CASE STUDY: Topic 6: Government, economy and society in the Republic of Ireland, 1949-1989

1. CASE STUDY: Topic 6: Government, economy and society in the Republic of Ireland, 1949-1989 The Impact of the EEC on Fisheries

2. What do you know about fishing? • Name the department in charge of fisheries and the Minister? • Name two fishing ports? • Mention two areas of employment besides fishermen. • How much does a trawler cost? • What does BIM (1952)stand for • Why do Irish people eat so Little fish ?

3. How did we protect our waters? • Helga was used to patrol the waters name changed to Muirchu • Irish navy set up in 1946 and one of it’s main duties is to prevent illegal fishing • How many ships do they have now?

4. Key Concepts • Economic planning • Free trade • Common market • Equality of opportunity • Ecumenism • Secularisation • Balance of payments • Discrimination • Censorship • Pluralism • Liberalisation.

5. Key Personalities • T.K. Whitaker • Seán Lemass (1961 application) • Archbishop J. C. McQuaid • Jack Lynch (1973 entry) • Charles Haughey (1979-81, 82, 87-92) • Garret FitzGerald (1976/77/83) • Sylvia Meehan • Mary Robinson • Breandán Ó hEithir • Gay Byrne

6. 1949-1973 Pre-EEC Membership: Fishing industry underdeveloped 1952: BIM est. (BórdIascaighMhara) < 800 full-time fishermen Treaty of Rome 1957: Legislative basis for EEC (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) KEY CLAUSE:ALLmember states could fish each other’s coasts 1960s: Gradual improvement in investment, fleet growth and total catch 1971: World Fisheries Exhibition in Ireland (Patrick Hillery, Minister for Foreign Affairs): made Irish case for EEC entry Years leading up to 1973: opposition to aboveclause (but accepted). COMPROMISE:Twelve-mile limit [N.B. 3 new member states would be entitled to reserve a 6-mile zone for vessels which had traditionally fished in the waters and which operated from ports in that geographic location for a period of 10 years [until 31 December 1982] All fish: Nth. & West coasts Shellfish: East coast

7. 1973-1983 • EEC Membership • Smallest fleet in EEC; 2% of total catch in 1973 • 1976 Hague Convention: some benefits • Min. for Foreign Affairs Garrett Fitzgerald • Right to double Irish total catch 1977-79 • Increase of Irish fleet to 300 vessels • Expansion of fish processing industries and infrastructure • Iceland declared 200-mile limit around coast (‘COD WARS’) • Bigger nations followed this example (e.g. USA, USSR, etc.) • EEC adopted 200-mile limit which became the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); member states controlled their own 12-mile coastal zones, etc. • This meant complete control within these zones in terms of security, fishing/mineral rights and oil exploration.

8. 1973-1983 • Minister for Fisheries Brian Lenihan1977-79 • “The trouble is that fishermen don't count, because they are never at home on Thursdays (polling day).‘‘ [attributed]  • Dropped claim for exclusive 50-mile limit • Opted for quotas and subsidies option instead • 1977-82: £45 million in grants and subsidies • Other controversies: • Declining fish stocks (due to overfishing) • Disputes over quotas &TACs (Total Allowable Catches) • Every EU member is given a quota based upon the TAC and their traditional share (or percentage). TACs are fixed annually by the Council of Ministers.  • Opposition of Killybegs Fishermen’s Association and Irish Fishermen’s Organisation to what they saw as EEC regulations ‘damaging’ Ireland’s fishing industry: TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THIS TRUE?

9. 1983-1989 1983: Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) This has become the ‘battleground’ for supporters AND opponents of the EEC’s fisheries policy: ’The CFP’s main aim is to protect all of Europe’s seafood industry and marine environment for future generations.’ [EU Website] VERSUS ‘Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing.  Our boats are simply too effective at what they do,  which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that.’ -Isabella Lovin (Swedish MEP)

10. Q&A • Name two key personalities from this time • What year was BIM established • What does BIM stand for • Name three countries that joined EEC as a result of Treaty of Rome 1957 • What was the Key Clause from this (agreement) • What significant event was held in Ireland in 1971? • What % catch did Ireland have in EEC in 1973 - ? • 1976 Hague convention – 1 advantage for Ireland? • Another? • Who was Minister for Fisheries in 1977-79? • What year was the IFO set up and what was their aim? • What was the 50 mile limit? • What was the 12 mile limit? • Whay was the 200 mile limit?

