forgotten farmer

whitetail

Does anyone know about this meeting on in athlone on the 6th of february, is it supported by the farm organisations?

Reggie.

whitetail wrote: »

Does anyone know about this meeting on in athlone on the 6th of february, is it supported by the farm organisations?

What's the story behind it?

whitetail

I think It's to do with the farmers who started farming in last 5-6 years and are excluded from top ups and national reserve I just seen it on Facebook (forgotten farmers) there is a meeting in the hodson bay hotel at 8pm.

ellewood

Anyone on here going to this tonite?

Reggie.

ellewood wrote: »

Anyone on here going to this tonite?

On duty today so not able to go unfortunately

rangler1

Anyone know who the speakers are or whose organising it,
Sounds like a O'Cuiv/ harkin meeting

amacca

I'm going. I know very little except that I'm excluded and I don't think I should be given who is included.

AP2014

amacca wrote: »

I'm going. I know very little except that I'm excluded and I don't think I should be given who is included.

Going to head myself and lend some support. Any local lads going to it? Anyone fancy a pint in athlone afterwards?

amacca

AP2014 wrote: »

Going to head myself and lend some support. Any local lads going to it? Anyone fancy a pint in athlone afterwards?

I would but I'm told I have to get home straight afterwards to watch sky plussed welsh-england game or it will be deleted along with other privileges - like getting in.

Midfield9

It's a bit far for me to travel, but would be grateful if anyone could report back. Missed out on installation aid and now this.

AP2014

amacca wrote: »

I would but I'm told I have to get home straight afterwards to watch sky plussed welsh-england game or it will be deleted along with other privileges - like getting in.

Staying with a friend and there is a spare room and also a couch. Anyone needs a place to stay pm me.

Never mind those rugby buggers. Go on the lash and arrive home tomorrow night.

AP2014

Reggie. wrote: »

On duty today so not able to go unfortunately

Feck sake reggie your only out the road. What sort of duty you on? Ya need to spend some of that money ya made yesterday on pints.

sh1tstirrer

AP2014 wrote: »

Going to head myself and lend some support. Any local lads going to it? Anyone fancy a pint in athlone afterwards?

That reminds me of a disadvantage area meeting years ago us farmers were trying to get the best deal and the venue was drank out of Guinness the same night.

AP2014

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

That reminds me of a disadvantage area meeting years ago us farmers were trying to get the best deal and the venue was drank out of Guinness the same night.

Planning on heading back into town after. Will have one or two here. Feck it the politicians do it in the dail.

Reggie.

AP2014 wrote: »

Feck sake reggie your only out the road. What sort of duty you on? Ya need to spend some of that money ya made yesterday on pints.

In dublin I'm afraid

Connemara Farmer

There seems to be a good turn out looking at the pics on the twitter machine.

ellewood

rangler1 wrote: »

Anyone know who the speakers are or whose organising it,
Sounds like a O'Cuiv/ harkin meeting

They 2 Ifa lads spoke at it - they didnt do much to improve the Ifa image or give any impression they gave 2 fooks about young farmers..

amacca

Midfield9 wrote: »

It's a bit far for me to travel, but would be grateful if anyone could report back. Missed out on installation aid and now this.

not sure what to make of it tbh - thought ming flanagan spoke well believe it or not…..it really is a ridiculously unfair set up….thought a member of the hill farmers in the audience echoed mings point well regarding the view that no matter what you think of the eu if you bring your case over to brussels it seems you get a fairer hearing there than in your own country (which is a very sad state of affairs imo - maybe its naivety on my part but I find it disgusting that our elected officials in power don't really seem to or want to act in the interests of fairness but instead kowtow to a powerful minority (either that or they are incompetent and incapable of seeing how their criteria are wholly unjust)

illuminating too that historically nothing could be done for the hill farmers …it was a done deal, the best deal possible blah blah blah but when its raised at eu level things change - none of that stuff should have to happen if those in power were being reasonable/acting fairly….id love to know just whose interests our elected officials are acting in, sometimes I really wonder what groups/individuals are pulling the strings.

