why so afraid to go it alone

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

So the 1 billion or so subsidies will be gone. How much production will it take to counteract that loss?

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you how much production would be needed! Hopefully the farmers will decide that they want to produce food and not just go and get a job working for the Co. Council or something.

Anyway, the citizens of the EU will have 1 billion extra in their pocket's, so will have a choice whether whether they want to spend it on more costly food or not, so everyone should be happy.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

This is your original post.

Not your SELECTIVE excerpt!

As far as I can see there was nothing wrong with what I wrote. I must be a bit slow, but I've no idea what point you are trying to make.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, the conspiracy theory is that Ganley is doing a favour for the US security/neocon element of the US administration (from which his company derives most of its business) because they prefer doing bilateral deals without non-national scrutiny. Lisbon would bring the kind of bilateral deals on 'security' and 'terrorism' the neocons like to make under EU ratification, and under EU Parliamentary scrutiny. See the link re private data that FionnMathews pointed to on another thread, regarding US access to EU citizens' data:

Ganley need not be funded by any US element. He can have put his own money into Libertas before the campaign, and be sure of getting it back because he's doing the 'right thing' for the people he does business with.

One thing we can be certain of, given that he operates in a security-sensitive line of business - if the US security complex disapproved of what Ganley was up to, he wouldn't be doing it, because you don't get security-sensitive contracts if you're seen as politically unreliable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

All very interesting. Was the 'fact' that Ganley was supported financially by the US Military a reason why 'Yes' voters supported the Lisbon Treaty?

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

All very interesting. Was the 'fact' that Ganley was supported financially by the US Military a reason why 'Yes' voters supported the Lisbon Treaty?

For me, the fact that he was lying (or at the very least being very, very misleading) about the contents of the treaty was a reason to ignore his arguments.

I didn't vote yes because he wanted me to vote no. I voted yes because I read the treaty and it was good for the EU and Ireland.

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you how much production would be needed! Hopefully the farmers will decide that they want to produce food and not just go and get a job working for the Co. Council or something.

Can the Irish farming industry raise another €1 billion+ without raising food prices here and still survive? Bear in mind that if they produce even more surplus the price of food will go down so getting that money will become much, much harder. In fact, knowing the Irish retail sector, the price of food to the customer will remain steady or rise while the price farmers get for their produce will go down.

thehighground wrote: »

Anyway, the citizens of the EU will have 1 billion extra in their pocket's, so will have a choice whether whether they want to spend it on more costly food or not, so everyone should be happy.

I'm sure that €1 billion+ would be eaten up by tariffs paid on buying Irish food, so they won't get any real increase in the amount of money they have. Either that or they'll choose to spend it on EU food in which case there'll be less money for Irish farmers. I don't think both parties can be happy in that scenario.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

So in the first quote you agree it will get more expensive.

Yet in the second you say there will be/is cheap beef. I think the point you are missing is: the cheap meat will get expensive as you pointed out yourself. It doesn't make any sense, you seem to be saying Irish beef will get more expensive, yet it will be cheap!

It will still be cheap to a rich country like Ireland and most countries in the EU (even in a recession) if there is a shortage. In a recession, people are more likely to cut back buying new computers, software packages, new cars, music CDs, etc. than food (beef, lamb, pork, chicken, fish).

I think American FDI in Ireland is slightly more important to us than Irelands FDI to the US.

Why? The US is having a tough time generally - I'm pretty sure the US are happy that there are 74,000 people employed in the US by anyone and who are hopefully able to pay their mortgages every month.

Ah, I think you might have got my point! Hence Libertas and why the origins of the Ganleys idea is so relevant. I don't like being told what to do by French and German politicians, but I hate the Americans telling us what to do for their own motives far more.

So, your approval of the Lisbon Treaty is more anti-American than pro-France/Germany?

Ganley is irrelevant to the debate as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, point out how taxation isn't guaranteed by our veto. Strangely The Irish Taxation Institute say Corporation Tax is safe, but I'm sure you are a far more eminent tax authority than them.

Our Corporate Tax rate is not safe because France and Germany, the two most powerful countries in the EU wants to get rid of it. They will eventually succeed in my opinion.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

All very interesting. Was the 'fact' that Ganley was supported financially by the US Military a reason why 'Yes' voters supported the Lisbon Treaty?

I don't think so, particularly - after all, the original article on Ganley's military connections was published by a left-wing No supporter on Indymedia. By and large, most of the No side would be more anti-American than the Yes side, many of whom would probably consider US connections a plus rather than a minus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Either the meat will be expensive or it won’t; which is it?
So are you admitting now that, without subsidies, Irish agriculture is, for the most part, not economically viable?
That’s not an answer; give an example of a scenario in which we would not be able to buy the food we need.

