A question for Federalists on Irish fishing.

Typedef

Without extolling the tired old mantra that (a) Irish politicains are sleeze and that Ireland is best ruled from Brussels or (b) that Ireland is the hand out whore of the EU.

Please explain to me, how it is of benifit to Irish fishermen and Irish people at large, to allow foreign boats to catch a greater amount of fish from Irish waters, then Irish people are themselves.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/1210/fish.html

Kindly don't offer some stupid reasoning that the curtailment of the Irish fishing industry to the advantage of the Spanish one, is something the Irish people have conciously voted for, because clearly the Irish people would never vote for such a thing.

So basically I'd just like to hear a shred of conslusive evidence that proves that participation in this quasi-federalist superstructure in the Common Fisheries policy has in fact benifited Ireland.

I already suspect the position of the Federalist is that the decemation of Irish fishing is just one of those quid pro quos the Irish people 'have' to accept to participate in the Union.

Somehow I don't think Irish fishermen share that view.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/1128/fish.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/1108/fish.html

Regards
Typedef.

Cork

The fishing industry has been badly treated. I think our politicians need to make a stand. I think up to now - our politicians have failed this sector.

Originally posted by Typedef

Kindly don't offer some stupid reasoning that the curtailment of the Irish fishing industry to the advantage of the Spanish one, is something the Irish people have conciously voted for, because clearly the Irish people would never vote for such a thing.

Regards
Typedef.

They(The Irish people) might vote for it, if it was in their selfish interests to do so-that appears to be their reasoning at the ballot box(by majority) for many other things.

The fishing industry here just don't have the lobby big enough to counteract the wishes of the rest of the people.
That doesn't make it fair though, it's just life.
mm

Typedef

Man, be serious, when the pertinent treaty was put to the people that allowed the EU to set quotas on Ireland's fishing catch in it's own waters, had the people been informed (which is a favorite saying of the Federalists) of the reprocussions of accepting the Treaty to the Irish fishing industry, do you seriously expect the Irish people would have voted for such a thing?

Lets take the permis a little further shall we.
Ask the Irish people tomorrow if they want the Common Fisheries policy to decide the size, scope and potential growth if the Irish fishing industry to be decided by forginers in Brussels, in reference to an 'Irish' resource and see if the people vote for it.

Perhaps by this criteria, Ireland's Gas reserves should be deemed 'EU' Gas reserves and Brussels should decide what best to do with that reserve. Perhaps it is your contention that the Irish people would vote for that measure too?

Type,
I was being serious, I think they might accept this if it was put to a vote today, as you know what arguments would be brought foward for a la carte E.U membership.

Selfishness by the majority would probably win, as it did at the last election.

It's hard to know or even compare, what people would vote for today as compared with 30 years ago.
Back then we were a much simpler, poorer people, with radically different ideals than today.

I doubt if the Irish people would vote for, giving the right to award gas exploration rights to Europe, as sold properly they potentially could give the exchequer so much money and help keep our taxes down.
But then considering , the give away award of gas licences off our north west coast recently, it wouldn't matter whether Europe had them or not.
The cynic in me thinks brown paper envelopes flew about on that one.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Man, be serious, when the pertinent treaty was put to the people that allowed the EU to set quotas on Ireland's fishing catch in it's own waters, had the people been informed (which is a favorite saying of the Federalists) of the reprocussions of accepting the Treaty to the Irish fishing industry, do you seriously expect the Irish people would have voted for such a thing?

And what was that "pertinent treaty" that was put to the Irish people?

jc

<edit>
BTW, I'm not actually intending to answer your question, because you apparently only want an answer from federalists, and while I support closer integration with the EU than we have at the moment, I draw the line far short of a federal union.

Actually, I'm not sure if we have any admitted federalists on the board, so I would wonder who you were asking...
</edit>

Bateman

In fairness, I think Irish people would still vote for anything to do with the EU even if the consequences were fully explained to them. That seems to be the trend anyway.
As someone said, there isn't a very vociferous fisheries lobby over here, but then I still don't think it could handle the FF/RTE propaganda machine even if there were.

fimble

So what? Wasn't The Common Fisheries Policy the product of a political compromise between the elected representatives of the EU's member states?

