Is your SFP under €400 h/a ?

Conmaicne Mara

If it is, I would like to suggest that you go along to Eamon O'Cuivs meetings around the country.

Listen to what he has to say then make up your own minds.

AFAIK the meetings are as follows:

Ballaghadereen 18 Feb,
Dungarvan 21 Feb,
Gort 25 Feb,
Scarriff 28 Feb,
Bantry March 7.

There may be more I don't know about.

I've never voted for him, or his party, so I want it noted I am not making a political point.

I found tonight's fare quite interesting. The figures he uses came from the Department of Agriculture.

For anyone who may come on this thread trying to get me to defend him, thats not my job, what I am asking people to do is go along and make up their own minds. There are the meetings, question the man himself.

cj maxx

Why does he have meetings from dungarvan to ballaghdreen and down to bantry but not further north or east ?
Whats he on about in a nutshell?

Conmaicne Mara

cjmc wrote: »

Why does he have meetings from dungarvan to ballaghdreen and down to bantry but not further north or east ?
Whats he on about in a nutshell?

He may have more meetings that haven't been published yet, you could try contacting him to find out.

I am reluctant to go into what he said because I'll be accused of a whole host of things. I am not promoting him, but I do think people in the category of the thread title do need to hear what he has to say, then make up their own minds.

Damo810

A bit more information would be nice Con, I don't think anyone on here will accuse you of anything. Ours would be well below 400/ha and Ballaghaderreen wouldn't be too far from me.

coolshannagh28

O Cuiv has a set of proposals which set out a fairer redistribution of payments along the lines originally proposed by Cialos with the payments cut from the top down and no cuts under 400 per ha. He has a point in that under the new regime anything over 250 per ha is cut and a serious amount of farmers fall into the 250 to 400 bracket .
It may be populist but for all his faults O Cuiv has a good understanding of the sector from an angle that Coveney is probably not aware of.

solerina

I would prefer O Cuiv's ideas than a lot the stuff brought out by Coveney a few weeks ago, as far as I can see it if your a small farmer who needs subsidies then he is really not interested, but if your a big lad with a huge single farm payment then he is right behind you !! He has a very narrow view of farming in my opinion (and hasn't a clue about the reality of commonage farming).

rancher

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

O Cuiv has a set of proposals which set out a fairer redistribution of payments along the lines originally proposed by Cialos with the payments cut from the top down and no cuts under 400 per ha. He has a point in that under the new regime anything over 250 per ha is cut and a serious amount of farmers fall into the 250 to 400 bracket .
It may be populist but for all his faults O Cuiv has a good understanding of the sector from an angle that Coveney is probably not aware of.

O'Cuiv was responsible for changing the parameters of Reps that let thousands of dairy farmers into Reps and eventually broke reps and for the last few years the majority of recipients of the €10000 reps money was dairy farmers selling maybe €100,000 -159,000 worth of milk.... maybe more.
He had a huge influence in making the rollover of Reps impossible for you guys and now he wants to destroy another sector.....those suckler farmers with 30 - 40 ha getting €400 -600/ha.
He's flying the maximum payment flag and he knows well that it hasn't a hope
He's not in power, he can say what he likes.

hurling_lad

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

O Cuiv has a set of proposals which set out a fairer redistribution of payments along the lines originally proposed by Cialos with the payments cut from the top down and no cuts under 400 per ha. He has a point in that under the new regime anything over 250 per ha is cut and a serious amount of farmers fall into the 250 to 400 bracket .
It may be populist but for all his faults O Cuiv has a good understanding of the sector from an angle that Coveney is probably not aware of.

Very unlike Fianna Fáil to be promoting populist policies.

solerina

rancher wrote: »

O'Cuiv was responsible for changing the parameters of Reps that let thousands of dairy farmers into Reps and eventually broke reps and for the last few years the majority of recipients of the €10000 reps money was dairy farmers selling maybe €100,000 -159,000 worth of milk.... maybe more.
He had a huge influence in making the rollover of Reps impossible for you guys and now he wants to destroy another sector.....those suckler farmers with 30 - 40 ha getting €400 -600/ha.
He's flying the maximum payment flag and he knows well that it hasn't a hope
He's not in power, he can say what he likes.

Totally agree, dairy being included has ruined the beef and sheep sector which were the areas the SFP was originally intended to assist, in my opinion dairy should have never been left in (ye might all disagree, but I'm entitled to my opinion). However as I cant see that changing at least if O Cuiv is making an effort to try help the smaller man I am all in favour of at least listening to his proposals !!!
I know a few suckler men in my area who are getting out after the recent proposals simply because it is no longer viable to continue, and we are def cutting back our sheep numbers this autumn (and letting far less ewes to the ram also), its just not viable into the future.

freedominacup

hurling_lad wrote: »

Very unlike Fianna Fáil to be promoting populist policies.

