did ifa,s hijacking of farmer vote on lisbon backfire

irish_bob

i think the ifa leadership have some questions to answer over there cynical ploy of threatning to call for a no vote from there members if they didnt get what they wanted on wto
as someone said yesterday , the goverment will be unlikely to bang its fist at the table in brussells over wto what with the country havent voted no to lisbon thus creating a legistical nightmare for the eu and destroying yrs of preperation
as a part time farmer myself i am seriously thinking of withdrawing my membership , i heard a few old farmers on the radio this morning complaining that no one cares about the farmer with a few cows now or that the price of beef is the reason they voted no , do theese people think its the goverment of spain and germany that set the price of beef

charliecon

No irish bob I'm sure they don't think that but it is the EU which dictates the standards by which we have to farm while allowing imports of cheap food from South America, where there are minimal regulations .We then are expected to compete with these countries on the supermarket shelf. " A level playing pitch for all " is my opinion and I for one am glad Lisbon was defeated.

irish_bob

would you not now agree that the irish delegation who will attend the wto will be shy about banging there fist on the table for irish agriculture

pburns

The IFA were MASSIVELY over-estimating their own power when promising they could deliver all IFA members for a veto concession.

I have no time for the IFA. They spend so much of their time crying wolf that when there IS a crisis looming (like WTO) it is taken with a pinch of salt. Negotiation tactics are clod-like and heavy-handed - they think the negotiating techniques from the cattle mart will work around the conference table...

charliecon

irish_bob wrote: »

would you not now agree that the irish delegation who will attend the wto will be shy about banging there fist on the table for irish agriculture

Well I should certainly hope not, their job is to go over there and fight for and protect Ireland's interests.And just why did it take the government so long to commit to using the veto ?

The_Conductor

The simple fact of the matter is that there is not an Irish delegation at the WTO fighting for Irish interests. There is an EU delegation at the talks, headed by Peter Mandelson. The head of the WTO is however Pascal Lamy (the former EU Trade Commissioner), so its a reasonable assumption that European interests are jointly taken into account. Its all well and good threatening the former minister (Mary Coughlan) or the current minister (Brendan Smith)- but the simple fact of the matter is that they have very little that they can do. In the EU we are a very small minority (we hold 1.6% of the voting rights, shortly to be further reduced to .78% of the voting rights), the reason our farming community achieved so much, is traditionally our farming lobby was singing from the same hymn sheet as the French- and they used to practically run the Commission. With Sarkozy in situ- that has changed- a free trade mantra is now the norm- which is why they are pushing uncoupling to its utmost, and have only supplied a budget to 2013 (the healthcheck which is ongoing has suggested a continuation of many of the regimes- but is also suggesting the abolition of some). Greece, Portugal and Spain managed to wrangle some serious inducements when they acceded to the Community- and got them written into their treaties of accession- thats why we still have cotton and tobacco subsidies, unfortunately we were not in a position to try for similar.

The IFA is assuming that its business as usual for them- and traditionally they were the best lobby group in the whole world. Unfortunately the world has moved on- and agriculture is by no means as important to the Irish economy that it once was. Its probable that there are more unemployed people in Tallaght who voted "no" to the treaty- than there are farmers in the entire country.......

irish_bob

smccarrick wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that there is not an Irish delegation at the WTO fighting for Irish interests. There is an EU delegation at the talks, headed by Peter Mandelson. The head of the WTO is however Pascal Lamy (the former EU Trade Commissioner), so its a reasonable assumption that European interests are jointly taken into account. Its all well and good threatening the former minister (Mary Coughlan) or the current minister (Brendan Smith)- but the simple fact of the matter is that they have very little that they can do. In the EU we are a very small minority (we hold 1.6% of the voting rights, shortly to be further reduced to .78% of the voting rights), the reason our farming community achieved so much, is traditionally our farming lobby was singing from the same hymn sheet as the French- and they used to practically run the Commission. With Sarkozy in situ- that has changed- a free trade mantra is now the norm- which is why they are pushing uncoupling to its utmost, and have only supplied a budget to 2013 (the healthcheck which is ongoing has suggested a continuation of many of the regimes- but is also suggesting the abolition of some). Greece, Portugal and Spain managed to wrangle some serious inducements when they acceded to the Community- and got them written into their treaties of accession- thats why we still have cotton and tobacco subsidies, unfortunately we were not in a position to try for similar.

