Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Maskhadov » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:38 pm

I agree about that part Morlan.

We live in a pathetic country who couldnt plan a piss up in a brewery let along any major peice of infastructure of signifance.

Our society has completely failed at infastructure and all we ever mastered is endless meaningless chat and soundbites. Any other northern european nation would be pressing on with these projects and would have started to move the port a decade ago.
Maskhadov
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Boyler » Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:18 pm

Ireland is far from perfect but there's no need to brand it as pathetic. a decade ago we couldn't afford to move the port, or do a lot of things. I'm proud to be Irish, even if we have shite infastructure!
Boyler
Member
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:00 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby dodger » Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:07 pm

Correct Boyler, i too am proud to be Irish and cannot stand the anti Irish, aren't we crap, other countries are so much better vitriole that springs forth on this suite every few posts.

This country's principal acheivement is that it has survived the malevolance of its neighbours and its isolated position on the western seaboard of Europe.

On the subject of infrastructure this country is unrecognisable from that of ten or twenty years ago. Back then we had no cash for big projects unless you took it from the schools, the hospitals or the 250,000 unemployed. Anybody who cannot see the acheivements in the intervening period is blind or bigoted.
dodger
Member
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:07 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:53 pm

Guess you don't travel outside of Dublin that often. Try a nice weekend break in the north west when you get a chance - you will love the drive.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby dodger » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:13 pm

actually i go west more often - and now i have motorway to beyond mullingar - suppose though you wouldn't consider that progress.
dodger
Member
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:07 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:36 pm

dodger wrote:actually i go west more often - and now i have motorway to beyond mullingar - suppose though you wouldn't consider that progress.



It is progress - the new 50km nearly doubles the number of km of motorway per million in inhabitants in Ireland. Not bad. However, as Ali G would say - 'keep it real'. Let us put this progress in context. In 1999 we had 22km of motorway per million inhabitants - this is after 5 years of the Celtic tiger and 80 years of political independence and relative stability. In 1999, Germany - 54 years after the total devastation of virtually all of its infrastructure - mustered some 138 km of motorway per million inhabitants. Lets compare Ireland and Austria - countries of nearly the exact same land area. In 1999, we enjoyed no fewer than 94km of motorway while Austria boasted some 1613 km of motorway. Of course, lest we forget, Austria also had to recover from the second world war in the meantime, and still managed to build much of its motorway network across one of the most physically challenging landscapes in western and central europe. After over a decade of rapid economic growth, we should be very proud of this particular stretch of motorway - it is a testament to what the Irish nation can do given the resources - namely 50km of motorway across a landscape that is as flat and unchallenging as could be.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby dodger » Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:49 pm

This is far from the only stretch built in this period. There was a time that our friends across the border would mock our roads - not any more. Driving from Dublin to Belfast quickly proves that.

Within ten years we'll have motorway / dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork and Galway. Perhaps this isn't quick enough for you and perhaps we're not the industrial powerhouse of Europe that Germany was but one thing we are not and that is pathetic. We are a country will full employment and working flat our in terms of infrastructure.
dodger
Member
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:07 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:04 pm

dodger wrote:Within ten years we'll have motorway / dual carriageway from Dublin to Cork and Galway. Perhaps this isn't quick enough for you and perhaps we're not the industrial powerhouse of Europe that Germany was but one thing we are not and that is pathetic. We are a country will full employment and working flat our in terms of infrastructure.


We will wait and see with regards to the completion of a motorway netwrok across Ireland. Given the standoff that we witnessd at the southern part of the M50 and the nearly twenty year wait to have the relief road through Sligo built, I think we need to pace ourselves a little bit on this one.

