The Lisbon Treaty for Dummies

Sam Vimes

I find it hilarious that you said:

x MarK x wrote: »

Amendments can be made, and by two ways too! First through QMV system, if majority agree with an EU decision.

Then

Also our corporate tax rate can be changed, again through the ECJ, they have already hinted at it, saying its a distortion of competition.

And followed it with:

Do your homework, before you come on here with your bullsh.it.

Right back at ya mate

To get specific
[list=1
[*]Amendments through the simplified revision procedure can only be made unanimously, not through QMV
[*]QMV is far more complicated than "if majority agree with an EU decision"
[*]Our corporate tax rate cannot be changed through an ECJ decision
[*]The only people who have pointed to the "distortion of competition" line are people on the no side who want to convince you that the ECJ can effect our corporate tax rate
[/list]

x MarK x

robna wrote: »

Hi, this is in response to chachabinx's question. This is a synopsised rundown of the treaty. I didn't write it but a friend of mine did who's well-up on the EU and politics in general. He sent this around to mates who were asking him for an explanation to everything the during the run-up to the first referendum, so bear in mind it the treaty has been rectified since the last time to supply the guarantees the No camp sought (which apparently are worthless now, according to some). One of the major issues the last time was in regards to the Commission which, as this explains, doesn't even represent Irish interests but rather EU interests. So just be very wary when you hear No campers complaining about the Commisioner, when it has very little relevence to this country at all. Though I must say, the yes side are making a right b*****ks of it all too, as they did the first time round:

The EU

Ok, to understand the treaty you have to first understand the EU, which in three lines is basically:

Parliament (made up of MEPs)
- represents the interests of the citizens, think parliament-people

Council (made up of national government ministers)
- represents the interests of member states, think council-countries

Commission (made up of government reps, "commissioners")
- represents the interests of the EU as a whole

Now, currently around half of decisions made are approved only by Council. So if there's a decision on environment law, the Irish Minister for the Environment will meet with the 26 other Ministers of the Environment in a room, and decide a common law.

The other half of decisions are approved by the Council and Parliament together, which means a lot more people are represented, but as a result no one Minister or MEP can block a law. This is "codecision". The Commission draws up the first draft of laws, and acts as a mediator.

The Council and Parliament behave very differently, for two main reasons.

• Council is a gathering of centre-right and centre-left government ministers, while Parliament is a mish mash of seven pan-European political "parties", covering every kind of political view.

• The Parliament has voters to answer to, Council has governments to answer to.

The big change

The biggest change with Lisbon is that pretty much all decisions will be made with approval from Council andParliament together. So codecision becomes the norm. This has a few implications, it will be harder for an Irish government minister to stop legislation, but the process overall will be a lot more transparent and democratic. Voting requirements are tough, and a little complicated. For a bill to pass it must be endorsed by:

55% of countries ministers, representing...
65% of EU's population
+ majority in the European Parliament
+ usually Commission approval as well

Only on "sensitive issues" (tax, foreign policy, defence and a few others), will we still see the Ministers decide on their own, in which case each country will usually have a national veto.

The other changes

The other big changes are as follows:

2. National parliaments such as the Dáil can delay legislation if they don't like it.

3. The Commission gets smaller. Currently every country has a commissioner but we would now have one two thirds of the time on a rotating basis. (remember: Commission works in interests of the EU as a whole and doesn't represent national interests)

4. The Parliament gets a bit smaller, and can never go above 751 MEPs.

5. The Council gets a president.

6. The EU gets a Representative for External Affairs.

7. There's a legal option of leaving the EU.

8. The EU gets a legal identity.

9. Fighting climate change and energy security are mentioned for the first time as objectives.

10. EU countries help each other in the case of natural disaster or terrorist attack.

11. The Commission has to take big petitions seriously.

"But it's such a complicated treaty"

It is indeed complicated, but so is everything in law. The summary of the Irish government's 2008 budget runs to forty pages, just the summary! The full text isn't even available as a single document. And that's just an annual budget in our wee little country, the Lisbon Treaty will have an effect on the half a billion people who live in the EU, of course it's going to be complicated. But "complicated" doesn't necessarily mean "bad", and just as with the budget, it's the job of lawyers, politicians and journalists to make the information digestible.