11. Document A The following extract, Ireland and the Common Fisheries Policy, is from the website of the European Union https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/fisheries_en [Last updated 8/10/17] Catch value data collated (collected) by a US academic fisheries impact project shows that Ireland has benefited significantly from being an EU Member State. The Sea Around Us Project, based at the University of British Columbia, collected data for Irish waters from 1950 to 2004 that dispels the myth that Ireland lost out on Irish fish catches to the rest of the EU after we became a Member State. Calculated in US dollars at year 2000 prices, the value of all fish extracted from Irish waters from 1950 to 2004 is $16.8 billion. Before we joined the EU, the catch value from 1950 to 1973 was $4.8 billion and after we became a Member State, it was $11.9 billion between 1973 and 2004. Up to 1973, Ireland took just 12% of the catch from Irish waters. After becoming an EU state the share rose to as much as 40%, and averaged out at 30%. The French catch from Irish waters, on the other hand, halved from 42% before we joined the EU to 21% in 2004 – and it continues to decline. Part of the reason for the low Irish catches prior to EU membership was our inability to patrol Irish waters, and the lack of legal recognition for the exclusivity of those waters beyond the 12 mile limit. That changed in 1976, when the Irish Marine EEZ was extended from 12 to 200 miles, and the EU paid for four new fisheries protection vessels - the LÉ Deirdre, the Emer, the Aoife and the Aisling – so we could patrol our own waters. The US data shows that the Irish fish catch has never been more than 1.25% of GDP. In fact, since the late 1970s, the whole value of fish taken from Irish waters has never exceeded 2% of Irish GDP in any year, and was only worth a quarter of a percentage point of our 2004 GDP. The figures indicate that at no point before becoming an EU Member State were we ever a viable fishing nation, even if we had succeeded in taking absolutely every fish caught in Irish waters for ourselves.

12. Document B Tim Pat Coogan is a well-known journalist, editor and history writer. The following edited extract is available on his blog http://www.timpatcoogan.com/blog/2009/04/the-disaster-that-is-the-irish-fishing-industry/ and was published in 2009. [It] goes back to that conversation I had with Brian Lenihan (the present Minister for Finance’s father) back in the 1960s when Ireland was planning to enter the European Economic Community (EEC) as it was then known. The conversation occurred during an interview I was conducting with the junior Minister – that status should have given me a clue – on the prospects for developing the vast untapped fisheries potential of the Irish coastline. Brian, a pleasant man, interrupted me suddenly to ask “Tim Pat! Do you know how many whole time and part time farmers there are in this country?” I did not know exactly but he rattled off the answer correct to a decimal point (around a quarter million, as I remember). Then he asked me did I know how many whole time and part time fishermen there were in the country, “including lobster men, currachmen, and the teacher who goes out in the summer night with a net after a few salmon?” Again I could not reply with certainty but Brian could again answer with pin point accuracy, something just over 9,000 as I recall. “That”, he continued, “would hardly elect one Fianna Fail TD on the first count in a five seater. Now do you get me?” I did. What he was telling me in effect was that the farming lobby had political clout, the fishermen did not and that in the forthcoming Brussels EEC negotiations the mackerel would be traded off against the bullock. And so it proved. Negotiations stalled for a time, because General de Gaulle vetoed the British entry, but eventually, in 1973 Ireland joined the club.  The farmers prospered mightily, but the fishing industry was never became a great deal more than a means of subsidising the Irish language, which it was at the time of entry. Development within the fishing industry was more or less governed by its scale at the time of joining the EEC….Above all little money was devoted to the education of fishermen – a trawler is after all a small, sea-going factory, part of a complex process in which a business training is as necessary as a course in navigation…It was as though the fact that the Apaches [Native American tribe] did not develop gold mines meant that it was OK for the white man to take them.

13. SECTION 1: COMPREHENSION (20 MARKS) • In this section, your answers should be accurate but above all CONCISE. • There is no need to respond to these 5- or 6-MARK QUESTIONS with 6- OR 7-line paragraphs! • A maximum ofONE or TWO LINES is more than adequate. Bear in mind that the answers are contained WITHIN THE SOURCES. • Remember that you are being tested on your BASIC UNDERSTANDING of the relevant information. Please note that you have only8 minutesto complete this section.

