How does the EU expect to achieve a Federal Europe?

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

A 'popular' Irish economist about 15 years ago, contended in a Sunday newspaper that figure £30 Billion. I have heard of similar figures from other economists over the years, more or less the same figure. Maybe I should write and ask them, to explain that figure.
I have read on other blogs that a figure close to €200 Billion, which I personally think is, of the wall.

I'm glad you acknowledge we do play our part, and I would be grateful if you could qualify €8 Billion.

regards
padser

There's only one set of scientifically produced comparative data on fishing catch by country in other countries' waters, and it's available here: http://seaaroundus.org/eez/372/4.aspx

Click on the "Show Tabular Data" button at the bottom right. You should also look at the UK waters: http://seaaroundus.org/eez/372/4.aspx because we take a significant amount of fish from those under the CFP.

All other figures consist of taking a round number and multiplying it. The "£30bn punts" figure was created by claiming "£1bn a year" over what was then 30 years, the Sinn Fein figure of "€70bn" which figured in the Lisbon debates was created by claiming "€2bn a year" over 35 years. The "€200bn" figure was created by a journo called Tom Prendiville, who took the Sinn Fein figure and multiplied it by the notional value of a fish processing industry we don't have either.

The most common figure is Sinn Fein's "€2bn per year" and thus "€70bn", because "€2bn per year" was the figure used regularly in the Dáil - before we joined the euro, it was "£2bn punts per year", so that should really have become "€2.5bn per year", but why bother applying a conversion factor to a figure that never had any basis in fact anyway?

From time to time, the relevant Ministers have responded in the Dáil to debunk the "€2bn per year" figure - the figures they have cited from BIM and the like are in the range of a few hundred million per year for the total of the ICES sea areas the Irish EEZ falls into (and is thus a good bit larger than "Irish waters"). That's a range that also appears in the very occasional Irish research articles, and one that fits with the biological productivity of our waters, UK waters, and Icelandic waters.

You are, of course, welcome to try to track down a factual source for the other estimates - that is, real data - but as far as my searches have shown, there is no such factual basis for other estimates - they are conveniently round figures plucked largely out of the air, and which persist simply because nobody in the political debate could be bothered doing any research.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

The figures plucked from the air regards opposing parties to qualify their arguments - is as much insulting to the Irish Citizen as the governing parties reluctance to qualify arguments against, so' I'm at odds with that.

Having looked at the statistics on the website provided is very interesting indeed, I wasn't aware we had that resource available. I'd like to study it a little more, but unless I start 'cross analyzing' the figures it wont make much sense. Even then, unless I know price per tonne, and opposing net benefit's from the EU etc. it's meaningless

I have noticed from the graphs that 'Norway' figure quite prominently in the spectrum of other European countries landing's, and with a population relative to Ireland's, but a fishing water's area 3 odd times greater than our's - landed 250k tonnes to our 100k tonnes - from our waters (2006). It would appear we took nothing from their water's. They are not even a EU member state. What's the trade-off there, I wonder. Moreover, morally or in the Ecological sense, why are a relatively wealthy country like Norway, allowed to fish to that extent for a small population.

regards
padser

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

The figures plucked from the air regards opposing parties to qualify their arguments - is as much insulting to the Irish Citizen as the governing parties reluctance to qualify arguments against, so' I'm at odds with that.

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means. You're insulted by the fact that politicians use unchecked facts, or by the statement that they do?

Having looked at the statistics on the website provided is very interesting indeed, I wasn't aware we had that resource available. I'd like to study it a little more, but unless I start 'cross analyzing' the figures it wont make much sense. Even then, unless I know price per tonne, and opposing net benefit's from the EU etc. it's meaningless

Apologies - value of catches are here: http://seaaroundus.org/eez/372/14.aspx

Net value of EU benefits to Ireland is about €41.7bn:

