Cap reform,bad for whole economy?

Markcheese

If cap reform moves to a flat rate per acre will it lead to stagnation in farming ?
Con-acre and land leasing prices will just include the acre payment, keeping new entrants out of the game, and reducing increases in production, not great for Ireland as whole.
P.s wouldn't be all that keen on keeping the status quo in the current unfair system....

freedominacup

Markcheese wrote: »

If cap reform moves to a flat rate per acre will it lead to stagnation in farming ?
Con-acre and land leasing prices will just include the acre payment, keeping new entrants out of the game, and reducing increases in production, not great for Ireland as whole.
P.s wouldn't be all that keen on keeping the status quo in the current unfair system....

End of milk quotas changes that game utterly SFP compliance is a drag on milk output once you reduce payments below a certain level SFP becomes not worth the hassle.

bob charles

freedominacup wrote: »

End of milk quotas changes that game utterly SFP compliance is a drag on milk output once you reduce payments below a certain level SFP becomes not worth the hassle.

Agreed and its a point I alway made, that authority will be in a very dangerous position if the SFP isnt worth the hassle of claiming which is what I think for very intensive farmers. IF you dont have a SFP you are no longer caught by the balls when authourity shows up to a certain extent.

Personally I would forgo my SFP if it could be fed back directly to the guys who produce the animals I buy because most of these are on the bread line. I always felt that anyone who breeds a calf and does all the hard graft deserves more for their hardship as they a currently not rewarded enough with market price. If these fail, I will in turn fail. There would be a serious freeing up of land locally if the new SFP wasnt area based. This will play perfectly into the hands of barely farming land owners

Personally the greening measures and enviro bull**** will result in too many restrictions versus what claiming the SFP will bring.

I really have no interest in this topic and I think its funny how active people are on the other SFP thread and when you compare back to the horsemeat thread where there were very few active posters. People are still wrapped up in SFP claiming and couldnt care less whats happing in the real world where the money will be made

freedominacup

bob charles wrote: »

Agreed and its a point I alway made, that authority will be in a very dangerous position if the SFP isnt worth the hassle of claiming which is what I think for very intensive farmers. IF you dont have a SFP you are no longer caught by the balls when authourity shows up to a certain extent.

The law of unintended consequences.

Conmaicne Mara

They talk about removal of subsidies a lot in the UK. One aspect of which seems to have leached into this thread. The assumption that once the carrot goes, the stick will go with it.

Do any of ye think there'd be a wholesale firing, or -ahem- redistribution of dept inspectors or environmental people if SFP was to go. I think if ye do ye're in cloud cuckoo land.

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

The assumption that once the carrot goes, the stick will go with it.

Do any of ye think there'd be a wholesale firing, or -ahem- redistribution of dept inspectors or environmental people if SFP was to go. I think if ye do ye're in cloud cuckoo land.

For an intenssive farmer it's all stick at the moment there is no carrot. Take away production limits and add in government policy looking for increased output and there's gonna be a lot of dept inspectors checking on the greening element for those who wish to continue having their income supplemented.

rancher

freedominacup wrote: »

End of milk quotas changes that game utterly SFP compliance is a drag on milk output once you reduce payments below a certain level SFP becomes not worth the hassle.

Most of the cross compliance rules are in legislation now, so legally you have to comply, with or without your SFP

bob charles

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Do any of ye think there'd be a wholesale firing, or -ahem- redistribution of dept inspectors or environmental people if SFP was to go. I think if ye do ye're in cloud cuckoo land.

Big difference is its much easier to cut the SFP a farmer receives for some misdemeaner that take a farmer to court and get and imposed fine by a Judge.(will let you know at a future date:D). If I dont collect a SFP, and dept inspectors look to come and measure my land for instance they can laize with Ozzie my Alsatian as im busy

Conmaicne Mara

You're forgetting the masses and throngs of private environmentalists, and bodies such as the fisheries. They will lobby Govt to act on pollution, whether it's related to production or not. I can see Joe Duffy being able to retire on the back of it.

