CAP cuts/ do we have a Taoiseach?

Masifxx

I heard Tim Cullinan on the Radio about proposals from the EU to cut CAP payments. He said the latest proposal could cost Irish farmers €100m per year? He said this could be decided this Thursday. Yet our politicians seem totally focussed on the outcome of the election. It seems that only for the IFA in Brussels there wouldn’t have been a word about it. This is a serious worry. Do we actually have a Taoiseach to go to this meeting?

_Brian

The money pot is getting smaller, society has moved on from food security, The focus is on biodiversity and climate action.

Leo is going over, not that sending Leo on this errand was ever going to yield much but that’s what we have.

alps

Masifxx wrote: »

I heard Tim Cullinan on the Radio about proposals from the EU to cut CAP payments. He said the latest proposal could cost Irish farmers €100m per year? He said this could be decided this Thursday. Yet our politicians seem totally focussed on the outcome of the election. It seems that only for the IFA in Brussels there wouldn’t have been a word about it. This is a serious worry. Do we actually have a Taoiseach to go to this meeting?

You'd be concerned about the timing. Leo will be in our corner. He gave pre-election commitments to make up any CAP shorfall, but how motivated will he be? Is there less skin in the game for him now?

_Brian

alps wrote: »

You'd be concerned about the timing. Leo will be in our corner. He gave pre-election commitments to make up any CAP shorfall, but how motivated will he be? Is there less skin in the game for him now?

I can’t see Leo had any skin in the game anyway. Doesn’t affect anything inside the M50 so the blueshirts would have but a passing interest.

tabby aspreme

Probably going over to see if there are any jobs going, can't see his ego living in a minority coalition government

Bass Reeves

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/taoiseach-i-will-be-arguing-that-cap-funding-should-at-least-be-maintained/

The Toiseach is going out however IFA are only trying to cover there own ass. Remember the three candidates and there stance on upward only convergence. It was pointed out that there would be cuts and that there was little chance of maintaining Cap funding. There is three battles going on the amount of the budget, national convergence and EU convergence. There may be a move to national funding bring allowed. This may be a disaster for Ireland as we are a net agri exporter as opposed to most other nations being net importers.

At some stage IFA and government have to start dealing with the reality on the ground that the answer to farm income lies at milk and meat processor's gates.

The issue of convergence will see the average entitlement Inc greening being a out 220 euro. Even if the minimum entitlement stays at 150 euro it leaves cuts of 20-25 %on above average entitlement. This will make maintenance of historical payments unsustainable. It will also mean a maximum payment level will be put on place and now this may be sub 50k.

I suspects lot of the realignment will be left to national governments

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/taoiseach-i-will-be-arguing-that-cap-funding-should-at-least-be-maintained/

The Toiseach is going out however IFA are only trying to cover there own ass. Remember the three candidates and there stance on upward only convergence. It was pointed out that there would be cuts and that there was little chance of maintaining Cap funding. There is three battles going on the amount of the budget, national convergence and EU convergence. There may be a move to national funding bring allowed. This may be a disaster for Ireland as we are a net agri exporter as opposed to most other nations being net importers.

At some stage IFA and government have to start dealing with the reality on the ground that the answer to farm income lies at milk and meat processor's gates.

The issue of convergence will see the average entitlement Inc greening being a out 220 euro. Even if the minimum entitlement stays at 150 euro it leaves cuts of 20-25 %on above average entitlement. This will make maintenance of historical payments unsustainable. It will also mean a maximum payment level will be put on place and now this may be sub 50k.

I suspects lot of the realignment will be left to national governments

I'm afraid that scarcity is the only solution to the beef price conundrum and that's the reality , standing at factory gates are only a joke.
There's eight or nine different farm organizations, if it was that easy, one of them would've solved it

tractorporn

wrangler wrote: »

I'm afraid that scarcity is the only solution to the beef price conundrum and that's the reality , standing at factory gates are only a joke.
There's eight or nine different farm organizations, if it was that easy, one of them would've solved it

I'm actually coming round to the idea that even scarcity will have SFA effect on the price of beef in the long term. Even if we halved the national herd the price might rise in the short term but without supply the processors will just look further afield and import the deficit and still pay naff all for home produced beef.

At the end of the day the consumer talks a good fight about buying local and paying more for Irish beef but when inside in the supermarket that's all forgotten and the cheapest price wins out regardless of where it comes from.

wrangler

tractorporn wrote: »

I'm actually coming round to the idea that even scarcity will have SFA effect on the price of beef in the long term. Even if we halved the national herd the price might rise in the short term but without supply the processors will just look further afield and import the deficit and still pay naff all for home produced beef.