What's so wrong with federalism? I thought federalism was about increasing the power of local governments to do what can best be done at local level and coordinating what can best be done at community level.

In the case of the Common Fisheries Policy, there's been a distinct lack of policing on the Irish side and a lack of effective enforcement on the Spanish side. Either way, since the nature of the industry isn't exactly local (shoals migrate and stocks diminish), the issue is best coordinated at community level. Since vast areas of French, Spanish and Portuguese seas have been virtually fished to death, what's perceived as a local problem has become a community problem due to the industry's nature and the political instutitions, whether we like it or not.

Due to the fact that it's highly unlikely that there'll be a reformation of the EU's institutions as regards its core structures, it seems rediculous to oppose federalism as a solution to this problem. The fact of the matter is that all down the west coast of Europe, the fishing industry is suffering - it's not just an Irish problem.

If there's to be any solution, all the fishermen of Europe should band together to lobby Europe for a better EU policy.

Cork

Our fishermen got a bad deal. There are our waters - we should get them a better deal.

Self Interest by the EU countries is fine. Look at the shredding of the stability and growth pact. We need to look after our Fishing Industry.

Typedef

So what? Wasn't The Common Fisheries Policy the product of a political compromise between the elected representatives of the EU's member states?

It's bloody easy for you to say 'So what', as I'd venture you don't know any fishermen or particularly care what happens to them as is evident by the blase nature of what you have just said.

What's so wrong with federalism? I thought federalism was about increasing the power of local governments to do what can best be done at local level and coordinating what can best be done at community level.

Since vast areas of French, Spanish and Portuguese seas have been virtually fished to death, what's perceived as a local problem has become a community problem due to the industry's nature and the political instutitions, whether we like it or not.

What is wrong with Federalism, is for me examplified by the current situation with fishing in the EU. You speak of a 'Common' problem, when the facts are that Ireland is allowed less access to fish it's own territorial waters by the EU, then other EU nations are. Thus I have difficulty in accepting your argument that Irish industry should be made to suffer under a banner of 'Common' problems, when in fact the overfishing problem is mostly the fault of Spanish and Portugese fishermen.

Reality bites.

The fact of the matter is that all down the west coast of Europe, the fishing industry is suffering - it's not just an Irish problem.

Amazing. Yet again you proport that with Ireland's access to EU fishing quotas being just 3% with Ireland having 11% of the sea space, you seem hell bent on including Ireland in a problem that is not of Irish people's making. In this I think is the best example of how a Federalist structure works in favour of large nations like Spain. Spain overfishes and rather then curtail just Spain, Ireland too is curtailed, even though Ireland is allowed less access to fishing quotas proportional to Ireland's territorial waters (Irish waters ... let that sink in), then foreign vessels are in totality

If there's to be any solution, all the fishermen of Europe (excluding the huge companies with their massive trawlers) should band together to lobby Europe for a better EU policy.

Well thanks for that sweeping statement with no substanciation and the pipe dream of excluding commercial trawlers, but I think at best answering my question as to how Federalism is an advantage to Ireland in the context of fisheries has been shown to be a complete disaster for Irish industry at European level thus far, so I'm not exactly inspired with confidence that Ireland will do any better begging for more access to Irish terroritoral waters from Brussels any time soon somehow.

Jc: The Common Fisheries policy was introduced around the same time Britain was negotiating access to the then EEC, however Maastrict I believe established the Common Fisheries Policy as a clone of the Common Agricultural Policy.

There is also the EEC Treaty which has futher references to fishing.

Self Interest by the EU countries is fine. Look at the shredding of the stability and growth pact

That is a very good point Cork. Apparently everyone in the EU is equal, but while Ireland has to play by "the rules" of the Common Fisheries Policy, the self dubbed "important" countries like Germany and Italy can reinvent the rules.

Someone give me that argument about Ireland having a moral imperitive to play ball within the so-called 'rules' of the EU again, it seems rather hollow.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Jc: The Common Fisheries policy was introduced around the same time Britain was negotiating access to the then EEC, however Maastrict I believe established the Common Fisheries Policy as a clone of the Common Agricultural Policy.

