, Vlb -- 300,000 (EEZ 30,000) 10%, Vlla -- 360,000 (EEZ 120,000) 33%, Vllb,c -- 370,000 (EEZ 370,000) 100%, Vllf-k -- 550,000 (EEZ 495,000) 90%

Demersal 1990 VIa -- 80,000 (EEZ 20,000) 25%, Vlb -- 120,000 (EEZ 12,000) 10%, Vlla -- 150,000 (EEZ 50,000) 33%, Vllb,c -- 170,000 (EEZ 170,000) 100%, Vllf-k -- 270,000 (EEZ 243,000) 90%

Shellfish 1990 VIa -- 24,000 (EEZ 6,000) 25%, Vlb -- 24,000 (EEZ 2,400) 10%, Vlla -- 54,000 (EEZ 18,000) 33%, Vllb,c -- 58,000 (EEZ 58,000) 100%, Vllf-k -- 71,000 (EEZ 64,000) 90%

Industrial 1989 VIa -- 180,000 (EEZ 45,000) 25%, Vlb -- 180,000 (EEZ 18,000) 10%, Vlla -- 180,000 (EEZ 60,000) 33%, Vllb,c -- 380,000 (EEZ 380,000) 100%, Vllf-k -- 444,000 (EEZ 400,000) 90%

Deepwater 1990 VIa -- 21,000 (EEZ 5,250) 25%, Vlb -- 24,000 (EEZ 2,400) 10%, Vlla -- 25,000 (EEZ 8,350) 33%, Vllb,c -- 25,000 (EEZ 25,000) 100%, Vllf-k -- 25,000 (EEZ 22,500) 90%

Elasmobranchs 1973 VIa -- 11,000 (EEZ 2,750) 25%, Vlb -- 12,000 (EEZ 1,200) 10%, Vlla -- 16,000 (EEZ 5,350) 33%, Vllb,c -- 20,000 (EEZ 20,000) 100%, Vllf-k -- 26,000 (EEZ 23,400) 90%

If you are still with me these figures can now be added to give the following totals for an "average catch/year" over 1973-2008.

Pelagic 1,090,000 tonnes at 300 euro/tonne = 0.327 billion

Demersal 495,000 tonnes at 1400 euro/tonne = 0.693 billion

Shellfish 148,400 tonnes at 1200 euro/tonne = 0.178 billion

Industrial 903,000 tonnes at 135 euro/tonne = 0.122 billion

Deepwater 63,500 tonnes at 1000 euro/tonne = 0.064 billion

Elasmobranchs 52,700 tonnes at 1000 euro/tonne = 0.053 billion

Adding the total of an average year gives 1.437 billion euro from EEZ in 2004 price terms. LANDED CATCH.

This figure is less than the two billion sometimes used by opposition to criticise the government but more than the 1 billion used by ministers of the marine. It is much higher than the 800,000 tonnes used in calculations on many forums which represents the now lower average take of recent years.

More points to factor in the analysis...

Discarded fish

However due to EU law and quotas not all fish caught is landed. See this report from the WWF

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:f99G9TAKinsJ:assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_cfp_midterm_review_10_2007.pdf+Mid-term+review+of+the+Common+Fisheries+Policy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie

WWF(World Wildlife Fund) Mid-term review of the Common Fisheries Policy
October 2007
The report examines the management of the fishing territories by the EU.
Here is an excerpt from page 5
"Regarding the ecosystem-based management and discarding, Section 4 notes the lack of action to eliminate wasteful fisheries until now. The study shows that each year between 20% and 60% of catches are discarded in most fisheries, undermining both the effectiveness of conservation measures and the overall health of the ecosystem."

Factoring this into the equation and using a value of 40% of catch returned to the sea unlanded further increases the "take" of the average year to the following value.

1.437 divide by 3 multiply by 5 = 2.395 billion per average year.

If we were not bound by quota all fish caught could be landed. Of course a sustainable programme needs to be implemented.
Quay Prices lower in Ireland

The report http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:W8qs__rucsoJ:www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf+irish+eez+fish&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ie states that value of fish at quay side in Ireland is less than elsewhere in Europe.

The above calculation is based on Irish Quay side figures.

Illegal Fishing and unreported landings.
(stated in the WWF report is the mismanagement of the EU of the fish stocks. "Section 2 of this report shows that TACs (total allowable catches) and quotas, agreed by the Fisheries Ministers, are very often in excess of the scientific advice given by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES).Due to quotas being set too high and the rising practise of illegal fishing, there has been little sign of improvement of the EU fish stocks since 2002.")
(Dáil Éireann - Volume 460 - 01 February, 1996 Minister for the Marine (Mr. Barrett): "I caution that suspicions about landings of undersized fish from Irish waters into ports in Spain or other member states are difficult to substantiate or prove. Such landings can be and are often claimed to be, from the Bay of Biscay or the Mediterranean where there are as yet no rules about minimum fish landing sizes. But Deputies can rest assured that I and the Department will continue to vigorously follow up specific concerns.")