Shocking, the blind fella must be spinning in the grave:rolleyes:.

hurling_lad

rancher wrote: »

O'Cuiv was responsible for changing the parameters of Reps that let thousands of dairy farmers into Reps and eventually broke reps and for the last few years the majority of recipients of the €10000 reps money was dairy farmers selling maybe €100,000 -159,000 worth of milk.... maybe more.
He had a huge influence in making the rollover of Reps impossible for you guys and now he wants to destroy another sector.....those suckler farmers with 30 - 40 ha getting €400 -600/ha.
He's flying the maximum payment flag and he knows well that it hasn't a hope
He's not in power, he can say what he likes.

An excellent point.

We were one of those dairy farms that you're talking about and even I would say that we had no business getting that Reps money.

[edit]It would be great if someone brought this point up at one of O'Cuiv's meetings.[/edit]

coolshannagh28

I would place more blame on Mary Coughlan who broke the dept budget in general particularly with the grant scheme from which it hasn't recovered . It is a fait accompli now but I definitely feel that a fairer redistribution could have been worked out it seems senseless to be cutting farmers on 250 per ha while the max payment remains 150k

rancher

hurling_lad wrote: »

An excellent point.

We were one of those dairy farms that you're talking about and even I would say that we had no business getting that Reps money.

Fair dues to you, hope you didn't think I was attacking you....you took advantage of a scheme within the rules.....good business move I'd say

Conmaicne Mara

What I am asking farmers to do is to go and listen. That costs the price of the diesel or petrol to get you there and maybe a soft drink or mug of tae.

Then individual farmers can make up their own minds as to whether he is talking sense or rubbish.

My opinion before I went last night was he had a "Santy list", not a hope of achieving anything on it, and had a laugh at O'Cuiv's expense with a couple of lads yesterday before the meeting.

I came out of the Station House hotel with an entirely different opinion of it. Lads who are a lot smarter than me, and a lot better off than me were giving it serious thought too, in a positive way.

For anyone on or under €400 H/A it is worth the investment in time going to hear him out.

For lads coming on rubbishing the man here (and I have often have a go at him, and to his face), I wonder will ye be brave enough to go and put it up to him?

hurling_lad

rancher wrote: »

Fair dues to you, hope you didn't think I was attacking you....you took advantage of a scheme within the rules.....good business move I'd say

I would put the loosening of the Reps criteria up there with the €1,000 p.a. early childhood payment (which I also took advantage of while it was going) as some of the most nakedly populist, vote-catching policies that FF dreamed up during the Celtic Tiger.

Conmaicne Mara

Damo810 wrote: »

A bit more information would be nice Con, I don't think anyone on here will accuse you of anything. Ours would be well below 400/ha and Ballaghaderreen wouldn't be too far from me.

It's like coolshannagh said, a fairer CAP based on real Department of Agriculture figures. He breaks them all down, current SFP versus production, levels of payment through out each county. More farmers gain under O'Cuivs proposals than what Coveney/IFA/high earners have come up with.

I am quite a sceptical person, and before I went into that meeting I thought he's in opposition with his Santy list and hasn't a hope in hell.

It's how the proposal is put forward in the meeting, and the plan to use leverage that changed my mind.

He is in opposition, but the plan can work. If you're under €400HA it's my opinion you should at least go along and hear him out.

Listen, and make up your own mind.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

What I am asking farmers to do is to go and listen. That costs the price of the diesel or petrol to get you there and maybe a soft drink or mug of tae.

Then individual farmers can make up their own minds as to whether he is talking sense or rubbish.

My opinion before I went last night was he had a "Santy list", not a hope of achieving anything on it, and had a laugh at O'Cuiv's expense with a couple of lads yesterday before the meeting.

I came out of the Station House hotel with an entirely different opinion of it. Lads who are a lot smarter than me, and a lot better off than me were giving it serious thought too, in a positive way.

For anyone on or under €400 H/A it is worth the investment in time going to hear him out.

For lads coming on rubbishing the man here (and I have often have a go at him, and to his face), I wonder will ye be brave enough to go and put it up to him?