If I were you I'd email the group with your details and situation - the more people they are aware of screwed over by this then perhaps the more that can be done about it.

then I'd look into contacting local tds outlining the situation and where your vote/others you can influence will be going unless there is an undertaking to address this injustice.

rangler1

amacca wrote: »

not sure what to make of it tbh - thought ming flanagan spoke well believe it or not…..it really is a ridiculously unfair set up….thought a member of the hill farmers in the audience echoed mings point well regarding the view that no matter what you think of the eu if you bring your case over to brussels it seems you get a fairer hearing there than in your own country (which is a very sad state of affairs imo - maybe its naivety on my part but I find it disgusting that our elected officials in power don't really seem to or want to act in the interests of fairness but instead kowtow to a powerful minority (either that or they are incompetent and incapable of seeing how their criteria are wholly unjust)

illuminating too that historically nothing could be done for the hill farmers …it was a done deal, the best deal possible blah blah blah but when its raised at eu level things change - none of that stuff should have to happen if those in power were being reasonable/acting fairly….id love to know just whose interests our elected officials are acting in, sometimes I really wonder what groups/individuals are pulling the strings.

If I were you I'd email the group with your details and situation - the more people they are aware of screwed over by this then perhaps the more that can be done about it.

then I'd look into contacting local tds outlining the situation and where your vote/others you can influence will be going unless there is an undertaking to address this injustice.

The department/ag have sent a submission to Brussels looking for permission for you to be included in the national reserve. The EU are the paymasters and the department have been caught out on a number of issues in the last few years by the EU, so they're going to make sure they're not breaking any rules.
Always remember the opposition parties can say what they like, Coveney wasn't saying anything different last week on Glas than he was saying last july

Sunset V

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

There seems to be a good turn out looking at the pics on the twitter machine.

I thought about 500-600. The fella organising it said he was hoping for 1,000 but 600 (by my reckoning) is a healthy turnout of a Friday night. Any reports online anywhere from it?

I posted in another thread about it last night. I was a bit down after it last night but more I think about it, my situation (started in 09) hopefully should be solved if the stars align!

AP2014

About 600 at it I would say. I wouldn't holding out much hope for fellas. Nothing said that lads didn't know. Jesus from talking to some lads not sure how they do it. Also there was feck all support from lads who have entitlements.

The system is a farce. On another note Seans bar is some spot on a Saturday night. Will have to go for the cure later.

Reggie.

AP2014 wrote: »

About 600 at it I would say. I wouldn't holding out much hope for fellas. Nothing said that lads didn't know. Jesus from talking to some lads not sure how they do it. Also there was feck all support from lads who have entitlements.

The system is a farce. On another note Seans bar is some spot on a Saturday night. Will have to go for the cure later.

Nice little spot along the Shannon alright

Connemara Farmer

Sunset V wrote: »

I thought about 500-600. The fella organising it said he was hoping for 1,000 but 600 (by my reckoning) is a healthy turnout of a Friday night. Any reports online anywhere from it?

I posted in another thread about it last night. I was a bit down after it last night but more I think about it, my situation (started in 09) hopefully should be solved if the stars align!

Not that I've seen but I haven't been online today really, sin to waste a day like it indoors. 5-600 is a decent crowd.

AP2014 wrote: »

About 600 at it I would say. I wouldn't holding out much hope for fellas. Nothing said that lads didn't know. Jesus from talking to some lads not sure how they do it. Also there was feck all support from lads who have entitlements.