At the end of the day the consumer talks a good fight about buying local and paying more for Irish beef but when inside in the supermarket that's all forgotten and the cheapest price wins out regardless of where it comes from.

Yea, should've said a world scarcity. Irish production won't make much difference .

Reggie.

Am I right in thinking that such a reduction would result in a cut to the SFP and such?

I ask as I receive no payments so not up with the lingo

wrangler

Reggie. wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that such a reduction would result in a cut to the SFP and such?

I ask as I receive no payments so not up with the lingo

I doubt it, the reverse might be nearer reality. even you might be on the BPS treadmill next year.

Reggie.

wrangler wrote: »

I doubt it, the reverse might be nearer reality. even you might be on the BPS treadmill next year.

Never look for payments. Less hassle

_Brian

Reggie. wrote: »

Never look for payments. Less hassle

No hassle in payments.

Reggie.

_Brian wrote: »

No hassle in payments.

No inspections either

Bass Reeves

Reggie. wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that such a reduction would result in a cut to the SFP and such?

I ask as I receive no payments so not up with the lingo

There is 3-4 challenges to SFP/BPS, Brexit had reduced the budget, there would have been a push towards a reduction anyway, you have convergence and finally you have the threat to link payment to climate change or bio diversity.

Brexit alone if linear would cause a 15% cut in virtually one swell swoop. But there will be a push on climate change and convergence as well. Where that leaves the old chestnut of upward only convergence no one knows

Buford T. Justice XIX

Reggie. wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that such a reduction would result in a cut to the SFP and such?

I ask as I receive no payments so not up with the lingo

It depends on what pillar they end up cutting and by how much. Pillar 1 is the BPS and some want that cut right back and the money diverted to Pillar 2. Pillar 2 is the environmental, conservation and special schemes like AEOS and Glas.

It's looking likely there will be a 10% cut and that will target those over the average payments more than those under the average due to convergence. The 5 biggest countries paying into it don't want to contribute any more while the biggest recipients want a bigger budget and a bigger share of what budget there is.

The talk is about an increase in contribution from 1% to 1.1% of GDP, iirc.

Grueller

Reggie. wrote: »

No inspections either

Sure what have you to worry about. If you are doing things semi right there is nothing to go wrong.

Reggie.

Grueller wrote: »

Sure what have you to worry about. If you are doing things semi right there is nothing to go wrong.

I like the simple life. Everyone piss off away from me

Say my name

Arms cache. :rolleyes:

Reggie.

Say my name wrote: »

Arms cache. :rolleyes:

Due to the cost rise of ammo, a warning shot will not be issued

_Brian

Reggie. wrote: »

No inspections either

Haven’t had an inspection here in about 18 years.

Cattlepen

I think it’s all scaremongering so a smaller cut to the cap will look like a victory. They need the cap if they want a way of keeping us obedient

Neddyusa

_Brian wrote: »

Haven’t had an inspection here in about 18 years.

That's it - you've jinxed it now.
You'll get the phonecall in the morning!

Reggie.

Neddyusa wrote: »

That's it - you've jinxed it now.
You'll get the phonecall in the morning!

Guaranteed

Birdnuts

Full flattening of payments appears to be the only answer to a shrinking CAP budget - the massive payments going to the biggest operators and corporations cannot be justified at any level in the years ahead

kevthegaff

Birdnuts wrote: »

Full flattening of payments appears to be the only answer to a shrinking CAP budget - the massive payments going to the biggest operators and corporations cannot be justified at any level in the years ahead

I think they had their decades in the sun. What does convergence mean?

Panch18

kevthegaff wrote: »

I think they had their decades in the sun. What does convergence mean?

Convergence means cutting the higher value entitlements and raising the lower value entitlements so that eventually they are all close to the national average. This has been happening since 2015 I think it is. So lads who had higher than national average entitlements per hectare have been having cuts for the last 5 years and those under average have been getting increases.