"Production" is not a type of magical personal defense to do what ever one feels like.

Conmaicne Mara

bob charles wrote: »

Big difference is its much easier to cut the SFP a farmer receives for some misdemeaner that take a farmer to court and get and imposed fine by a Judge.(will let you know at a future date:D). If I dont collect a SFP, and dept inspectors look to come and measure my land for instance they can laize with Ozzie my Alsatian as im busy

It's only difficult while the law makes it so Bob. If enough squeaky wheels are trundling along in the same direction I can see that changing. Anything that's been written with a pen can be changed with a pen.

(Good luck by the way, I can send you a cake with a file in it if it's of any help at a future date )

bob charles

rancher wrote: »

Most of the cross compliance rules are in legislation now, so legally you have to comply, with or without your SFP

Do you seriously think the courts are going to be chocoblock with say farmer John because he spread slurry within 8m of a drain instead of 10m. Dream on. Do you think the Judiciary will be delighted to see the county council bring some farmer to court when their N levels are 171kgN/ha instead of 170kgN/ha. I know all too well about Nitrates regs etc and there legality, but implementing them without the stick to bate farmers (reducing their SFP) they are in serious trouble.

Conmaicne Mara

bob charles wrote: »

Do you seriously think the courts are going to be chocoblock with say farmer John because he spread slurry within 8m of a drain instead of 10m. Dream on. Do you think the Judiciary will be delighted to see the county council bring some farmer to court when their N levels are 171kgN/ha instead of 170kgN/ha. I know all too well about Nitrates regs etc and there legality, but implementing them without the stick to bate farmers (reducing their SFP) they are in serious trouble.

Suppose they bring in a law saying if you're not in compliance you cannot trade. Then what, you're shut down until you do comply.

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Suppose they bring in a law saying if you're not in compliance you cannot trade. Then what, you're shut down until you do comply.

They'll need a budget to do the inspections. This currently comes from the SFP budget. No payment, no budget, no inspections.

Markcheese

bob charles wrote: »

Big difference is its much easier to cut the SFP a farmer receives for some misdemeaner that take a farmer to court and get and imposed fine by a Judge.(will let you know at a future date:D). If I dont collect a SFP, and dept inspectors look to come and measure my land for instance they can laize with Ozzie my Alsatian as im busy

When I was working in NZ they got no SFP(obviously) but had to comply with most regs to get access to Market, no compliance cert, And the co-op wouldn't take their milk .... There's always more than one way to skin a cat

Markcheese

I was wondering if a twin system would work for cap reform,(both coming out of the same fixed pool of money). Basically environmental schemes (which could suit lowly stocked/poorer and extensive farms) and production based(to suit intensive guys producing for the Market).
The idea would be to suit full time farmers , ie. If your full time and have crap land get involved in as many environmental schemes as possible. If you have 10 sheep and 5 grey hounds on 100 badly run acres but still want an income then lease it out to a young fella who can graft at production or environmental or both....
Ain't going to happen though ...

Tipp Man

Markcheese wrote: »

When I was working in NZ they got no SFP(obviously) but had to comply with most regs to get access to Market, no compliance cert, And the co-op wouldn't take their milk .... There's always more than one way to skin a cat

Perhaps you can clarify but i was under the impression that their regulations were nowhere near as stringent as the EU 1's. Certainly nothing on the scale of the nitrates pharse, and there treatment of watercourses is poor to say the least (although i understand pressure is recently coming on to improve this)

You also have things like inducing cows, shooting bull calves etc etc etc

tabby aspreme

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Suppose they bring in a law saying if you're not in compliance you cannot trade. Then what, you're shut down until you do comply.

