Large majority happy with Lisbon No vote: Poll

[ibis]

We may not be impoverished from giving away our fish as a country but we would be a lot better off if it hadn't happened. We have 40% of EU fishing grounds with a quota of 4% of EU total catch allowed, being 10% of our 40%. Estimates have equated this to over 100 billion in revenue lost over the decades since we joined. We received something around 62 billion from EU in handouts. Hence we have contributed tens of billions of euro. We really should be a lot better off than we are. Politicians have made bad decisions and everyone has paid with taxes and lack of facilities for health, sport, transport, enjoying life etc...

"Estimates" have certainly been made - there's an entire thread on the question. If you can actually provide figures and calculations to back up that €100 billion, I'll happily accept it - and I'm sure you wouldn't simply accept such a figure without checking it. Otherwise, my own estimates (for which I can provide figures and calculations) suggest the fisheries would have been worth maybe €16-35 billion over the period - assuming we had built our fleet up to the same levels as the entire EU in one year (1973).

Traditionally, the claim that is made in the Dáil by whoever is in opposition is that the Irish fisheries are worth €2 billion. Before the euro changeover, the figure given was £2 billion. It's not a real figure, but a nice round number, and no figures have ever been produced to substantiate it. On the contrary, the estimates given in the Dáil are fairly solidly around €1 billion annually for the whole EU catch in Irish waters, including illegal catches (see here and here) - hence the figure of €35 billion.

Note, of course, that such levels would still constitute over-fishing. To fish Irish waters sustainably would involve fishing levels about half that - €16-17 billion a year - a figure which would still contain an element of illegal fishing.

[anthonyfw]

Name one person in the EU who wants to "abolish democracy". And while you're at it, does your previous remark mean that we are entitled to interfere in the sovereign democratic processes of other countries? Yes or No, please.

It's slowly, slowly, catchy monkey. They won't admit to it in this country where we have to submit this Treaty to a referendum. The political Establishment across the EU admits the agenda is transfer of sovereignty to a superstate. An unelected govt of 27 countries i.e. the Commission, with an ECJ that will be able to use the Charter to legislate (effectively) from the bench, and a rubber-stamp European Parliament with no power to initiate legislation and where national referenda results are trampled on sounds like the abolition of democracy to me - or at least a regressive turning back of the clock to the days of oligarchy circa the 19th century.

Yes but stating that there is a "transfer" of sovereignty is slightly misleading . A dilution would be a more appropriate description . We are represented in every branch of the E.U as is every member state . Therefore we have a direct influence in all decisions take by any of the E.U institutions . I don't think it's fair to label the Parliament as a "rubber stamp" organ . Agreed that it is the weakest branch but it's powers have gradualy increased with every Treaty as seen in it's role in legislative procedures ( co-decision between it and the Council of Ministers now being the dominant method ) . The Commision at least should be directly elected I feel though , as to have the two strongest arms of governance indirectly appointed is completly unacceptable in my view . Governments are elected primarily to deal with national concerns . I believe the appointment of politicians to a body such as the E.U should be transfered to citizens . To say that there is an abolition of democracy though is a huge exaggeration . Accountabilty exists at all levels of the E.U and every MEP, Commisioner etc.... is subject(at some level) to the electorate .But it's just too indirect , and until this is remedied I don't think there will ever be the level of trust required for the full integration that the E.U deserves .

[ibis]

Name one person in the EU who wants to "abolish democracy". And while you're at it, does your previous remark mean that we are entitled to interfere in the sovereign democratic processes of other countries? Yes or No, please.

It's slowly, slowly, catchy monkey. They won't admit to it in this country where we have to submit this Treaty to a referendum. The political Establishment across the EU admits the agenda is transfer of sovereignty to a superstate. An unelected govt of 27 countries i.e. the Commission, with an ECJ that will be able to use the Charter to legislate (effectively) from the bench, and a rubber-stamp European Parliament with no power to initiate legislation and where national referenda results are trampled on sounds like the abolition of democracy to me - or at least a regressive turning back of the clock to the days of oligarchy circa the 19th century.

Yes but stating that there is a "transfer" of sovereignty is slightly misleading . A dilution would be a more appropriate description . We are represented in every branch of the E.U as is every member state . Therefore we have a direct influence in all decisions take by any of the E.U institutions . I don't think it's fair to label the Parliament as a "rubber stamp" organ . Agreed that it is the weakest branch but it's powers have gradualy increased with every Treaty as seen in it's role in legislative procedures ( co-decision between it and the Council of Ministers now being the dominant method ) . The Commision at least should be directly elected I feel though , as to have the two strongest arms of governance indirectly appointed is completly unacceptable in my view . Governments are elected primarily to deal with national concerns . I believe the appointment of politicians to a body such as the E.U should be transfered to citizens . To say that there is an abolition of democracy though is a huge exaggeration . Accountabilty exists at all levels of the E.U and every MEP, Commisioner etc.... is subject(at some level) to the electorate .But it's just too indirect , and until this is remedied I don't think there will ever be the level of trust required for the full integration that the E.U deserves .

Unfortunately, the argument against an elected Commission is relatively simple - elections are competitive. They're usually determined by what the candidate offers the electorate. If that doesn't seem a problem when considering that we're sending off an Irish EU Commissioner who has promised us what we want, but the problem becomes obvious when we consider that every other country will be doing the same - 27 Commissioners each trying to deliver what they promised their national electorate. The Commission is supposed to be a supranational body - the Council is inter-national - competitive national elections would mean that there was no EU institution to "think European".

In theory, we could try running elections based only on existing track record - no promises, no 'manifesto'.

[Clanrickard]

Unfortunately, the argument against an elected Commission is relatively simple - elections are competitive. They're usually determined by what the candidate offers the electorate. If that doesn't seem a problem when considering that we're sending off an Irish EU Commissioner who has promised us what we want, but the problem becomes obvious when we consider that every other country will be doing the same - 27 Commissioners each trying to deliver what they promised their national electorate. The Commission is supposed to be a supranational body - the Council is inter-national - competitive national elections would mean that there was no EU institution to "think European".

In theory, we could try running elections based only on existing track record - no promises, no 'manifesto'.

Sorry mate but that makes no sense. What is thinking European? Does it mean slavish adherence to "ever closer union"? Who decides what is European? All politicians all the time make promises and end up having to compromise. Also an elected commission might get a left/ right split. It could be like the senate in the US. Whatever way it is , it is surely better that the commissioner we send to Brussels be elected rather than the seat being used as a pension for clapped out politicians or when the ruling party wants someone out of the way.

[McDave]

Yes but stating that there is a "transfer" of sovereignty is slightly misleading . A dilution would be a more appropriate description . We are represented in every branch of the E.U as is every member state . Therefore we have a direct influence in all decisions take by any of the E.U institutions . I don't think it's fair to label the Parliament as a "rubber stamp" organ . Agreed that it is the weakest branch but it's powers have gradualy increased with every Treaty as seen in it's role in legislative procedures ( co-decision between it and the Council of Ministers now being the dominant method ) . The Commision at least should be directly elected I feel though , as to have the two strongest arms of governance indirectly appointed is completly unacceptable in my view . Governments are elected primarily to deal with national concerns . I believe the appointment of politicians to a body such as the E.U should be transfered to citizens . To say that there is an abolition of democracy though is a huge exaggeration . Accountabilty exists at all levels of the E.U and every MEP, Commisioner etc.... is subject(at some level) to the electorate .But it's just too indirect , and until this is remedied I don't think there will ever be the level of trust required for the full integration that the E.U deserves .

The structure of the EU is unlike anything else anywhere in the world. It's confusing enough trying to determine where power is exercised and how such powers are to be subjected to electoral mandates. However, the starting point has to be the EU is not a state. It does not really produce a significant proportion of the law that is directly applicable in member states (regulations apply to very specific areas). The main vector for legal provisions which impact on business, consumers, etc, is the directive which, if you like is usually a compromise on pre-existing national legislation in certain states which is then repackaged (harmonised) and distributed in principle form for the member states to implement in their national systems. This is a complex process which is not usually proposed from the grass roots and does not pass though the normal channels we would be used to in a member state.

This is where Commission comes in and plays a vital role. It acts as a kind of honest broker with a mission to act in the interests of the EU and not in a partisan fashion (if there are exceptions to the way this happens in practice, it does not negate the general principle). It is able to act impartially because its staff of civil servants are required to do so and are paid handsomely to this end. There is a political element to the Commission insofar as the group of appointed Commissioners are national appointees and their cabinets are appointed according to the needs of the Commissioner concerned. Introducing election of Commissioners into the equation would fundamentally alter (and politicise) the Commission as a whole leading to tensions being introduced into the system, such as reconciling political promises made to get elected which would come into direct conflict with the overall purpose of the Commission as a group of appointees + civil servants.

The issues of election to the Commission is misleadingly raised as a positive step to the democratisation of the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth. People who genuinely (and I obviously don't include most Eurosceptics here) want to see more democracy i the EU are effectively arguing for at least the following two contentions:

1. Democratic political power is best mediated in a legal order with a strong parliament and an impartial judiciary. We more or less have the latter. The former is the holy grail for extending democratic control in the EU;
2. Before the EP can acquire meaningful power, the EU will have to undergo a transformation towards a legal personality with characteristics far closer to a state than it currently exhibits. In such a transformation the role of the Commission would be greatly reduced. It would have less legislative power and would probably act more as a supporting service to the EP.

The point is, if you want more democracy in the EU, the Commission is not the place to be pitching your battle. If you want more democracy, there has to be more EU integration and the emergence of a stronger EP.

[Magror14]

Yes but stating that there is a "transfer" of sovereignty is slightly misleading . A dilution would be a more appropriate description . We are represented in every branch of the E.U as is every member state . Therefore we have a direct influence in all decisions take by any of the E.U institutions . I don't think it's fair to label the Parliament as a "rubber stamp" organ . Agreed that it is the weakest branch but it's powers have gradualy increased with every Treaty as seen in it's role in legislative procedures ( co-decision between it and the Council of Ministers now being the dominant method ) . The Commision at least should be directly elected I feel though , as to have the two strongest arms of governance indirectly appointed is completly unacceptable in my view . Governments are elected primarily to deal with national concerns . I believe the appointment of politicians to a body such as the E.U should be transfered to citizens . To say that there is an abolition of democracy though is a huge exaggeration . Accountabilty exists at all levels of the E.U and every MEP, Commisioner etc.... is subject(at some level) to the electorate .But it's just too indirect , and until this is remedied I don't think there will ever be the level of trust required for the full integration that the E.U deserves .

The structure of the EU is unlike anything else anywhere in the world. It's confusing enough trying to determine where power is exercised and how such powers are to be subjected to electoral mandates. However, the starting point has to be the EU is not a state. It does not really produce a significant proportion of the law that is directly applicable in member states (regulations apply to very specific areas). The main vector for legal provisions which impact on business, consumers, etc, is the directive which, if you like is usually a compromise on pre-existing national legislation in certain states which is then repackaged (harmonised) and distributed in principle form for the member states to implement in their national systems. This is a complex process which is not usually proposed from the grass roots and does not pass though the normal channels we would be used to in a member state.

This is where Commission comes in and plays a vital role. It acts as a kind of honest broker with a mission to act in the interests of the EU and not in a partisan fashion (if there are exceptions to the way this happens in practice, it does not negate the general principle). It is able to act impartially because its staff of civil servants are required to do so and are paid handsomely to this end. There is a political element to the Commission insofar as the group of appointed Commissioners are national appointees and their cabinets are appointed according to the needs of the Commissioner concerned. Introducing election of Commissioners into the equation would fundamentally alter (and politicise) the Commission as a whole leading to tensions being introduced into the system, such as reconciling political promises made to get elected which would come into direct conflict with the overall purpose of the Commission as a group of appointees + civil servants.

The issues of election to the Commission is misleadingly raised as a positive step to the democratisation of the EU. Nothing could be further from the truth. People who genuinely (and I obviously don't include most Eurosceptics here) want to see more democracy i the EU are effectively arguing for at least the following two contentions:

1. Democratic political power is best mediated in a legal order with a strong parliament and an impartial judiciary. We more or less have the latter. The former is the holy grail for extending democratic control in the EU;
2. Before the EP can acquire meaningful power, the EU will have to undergo a transformation towards a legal personality with characteristics far closer to a state than it currently exhibits. In such a transformation the role of the Commission would be greatly reduced. It would have less legislative power and would probably act more as a supporting service to the EP.

The point is, if you want more democracy in the EU, the Commission is not the place to be pitching your battle. If you want more democracy, there has to be more EU integration and the emergence of a stronger EP.

This is interesting analysis. It is a peculier aspect of the debate that both Eurofederalists and Eurosceptics demand more "democracy". In the case of the latter I suspect this is because they think it sounds good and rely on the fact that enough of the electorate don't understand how the EU works. If the electorate were aware of what more democracy in the EU really meant they would be less enamoured of the argument.

[McDave]

Looks like this assertion on public sentiment is starting to unravel, if today's Sindo poll is anything to go by. If these data are anyway accurate, we're pretty much back at the voting figures on the day of the referendum. While it's early days, this could be some evidence that No sentiment has passed its high watermark. The Sindo editorial adds a note of caution to its own poll results though warning Cowen to tread carefully. Still Cowen, can garner some encouragement from a current level of sentiment that is significantly less negative than a few weeks ago.

There's a lot of hard work in understanding precisely what led to the No vote, but when the Govt gets a handle on it, they'll be able to open a dialogue with the middle ground in the electorate to impart a better understanding on why they think Lisbon is a worthwhile step for Europe and Ireland. As the SB Post editorial argues today, the EU 26 will wait a while for Ireland to decide conclusively which way we want to swing, and that we can't hold up the current integration step for the other 26 colleagues for ever.

So it looks increasingly likely that there will be a Lisbon 2. The Govt will have to navigate through a painstaking negotiation process towards an outcome which will satisfy the people and deliver a Yes. That's a big ask. But on the evidence of today's poll, I think the Irish people are prepared to give Lisbon 2 a fair hearing.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Looks like this assertion on public sentiment is starting to unravel, if today's Sindo poll is anything to go by. If these data are anyway accurate, we're pretty much back at the voting figures on the day of the referendum. While it's early days, this could be some evidence that No sentiment has passed its high watermark. The Sindo editorial adds a note of caution to its own poll results though warning Cowen to tread carefully. Still Cowen, can garner some encouragement from a current level of sentiment that is significantly less negative than a few weeks ago.

There's a lot of hard work in understanding precisely what led to the No vote, but when the Govt gets a handle on it, they'll be able to open a dialogue with the middle ground in the electorate to impart a better understanding on why they think Lisbon is a worthwhile step for Europe and Ireland. As the SB Post editorial argues today, the EU 26 will wait a while for Ireland to decide conclusively which way we want to swing, and that we can't hold up the current integration step for the other 26 colleagues for ever.

So it looks increasingly likely that there will be a Lisbon 2. The Govt will have to navigate through a painstaking negotiation process towards an outcome which will satisfy the people and deliver a Yes. That's a big ask. But on the evidence of today's poll, I think the Irish people are prepared to give Lisbon 2 a fair hearing.

The Sindo poll has a woefully small sample of 500 people, which is worthless in my book. Not least because of its repeated assertions over the last few months that SF's vote is only 2-3% when all the other polls with decent (1000+) samples show it closer to 7-10%.

[deepblue]

We may not be impoverished from giving away our fish as a country but we would be a lot better off if it hadn't happened. We have 40% of EU fishing grounds with a quota of 4% of EU total catch allowed, being 10% of our 40%. Estimates have equated this to over 100 billion in revenue lost over the decades since we joined. We received something around 62 billion from EU in handouts. Hence we have contributed tens of billions of euro. We really should be a lot better off than we are. Politicians have made bad decisions and everyone has paid with taxes and lack of facilities for health, sport, transport, enjoying life etc...

"Estimates" have certainly been made - there's an entire thread on the question. If you can actually provide figures and calculations to back up that €100 billion, I'll happily accept it - and I'm sure you wouldn't simply accept such a figure without checking it. Otherwise, my own estimates (for which I can provide figures and calculations) suggest the fisheries would have been worth maybe €16-35 billion over the period - assuming we had built our fleet up to the same levels as the entire EU in one year (1973).

Traditionally, the claim that is made in the Dáil by whoever is in opposition is that the Irish fisheries are worth €2 billion. Before the euro changeover, the figure given was £2 billion. It's not a real figure, but a nice round number, and no figures have ever been produced to substantiate it. On the contrary, the estimates given in the Dáil are fairly solidly around €1 billion annually for the whole EU catch in Irish waters, including illegal catches (see here and here) - hence the figure of €35 billion.

Note, of course, that such levels would still constitute over-fishing. To fish Irish waters sustainably would involve fishing levels about half that - €16-17 billion a year - a figure which would still contain an element of illegal fishing.

Here is my attempt at explanation for the other 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:W8 ... 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/B2740 ... ndings.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:f9 ... 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:W8 ... 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/B2740 ... ndings.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/ ... ishery.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/irelande ... nefits.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=/docu ... 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.