14. 1. (a) In Document A, what was the catch value of all Irish fishing before joining the EU? $4.8 billion. b) According to Document A, why were Irish catches so low before EU membership? Their inability to patrol Irish waters. (c) In Document B, why were the concerns of fishermen not a priority for the Junior Minister Brian Lenihan? There were only 9,000 fishermen in total in the country so they were important in terms of votes. (d) What does Document B say about the fortunes of Irish farmers within the EU? (20) That farmers prospered because of EU membership.

15. HINTS FOR COMPREHENSION • These questions will test your BASIC UNDERSTANDINGof the document. All of the information you need is in the document. • Relating the information CLEARLYand ACCURATELY, even quoting directly from the document, is essential. • However, direct quotes may NOTin all cases be sufficient for full marks and a BRIEFsentence of explanation may be required.

16. SECTION 2: COMPARISON (20 MARKS) • It is essential in this section to COMPARE BOTH DOCUMENTS in your answer. • Rememberthat when a question refers to the ‘effectiveness’ of a document, it relates solely to the evidence WITHIN THE DOCUMENT. • Answers in this section will be LONGER than the Comprehension section as two comparative questions will – usually – be 10 marks each. Remember that you have only8 minutesto complete this section.

17. 2. (a) Which document is more sympathetic to Irish membership of the European Economic Community and its successor, the European Union? Explain your answer, referring to both documents. (10) Document A is more sympathetic to Irish membership of the EEC than Document B. Firstly, Document A makes a clear statement showing this sympathy for EEC/EU membership: : ‘…Ireland has benefited significantly from being an EU Member State.’ In addition, Document A quotes various statistics from the Sea Around Us project to show how beneficial EEC/EU membership was to Irish fish catches in particular. In fact, Document A states clearly that this project ‘…dispels the myth that Ireland lost out on Irish fish catches to the rest of the EU after we became a Member State.’ In contrast, Document B argues that Irish membership of the EEC/EU was harmful in many ways. Coogan believes politicians in Ireland and Europe did not value the Irish fishing industry. It was Irish farmers who had ‘political clout’ (not Irish fishermen) so in 1973, as Ireland prepared to join the EEC, ‘…the mackerel would be traded off against the bullock.’

18. Document A is very clear in its support of EEC/EU membership for Ireland when it highlights the point that all available facts and data lead to one conclusion: ‘…at no point before becoming an EU Member State were we ever a viable fishing nation…’. In contrast, Document B argues that Irish membership of the EEC/EU was harmful in many ways. Coogan believes politicians in Ireland and Europe did not value the Irish fishing industry. It was Irish farmers who had ‘political clout’ (not Irish fishermen) so in 1973, as Ireland prepared to join the EEC, ‘…the mackerel would be traded off against the bullock.’ Similarly, Document B shows its opposition to EEC/EU membership by illustrating the lack of development in the Irish fishing industry after joining the EEC/EU. Coogan states that ‘…little money was devoted to the education of fishermen…’ and that EEC/EU funds were not used to invest in the fishing industry, which ‘…never became a great deal more than a means of subsidising the Irish language, which it was at the time of entry.’ Therefore, Document A is much more sympathetic toIrish membership of the EEC than Document B.

19. HINTS FOR COMPARISON • It is ESSENTIAL that you refer to the excellent notes included in the Case Study The Impact of the EEC on Fisheries, (Later Modern Ireland, Topic 6, Government, Economy & Society in the Republic of Ireland, 1949-1993), on the following webpage (see http://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/history%20case%20study_fishing.pdf). Some of these documents may be on your exam. • While you are not required to answer with reference to information OUTSIDE the sources, knowing relevant information or the POINTS OF VIEW of key personalities will be helpful in interpreting the evidence within the documents. • Use COMPARATIVE TERMS such as ‘also’, ‘both’, ‘similarly’, ‘in contrast’, ‘on the other hand’, etc. when you are comparing or contrasting the documents, as this helps you to structure your answer on comparative lines.

20. SECTION 3: CRITICISM (20 MARKS) • This is the most technical of the three opening questions, as it requires you to know KEY HISTORICAL TERMS related to sources. To this end, you will be expected to: • IDENTIFY STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of documents AS HISTORICAL SOURCES • EVALUATEthe RELIABILITY of documents AS HISTORICAL SOURCES • RECOGNISEexamples ofBIASand PROPAGANDA • When looking at strengths and weaknesses, examine the documents in their HISTORICAL CONTEXT. You should focus on how accurate the writer was about events AT THE TIME the document was written. Remember that you have only8 minutesto complete this section.