The IFA is assuming that its business as usual for them- and traditionally they were the best lobby group in the whole world. Unfortunately the world has moved on- and agriculture is by no means as important to the Irish economy that it once was. Its probable that there are more unemployed people in Tallaght who voted "no" to the treaty- than there are farmers in the entire country.......

while i agree with most of what you say , you didnt answer my question in relation to whether irelands no vote weakens or strengthens our possition at the wto talks

The_Conductor

irish_bob wrote: »

while i agree with most of what you say , you didnt answer my question in relation to whether irelands no vote weakens or strengthens our possition at the wto talks

We don't have a position at the WTO talks- the EU as a whole does.
Its part of the common policy regarding trade and tariffs.
Ireland's "No" vote has no impact whatsoever- and even if we had voted yes, as our weighting is so low, it still have very minimal impact (1.6% weighting).

So- in short- its irrelevant. Though we hate to admit it, we are a small relatively inconsequential country on the outskirts of the EU.

The opinion of the French or the Germans (or even the Spanish or Italians) matters far more than ours do. Its a simple measure of our low population versus their far higher populations.

Happily in this instance at the WTO, the French position is similar to ours (but notably the Portuguese and Spanish are polar opposites).

Our trade negotiator (Peter Mandelson) does a circuit of all Ministers for their opinions prior to deciding on a particular policy to follow at the talks. He did, in all fairness, visit Minister Coughlan a few months ago- and is fully appraised of our position.

The problem with Brazillian beef- is that its a former EU colony (Portuguese) so obviously they are fighting the corner on behalf of their former colony (much the same as happens with the ACP countries with other commodities). Yes, there are far more things in question- including traceability etc, but even were these satisfactorily dealth with, the simple fact of the matter is how can an Irish farmer with 200 head compete with a Brazillian farmer with 200,000 head? Its simple economies of scale. Does this mean we should give up and throw in the towel? Certainly not. The Brazillians cater to the lowest common denominator- we should move forward and try our damndest to focus on the areas where we can add value to what has become a bulk commodity. If this means having dairy herds certified as organic and focusing on specialist breeds- so be it. There is a market out there- and we have some of the finest dairy farmers in the world here- there is no reason whatsoever that they should not be encouraged to investigate how to differentiate our beef as a special high quality product and pitch it as such to European consumers. At the end of the day its the consumers who decide what sells or what does not. Look in a French McDonalds, or Bonne Marche or other better supermarkets- they are proud to display quality Irish products. McDonalds guarantee French and Spanish consumers that their products are Irish- obviously this helps their sales (and raises the profile of quality Irish produce). We need to keep going down that road- and drum it into hearts and minds of European consumers that to buy Irish produce is to buy a quality product that is good for them. It does work, and it does sell produce........

whitser

im not a farmer but i know plenty. and from what i hear eu bueracracy(spelling?) and eu directives are killing the small farmer and tying him up in red tape and paper work. i think the no vote has sent a clear message to the eu elite that although the eu has been good for ireland that doesnt mean we'll swallow any sh1t they try and feed us. the eu will sell irish farmers down the river and not just farmers but the workers too.

fastrac

Who do they think they are texting their members asking how you voted? Good mind to cancel my membership. Imagine the fuss if outsiders got involved in their elections.

charliecon

whitser wrote: »

im not a farmer but i know plenty. and from what i hear eu bueracracy(spelling?) and eu directives are killing the small farmer and tying him up in red tape and paper work. i think the no vote has sent a clear message to the eu elite that although the eu has been good for ireland that doesnt mean we'll swallow any sh1t they try and feed us. the eu will sell irish farmers down the river and not just farmers but the workers too.