Dispelling some campaign lies

If we vote no...
The EU will not collapse
The Irish economy will not collapse
Ireland will not lose all its influence in the EU
but - the EU & Ireland would go through a political crisis

If we vote yes...
The EU will not become a superstate
Ireland will not lose its foreign policy or "neutrality"
We will not harmonise taxes, unless we want to
but - the EU will probably start to be more assertive on the world stage

In fact the main people will who suffer from a No vote are in Croatia and Macedonia, both of which are trying to get into the EU but are very unlikely to do so if we reject the treaty. The main victim of a Yes vote could be Russia, which is keen to keep the "divide and conquer" status quo when it comes to supplying gas to Europe.

There's no point in having a referendum on this issue if the whole debate centres on attempts to scare people about the consequences of voting the other way.

So basically...

Vote on the content of the Treaty!

There is a choice between two types of European Union. Whether you love or hate the EU, you still only have these two options to choose from. The first option is the EU as it is now. It works...it wasn't designed for this many countries but it still works! The second option is outlined at the beginning of this email, which to sum up even more briefly is:

-The role of the European Parliament will grow.
-The role of national government reps in Brussels will decline.
-National parliaments can delay legislation if they don't like it.
-Commission get smaller.
-Council gets a president, and EU gets a Representative for External Affairs.
-EU gets a legal identity and an official way for countries to leave.
-EU will work on natural disasters, terrorism, climate change and energy.

Finally

The treaty is an attempt to make the EU more democratic (power goes from Council to Parliament) and more efficient (Commission reduced in size).

The people who oppose this treaty (Sinn Féin, the far left and the left wing of the Green Party) are the same people who call for more transparency, more democracy, more efficiency and a "social Europe". Yet the Treaty provides all those things, and they oppose it! Sinn Féin et al's real problem is that they want a left-wing treaty, and Lisbon is a compromise, smack bang in the political centre. A very good compromise too, so good that every single parliament on the continent is willing to endorse it. Romania's parliament voted yes to Lisbon by 387 to 1! Denmark, a country which cherishes its neutrality a lot more than we do, passed it in their parliament by 90 to 25. Even in the UK, the most eurosceptic of all member states, it passed through the House of Commons with a majority of 346 to 206. If you can get that many people across that many cultures, languages and political ideologies to agree on a text, it surely can't be that bad!

I will respect that your friend went through great effort in putting that together, however, there are a few fundamental problems with it.
Through the new QMV voting system, a majority wins the day. So for example, if something is put to council of ministers, and the likes of France, Germany, Spain, and Bulgaria agree on something, through their collective large populations, even if we object, they win the day.
Also
All the key areas you speak of tax, military etc. If the EU want to basically over-rule us, they simply make it a legal matter, and challenge it through the ECJ, any rulings in this court over ride the powers within the treaty.

x MarK x

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I find it hilarious that you said:




Then


And followed it with:


Right back at ya mate


To get specific

1. Amendments through the simplified revision procedure can only be made unanimously, not through QMV
2. QMV is far more complicated than "if majority agree with an EU decision"
3. Our corporate tax rate cannot be changed through an ECJ decision
4. The only people who have pointed to the "distortion of competition" line are people on the no side who want to convince you that the ECJ can effect our corporate tax rate

Sarkozy himself said "low tax rates is a distortion of competition". This is a FACT. If this were challenged in the ECJ (and it most likely will be, watch this space), and they agreed, our tax rate will be altered. This is irrefutable.
Just to add... this is classic
Propaganda, yesterday RTE 6.01 news had Ganley on promoting a NO vote, apart from the fact he was constantly interrupted and then cut off in mid speech... the very next item they air...... wait for it....... Ireland is to recieve half a billion euro from the EU to upgrade our electricity supply. Even the reporter had to ask the minister, wasnt it very convenient were gettin this money on tuesday, and were voting on friday. Ya couldnt make it up :mad:

Scofflaw

x MarK x wrote: »

Sarkozy himself said "low tax rates is a distortion of competition". This is a FACT. If this were challenged in the ECJ (and it most likely will be, watch this space), and they agreed, our tax rate will be altered. This is irrefutable.