21. Know Critical Vocabulary! Factual – based on agreed/accepted details Tone– deduced from language used (happy, sad, angry) Objective– balanced in its presentation of viewpoints Subjective– influenced by personal feelings or opinions Emotive– influencing by feelings Effective– achieving its purpose Informative– relating to facts Provenance– context/historical background to a source

22. 3.(b) What are the strengths and weaknesses of document B as a historical source?  Support your answer by reference to the document. (10) Document B is an extract from Tim Pat Coogan’s blog. Blogs, like letters or diaries, can be a valuable resource for the historian, as they give personal insights into the writer and often give information that are not available elsewhere. For instance, Coogan’s use of an anecdote (regarding a personal conversation with Brian Lenihan) gives a great insight to the reader of how politicians assess issues: “That”, he [Lenihan] continued, “would hardly elect one Fianna Fail TD on the first count in a five seater. Now do you get me?” A weakness of Document B as a historical source is that it is written with an emphasis on persuasion. It is more concerned with the use of emotion rather than logic or facts. Coogan contrasts the fortunes of farmers and fishermen in one concise and memorable sentence, ‘…the mackerel would be traded off against the bullock…’ but there is no supporting factual data. The emphasis is on rhetoric rather than historical argument.

23. Another weakness of Document B is that it makes claims which are based on opinion and exaggeration rather than historical facts. For example, Coogan claims that ‘It was as though the fact that the Apaches [Native American tribe] did not develop gold mines meant that it was OK for the white man to take them.’ While clever and colourful as a phrase, it does not stand up to scrutiny. Equating the lack of development of the Irish fishing industry with what happened to Native Americans is inaccurate and misleading. Therefore, Document B has both strengths and weaknesses as a historical source.

24. HINTS FOR CRITICISM • This section tests your knowledge of documents as historical sources so you must be familiar with the strengths and weaknesses ofall types of sources. See www.hist.ie for a useful glossary of the terms used in the documents-based question. • For the best analysis of the various written, visual or oral sources on which you will be asked, consult Dermot Lucey’s Modern Europe and the Wider World (Gill and MacMillan, pp. 484-9).

25. PAST QUESTIONS [ON THE E.E.C.] 2016 Which had the greater impact on Irish society, Vatican II or the EEC? Argue your case, referring to both in your answer. 2015 How did involvement in the EEC, 1973-1989, affect the Republic of Ireland? 2014 How was Ireland affected by the First Programme for Economic Expansion, 1958-1963, and/or EEC membership? 2012What was the impact of the EEC on Irish fisheries? 2011 Which affected the Republic of Ireland more, membership of the UN or membership of the EEC? Argue your case, referring to both. 2009 How did membership of the UN and/or the EEC affect the Irish Republic? 2007 What impact had membership of the EEC on economy and society in Ireland after 1973? 2006 What were the social and economic effects of Irish membership of the EEC during the period, 1973–1989?

26. SECTION 4: CONTEXTUALISATION (40) This section requires a wider understanding of the background, events and issues associated with the Irish fishing industry and EEC membership between 1949 and 1993 by placing the sources in their historical context. This section is marked according to the marking schemes for individual paragraphs. At Higher Level, 40 marks are divided according to: Cumulative Marks(out of 24) for accurate and relevant HISTORICAL CONTENT Overall Evaluation (16 marks) for how well the student dealt with the question in terms of ANALYSIS, EVIDENCE, ARGUMENT andCONCLUSION. Answers should be approx. one-and-a-half to two A4 pages. Each year, many students do not write enough so write AT LEAST FOUR PARAGRAPHS.Remember that you have16 minutesto complete this section.

27. HINTS FOR CONTEXTUALISATION This section may focus on one of the following: KEY PERSONALITIESassociated with the topic such as Garrett Fitzgerald, Jack Lynch and Charles Haughey. KEY EVENTSsuch as the entry to the EEC 1973, the Hague Convention 1976, the Common Fisheries Policy 1983, etc. CULTURAL/SOCIAL IMPACTof EEC membership on the fishing community/etc.