Food (its not just beef - there is lamb, pork, chicken, veg. milk, etc) is subsidised to keep it affordable for everyone. It is the one thing that no one can do without. Think about it in the way that no matter what your income is, everyone (with kids) can claim the Childrens' Allowance. The same applies to food.

Do they?

Foreign Investors did get incentivised to come into Ireland (i.e., grants towards their buildings, all those IDA/Enteprise Ireland Business Parks around the country, no PRSI payments for staff for first couple of years etc. have been offered in the past to get company to set up up business here).

How is that “very efficient”? That sounds terribly inefficient. Why are they working part-time jobs when they should be concentrating full-time on farming?

They are working part-time jobs because they need the money and Europe wants cheap food. Some figures for you (a bit old, but you get the idea).

"The Teagasc National Farm Survey for 2003 shows an increase of just 0.9% in average farm incomes. Average family farm income in 2003 was €15,054 per farm, compared to €14,917 in 2002."

http://www.teagasc.ie/news/2004/200408-09.htm

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

In your own time, or is it all good?

How did it become a question of going it alone? We're not being thrown out, are we?

If we had the same arrangement as Switzerland/Norway has (I wouldn't mind just getting a fax from EU HQ with instructions on it ) and if it meant that our destiny was mostly in our own hands as regards Corporate Tax Rate, Neutrality etc., I can't see any disadvantages of not signing the Lisbon Treaty.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Food (its not just beef - there is lamb, pork, chicken, veg. milk, etc) is subsidised to keep it affordable for everyone. It is the one thing that no one can do without. Think about it in the way that no matter what your income is, everyone (with kids) can claim the Childrens' Allowance. The same applies to food.

Hmm. First, meat is not a necessity (no, I'm not a vegetarian!) - you can tell that by the fact that people eat less meat when they have less money. Second, farm subsidies are aimed at supporting farmers, not at reducing prices, which are largely set by the retail outlets, and are pretty much what the market will bear. If the aim were to make food affordable, we would (a) import cheaper food from the Third World, and/or (b) set price caps.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

How did it become a question of going it alone? We're not being thrown out, are we?

If we had the same arrangement as Switzerland/Norway has (I wouldn't mind just getting a fax from EU HQ with instructions on it ) and if it meant that our destiny was mostly in our own hands as regards Corporate Tax Rate, Neutrality etc., I can't see any disadvantages of not signing the Lisbon Treaty.

Again, when you say you "wouldn't mind just getting a fax from EU HQ with instructions on it", you appear to be unaware that this is how EU Directives work. Turning them into national law is a matter for the individual member states - the Directives simply set a goal. It's up to the member states how that goal is reached. This is also the case for the EEA countries - the difference is that they can't vote on the original Directive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

Can the Irish farming industry raise another €1 billion+ without raising food prices here and still survive? Bear in mind that if they produce even more surplus the price of food will go down so getting that money will become much, much harder. In fact, knowing the Irish retail sector, the price of food to the customer will remain steady or rise while the price farmers get for their produce will go down.

I'm sure that €1 billion+ would be eaten up by tariffs paid on buying Irish food, so they won't get any real increase in the amount of money they have. Either that or they'll choose to spend it on EU food in which case there'll be less money for Irish farmers. I don't think both parties can be happy in that scenario.

You've forgotten about the world food shortages again! You will find that tariffs would be removed very quickly in those circumstances! (as with Norway for certain types of fish).

You've also forgotten that farmers can grow oilseed rape/wheat for biofuels (which is one of the reasons that there are shortages elsewhere in the world).

Its the old 'Supply & Demand' thing again.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. First, meat is not a necessity (no, I'm not a vegetarian!) - you can tell that by the fact that people eat less meat when they have less money. Second, farm subsidies are aimed at supporting farmers, not at reducing prices, which are largely set by the retail outlets, and are pretty much what the market will bear. If the aim were to make food affordable, we would (a) import cheaper food from the Third World, and/or (b) set price caps.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Did I say meat was a necessity? The only place where I've seen a very noticeable small amount of meat being eaten is in third world countries where meat isn't available locally. I still think Europeans will not change their eating habits substantially if food gets more expensive. Rather, they will cut back on luxuries (2 holidays a year etc).