So, what you are saying is that these treaties were part of larger negotiations? And yet you seem to knock the idea that it was a "quid pro quo" agreement, and imply that the Irish would reject it if we were voting on it again.

To be honest, thats a pointless assertion. You're claiming that if we took one disadvantageous item from a multi-faceted agreement, and examined it in isolation, that our decision would be different to what the decision about the entire agreement was.

Isnt that a bit disingenuous? I mean, if I offered to trade you a tenner for a million quid, and you looked at both sides of that agreement seperately, one has you receiving a million quid, and one has you giving up a tenner. Overall, you would be daft not to agree to the deal, but if you look at each on its own, there is no justification for you having "freely" given up your tenner...which of course leads to the conclusion that you must have been uninformed, misled, or something.

I'm not implying that the values of my analagy are comparable - I know that they arent - but my point is that you are deliberately complaining about the isolated impact of a single agreement which was never taken on its own, which is an exercise in futility. Even your links mention somewhere that the fishing policy (and associated problems) of "Ireland's waters" dates back to the accession treaties...

To me, its a bit analaguous to the toll road problem. Ireland's government gets a lot of stick for the public paying all this profit to a private company for a road, whereas if it hadnt gone to private industry, it would not have been built at the time. So, while it was the right decision in its day, hindsight says that an alternate decision should have been made, on the foolish assumption that such an altnerate decision would have had no other implications other than the fact that we wouldnt be paying tolls to a private company today.

Simiarly, in the 70s, when these agreements were made, Ireland did not have a significant fishing industry relative to Europe. Our concessions were based partly in the need to allow other nations to maintain their (more significant) fishing industries, and the fact that such limitations wouldnt seriously impact our fishing industry.
After all, if you're only able to exploit (say) 20% of your waters, what odds if you allow others the use of the rest?

The decision was right for its time. Ireland have up something it wasnt really using and didnt expect to be using for quite some time, and traded it off for immediate benefits that it wanted.

Unfortuntely, today, Ireland has expanded its fishing industry while the waters themselves have been overfished (by us as well as by foreign fleets) and the overall haul needs to be decreased. All of a sudden, agreements we made are no longer so accomodating to our wants and needs. So, just like the toll road, we look at something which was the right decision in its day, and apply current thinking to the decision, and conclude that it was wrong, despite the fact that (as previously stated) this agreement was made as part of an overall quid quo pro, and despite the fact that Typedef and others cannot address the implications of what an alternate choice would have been. Sure, it would have kept our fishing grounds, but what else would have changed? Failure to address this issue means that you are only looking at a selected part of an issue and grossly over-simplifying the problem. No wonder its easy to come up with complaints.

Why are other nation's fishing industries being favoured over ours? Possibly because the relative impact of those industries on their respective nations' economies would be far more significant than the Irish one. Sure, such reasons matters nothing to "everyone for themself" proponents like Typdef, but unfortunately it does matter to those who are in charge of overseeing the Union in its current form.

I would be the first to agree that there is a major problem in the fishing industries of the EU - including Ireland. I would be the first to agree that reform is needed. However, anyone who believes that any reform will somehow involve screwing every other fishing nation and giving Ireland exclusive access more to waters we perceive as our own so that we can prosper while the other nations rot is living in fantasy land.

Someone give me that argument about Ireland having a moral imperitive to play ball within the so-called 'rules' of the EU again, it seems rather hollow.

No, you're dead right. No-one should follow any rules. That would obviously be a much better solution.

jc

dathi1

However, anyone who believes that any reform will somehow involve screwing every other fishing nation and giving Ireland exclusive access more to waters we perceive as our own so that we can prosper while the other nations rot is living in fantasy land.

How dare we percieve the sea around our coast as our own.....matter of fact...what about the ground we stand on.

Victor

Well, as I have said before, just charge royalties for the fish and then they will all shut up. It works with oil, gas and other extraction type industries.

Originally posted by dathi1
How dare we percieve the sea around our coast as our own.....matter of fact...what about the ground we stand on.