Have to say I agree with you 100%

The_Conductor

whitser wrote: »

im not a farmer but i know plenty. and from what i hear eu bueracracy(spelling?) and eu directives are killing the small farmer and tying him up in red tape and paper work. i think the no vote has sent a clear message to the eu elite that although the eu has been good for ireland that doesnt mean we'll swallow any sh1t they try and feed us. the eu will sell irish farmers down the river and not just farmers but the workers too.

In all fairness, the current "healthcheck" as they put it, aims to reduce redtape and make the schemes easier to understand and implement than previously. A lot of the regulations are being either consolidated together while others are being repealed altogether. It is recognised that there is far too much legalese that no-one can understand, along with too much bureaucracy- and they are actively trying to reforming it.

An everyday example that any member of the public is familiar with is the ridiculous rules that were attached to the grading of fruit and veg (which often resulted in perfectly good produce being dumped because it was slightly different in colour or shape than specified in regulations). The Commission are trying to simplify things and have recently removed the rules governing the sale of lots of different fruit and veg including aubergines, beans, carrots, courgettes, cucumbers, leeks, melons, onions, plums and spinach- but was forced by Germany, Sweden and a few other countries not to remove the rules regarding grading and sale of apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces and endives, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes.

Re: the IFA polling members to see how they voted- to be honest I'm appalled to hear that. How anyone voted is a matter for that person and that person alone. We're not in Zimbabwe where people are being punished voting the wrong way (though with the comments from the French and German governments, one could be forgiven for thinking we were answerable to despots.....)

Personally I don't think that the "No" voted has sent any message to the EU elite whatsoever- they were horribly dissappointed that the Irish were putting it to referendum at all- France and The Netherlands voted down Version 1 after all. From previous form (aka the Nice treaty) they know that another referendum will be held a few months down the road, and the Irish electorate will be brow beaten into "voting the right way", like we were the last time. This is why the French and Germans are saying that all other countries should continue to ratify the treaty, and not abondon it solely because of the Irish vote. They are confident that it will be overturned.

While the EU has been good for Ireland in some respects- we have not simply been on the gravy train that some people imagine. The biggest thing which we brought into the European purse over the past number of years was of course the fishing rights that accrued to the community when we joined (Ireland controls 42% of Europe's commercial fishing waters) but we only ringfenced less than 2% for our own fishermen. Aka we sold some of the family china in exchange for regional development funds that help roads and provide subsidies to farmers etc. It was not a one way street at all. Further- we are now a net contributor to the EU financially on top of everything else- and when the French tax reforms go through in September- we will have to divvy up our corporation tax take from the multinationals based in Ireland. Who knows what that will cost us? Ps- thats not part of the Lisbon Treaty at all- its entirely a seperate matter.

They will make us vote again- whatever about the relative merits of the Yes and No campaigns- the one thing which has resonated with me personally is the poster which said simply "don't be bullied......... they certainly will try to bully us next time around.......

irish_bob

whitser wrote: »

im not a farmer but i know plenty. and from what i hear eu bueracracy(spelling?) and eu directives are killing the small farmer and tying him up in red tape and paper work. i think the no vote has sent a clear message to the eu elite that although the eu has been good for ireland that doesnt mean we'll swallow any sh1t they try and feed us. the eu will sell irish farmers down the river and not just farmers but the workers too.

you are very naieve if you think insepctions on farms and miles of red tape and rules and regulations are all the fault of the eu

were ireland to withdraw from the eu in the morning and become like switzeralnd , i can assure you the spot check and red tape would continue , why you may ask
because theese spot checks and red tape keep thousands of irish civil servants at the dept of agriculture in jobs

The_Conductor

irish_bob wrote: »

you are very naieve if you think insepctions on farms and miles of red tape and rules and regulations are all the fault of the eu

were ireland to withdraw from the eu in the morning and become like switzeralnd , i can assure you the spot check and red tape would continue , why you may ask
because theese spot checks and red tape keep thousands of irish civil servants at the dept of agriculture in jobs

If this was the case- why did the reform of the CAP result in a reduction of almost 40% in the staff numbers in the Department (along with a further 2% reduction per year through non-replacement of retiring officers)? (Correct me if I'm wrong with the figures- I'd love to know the exact figures) This would suggest that a sizeable number of staff were directly involved specifically in EU schemes, and once the schemes were reformed (with the SFP) that the staff were moved elsewhere (to another government Department altogether) where there was a shortage of staff.