I don't know much about it tbh but like a lot of things to make change they'll have to plough their own furrow on it. Like the old saying, if ya want something done.. No better Indians than them directly affected by it. How ever it goes, and good luck to them, fair play to the organisers, nice to see a bit of get up and go.

amacca

rangler1 wrote: »

The department/ag have sent a submission to Brussels looking for permission for you to be included in the national reserve. The EU are the paymasters and the department have been caught out on a number of issues in the last few years by the EU, so they're going to make sure they're not breaking any rules.
Always remember the opposition parties can say what they like, Coveney wasn't saying anything different last week on Glas than he was saying last july

So what, no offence but why don't they just set it out fairly from the start and give everyone a fair slice of the cake.?

why can someone in the system pick up a huge basic payment on the basis of what they were doing in the reference years when they could be running a donkey sanctuary now, why can processors be picking up 500k in payments for what are effectively feedlots with thousands of head of cattle in them they use to bash prices down to way below the cost of production - the situation should be reassessed again if fairness matters, there were plenty of stories of massive inequity in the system and unfairness last night….it shouldn't have to be reassessed at all if things were fair and decent in this country imo

or allow new people to get up and running without discrimination - as far as I can see coveney is doing his best to obfuscate and stand in the way of fair treatment a sizeable group of farmers

that is not his role or at least it shouldn't be.

**** them and their submissions - get it right first time around, or at least make a proper effort, they have the stats , I could have come up with a fairer more equitable system with some basic numbers on the back of an envelope than what we've got and thats not taking into account how some have been shafted since as far back as 2000 as well.

whitetail

Meeting was a massive success alot of avenues opened that weren't aware of before or properly utilised.Peter Young was very fair as chair gave all parties a fair go off the floor. Invite to Brussels from mep's that were present and promises from all relevant groups that were there. It's a pity it came to this could have been sorted in house by department if they gave all farmers a fair go. The ifa representatives gave a very poor display at one stage a young farmer asked a question to the ifa speaker and he sat down with his back to farmer unbelievable! ! This farmer is a paid up member! I hope something comes from this a lot of genuine cases out there.

rangler1

ellewood wrote: »

They 2 Ifa lads spoke at it - they didnt do much to improve the Ifa image or give any impression they gave 2 fooks about young farmers..

What Ifa guys were there...like were they farmers or professional staff,
I've told plenty of young farmers to go to fine gael /labour TDS and they don't bother, so more than IFA don't give two fooks about it. It's a bit disheartening when I make an effort to meet a TD to be told that it's not an issue, Ming can shout all he likes, but if you didn't have govt TDs there last night, you were only talking among yourselves.

Username John

amacca wrote: »

I could have come up with a fairer more equitable system with some basic numbers on the back of an envelope than what we've got and thats not taking into account how some have been shafted since as far back as 2000 as well.

Just to be awkward, I'll say "g'wan so, tell us, what would you do?"

amacca

Username John wrote: »

Just to be awkward, I'll say "g'wan so, tell us, what would you do?"

I don't think you're being awkward, its only fair I should elaborate

For starters and in no particular order

1) Not rule people completely out on the basis of when they started farming, age possibly (even that i think is unfair however)

particularly in the case of those that have never been able to avail of installation aid, a single grant etc in the past but can prove they have been actively farming in the meantime…they shouldn't be kept to of the system with some blasé reasoning like a shur there up and running now while the guy thats staring out could be able to avail of 10k or more a year for the next ten years etc….if they don't get into the bps they are also ruled out of tams - they can't make a realistic stab at developing their farms all because of when they started farming….its just arbitrary bull**** - the people ruled out could be just as progressive, productive and responsible as the guys that will get it - thats what we should be trying to encourage right?

2) Not base average entitlement value on the average farm size of around 30 hectares but leave an area threshold of 90 hectares - that 90 hectares should be reduced to distribute the cash more fairly among the majority of farmers that have around 30 hectares….I believe if the money is spread more fairly around it benefits local economies anyway….I know well who that doesn't benefit however

3) entitlements to be taken off any processor, processing group or affiliated business running feedlots for processors - basically entitlements for farmers rather than processors or reduced or something to address this

4) address the imbalance where a man/woman can get full entitlements no matter what the off farm pay of their partner but a person with an off farm job has the 40k gross limit to deal with…if they can prove they are actively farming then they are a farmer same as any other imo

Or if that is unpalatable It should be based on a net figure after looking deductions + just how much of the persons own money is being ploughed into the farm to get it up and running….after all this money is going into the local economy supporting local businesses.