Another point often made is our lack of fishing boats to harvest this amount of fish. That is true, but that doesn't stop us allowing outside countries to fish and pay for the privilige, or build up a fleet of our own in the long term.



Finishing off the calculation

1.437 x 35.5 years = 51.01billion

This is a figure based on the catch shown in the graphs provided by the dept of the marine!

If we assume 4% illegal catch (1.69 billion) and 40% discard into sea (16.92 billion)

51.01 + 1.69 + 16.92 = 69.62 billion.

Of course the waste back into the sea may be more prevalent in recent more quota stringent years. If it was only 20% (the lower figure given by the WWF report) and we don't include illegal catch we get

51.01 + 8.46 = 59.47 billion



Note These figures are based on graphs of International Landings reported to the ICES since 1973.

Therefore we do not have to subtract the amount which is caught by Irish boats. It is already not on the graphs!! To compare the amount historically fished by irish boats against that taken by international boats refer to figure 1 and you can estimate the ratio based on the green versus grey graphs on the map of Ireland and UK. It is easy to see that much less than the figure of 28% which we managed to keep in 2004 was acheived in previous years. Some years our % was almost unmeasurable and is often less than 5% for various zones. http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf

Processing

I have not included processing in the figures. This would add further value but arguments against including this have been provided before and may be relevant. They state that derived benefit from EU money is compensation against this added value obtained from processing. Typically processing adds 60% value to the catch. This is loosely based on the sale of 391million minus 100million aquaculture giving 290 million exports in 2004. (60% added value) in 2004 of fish products based on a catch of 180 million as seen in the cso report.

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/agriculture/current/fishery.pdf

51.01 - 59.47 billion becoming 80 - 100 billion.

Annually this would be the missing 2 billion a year figure that has been much quoted in the dail!



Comparing EU FUNDS versus the above

http://www.finfacts.ie/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

Ireland has received 34.4billion until 2002 and approx. 1.5 billion for each of 2003-2006 equal to 6 billion ( estimate based on previous years extrapolation). These are in the form of structural funds , farm payments etc...We were due to be a net contributor in 2007. Total amount received is of the order of 40 billion but payments backdating to 1973 expressed in todays value may be as much as 60 billion. This is very difficult to work out and I don't know how to do it.

I will take the figure to be between 40 - 60 billion at most received in handouts from EU. Not much to buy the sovereignty of a small country!!

See also...Structural fund data below.

http://www.ndp.ie/viewprnt.asp?fn=/documents/jargonbusters/faq.htm#20

How much money has Ireland received from the Structural Funds since joining the E.U.?

To the end of 2003 Ireland received over €17 billion in Structural & Cohesion Funds support since joining the E.U. in 1973.

How much E.U. Structural Funds have been allocated to the N.D.P.?

Ireland has been allocated over €3.9 billion for the period 2000-2006, of which €3,350 million will come from Structural Funds and €586 million from the Cohesion Fund. This funding will be delivered as part of the National Development Plan, 2000-2006.

How much of the NDP is funded by the EU?
Unlike previous Plans, most of the public funding for the NDP (about 90%) will be provided from domestic sources, mainly the Exchequer. Nevertheless, the contribution from the EU will total euro 6 billion:

- euro 3.8 billion from the Structural and Cohesion Funds
- euro 2.2 billion under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Rural Development Plan.

The Community Support Framework (CSF) is a legal agreement between the European Community and the Irish Government on the EU contribution to the NDP.

http://www.iro.ie/EU-structural-funds.html

Structural Funds 1989-1993 3.367 billion received. 1994-1999 6.921 billion 2000-2006 3.739 billion



So we have 40 - 60 billion received from EU, versus 51.01 -- 59.47 billion fished by foreign boats out of our EEZ waters since 1973. Not counting Discarded catch described as being at 20-40% by WWF report.

However we are now paying back the 40-60 billion since last year and continuing to give away an increasingly valuable fish resource to the tune of (at current stock levels) 460million annually. Our fish stocks have been decimated and we have the EU to thank for it, as the WWF report says about their management "could do better".

Finally the above analysis is erring on the conservative side in terms of value lost. The only issue I have not addressed is how could we have exploited the resource due to our small fleet size. This is something others can discuss. I have done my best to give a factually based take on what appears to be something most people are unaware of - the true extent of the fisheries lost. No pulling figures from the air. Not 200 billion but not 16 billion either!

Finally I hope people find this post worthwhile. If I have figures wrong I am sure someone will point it out.But it is my best attempt to pin down an exact figure in what has been a much debated subject.

wyk

Belfast wrote: »

if we leave the EU, should we apply to become the 51st state of the United States of America?

You'll have to stand in line behind the UK. (JK!)

But, seriously, the world is a different place than it was just a decade ago. I don't think pulling out of the EU is as simple an answer as some here have proposed.

WYK

Hitman Actual

deepspace wrote: »

Finishing off the calculation

1.437 x 35.5 years = 51.01billion

The 1.437 figure is the value of a catch in 2004 prices, yes? Was the catch value in 1973 also 1.437 billion? I'm not convinced of the validity of this part of the calculation, unless I'm missing something in your post.

deepspace

lenny_leonard wrote: »

The 1.437 figure is the value of a catch in 2004 prices, yes? Was the catch value in 1973 also 1.437 billion? I'm not convinced of the validity of this part of the calculation, unless I'm missing something in your post.