If my memories serves me right- the Castlebar office for the Department was pretty much handed over totally to the Department of Justice- and all the staff transferred to run the new computer systems and secure radio systems for the Gardai (Pulse etc)?

This would suggest that there is no problem with massively adjusting staffing levels to reflect the need associated with EU schemes.

Also- does anyone have figures showing a progression of staffing levels over the past few years? I don't know the answer- but I would be surprised if it hasn't trended downwards continually for the past 10 years (of course a total recruitment embargo from 2000 onwards for a few years probably had a big impact too).

is_that_so

I saw a piece in the Farming Independent and they appear to be much put out by the result although as posted, the messing that went on in the weeks before, did no-one any favours. More than any other group they know how EU and Brussels work and what benefits have come from EU membership. I personally felt it was extremely dishonest to tie in their Yes vote to the WTO veto. In the current environment I would have thought such dithering might have more strongly favoured farmers voting against.

Scofflaw

is_that_so wrote: »

I saw a piece in the Farming Independent and they appear to be much put out by the result although as posted, the messing that went on in the weeks before, did no-one any favours. More than any other group they know how EU and Brussels work and what benefits have come from EU membership. I personally felt it was extremely dishonest to tie in their Yes vote to the WTO veto. In the current environment I would have thought such dithering might have more strongly favoured farmers voting against.

The IFA actually publicised "10 reasons to vote No":

IFA wrote:

TEN REASONS TO VOTE NO

1. The Mandelson cuts would mean the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy.

2. The Mandelson cuts would lead to the destruction of the farm family model of European agriculture.

3. The Mandelson cuts would hand the European food market to South American ranchers, international shippers and commodity traders.

4. The Mandelson cuts would lead a race to the bottom on food safety, animal health standards, labour conditions and environmental degradation.

5. The Mandelson cuts would mean beef prices of •2/kg (70p/lb) and the slaughter of I million suckler cows.

6. The Mandelson cuts would result in milk prices of 24c/l and increased imports of dairy products.

7. The Mandelson cuts would increase lamb imports from New Zealand and Australia that would decimate the sheep industry.

8. The Mandelson cuts will result in losses in pigs, poultry and grain.

9. Ireland will lose 50,000 farmers and 50,000 jobs in the food-processing sector as a direct result of the Mandelson cuts.

10. The Mandelson cuts will result in a •4bn loss in earnings for the Irish economy.

Not one of them is actually related to the Treaty. They followed that with:

SBP wrote:

The organisation rowed back on its threat to recommend a 'no' vote after the Taoiseach assured farmers that he would veto any world trade deal which seriously harmed Irish agriculture.

They actually did recommend a No vote to their members, in very definite terms as above. They didn't produce anything similar in favour of a Yes, except that they weren't recommending a No any more - and that was the week before the vote. Too little, too late, and not as strong as their original No message.

cordially,
Scofflaw

irish_bob

i spoke to the local ifa head last week and he as much as admitted that there stance of threatning to withold there support for lisbon was simply a ploy , he told me they would never in a million years have supported lisbon if they knew deep down that lisbon was tied to wto
he went on to say that the ifa were calling for a yes vote 6 months ago , before lisbon was even been mentioned in the media
this conversation happend pre voting day and he seemed to think that the ifa,s ploy had worked , i wonder if he still feels the same way

whitser

irish_bob wrote: »

you are very naieve if you think insepctions on farms and miles of red tape and rules and regulations are all the fault of the eu

were ireland to withdraw from the eu in the morning and become like switzeralnd , i can assure you the spot check and red tape would continue , why you may ask
because theese spot checks and red tape keep thousands of irish civil servants at the dept of agriculture in jobs

im basing my statement on what farmers have told me. like i said im not a farmer. and im sure farmers wouldnt say it if they didnt feel like that was the case.

The_Conductor

whitser wrote: »

im basing my statement on what farmers have told me. like i said im not a farmer. and im sure farmers wouldnt say it if they didnt feel like that was the case.