So you think farmers are supported with EU subsidies because the EU sort of .... likes farmers then ..... ? And have you not noticed that there is a food shortage in most of the Third World so how exactly are we going to import food from them? Or would you like to see a race to the bottom for everyone - its started already with sugar (Mozambique is destroyed because it can't compete with the very large Brazilian capacity). As for Brazilian beef (ignoring the disease issues), what about the destruction of even more rainforests to satisfy westerner's stomachs.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, when you say you "wouldn't mind just getting a fax from EU HQ with instructions on it", you appear to be unaware that this is how EU Directives work. Turning them into national law is a matter for the individual member states - the Directives simply set a goal. It's up to the member states how that goal is reached. This is also the case for the EEA countries - the difference is that they can't vote on the original Directive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Someone in this thread asked if the 'Yes' to Lisbon Voters would like getting a fax like Norway does telling them what to do.

We're only codding ourselves if we think Ireland with its small voice can make any difference. What Germany & France says, goes!

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think so, particularly - after all, the original article on Ganley's military connections was published by a left-wing No supporter on Indymedia. By and large, most of the No side would be more anti-American than the Yes side, many of whom would probably consider US connections a plus rather than a minus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, why do 'Yes' voters keep banging on about this connection then if its not a reason to change one's vote to 'Yes"?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Well, why do 'Yes' voters keep banging on about this connection then if its not a reason to change one's vote to 'Yes"?

It's rather more a case of No supporters keeping quiet about it. I think you'll find, though, that many of them consider the connection equally dubious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

How did it become a question of going it alone? We're not being thrown out, are we?

I have to say, I'm getting really confused about what you're arguing. The title of the thread is "why so afraid to go it alone". Are you just arguing that Irish agriculture would be better off without the EU CAP, or that if Ireland were out of the EU, Irish agriculture could become a much bigger asset to our economy? Or are you arguing something else entirely?

I'm not trying to be picky; I've just lost your viewpoint somewhere along the way. It's an intriguing, if somewhat messy, thread.

thehighground

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I have to say, I'm getting really confused about what you're arguing. The title of the thread is "why so afraid to go it alone". Are you just arguing that Irish agriculture would be better off without the EU CAP, or that if Ireland were out of the EU, Irish agriculture could become a much bigger asset to our economy? Or are you arguing something else entirely?

I'm not trying to be picky; I've just lost your viewpoint somewhere along the way. It's an intriguing, if somewhat messy, thread.

I'm not arguing that Agriculture is the answer to all our problems. Just the timing at the moment with worldwide food shortages is good from a trading point of view. Most European countries import more food than they produce. Some people on the 'Yes' to Lisbon side see agriculture/farming/food production as a major liability. Unfortunately the debate has centred on people's view of food production.

I view food production as being very important to us (as one of our very few natural resources) because that particular industry cannot pack its bags and move to India. Its a bit late for the fishing now.

Most of the concern has been that we would have to pay very high tariffs to sell to the EU - and I've been pointing out that the EU would be very happy to trade with us as they will need our food.

As regards IT/pharmaceutical exports into the EU from Ireland - all US companies will move out if there is tax harmonisation in the EU (as France and Germany want). We would be better off paying EU tariffs (if applied) than losing our 12.5 corporate tax rate.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

As regards IT/pharmaceutical exports into the EU from Ireland - all US companies will move out if there is tax harmonisation in the EU (as France and Germany want). We would be better off paying EU tariffs (if applied) than losing our 12.5 corporate tax rate.

Depends on the level of the EU tariffs! The Irish taxation institute has said the tax rate is not under threat. Most people I think will believe them on tax issues.

You are also ignoring the far more immediate threat. Some people have that much fear of France and Germany, they are taking the eye off the ball! The US is our biggest threat to our tax laws.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Off the top of my head I couldn't tell you how much production would be needed! Hopefully the farmers will decide that they want to produce food and not just go and get a job working for the Co. Council or something.

Anyway, the citizens of the EU will have 1 billion extra in their pocket's, so will have a choice whether whether they want to spend it on more costly food or not, so everyone should be happy.

That isn't a serious response. 1 Billion Euro for how many people? Do the Maths.

Again just like the argument about Irish FDI in the US, the I Billion Euro is of far more importance to 4 Million Irish people, than 1 Billion in 500 Million peoples pockets. Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

Same as 74,000 jobs by Irish firms in America is a drop in the Ocean compared to the US firms jobs here. I think you have a completely over exaggerated belief in Irelands importance on its own.