How dare we regard the fish as our own, they do swim in international waters from time to time, and with the super effecient factory ships flying flags of convenience,(compared to our much smaller fleet), it's likely that when they are out there they would be caught, leaving few enough to swim our waters.
mm

Elmo

(a) Irish politicains are sleeze and that Ireland is best ruled from Brussels or (b) that Ireland is the hand out whore of the EU

Do people actuall think this? I suppose China brought Electricity and food and education to Tibet.

As for fishing in this country we never built up our fishing fleets. Why? Do we need a hand out from the EU for this, why not just go out and do it?

If we did have a fedral europe I would assume that due to Decentralisation we would be main power in regards the sea. (Look Fedral and Decentralisation in the same sentance.)

Typedef

Do people actuall think this?

Yes. It is an argument used all the time on boards by a lexicon of users, namely. "Irish politicians are useless, roll on the United States of Europe" or some other utterly inane and useless monkey brained logic (read non-logic).

As for fishing in this country we never built up our fishing fleets. Why? Do we need a hand out from the EU for this, why not just go out and do it?

Ireland has a quota set (by the EU), which means that Ireland can only catch a certain amount of fish. This amount is vastly inferior to the actual amount of sea space that it deemed to be in 'Irish territorial waters'. Thus foreign fishermen have for want of a better word plundered Irish fishing grounds and because of this all the members of the EU have their fishing quotas affected.

So if Ireland were 'allowed' exclusive access to 'our own' territoral waters, and did not have to work within a quota imposed from 'abroad' in 'Irelands own waters' the amount of fish Ireland could catch (again in Irish waters alone) would be a little under four times the current catch the EU 'allows' Ireland to catch.

This is one of the most apt examples for me, of how Federal integration for Ireland, means second best in perpetuity.

If we did have a fedral europe I would assume that due to Decentralisation we would be main power in regards the sea. (Look Fedral and Decentralisation in the same sentance.)

Whatever would lead you to that conclusion, when foreign fishing fleets are allowed to catch vast numbers of fish in comparison to Ireland, while Ireland has so much more 'territoral sea space'?

What a misnomer of logic, that for some reason in this fluffy Federal Europe of fairness the Europeans like the Spanish and French would suddenly just let Ireland have her rightful share of fishing quota consistent with Ireland's share of the waters, when there is no way Ireland can force that to happen.

Still I'm sure that somewhere in the totally blinkered Federalist's logic, this plundering of Irish natural resources to the advantage of the Europeans is good for Ireland. I'm quite sure there is some convienent arrangement in the logic (or lack thereof) of the Federalists that sees benifit for Ireland in further integration and can simply cast aside evidence like fisheries as being 'an exception' to the rule that Federalism is good for Ireland.

I mean seriously, who could argue with the posters during Nice that told you "Vote Yes for them" and had pictures of children? Simple logic really, I'm surprised Irish fishermen have missed it, aren't you? Clearly "Vote Yes for them" makes it ok to inhibit to 1/4 of the potential of Ireland's fisheries catch (consistent with Ireland's territoral waters), don't you agree?

Oh and please don't forget, "What's good for Europe is good for Ireland", so you see throtteling Irish fishing is good for Ireland.... the mantra says so.

Regards
Typedef.

I can't see why,Irish boats cannot fly flags of convenience, and lease other E.U countries Quota's.
They work as hard as any foreign fleet, but appear to be mainly a collection of small sole traders and not big business's like their competitors.

There has to be scale in most business's for survival and fishing is no exception.
The issue of scale has been addressed in the spannish fleet and it is avoided on most small farms , simply by subsidies not available to fishing.
But then, the aims of the CAP appear to be to promote/subsidise a rural landscape with unviable care taker farmers, and not scale as in fishing.
mm

Victor

Originally posted by Elmo
As for fishing in this country we never built up our fishing fleets.

Well, we actually have some of the biggest fishing craft in Europe.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Well, we actually have some of the biggest fishing craft in Europe.

Yes - we have now. We did not have them when our government negotiated away a large amount of our underutilised fishing waters.

So, when the Irish agreed to give up rights to some of their territorial fishing grounds, these sacrifices effectively cost us nothing, because we weren't using the grounds at the time.