Perception and reality can be two entirely different things. As I pointed out- with the advent of the Single Farm Payment, replacing numerous EU schemes, staff numbers in the Department fell by almost 40% within a few months, and the people were redeployed elsewhere. The simple fact is- the vast number of them were administering the different schemes.

irish_bob

whitser wrote: »

im basing my statement on what farmers have told me. like i said im not a farmer. and im sure farmers wouldnt say it if they didnt feel like that was the case.

farmers believe that because thats the line peddled by fianna fail politicians at there door , up untill last thursday , there was no consequence to ministers and td,s here blaming the big bad e.u for everything

besides , fianna fail always blame someone for the countrys ills , before last yrs general election , the 2 biggest issues were crime and the health service and they blamed that on the pd,s

hmmm

It was a major strategic blunder by the IFA in my eyes. A "no" vote was always going to be a disaster for farmers, so I'm sure their initial intransigence was always down to using the leverage they saw to force Cowen into taking a position on the WTO battles to come. I'm sure they never expected a "no" vote - their support for the treaty was lackluster leading upto the vote and by not showing support for the treaty in its early days they allowed the "no" campaign to gain legitimacy it might not have otherwise enjoyed.

Now we have the nightmare scenario for the IFA. Ireland losing face and with it the support of many of our neighbours, people talking about being excluded from much of the EU's affairs and a serious undercurrent from some commentators for us to leave the EU. A Cowen veto of WTO is unthinkable now unless he really wanted to destroy Ireland's reputation in the EU.

irish_bob

hmmm wrote: »

It was a major strategic blunder by the IFA in my eyes. A "no" vote was always going to be a disaster for farmers, so I'm sure their initial intransigence was always down to using the leverage they saw to force Cowen into taking a position on the WTO battles to come. I'm sure they never expected a "no" vote - their support for the treaty was lackluster leading upto the vote and by not showing support for the treaty in its early days they allowed the "no" campaign to gain legitimacy it might not have otherwise enjoyed.

Now we have the nightmare scenario for the IFA. Ireland losing face and with it the support of many of our neighbours, people talking about being excluded from much of the EU's affairs and a serious undercurrent from some commentators for us to leave the EU. A Cowen veto of WTO is unthinkable now unless he really wanted to destroy Ireland's reputation in the EU.

completly agree

jmayo

smccarrick wrote: »

... In the EU we are a very small minority (we hold 1.6% of the voting rights, shortly to be further reduced to .78% of the voting rights), ...

...
The IFA is assuming that its business as usual for them- and traditionally they were the best lobby group in the whole world. Unfortunately the world has moved on- and agriculture is by no means as important to the Irish economy that it once was. Its probable that there are more unemployed people in Tallaght who voted "no" to the treaty- than there are farmers in the entire country.......

Some interesting things there...notice how our voting capabilities are decreasing all the time and yet we should all run out to give even more power away.

Yep our agri business (i.e. not just farmers affected by this WTO you know) is not as big a part of our economy as it once was but at least it is still mainly "ours" and not some multinational sited here because of grants and cheap corpo taxes.
How many of the leading lights of our great new technology economy are Irish? AFAIK Dell, Microsoft, Intel, Hp, Pfizer, Johnston and Johnston are all foreign multinationals.
Oh and please don't answer that we will be part of the great worldwide knowledge and service economy. That is the usual globisation clap trap bandied about to make people, who are loosing their jobs to Indian and China, feel a bit better and that they may have a future.

hmmm wrote: »

It was a major strategic blunder by the IFA in my eyes. A "no" vote was always going to be a disaster for farmers, so I'm sure their initial intransigence was always down to using the leverage they saw to force Cowen into taking a position on the WTO battles to come. I'm sure they never expected a "no" vote - their support for the treaty was lackluster leading upto the vote and by not showing support for the treaty in its early days they allowed the "no" campaign to gain legitimacy it might not have otherwise enjoyed.

Now we have the nightmare scenario for the IFA. Ireland losing face and with it the support of many of our neighbours, people talking about being excluded from much of the EU's affairs and a serious undercurrent from some commentators for us to leave the EU. A Cowen veto of WTO is unthinkable now unless he really wanted to destroy Ireland's reputation in the EU.