Perhaps, a comparison with Germany and Austria was a bad idea - maybe a comparison with the other traditional 'poor men' of Europe would be more appropriate. Consider, for example, Spain. In 1999, it had 8,257 km of motorway, that means it ranked highest among all EU countries with some 186 km of motorway per million inhabitants. Puts Ireland's 22 km per million inhabitants somewhat in the shade. With regard to Ireland being 'pathetic', it depends on what you are referring to. In terms of road-building, we are pathetic. The above figures clearly show that we are not really up there with the Romans in this department. Our rail infrastructure is not exactly first class either. Mind you, neither is our national bus netrwork, Dublin's public transport, and so on.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby d_d_dallas » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:38 pm

How much of Spain/Austria etc's planning and CPO regulations hark back to the days of dictators running the show?
d_d_dallas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:50 pm

I presume this is a rhetorical question as it would be difficult for me to present an analysis of the history of these countries' planning laws. I am not negating your suggestion, however, that certain political ideologies may have had an implicit influence on some of the planning laws in these countries.

Lets consider then two countries that are not and have not been run by dictatorships (at least not since the invention of the motorcar): Belgium and France:

Belgium (1999): 1682km; 165km per million inhabitants

France (1999): 9303km; 142 km per million inhabitants

The facts are inescapable. For a country that has one of the highest dependencies on the motorized vehicle in the world, is it not ironic that we have one of lowest rates of motorways per km in the EU? Encapsulates everything about Ireland, if you ask me.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Rory W » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:46 pm

But too be fair in France in particular if they want to build a motorway through your house they will do so without any of the "niceties" that go on over here. Blame deValera for giving too much leeway in the Constitution to NIMBYs if needs be
Rory W
Old Master
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Drogheda & Blackrock

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:58 pm

Returning to a point made above with regard to the PD's utopian vision of Dublin harbour. If such a plan was ever to get beyond the stage of a two page flyer, the Port Tunnel would not necessarily be a dead loss. Indeed, it could be capitalised on quite nicely. If a 'mini-Manhatten' was constructed in the docklands, direct access to the airport would obviously be a huge attraction to companies that would wish to locate in the area. In that regard, it could provide a nice incentive to such companies. It would also provide an opportunity to plan a new port that could be modelled on rail transport rather than motor transport. It could also offer a huge qualitative change in the lives of Dubliners in terms of rescuing the city's relationship with the seascape (somewhat like the development of an open green area as a public amenity on the site of the old land-fill dump in the Claddagh in Galway). The PD's plan might seem like pie-in-the-sky at first glance, but it is a very good idea.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PVC King » Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:30 pm

Some good points above but what I feel is missing is that it needs to be said that the Irish as a race are a tremendously resiliant and creative society in all respects bar one. We continue to elect morons who promise much and deliver little.

This particular proposal takes the biscuit as does Tom Morrisey in general; this idea was discussed on boards earlier in the summer and the above points were made by different contributors; the clear consensus was that it is an extremely worthy objective to provide a high density mixed use regeneration project in what is now an exclusively industrial / distribution area.

Much of the area on the Northern is sufficiently far away from all the important heritage areas to merit real consideration free from conservation grounds.

What the real problem is and the PDs knew before they published was that this would be SOUTH WHARF PLC all over again and that there would be virtually nothing coming to Dublin Port to pay for the new port as virtually all the plots are held on 99 year leases with an average of 50 to 60 years unexpired. Which as any property advisor will tell you any freehold with a leasehold of over 20 years in place has a virtual nil value.

To compound this untruth Tom Morrisey as coalition partner failed to deliver the interconnector to the docklands until 2015 which if the NDP delays are bourne out should arrive in a timeframe of approximately 2025-28.

Should it happen yes

Will it happen probably not as I'm sure McDowell will veto it just like then incinerator on NIMBY grounds.
PVC King
 

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:52 am

[quote="Thomond Park"]I feel is missing is that it needs to be said that the Irish as a race are a tremendously resiliant and creative society in all respects bar one. We continue to elect morons who promise much and deliver little.
[quote]

I agree, Thomond Park. However, I would also argue that we are also too quick and willing to listen to the hype thrown out by both the Government and the cultural and political commentators that generate the stuff we consume through the media. I will get back to this point in a minute.