No, it's simply wrong. The Treaty doesn't give any power to change direct taxes at all, on whatever basis. Corporation tax is a direct tax, and the Treaty gives "the EU" no power over it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

eightyfish

x MarK x wrote: »

Sarkozy himself said "low tax rates is a distortion of competition". This is a FACT.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it's simply wrong.

Simple way to tell: Most of the time, if someone uses CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasise a fact on boards, it's not a fact.

Sam Vimes

x MarK x wrote: »

I will respect that your friend went through great effort in putting that together, however, there are a few fundamental problems with it.
Through the new QMV voting system, a majority wins the day.

you do not understand QMV. Please read about it:

* To pass: Majority of countries (55% or 72%) representing 65% of the population or condition to block not met
* To block: At least 4 countries against the proposal or in cases where, under the Treaties, not all members participate the minimum number of members representing more than 35% of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member are against the proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union

x MarK x wrote: »

All the key areas you speak of tax, military etc. If the EU want to basically over-rule us, they simply make it a legal matter, and challenge it through the ECJ, any rulings in this court over ride the powers within the treaty.

That is simply not true

SECTION B: TAXATION wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

SECTION C: SECURITY AND DEFENCE wrote:

The Union's action on the international scene is guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Union's common security and defence policy is an integral part of the common foreign and security policy and provides the Union with an operational capacity to undertake missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It does not prejudice the security and defence policy of each Member State, including Ireland, or the obligations of any Member State.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. It will be for Member States - including Ireland, acting in a spirit of solidarity and without prejudice to its traditional policy of military neutrality - to determine the nature of aid or assistance to be provided to a Member State which is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Any decision to move to a common defence will require a unanimous decision of the European Council. It would be a matter for the Member States, including Ireland, to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and with their respective constitutional requirements, whether or not to adopt a common defence.

Nothing in this Section affects or prejudices the position or policy of any other Member State on security and defence.

It is also a matter for each Member State to decide, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and any domestic legal requirements, whether to participate in permanent structured cooperation or the European Defence Agency.

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities. It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

Sam Vimes

x MarK x wrote: »

Sarkozy himself said "low tax rates is a distortion of competition". This is a FACT.

I don't care what Sarkosy said, if he indeed said that. The EU can't touch our taxes. end of story

PopeBuckfastXVI

x MarK x wrote: »

Through the new QMV voting system, a majority wins the day. So for example, if something is put to council of ministers, and the likes of France, Germany, Spain, and Bulgaria agree on something, through their collective large populations, even if we object, they win the day.

Here's proof they won't:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=109

johnwillnot

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't care what Sarkosy said, if he indeed said that. The EU can't touch our taxes. end of story

You need to read about The Common Tax Base on the EU website.

Here is an Excerpt:
The European Commission believes that the only systematic way to address the underlying tax obstacles which exist for companies operating in more than one Member State in the Internal Market is to provide companies with a consolidated corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities. Targeted solutions have many merits and would go some way towards remedying the tax obstacles. However, even if all of them were implemented, they would not address the fundamental problem of dealing with up to 27 different tax systems.

The Commission´s Directorate-General responsible for Taxation and the Customs Union is currently working on two main comprehensive approaches to remove tax obstacles which companies face in the Internal Market:

* The Common Consolidated Tax Base and
* a possible pilot scheme for Home State Taxation for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm

Sam Vimes

johnwillnot wrote: »

You need to read about The Common Tax Base on the EU website.

Here is an Excerpt:
The European Commission believes that the only systematic way to address the underlying tax obstacles which exist for companies operating in more than one Member State in the Internal Market is to provide companies with a consolidated corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities. Targeted solutions have many merits and would go some way towards remedying the tax obstacles. However, even if all of them were implemented, they would not address the fundamental problem of dealing with up to 27 different tax systems.