There is also country convergence at EU level whereby the countries with the highest average entitlement values are being cut and the countries with the lowest value entitlements are getting increases

Basically it’s a way of getting all entitlements closer to the same value across the EU

If I remember correctly Ireland’s value is pretty much on average for the EU so country convergence won’t have a massive impact on us - someone might correct that if I’m wrong

wrangler

Reggie. wrote: »

Never look for payments. Less hassle

Some thought they were cute hoors in the 1990s with the same idea,
They're now complaining about poor entitlements

Reggie.

wrangler wrote: »

Some thought they were cute hoors in the 1990s with the same idea,
They're now complaining about poor entitlements

I ain't one

Masifxx

These payments bring in over €1billion a year to farmers in Ireland. Sure there is compliance/inspections but not many farmers could afford to ignore payments or take less payments unless you have other sources of income. The price of our product is getting further from our control. We had protests of all kinds last year and still no impact on the beef price. Drove it down if anything.
Payments are a political decision. Farmers fund an IFA office in Brussels and this is where the action is on this. Are the farm Groups in other countries putting up much of a fight? Looks to me like the farm lobby in Europe has weakened?

Buford T. Justice XIX

A bit more on the discussion of funding.

'We face a real battle to save CAP budget' - Taoiseach concedes

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/schemes/we-face-a-real-battle-to-save-cap-budget-taoiseach-concedes-38964521.html

_Brian

Neddyusa wrote: »

That's it - you've jinxed it now.
You'll get the phonecall in the morning!

Bring it on.
Nothin to worry about.
We could do with a day tidying up silly stuff that’s gotten untidy over the winter but nothing to worry about.

Reggie.

_Brian wrote: »

Bring it on.
Nothin to worry about.
We could do with a day tidying up silly stuff that’s gotten untidy over the winter but nothing to worry about.

Thats the spirit

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Bring it on.
Nothin to worry about.
We could do with a day tidying up silly stuff that’s gotten untidy over the winter but nothing to worry about.

Inspections get bad press, not all of it deserved

_Brian

Masifxx wrote: »

These payments bring in over €1billion a year to farmers in Ireland. Sure there is compliance/inspections but not many farmers could afford to ignore payments or take less payments unless you have other sources of income. The price of our product is getting further from our control. We had protests of all kinds last year and still no impact on the beef price. Drove it down if anything.
Payments are a political decision. Farmers fund an IFA office in Brussels and this is where the action is on this. Are the farm Groups in other countries putting up much of a fight? Looks to me like the farm lobby in Europe has weakened?

Urbanisation of populations and globalisation of food supply weakened farming grip on the EU budget. They are balancing allowing access to sufficient non EU food to keep farming lobbies at bay while using that access to open markets outside EU for massive French and German companies, it’s a win win for European beauracrats.

Farm organisations should be out lobbying for increased funds and 100% channel that into biodiversity and climate measures. That is something the overall population actually want and will even support the money being spent on.

Farming neededs to move with the times, follow the money and public sentiment, take advantage of that huge groundswell of populism for climate and push for the money that will back it up.

But instead we have the IFA our there fighting to maintain a 30 year old legacy system with no relevance to modern times at all. Not much wonder farming is seen as a backwards dinosaur by the wider community.

Going about saying farmers are “entitled” to make a living and “entitled” to keep the same payment process from 30 years ago reeks of the won’t work brigade saying they are “entitled” to free houses in Dublin because that’s where they were born 30 years ago. Times have changed, we need to push for a new modern system where accessing more cap % is the goal not minimising the losses.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Urbanisation of populations and globalisation of food supply weakened farming grip on the EU budget. They are balancing allowing access to sufficient non EU food to keep farming lobbies at bay while using that access to open markets outside EU for massive French and German companies, it’s a win win for European beauracrats.

Farm organisations should be out lobbying for increased funds and 100% channel that into biodiversity and climate measures. That is something the overall population actually want and will even support the money being spent on.

Farming neededs to move with the times, follow the money and public sentiment, take advantage of that huge groundswell of populism for climate and push for the money that will back it up.

But instead we have the IFA our there fighting to maintain a 30 year old legacy system with no relevance to modern times at all. Not much wonder farming is seen as a backwards dinosaur by the wider community.

Going about saying farmers are “entitled” to make a living and “entitled” to keep the same payment process from 30 years ago reeks of the won’t work brigade saying they are “entitled” to free houses in Dublin because that’s where they were born 30 years ago. Times have changed, we need to push for a new modern system where accessing more cap % is the goal not minimising the losses.

You really haven't a clue. IFA have an environment section marking all that,
unlike beef plan, IFA is not a one trick pony,
Farmers are elected to run the show by farmers, bad mouthing serves no purpose, It's unlikely you know more than the thirty farmers plus the professionals on the Environment committee
You've seen the result from those that thought they knew more than IFA and could do better....... see where they are now.