And if were really lucky Bord Bia will get involved with compliance so our dogs are dosed cats neutered and all farmers have neat haircuts

Conmaicne Mara

freedominacup wrote: »

They'll need a budget to do the inspections. This currently comes from the SFP budget. No payment, no budget, no inspections.

"currently".

I'm afraid to say but life is subject to change. Money is routinely moved from a to b to fulfil various tasks. It doesn't have to come from a non existant SFP. There could be an entirely smaller fund raised to ensure environmental compliance.

Political will is all that would be required and with the constant flow of citizens to urban areas and the loss of contact with the working of the land, instead seeing it as a recreational facility, who's going to want any possible increase of pollution due to production? We can see how highly regarded food is to people in the ever diminishing proportion of their disposable income they spend on it.

Again, get out of farming circles, and go to places like politics.ie and see what non farming folk think. there simply isn't a picture of the Pope, John F. Kennedy, and John Bryan on everyoned side board.

Farmer Pudsey

Farmers who think that if there is no SFP that they can farm away regardless are not living in the real world. Just look at Bord Bia QA lost of farmers taught it was just hassle. Last week the factories increases the bonus from 6-12 cent/kg. Some wanted to raise it to 20 cent. Factories are starting to quote lower for QA. There is a scheme to bring it in for Cows and bulls may follow.

At present QA looks at H&S, medicines etc. What happens if you need a compliance cert form your local Co.Co. down the line and have to be nitrate compliant. I have seen farmers turn there nose up at Suckler Welfare and discussion groups, ''not worth the while'' is the expression. Farming is a tight buisness ever penny counts. We do not farm in a vacum we should remember that.

Farmers are there own worse enemy, I would find it hard to justify renting land at over 100/acre if there is SFP attached to it I would be the same as I am [EMAIL="f@@ked"]f@@ked[/EMAIL] if I will keep cattle for nothing. One of the biggest factors is some farmers do not value there time they run around like blue ar5e flies making money for some one else. SFP in a flat rate system will equal to between 120-180/acre I would not be giving an armchair farmer the benifit of any of it if someone else want to let him at it. If a load of them decide to make silage or hay then the price of that will drop. If there is no return in it let it off.

Markcheese

Tipp Man wrote: »

Perhaps you can clarify but i was under the impression that their regulations were nowhere near as stringent as the EU 1's. Certainly nothing on the scale of the nitrates pharse, and there treatment of watercourses is poor to say the least (although i understand pressure is recently coming on to improve this)

You also have things like inducing cows, shooting bull calves etc etc etc

You're probably right , it was back in the dark ages when I was there, pre nitrates directive here(although nitrogen usage was very low on the farm I was on )
The water treatment was strictly inspected then, as was the parlour and tank room...
Bull Calves went away in a truck, I'm sure you could put them down here if you had the stomach for it (and wallet to dispose of them... )
Point was, how ever lax or tight the regs were if you didn't comply the dairy didn't collect ....

Birdnuts

freedominacup wrote: »

For an intenssive farmer it's all stick at the moment there is no carrot. Take away production limits and add in government policy looking for increased output and there's gonna be a lot of dept inspectors checking on the greening element for those who wish to continue having their income supplemented.

Farming like all other industries will still have to comply with the terms of the water and nitrates directive etc. It would do nothing for the image of farming in this country if we went back 25 years to a time when dozens of fish kills were reported every summer and private and group water schemes wiped out. The vast majority of farmers stepped up to the mark over the past 20 years in addressing these problems and deserve credit for that.

bob charles

Birdnuts wrote: »

Farming like all other industries will still have to comply with the terms of the water and nitrates directive etc. It would do nothing for the image of farming in this country if we went back 25 years to a time when dozens of fish kills were reported every summer and private and group water schemes wiped out. The vast majority of farmers stepped up to the mark over the past 20 years in addressing these problems and deserve credit for that.