On farming, the problem is as highlighted already, we'll need bigger farms to increase production. Many small farmers will leave the farms, putting extra pressure on employment.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

It will still be cheap to a rich country like Ireland and most countries in the EU (even in a recession) if there is a shortage. In a recession, people are more likely to cut back buying new computers, software packages, new cars, music CDs, etc. than food (beef, lamb, pork, chicken, fish).

People will buy less! Less Fillets, sirloins etc., less eating out.

thehighground wrote:

Why? The US is having a tough time generally - I'm pretty sure the US are happy that there are 74,000 people employed in the US by anyone and who are hopefully able to pay their mortgages every month.

74,000 is a drop in the ocean. If the US change their tax laws as is being mooted, we stand to lose far, far more than 74,000 jobs!

thehighground wrote:

So, your approval of the Lisbon Treaty is more anti-American than pro-France/Germany?

No, didn't play a part in my vote. Don't like them telling me how to vote, probably the same as you don't like France and German politicians telling you how to vote! The hawks in Washington want a weak Europe for many reasons, Arms, oil, defence, financially and economically, The Euro overtaking the Dollar as the world currency etc. The Doves want a strong Europe.

thehighground wrote:

Our Corporate Tax rate is not safe because France and Germany, the two most powerful countries in the EU wants to get rid of it. They will eventually succeed in my opinion.

And probably the most powerful country in the world, the USA, can get rid of the tax advantage tomorrow!

It would take years for France and Germany to do the same, if ever.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Did I say meat was a necessity? The only place where I've seen a very noticeable small amount of meat being eaten is in third world countries where meat isn't available locally. I still think Europeans will not change their eating habits substantially if food gets more expensive. Rather, they will cut back on luxuries (2 holidays a year etc).

I don't think you have directly said that meat is a necessity, but you seem to implicitly assume that it is. If you ask, you'll find that people will both cut down on the amount (and type) of meat they eat when there is less money available - see here, here, here, etc etc. Rise in meat consumption is directly linked to increased affluence - which is why China's meat consumption has more than doubled.

All of which means that meat is a luxury item. It may be a valuable dietary item, but it is discretionary, not necessary - it can be, and is, replaced by cheaper foods.

thehighground wrote: »

So you think farmers are supported with EU subsidies because the EU sort of .... likes farmers then ..... ?

To some extent, that is the case, although not in the rather silly way you imply. The EU supports farmers because it considers a strong rural community desirable both for its own sake, and for the sake of food security. The objectives of the CAP are:

1. to increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
2. to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural Community;
3. to stabilise markets;
4. to secure availability of supplies;
5. to provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.

Note that your sole suggested reason is the last on the list - and CAP does not provide it, since farmers do not set prices. What has been achieved is to provide retailers with food at reasonable prices.

thehighground wrote: »

And have you not noticed that there is a food shortage in most of the Third World so how exactly are we going to import food from them?

First, most of the food shortages in the Third World are the result of transport, market, or political issues. Second, the Third World tends to subsistence farming precisely because of trade barriers like CAP, which means that First World markets are largely closed to Third World producers - which in turn is why many poverty reduction agencies argue against it.

Were there no agricultural tariffs and no CAP, it would be just as reasonable for agriculture to be exported to cheap-labour countries as it is to export manufacturing. That, in turn, would benefit poor countries, because their farmers would have a steady export market in food products, rather than being reliant on volatile commodities.

thehighground wrote: »

Or would you like to see a race to the bottom for everyone - its started already with sugar (Mozambique is destroyed because it can't compete with the very large Brazilian capacity). As for Brazilian beef (ignoring the disease issues), what about the destruction of even more rainforests to satisfy westerner's stomachs.

Hmm. You can't have it both ways. Either CAP is there to support the farmers and prevent a "race to the bottom" - which would result in cheaper food for the consumer - or not. If Ireland were outside the EU's tariff walls and CAP subsidies, we would be in the race to the bottom currently forced on the rest of the world by rich-market protectionism - whereas, as it is, our farmers benefit from exactly those inequalities, which we couldn't afford on our own.

cordially,
Scofflaw

cabinteelytom

Not everybody gets this: we can help a world of impoverished, food-short people by...producing less food; how's that ?
We should stop dumping our food surpluses on their vulnerable economies (making their farmers bankrupt and moving them off the land) and we should reduce tariffs to the import of their agricultural goods into the EU ( ie put our farmers out of business) but enabling third world producers to employ their low-skilled millions , in making a profit, and in acquiring foreign exchange to improve the productivity of their, currently backward, agriculture.