28. What was the impact of the EEC on Irish fisheries?

29. What was the impact of the EEC on Irish fisheries? The Republic of Ireland’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC) on 1 January, 1973 had a considerable impact on the country’s political, economic and social way of life- in particular, on Irish fisheries and the fishing industry. Throughout the 1950s and 60s, in spite of its access to some of the largest fishing grounds in the world, Ireland’s fishing industry remained underdeveloped, having only 2% of the total catch and the smallest fleet in the EEC in 1973. Yet membership of the EU gave Irish fisheries access to greater markets, greater diversity of products and greater security. This was aided by extra investment came from the European Regional Development Fund. Up to 1973, Ireland took just 12% of the catch from Irish waters. According to an ESRI report in 1980, the catch landed at all Irish ports increased from 25,000 tonnes in 1963 to 98,000 tonnes in 1978- some 30% of the total catch. Ancillary industries grew; by 1986, there were nearly 12,500 people in full- or part-time employment in the fishing or fish-processing industries. This was a 50% increase in just over a decade. Undoubtedly, there was a significant and, to all appearances, beneficial economic impact on Irish fisheries as a result of EEC membership.

30. However, there were many concerns about the negative impact of EEC membership on Irish fisheries. The 1976 Hague Resolution extended the limits of their fishing zones to 200 miles off the North Sea and North Atlantic coasts. Non-member countries would be governed by agreements between the Community and themselves; individual member states would not have a say. As the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reported, ‘…the concept that EU fishermen should have equal access to these new waters was retained and benefits thus accrued to the Community rather than individual Member States.’ This ‘principle of equal access’ was seen by its opponents as a way for the larger EEC countries – especially the original six states – to exploit the rich waters of Ireland, Britain and Denmark as a ‘common resource.’ Speaking in 1978, Charles Haughey asked: ‘Why should Irish fisheries…be thrown into a community pool …when German steel, British oil, Dutch gas- none of these are thrown into a community pool?’ However, this was not the only controversy to arise from EEC fisheries policies.

31. The positive and negative impact of the EEC on Irish fisheries was best shown by the 1983 Common Fisheries Policy. This was (and still is) the main policy which controls the fishing resources of all EEC waters on the basis of quotas. To aid conservation of stocks, European waters were divided into fishing areas where the annual tonnage allowed to be caught (of each species of fish) were fixed as the Total Allowable Catch (TAC). These quotas caused problems for Irish fisheries in particular, as they were based on ‘traditional’ fish catches per country (such as mackerel and herring in Ireland). However, it also meant that Irish quotas on less traditional catches (such as ‘flat’ fish, sole, etc.) were less generous. These quotas were set annually by politicians who were under pressure from lobby groups in their own countries. As a result, the TACs were often set much higher than conservation groups and scientists advised. Also, member states were less likely to enforce EEC rules with their own fishing fleets, so that they would gain an advantage over other states. Quotas also gave rise to the practice of discarding (i.e. fish are thrown overboard after being caught, practically all of which are dead) which accounted for an estimated 23% of the total EEC/EU catch.

32. David McWilliams has pointed out as recently as 2015 that ‘Fisheries are among the most underdeveloped of all Ireland’s natural industries.’ In this context, the impact of the EEC on Irish fisherieswas both beneficial and controversial. On the one hand, various aid programmes were introduced (the latest being the European Fisheries Fund) to improve Irish fisheries and fish-processing industries. EEC grants and loans were used to develop the Irish fleet, particularly security vessels. On the other hand, it has been argued that the problems facing Irish fisheries would have been worse without EEC assistance (for instance, no EEC regulation would have led to overfishing on an even greater scale in Irish waters). It was the failure of our native fish-processing industry, rather than the EEC/EU that most Irish seafood exports were commodity traded and not processed products. Joe Lee has written that ‘Irish coastal waters appear to be sufficiently favoured by fish to make it worthwhile for foreign fisherman to come here. If Irish fishermen cannot compete with them, it is not because the fish have chosen to boycott them.’ Therefore, it is clear that the impact of the EEC on Irish fisheries had both positive and negative effects, and will continue to be contentious in the future.

33. RECAP • COMPREHENSION– Be ACCURATE and CONCISE. • COMPARISON– CompareBOTHdocuments. • CRITICISM – Know HISTORICAL TERMS related to sources, IDENTIFYSTRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES, EVALUATEthe RELIABILITY of documents, and RECOGNISEexamples of BIAS andPROPAGANDA. • CONTEXTUALISATION– Write AT LEASTTHREE TO FOUR PARAGRAPHS.