You are confusing price with value. That misunderstanding makes you ask that question. I expressed everything in 2004 figures as it is meaningless to express every year back into the equivalent price for that particular year. The monetary value going back becomes progressively less but the actual value in terms of what the money from the fish can purchase remains relatively the same. A house cost 3000 in 1973 now costs 300,000. But the value of owning a house in 1970 is the same as owning one now more or less. If you owned one outright you would be well off. If I had two houses from 1970 and 2008 I wouldn't value them at 300,000 plus 3000 giving 303,000 when talking about them today. In the same way the value of the fishing industry can be expressed in the equivalent of todays purchasing power. That is why the figure is 35.5 x 1.437 billion.

oscarBravo

Have you converted the structural funds into 2004-equivalent figures in the same way?

deepspace

Up to 2003 Ireland 37.07 billion in EU funds is equivalent to 59.138 billion at 2003 prices.

Based on the Finfacts link above and on the CPI index from the CSO here http://www.cso.ie/statistics/conpriceindex.htm

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you converted the structural funds into 2004-equivalent figures in the same way?

More to the point, has the shrinking size of quotas had no effect on the price of fish?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

deepspace wrote: »

You are confusing price with value. That misunderstanding makes you ask that question. I expressed everything in 2004 figures as it is meaningless to express every year back into the equivalent price for that particular year. The monetary value going back becomes progressively less but the actual value in terms of what the money from the fish can purchase remains relatively the same. A house cost 3000 in 1973 now costs 300,000. But the value of owning a house in 1970 is the same as owning one now more or less. If you owned one outright you would be well off. If I had two houses from 1970 and 2008 I wouldn't value them at 300,000 plus 3000 giving 303,000 when talking about them today. In the same way the value of the fishing industry can be expressed in the equivalent of todays purchasing power. That is why the figure is 35.5 x 1.437 billion.

Okay, thanks, but can you actually do that- express the figure in terms of today's purchasing power? It's a resource we're talking about, not an asset like a house as you used in your example. There seems to be something intuitively wrong with your approach, but I can't put my finger on it.

Also, when you're talking about the 59.47 billion figure in 'value' terms, are you saying that this amount would have gone directly back into the economy, effectively canceling out what we gained in EU funding?

FWIW, I think there's a lot of merit in your approach, and it's good to see someone posting 'hard data', but there are still some points I'm not convinced on.

molloyjh

I'd just like to throw my tuppence in re this fisheries debate. Here's what I've come up with from my (admittedly limited) research:

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B274034C-8DCA-4CEA-ADD7-F0FC5652DA0B/0/Valueoflandings.pdf

Basically it reckons that on average there is €460m worth taken from the Irish EEZ annually (since 1973) and €800m from around Ireland. We already take 28% within the EEZ and 15% outside. So annually we "lose" approx €331m within the EEZ but we can assume (I think anyway) that we would take in around the same equivalent outside the EEZ. So over 35 years that would be just over €11.5 billion we have lost in the fishing industry. That in itself assumes we would have had the ability to land all that fish ourselves in that time period also, which we wouldn't have been able to do, which is where your figures probably fall a little flat deepspace. But even still lets just assume we could and work with this inflated figure.

We got €1.4 billion from the EU in 2005 alone FFS (http://www.finfacts.ie/irelandbusinessn ... 7375.shtml)!

Up to 2002 we were net beneficiaries to the tune of over €34 billion (http://www.finfacts.ie/comment/irelande ... nefits.htm).

Given that we only just became net contributors last year it would be relatively safe to say that thus far we have received from the EU over 3 times what we would have gotten from the fisheries industry (11.5*3=34.5 compared to 34 up to 2002 + guestimated avg 1.2 per year 2003-2006=37.5 approx), plus all the indirect income we have gained. Its a very provable point that we have in fact gained far more from EU membership than we could have alone, and to suggest otherwise seems to me to ignore all the facts.

The point re the price vs modern day value could be made just as easily for the contributions we received from the EU and I have seen no model re value of fish over the last 35 years that would allow me to debunk or support the comparison to house prices. However I would wager that this comparison is a poor one given the property markets boom here over the last decade or so. I can't see fish values increasing as wildly myself.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

Given that we only just became net contributors last year...

Actually, while we were supposed to become net contributors last year, we didn't - that shifted out to an expectation of 2013 instead. However, given the downturn, that will amost certainly move out another few years. We received €0.5 billion net form the EU last year.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Carlow52

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0925/marriage.html

The gist of the ruling is that the EU rules overruled the national rules.

sink

Carlow52 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0925/marriage.html

The gist of the ruling is that the EU rules overruled the national rules.

As they're entitled to do under article 29 subsection 10 of the Irish constitution adopted by a popular plebiscite in 1972. There is a coalition working to amend the directive to seal the loophole.