Back up the cart a little, those that I have serious issue with are the little Hitlers that get their strips for penalizing for the most minor of offenses, who if they get there chance would snow the whole country under with paperwork so that they can justify there existence when in fact they add little or no net worth to society, best of the lot is when the enforcers of laws against farmers are the biggest polluters there is on this island but will gladly throw stones when their in a glasshouse. I condone pollution of any kind.

Birdnuts

bob charles wrote: »

Back up the cart a little, those that I have serious issue with are the little Hitlers that get their strips for penalizing for the most minor of offenses, who if they get there chance would snow the whole country under with paperwork so that they can justify there existence when in fact they add little or no net worth to society, best of the lot is when the enforcers of laws against farmers are the biggest polluters there is on this island but will gladly throw stones when their in a glasshouse. I condone pollution of any kind.

Bob - as I stated in my post, farmers are the ones who have stepped up to the mark in this area. I am well aware of the ongoing problems caused in the majority of cases by sloppy CC's who presided over Celtic tiger planning disasters up and down the country that are directly responsible for the poor quality of a number of river/lakes as well as group water schemes. Indeed I'd like to see certain officials and county managers made personlly liable for the many cock ups in this area.My point was is that the farming industry should use its improved performance in this area over the last 2 decades to its advantage in terms of getting more money into the idustry via pillar 2. Not to mention the added benefits of public good will which at the end of the day is what counts for any lobby group

freedominacup

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Again, get out of farming circles, and go to places like politics.ie and see what non farming folk think. there simply isn't a picture of the Pope, John F. Kennedy, and John Bryan on everyoned side board.

I gave up on that place in despair a while ago. The thread on the article on Cap reform is a divisive a thread as I've seen on this forum and yet it must be the exception that proves the rule in relation to Godwins law.

It's wall to wall with fundamentalist nutters of all persuasions where trolling is the rule. Did drummed ever turn up here?

I have plenty of contact with non-farming folk as you describe them. TBH where I live farmers are well outnumbered. The last hurling team I played on there were 2 farmers on a panel of 25/26. The rest were tradesmen and professionals of various types. They couldn't give a half a f**k what goes on inside a farm gate for the most part. I can't remember the last time I saw a sideboard never mind to say one with pictures of the luminaries mentioned above on it. The mother used to have one of those plates with a picture of JPII on it from the '79 visit on the kitchen wall if that counts. We six-inched with some sort of a ball back in the day:D. I can still hear the roars.

Suckler

bob charles wrote: »

Back up the cart a little, those that I have serious issue with are the little Hitlers that get their strips for penalizing for the most minor of offenses

They have a job to do. The job wouldn't be created if there weren't farmers blatantly breaking the rules and the law. Cute hoorism is seen as some sort of badge of honour.

bob charles wrote: »

who if they get there chance would snow the whole country under with paperwork so that they can justify there existence when in fact they add little or no net worth to society,

Farming is a business. Just like any other. The small bit of paper work farmers are required to submit and record is miniscule to other occupations and professions. If farming wants to be taken seriously paperwork and regulation comes with the territory. If you don't want to be part of it and think it's ok to operate without oversight then it will be to the industries detriment.

bob charles wrote: »

I condone pollution of any kind.

This must be a typing error.

Suckler

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Again, get out of farming circles, and go to places like politics.ie and see what non farming folk think. there simply isn't a picture of the Pope, John F. Kennedy, and John Bryan on everyoned side board.

I'm all for discussing the subject but what goes on politics.ie is a joke. Pub stories are a legitimate basis for truths and generalisations from keyboard warriors are all to common.

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

Farming is a business. Just like any other. The small bit of paper work farmers are required to submit and record is miniscule to other occupations and professions. If farming wants to be taken seriously paperwork and regulation comes with the territory. If you don't want to be part of it and think it's ok to operate without oversight then it will be to the industries detriment.

This is just wrong. I'm currently working in a construction engineering company, dealing with contracts for subbies, etc. And a part time farmer. And pound for pound there is more paperwork in farming. Not just a little more, but a lot more!