The point Thomand Park made, however, is - to my mind at least - indicative of one of the other problems which we face, namely a post-colonial mentality. Thomand Park says that one of our weaknesses is that 'we continue to elect morons who promise much and deliver little'. True, yet we live in a democracy that enjoys largely free and fair elections. Therefore, it could be reasonably argued that you get what you vote for - in essence, if we vote for morons, we deserve what we get and are, by extention, morons ourselves. In a democracy, the government represents the collective will of the majority, therefore the majority of Irish people must be somewhat moronic, politically at least. If we argue against this, it suggests that we do not have a government that represents the people and, therefore, we live under some form of dodgy non-democratic political regime (perhaps if it was a dictatorship we would have better infrastructure as noted above). To project the blame unto the government without recognising that it is us who have put those people in power is a very post-colonial view of governmental power. It distances the electorate from the elected and heaps all the blame on the latter without recognising that the latter gets its authority from the former.

We have had how many freely elected governments since independence - 20? - I am only guessing. Fair enough, in the early days of the state it was probably more important to have a government composed of our own without any concern for the quality of the people involved. We have had plenty of time however to sort out our priorities, to know the type of people we want to govern us, to get rid of the back-door cowboys. Therefore, if we have a government of morons today, it is either because the electorate is moronic or we just don't care. We cannot blame the government for this.

The other element I believe which is a factor is what I mentioned above - we are too willing to believe the hype and the spin. Further up this thread, I contrasted the motorway infrastructure in Ireland with that in German and Austria. The counter-argument was that we should not compare Ireland to the industrial powerhouses of Europe. Fair enough. However, you cannot have it both ways. We endlessly talk about Ireland’s economic success – its growth, its wealth, its progress, its outstripping other EU economies. Yet if one points to a deficiency in the country, we argue how can we compare Ireland to Germany. Oddly enough, we are happy to compare Ireland’s favourable employment rates with those of Germany when it supports the hype around the Celtic Tiger. In short, we seem to have lost the run of ourselves in all of this talk about the Celtic Tiger. We have lost our hold on reality. As de Saussure would have said, there is an imbalance between the signified and the signifier. This cannot be blamed solely on the morons in Leinster House. Yes, they give us the stick (the economic figures, the political hype), but it is our journalists, our cultural commentators, our estate agents, our property developers, our car salesmen, our mortgage advisors, who take that stick and run as fast as they can with it waving it vigorously. These people are of course not elected by us, but they do raise our expectations. We are made believe that we are one of the most prosperous countries in Europe, that we have euros oozing out of every pore in our bodies, so is it any wonder why we question why our infrastructure is still extremely limited in comparison to those countries we have allegedly outstripped? (believe me, Europeans do wonder when they arrive here awaiting a land of milk and honey). If we have high expectations, it is because we have been led to believe that we are nothing short of an economic miracle, yet when you probe that miracle to see just what it is made of, we are told that you cannot compare us to the industrial powerhouses of Europe. Best not delve too deeply then – just believe the hype, put the sun roof down on your BMW coupe, cruise along our national primary routes and feel the overgrown encroaching brambles scratch your forehead.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby dodger » Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:36 pm

PDLL, you have to compare like with like. In terms of economic success we compare very favourably to the likes of Germany but only over the last 10 years, in terms of infrasturture we currently compare poorly. But this is partly a chicken and egg debate. We have acheived an astonishing economic turnaround and are now working on the infrastructure. If we had built motorways in the 70's and 80's there is a chance the tiger would never have arrived. It was McSharry's cutbacks that kickstaarted the economy not a cash splurge. Instead of constantly moaning can't we at least concede that we are moving in the right direction and can't we give the politicians and planners the time they require.

I also don't agree with the notion that we elect morons any more than other nations.

This is not to say that mistakes have not been made - the M3 route is a travesty - but given prosperity didn't reach us until 10 years ago i don't feel we're doing too bad.