Say my name

_Brian wrote: »

Urbanisation of populations and globalisation of food supply weakened farming grip on the EU budget. They are balancing allowing access to sufficient non EU food to keep farming lobbies at bay while using that access to open markets outside EU for massive French and German companies, it’s a win win for European beauracrats.

Farm organisations should be out lobbying for increased funds and 100% channel that into biodiversity and climate measures. That is something the overall population actually want and will even support the money being spent on.

Farming neededs to move with the times, follow the money and public sentiment, take advantage of that huge groundswell of populism for climate and push for the money that will back it up.

But instead we have the IFA our there fighting to maintain a 30 year old legacy system with no relevance to modern times at all. Not much wonder farming is seen as a backwards dinosaur by the wider community.

Going about saying farmers are “entitled” to make a living and “entitled” to keep the same payment process from 30 years ago reeks of the won’t work brigade saying they are “entitled” to free houses in Dublin because that’s where they were born 30 years ago. Times have changed, we need to push for a new modern system where accessing more cap % is the goal not minimising the losses.

The one problem I have with all the biodiversity and carbon talk is that in this country there could be money taken off full time farmers and being given instead to Semi state companies such as bord na Mona and Coillte.
They have the land and can claim whatever biodiversity and carbon claims they like and could potentially be looking at a very substantial yearly windfall just based on being large landowners of such land.
There's tons of vested interests lobbying for changes but at the end of the day they're all scrambling out for themselves and what's worse is they are not obvious to the neglected small farmer who thinks such change will benefit them.
Heck even the forestry companies are lobbying for a yearly ad infinitum payment to be made to their growers.

yosemitesam1

wrangler wrote: »

You really haven't a clue. IFA have an environment section marking all that,
unlike beef plan, IFA is not a one trick pony,
Farmers are elected to run the show by farmers, bad mouthing serves no purpose, It's unlikely you know more than the thirty farmers plus the professionals on the Environment committee
You've seen the result from those that thought they knew more than IFA and could do better....... see where they are now.

What have they achieved for the environment/biodiversity funding?

bogman_bass

_Brian wrote: »

Urbanisation of populations and globalisation of food supply weakened farming grip on the EU budget. They are balancing allowing access to sufficient non EU food to keep farming lobbies at bay while using that access to open markets outside EU for massive French and German companies, it’s a win win for European beauracrats.

Farm organisations should be out lobbying for increased funds and 100% channel that into biodiversity and climate measures. That is something the overall population actually want and will even support the money being spent on.

Farming neededs to move with the times, follow the money and public sentiment, take advantage of that huge groundswell of populism for climate and push for the money that will back it up.

But instead we have the IFA our there fighting to maintain a 30 year old legacy system with no relevance to modern times at all. Not much wonder farming is seen as a backwards dinosaur by the wider community.

Going about saying farmers are “entitled” to make a living and “entitled” to keep the same payment process from 30 years ago reeks of the won’t work brigade saying they are “entitled” to free houses in Dublin because that’s where they were born 30 years ago. Times have changed, we need to push for a new modern system where accessing more cap % is the goal not minimising the losses.

In many respects I feel sortry for the IFA they know full well that this “upwards only” nonsense will never work but if they ask for anything different they end up abandoning half their membership. The end result is they can’t do any effective lobbying on the issue

Bass Reeves

bogman_bass wrote: »

In many respects I feel sortry for the IFA they know full well that this “upwards only” nonsense will never work but if they ask for anything different they end up abandoning half their membership. The end result is they can’t do any effective lobbying on the issue

The problem s lot of people have with that I'd that it misleads people mostly older farmers. They already have lost ten of thousands of members and they have lost funding by misleading people. INHFA was founded after the debacle of the last CAP reorganisation as farmers in the West of Ireland were very unhappy with the organisation. The EIF deductions again mislead people. Upwards only convergence is just another mistake by them.

I posted earlier that the solution to decking farmers incomes lies at processor's gates. I did not mean literally protests at gates but rather action in limiting there ability to dictate price, stopping anti competitive practices and changing the imbalance of power between farmers and processor's.

Imagining that we can increase farmer incomes by lobbying the EU to increase their funding is not s winner. It time it changed its focus the state and EU are no longer the goose to be plucked

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

You really haven't a clue. IFA have an environment section marking all that,
unlike beef plan, IFA is not a one trick pony,
Farmers are elected to run the show by farmers, bad mouthing serves no purpose, It's unlikely you know more than the thirty farmers plus the professionals on the Environment committee
You've seen the result from those that thought they knew more than IFA and could do better....... see where they are now.