Suckler

darragh_haven wrote: »

This is just wrong. I'm currently working in a construction engineering company, dealing with contracts for subbies, etc. And a part time farmer. And pound for pound there is more paperwork in farming. Not just a little more, but a lot more!

So the paperwork required in your position is reflective of all other occupations and proffessions? Right :rolleyes:

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

So the paperwork required in your position is reflective of all other occupations and proffessions? Right :rolleyes:

You said "just like any other (business)" your claiming all other buisnesses and professions do more. I'm giving you an example and you are choosing to ignore it because it doesn't suit your POV. I do more paperwork in the company that most, and it is still less than I have to do on the farm.
Tool!

Suckler

darragh_haven wrote: »

You said "just like any other business" I'm giving you an example and you are choosing to ignore it because it doesn't suit your POV.

You've given one example that is not verifiable. I could start a pissing contest by telling you how much paperwork I and others have had to do outside of farming, but its not about 'one-up-manship' - Paperwork goes hand in hand with any business. Farmers make out that they are especially cursed having to do paperwork. Nobody minded paperwork when there was a grant coming out of it.

darragh_haven wrote: »

Tool!

A brave man with a keyboard. Grow up.

freedominacup

Suckler wrote: »

So the paperwork required in your position is reflective of all other occupations and proffessions? Right :rolleyes:

I have run construction projects and the level of paperwork involved is tiny and the cost of compliance is tiny compared to farming. I've also supplied goods and services to govt projects and the exact opposite is the case but talking to the guys running those sites the extra records and compliance problems are caused by civil servants trying to avoid responsibility for anything. Your first post betrayed a lot about your attitudes to farmers

Cute hoorism is seen as some sort of badge of honour.

TBH that it is seen as a badge of honour has a lot to do with the attitude of some dept inspectors who see it as their bounden duty to find something regardless of how hard they have to look to cut a farmers payment on. IMO especially over the past few years the dept inspectors should have had it in their brief to ensure that all farmers were maximising the payments the were entitled to and worrying about penalties only when problems weren't dealt with once identified.

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

You've given one example that is not verifiable. I could start a pissing contest by telling you how much paperwork I and others have had to do outside of farming, but its not about 'one-up-manship' - Paperwork goes hand in hand with any business. Farmers make out that they are especially cursed having to do paperwork. Nobody minded paperwork when there was a grant coming out of it.

but your example that is not verifiable either if you wont take a persons word on the matter. Your just ignoring what doesn't suit you. Maybe you should grow up and not throw the toys outta the pram :rolleyes:

Suckler

freedominacup wrote: »

I have run construction projects and the level of paperwork involved is tiny and the cost of compliance is tiny compared to farming.

Again; your unverifiable anecdotal evidence is an indication of all other occupations and professions? I've worked across a number of sector for public and private clients/customers; the paper work is phenomenal and at time bordering lunacy but it has to be done. Will we all have a challenge to mount up the amount of paperwork we all have to do and see who wins.

freedominacup wrote: »

I've also supplied goods and services to govt projects and the exact opposite is the case but talking to the guys running those sites the extra records and compliance problems are caused by civil servants trying to avoid responsibility for anything.

As have I; across many different clients and governments and government agencies. When Public funds/Tax payers money is used there has to be greater governance. It's a fact of life.

freedominacup wrote: »

Your first post betrayed a lot about your attitudes to farmers

Difference of opinion is now an attitude??

freedominacup wrote: »

TBH that it is seen as a badge of honour has a lot to do with the attitude of some dept inspectors who see it as their bounden duty to find something regardless of how hard they have to look to cut a farmers payment on. IMO especially over the past few years the dept inspectors should have had it in their brief to ensure that all farmers were maximising the payments the were entitled to and worrying about penalties only when problems weren't dealt with once identified.