Finally if you really want to know how europe did so well within a short period after the war - it was the Marshall plan and not anything the German's or French did.
dodger
Member
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:07 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Tue Dec 20, 2005 2:10 pm

I would agree completely, dodger, about comparing like with like and I also agree that our economic success does compare very favourably with the likes of Germany. The problem is, if we cannot compare Ireland to Germany and Austria – considered wealthy and developed countries, at least for the last 30 years, and we cannot compare Ireland with Spain – considered to be traditionally poor and limited economically and infrastructurally, who then can we compare Ireland to? Indeed, why do we need to compare it to any other country at all? We need to compare it with other EU countries as that is exactly how the concept of the Celtic Tiger was derived – by comparing the statistics of our economic growth against those of our European neighbours. This is where the politicians get their ammunition to crow about the Celtic Tiger and it is where the journalists source their comparative information. Of course there is nothing wrong with this, unless of course it is not in the best interests of the State. And this appears to be one case where that is happening. Ireland was , oddly enough, more than happy to compare itself to Germany in the 70s and 80s when it meant getting more money out of the EU!

Returning to the issue of comparing like with like. In the 1920s and 1930s, Germany was an economic dead-end. In the ‘40s, it was an economic dead-end. Much of the 50s and 60s focussed on re-building and putting some very basic infrastructure back in place. In the 70s things started to get better and have done so up until quite recently really. In other words, it went from a position where it had less than nothing (flattened cities, no political infrastructure, no medical supplies, no industry worth speaking of, no public transport, devastated ports and airports and, most of all, no manpower!). In about 30 years it went from the severest infrastructural and industrial deficit imaginable to become the biggest economy in Europe. Not bad. Yes, the Marshall Plan was a big element of this redevelopment – this is undeniable. It provided the finances to get Germany back on its feet. Following that, however, was it US companies that strengthened Germany’s economy in the 70s and 80s? – no, it was indigenous German industry (BMW, VW, Mercedes, Krupps, Phillips, Siemens etc) that brought it back on its feet and largely kept it there. At the same time, Germany continued to fund us here in Ireland via the EU!!!

Lets consider Ireland. In the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, it had no major war to contend with, its limited infrastructure (mostly from colonial times!) remained limited, it had no drastic shortage of manpower. It had, however, a reasonable level of political and social stability. In addition, it started to benefit from an injection of funds that probably on a per head of population basis was similar to that of the Marshall Plan in Germany – it enjoyed the billions injected into it each year from the EU. Unlike Germany, however, Ireland has not enjoyed a serious development of sustainable indigenous industry as a result, rather it has continued to depend on external investment, primarily from the US. Since the 1990s, we have enjoyed 15 years of prosperity, but it remains dependent on that external investment and is, therefore, precarious. Neither have we enjoyed a level of infrastructural development that might rightly have been expected during this period of time.

Ireland is truly Europe’s Hamlet – incapable of serious action.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Maskhadov » Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:50 pm

I think were somewhere in the middle. Yes after 1922 we didn’t do a whole pile and struggled for many decades but we had an awful lot of things to sort out.

We weren’t getting the full island which a major psychological barrier to get over.

We were a post colonial nation who had to start from scratch. It takes a long time for a nation to build up expertise itself in all areas that it’s involved in.

There were other factors; Britain and Ireland were not at ease with the separation and the trade war didn’t help things. Neither did the civil war for that matter.

Throw in more instability during the Second World War and missing out on the Marshall plan afterwards and then political and social upheaval in the north during the 60's which destabilized the island.

On top of all that you had huge emigration where the best of your population got up and left. Considering all that you have a nation which did alright.

We did miss manage the economy for decades and it took us a long time to get it right (and plan a year ahead like the Americans were doing for years and years).

I don’t know how any of this is particularly relevant to relocating the Dublin Port. The only points which I have are

The individual has too many rights in Irish law and the collective good of the nation doesn’t supercede the individual enough.

Brian Boru kicked out all the Vikings back in the 11th century and we haven’t been able to plan anything since. However I think we have learnt a great deal in the last decade and we can achieve world class infrastructure if we put our minds to it and adopt best international practice and a can do approach.

Personally I would like to see the Critical Infrastructure Bill being put through the Dáil next year. Then I would like to see a lengthy debate in the Oireachtas on relocating the port and a cost benefit analysis. If both debate and cost benefit analysis come out in favor then they should start relocating the port in 2008.