5) Bring some rule (I admit I haven't figured out exactly how to do this) that caters for anomalies e.g.: allows a guy who was in the system in beef back in the reference years but has now switched to dairying and can claim 90k in basic payments yet his neighbour down the road who was in dairy back in the reference years and still is can't even get in or if he does it will be at absolutely minimum payment rates - two farms with the exact same system and productivity but one with 90k more of a payment…I mean wtf, surely it can be run a bit better than that


I really can't see why at least some of these things can't or shouldn't already have been done. if a muppet like me can see how crazy the system is (in terms of fairness) then it begs the question why is the system the way it is? - I can only think that its because the system does not have fairness at its core at all

Anyway I think whats happened with the way ireland has implemented this new deal is symptomatic of a rotten core at the heart of irish politics

If we keep looking after big business interests to the detriment of the majority group of average farmers the countryside as we know it is fooked afaic - its a sickening thing to watch and I also believe that long term its not good for business either as there will be a much less vibrant local economy/customers for them to sell crap to etc…….it suits the suits way waaay to much imo

ellewood

rangler1 wrote: »

What Ifa guys were
Tom Turley and Flor Mc Carthy - Rural Devt man I think
I agree with u if anything is done it will be a small token thats not going to make any one rich I said it b4 id be happy if we got the young farmer top in in the TAMS 2
The IFA lads should have just said - look its 3% we couldnt get something for everybody ye fell tru the cracks weel try do something for ye now - instead of trying to convince us they were flat out fighting the old young farmer during the negoations in 2013
On Ming at least he suggests some ways of maybe solving it - maybe not he tries at least all i and others got over the last few years from ifa tds and meps was ah we cant do this and we cant do that because eu says no. so ming is going to ask the eu directly He might end up with the same no but he will have tried instead of just the old ahh sher thell say no sher thrtes no point even asking.

Username John

amacca wrote: »

I don't think you're being awkward, its only fair I should elaborate

For starters and in no particular order

1) Not rule people completely out on the basis of when they started farming, age possibly (even that i think is unfair however)

particularly in the case of those that have never been able to avail of installation aid, a single grant etc in the past but can prove they have been actively farming in the meantime…they shouldn't be kept to of the system with some blasé reasoning like a shur there up and running now while the guy thats staring out could be able to avail of 10k or more a year for the next ten years etc….if they don't get into the bps they are also ruled out of tams - they can't make a realistic stab at developing their farms all because of when they started farming….its just arbitrary bull**** - the people ruled out could be just as progressive, productive and responsible as the guys that will get it - thats what we should be trying to encourage right?

2) Not base average entitlement value on the average farm size of around 30 hectares but leave an area threshold of 90 hectares - that 90 hectares should be reduced to distribute the cash more fairly among the majority of farmers that have around 30 hectares….I believe if the money is spread more fairly around it benefits local economies anyway….I know well who that doesn't benefit however

3) entitlements to be taken off any processor, processing group or affiliated business running feedlots for processors - basically entitlements for farmers rather than processors or reduced or something to address this

4) address the imbalance where a man/woman can get full entitlements no matter what the off farm pay of their partner but a person with an off farm job has the 40k gross limit to deal with…if they can prove they are actively farming then they are a farmer same as any other imo

Or if that is unpalatable It should be based on a net figure after looking deductions + just how much of the persons own money is being ploughed into the farm to get it up and running….after all this money is going into the local economy supporting local businesses.

5) Bring some rule (I admit I haven't figured out exactly how to do this) that caters for anomalies e.g.: allows a guy who was in the system in beef back in the reference years but has now switched to dairying and can claim 90k in basic payments yet his neighbour down the road who was in dairy back in the reference years and still is can't even get in or if he does it will be at absolutely minimum payment rates - two farms with the exact same system and productivity but one with 90k more of a payment…I mean wtf, surely it can be run a bit better than that


I really can't see why at least some of these things can't or shouldn't already have been done. if a muppet like me can see how crazy the system is (in terms of fairness) then it begs the question why is the system the way it is? - I can only think that its because the system does not have fairness at its core at all

Anyway I think whats happened with the way ireland has implemented this new deal is symptomatic of a rotten core at the heart of irish politics

If we keep looking after big business interests to the detriment of the majority group of average farmers the countryside as we know it is fooked afaic - its a sickening thing to watch and I also believe that long term its not good for business either as there will be a much less vibrant local economy/customers for them to sell crap to etc…….it suits the suits way waaay to much imo

I think some of what you're saying makes sense... Some of it doesn't...

I have a fairer, and easier system - take all CAP payments for Ireland, divide it by the number of farmers - job done.

No TAMS, no top-ups, no national reserve, none of that.

Everyone gets an equal share...



EDIT : on a more serious note, I think a lot of what you suggest really hangs on what you consider an average farmer.
Where I am the average farmer would be a fairly large dairy farmer, working full time on the farm.

AP2014

Username John wrote: »

I think some of what you're saying makes sense... Some of it doesn't...

I have a fairer, and easier system - take all CAP payments for Ireland, divide it by the number of farmers - job done.

No TAMS, no top-ups, no national reserve, none of that.
Everyone gets an equal share...

Simplest and fairest solution. Publish everyones payment this year as well. See how many lads are not making money then.

Level playing field for all and level market conditions.

rangler1

ellewood wrote: »

rangler1 wrote: »

What Ifa guys were
Tom Turley and Flor Mc Carthy - Rural Devt man I think
I agree with u if anything is done it will be a small token thats not going to make any one rich I said it b4 id be happy if we got the young farmer top in in the TAMS 2
The IFA lads should have just said - look its 3% we couldnt get something for everybody ye fell tru the cracks weel try do something for ye now - instead of trying to convince us they were flat out fighting the old young farmer during the negoations in 2013
On Ming at least he suggests some ways of maybe solving it - maybe not he tries at least all i and others got over the last few years from ifa tds and meps was ah we cant do this and we cant do that because eu says no. so ming is going to ask the eu directly He might end up with the same no but he will have tried instead of just the old ahh sher thell say no sher thrtes no point even asking.

Don't think either the IFA or the dept realised that the EU were going to make two different classes of young farmers, as you say all young farmers should be treated the same.
How many young farmers got the installation aid and hadn't the slightest notion of farming, or how many retirement scheme farmers are still farming and the supposed farmers off driving lorries etc. These schemes were all abused and didn't deliver what they were supposed to deliver.
If that Forgotten farmers meeting was serious, they'd have arranged 600 young farmers to go annoy their fine gael/labour TDs this weekend to stress the seriousness of the issue. A lot of farmers'll whinge about whose not doing what but won't pull their own finger out and drive their own issues.
You're only wasting time with opposition TDs , they'll only say what you want to hear, It was O'Cuiv that bankrupted the REPS and look what he was at for the past year

amacca

Agreed, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself.

Its time to start badgering local tds.

paddysdream

amacca wrote: »

I don't think you're being awkward, its only fair I should elaborate

For starters and in no particular order

1) Not rule people completely out on the basis of when they started farming, age possibly (even that i think is unfair however)

particularly in the case of those that have never been able to avail of installation aid, a single grant etc in the past but can prove they have been actively farming in the meantime…they shouldn't be kept to of the system with some blasé reasoning like a shur there up and running now while the guy thats staring out could be able to avail of 10k or more a year for the next ten years etc….if they don't get into the bps they are also ruled out of tams - they can't make a realistic stab at developing their farms all because of when they started farming….its just arbitrary bull**** - the people ruled out could be just as progressive, productive and responsible as the guys that will get it - thats what we should be trying to encourage right?

2) Not base average entitlement value on the average farm size of around 30 hectares but leave an area threshold of 90 hectares - that 90 hectares should be reduced to distribute the cash more fairly among the majority of farmers that have around 30 hectares….I believe if the money is spread more fairly around it benefits local economies anyway….I know well who that doesn't benefit however

3) entitlements to be taken off any processor, processing group or affiliated business running feedlots for processors - basically entitlements for farmers rather than processors or reduced or something to address this

4) address the imbalance where a man/woman can get full entitlements no matter what the off farm pay of their partner but a person with an off farm job has the 40k gross limit to deal with…if they can prove they are actively farming then they are a farmer same as any other imo

Or if that is unpalatable It should be based on a net figure after looking deductions + just how much of the persons own money is being ploughed into the farm to get it up and running….after all this money is going into the local economy supporting local businesses.

5) Bring some rule (I admit I haven't figured out exactly how to do this) that caters for anomalies e.g.: allows a guy who was in the system in beef back in the reference years but has now switched to dairying and can claim 90k in basic payments yet his neighbour down the road who was in dairy back in the reference years and still is can't even get in or if he does it will be at absolutely minimum payment rates - two farms with the exact same system and productivity but one with 90k more of a payment…I mean wtf, surely it can be run a bit better than that


I really can't see why at least some of these things can't or shouldn't already have been done. if a muppet like me can see how crazy the system is (in terms of fairness) then it begs the question why is the system the way it is? - I can only think that its because the system does not have fairness at its core at all

Anyway I think whats happened with the way ireland has implemented this new deal is symptomatic of a rotten core at the heart of irish politics

If we keep looking after big business interests to the detriment of the majority group of average farmers the countryside as we know it is fooked afaic - its a sickening thing to watch and I also believe that long term its not good for business either as there will be a much less vibrant local economy/customers for them to sell crap to etc…….it suits the suits way waaay to much imo

You tried !!!

1)Who decided the criteria for a young farmer,EU or Ireland?
There has to be a cut off point both for age and as to how far they can go back to establishment and according to Dept. nobody would accept more than 5 years.

2)Cant really understand what you are trying to say here.Front loading? Hectare limit for young farmer top up is 50 I think .

3)Very hard to define what is a genuine farmer.Would feedlot owners not just transfer ownership to an unrelated company?
What about someone(know a couple) who fattened their own cattle up to a few years ago but now,using their own fodder sheds and labour,finish cattle belonging to a processor?
Exactly how much non farming income would someone have to have to be considered a non farmer?

4)Complete non runner.If your wife/girlfriend was in an interview for a new job would you consider it acceptable if she was asked how much you earn on or off farm or could she work for less due to her partners income?

Part 2 is a no no.Imagine the time needed to sort out how much exactly of your after tax income you and the countless other thousands are investing in your farms.Paper work heaven and no Eu or Government body would even give this the time of day.

5)Thats what the national reserve is for plus the convergence model will flatten payments gradually.

The above is maybe not what you wanted to hear but thats what I think.The system,despite what you might think from reading on here,works well in the main .Yes there are anomolies and unfairness but in a system with well over 100,000 farmers and 1 billion in payments in Ireland alone that is to be expected.There was never gonna be radical reform because basically starting a whole new system from scratch for all of Europe (system has to be basically the same EU wide) was never on as even the previous scheme took historic payments as its starting point.

Only way would be to have a total per hectare flat payment which would be 250 per hectare approx and then people would be screaming about the large farmers or the chequebook farmers or those with massive amounts of hilly scrub or those with ?????????????

Can understand your points but just posing the reality.Hard to legislate for every case and we all only see our own situation in the main.

paddysdream

Username John wrote: »

I think some of what you're saying makes sense... Some of it doesn't...