I would agree with this completely, the cute hoorism remark was reflecting people openly and continuously flouting rules and thinking they should be a lw unto themselves.

Tipp Man

The point is surely that there are too many bloody paper pushers and f##kers who are unproductive and do nothing only going around watching others work - it's a bloody industry in itself - but a bloody costly and expensive 1.

Regardless of whether it's farming, engineering or whatever.

Suckler

darragh_haven wrote: »

but your example that is not verifiable either if you wont take a persons word on the matter. Your just ignoring what doesn't suit you. Maybe you should grow up and not throw the toys outta the pram :rolleyes:

That thing that went over your head....that was the point I was making.

I didn't use my current profession as an example; that is why I stated " Other occupations and professions".
Farmers seem to think they are singled out to fill out paperwork; my point is that like any other business it has to be done; some more than others. If the farmer is receiving a grant/subsidy of course paperwork will be a requirement; you are receiving tax payers money at the end of the day.

freedominacup

Suckler wrote: »

I would agree with this completely, the cute hoorism remark was reflecting people openly and continuously flouting rules and thinking they should be a lw unto themselves.

I would have always been of the opinion that cute hoorism was more like sneakily and occasionaly than openly and continuously.

Suckler

freedominacup wrote: »

I would have always been of the opinion that cute hoorism was more like sneakily and occasionaly than openly and continuously.

Whether sneakily or openly; it's the fact that regulations and guidelines are flouted that creates a job for these inspectors.
I would agree minor infringements should not carry the same wrath as complete indifference to the regulations; but in the end it'll come down to a 'Carrot and Stick' decision.

EDIT

Tipp Man wrote: »

The point is surely that there are too many bloody paper pushers and f##kers who are unproductive and do nothing only going around watching others work - it's a bloody industry in itself - but a bloody costly and expensive 1.

Regardless of whether it's farming, engineering or whatever.

Regulation and enforcement is a necessity. It's an (agreed) expensive fact of life. If (and when) it fails the ramifications for an industry and an economy are detrimental.

Suckler

As a side note, one argument I've heard is that if a farms payment is based on the land owned/worked; then that land is now generating a direct income thereby subjecting the farmers lands to the new property tax irrespective of profitability. I would like to say I can't see it but with recent events in Cyprus any idea is possible.

freedominacup

Suckler wrote: »

Regulation and enforcement is a necessity. It's an (agreed) expensive fact of life. If (and when) it fails the ramifications for an industry and an economy are detrimental.

It always fails and the reason it always fails is that after a while it becomes too much about form filling and paperwork and not enough about actually inspecting. If the inspection regieme was tighter across the E.U. the horse meat debacle would never have gotten going. However once the first piece of dodgy paperwork got into the system and people elsewhere in the line filled their forms because the "paperwork" was correct rather than doing their jobs it grew into an industry wide scandal. These people would have been happy in their own minds that they were doing their jobs because the paperwork was done but it's quite obvious they weren't.

JohnBoy

freedominacup wrote: »

TBH that it is seen as a badge of honour has a lot to do with the attitude of some dept inspectors who see it as their bounden duty to find something regardless of how hard they have to look to cut a farmers payment on. IMO especially over the past few years the dept inspectors should have had it in their brief to ensure that all farmers were maximising the payments the were entitled to and worrying about penalties only when problems weren't dealt with once identified.

Before anyone asks....... I dont work for the department. But I do know a few that do.

One of them works in the inspectorate office in portlaoise. The primary reason why department inspectors are so strict is because the european court of auditors is so strict on them.

They are subject to the same types of penalties and inspection reigimes as farmers are.

They are inspected a number of times a year where the auditing inspectors will basically arrive on monday and say we want to inspect tipp man, bob charles and johnboy today. On tuesday morning they'll want to inspect redzer, just do it and viewtodiefor. on wednesday morning they'll want to inspect whelan1, reilig and stanflt.