The port can start to relocate in 2008 by simply putting a cap of future expansion of the port and moving all services that won’t fit to North Dublin or Cork etc.
Maskhadov
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:59 am

[quote="Maskhadov"]

There were other factors]

I am not sure that such extremely low-scale, low instensity, low casualty, geographically confined conflicts such as the Irish civil war (about 4,000 dead from what I know) and the troubles in Norther Ireland (3000 dead over 30 years!) can be put in the same context as the human and physical devastation wreaked in Germany in the 1940s. The economic consequences of the troubles in Northern Ireland were primarily felt by those in Northern Ireland (and, by extension, Britain) and not by the Republic. Perhaps the only place in the Republic where those consequences were felt was in the Border counties.

Relevance to the thread on the relocation of Dublin port? Stems back to the PD's document which is based on a direct comparison of Dublin and Helsinki and a comparison of the probability of such a development taking place in Dublin in comparison with another European city. In effect, it is legitimate to compare other examples of past development practice in Ireland and our European neighbours so as to provide some context for a discussion of that probablity.

My conclusion on all of this - mainland European countries, even facing the most unimaginable economic circumstances, still manage to develop large scale infrastructural projects. Ireland, facing sound economic circumstances, appears at best slow to complete even basic infrastructural projects. Likelihood then of the Dublin Prot project taking place - sadly nil.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Maskhadov » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:54 pm

Of course the conflicts in Ireland werent of the same scale as that in Germany but you have to factor in population size. The vast majority of people in northern ireland knew somone who died in the conflict. The entire island was affected and it did hold the entire island back. You cant not recognise the problems that plagued this island for decades.

I dont want to get bogged down in Irish history. At the end of the day its all behind us and we cant change any of it. What we can change is the future and adopt a more can do approach like other nations. The port can be relocated without too much hullabaloo if there is political will.

Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

I remain unconvinced whether the port will actually be relocated in a reasonable timescale, I also doubt wether the government has the balls to press ahead with the Tuskar tunnel, Shannon deep port and HSR in this country. Even some of the pressure groups dont seem to have the stomach to campagin for these 4 major projects.

You only have to look to China to see what can be achieved in such a short period of time. They went from bog to high rise in just a matter of a few decades. Were just mucking around with semi-d's. The PD's came about the shake the political establishment. I dont think they have been radical enough but if they were to press ahead with the relocation of Dublin Port then I would gladly vote for them.
Maskhadov
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:22 pm

Maskhadov wrote:Of course the conflicts in Ireland werent of the same scale as that in Germany but you have to factor in population size. The vast majority of people in northern ireland knew somone who died in the conflict. The entire island was affected and it did hold the entire island back.


In what way was the infrastructural development of the Republic of Ireland affected by the conflict in Northern Ireland? Economically? If so, why did Northern Ireland, which - one would presume - was most affected economically by the conflict there develop such a fine motorway and road network during the Troubles while we in the Republic did not? Seems the conflict had more of an economic effect south of the border than north of it!

I remember hearing a story about some politician who was showing a group of foreign visitors around Dublin in the 1980s and when asked why there were so many dilapidated buildings, responded by saying that it was due to bomb damage. Maybe its urban myth - I don't know. Someone might be able to verify the story or discredit it. Either way, it is just another example of a rather lame excuse for developmental inadequacies in the Republic.

Whatever about the undoubted human suffering the troubles caused, NI's economy did not collapse between the 1960s and the 1980s. It may not have blossomed, but neither did it suffer total collapse. As one of the many border county people that regularly ventured to Enniskillen and Newry to do our shopping during those decades, I can vouch for that. It was never a war zone and the conflict's mortality rate was even quite low (3000 over 30 years is not high as civil conflicts go - ask a Palestinian or a Bosnian). To suggest that the Republic's economy was somehow severely retarded by the Troubles is, therefore, a fairly exaggerated claim. CJ Haughey did more damage to the Irish economy than any group of terrorists could ever do (back to the moron line).