Year|Receipts €m|Payments €m|Net €m|% of GDP
1973|47.1|5.7|41.4|1.1%
1974|85.6|7.0|78.6|1.9%
1975|138.5|12.4|126.1|2.4%
1976|151.7|17.0|134.7|2.1%
1977|346.5|28.1|318.5|4.1%
1978|520.9|58.5|462.3|5.0%
1979|671.8|77.0|594.9|5.4%
1980|711.8|112.9|598.9|4.6%
1981|643.5|133.8|509.7|3.2%
1982|764.5|173.6|590.9|3.2%
1983|924.0|234.5|689.5|3.4%
1984|1,100.5|257.1|843.4|3.7%
1985|1,433.2|270.8|1,162.3|4.7%
1986|1,455.9|305.1|1,150.8|4.4%
1987|1,397.1|324.0|1,073.1|3.8%
1988|1,474.9|314.6|1,160.3|3.9%
1989|1,644.7|362.6|1,282.1|3.8%
1990|2,210.6|359.2|1,851.4|5.1%
1991|2,794.9|442.1|2,352.8|6.2%
1992|2,531.9|448.7|2,083.1|5.2%
1993|2,849.8|575.8|2,274.0|5.3%
1994|2,338.0|641.9|1,696.1|3.7%
1995|2,566.5|689.2|1,877.3|3.6%
1996|2,820.4|687.1|2,133.3|3.6%
1997|3,190.0|652.0|2,537.9|3.7%
1998|3,015.1|989.4|2,025.7|2.6%
1999|2,678.9|1,051.0|1,627.9|1.8%
2000|2,607.2|1,075.0|1,532.2|1.5%
2001|2,417.6|1,220.0|1,197.6|1.0%
2002|2,519.6|1,011.2|1,508.3|1.2%
2003|2,581.1|1,190.4|1,390.7|1.0%
2004|2,610.8|1,185.5|1,425.3|1.0%
2005|2,379.1|1,496.9|882.2|0.5%
2006|2,201.6|1,529.7|671.9|0.4%
2007|2,085.3|1,570.0|515.3|0.3%
2008|2,064.5|1,586.7|477.8|0.3%
2009|1,810.4|1,486.3|324.1|0.2%
2010|1,882.2|1,352.4|529.8|0.3%
Total|65,667.6|23,935.4|41,732.2|2.9%

Source: http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/guidelines/BESSept2011.pdf

I have noticed from the graphs that 'Norway' figure quite prominently in the spectrum of other European countries landing's, and with a population relative to Ireland's, but a fishing water's area 3 odd times greater than our's - landed 250k tonnes to our 100k tonnes - from our waters (2006). It would appear we took nothing from their water's. They are not even a EU member state. What's the trade-off there, I wonder. Moreover, morally or in the Ecological sense, why are a relatively wealthy country like Norway, allowed to fish to that extent for a small population.

regards
padser

It's an exchange - we have quotas in Norwegian waters (recently the subject of talks). See here for example.

I'm not sure, though, how 'morality' is supposed to apply to fishing quotas. None of this is force majeure stuff, with poor little Ireland held over a barrel and shaken until the fish falls out of our bainín trousers. We've had, historically, a tiny fishing industry with very little deepwater capacity. It's a very marginal Irish activity, employing historically about 10,000 people before modern times, the majority of them part time - and the fishing industry still employs about that many. Were we free of the CFP, there's no sign we would do other than what we currently do with our waters - that is, trade the right to fish in them to other countries - but probably for far less than we'd get from the EU. Irish people never took up fishing for a living, even when times were much harder than now - the idea that were it not for the rapacious EU we'd be a fishing nation is just hokum. We could have become one between 1921 and 1973, particularly when we were going through our 'self-sufficiency' period under Dev, but we didn't even nod in the direction of starting to do so - had we done so, we would have entered the EU with a far larger fleet, and correspondingly larger quotas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

As per your own statement: Sinn Fein figure of "€70bn" which figured in the Lisbon debates was created by claiming "€2bn a year" over 35 years.

I referred to "sinn fein" as an "opposing party". as to the "governing party" which you referred to as the "relevant Ministers". I assume the "relevant Ministers", were not "sinn fein".

Since BIM are state funded, I would suspect their figures would support the argument of the "governing party".

The figures plucked from the air regards "opposing parties" to qualify their arguments - is as much insulting to the Irish Citizen as the "governing parties" reluctance to qualify arguments against, so' I'm at odds with that.

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

As per your own statement: Sinn Fein figure of "€70bn" which figured in the Lisbon debates was created by claiming "€2bn a year" over 35 years.

I referred to "sinn fein" as an "opposing party". as to the "governing party" which you referred to as the "relevant Ministers". I assume the "relevant Ministers", were not "sinn fein".

