For the worse.

Enjoyed the dark ages Tom ? Child Rape, Maggie laundries and no birth control.

Ciaran , Paddy Donegan, then Minister For Fisheries tried to impose a 50 mile zone , but the Dutch sent 14 vessels inside that and subsequently won in the ECJ .

Sorry my above comment was in relation to voting on divorce,

Its not a clear yes or no on abandonment:

It was agreed by the original Member States before negotiations even began that any vessel of the EEC/EU fleet would have ‘equal access’ to, as you rightly point out, ‘European waters’ – beyond what would later be agreed to a 12nm coastal band limit.

As with any new state gaining accession, they would have to sign up to all legislation which has been previously agreed upon, meaning Ireland had to accept this legislation or not join – and with the interest in joining weighing heavily of the benefits for the agriculture community, how could Ireland say no?

Yes, more could have been achieved during negotiations for even the most modest benefits by our representatives. However, their hands were already tied before they even arrived at the table.

Icarian, don’t think so. The natter was up for discussion as new waters in EEC. Could have got derogations , for example. Further, if you are right about taking things as they were,how did it take more than two years od negotiations? Would it not have been a case of “sign here please”? No , there was huge room for negotiation over two years and more , and Fisheries was not excluded. Would you agree?

When it comes to accession negotiations, and Ireland went through the same, specific areas of policy such as taxation, agriculture, etc are termed as ‘chapters’ for the course of negotiations. These chapters are not all discussed at once as soon as negotiations open, but ‘open’ and ‘close’ depending on talks, compromise and final agreement – the length this takes depends on what the topic is. For example with Iceland, although negotiations started in 2010, Chapter 13 on fisheries has not even opened it.

As a compromise by the EEC in terms of Irish fisheries when we were negotiating, we were given a derogation of ten years after accession before ‘equal access’ would come into effect. We were given the 12nm coastal band limit in its places for those ten years, but in the end ‘equal access’ was never applied come 1982 and the 12nm limit has been retained ever since.

Its true, one of the reasons why Norway will not join the EU. When ireland signed up to the Europe they took away Ireland biggest natural resource, its fishing grounds. The billions Ireland received in aid since joining is only a small fraction to what Europe makes from Irelands fishing waters.

Its true, what swung Norway’s rejection of EU membership on both occasions (1972 and 1994) was the negative post-accession situation for fisheries, which their economy and culture have been historically centered around – just like Ireland and agriculture.

As I mentioned in a reply to this post below, its not a clear yes or no on abandonment:

It was agreed by the original Member States before Irish negotiations even began that any vessel of the EEC/EU fleet would have ‘equal access’ to ‘European waters’ – beyond what would later be agreed to a 12nm coastal band limit.

As with any new state gaining accession, they would have to sign up to all legislation which has been previously agreed upon, meaning Ireland had to accept this legislation or not join – and with the interest in joining weighing heavily of the benefits for the agriculture community, how could Ireland say no?

Yes, more could have been achieved during negotiations for even the most modest benefits by our representatives. However, their hands were already tied before they even arrived at the table.

It would great for Ireland if they could take back their fishing grounds. Norways fishing industry is worth over €6 Billion a year, employs 13,000 people. It is the countries 2nd biggest export after oil & gas. Ireland has the potential to do the same, with its rich fishing grounds to the west. Ireland is in the EU nearlly 40 years, €6 billion times by 40, €240 billion. How much has Ireland received in aid since joining the EU, they say Ireland received €60 billion in aid in the last 40 years, paid back €20 billion. The EU is €200 billion better off from Ireland joining. Ireland needs to get a better deal on its biggest natural resource.

Icarian , sorry to be blunt , but you are wrong about the 12 mile limit as being agreed. It was not , and it took the ECJ to impose it on Ireland. Please, let’s have facts here.

Mark, spot on. The default position you indicated is exactly what Ciaran does not seem to understand. There were many derogations open to us to seek , but the EEC recognised , more than our negotiators, the value of the waters. The Irish fleet was badly under-capitalised at the time and the potential was not recognised by the Government of the time. I feel it is the same , now, with our Oil reserves. Just switch one for the other and. You have the same scenario. We are continuing to give wealth away . It is wrong, wrong , wrong.

I’d like to know what is the balance of payments with regard to Europe, without solid facts at hand, I have a feeling we are more likely to have bled them dry than us them! Particularly in the agri sector?

http://www.sceala.com/phpBB2/irish-forums-25255.html

Just realised Aoife already pointed this out!

Actually Kevin, referendums is correct as well. Gav did his research: http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/lets-figure-this-out-whats-the-real-plural-of-referendum-261522-Oct2011/

:)

Children would also be victims of a highly dysfunctional household without divorce. Children are not victims of divorce, they’re victims of bad situations where divorce can actually bring some level of normality.

As with anything, if you look at it from a particular point of view you’ll find the argument you want to make.

Would you rather the children grow up in a household where their parents are miserable and fight, leaving the kids damaged mentally and a skewed sense of what a relationship should be like?

Moral decline is forcing a couple to live together in the same house and pretend to love each other when they don’t. What’s moral about that.

You don’t have to get divorced if you fall out of love with your wife. If you stop loving her just do the Irish catholic thing and put up with it.

Forcing your opinion on others is wrong. If divorce was illegal then it favours your opinion 100%. If it’s legal then it favours both parties: You can remain married unhappily while others can move on.

Moral decline started with divorce! You must be too young to remember the preceding political corruption, the bombing of children and the abuse of power by both the church and organs of the state.

‘Elders’, teachers (of which I am one) politicians, priests and guards have primarily lost their automatic respect. In general this is not a bad thing in my view. In fact it is a sign of a more educated, less superstitious population. That said courtesy should be automatic but respect must be earned by all.

Unfortunately, when it comes to divorce, according to recent reports, more men are “moving on” than women. Divorce seems to have a more negative effect on the financial status of women than it has on men.

Little respect for elders and authority?

You mean people should have respect for the priests that were sexually abusing kids for decades, for example?