Again, this is the post-colonial line of thinking - project our inadequacies unto other issues. Whatever we do, we should never take responsibility for the way we are when we can blame it on someone else. With that, I return to an earlier comment of mine on our rather lack lustre talents in the self-governance department.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Maskhadov » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:02 pm

infastructure is not the real issue.

The real issue Is to do with the national charachter and national pyhce. We changed a great deal in the early 1990's and trying to compare Pre 1990's with Post 1990's is not valid.

Pre 1990's we had a large number of issues to sort out. We werent helped by anyone really and had one hand tied behind our back with emmigration and the north.

You have a selective memory of history. The english built that motorway in the north. Not anyone from northern ireland. So they didnt make any progress themselves. They never progressed an inch.

The north got on so well because the anglo saxon government in england decided to pump the north with millions and millions to try and show up the new state in the south. they ridculed anything related to Ireland. Be it the name "Eire" (which we cant use anymore because of all the baggage associcated with it) or the punt which the english regularly tooth the mick out of.

You need a reality check PDLL, some parts of your posts are a nonsense.
Maskhadov
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby jimg » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:27 pm

Tuskar tunnel, Shannon deep port and HSR

At least they made some attempt to stetch cost v. benefits of moving Dublin port and present some numbers for debate.

The Tuskar tunnel is an undergraduate civil engineer's fantasy which simply could never be justified. Comparisons with the Channel Tunnel are not just naive - they make no sense at all. The latter connects two of the most populous countries in Europe and links, in a direct way, two metropolitan areas each populated by about 14 million people - and thats ignoring the other mainland destinations like Brussels. It makes about as much sense as the campaign by the 46 inhabitants of Inis Biggle for a cable car connection to Achill Island.

Neither does building TGV make any economic sense - we simply do not have the population concentrations in this country to make such a service viable. Maybe in 40 years time when the population of Dublin within the M50 is 4 million and that of Cork is 2, it might make economic sense to consider such a line. Given the real problems this country has regarding infrastructure in general, these fantasy proposals obfuscate the real issues in my opinion.
jimg
Member
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: Zürich

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:58 pm

A most singular response.

Maskhadov wrote:infastructure is not the real issue.


This was (and is, despite some contextualising debate) about the PD's proposal on Dublin port. I provided some thoughts on the attitude to infrastructural development in the Republic.

Maskhadov wrote: We changed a great deal in the early 1990's and trying to compare Pre 1990's with Post 1990's is not valid.

Given that we changed a great deal between the early 90s and the pre 1990s, comparisons between both periods are perhaps even more valid and justified. If we have no comparison with the Pre1990s, then we cannot even talk about the Celtic Tiger which is itself derived from the comparative notion of Ireland before and after 1990-4.


Maskhadov wrote: Pre 1990's we had a large number of issues to sort out. We werent helped by anyone really and had one hand tied behind our back with emmigration and the north .


The billions upon billions we received from the EU (and still do!!!) does not qualify as help? As regards Northern Ireland, I ams till waiting to here how it affected the Republic's economy. Ya, it may have detered some investment in the border counties, it may have cost the army, the guards, and the prison service some extra money, but we rae not talking about major amounts of the nation's resources. You could cross the border at Blacklion during the height of the troubles and there would have been about 5 Irish soldiers and three gardai there at any one time. There was never a major secuirty operation of any prolonged duration that brought the Republic's economy to the brink of collapse or anywhere near it.


Maskhadov wrote: The english built that motorway in the north. Not anyone from northern ireland. So they didnt make any progress themselves. They never progressed an inch..


I do not know how to respond to this. The British Government (not 'the English') probably resourced the building of NI's motorwayS through British tax payers money (that would include taxes paid by workers in NI). What building company physically built the motorways, I do not know. I am sure though that a load of English workers did not pile into a ship to come to build it - local labourers probably contributed a great deal. I could be corrected on that if someone knows a great deal about the building of NI's motorways.

Maskhadov wrote: The north got on so well because the anglo saxon government in england decided to pump the north with millions and millions to try and show up the new state in the south.


!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anglo-saxon government in england. Time to do a bit of research on the cultural, ethnic and political history of our closest neighbour.