Well if the WTO goes through as was mooted, then if Cowen or rather our Agri/trade ministers do not veto it at the council of ministers meeting to review the WTO agreement, then FF can kiss goodbye to some major rural seats at the next election.

Cowen could have made things a lot easier but being pig headed he and his ministers refused early on to give assurances to farmers and agribusiness that Ireland would put a shot across mandolson's bow.
Instead he tried to show how tough he was and how he wouldn't back down to anyone including farmers etc.
In the end he did and at that stage a lot of farmers were probably thinking how can we trust this crowd when push comes to shove.

marco_polo

jmayo wrote: »

Some interesting things there...notice how our voting capabilities are decreasing all the time and yet we should all run out to give even more power away.

Yep our agri business (i.e. not just farmers affected by this WTO you know) is not as big a part of our economy as it once was but at least it is still mainly "ours" and not some multinational sited here because of grants and cheap corpo taxes.
How many of the leading lights of our great new technology economy are Irish? AFAIK Dell, Microsoft, Intel, Hp, Pfizer, Johnston and Johnston are all foreign multinationals.
Oh and please don't answer that we will be part of the great worldwide knowledge and service economy. That is the usual globisation clap trap bandied about to make people, who are loosing their jobs to Indian and China, feel a bit better and that they may have a future.

Got it. Irish companies good foreign companies bad. Basically "F**k You" to anyone who don't have the good fortune to inherit a nice parcel of land.

Well if the WTO goes through as was mooted, then if Cowen or rather our Agri/trade ministers do not veto it at the council of ministers meeting to review the WTO agreement, then FF can kiss goodbye to some major rural seats at the next election.

Cowen could have made things a lot easier but being pig headed he and his ministers refused early on to give assurances to farmers and agribusiness that Ireland would put a shot across mandolson's bow.
Instead he tried to show how tough he was and how he wouldn't back down to anyone including farmers etc.
In the end he did and at that stage a lot of farmers were probably thinking how can we trust this crowd when push comes to shove.

Well we have hardly left Cowen in a stronger position now to use the veto.

The_Conductor

jmayo wrote: »

Cowen could have made things a lot easier but being pig headed he and his ministers refused early on to give assurances to farmers and agribusiness that Ireland would put a shot across mandolson's bow.

Did anyone really expect Cowen to threaten to put a shot across Mandelson's bow, as you so eloquently put it? It might have worked years ago- but even threatening to do so is counterproductive in the extreme here.

Re: large Irish companies- certainly I agree with you- the Dells/Microsofts etc are not Irish, and are only here for tax purposes at this stage. We do however have some quite decent homegrown examples of industries which compete quite successfully on the international stage. Look at Elan in Athlone, Lionsbridge in Sligo, That company from Waterford making bypass stints that was on 6.01 news last night, Barry Smyth's robotic spin-off at UCD and loads of others all over the country. We are by no means a backwater.

While our voting rights at Commission and Council are due to decrease- the whole point of the European exercise is that its supposed to be about closer integration, both economically but also politically. The reduction in voting rights is a democratic reflection of our actual population size- ~4million out of about 460 million. Traditionally the smaller countries (Ireland, Denmark etc) had rights far exceeding those which would normally accrue to them under a strict representational scale. Poland and some of the other countries will also loose voting rights- while Germany will gain some (as its population size wasn't reflected in its rights at all).

Certainly I think FF will loose some rural votes next time round- but if you look at the way people voted the "No" vote was even higher in middleclass urban areas than it was in rural areas. Look at West Dublin- surely thats an eye opener. If we decide to beat up the government on the basis of their obnoxious insistence on ramming stuff down our throats that they are unable or unwilling to explain themselves, then tough. Do you really think FG or any of the alternates will do any better? I don't- and I'm depressed that I don't. One shower is every bit as bad as the other.......

So what does the vote mean for Ireland, and Irish agriculture? Not a lot to be honest. Thankfully our WTO concerns are mirrored in some of the other member states, so we are singing off the same hymnsheet as the French in this case. Would we have vetoed a WTO compromise at the Council of Ministers- at worst we'd have entered a reserve measure on it- but subsequently we would have fudged a yes. We've been there, done that.....