Now that we have larger fishing vessels and a far more modernised fleet, we find that the limits we placed on ourselves are now restrictive, where previously they were negligible.

Europe, of course, is to blame for all of this.

Originally posted by Typedef
Thus foreign fishermen have for want of a better word plundered Irish fishing grounds

Do you ever give the rhetoric a rest?

If you cannot find a better word than plundered for the actions of people fishing in grounds they have been ceded the rights to fish by the government who owns the rights, then your vocabulary is failing you rapidly.

Explain to me where the problem is, based on this alternate explanation of events, or explain what parts of this explanation are untrue :

1) Ireland agreed as part of its membership of the EEC to give up rights to large amounts of its territorial waters. The original negotiations hark back to our accession negotiations - as pointed out in the links you originally posted
2) These rights, under the control of the EEC/EC/EU, were handed out - as per the original intentions - to other nations, who then availed of them.
3) Overfishing caused everyone to have to accept limitations on the fish they could catch, in the waters they had access to.

You are arguing that when step 3 occurred, we should have somehow had the right to demand that our fishing grounds be handed back to us. Fine - then answer the question I asked earlier : at what cost? We gave up those rights as a part of a larger negotiation. If you want them back, you must also accept that you have to give back some of the benefits that were "traded" for these fishing grounds.

So - what should we give back, or do you believe that we should just be given our fishing grounds back for free, despite the fact that they were, in effect, payment for something in the first place? After all, your belief in the EU seems to be that while it is acceptable for them to give us something, it is not acceptable that we should ever have to pay for our membership.

jc

Cork

The Irish have a bad deal on fishing. I hope that they will get an improved one. They think the Irish box needs protection.

Portugal & Spain got pretty great deal. We have11% of the waters and we got 5% of the catch - this is pretty poor.


If we have to use gun boat diplomacy - I think we should.


The European Community?


There no longer is any sort of community.

shotamoose

Cork, I have to admire the way you mourn the demise of community and understanding in Europe while advocating the threat or use of force against Spanish fishing boats. I really hope you're not head of the Neighbourhood Watch at home.

Cork

threat or use of force against Spanish fishing boats

Sorry, I meant we should really get a better deal for our fishermen. I did not mean it literally. But, I feel we should not be steamrolled into a bad deal.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
1) Ireland agreed as part of its membership of the EEC to give up rights to large amounts of its territorial waters. The original negotiations hark back to our accession negotiations - as pointed out in the links you originally posted

2) These rights, under the control of the EEC/EC/EU, were handed out - as per the original intentions - to other nations, who then availed of them.

Ireland? The Irish government perhaps gave up this national right, with knowledge of what it was doing, but I doubt the people of Ireland would do so, if faced with the choice of allowing foreign boats or Irish boats fish in Irish waters, first and foremost above all else, and yes, in this sense the rhetoric (if we are to debate etymology) of the Federalist argument is totally self exclusive.
While it is ok to re-run plebscites on the basis of 'ignorance' of the public, it is the implied will of the people that that plebiscite on joining the EEC is sufficient qualification to cede national soveringty of Irish fishing waters away in ignorance.

The two concepts are exclusive, except when that fact becomes inconvient for the pro-Federal argument, so if you can't acknowledge that, then perhaps it is time to evaluate your own logic, with respect.

You yourself have argued that the ignorance of the people on the Nice Treaty made enough justification for it's re-run, so why does the same logic not pertain to Irish fishing rights? The people would never in a simple and clear unambiguous vote, vote to give Europe control over Irish Gas reserves, Irish territorial fishing waters or any Irish resources. As qualification I would point out that Ireland fought a long and protracted Land War to redress Irish soveringty over Irish natural resources, so against such a background it is illogical to assume that Irish people would be so filled full of the Milk of Federal mania as to cede soveringty of resources to the European Union, clearly.

3) Overfishing caused everyone to have to accept limitations on the fish they could catch, in the waters they had access to.