Sinn Fein are only one of the opposition parties which have used the "£2bn/€2bn a year" figure over the past couple of decades - it has been used by the Greens and all three main parties as well. The figures offered in response have been offered by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil ministers. Whoever is in opposition uses it, even if one of their own ministers has refuted it in government.

padser12345 wrote: »

Since BIM are state funded, I would suspect their figures would support the argument of the "governing party".

No, I'm afraid that's rubbish - BIM scientists produce various scientific articles and reports, from which Ministers quote the relevant figures. See here for an example of such a report, although note that catch values are reported there by ICES area, not by EEZ.

padser12345 wrote: »

The figures plucked from the air regards "opposing parties" to qualify their arguments - is as much insulting to the Irish Citizen as the "governing parties" reluctance to qualify arguments against, so' I'm at odds with that.

The standard of fact-checking in Irish political debate is extremely low, whether one is looking at media or politicians. Figures are used purely on the basis of whether they support a political position, not on the basis of whether they're likely to be accurate or even remotely grounded in fact. Your "I remember an economist saying it 15 years ago" is very low standard in terms of source attribution (what economist? how were his figures derived?), but it's still a higher standard than most people aspire to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

The economist was David McWilliams in an article in Sunday Business Post it may have been less than 15 years. So long ago a least, I don't quite remember the exact figures he quoted.

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

The economist was David McWilliams in an article in Sunday Business Post it may have been less than 15 years. So long ago a least, I don't quite remember the exact figures he quoted.

Irrelevant, I suspect, really - McWilliams' fact-checking is poor, even within the area of economics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Scofflaw wrote: »

Irrelevant, I suspect, really - McWilliams' fact-checking is poor, even within the area of economics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Now you know why I didn't mention it the first time! LOL

Scofflaw

padser12345 wrote: »

Now you know why I didn't mention it the first time! LOL

Well, I don't disregard McWilliams' facts because I dislike him - I dislike him because he disregards facts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

padser12345

Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell said today that greater EU integration can only be a good step for Ireland.

"And also, by 2050, which is coming at us fairly quickly, Europe will be about 6% of the world's population, and somebody said in parliament today that Germany and France wouldn't even qualify for membership of the G8.

Gay Mitchell's statement today, as a compelling factor as to why we should Federalise quicker.

poeticseraphim

Right well they have anounced how they will do it....and it is to be a plan in place with a treaty by 2014

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056753649

Sorry for linking to a thread i started i hope thats ok....erm well thats how Barosso said that there will be a federal EU with a treaty in place in time for 2014 European parliment elections.... It means the EU is to have it's own military..and if you listen to his state of the Union speech ....he says the EU military is to intervene in Syria...all for the Euro....because the Euro needs an Army ....

Watch how this govt spins this now especially FG...

It was obvious any leader who was once a president of the EPP was a federalist

Anytime issues regarding Irish independance is raised people are considered risable.

So our troops will be under EU direction ....and in my opinion the EU parliment is where every nation sends it's very isolated village idiots.

The scheme seems another farce.

The only one who questioned it was farage and i am pretty certain he is a racist....pretty entertaining though.

padser12345

Actually, I am very curious as to how FG are going to sell this to us. I think we need clarity first as to how we were led to this point before we can contemplate grandiose solution's.

MrD012

padser12345 wrote: »

Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell said today that greater EU integration can only be a good step for Ireland.

you have to remember this is the man who also said -

"Ireland has gained sovereignty by joining the EU"

How can you be gaining sovereignty(supreme Independent authority -wiki)
if you are handing over your law making abilities to foreign states.

PopeBuckfastXVI

MrD012 wrote: »

you have to remember this is the man who also said -

"Ireland has gained sovereignty by joining the EU"

How can you be gaining sovereignty(supreme Independent authority -wiki)
if you are handing over your law making abilities to foreign states.

I'm not saying we have gained sovereignty but here's one way of looking at it...

If we have 'handed over our law making abilities to foreign states' as you put it, then the converse must also be true, those self same states have 'handed over their law making abilities to us (and each other)'. Let's refer to this 'handing over' as 'pooling' which makes more linguistic sense, if everyone is doing it, and let's give 'law making ability' it's proper name of sovereignty.

One could argue that before this pooling of sovereignty Ireland could exert sovereignty over it's 4 odd million people, and after, it can exert sovereignty over the 500 odd million people across the EU. Therefore, one could say that Ireland's sovereignty had increased, were one inclined...

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm not saying we have gained sovereignty but here's one way of looking at it...

If we have 'handed over our law making abilities to foreign states' as you put it, then the converse must also be true, those self same states have 'handed over their law making abilities to us (and each other)'. Let's refer to this 'handing over' as 'pooling' which makes more linguistic sense, if everyone is doing it, and let's give 'law making ability' it's proper name of sovereignty.

One could argue that before this pooling of sovereignty Ireland could exert sovereignty over it's 4 odd million people, and after, it can exert sovereignty over the 500 odd million people across the EU. Therefore, one could say that Ireland's sovereignty had increased, were one inclined...

A better definition of sovereignty is "freedom of action", and one could say that Ireland has lost theoretical freedom of action through EU membership while gaining practical freedom of action. While the State was theoretically free to do what it liked in the Fifties and Sixties, practically speaking what it had was the choice to starve itself through North Korean style separatism, or to do only what the bigger powers didn't mind it doing, with no input into the actions of those powers.

I'm sure MrD012 thinks that's what happens in the EU, though, so I guess he'd see it as a loss both ways. The difference is stark enough, though, if one hasn't got those blinkers on - we're at the table, even if we're not the biggest player, while before, we weren't even at the table.

It's also worth pointing out that it's the Irish State that has handed over sovereignty, just as it has to bodies like the ECHR and the UN, and in most of those cases, as in the EU's case, the Irish citizen has gained in additional guarantors of his/her personal freedoms, rights, and capacities.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MrD012

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If we have 'handed over our law making abilities to foreign states' as you put it, then the converse must also be true, those self same states have 'handed over their law making abilities to us (and each other)'.

hold on a minute , what I'm saying is pre-maastricht we the Irish People had supreme Independent authority over our country and affairs , now we do not .

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Let's refer to this 'handing over' as 'pooling' which makes more linguistic sense,

lets not , the reason being that sovereignty by its definition cannot be shared , sovereignty is "the the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory" , therefore if you 'pool' it or share it out well then my friend its not supreme or independent what ever way you try to massage it.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

One could argue that before this pooling of sovereignty Ireland could exert sovereignty over it's 4 odd million people, and after, it can exert sovereignty over the 500 odd million people across the EU.

yes because as we've seen, we really have great power and influence in the EU parliament , we really are important.

padser12345

Could we liken the "Nationalist" or (sovereign) V's the "Supranational" or 'pooled'.....with the "Anti-Federalist" movement in the U.S, against the "Federalist's".

If not - I think its interesting nonetheless, that the differences, via "The Bill of Rights".... could loosely be translated as what one nation retains as what is deemed to be Sovereign. Or am I totally off track?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

oscarBravo

MrD012 wrote: »

...sovereignty by its definition cannot be shared , sovereignty is "the the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory" , therefore if you 'pool' it or share it out well then my friend its not supreme or independent what ever way you try to massage it.

By which binary definition, Ireland has zero sovereignty as a result of its membership of the UN.

Ballantine

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm not saying we have gained sovereignty but here's one way of looking at it...

If we have 'handed over our law making abilities to foreign states' as you put it, then the converse must also be true, those self same states have 'handed over their law making abilities to us (and each other)'. Let's refer to this 'handing over' as 'pooling' which makes more linguistic sense, if everyone is doing it, and let's give 'law making ability' it's proper name of sovereignty.

One could argue that before this pooling of sovereignty Ireland could exert sovereignty over it's 4 odd million people, and after, it can exert sovereignty over the 500 odd million people across the EU. Therefore, one could say that Ireland's sovereignty had increased, were one inclined...

It is surely Alice in Wonderland stuff to argue that when a country gives up its right to self determination, that it has increased its sovereignty. Politics is often about words, but that's like arguing black is white!

oscarBravo

Ballantine wrote: »

It is surely Alice in Wonderland stuff to argue that when a country gives up its right to self determination, that it has increased its sovereignty. Politics is often about words, but that's like arguing black is white!

What country has given up its right to self-determination?

Ballantine

oscarBravo wrote: »

What country has given up its right to self-determination?

Indeed.