The Commission´s Directorate-General responsible for Taxation and the Customs Union is currently working on two main comprehensive approaches to remove tax obstacles which companies face in the Internal Market:

* The Common Consolidated Tax Base and
* a possible pilot scheme for Home State Taxation for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm

Does any of that remove our veto on taxation or remove the legal requirement for a referendum to transfer that competence?

johnwillnot

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does any of that remove our veto on taxation or remove the legal requirement for a referendum to transfer that competence?

Yes we do have a veto on Taxation but Enhanced Cooperation could be used to get around the Irish veto on taxation. This would allow 8 or 9 states to forge ahead on their own without Ireland's consent.

Here is an Excerpt from an article on the RTE website:
So why is Commissioner Kovacs bothering to draw up a proposal he knows will be shot down?

The answer lies in a hitherto obscure procedure known as enhanced co-operation. This was introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty, fleshed out in the Nice Treaty, and further refined in the Lisbon Treaty. It sets out the rules under which a group of EU member states can push ahead with a proposal on their own, if they find that the proposal is blocked by the whole EU. It has never really been used, but is the route to what some people call a 'two speed Europe', in which a lead group of countries work closer together on an issue or issues, and other countries are free to join, or not, over time. The Single Currency and the Schengen free movement area are cited as examples, but they did not use the formal enhanced co-operation procedure.

Read the full story here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html

marco_polo

johnwillnot wrote: »

Yes we do have a veto on Taxation but Enhanced Cooperation could be used to get around the Irish veto on taxation. This would allow 8 or 9 states to forge ahead on their own without Ireland's consent.

Here is an Excerpt from an article on the RTE website:
So why is Commissioner Kovacs bothering to draw up a proposal he knows will be shot down?

The answer lies in a hitherto obscure procedure known as enhanced co-operation. This was introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty, fleshed out in the Nice Treaty, and further refined in the Lisbon Treaty. It sets out the rules under which a group of EU member states can push ahead with a proposal on their own, if they find that the proposal is blocked by the whole EU. It has never really been used, but is the route to what some people call a 'two speed Europe', in which a lead group of countries work closer together on an issue or issues, and other countries are free to join, or not, over time. The Single Currency and the Schengen free movement area are cited as examples, but they did not use the formal enhanced co-operation procedure.

Read the full story here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html

And since we don't have to join, then ...........

johnwillnot

marco_polo wrote: »

And since we don't have to join, then ...........

But market forces could drive corporations and businesses to relocate in these countries.

K-9

johnwillnot wrote: »

Yes we do have a veto on Taxation but Enhanced Cooperation could be used to get around the Irish veto on taxation. This would allow 8 or 9 states to forge ahead on their own without Ireland's consent.

Here is an Excerpt from an article on the RTE website:
So why is Commissioner Kovacs bothering to draw up a proposal he knows will be shot down?

The answer lies in a hitherto obscure procedure known as enhanced co-operation. This was introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty, fleshed out in the Nice Treaty, and further refined in the Lisbon Treaty. It sets out the rules under which a group of EU member states can push ahead with a proposal on their own, if they find that the proposal is blocked by the whole EU. It has never really been used, but is the route to what some people call a 'two speed Europe', in which a lead group of countries work closer together on an issue or issues, and other countries are free to join, or not, over time. The Single Currency and the Schengen free movement area are cited as examples, but they did not use the formal enhanced co-operation procedure.

Read the full story here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0411/corporationtax.html

It has been done to death on here. I think even Future Taoiseach gave up on this.

We have a guarantee.

If they want to introduce a 50% CT rate between themselves, let them.

P. Breathnach

johnwillnot wrote: »

But market forces could drive corporations and businesses to relocate in these countries.

To pay higher taxes? God, you're clutching at straws!

Handsome Bob

Letter from Tiarnan Lee to Metro Mail
Michael O'leary used Iceland as an example of a country that is begging to join the EU so that it can enjoy its so-called benefits.

Well we're in the EU but what protection has that brought the tens of thousands of people who've lost their jobs or are in serious negative equity?

The country he should have compared us to is Norway - they have the same population as us, and the same fishing, gas and oil reserves. But instead of being in a heavy recession their economy is booming. That's because they manage these resources themselves whereas we have given all ours to the EU and Shell etc.

Every year the Norwegian parliament consider EU membership and every year they look to Ireland and the decimation of our fishing industry (and the total loss of €200 billion to our economy since 1973).

The Lisbon Treaty will destroy any chance we have of getting our resources back which is the only way we can recover from recession.

I saw this in this morning's Metro and as I am a proponent of "If you're not sure, just ask", I'm wondering if any learned poster on the treaty from either side can give me an insight into the above claims.

MarkK

The country he should have compared us to is Norway - they have the same population as us, and the same fishing, gas and oil reserves.

Norway has a massive oil and gas industry, which in no way compares to Ireland.

OldJay

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I saw this in this morning's Metro and as I am a proponent of "If you're not sure, just ask", I'm wondering if any learned poster on the treaty from either side can give me an insight into the above claims.

As someone who lived in Norway for five years, I can tell you that on top of the oljefonden, they also depend on high taxation levels, substantial import tariffs, protected oligopolies in the retail and service trades.

Norway does not compare. Neither does Switzerland actually. They have a backbone of economic support thanks to Oil reserves and Banking System respectively. A form of self-subsistency that is eons away from any Irish pipe dreams of similar infrastructural goals.

The letter writer is either conveniently deluded or an intentional liar hoping that no-one will bother to contradict. In short, he couldn't be further from the truth.

johnwillnot

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I saw this in this morning's Metro and as I am a proponent of "If you're not sure, just ask", I'm wondering if any learned poster on the treaty from either side can give me an insight into the above claims.

Is that the same Michael O'Leary that admits on TV that his Ryanair "Yes" campagain on the Lisbon Treaty is to get the Irish Government to sell him its stake in Aer Lingus. Aired Sunday 27, Sep 2009.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSAIAhMVFzc

Sam Vimes

johnwillnot wrote: »

Is that the same Michael O'Leary that admits on TV that his Ryanair "Yes" campagain on the Lisbon Treaty is to get the Irish Government to sell him its stake in Aer Lingus. Aired Sunday 27, Sep 2009.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSAIAhMVFzc

Will the FUD never end:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055694828

What was said:

Yates: Do you think that your campaign for a yes vote will ensure commission approval?

MOL: No, Look my campaign for a Yes vote...aah..one of the reasons that I am campaigning for a Yes vote is that our government is incompetent and yet I need to persude them to sell me Aer Lingus. The nonsense that I need European approval is just that, rubbish. Look, I'm campaigning for a yes vote because I think it's in the best interest of the Irish economy and the nearly 500,000 people who will be unemployed at the end of the year.

Scofflaw

johnwillnot wrote: »

Is that the same Michael O'Leary that admits on TV that his Ryanair "Yes" campagain on the Lisbon Treaty is to get the Irish Government to sell him its stake in Aer Lingus. Aired Sunday 27, Sep 2009.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSAIAhMVFzc

There's a whole thread about that - funnily enough, you need to really want to believe that's what he's saying. Otherwise, it might appear that he's dismissing the idea that he needs EU permission to buy Ryanair.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I saw this in this morning's Metro and as I am a proponent of "If you're not sure, just ask", I'm wondering if any learned poster on the treaty from either side can give me an insight into the above claims.

Is is mostly all crap, as we have one of the worst oil and gas exploration success rates in the world and Norway one of the best. While we have some commercially viable gas sites we still do no have a single commercially viable oil well.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/08/21/story7252.asp

Experience of the Irish market shows that, for every 50 wells drilled, one turned out to be commercially viable, Cahill said. In Norway, one commercially-viable well is found for every three drilled. In the North Sea one is found for every six drilled.

The 200bn figure is also way off. The true figure is in the region of 8.5 billion of which Irish fishermen have taken some 4bn, plus another 3.16 bn from other EU (UK mainly) waters for a net loss of about 1.44bn

scaredoflisbon

well done ireland.
I sincerely hope that the jobs come rolling in now...but somehow i'd don't think they will.

tman76

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I saw this in this morning's Metro and as I am a proponent of "If you're not sure, just ask", I'm wondering if any learned poster on the treaty from either side can give me an insight into the above claims.

Hi, thats actually my letter, I'm currently working on a documentary on the fishing industry and have met with scores of fishermen up and down the country - the best advice I can give you is go to your local harbour or port and ask them about the Common Fisheries Policy which is what Ireland was forced to sign in 1973 in order to join the EEC (or just look at the rusting decommissioned trawlers and the lack of activity). We currently have 4% of the quota of fish that is caught in our own waters where as the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Germans etc and catch the other 96%.

In 1973 Ireland had over 50,000 fishermen today we have just over 2,300...and for every 1 fisherman at sea there's normally around 4 people on land working, processing the fish, building boats, manufacturing all the equipment such as nets etc...The figure of a 200 billion loss is extremely conservative - but the fact of the matter is Irelands International Waters are around 12 times the size of her landmass - our real wealth lies under our waters and we have signed these rights away to foreign unelected rulers.....And every Irish fisherman is continually harrassed by the Irish Navy - a huge number have criminal records for simply fishing the seas their ancestors have for hundreds of years....just look up the case of Cliona Conneelly for an example.....

In terms of the oil and gas wealth - the Dept of Marine & Natural Resources did a report in 2007 and they estimated we have over 130 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of gas...that would mean we are one of the wealthiest oil and gas nations on the planet - which is why Shell are building massivie refineries in Mayo and Donegal...

The real issue here is the massive cover up by all our media agencies leaving the public totally unaware of the outright robbery taking place on this island - which is why we will have hundreds of people queueing for check out jobs in Marks and Spencers and the like for decades to come

tman76

marco_polo wrote: »

Is is mostly all crap, as we have one of the worst oil and gas exploration success rates in the world and Norway one of the best. While we have some commercially viable gas sites we still do no have a single commercially viable oil well.



The 200bn figure is also way off. The true figure is in the region of 8.5 billion of which Irish fishermen have taken some 4bn, plus another 3.16 bn from other EU (UK mainly) waters for a net loss of about 1.44bn

Where are you getting your figures from, you havent a clue what youre talking about

marco_polo

tman76 wrote: »

Where are you getting your figures from, you havent a clue what youre talking about

Befoe I go digging, Which ones?

tman76

Justind wrote: »

As someone who lived in Norway for five years, I can tell you that on top of the oljefonden, they also depend on high taxation levels, substantial import tariffs, protected oligopolies in the retail and service trades.

Norway does not compare. Neither does Switzerland actually. They have a backbone of economic support thanks to Oil reserves and Banking System respectively. A form of self-subsistency that is eons away from any Irish pipe dreams of similar infrastructural goals.

The letter writer is either conveniently deluded or an intentional liar hoping that no-one will bother to contradict. In short, he couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm the letter writer and I replied to you in Mondays Metro and I'll reply to you yet again - I'm far from deluded, as I've spent many years researching this and can back everything up with facts - which you can read below - so you lived in Norway for five years, and what?? you have no idea what youre talking about either I suggest you read the 2007 report from the Dept of Marine and Natural Resources or actually turn your TV off for 2 seconds and take a trip to Mayo to see whats going on down there - I wouldnt call you delusional, just an ignoramus

Hi, thats actually my letter, I'm currently working on a documentary on the fishing industry and have met with scores of fishermen up and down the country - the best advice I can give you is go to your local harbour or port and ask them about the Common Fisheries Policy which is what Ireland was forced to sign in 1973 in order to join the EEC (or just look at the rusting decommissioned trawlers and the lack of activity). We currently have 4% of the quota of fish that is caught in our own waters where as the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Germans etc and catch the other 96%.
In 1973 Ireland had over 50,000 fishermen today we have just over 2,300...and for every 1 fisherman at sea there's normally around 4 people on land working, processing the fish, building boats, manufacturing all the equipment such as nets etc...The figure of a 200 billion loss is extremely conservative - but the fact of the matter is Irelands International Waters are around 12 times the size of her landmass - our real wealth lies under our waters and we have signed these rights away to foreign unelected rulers.....And every Irish fisherman is continually harrassed by the Irish Navy - a huge number have criminal records for simply fishing the seas their ancestors have for hundreds of years....just look up the case of Cliona Conneelly for an example.....
In terms of the oil and gas wealth - the Dept of Marine & Natural Resources did a report in 2007 and they estimated we have over 130 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of gas...that would mean we are one of the wealthiest oil and gas nations on the planet - which is why Shell are building massivie refineries in Mayo and Donegal...
The real issue here is the massive cover up by all our media agencies leaving the public totally unaware of the outright robbery taking place on this island - which is why we will have hundreds of people queueing for check out jobs in Marks and Spencers and the like for decades to come

Sam Vimes

tman76 wrote: »

Hi, thats actually my letter, I'm currently working on a documentary on the fishing industry and have met with scores of fishermen up and down the country - the best advice I can give you is go to your local harbour or port and ask them about the Common Fisheries Policy which is what Ireland was forced to sign in 1973 in order to join the EEC (or just look at the rusting decommissioned trawlers and the lack of activity). We currently have 4% of the quota of fish that is caught in our own waters where as the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Germans etc and catch the other 96%.

In 1973 Ireland had over 50,000 fishermen today we have just over 2,300...and for every 1 fisherman at sea there's normally around 4 people on land working, processing the fish, building boats, manufacturing all the equipment such as nets etc...The figure of a 200 billion loss is extremely conservative - but the fact of the matter is Irelands International Waters are around 12 times the size of her landmass - our real wealth lies under our waters and we have signed these rights away to foreign unelected rulers.....And every Irish fisherman is continually harrassed by the Irish Navy - a huge number have criminal records for simply fishing the seas their ancestors have for hundreds of years....just look up the case of Cliona Conneelly for an example.....

In terms of the oil and gas wealth - the Dept of Marine & Natural Resources did a report in 2007 and they estimated we have over 130 billion barrels of oil and 50 trillion cubic feet of gas...that would mean we are one of the wealthiest oil and gas nations on the planet - which is why Shell are building massivie refineries in Mayo and Donegal...

The real issue here is the massive cover up by all our media agencies leaving the public totally unaware of the outright robbery taking place on this island - which is why we will have hundreds of people queueing for check out jobs in Marks and Spencers and the like for decades to come

http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/

* Have catches in Irish waters fallen over the years?
No. The total volume of fish caught in Irish waters rose from 160,000 tonnes in 1954 to 530,000 in 2004.
* Is it true that foreign fleets have taken €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters?
No. The total value of fish taken from Irish waters between 1974 and 2004 was about €8.5 billion. This figure includes fish caught by both foreign and Irish boats.
* Are Irish boats catching more fish than they used to?
Yes. Irish boats have doubled their catch since we joined the EU. In 2007, our boats caught 185,000 tonnes, up from 86,000 tonnes in 1973. This includes fish caught both in Irish waters and elsewhere. Furthermore, Irish boats now catch about 25% of the fish caught in Irish waters, up from an average of 16% in the 1970s, when we joined the EU.

marco_polo

The chairman of the Irish Offshore Operators Association:

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/08/21/story7252.asp

Fergus Cahill, chairman of the Irish Offshore Operators Association, said that oil prices did not seem to have had an impact on exploration levels in Ireland so far.

Experience of the Irish market shows that, for every 50 wells drilled, one turned out to be commercially viable, Cahill said. In Norway, one commercially-viable well is found for every three drilled. In the North Sea one is found for every six drilled.

tman76

marco_polo wrote: »

Befoe I go digging, Which ones?

Are you aware of the 4% quota that Ireland has - are you aware of the total yearly value of the catch? If we're losing 96% of billions every year then how much do you think that amounts to going back to 1973...??

If you can come up with 8.5 billion then you should apply to Shells creative accounting department

By the way this is not including the 48,000 fishermen that have lost their jobs since then and the thousands more in related industries....which would give a far higher figure