But Con I did say it to him when he had the last travelling circus two years ago and he had a ICMSA guy at the top table with him and the two of them were positively beeming with pride that I was giving them the credit for letting all those thousands of dairy farmers in.

coolshannagh28

Strictly speaking an environmental scheme such as reps must be focused on farmers who have the potential do most damage . I have no issue with the focus of pillar 2 payments as there must be some transparency to justify Europe giving the funds. on the other hand pillar 1 is pure financial support and using our historical system to determine its distribution is harder to credit

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

But Con I did say it to him when he had the last travelling circus two years ago and he had a ICMSA guy at the top table with him and the two of them were positively beeming with pride that I was giving them the credit for letting all those thousands of dairy farmers in.

I am going to stick to today and the topic at hand. As a farmer who lost €1,000 off DAS, and REPS which was worth €11-€12k I wager I know what financial pain is more than most.

We can't change the past, but maybe we can address those wrongs today. O'Cuiv has a plan which I believe will get legs under it. In the document last night it says 105,000 farmers will be better off under his proposals, while 16,000 farmers are better off under Coveney.

He outlined a strategy to give that plan leverage. That strategy does include small farmers, like me, doing a couple of things. Now, I am prepared to give it a lash and see what comes of it.

You should read the FF CAP policy document, I'm sure you already have, and go and disagree with him based on the figures if you believe he is wrong.

My belief, from a background of voting FG since I was 18 years old, is that he is on to something here. That farmers under €400 HA owe it to themselves to hear him out, despite past actions. Coveney won't do much for those same farmers, so what is there for them to lose.

Conmaicne Mara

I'll be very interested to see what reaction he get's in other parts of the country.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I am going to stick to today and the topic at hand. As a farmer who lost €1,000 off DAS, and REPS which was worth €11-€12k I wager I know what financial pain is more than most.

We can't change the past, but maybe we can address those wrongs today. O'Cuiv has a plan which I believe will get legs under it. In the document last night it says 105,000 farmers will be better off under his proposals, while 16,000 farmers are better off under Coveney.

He outlined a strategy to give that plan leverage. That strategy does include small farmers, like me, doing a couple of things. Now, I am prepared to give it a lash and see what comes of it.

You should read the FF CAP policy document, I'm sure you already have, and go and disagree with him based on the figures if you believe he is wrong.

My belief, from a background of voting FG since I was 18 years old, is that he is on to something here. That farmers under €400 HA owe it to themselves to hear him out, despite past actions. Coveney won't do much for those same farmers, so what is there for them to lose.

And you were well entitled to your REPs and pillar 2 should always be there for farmers such as you but he is trying to take pillar 1 money SFP to make up for what he took off you which came from pillar 2 They'd all be far better off to target pillar 2 money at disadvantage areas, most of us are used to doing without our REPs now, no business can withstand the cuts that we're going to get without at least putting it over a few years

Conmaicne Mara

I disagree with you on P2 fundamentally, it's proven to be completely vulnerable and unreliable. P1 is protected money.

I'm going to get back on the topic which was last night.

O'Cuiv had a very smart idea last night. He passed out a pre printed letter, which most people signed including address and herd number. The letter stated that the undersigned do not give consent to IFA to collect a levy on their animals at the marts and factories.

I will be interested to see how many signatures and her numbers he will get country wide.

A letter, was it last year, came from the West, signed by over 800 IFA members and their herd numbers and was dismissed by then president John Bryan as a "silly letter".

But that letter didn't remove any money from IFA, this does. It goes to show what lengths people have to go to to get heed from IFA.

(Rancher, none of that is a pop at you, but it is historical fact).

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I disagree with you on P2 fundamentally, it's proven to be completely vulnerable and unreliable. P1 is protected money.

I'm going to get back on the topic which was last night.

O'Cuiv had a very smart idea last night. He passed out a pre printed letter, which most people signed including address and herd number. The letter stated that the undersigned do not give consent to IFA to collect a levy on their animals at the marts and factories.

I will be interested to see how many signatures and her numbers he will get country wide.

A letter, was it last year, came from the West, signed by over 800 IFA members and their herd numbers and was dismissed by then president John Bryan as a "silly letter".

But that letter didn't remove any money from IFA, this does. It goes to show what lengths people have to go to to get heed from IFA.

(Rancher, none of that is a pop at you, but it is historical fact).

You probably saw on the journal that IFA's accounts shows a surplus of 300,000 for last year or if you like €3 too much collected off each member.
The officers of IFA are doing their best and if that's not enough, sure we'll go home,
I said here two years ago that its unlikely that IFA would be lobbying reduce anyones income and that's the way it turned out.
Coveney said he has the support of all the main farming organisations on his decisions why target IFA

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I disagree with you on P2 fundamentally, it's proven to be completely vulnerable and unreliable. P1 is protected money.