Which is an entirely subjective argument. The ramifications and consequences of ceding fishing rights to Europe were clearly never explained to the Irish people, as if those consequences were explained (ie Irish fishermen being precluded from fishing in Irish waters, whilst foreign fishermen could), I contend (and I have offered evidence to support) that taking Irish history as example, that Irish people would in fact be quite protective of Ireland's natural resources.

To be honest I think you are making quite a convienent argument. On the one hand, hey it's ok if ignorance of the smallprint of Nice for example is used as a valid justification for it's Nice's re-run. And if one accepts the premis that ignorance of a measure is valid enough reason to negate it's legitimacy I would contend that it is the case that Irish people had no real idea that voting to accept the Treaty that gave Europe (as opposed to Ireland) the final call on who gets to fish in Irish waters and so therefore the mandate you claim Europe is exercising soveringty over Irish waters under is in fact invalid.

Perhaps that logical contention is inconvienent in the minds of people generally, because it really doesn't jibe well with the notion that Irish people are so willingly Federalist, but rather co-opted through at best half truths told by Federalist factions as to the promised land of Federal Europe, without a single price to pay.

You are arguing that when step 3 occurred, we should have somehow had the right to demand that our fishing grounds be handed back to us.

Your thoughts betray you, notice use of the world 'us'. If I accept your proposition, then really those fishing grounds should be referenced as 'European' as opposed to exclusively Irish. Then again perhaps 'us' mean Europeans. Sadly for me, the way Europe can simply ride right over Ireland on this and enforce a lower quota for fish catches then Irish territorial waters would otherwise provide, means that for me as an Irishman I can never feel kinship with an entity that has in my view, caused grievance with my fellow Irishmen, though exploitation of a series of Treaties "taken as a whole", to use the Federal vernacular in reference to integration.

Fine - then answer the question I asked earlier : at what cost? We gave up those rights as a part of a larger negotiation. If you want them back, you must also accept that you have to give back some of the benefits that were "traded" for these fishing grounds.

Ah I understand, quid pro quo, only for me the mandate the grounds were given up under, was invalid as the consequences of ceding fishing grounds away weren't explained to Irish people in real terms. Was it ever explained to Irish people in simple terms that one day the EU would impose a ban on fishing in Irish waters to Irish people whilst allowing foreign boats fish in those same waters?

Of course it wasn't, that would be a little too much truth for the righteously indignant pro-Federalist manta about Europe being some sort of Mecca of illucidation, to bring poor old paddy who can't really govern himself in from the cold.
That mantra makes me sick, it makes me sorry to call myself Irish when I hear other Irish people stating it. Interestingly I have a philosopher friend, who has told me about a theory in philosophy that states that the act of imagining a State to be real in one's mind, makes that State so.
So perhaps in that regard, the mantra that "Ireland is best ruled from Europe" need only be exponenciated ad nausea, to make that mantra so.

So - what should we give back, or do you believe that we should just be given our fishing grounds back for free, despite the fact that they were, in effect, payment for something in the first place? After all, your belief in the EU seems to be that while it is acceptable for them to give us something, it is not acceptable that we should ever have to pay for our membership.

That's an interesting question. What do you contend was Ireland's quid pro quo for the traded fishing grounds? The CAP, perhaps, if that was so, then what did France trade? Maybe you mean structural funding? If that is the case then, why is it not the case that America dictates economic and political policy to Germany since after the Second World War, America pumped massive amounts of money into the bested Germany hmm?

Where does it end?

Meh

Ah I understand, quid pro quo, only for me the mandate the grounds were given up under, was invalid as the consequences of ceding fishing grounds away weren't explained to Irish people in real terms. Was it ever explained to Irish people in simple terms that one day the EU would impose a ban on fishing in Irish waters to Irish people whilst allowing foreign boats fish in those same waters?

So the referendum on EU accession is "invalid" because the people didn't understand the treaty? Is this the same Typedef who was arguing that the first Nice referendum result was irrevocable, no matter how ill-informed the electorate was? Can you please explain the discrepancy here? Otherwise you leave yourself open to accusations of hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Typedef
That's an interesting question. What do you contend was Ireland's quid pro quo for the traded fishing grounds? The CAP, perhaps, if that was so, then what did France trade? Maybe you mean structural funding? If that is the case then, why is it not the case that America dictates economic and political policy to Germany since after the Second World War, America pumped massive amounts of money into the bested Germany hmm?