This is what the EU , over a time scale of generations is going to do. The British were the first to see that it was neccessary, and they were right. The EU is managing the decline in europe's largest employer because there would be a social catastrophe if agriculture were abandoned to the rapid impact of globalisation market forces.
The consequences:
Agriculture is not Ireland's hope for the future. Agriculture relies upon the price difference of imported raw materials (feed, chemicals, equipment, eventually GM seeds; only rarely are we relying upon Ireland's natural climatic advantages over other countries) and the price of the finished product (oats, lamb carcases, unplucked chickens); that price is set by the EU to give farmers a stable income.
This will not go on forever. How many of the next MTV generation will chose a career of pulling sheep out of sheochs? What proportion of the next generation of farmers have no son interested in working for 'the Da' into advanced middle-age, when he could be pursuing a career in advertising or accountancy?
Ireland will not 'go it alone' by exporting agricultural products all over the world. We need a better idea.
We should be very concerned at the warning yesterday (3-7-08 in Irish Examiner) by Seamus Purseil, the outgoing chief executive of the HETAC, that Irish science graduates cannot get decent jobs, have no job security and live as 'gypsy scholars on short-term contracts'. This is true and is a scandal.
Cossetting the farmers, while disappointing our brightest and best educated and pushing them towards export, will not enable us to 'go it alone', or keep up in the EU.

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's rather more a case of No supporters keeping quiet about it. I think you'll find, though, that many of them consider the connection equally dubious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So the reason 'Yes' voters bang on about Ganley's US military connections is because you think it annoys 'No' voters. :rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

So the reason 'Yes' voters bang on about Ganley's US military connections is because you think it annoys 'No' voters. :rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

I don't think I have....Ganley bothers people on both Yes and No 'sides', but the No campaign is happy enough to say nothing as long as Ganley is putting money behind a No vote (and, it seems, happy enough to continue saying nothing in expectation of a repeat). As I say, the original Indymedia article is worth a read - plenty of people from organisations like CAEUC saying exactly that - they don't like Ganley, they think his connections are dubious, but they also think Chekov Feeny shouldn't have written the article.

He may be an SOB, but he's the No side's SOB, if you see what I mean.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SimpleSam06

Scofflaw wrote: »

Were there no agricultural tariffs and no CAP, it would be just as reasonable for agriculture to be exported to cheap-labour countries as it is to export manufacturing. That, in turn, would benefit poor countries, because their farmers would have a steady export market in food products, rather than being reliant on volatile commodities.

The other reason for subsidies is of course that you don't want to be entirely dependant for your food supply on countries ruled by the tinpot dictator du jour. This would put first world countries very much at the mercy of unstable autocrats, a place we really want to avoid.

IRLConor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The other reason for subsidies is of course that you don't want to be entirely dependant for your food supply on countries ruled by the tinpot dictator du jour. This would put first world countries very much at the mercy of unstable autocrats, a place we really want to avoid.

The counter-argument to that is that there'd be fewer tinpot dictators if the economies of the third world countries were more stable.

Also, we're already at the mercy of third-world (or at least, non-western) countries for many of our critical needs. For example, without oil a lot of food wouldn't be produced and most of it wouldn't be delivered. How many of OPEC's members are run by fair, democratic rulers?

SimpleSam06

IRLConor wrote: »

The counter-argument to that is that there'd be fewer tinpot dictators if the economies of the third world countries were more stable.

No. You'd just have richer dictators and greater concentration of wealth.

IRLConor wrote: »

Also, we're already at the mercy of third-world (or at least, non-western) countries for many of our critical needs. For example, without oil a lot of food wouldn't be produced and most of it wouldn't be delivered. How many of OPEC's members are run by fair, democratic rulers?

Surprisingly large amounts of oil come from places like Russia and Canada. In any case, the only thing OPEC countries care about is that the leader is sitting on enough pillows stuffed with money.

irish_bob

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The other reason for subsidies is of course that you don't want to be entirely dependant for your food supply on countries ruled by the tinpot dictator du jour. This would put first world countries very much at the mercy of unstable autocrats, a place we really want to avoid.

bad enough to have that problem with oil , eh

IRLConor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No. You'd just have richer dictators and greater concentration of wealth.

So you don't see the general correlation around the world between wealth and lack of dictatorships?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Surprisingly large amounts of oil come from places like Russia and Canada. In any case, the only thing OPEC countries care about is that the leader is sitting on enough pillows stuffed with money.

Well, I wouldn't exactly want to be relying on Russia any more than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Going on the figures in Wikipedia, the OPEC countries represent 76% of the reserves and 57% of production. If they stopped selling us oil or jacked up the prices much higher then I don't think Russia and Canada can take up the slack.