Why make threats that its blatantly obvious you have no intention of following through on?

jmayo

marco_polo wrote: »

Got it. Irish companies good foreign companies bad. Basically "F**k You" to anyone who don't have the good fortune to inherit a nice parcel of land.

Well we have hardly left Cowen in a stronger position now to use the veto.

Yes Irish companies are better than foreign companies in the long run and if you can't see that then you must be a nice big shareholder in one of our great multinationals that stay here as long as convenient to them.
At least Finland has the likes of Valtra, Nokia etc.

Perhaps you failed to notice how many of our benevolent foreign companies stay here long term.
I seem to remember companies such as Digital, AST, Gateway, Seagate, Ford, Dunlop, Semperit once being very large employers in particular areas in this country.
Of course some of those companies no longer exist and have been absorbed into other companies.
But the main point is they had no link to this country unlike a homegrown enterprise.

Oh and did I ever say screw you (or as you put it rather less politely) to anyone that is not in farming or involved in agribusines? Like it or not, after all the big whoopla during cleticv tiger, it is still one of the few indigeneous areas of enterprise.

marco_polo

jmayo wrote: »

Yes Irish companies are better than foreign companies in the long run and if you can't see that then you must be a nice big shareholder in one of our great multinationals that stay here as long as convenient to them.
At least Finland has the likes of Valtra, Nokia etc.

Perhaps you failed to notice how many of our benevolent foreign companies stay here long term.
I seem to remember companies such as Digital, AST, Gateway, Seagate, Ford, Dunlop, Semperit once being very large employers in particular areas in this country.
Of course some of those companies no longer exist and have been absorbed into other companies.
But the main point is they had no link to this country unlike a homegrown enterprise.

Oh and did I ever say screw you (or as you put it rather less politely) to anyone that is not in farming or involved in agribusines? Like it or not, after all the big whoopla during cleticv tiger, it is still one of the few indigeneous areas of enterprise.

All these companies were replaced by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Oracle and so on. We cannot control what the future may but there is no point in showing them the door either by isolating ourselves from Europe.

I am all for strong indigeneous companies such as Kerry Group etc but major international success stories are not the norm small and medium size businesses are. Also if you think the rise of large Irish enterprises can happen independently of a the presence of large amounts of foreign investment and access to EU markets then you are sorely mistaken indeed.

People voting no because they are pissed of at the WTO talks that are completely unrelated to Lisbon, is completely selfish and shows no regard for those whose livelyhood depends on the vibrancy of other sectors in the economy.

jmayo

marco_polo wrote: »

All these companies were replaced by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Oracle and so on. We cannot control what the future may but there is no point in showing them the door either by isolating ourselves from Europe.

You have just enforced one of my points and that is when one foreign company goes we have to go chasing after a replacement.
I know you will say that will be harder due to Lisbon but i say it will be a lot harder due to our competitiveness having evaporated and it wasn't down to voting no on Lisbon.

marco_polo wrote: »

I am all for strong indigeneous companies such as Kerry Group etc but major international success stories are not the norm small and medium size businesses are. Also if you think the rise of large Irish enterprises can happen independently of a the presence of large amounts of foreign investment and access to EU markets then you are sorely mistaken indeed.

People voting no because they are pissed of at the WTO talks that are completely unrelated to Lisbon, is completely selfish and shows no regard for those whose livelyhood depends on the vibrancy of other sectors in the economy.

Yes and having a go at farmers/agribusiness and telling everyone sure we need the access to world services industry and thus should ok WTO, is also selfish and shows no regard for the livehood of thousands of people living outside Dublin and indeed working outside the IFSC.

I am not saying we should be isolationist, it wrecked this country in 1930s/1950s and doesn't work.
I am all for EU as a trading group, all for us improving the lot of our Eastern European fellow members (even through us being Net payers) and giving them the breaks we got, but that does not mean I want the likes of Sarkozy/Merkel dictating to us through a unified federal EU and that is where we are headed.