Where does it end?

Well, the U.S did , in a sense dictate,that Europe should have democracy, by committing all those troops in the second world war to defeat Hitler.
Without the funding,it was a possibility that , Germany would be over run by communism, something they opposed.
And don't tell me , events on Wall street, or actions by the Fed don't influence policies in the E.U.

France being one of the founder and larger members of the original EC, pay a lot into it.
mm

Typedef

So the referendum on EU accession is "invalid" because the people didn't understand the treaty? Is this the same Typedef who was arguing that the first Nice referendum result

Good, I like that, attempted reverse psychology, without actually answering the question.

My point of course is that since the pro-Federalists have played the ignorance card to instanciate their own views on Europe as valid and then point blank refuse to acknowledge that the corollary of the argument against Europe is equally as valid on the grounds that the Federalists have exponenciated mere months earlier.

Of course I am speaking of Fianna Fial and PD supporters by and large, so such selective manipulation of fact is by this stage, an accepted fact of life.

Typedef.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
Ireland? The Irish government perhaps gave up this national right, with knowledge of what it was doing, but I doubt the people of Ireland would do so, if faced with the choice of allowing foreign boats or Irish boats fish in Irish waters, first and foremost above all else, and yes, in this sense the rhetoric (if we are to debate etymology) of the Federalist argument is totally self exclusive.

While it is ok to re-run plebscites on the basis of 'ignorance' of the public, it is the implied will of the people that that plebiscite on joining the EEC is sufficient qualification to cede national soveringty of Irish fishing waters away in ignorance.

OK, first of all, are you certain that the Irish people were not aware of the deals made on our joining the EEC in the early 70s? You keep inferring "ignorance" on the peoples' part, without ever bothering to show that they were, in fact, unaware. You bring this point up again and again and again, and until you actually supply evidence, I'm just going to ignore all of it as opinion painted as fact (something which, I would point out, you are asked specifically not to do in the charter of this board).

Also, as I have pointed out before, the entire deal was the joining of the EEC. You consistently are refusing to deal with this issue - the simple fact that we did not just "give up our fishing grounds". It is a small part of a greater whole.

The two concepts are exclusive, except when that fact becomes inconvient for the pro-Federal argument, so if you can't acknowledge that, then perhaps it is time to evaluate your own logic, with respect.

The two concepts are not exclusive. If you want to argue that there should be a referendum to decide whether or not we should stay in the EU, based on the fact that you feel we got royally screwed on one aspect of our joining the EEC, then I not only accept your right to do so, but I would fully support you attempting to exercise said right.

However, at no time did the Irish vote on an explicit fisheries deal. It was never an issue taken on its own, and therefore there is no basis for it to be removed from the other issues and dealt with as a seperate issue.

You yourself have argued that the ignorance of the people on the Nice Treaty made enough justification for it's re-run, so why does the same logic not pertain to Irish fishing rights?

You seem to have missed the entire set of posts during the last re-run where I explained to someone (coulda sworn it was you) that you cannot hold a re-run of a referendum which has already been passed, because the law has changed. What you can do is seek to run a new referendum to reverse the original decision.

I still stand by that. I see no reason why a rederendum cannot b held to remove ourselves from the EU (as that is what a reversal would entail). The only reason I can see why such a referendum should not be held is because I dont think there would be sufficient support for it. But hey - knock yourself our trying.

As qualification I would point out that Ireland fought a long and protracted Land War to redress Irish soveringty over Irish natural resources, so against such a background it is illogical to assume that Irish people would be so filled full of the Milk of Federal mania as to cede soveringty of resources to the European Union, clearly.

Sure. And one can equally state :

Ireland fought a long and protracted war to gain its independance, so against such a background it is illogical to assume that the Irish people would be so filled full of the Milk of Federal mania as to cede soveringty to the European Union, clearly.

And yet, this is what you are constantly bemoaning as the reality of today - that we are voting away our sovereignty. If it can happen in modern society, I fail to see the illogicality of assuming that it could also happen 30 years ago.

as if those consequences were explained (ie Irish fishermen being precluded from fishing in Irish waters, whilst foreign fishermen could), I contend (and I have offered evidence to support) that taking Irish history as example, that Irish people would in fact be quite protective of Ireland's natural resources.

First off - what evidence? I havent see a shred of evidence. I've see a lot of surely's, clearly's and the like, but I havent seen a shred of evidence. Its still just opinion painted as fact from what I can see.

I would also humbly suggest that you acquaint yourself with the history of Shannon fishing, and the impact that the Shannon Scheme had on it. Irelands government decided that the welfare and future of the state took priority over a comparatively small industry, which they condemned to extinction with the creation of Ardnacrusha and the impact that had on a local, natural resource.

I dont see a huge difference - in both cases, an existing natural resource was sacrificed to serve what was seen as the greater good. In both cases, the people at large have not offered largescale complaints. Yes - those directly affected by it have complained about losing out, but the nation as a whole generally seems to have accepted it in both cases.

WHich reminds me. Im amazed that you think the public care so much about our fishing grounds and all that, when I dont hear any massive public outcry. I hear the fishermen, and the politicians who support them, but the public in general seems to be quite "laissez faire" about the whole thing. So I'm trying to understand where your assertions that the public "never would....." are even coming from. The public are aware of this issue today, and I dont hear many rumblings.

On the one hand, hey it's ok if ignorance of the smallprint of Nice for example is used as a valid justification for it's Nice's re-run.

Actually, I'm pretty sure my main argument was that if it is not against the law, then it is legal. While you gave out huge speeches about the rightness and wrongness - the morality if you will - of various actions, I only contended that a goverment can only be realistically constrained by laws. I still contend that.

You, on the other hand seem to have stepped off your inviolate pedestal for propriety in politics and decided that rather than trying to argue against the wrongness of such occurrences that you will argue in favour of them instead.

So maybe you could stop making assertions and assumptions about the convenience of my argument, and maybe look at your own instead.

And if one accepts the premis that ignorance of a measure is valid enough reason to negate it's legitimacy I would contend that it is the case that Irish people had no real idea that voting to accept the Treaty that gave Europe (as opposed to Ireland) the final call on who gets to fish in Irish waters and so therefore the mandate you claim Europe is exercising soveringty over Irish waters under is in fact invalid.

OK, again with your langauge problems. I have explained several times, at great length, to you and others why the first Nice referendum was never invalid. I have explained why the result was not "set aside".

You can continue abusing the english language all you like, Type, but its not going to change these facts. what you are stating is not only factually incorrect, it is also something you have been corrected on before, which can only lead me to conclude that you are trying to be deliberately misleading here.

Your thoughts betray you, notice use of the world 'us'. If I accept your proposition, then really those fishing grounds should be referenced as 'European' as opposed to exclusively Irish.

Oh dear god. Typedef - they are Irish waters. Should we remove ourselves from the EU, they will remain under our control. For lack of a better word, we "own" them. However, while we remain in the EU, we remain bound by the fact that we have effectively signed over the rights to fish there. There is a significant difference between our territorial waters and the rights to use them.

You know...its a bit like owning a house but renting it out to someone. While you have it rented out, you have SFA rights to access the contents of the house.

We rented out our waters, and the only way to get them back is to either ask the EU to screw other fishing industries that are larger and more significant to their own nations economies than ours, or to leave the EU.

That mantra makes me sick, it makes me sorry to call myself Irish when I hear other Irish people stating it.

Not too far in the past, it made you sick to hear Irish people looking for re-runs of elections. Whats your point? Whatever your opposed to this week appears to make you sick of being Irish, but will be apparently forgotten as soon as its inconvenient to your next crusade.

Maybe you could just spare us the dramatics.

That's an interesting question. What do you contend was Ireland's quid pro quo for the traded fishing grounds?

I would have thought that you would know this, having studied how the fishing rights were given up (and allegedly produced evidence of how the public werent informed about it all). Maybe you should answer this yourself to show that you actually have examined the full issue rather than just looking at the fisheries issue alone (which I have been contending since the start is untenable)

jc