Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adequacy of Irish Ports

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by CTU View Post
    Looks like DSG also have an office in Vietnam.

    http://doyleshipping.ie/logistics/
    It's how port agents work. Larger shipping companies prefer to deal with local agents that have a bigger footprint. If your ship needs an urgent part, you can't mail it to the next port of call and hope it will magically be delivered to the quayside by Postman Nguyen. They work as "fixers" and a middleman between local Port owners and shipowners. The fact that Doyles operate much of the services required by shipowners themselves is a huge advantage.
    When I was at sea I relied on the agent to get post from home to me, in the days before internet and social media, where the only other means of contact was a call box(once you had local currency coinage) or a carphone (when within range of UK or Ireland at huge expense).
    They also provided us with all stores, from food to fuel, safety boots to smokestacks and everything in between. They told us where to go for our next cargo.
    If you remember when people could take foreign holidays, and it took a few days to find where the best place to buy cigarettes & Alcohol or where the nearest ATM was, shipowners don't have the time for such things. The agent does that for them.
    For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
      It's how port agents work. Larger shipping companies prefer to deal with local agents that have a bigger footprint. If your ship needs an urgent part, you can't mail it to the next port of call and hope it will magically be delivered to the quayside by Postman Nguyen. They work as "fixers" and a middleman between local Port owners and shipowners. The fact that Doyles operate much of the services required by shipowners themselves is a huge advantage.
      When I was at sea I relied on the agent to get post from home to me, in the days before internet and social media, where the only other means of contact was a call box(once you had local currency coinage) or a carphone (when within range of UK or Ireland at huge expense).
      They also provided us with all stores, from food to fuel, safety boots to smokestacks and everything in between. They told us where to go for our next cargo.
      If you remember when people could take foreign holidays, and it took a few days to find where the best place to buy cigarettes & Alcohol or where the nearest ATM was, shipowners don't have the time for such things. The agent does that for them.
      Leaving aside the people that are using our Ports, the main national objective should be to maintain the capability and throughput of our ports. Some of the Irish players were never big enough to have an encompassing influence on all Irish ports, now they can but it is Asian money, and needs, that are being met. The Waterford proposed development is to be funded from China but at the same time replacement quay walls, cargo handling, and ship repair are lagging behind. Your Port theory is correct for ports with dedicated company agents but when you look at the World Map and find that the only agents outside of Ireland are in Vietnam and China it implies that real ownership might be there!
      Last edited by ancientmariner; 17 July 2020, 17:57.

      Comment


      • That's a bit of a stretch in fairness.
        Or maybe, the company decides because the majority of the world's trade goes through that region, it would serve them well to have a presence there?
        The CRO is quite clear who the directors are. Their Reg address is in Dublin, not Hangzhou or Hanoi.
        For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

        Comment


        • Due in part to the low share prices as a result of Covid, the EU is looking at external foreign ownership of strategically import companies and infastructure.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            That's a bit of a stretch in fairness.
            Or maybe, the company decides because the majority of the world's trade goes through that region, it would serve them well to have a presence there?
            The CRO is quite clear who the directors are. Their Reg address is in Dublin, not Hangzhou or Hanoi.
            Chinese investments in Ireland, in hard cash, have been growing rapidly, all of this money is linked to the Chinese state. Read the Irish Times article on "THE GREAT HAUL OF CHINA". They have bought out Goodbody Stockbrokers which is effectively the Irish Stock exchange.

            Comment


            • Wow, I think you are letting your Sinophobia get in the way of a coherent argument as barely a word of what you've written is actually true. The Irish Stock Exchange is owned by Euronext, HQ'd in Paris, and now known as Euronext Dublin. Goodbodys remain Irish owned, albeit after two failed Chinese takeovers, though when they were shareholders in the Stock Exchange it amounted to 26.2%, significantly less than Davy Stockbroker's 37.5%.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                Chinese investments in Ireland, in hard cash, have been growing rapidly, all of this money is linked to the Chinese state. Read the Irish Times article on "THE GREAT HAUL OF CHINA". They have bought out Goodbody Stockbrokers which is effectively the Irish Stock exchange.
                Directorships are interesting. In DSG case there are 6 ,who had 76 other directorships between them of which 35 are still in being. In such cases there is a lot of jettisoning and losses overboard. You will find that the pot of gold used for expansion has it's end at rainbow's end in another country. We need our State to develop our Ports and ship repair facilities and control attempts by Port tenants to alter facilities for temporary interests.