Nothing worse than a one trick pony only those that defend it to the end. If they were eating babies for breakfast there’s be the idiots defending them.

wrangler

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

What have they achieved for the environment/biodiversity funding?

there was € 200m+ paid out in glas in 2018,

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Nothing worse than a one trick pony only those that defend it to the end. If they were eating babies for breakfast there’s be the idiots defending them.

Whinge on then, You can't come on here telling lies and expect no one to refute them

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

Whinge on then, You can't come on here telling lies and expect no one to refute them

No lies in saying the IFA are protecting a system to protect payments to farms based on 25-30 year old data. It’s a sham.

As for having a pop at beef plan, it’s not like the IFA haven’t been found georging in the trough of easy money flowing in from levies.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

No lies in saying the IFA are protecting a system to protect payments to farms based on 25-30 year old data. It’s a sham.

As for having a pop at beef plan, it’s not like the IFA haven’t been found georging in the trough of easy money flowing in from levies.

It's a sham only to those that backed the wrong horse, after the milk quota we learnt that the EU draws a line and if you're on the wrong side you're f...ed.
I didn't even take what i was due out of IFA,so lovely to be able to say f... you when accused
Beef plans biggest problem will have nothing to do with money,

Donegalforever

Masifxx wrote: »

I heard Tim Cullinan on the Radio about proposals from the EU to cut CAP payments. He said the latest proposal could cost Irish farmers €100m per year? He said this could be decided this Thursday. Yet our politicians seem totally focussed on the outcome of the election. It seems that only for the IFA in Brussels there wouldn’t have been a word about it. This is a serious worry. Do we actually have a Taoiseach to go to this meeting?

I doubt very much if it would make much difference if the current Taoiseach goes to any meetings or not.
From what I have seen, he would appear to be more interested in having his photo taken and bluffing instead of making any meaningful contribution.

Bass Reeves

Donegalforever wrote: »

I doubt very much if it would make much difference if the current Taoiseach goes to any meetings or not.
From what I have seen, he would appear to be more interested in having his photo taken and bluffing instead of making any meaningful contribution.

The Council of ministers meeting is tomorrow he is going to that. However the heads of agreement including what the parliament want and the Commission want will have to be allowed for. The days are gone where the council of ministers decided everything.

There is limitations the present net contributors in general do not want to increase there kevel.of contribution. CAP is still in its entirety nearly 50% of the EU budget. There was never not going to be cuts. I highlighted at the time of the IFA presidential debates that CAP was bound to be cut back because of Brexit. No point in blaming the Toiseach or the IFA saying he should be in Bruxelles for the last wek. Irish officials will have been contributing for the last month. The big problem is IFA while highlighting the issue were giving the BS line of UOC as if it was possible.

However you have to question the FJ editor Justin McCarthy he did a live interview with the three candidates. There was two glaring problems he glossed over one was the UOC sh!the and the second part is the way he glossed over issues with nitrates, calf exports and general dairying expansion

wrangler

bogman_bass wrote: »

In many respects I feel sortry for the IFA they know full well that this “upwards only” nonsense will never work but if they ask for anything different they end up abandoning half their membership. The end result is they can’t do any effective lobbying on the issue

The only policy they should've had, and it worked well the last time, was that no one should lose.
The other organizations had the same policy but they weren't as vocal bout it.
We fought a 30% cut the last time as well..... and won

Ah it's not so bad. I'll be losing 22000/yr from next year if I don't buy 100 acres in the meantime

declanflynn

wrangler wrote: »

Whinge on then, You can't come on here telling lies and expect no one to refute them

where can I find a set of accounts published by the IFA

Masifxx

The way this thread has gone illustrates a problem we seem to have developed. We are mad to fight with each other about the beef ‘plan’(s) and how we divide CAP funds. We need to stop this and focus our efforts on holding those who make the decisions to account -rather than blaming our own lobbyists. There is one sure thing here- a cut in the CAP budget is bad for Irish farming. Let’s put the pressure on the Taoiseach and those representing us at this meeting. #NOCAPCUTS

Bass Reeves

To have an idea of the challenges facing CAP read this. It also highlights other challenges. One big challenge is we need to define what is our description of grass fed beef

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/opinion-does-irish-farming-need-to-brace-for-a-sharp-sudden-jolt/