I'm going to get back on the topic which was last night.

O'Cuiv had a very smart idea last night. He passed out a pre printed letter, which most people signed including address and herd number. The letter stated that the undersigned do not give consent to IFA to collect a levy on their animals at the marts and factories.

I will be interested to see how many signatures and her numbers he will get country wide.

A letter, was it last year, came from the West, signed by over 800 IFA members and their herd numbers and was dismissed by then president John Bryan as a "silly letter".

But that letter didn't remove any money from IFA, this does. It goes to show what lengths people have to go to to get heed from IFA.

(Rancher, none of that is a pop at you, but it is historical fact).

I'm very surprised at O,Cuiv doing that, can't believe it....any way back to the rugby

Username John

I am wondering what difference does it make if FF have an alternative proposal to what FG currently have?

I mean FF are in opposition, what will get their proposal used as opposed to the current FG one?

I am sure there is a populist / political agenda as well - but I don't understand how his proposal would become real?

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

You probably saw on the journal that IFA's accounts shows a surplus of 300,000 for last year or if you like €3 too much collected off each member.
The officers of IFA are doing their best and if that's not enough, sure we'll go home,
I said here two years ago that its unlikely that IFA would be lobbying reduce anyones income and that's the way it turned out.
Coveney said he has the support of all the main farming organisations on his decisions why target IFA

The officers with pull in IFA aren't working for the majority of farmers. Anyone with ears who goes to a meeting will only hear concern about big entitlements, and protecting those big entitlements.

A letter signed by over 800 IFA member farmers last year was described by John Bryan as "a silly letter", that's some work.

Coveney and IFA are working for the higher entitlement farmers, that's why at the heel of the hunt they're happy out agreeing with each other.

ICSA have O'Cuiv speaking at their meeting in Roscommon next week (I think that's the right meeting).

That'll be nearer you than me if you want to tackle him on it. He had figures on the level of SFP versus the level of production as well.

This is about farmers not IFA. When a far organisation isn't representing the majority of it's members then there's something very wrong.

Conmaicne Mara

Username John wrote: »

I am wondering what difference does it make if FF have an alternative proposal to what FG currently have?

I mean FF are in opposition, what will get their proposal used as opposed to the current FG one?

I am sure there is a populist / political agenda as well - but I don't understand how his proposal would become real?

I'm not concerned one bit about the politics if the goal, or some of the goal can be achieved i.e. a fairer CAP.

If enough people withdraw the levy it will give IFA pause for thought about what their members want. It's only through pressure that Coveney will change. That's how it works.

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

I'm very surprised at O,Cuiv doing that, can't believe it....any way back to the rugby

There you go again

The meetings are listed for you to go tell him.

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

why target IFA

From the Connacht Tribune Facebook page:

Galway West TD Éamon Ó Cuív claims that the majority of farmers in the west are being treated unfairly by the Agriculture Minister under the new Common Agriculture Policy.
Deputy Ó Cuív also said that the Irish Farmers Association are supporting this policy and protecting the minority of farmers who are better off.
A campaign to stop payments to the IFA and marts and factories was launched at a public meeting in Clifden last night.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

There you go again

The meetings are listed for you to go tell him.

I got it confirmed, that's why I said I couldn't believe it, The story I've got is that O'Cuiv is stopping the levies because we're afraid of the factories not collecting them for us anymore if we upset them. There's big farmers up here with big SFP that'll sign that for you. My information came from a fianna fail guy that was at the meeting, was it in Clifden. I think he said Clifden any way.

just after reading the press release.....clifden

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

I got it confirmed, that's why I said I couldn't believe it, The story I've got is that O'Cuiv is stopping the levies because we're afraid of the factories not collecting them for us anymore if we upset them. There's big farmers up here with big SFP that'll sign that for you. My information came from a fianna fail guy that was at the meeting, was it in Clifden. I think he said Clifden any way.

just after reading the press release.....clifden

You've lost me on the believe it bit

Yes, it was in the Station House Hotel in Clifden, I attended. It's the beginning of a series of country wide public meetings. I have emailed O'Cuiv to find out if there are other meetings not yet published.

The reasoning behind the letter withdrawing the levy permission is to use that as leverage to get IFA to change policy in favour of the majority not the minority of farmers. If IFA change policy it is more likely Coveney will change policy due to pressure. The levy isn't the issue, the levy is just a tool to exert leverage.

All of this is late in the CAP day, but I believe it's worth the effort. I believe it's worth farmers time to go and listen, like I said let individuals make their own minds up.