                Comment


                • That is where legislation and compliance comes in. Free enterprise can operate vital infrastructure, and are doing so with Air and Rail in other jurisdictions without issue. Once you regulate to protect the state's economic security.
                  You won't stop the Chinese invasion by blacklisting a shipping agent.
                  For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                    That is where legislation and compliance comes in. Free enterprise can operate vital infrastructure, and are doing so with Air and Rail in other jurisdictions without issue. Once you regulate to protect the state's economic security.
                    You won't stop the Chinese invasion by blacklisting a shipping agent.
                    Just pointing out that the Governments laissez-faire policy is diluting the oversight of our key assets, not just in ports and shipping, and overall not in our interests and freedom of action. Most countries have Naval ports and military airfields, we have the latter but not the former. The Governments right in former Harbour acts, to allocate a berth for a purpose has been removed in the latest Harbour Act. By any analysis what we have and had is now on one island base in a harbour where we have no rights, and that harbour is in the hands of developers and interests.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      Just pointing out that the Governments laissez-faire policy is diluting the oversight of our key assets, not just in ports and shipping, and overall not in our interests and freedom of action. Most countries have Naval ports and military airfields, we have the latter but not the former. The Governments right in former Harbour acts, to allocate a berth for a purpose has been removed in the latest Harbour Act. By any analysis what we have and had is now on one island base in a harbour where we have no rights, and that harbour is in the hands of developers and interests.
                      Strange that the government would give this to Customs but not to the Naval Service as you suggest, or is there a loophole in it that would also make it applicable to the NS?

                      http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2.../en/html#sec25
                      (3) An officer of customs or other person in charge of any vessel employed for the prevention of smuggling may anchor, moor, berth or land the vessel, or haul the vessel ashore, at any place within the State and at no cost to the State.
                      It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                      It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                      It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                      It was the year everything changed.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CTU View Post
                        Strange that the government would give this to Customs but not to the Naval Service as you suggest, or is there a loophole in it that would also make it applicable to the NS?

                        http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2.../en/html#sec25
                        Because of paucity of technical knowledge embedded in Government services things are done and acts are amended without an indepth analysis of consequences. I,m out about 28 years but since then Naval duties include interdiction of arms AND drug smuggling. In early days we could only act with a Customs or Garda officer on board especially in regard to Salmon. Inside the coastal limit the salmon was no longer a sea fish so we acted in ACP with a garda on board.
                        We never had berthage rights , so we paid for available berths, paid for water, and paid for tying up. We eventually did our own tying up by dropping a boat early and used the boats crew to tie up on arrival.Then we had NO rights to board a strange ship in a strange location as I found out in my early eager days.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                          Because of paucity of technical knowledge embedded in Government services things are done and acts are amended without an indepth analysis of consequences. I,m out about 28 years but since then Naval duties include interdiction of arms AND drug smuggling. In early days we could only act with a Customs or Garda officer on board especially in regard to Salmon. Inside the coastal limit the salmon was no longer a sea fish so we acted in ACP with a garda on board.
                          We never had berthage rights , so we paid for available berths, paid for water, and paid for tying up. We eventually did our own tying up by dropping a boat early and used the boats crew to tie up on arrival.Then we had NO rights to board a strange ship in a strange location as I found out in my early eager days.
                          It is odd that something like that section in the Customs Act was never put into the Defence Act.
                          But then again its not surprising, DOJ/AGS got things put in law regarding the Garda Reserve, that the RDF could have also benefited from, if the DoD were interested in such things.
                          It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                          It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                          It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                          It was the year everything changed.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by CTU View Post
                            It is odd that something like that section in the Customs Act was never put into the Defence Act.
                            But then again its not surprising, DOJ/AGS got things put in law regarding the Garda Reserve, that the RDF could have also benefited from, if the DoD were interested in such things.
                            The most recent Customs act gives the same powers to a Garda or a member of the defence forces when acting in a capacity of customs officer under the act.

                            “officer of customs” means an officer of the Commissioners authorised by them under section 37 to be an officer of customs, and includes—

                            (a) an officer of the Commissioners, not so authorised,

                            (b) a member of the Garda Síochána, or

                            (c) a member of the Defence Forces,

                            for the time being employed on any duty or service relating to customs
                            Customs Act 2015 Section 2(1).
                            http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2...d/en/html#sec2
                            For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                              Because of paucity of technical knowledge embedded in Government services things are done and acts are amended without an indepth analysis of consequences. I,m out about 28 years but since then Naval duties include interdiction of arms AND drug smuggling. In early days we could only act with a Customs or Garda officer on board especially in regard to Salmon. Inside the coastal limit the salmon was no longer a sea fish so we acted in ACP with a garda on board.
                              We never had berthage rights , so we paid for available berths, paid for water, and paid for tying up. We eventually did our own tying up by dropping a boat early and used the boats crew to tie up on arrival.Then we had NO rights to board a strange ship in a strange location as I found out in my early eager days.
                              Criminal Justice Act 1994 gave a NS PO and above the powers of an enforcement officer
                              http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...nacted/en/html

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                Criminal Justice Act 1994 gave a NS PO and above the powers of an enforcement officer
                                http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1...nacted/en/html
                                That's more like it!! thanks for info.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X