This happens a few times a year. if these inspections dont show the same results as previous inspections, then the inspection reigime is called into question and fines are applied.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?UserLang=GA&DocID=11082

Those fines have to be paid by the exchecquer, which is kinda broke.

We've gone from one of the worst in europe in this regard to one of the best, and despite what people may feel we also have one of the most efficient payment processes in europe also. a huge percentage of farmers in ireland receive their SFP on the earliest allowed date, it's one of the highest in europe.




That said there are as always a number of little hitlers* out there, there always will be when little people get power.



*just for freedominacup

Suckler

freedominacup wrote: »

It always fails and the reason it always fails is that after a while it becomes too much about form filling and paperwork and not enough about actually inspecting.

It does not fail because of paperwork; paperwork is part of the job. It fails because someone didn't do their job. It's a continuous game of catch up as some find new ways to skirt around regulation (in all industries). Lax regulation is never the answer.
If there was more inspections and less paperwork the argument would just be reversed!

freedominacup wrote: »

If the inspection regieme was tighter across the E.U. the horse meat debacle would never have gotten going. However once the first piece of dodgy paperwork got into the system and people elsewhere in the line filled their forms because the "paperwork" was correct rather than doing their jobs it grew into an industry wide scandal. These people would have been happy in their own minds that they were doing their jobs because the paperwork was done but it's quite obvious they weren't.

The dodgy paperwork was in the form of Euro notes that allowed substandard products be stamped as something else.
If people are of the opinion paperwork is expensive, how much will it cost to have more physical inspectors? It's a vicious circle.

darragh_haven

EpicPothole wrote: »

I think you need to, as you put "need to grow up" if you expect us to read you mind.

FFS, leave him be. Flawed agruments and all (a bit on both side), leave it be.

Suckler

EpicPothole wrote: »

I think you need to, as you put "need to grow up" if you expect us to read you mind.

You mean have the same opinion as everyone and not dare question it. No thanks.

darragh_haven wrote: »

FFS, leave him be. Flawed agruments and all (a bit on both side), leave it be.

I take it you've come to understand how your own argument was wrong and completely missed the point then? Good.

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

.

I take it you've come to understand how your own argument was wrong and completely missed the point then? Good.

No, not good. your point is flawed, but you are allowed have your opinion. And trying to impose your opinion other people while not willing to accept others is just small-minded.
Now, its GOOD that i cleared that up for you

Suckler

darragh_haven wrote: »

No, not good. your point is flawed, but you are allowed have your opinion. And trying to impose your opinion other people while not willing to accept others is just small-minded.
Now, its GOOD that i cleared that up for you

What I stated was that there are other professions/ occupations have a lot more paperwork involved than farmers. I didn't say daragh_haven probably does more paperwork at the office than the farm. You seem to think I did.

:rolleyes: It's unfortunate that I have to address you like a child but if you continue to be continually obtuse I really don't have a choice.

darragh_haven

Suckler wrote: »

Farming is a business. Just like any other. The small bit of paper work farmers are required to submit and record is miniscule.

Suckler

What you've done there is trim what I stated completely misrepresenting it.
Have another go at re-reading the previous responses.

Rovi

[MOD]

Let's just drop the 'who does the most paperwork' contest at this point, huh?
Every sector of agriculture/industry/the economy generally has to deal with multiple and various kinds of official red tape, and every case is different, so it's pretty futile to try to demonstrate that one has 'more' or 'less' than any other.

It's also giving rise to a certain level of hotheadedness here, and some rash things have been written, so it's best to let it drop.
If I was to go back through this thread and edit/delete/infract/ban each and every instance that conflicted with the forum charter, there'd be shag all left to read and a fair few posters would be nursing slapped wrists, so, I propose to leave it all as-is, and ask that we continue from here behaving as sensible adults.

The subject of this thread is on the effects of CAP reform on the greater Irish economy, let's try to stick to that.

[/MOD]