Maskhadov wrote: the english regularly tooth the mick out of.


!

Maskhadov wrote: You need a reality check PDLL, some parts of your posts are a nonsense.


! Words fail me. I think you are toothing the micky out of me now.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby Maskhadov » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:27 pm


This was (and is, despite some contextualising debate) about the PD's proposal on Dublin port. I provided some thoughts on the attitude to infrastructural development in the Republic.


My point was the problem was related to the Irish pysche. We were a post conial nation and it took us a while to get going.


The billions upon billions we received from the EU (and still do!!!) does not qualify as help? As regards Northern Ireland, I ams till waiting to here how it affected the Republic's economy. Ya, it may have detered some investment in the border counties, it may have cost the army, the guards, and the prison service some extra money, but we rae not talking about major amounts of the nation's resources. You could cross the border at Blacklion during the height of the troubles and there would have been about 5 Irish soldiers and three gardai there at any one time. There was never a major secuirty operation of any prolonged duration that brought the Republic's economy to the brink of collapse or anywhere near it.


The money we recieved from the EU will all be paid back, starting in the next few years. We recieved approximately €40bn for infastructure projects (which we spent far better and more efficeiently than anyone else) while at the same time we handed out €40bn in fisheries to Spain and the rest of them. We could have simply declared the waters as Irish and refused access.

The troubles in the north were effectively our cold war in the south. If the country started to move it would have been very destablising. A lot of people wanted a 32 county republic before progress began. Looking back at history in hindsight is a completely different angle than being there and your ignorance is astounding.

In short, ireland wasnt a nice place to live back then, we had massive emmigration, we had a society based on the catholic church which was rotten to the core and corrupt. We had high unemployment and little natural resources. There was no such thing as foreign direct investment. Up until recently the idea of a small country existing was highly questionable. Only large countries could exist. A point you dont even mention.


We were a country who faced 500 years of war, famine and other problem while the continental countries had 500 years of peace and stability (largely) and the nation state. To compare Ireland with a 500 year old nation state is a pathetic sham and your arguement is false.


I do not know how to respond to this. The British Government (not 'the English') probably resourced the building of NI's motorwayS through British tax payers money (that would include taxes paid by workers in NI). What building company physically built the motorways, I do not know. I am sure though that a load of English workers did not pile into a ship to come to build it - local labourers probably contributed a great deal. I could be corrected on that if someone knows a great deal about the building of NI's motorways.


English / British. Dont get pedantic. The fact of the matter is that the north could NOT sustain itself and all that money came from British tax payers in England and the north sea oil. The north did nothing for itself. Its still €8bn short each year today. A failed state. Actually building the motorways is nothing. All the expertise came from England and there is no skill in manual labour. That point is absolutely irrelevant



!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anglo-saxon government in england. Time to do a bit of research on the cultural, ethnic and political history of our closest neighbour.


Go and do some research of your own and you will find out that although England is a mutli ethnic country. Those in power do not reflect this !!


! Words fail me. I think you are toothing the micky out of me now.


No Im not. You've lost the plot on your rant.
Maskhadov
Member
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:59 pm

Re: Dublin Port - Feasible or not?

Postby PDLL » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:38 pm

It is tempting to respond (perhaps I will later when I am not in the office), however I genuinely fear that it would be a waste of all of those tiny little skin cells on the tips of my fingers. Maskhadov, my man, I take my hat off to you. I bow to your unquestionable knowledge of our island's chequered history, the development of the nation state in Europe and your sensitivity to the politics of ethnicity in the United Kingdom. Perhaps what I respect most of all, however, is the deft subtely of your argument, your crafting of words and your unquestionable knowledge of European history:

Maskhadov wrote: Up until recently the idea of a small country existing was highly questionable. Only large countries could exist. A point you dont even mention... We were a country who faced 500 years of war, famine and other problem while the continental countries had 500 years of peace and stability (largely) and the nation state. To compare Ireland with a 500 year old nation state is a pathetic sham and your arguement is false.


Lest you think I am not toothing the mick, I am.
PDLL
Member
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland