Brexit Essays #1: Time for Ireland to grow up and get beyond its devotion to the EU?

James Darby writing in response to the Irish Ambassador to London Dan Mulhall’s opinion piece on the UK’s EU referendum and the implications for Irish-UK relations found here .

Official Ireland is fully against the UK leaving the EU. Once again groupthink has dominated discourse in Ireland about this issue. As in 1999 when all of the political establishment supported Ireland adopting the EURO, no alternative view has been put forward.

Ambassador Mulhall’s argument on how Breixt would affect Irish-UK relations is largely based on conjecture and a small dose of revisionism. He starts with the assertion that the EU has kept the continent of Europe peaceful .

However NATO was founded in 1949 long before the EEC (1958) has been largely responsible with keeping peace in Europe. It is the single biggest contributor to peace and security in the Western world today.

The EU through may have contributed to peace on a diplomatic and political level but the current expansionist plans of the EU mean it is more likely to cause conflict than prevent it.

Ukraine is a prime example of this and the conflict in this country is a natural consequence of the EU aggressively expanding eastwards as it comes into conflict with Russian regional interests .

The Ambassador also credits the EU for supporting the Northern Ireland peace process.

Of course the EU supported the NI peace process as any organisation would, but it played no significant part in the talks or process involved.

But it was largely down to Unionists and nationalists coming together, the great work of the British and Irish governments and a very significant contribution from the United States under President Bill Clinton.

He also expresses concern about the impact of trade between Ireland and the UK which is currently worth around 50BN
annually. Trade has been active between Ireland and the UK for a long time, well before the EU was even conceived and is not dependent on being part of a political union.

Trade happens from business to business.

Moody’s rating agency have reported that any economic implications for Ireland in event of Brexit would be ‘manageable’. He also fails to mention the opportunities Brexit could open for Ireland in terms of attracting inward investment.

We are told by REMAIN campaigners that a UK exit from the EU would mean less foreign investment in the UK.If this is true, Ireland would become a natural alternative.

With a much smaller economy than our neighbours, Ireland would only need to attract a small portion of this
investment to have a significant positive effect.

Our low corporation tax rate, educated ,skilled and English speaking workforce would be a major attraction for investment diverted from the UK.

Ambassador Mulhall also raises the spectre of border controls and restrictions on travel between UK and the
Republic of Ireland. But the Common Travel Area (CTA) which originated in 1923 rests on a bilateral agreement
between the Irish and British governments.

It predates and is totally independent of the EU and was last updated in 2011. With such close trade, migration and cultural ties between the UK and Ireland it would make no sense to impose border controls.

Finally Ambassador Mulhall says a Brexit would be a blow to the European Union and members would be ‘sorry’ to see them go. A Britain outside the EU would still be able to engage with the EU on matters relating to such things as trade, security, migration, climate change and a whole host of other issues.

It would simply be engaging from outside the tent rather from within. An EU without a reluctant Britain will make it leaner and more free to pursue its federalist aims.

One wonders why Ireland’s political establishment and media are so slavishly Pro- EU in its outlook.At Easter the same Irish establishment celebrated the Easter Rising of 1916, which eventually led to Ireland gaining independence.

It seems hypocritical to wish to deny our neighbours the same thing as it decides to stay or leave the European Union. Both Nice and the Lisbon treaty were rejected by the Irish electorate, only to be told to vote again .

There was little sign of European unity and solidarity when the European banking crisis came along. Ireland has been forced to shoulder 42 per cent of the cost averaging €9,000 per person.

Whereas the average cost across the EU is €192 per person. Not only has national democracy and sovereignty been undermined, our ability to shape and control our own destiny in the world has been deeply compromised.

Cheap money and the arrival of cheap labour contributed to a boom and bust scenario.

Many young people have had to emigrate in recent years.Unfortunately the Irish political establishment have sold Ireland out to a project which is ill conceived and in desperate trouble.

Hopefully a Brexit will lead to Ireland finally growing up and reconsidering its peculiar devotion to the EU before it’s too late.

This is a guest slot to give a platform for new writers either as a one off, or a prelude to becoming part of the regular Slugger team.

  • willie drennan

    I read these words of wisdom with a sigh of relief. We are being fed so much false information from the British elite and Irish elite who have been personally benefiting from the corrupt power-grabbing EU institution. Following a Brexit there would be no border posts set up across the island of Ireland. Irish people and British people have long been able to travel, live and work in either political jurisdiction and would continue to do so.
    I believe there is as much positive opportunity for Ireland, as there is for the UK, in shedding the bureaucratic shackles of Brussels. And glorious opportunity for greater economic ties and trade collaborations: opportunity to finally put historic divisions in some historic bin inside a history museum.
    A UK vote to Remain will mean further travel down the same old monotonous road of subservience to foreign super powers, for both UK and ROI. What would the leaders of the 1916 Rising make of this present stance of ‘Official Ireland?

  • hgreen

    House! Anyone else get a full house or a line in the Irish cliché bingo? Peace process, check, emigration check, corporation tax check.
    Ireland has no devotion to the EU just a pragmatic understanding that membership is on the whole beneficial for the country.

  • Kevin Breslin

    I welcome the addition of more diversity in the debate and the breaking up of group think.

    The thing I love about the European Union is that it has shown that there isn’t Groupthink at all, there are arguments, and debates and negotiations and disagreements. It is an organisation where diversity dominates over unity, where chaos prospers over order.

    There’s enough anarchy within the European Union for me to feel free within it.

    It’s like any relationship, you don’t take away the independence of your partners or friends, you simply make a few commitments.

    I may disagree with many of the decisions of the European Union, but I know the origins of everything I disagree with often come from right-wingers who have democratic mandates and make those decisions in their own countries anyway.

    As an Irish nationalist, I’ve grown up with a sense of the importance of the land I love and the people who live there. I’ve been in every county in Ireland more times than I’ve been in most of England, Scotland and Wales.

    I’m proud of its achievements, its resourcefulness as a small independent nation, and its resilience in the face of economic pressures. I’m proud of a nation where a man took his government to court to ensure every EU treaty had to be passed by a national referendum.

    I’m proud of a nation that doesn’t think that the mistakes and responsibilities of its own government are all ultimately the fault of the European Union, and therefore is trapped in the delusion of Independence without Consequences, or the safety blanket of scapegoating the European Union and the British for things it has the power to fix itself.

    That is my version of Irish national pride.

    I moved to the Republic at the height of the economic recession, I’ve been in the sort of small businesses that were the backbone of the Economy, leaving the EU wouldn’t mean the end of the world, but it would add more bureaucracy to its trade in overseas markets inside the EU/EEA area, and add uncertainty over the trade deals made with nations beyond the EU for that small business.

    I’ve seen Irish and foreigner side by side sleeping on the street. It’s not a “them and us”, it’s human beings that have and human beings that don’t have.

    We don’t need the European Union’s permission to help our homeless.

    EU Migration rules or the absence of EU migration rules aren’t going to make people give more of a damn either way.

    I’ve worked here on a minimum wage job in Northern Ireland, living with my dad, cleaning bins in my late 20’s in companies that hired staff from other nations to be chefs. The idea that a French or Russian or Indian chef who’s taken the time to do that profession, kept me a person with 2 STEM qualifications from taking that job lifting and smelling rubbish from the back of a pub.

    We don’t need the European Union’s permission to help our unemployed.

    Xenophobia and Nationalism never got me a job or a decent wage, as someone with Asperger’s Syndrome, I was just as much a victim of the “Fear of the Strange” as anyone else.

    I’ve seen separatism being used as a substitute for personal responsibility.

    The European has 26 other safeguards to such abuse of its power, and that of a forced POLITICAL UNION against the wishes of its people … they are: Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic or Czechia as it may be known now, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

    Some of these nations are small nations like the Republic of Ireland, some of them are bigger economies like the United Kingdom, they all want a Single Market and reasonable freedom for their people within that market, they don’t want Political Union. Many of these nations fought with one another to get freedom.

    Those 28 countries are not going to be manipulated by single nations like a post-Brexit UK or by an institution like the European Union.

    These 28 countries make the European Union by sovereign and democratic compromise. To me the European Union represents a kind of Nash Equilibrium of European Union Democracy.

    Nationhood without compromise, is like Friendship without the commitment.

    Why there won’t be a Brexit at the end of the day, it will be down to the fact that the Nationalists will be portrayed as selfish and isolationist, and the European Unionists will be seen as selfish too, but a little more pluralist in its outlook.

    Ultimately, Ireland, United Kingdom, the European Union …and the World …

    .. Well Paul Brady sang it best.

  • Msiegnaro

    Unfortunately due to “Project Fear,” “Project Brexit” has no chance.

  • Msiegnaro

    Beneficial, how?

  • Msiegnaro

    How are we free within it? When Cameron in the past has attempted to put in place immigration quotas etc the EU have blocked him. Little can actually happen without the EU’s approval.

  • Declan Doyle

    It is not EU approval. The rules surrounding such things have been agreed democratically through treaties down through the years. British governments and various ministers have been just as much apart of the decision making process as anybody else. The problem here is mainly one of image; the idea that some foreign power is forcing laws down the throats of British citizens. It is simply not true. Regarding Brexit, nobody can actually say with any degree of certainty if Britains future prosperity is better served inside or outside the EU. Therefore, the question people must ask themselves transcends economics and political power base. Do British people want to be part of the European project or not? And on what basis do they make that decision?

  • colmh

    “Following a Brexit there would be no border posts set up across the island of Ireland. Irish people and British people have long been able to travel, live and work in either political jurisdiction and would continue to do so.”

    But who says it’s a decision for the Irish to make? If Ireland finds itself with a land border with a non-EU country Brussels may tell them there has to be a border.

  • Surveyor

    Comparing the E.U. to Hitler shows that the Brexit Campaign isn’t adverse to spreading fear either.

  • Kevin Breslin

    It is Ireland’s shared border with the United Kingdom, so the idea that either the UK or the EU could take unilateral action without their co-operation seems naive.

    If the UK insists on overzealous border checking, and the European Union insists on customs posts, then the Republic of Ireland needs something in return.

    The Republic could impose CAP customs rather easily with GB as it does with Iceland, but the NI situation pretty much forces them and NI back into the 1960’s arrangement.

    With regards to the overzealous border checking and demands for the Irish government to pay to enforce migration policies that are more about Brittish public confidence in its own government than migration between the island and on the island, the U.K. would have to either agree to Ireland’s terms for this to occur through an entirely new bilateral, or unilaterally declare war effectively on it and attempt to take the whole island back.

  • Roger

    “Trade has been active between Ireland and the UK for a long time, well before the EU was even conceived and is not dependent on being part of a political union.”

    There was a lot less trade between IRL and UK pre-EU.

    “We are told by REMAIN campaigners that a UK exit from the EU would mean less foreign investment in the UK.If this is true, Ireland would become a natural alternative.”

    Agreed. It could be good for IRL.

    “But the Common Travel Area (CTA) which originated in 1923 rests on a bilateral agreement between the Irish and British governments…it would make no sense to impose border controls.”

    IRL will continue to be an EU member. It won’t have ability to impose visa restrictions on EU nationals. The UK will. This doesn’t rule out continuance of CTA but makes it harder. How secure would UK borders be from unwanted Bulgarian migrants if Bulgarians have an unquestioned right to migrate to Ireland from where they can cross into the UK without checks. IRL will no longer be able to tailor its visa requirements to keep them generally in line with those of the UK. The CTA could come under enormous pressure.

    Plus, the IRL-UK border will be an EU frontier border, meaning EU customs controls. I believe that all states that border the EU including Norway and Switzerland have customs controls.

  • ted hagan

    Brexit you mean?

  • ted hagan

    Ireland has been much cuter; and much more charming in its dealings with the EU. It has therefore gained much respect and more importantly, wangled many more benefits from the EU. The UK, on the other hand, has always given the impression it has lowered itself by succumbing to membership and that it deserves to be in better company, even though it went cap in hand to join the thing in the first place.

  • kensei

    Undoubtedly reduced dependence on Britain as the main export market. Ireland received EU development funds which it used wisely. Encouraged immigration which helped offset the traditional problem of a lot of the populace emigrating – being able to expand the labour market was definitely helpful during the boom. In general countries get rich from trade, undoubtedly made Ireland a more attractive prospect for FDI in conjunction with the low corporation tax.

    That’s just off the top of my head. I imagine there is more.

  • Kevin Breslin

    It was a failed negotiation. There was no debate on the level of recipricatinged arrangements in place to deal with imposing a quota on British emigrants within the EU.

    We have 28 countries who all want migration to be controlled, but 28 nationalities who don’t want to submit to the 27 other nation’s ad hoc migration policies.

    The U.K. Is not the only nation in the EU that wants to control internal migration, the dilemma is how much you want the other 27 nations to discriminate against your citizens, how much national stereotypes are used to undermine merited judgement.

    That is why the benefits hand break worked, but willy nilly discrimination against Poles, Romanians and Lithuanians does not.

    If someone from post Brexit Britain in holiday in France gets deported by boat and without procedure to Ireland because he or she doesn’t speak French and doesn’t have their visa or identity card handy, with neither Ireland nor the UK’s permission, or vice versa, just so a French Gaullist Prime Minister could meet their migration targets in a hurry, we wouldn’t be happy either.

    As far as France is concerned more Brits take their benefits, than French take Brittish benefits, it has every right to deport parasitic Brits living off the French taxpayer, and a Brit without a visa is likely to abscond. Most illegal migration comes from people over staying their tourist visas.

    That’s the type of enforcement policies that seems to be wanted here with these quota systems, which is why even the “non-EU quotas” are fairly questionable.

  • Surveyor

    Oh yes Brexit my mistake, thanks.

  • hgreen

    What I expect is that rather than imposition of a border between NI and the republic, travellers from NI to GB will have to go through security and immigration checks on arrival. That will be a bitter pill for Unionists to swallow.

  • hgreen

    Do you think all those US corporations would be as keen setting up in Ireland if it wasn’t in the EU?

  • Angry Mob

    Ireland has been a net beneficiary of EU funds to the tune of billions whereas countries like the UK, France and Germany have funded it’s membership. Maybe not a question of being cuter but loyalties being bought.

  • Angry Mob

    “”Trade has been active between Ireland and the UK for a long time, well before the EU was even conceived and is not dependent on being part of a political union.”

    There was a lot less trade between IRL and UK pre-EU.”

    Do you have any statistics showing the growth in trade when we joined the EU and entered political union from November 1993?

    “Plus, the IRL-UK border will be an EU frontier border, meaning EU customs controls. I believe that all states that border the EU including Norway and Switzerland have customs controls.”

    Have a read of this:

  • John Collins

    Any benefits gained by the Republic were lost in the amount of debt it has now to pay back to them.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Suspension of the CTZ arrangements. I’m of the school of thought that thinks it’s logical just for everyone to go through security checks, as natives can be criminals too.

  • ted hagan

    Yes but that’s what you don’t seem to understand. The EU creates new markets which may need to be subsidised at first but as their economies grow and develop then everyone within the bigger EU benefits through trade. But of course Britain never quite gets that.

  • John Collins

    French and Spanish fishing vessels gained access to ROIs’ fishing stocks, which I am sure meant their economies were not that much out of pocket by Irelands membership of the EU

  • Anglo-Irish

    Between 1973 and 2010, non-Irish boats took 184 Billion Euro of fish from Irish waters compared with 17 billion Euro by Irish boats.

    The net EU contribution to Ireland between 1973 and 2010 was 41 Billion Euro, a difference in Ireland’s favour of 120 Billion Euro.

    Try learning some facts before allowing your uneducated prejudice to make you look less than bright.

  • Angry Mob

    The EU is a political construct, political union is not needed to grow markets. The opposite in fact, the EU is the only trade bloc in the world where its share of trade is declining.

  • Anglo-Irish

    The USA is Ireland’s biggest export market it imports 9.3 Billion more from the ROI than the UK, and whilst the UK is the next biggest market Belgium-Luxembourg , Germany and France combined import 17.7 Billion more between them.

  • Angry Mob

    Slow down there cowboy, this fact that you have copy pasted and modified slighlty goes to prove two points.

    1, In terms of real money Ireland is a net beneficiary.

    2, The fact that they have lost out massively under the CFP shows that they would of been better off outside the political union with the likes of Norway and Iceland who retain control of their fishing grounds whilst still having the benefits of the single market.

    Also please don’t descend into bigotry, you may not agree with my views but to call me uneducated is low.

  • ted hagan

    Actually if you do your homework into the Irish fishing industry you will discover that it was shockingly small, employing numbers in the low thousands before we joined the EU and that these numbers have increased fairly substantially since we joined.the EU, with the help of EU subsidies, while exports have increased, although we still import a shocking amount. The EU has actually helped to boost the country’s fishing industry, not diminish it, as you suggest. The fact of the matter is that Ireland’s fishing industry was, traditionally, minuscule

  • Anglo-Irish

    You appear to have little to no idea as to how the commercial world operates.

    How are the Billions gained by EU countries from fishing rights in Irish waters not ‘ real money’?

    Then you go on to say that the ROI have lost out massively by doing the deal. So, all of a sudden when it suits your argument it then becomes ‘real money’?

    Ireland does not possess a fishing industry large enough to exploit the fishing grounds that are in its territory.

    However, the territory belongs to Ireland, and therefore it is perfectly entitled to negotiate a deal.

    Whilst the deal was in Ireland’s favour in some respects it was very much in the EU’s favour overall.

    Ireland has no need to feel any favours have been done to it, despite the biased ramblings of some.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Not sure what the hell is going on here, but my last reply to you had to be a second attempt because the mods had apparently removed one of your posts, despite which it then reappeared with additions.

    Anyhow, uneducated means that you haven’t been instructed in certain things. As you appear to be confused as to when something is ‘real money’ and not ‘real money despite the fact that billions of actual money is involved, is it in any way surprising that I find your comments somewhat uninformed?

  • Angry Mob

    You have shown the monetary value of fishing rights. How is this not real money? Quite simply as an example if I was to place an offer on a house and offered the estate agent the equivalent of 100k of fishing rights I would be shown the door.

    Ireland, had it of been “cute” could of benefited from access to the single market whilst developing its fishing industry to cover the loss of any income as a net beneficiary to over four times the value. Ie instead of gaining €40 billion it could of been €182 billion better off and created a lot of jobs in the process.

  • Anglo-Irish

    I’m well aware that the Irish fishing industry was small which is why it made sense to do the deal with the EU.

    Unable to exploit the situation an arrangement which brought wealth into the country by other means was sensible if not entirely agreeable.

    Glad to hear that the Irish fishing industry is prospering.

    My wife and I were in Killybegs a few years ago and the ‘Factory trawlers’ were a standout feature of the docks, they weren’t Irish owned.

  • Reader

    Roger: How secure would UK borders be from unwanted Bulgarian migrants if Bulgarians have an unquestioned right to migrate to Ireland from where they can cross into the UK without checks.
    Put at the crudest level, I don’t think many people care how many Bulgarians make it to Britain, so long as they aren’t entitled to Working Tax Credits, NHS treatment and Child Benefit.
    A small proportion will worry that Bulgarians may take their jobs, and others will worry – if Bulgarians can stroll in, then who else can?

  • Paul Hagan

    Sorry James, but there’s a lot to take issue with here. It’s very difficult for you to say that the current conflict in the Ukraine is due to EU expansion, while lauding NATO as keeping the peace. Moscow continues to assert that it is NATO expansion (be it right or wrong) that continues to annoy Moscow more than anything almost certainly was the cause of the conflict in Georgia in 2008. Meanwhile the EU is the main carrot towards peace in the Western Balkans and Cyprus. Meanwhile the myth that Ireland has attracted FDI largely due to low Corporation tax has long been discredited, membership of the EU on the other hand remains a key ingredient. The border issue is less clear, if the UK leaves the EU that raises the CTA again and Ireland would have to consider whether or not to pursue membership of Schengen or some other arrangement. The idea of the UK post-Brexit “simply engaging from the outside” is invalidating by the first word, it’s not simple to get EU-wide agreements on climate, trade, migration etc and it sure wouldn’t be in any simple or reliable outside. Garret Fitzgerald once commented that Ireland had gained real independence when it had joined the EEC and then especially the Euro, as it was no longer dominated by its relationship to its bigger neighbour, being members of a wider club had allowed relations between the two to become more normal, that wouldn’t be invalidated by a Brexit but it would be a blow to the body which has ensured the smaller nations of Europe; be they Ireland, Malta, Luxembourg, Latvia or Portugal have been given a more stable role in the affairs of the continent they’d seldom enjoyed before, if that was on Ambassador Mulhall’s mind, you could hardly blame him.

  • Anglo-Irish

    If you offered an estate agent fishing rights he would show you the door as he has no use for them and is unable to turn those rights into hard cash.

    On the other hand if you offered those same rights to someone with a fishing fleet and access to a 500,000,000 market they would snatch your hand off, wouldn’t they?

    As for Ireland taking advantage of the fishing grounds itself you do realise that the population of Ireland is only 4.6 million?

    There are 8.7 million people in London,

    Most of the people in both of those locations have jobs and hold their own ambitions as to how they wish to make a living.

    Fishing tends to be generational, few people wake up one morning and think to themselves ” You know what, I think I’ll get a job which entails me being away from family and friends for weeks on end with a chance of sudden death thrown in.”

    Factor in that Spain, Greece Italy etc have fleets of 20,000 or so boats how do you propose Ireland competes with that?

    Fishing is like mining and heavy steel production, not something that too many ‘outsiders’ consider.

  • Angry Mob

    That’s my point, fishing rights are only worth what you can sell them for, unfortunately for Ireland they gave away control when they joined the EEC.

    This does not change the fact that Ireland has been a net beneficiary of EU funds, opposed to the UK who has also lost it’s fishing grounds and is a net contributor to the EU so in that regards Ireland has done comparatively better than the UK.

    Iceland has a population of about 330k, this does not hold them back fishing their waters, population has nothing to do with this as only 7% of the work force work in the fishing industry despite it accounting for about 40% of its export earnings.

    As for generations of fishermen, had Ireland set about developing a fishing policy of their own rather than throwing fishing rights away in 1973 you’d find that the fishing industry could of grown and maybe third generation of fishermen would be working the waters, with rejuvenated coastal towns and villages down the west coast of Ireland, with much better road infrastructure to help export the produce.

    In the meantime they could of sold quotas to help fund the growth of their own fleets and still of made billions.

    It was a lost opportunity for both the UK and Ireland.

  • Anglo-Irish

    You are aware aren’t you that EVERYTHING is only worth what you can sell it for?

    That’s why when house prices dip people still sell them for thousands less than they were worth years before and sometimes, if circumstances dictate, for less than they paid for them.

    You accept that the Irish fishing rights have been responsible for producing Billions of Euros to the benefit of the EU but
    ( presumably because it’s Ireland that owned those rights ) that somehow wasn’t real money, and should be discounted when considering EU money coming into Ireland, do I have that right?

    So, to use an analogy, if you inherited land which had been in your family for generations, stretching back to time immemorial and a large building construction corporation payed you £1 million for it and then proceeded to build a shopping mall on the land which brought them £20 million profit you would feel in their debt would you?

    If you didn’t possess the wherewithal to exploit the land yourself, and were perfectly well aware of the plans for the land why would you be either resentful of the corporations profit or overly grateful that you received a million for land you owned but had no real use for?

    Ireland is a net contributor to the EU, it received 41 Billion from the EU over a forty year period and non Irish EU fishing fleets took 184 Billion worth of fish out of Irish waters in the same period.

    The EU has been good for Ireland and Ireland has been good for the EU.

    All this nonsense regarding ‘Devotion’ to the EU is exactly that, nonsense.

    Mutually beneficial deals is how business works and business is what keeps the lights on and food on the table.

  • Roger

    I don’t have those statistics. While I was referring to 1973 which is taken by most to be when the UK joined the EU, even if we go by your 1993 date I am very confident there was less IRL-UK trade then. The Irish economy was maybe a third as large as it is now. I haven’t checked that exactly either. Are you seriously suggesting there was more IRL-UK trade even as late as 1993?

    I did have a look at the article you referred me to. The reference in the first sentence to “Eire” was a clear warning the author was in a time-warp. The rest of the article bore that out.

  • Roger

    I don’t agree with you at all.

    I think a very many UK people do care. Right wing politicians are one obvious group. A much larger group is workers who already have to compete with large number of undocumented migrants. Another group is the UK Border Agency, a professional outfit whose job it is to see that UK immigration laws are in fact enforced. They do a very good job. How could they do their job were there visa restrictions on EU migrants but an uncontrolled EU border? It doesn’t add up.

    The situation cannot be compared to the old pre-EU Common Travel Area or that which we have today.

  • Roger

    Or the UK may impose one. After all, they may need to do so in order to enforce their visa requirements for designated EU nationalities.

  • Roger

    I think your high estimation of Ireland’s power is what’s most naive.

    Ireland won’t have much in the way of choices. It will have to deal with EU requirements and UK requirements as regards is border with the UK.

    The 1960s arrangement is not a runner. In the 1960s, Ireland was not in the EU. It did not provide free entry to half a billion Europeans. In a post-Brexit scenario where the UK also imposes visa requirements on designated EU nationalities, how can UK border control operate if it has an open EU border? They can’t. Something will have to give and the answer is, I think, fairly likely to be immigration controls on the UK’s only land border with the EU.

  • Roger

    I don’t think that works. It would leave UK border control in UKNI untenable. What happens in UKNI matters. It’s not just a buffer zone.

  • Roger

    It would have to be everyone. I don’t think the UK Border Agency would go by “does he look Irish”?

  • Kevin Breslin

    UK requirements yes, but that would be mutual. European Union precedence er No. The U.K. Situation is quite simple, if there’s silly paranoid provisions to appease the David McNarry’s of the world then they would be in breach of the Common Travel Zone and Ireland could no longer maintain a relationship held in bad faith. Why would Ireland maintain free travel if to appease a few nutcases the UK militarily occupies its border with tanks and sniffer dogs. It doesn’t make sense Roger, the U.K. forfeits free movement. It’s a rather moderate retaliation and self defence mechanism to Brittish psychosis, should pychosis rule Brittish policy here.

    The CTZ is a bilateral and both nations have the sovereign right to end it if they wish, but if they do all mutually beneficial commitments go with it.

    To say the Republic of Ireland must maintain the CTZ on Brittish insistence, is as naive as saying the island of Ireland must maintain the Union with Britain on Brittish insistence.

    European Union wise, most borders are controlled by the Schengen arrangement, so Switzerland-France, Norway-Sweden, Leichtenstine-Austria borders aren’t controlled by the EU but this arrangement.

    I could also point out that the EU has not interfered when Hungary unilaterally suspended Schengen, nor did it force Bulgaria and Cyprus to join Schengen. Ireland as an island would be in the same situation as Cyprus to an extent if Britain leaves the EU. Politically to have any part of Ireland in a Schegen arrangement requires both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in Schengen.

    The other precedence for my assumptions with regards to the EU are based on the Common Travel Zone being treated like the Schengen arrangement that also predates the EU. The EEC welcomed both the UK and ROI into its organisation in the full knowledge that the CTZ is maintained. The CTZ is like a first line of defence for continental Europe against undocumented migrants from the West. There has been reasonable respect between continental Schengen nations and insular CTZ ones with regards to migration, and the EU situation doesn’t change that.

  • Kevin Breslin

    Does Paul McGrath look Irish? Would a Gaeligeor or a Welsh speaker be accused of being a foreigner by Anglophone centric Border workers? See that is the issue with profiling! Our world has African Europeans, European Orientals and Oriental Africans.

    The issue is with immigration services for everyone, which isn’t the case. Immigration is a bigger pain in the gluteus maximus than a mere security check. If British people want the e-border and passport scheme scrapped for border checks maybe with the 3 hour processing waits to ensure people travelling from Derry to Muff, Strabane to Lifford and Belcoo to Blacklion are legal, then by all means they can take the North Korean option.

    The only place where no degree of free movement in Northern part of Western and Central Europe applies is Kalingrad. Pretty much the sort of border checking protocols to “control our border” that the far right and possibly a lot of British mainstream now want to have are like that.

    As an Irish nationalist it would give me a great excuse to say how partition governed by English nationalist paranoia is ruining the lives and freedoms of people living here.

    Migrants aren’t the only criminals that pass through airports, so it makes sense that you know British airports stop British people smuggling in and out drugs and other contraband.

    Yes the Republic of Ireland, like Sweden to Norway and Austria to Switzerland would have to have customs duties, because they wouldn’t be able financially afford giving the UK a free lunch when it comes to their EU subsidised CAP products. The U.K. is likely to reciprocate because the same logic applies to its subsidised agriculture.

    How that plethora is fixed is another matter.

  • Angry Mob

    Just to make an extreme sample here: If the USA government decided to give you the State of Alaska which is worth maybe trillions of dollars for something trivial like putting on a glove inside out that’s all well as both parties have agreed to it.

    This doesn’t make you a net beneficiary, you have only just done a great deal.

    If the USA government decided to pay you $5 dollars; so impressed they were by your glove wearing abilities then that would make you the net beneficiary, if you decided to give Alaska back you would still be the net beneficiary.

    Quite elementary stuff.

    Ireland no longer owns the fishing rights, they gave them up when they signed up to the EEC. So from 1973 the potential €184 billion they could of earnt was no longer Irelands to earn as it belonged to the EEC. The monetary value of the fishing rights is not Irelands to ‘contribute’ despite what member state benefits from them including itself.

    So yes, Ireland is still a net beneficiary of EU funds.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Your ridiculous logic – whilst being somewhat amusing – is extreme nonsense.

    Ireland received 41 Billion over a forty year period in return for agreeing to allow other EU countries to fish within its waters.

    As a result the EU benefited in taxation to a greater amount than the money which it paid to Ireland over the period.

    Ireland was unable to obtain the same amount from using its own fishing fleet as it took the fishing fleets of several countries amounting to thousands of boats to achieve the 184 Billion worth of catch.

    Therefore, the EU benefited in pure monetary terms more than Ireland from the arrangement.

    If a country has a plentiful asset it either has no need for or is unable to fully exploit then it makes sense to use the asset to its advantage,

    The Irish had fishing rights, and used them as part of the deal to obtain income from the EU.

    As the EU benefited from the arrangement it cannot be claimed that they were doing some type of charitable favour for Ireland, It was a business deal, quid pro quo.

    The Arabs have oil, they have no requirement for the amount available and they needed Western investment and technology to extract and distribute it.

    Do you take the same view of their situation?

    Do you take no account of the profits made from oil by the Western oil companies, and regard the money paid to the Arab countries as some form of subsidy, making them net beneficiaries of Western generosity?

  • Angry Mob

    I feel I have to stress this point constantly but until we all understand that you can be in economic union without the political union the debate will not move forward.

    The point that the OP made:
    “Trade has been active between Ireland and the UK for a long time, well before the EU was even conceived and is not dependent on being part of a political union.”

    The EU did not come into formation until (political union) 1993, so anyone who thinks that the UK and Ireland joined the EU in 1973 is quite frankly wrong, we joined the EEC then (economic union) and indeed the OP is entirely correct in his statement.

    The point again that I’m making is that just to re-emphasise is that the EU is not responsible for the growth in trade, it was economic cooperation, something that we can go back to if we reject political union.

    As for the article I linked to, a basic summary is that it’s a deconstruction against the argument that there would necessarily be customs border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. As for Eire, whilst a spelling mistake Éire is the official name of Ireland in one of its official languages and seeing diacritical marks in English are uncommon it’s an easy mistake to make.

  • Joe Walker

    The greatest enemy the Irish have is Britain.

  • Angry Mob

    “Ireland received 41 Billion over a forty year period in return for agreeing to allow other EU countries to fish within its waters.”

    On joining the EEC Ireland had to accept the following treaty:
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2141/70
    “Article 2

    1 Rules applied by each Member State in respect of fishing in the maritime waters coming under its sovereignty or within its jurisdiction shall not lead to differences in treatment of other Member States.

    Member States shall ensure in particular equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in the waters referred to in the preceding subparagraph for all fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State and registered in Community territory.”

    Ireland on joining the EEC (now EU) ceeded the fishing rights given to it under international law to the EEC.

    Ireland has no fishing rights to give any contribution from, they don’t control them as they now belong to the EU. That was a condition of membership of the EEC.

  • Pasty2012

    I agree the impact for Ireland from a Brexit would likely be more inward investment and the relocation of financial jobs from London to Dublin. Ireland being an English speaking country and with close ties to the US makes it the ideal place for the institutions to be situated within the EU and readily accessible from the US traders as well as other World Centres. While trade between Britain and the EU countries may well be affected in some small way a few years down the line it will not stop trade altogether, which the scare mongers in the UK seem to be implying. If the British don’t want to accept some of the additional 100m people that will be joining the EU from Albania and Turkey and the other nations that are likely to join in the coming years then they should go. The shortcomings in the EU must be tackled in order to bring all the Nations involved to the same acceptable level in goods and services and standards of goods within the whole EU. The goal has to be the same standard of living across the whole EU and that can only happen with the same freedoms of speech and reporting that doesn’t exist in Turkey at this point in time and must be demanded before entry to the club.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Yes, so what?

    What exactly is your point here?

    Ireland agreed to allow fishing in its territorial waters as part of the deal in joining the EEC.

    It was aware that by doing so it would benefit the other EEC countries that have significant fishing fleets.

    It was also aware that that in turn would benefit the EEC/EU in monetary terms.

    In return it was going to receive incoming financial support in order to build infrastructure and help it become a more competitive commercial country, which it was successful in achieving.

    Quid Pro Quo as already pointed out

    ‘Ireland has no fishing rights to give any contribution from’ !

    You really do have a weird and wonderful way of looking at the world, I can only assume that you were never in business in any managerial capacity.

    Of course Ireland possessed fishing rights, they agreed to give them up as part of the negotiations and agreement on joining.

    You think there was no connection between EEC/EU support of Ireland and what the EEC/EU gained from the arrangement?

    Your desperation to try and make Ireland appear in some kind of negative light is both somewhat pathetic and indicative of your obvious inbred bias.

    As I said before, the EU is good for Ireland and Ireland is good for the EU.

    The facts are self evident, however unpalatable they may be to some, Ireland has prospered over the past years far more than any part of the UK, with the exception of the South East of England.

    And despite the recent set back it still is.

    February 2016 figures.

  • Roger

    If we want to be pedantic about when the UK and Ireland joined the EU, then I must point out that you are wrong. You referred to when they “joined the EU”. The UK and Ireland were each co-founders of the EU. They never joined it. You can’t blame me for thinking you were referring to 1973, now can you?

    As for Eire, obviously the spelling mistake is not the issue. Rather it’s what we all know about those who feel compelled to use the term while showing no such interest in the official languages of other countries. Funnily enough, the author didn’t dip into dictionaries for Switzerland, Turkey or Cyprus.

  • Roger

    Thanks Kevin. I don’t think we have a common language on this one. I could not understand a lot of what you said. I have no idea where the idea you mentioned about Ireland being somehow obliged to maintain the CTZ (presumably you mean CTA, Common Travel Area) “on British insistence” came from etc. I never said anything like that. I don’t understand the references to any country being “forced” to join Schengen, as if that was in question.

    On this though: “I could also point out that the EU has not interfered when Hungary unilaterally suspended Schengen, nor did it force Bulgaria and Cyprus to join Schengen.”

    Hungary did not impose visa restrictions on EU migrants!

  • Kevin Breslin

    Well the visa restrictions may prove a plethora. The fact is that these are also ensured not by the EU but the Common Travel Area. We’ve seen what has happened to Switzerland when it insisted that Croatians were treated differently to Austrians and Germans and the Brits would be in danger of facing those consequences if they turn a blind eye to the Irish but punish the Poles.

    The Republic of Ireland, indeed all of Ireland does not have a problem with free movement from the EU. So the UK interfering with the Republic’s immigration visa services unilaterally is unlikely to get Irish support, not simply EU resistance.

    If the UK wants to discriminate against continental EU citizens it will have to do it on its side of the border, in Belcoo, in Strabane, in Newry, in Derry … in largely nationalist border areas. These controls will not raise one person’s wage other than that of Border workers who’d come from elsewhere.

    In terms of security checks, I don’t see why PSNI-Garda-NCA co-operation would have to have any specialist interest on a Donegal Pole going on walk through the border, or a Monaghan Lithuanian deciding they want to cycle through it. There’s no reason to think the Guards would prioritise cracking down on countryside expeditions by legal denizens of its land before tackling real crimes.

    Northern Irish people will eventually have a low tolerance of having to subsidise the paranoias of people in Down and Antrim who have imaginary immigration problems and are suspicious of ethnic minorities. We need migrants to keep these often OAP types alive ironically, whether they want to bite the hand that feeds them, heals them and works for them or not.

    Instead we’re getting cuts to public services to fund this migration policy that Stormont has no control over, see talented EU workers move to the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere in the EU if they don’t want a visa over their head. People who have brought money from overseas to set up a life here will simply be treated like criminals because their name ends with -ski, or -ov, or -ka not on the basis of their actions.

  • Kevin Breslin

    The U.K. suspended all passport free travel from Ireland, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to Britain during World War 2. There wasn’t migration problems in either island, the border didn’t shift … All that happened was DeValera was able to send fire engines to Belfast unimpeded, and both islands welcomed Poles, Czechs and Lithuanians and other Europeans fleeing the Nazis.

    I don’t believe it’s something the UK is unlikely to do again, even if it does offend a loyalist community that British government members once called spongers.
    Sure many loyalists want English, Scots, Welsh and the Southern Irish to have work permits to work here.

    Quis Separiat indeed.

  • Kevin Breslin

    So you would have a problem with British fishermen trying to fish in Icelandic and Norweigan fishing waters or will you demand a redrawing of North Sea water borders?

  • Angry Mob

    You need to check your timeline of events. Your assertion to the OP’s statement was that there was less trade pre-EU. I responded stating that growth in trade was not dependent on ‘joining’ the EU in 1993. Now the word joining may of arguably been a sloppy word to use but it came after you made your assertion so it was clear what I meant.

    The author only used ‘Eire’ once in the article to draw distinction between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but I guess you wouldn’t realise this if you didn’t read past the first sentence.

  • Angry Mob

    Iceland and Norway retained their fishing rights, one of the big reasons they both opted to remain in the EFTA rather than joining the EEC. We have no rights to fish their waters unless they grant us permission to do so.

  • Roger

    Well, sloppy or not, I won’t hold it against you. I certainly did read past the first sentence and said as much above. Sloppiness again? Not to worry. We are all friends here. I’m guilty of it too sometimes, as you pointed out.

    Again, that the author thinks it ok to use ‘Eire’ like that suggests he is indeed in a time-warp. Or has never left the UK. The whole piece suggested the former to me. The past was a simpler place.

    “In the battle to leave the EU, the situation between Ireland and Northern Ireland is emerging as a major fault line in the campaign.”

    Now, just how does that wording not distinguish things clearly enough?

  • Angry Mob

    Seems a trivial reason to disregard an entire article. What’s your position on words that originated in Irish like bog or banshee, should those who don’t speak Irish refrain from use those words as well?

  • Angry Mob

    “Ireland agreed to allow fishing in its territorial waters as part of the deal in joining the EEC.”

    Wrong on so many levels.

    Ireland retains the rights to fish in it territorial waters which extend 12 nautical miles, it didn’t give them to the EEC.

    Ireland gave up it’s exclusive rights to fish the exclusive economic zone to the EEC upon joining which extends to 200 nautical miles. Ireland has no say as to who fishes these waters as the EEC took control of it.

    Now, if you insist on counting the monetary value of fishing which I disagree with it has to be concluded that not only is Ireland €41 billion better off it has also benefitted from €17 billion worth of fishing rights granted to it by the EEC/EU.

  • Anglo-Irish


    1, Did Ireland have in its national ownership the exclusive rights to fish in waters recognized internationally as being under its jurisdiction?

    2, Did Ireland agree – as part of the negotiations on membership of the EEC – to allow other EEC/EU nations to fish in those waters?

    3, As a result of that agreement did those nations benefit monetarily from the arrangement?

    4, Did the EEC/EU also benefit financially from that arrangement?

    5, Did the financial benefit to the EEC/EU substantially exceed the money received by Ireland from the EEC/EU?

    Whether it was a good deal as far as Ireland is concerned is immaterial to the point which I am making.

    The point being that Ireland has more than paid its way and any benefits that it has received from Europe have been more than compensated for by the arrangement.

    Once again your logic is unfathomable, in your last paragraph the EEC/EU was in no position to grant Ireland fishing rights in Irish waters, you can’t grant to someone that which they own, they can allow you to use their waters if they wish, their choice.

  • Angry Mob

    1. It did before membership of the EEC.

    2. No, it was a pre-condition of membership, non-negotiable, take it or leave it. It had to accept it in order to gain membership. In fact the treaty was agreed among the EEC-6 on the very day that negotiations commenced with the UK, Denmark, Norway and Ireland, 30 June 1970. A fishy coincidence?

    3. What I have to point out again before answering this loaded question is at this stage the fishing rights no longer belonged to Ireland. Any country that there forth benefited from them including itself were from fishing rights that now belonged to the EEC.

    If the fish had a monetary value which was worth €X billion, that money doesn’t mean than country Y received €X billion into central government. From that the fish had to be offloaded, wages were paid, provisions, ships were bought and maintained, fuel, processing plants, transport etc . After processing the fish would have been worth more and eventually sold and the government would have taken their cuts via tax and VAT, NI etc along the way. So the €x billion is not a contribution towards country Y.

    If we counted fishing rights from all member states then given that the UK’s fishing grounds are much bigger than Irelands this would mean that the UK is a net beneficiary of EU funds, which is clearly not the case as some countries have to be net contributors in order for there to be net beneficiaries.

    4. You decide.

    5. It financially benefited the other EEC/EU countries yes, but that doesn’t make it a net contribution.

    You have the audacity to call me ‘uneducated’, yet I take time out of my evening to lecture yourself, it does not bode well for what you should call yourself.

    If you’re actually interested in further learning you can find the EU net contributors and beneficiaries here:

  • Anglo-Irish

    Poor, must try harder.

    1, The question was clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. ‘Did Ireland have ‘ past tense.
    The correct answer was yes,

    2, It was a negotiation, Ireland received certain commitments including retention of exclusive rights to a certain area, as did Britain.
    Ireland gained certain certain things and gave up certain things, which is the essence of agreements.
    The correct answer was yes.

    3, Wrong, the fishing rights were Irelands the EEC accepted the same compromise that they did with Britain and Denmark and both Britain and Ireland knew this was the situation.
    The correct answer was yes.

    4, I don’t need to decide.
    The correct answer was yes.

    5, You appear to be unable to understand how business and trade work.

    If party A receives a financial benefit in a transaction which is the equal to that which it pays out to party B, then whilst the deal may have been mutually beneficial to both parties neither is in debt to the other
    However, if party A receives a financial benefit that exceeds that which it pays out to party B then it has received the better result.

    Whilst the deal may still be mutually beneficial to both parties for anyone to try to claim that party A is somehow doing party B a favour shows a lack of logic of epic proportions.

    For the avoidance of doubt, party A is the EEC/EU in this scenario.

    It has become obvious that you have an inflated sense of your own self importance ” I take time out of my evening to lecture you ” pomposity on a stick.

    No one asked you to did they? You obviously did it in order to stroke your own sense of self importance.

    Your nonsensical use of meaningless analogies – Alaska and inside out glove wearing for crying out loud – shows you up for exactly what you are.

    We are done here, lets not bother wasting any more of each others time.

    Stay lucky.

  • Roger

    Oh now, I never said I disregarded the entire article on that basis alone. Nothing of the sort. I did say it suggested something which the rest of the article bore out.

    Bog and banshee are not at all the same.

  • Angry Mob

    1. Reread my answer.

    2. Ireland negotiated its membership of the EEC, fishing rights were agreed before its membership so it had to accept the pre-existing treaty to join.

    3. Reread my answer. UK and Denmark also gave up their fishing rights. Norway did not as it did not join so retains control of its waters to this day.

    4. In your opinion, based on poor assumptions.

    5. You accuse me of not knowing how business works yet cannot grasp basic legal principles.

    “No one asked you to did they?”
    Is your name ‘No one’?

    As noted I said the Alaska argument was an ‘extreme’ sample, a proposition no more absurd than your assertion that Ireland is a net contributor to the EU.

    Did you actually read the link, which shows the net beneficiaries and contributors to the EU?

  • An Gíogóir

    The last thing the EU needs is to be pursuing more Federalist aims.

  • Anglo-Irish

    It has become apparent that there are a few things that you have difficulty understanding.

    We now need to include an inability to understand basic English, ‘ We are done here’ not apparently being comprehended.

    The debate was a very simple one, despite your efforts to complicate it in order to try to prove 2 + 2 = 5.

    My contention was that Ireland has been responsible for providing assets to the EU which exceed those assets provided from the EU to Ireland.

    A simple proposition and one easily verified by looking at the facts.

    No amount of disingenuous twisting and turning, attempts to introduce legal definitions, reversible gloves or American States into the equation can alter the fact that the EU received benefits from assets belonging to Ireland which outweighed the amount which Ireland received from the EEC/EU.

    Please don’t bother wasting your obviously precious time by bothering to reply, I’m sure you have lectures to give elsewhere.

  • Angry Mob

    “We now need to include an inability to understand basic English, ‘ We are done here’ not apparently being comprehended.”

    I understand English, but as I pointed out earlier this is further proof you seem to have problems concerning basic legal principles. You can’t oblige another party in an agreement without their permission, so this discussion isn’t over because you have the arrogance to believe you speak on my behalf.

    “The debate was a very simple one, despite your efforts to complicate it in order to try to prove 2 + 2 = 5.”
    Problem with your analogy is I have the means to show the answer. You started with the answer 4, had 0’s and tried to make it add up.

    “My contention was that Ireland has been responsible for providing assets to the EU which exceed those assets provided from the EU to Ireland.”

    Lets look at your original claim, in response to my statement that Ireland is a net beneficiary:

    “Between 1973 and 2010, non-Irish boats took 184 Billion Euro of fish from Irish waters compared with 17 billion Euro by Irish boats.

    The net EU contribution to Ireland between 1973 and 2010 was 41 Billion Euro, a difference in Ireland’s favour of 120 Billion Euro.”

    Looks like a climb down to me through the use of a weasel word “asset” compared to your original statement that implied Ireland was a net contributor and the assertions that Ireland still controlled these rights.

  • Anglo-Irish
  • Angry Mob

    The article only goes to show that you have been short changed €120 billion, not that you have contributed real money worth €120 billion.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Your inability – or refusal – to understand simple concepts is both impressive and hilarious at one and the same time.

    Please explain your definition of ‘real money’.

    Money does not appear magically from the ether, although given the continuing subsidy to NI I can see where that notion came from.

    In order to produce wealth you need to provide something that others need, want or desire and are prepared to pay for.

    Of all the items that you may have food is the most vital although somewhat taken for granted, without it you die.

    Fish taken from waters internationally recognized as belonging to Ireland was sold for billions.

    That was ‘real money’ and when the EU provided Ireland with the 41 billion euro it meant that the EU was well in pocket and in fact gained from the arrangement.

    Which was the point that I was making, Ireland has benefited the EU and has also benefited itself.

    Incidentally ‘I’ haven’t been shortchanged, as although I hold Irish nationality by birthright I have dual nationality also by birthright, and I live in England.

  • Angry Mob

    DId you actually read the article?

    “Dr Karen Devine of DCU examined Eurostat figures to find that non-Irish boats took €184 billion worth of fish out of Irish waters between 1975 and 2010. Net EU contribution to Ireland in cash between 1973 and 2013 was €41 billion. So it seems you are short over €120 billion.”

  • Anglo-Irish

    My first post on this thread 5 days ago was a reply to you and it quoted the same figures.

    The only difference being that the information I had stated 1973 instead of 1975.
    As Ireland only joined the EEC in 1973 the later date is probably more accurate.

    None of which makes a blind bit of difference to my argument.
    I am disinterested in details of amounts, timescales and legalities.

    My only point, which has been reiterated on several occasions is that whilst Ireland has received billions from the EEC/EU it has more than compensated for that by providing the EEC/EU with a means to not only recoup the payments but obtain a significant amount over and above that.

    Therefore Ireland isn’t indebted to the EU, it simply agreed a mutually beneficial arrangement with it.

    And I am not short one penny.

    Should you reply to this please include an answer to the question asked in my previous post, what is your definition of ‘ real money ‘?

  • Angry Mob

    You may have used the same figures, but you used the following phrase “a difference in Ireland’s favour of 120 Billion Euro.”

    From the article that I quoted “So it seems you are short over €120 billion.”

    So will you concede that Ireland is a net beneficiary of EU funds, as per my original statement?

    Real money as in currency opposed to the monetary value of something such as todays price on brent crude oil.

  • Anglo-Irish

    Did the figures show that the difference between what Ireland received in monetary income from the EEC/EU and the monetary income that the EEC/EU received was 120 Billion euro in favour of the EEC/EU?

    No, I won’t concede that ridiculous idea, because in order to do so you would need to have no grasp upon reality.

    ” Real money is in currency as opposed to the monetary value of something “?

    Are you serious?

    So if you were offered £10.00 for a your house valued at £300,000 you should snatch their hand off because £10.00 is ‘real money’?

    If you were offered the Koh-i-Noor diamond currently valued at over $1 Billion for £150.00 you wouldn’t do the deal because when all is said and done it’s only a stone and of no real practical value whatsoever.

    If someone offered you the rights to any future fracking or oil deals within the jurisdiction of the UK for £1 you would decline, as your £1 was ‘real money’ and their projected profits of multi-billions whilst being possible, and even probable, wasn’t ‘ real money’?

  • Angry Mob

    So you will not concede that Ireland is a net beneficiary of EU funds, even despite the wall of evidence and the breakdown can be seen here from the EU comissions website: ?

    You’re probably one of the few people that would actually try and argue that point, no matter how absurd it is.

    Ireland gave up it’s fishing rights for admission. Any proceeds from those fishing rights is not a contribution to the EU as that was the terms of deal that was in order to gain membership.

    Straw man arguments.

  • Anglo-Irish

    ” Ireland gave up its fishing rights for admission “.

    So, according to you, the monetary value of those rights immediately became null and void?

    Once someone gives, or gifts, something to another person or organization it becomes of no consequence, it’s value is none existent,something to be forgotten and dismissed without any further consideration?

    Anyone doing you a favour, or contributing to your well-being should just be regarded as inconsequential, a minor factor in the greater good, which is all about you and your requirements?

    The thing is Angry Mob, your total inability to understand how commerce works, exemplified by your lack of knowledge as to what constitutes actual value in monitory terms means that your views are really not worth any respect.

    Ireland has contributed more income to the EU than the Eu has given to Ireland, that’s a simple fact, that you aren’t able to accept it is testimony to both your bias and inability to think rationally.

  • Angry Mob

    No, the monetary value of the fishing rights still exist. They now belong to the EU so the monetary value of the rights is not Irelands to give, nor is it a contribution to the EU budget; which Ireland remains a net beneficiary of.

    The favour in Irelands case was admission to the EEC, the trade off was fishing rights among other things.

    You accuse me of trying to twist a message to my own bias, yet you will not concede what even the EU shows and everyone knows (bar yourself) that Ireland is a net beneficiary of EU funds.

  • Anglo-Irish

    you surely cannot be as stupid as you appear?

    No one can be that obtuse that they are unable to understand such simple straightforward stuff.

    ” the monetary value of the fishing rights still exist ”

    Yes they do, they were owned by Ireland and then gifted to the EEC/EU as part of the deal for Ireland becoming a member nation.

    The UK did the same.

    Given the value of those fishing rights, it means that Ireland has contributed more monetary value to the EEC/EU than the EEC/EU has contributed to Ireland.

    The rights and wrongs of the arrangement are immaterial, the FACT is that in purely monetary terms Europe has received more from the deal than Ireland has.

    The hows, wherefores, and disingenuous ducking and diving by people with biased agendas such as yourself are laughable.

    Still, carry on making a complete fool of yourself, I was getting bored, but am now starting to picture you at the keyboard with a wild eyed look and foam coming out of your mouth and it’s amusing me, even if it’s a little cruel. : )

  • Angry Mob

    It was not gifted. To gift something means to give something without payment. If fishing rights was the “gift” then access to single market was the payment which means it can not be a gift.

    “The UK did the same.”
    So is the UK a net beneficiary by your fallible logic?

  • Anglo-Irish

    A sure sign of desperation and slow dawning of the realisation that you are in the wrong on the point in question, quibbling about inconsequential details.

    It makes not a blind bit of difference whether the fishing rights which were assets belonging to Ireland were gifted,presented, bestowed or a remittance, settlement or discharge as regards the matter under discussion.

    The amount involved in monetary terms was in excess of the amount received by Ireland over the period in question.

    We aren’t talking about the UK, it was mentioned in order to show that Ireland wasn’t the only country that chose to accept the terms of the agreement.

    Both countries made a decision that agreeing to those terms was beneficial overall to their future requirements, it was a mutually agreed business deal.

    Do you accept the point that the EEC/EU did well from the transaction and that in fact it gained more than it gave under the arrangement ?

  • Angry Mob

    It’s interesting to note that you actually think you are right, up to now I thought that it was simply because you wouldn’t admit you are wrong but you are clearly delusional. I reckon if you underwent psychoanalysis they’d find most of the traits of a sociopath.

    Indeed the UK did, as did Denmark as per my point two days ago. They may of thought it was mutually beneficial at the time but in hindsight it obviously wasn’t. Only the good people of Norway who voted in a referendum not to join the EEC seen what was coming and opted to remain in the EFTA to this day, where they still have the access to the single market and their fishing rights. So, who made the most beneficial decision, Ireland or Norway?

    The EEC/EU gained no financial contribution from the deal, the fishing rights were then shared among the member states as per the treaty I posted, they all benefited, until quotas were then introduced in a subsequent amendment to the treaty. Ireland waters cover 23% of the EU’s fishing area yet it gets only 4% of the trade quota.

  • Anglo-Irish

    A sociopath? Never been accused of that before, don’t think that’s the one in my case, sociopaths have no remorse or guilt and as I was raised a Catholic you know how we cling on to that guilt thing.

    As we’re psychologically profiling each other over the internet I must confess that I have you pegged as a narcissist.

    Still I’m in total agreement with Mark Twain when he said,

    ” When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. ”

    So no offence taken. : ).

    You say ” they may have thought that it was mutually beneficial at the time but in hindsight it wasn’t. ”

    So you accept that it wasn’t mutually beneficial?

    Therefore, one party gained more than the other party?

    Which is exactly my point, an individual country lost out and the EU – or at least those with large well organized fishing fleets – benefited.

    You do realise that the EU isn’t a country and when anyone refferrs to it they are reffering to an association of 28 countries.

    Therefore to talk of a country which has provided the means of billions of euros being made and being absorbed into the EU being a debtor to the EU is nonsense.

  • Angry Mob

    “So you accept that it wasn’t mutually beneficial?

    Therefore, one party gained more than the other party?”

    Yes and yes. However, there are more than than two parties in this case. Ireland squandered it’s fishing rights but they gained €41 billion in their favour. This is opposed to the UK who squandered their fishing rights and is a net contributor to the EU.

    Yes, I realise the EU isn’t a country, it’s a political/economic union which consists of 28 member states, the countries are not the EU either.

    So therefore to recap:
    Ireland gave up it’s fishing rights to share among the member states.
    Ireland is a net beneficiary of €41 billion of EU funds.
    Countries such as Germany or Spain benefited from the new EEC/EU fishing rights.
    The EU does benefit directly from this itself as no contribution is paid to it.

    Also worth nothing that just because the fish taken out of Irish waters was worth €184 billion it doesn’t mean the rights/quotas were worth that. They are probably worth proportionally less.

  • Anglo-Irish

    ” Ireland gave up its fishing rights ”

    Which were worth 184 Billion to date in fish caught.

    ” But gained 41 Billion euros in their favour. ”

    How does that work exactly?

    Exchanging 184 Billion for 41 Billion can hardly be construed as ” in their favour ” can it?

    In fact it looks very much in someone elses favour, doesn’t it?

    You lost all credibility in this debate when you came up with the description ‘ real money ‘ it is blindingly apparent that anyone who isn’t aware that money comes mainly from trade, and that a commodity which has a value and a market is in fact to all intents and purposes money, has little grasp on the way things work.

    You are now quibbling about actual values of the fishing rights, once again immaterial, it is safe to say they were worth at least as much if not more than 41 Billion.

  • Angry Mob

    Ireland relinquished their rights to the EU, they received €0 for this, they may have been worth €184 billion to date but they received no payment for it and any money made was no longer theirs to ‘contribute’. Ireland has given the EU billions and the EU has then given Ireland billions back, €41 billion more than it has paid in.

    You may claim I have lost the argument, but deep down you know as soon as you replied stating that Ireland is not a net beneficiary of EU funding you lost it before we really began, even if you can’t admit it.

    As for my last paragraph I made a typo, I meant to type ‘noting’. I’m not going to argue this point as it probably won’t make much difference to either our arguments but if you reread the article it says the fish was worth 184 billion, fishing rights/quotas cannot exceed that value as the fishermen have to make a profit in order for it to be a viable industry.

  • Anglo-Irish

    If you believe that there is such a thing as a ‘ free lunch’ then there is little hope for you.

    Because obviously, without thinking it through, giving up Billions with no promise of any return, consideration or tacit agreement happens on a daily basis throughout the civilized world.

  • Angry Mob

    It wasn’t a free lunch, it was like swapping your car for a big mac though. The deal was done.