I have a fairer, and easier system - take all CAP payments for Ireland, divide it by the number of farmers - job done.

No TAMS, no top-ups, no national reserve, none of that.

Everyone gets an equal share...



EDIT : on a more serious note, I think a lot of what you suggest really hangs on what you consider an average farmer.
Where I am the average farmer would be a fairly large dairy farmer, working full time on the farm.

Including pillar 2 I hope ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be a serious amount of farms being divided in that case as you have no minimum acreage in your radical proposal.
Or are you a Ciolios man and proposing a flat rate per hectare?Really suit large UK and French tillage farmers and those with vast acreage in the Scottish highlands.Not a lot there for the average Irish drystock man who has, by Irish or European standards, quiet a good SFP at the moment.Be careful what you wish for.

More ideas please!!!!!!!!!!!

amacca

paddysdream wrote: »

You tried !!!

1)Who decided the criteria for a young farmer,EU or Ireland?
There has to be a cut off point both for age and as to how far they can go back to establishment and according to Dept. nobody would accept more than 5 years.

Out of curiosity what do you mean I tried?

Tbh I'm sick of the nobody will accept stuff, it seems when they are put under pressure they are prepared to negotiate - the five year thing makes very little sense to me and is totally unfair and discriminatory

IMO It only makes sense if you are trying to prevent as many new entrants from gaining benefit from or entry to the system in order to protect the incumbents.

paddysdream wrote: »

2)Cant really understand what you are trying to say here.Front loading? Hectare limit for young farmer top up is 50 I think .

It was my understanding the hectare limit existing or soon to be bps recipients was 90 hectares - so in effect the system maximises what an entitlement is worth by basing it on the average farm size of 30 hectares (this is the average area being farmed in ireland at the moment) but allows payment on up to 90 hectares - this favours the farmer with the larger land parcels which is ok in my book but then the size of an entitlement shouldn't be based on 30 hectares - they seem to be not only having their cake and eating it (which is perfectly sensible btw) but also taking other peoples slices (which pisses me off)

Im proposing reducing the limit on the hectares (to say 40) so the big boys can't claim as much and use this money the smaller medium size guys who are being excluded and are in the majority and more likely to plough the money back into the local economy can actually get into the system

If the new entrant or young farmer has a 50 hectare limit and the existing guy has a 90 hectare limit then this too is unfair

paddysdream wrote: »

3)Very hard to define what is a genuine farmer.Would feedlot owners not just transfer ownership to an unrelated company?

I wouldn't think its hard to define who is a genuine farmer at all tbh - the land is in your name and it used for recognised agricultural purposes such as growing crops, raising animals either for their meat or wool/hair or milk etc

Set a reasonable stocking density (not way too low so people can armchair farm - not unrealistically high e.g.: the most efficient productive guy on his best day with the ideal set up) and require proof - accounts/herd register something that is already in the system and is hard to fake and won't result in onerous admin

Ill admit the feedlot thing is tricky - Id be in favour of no payouts to anyone affiliated with processors to protect the existing type of farming in this country but ill admit i haven't thought through on the potential negative consequences of this.

paddysdream wrote: »

What about someone(know a couple) who fattened their own cattle up to a few years ago but now,using their own fodder sheds and labour,finish cattle belonging to a processor?

the cattle belong to the processor so no payments for them under my proposed new criteria

might not be a bad thing for the rest of us - prices may be good now but factories are gradually establishing and even greater stranglehold all the time and they have too much control imo or there is too small a number of them for effective competition.

paddysdream wrote: »

Exactly how much non farming income would someone have to have to be considered a non farmer?

Tricky one - more than 40k anyway would be my guess

TBH, I feel if you are running a farm then you are a farmer regardless of off farm income but maybe 100k would rule out the very well off from getting payments that should be used imo for the majority of small to medium size farmers

thats just an arbitrary number though - maybe higher, maybe lower, some stats might help - I reckon there are large numbers of farmers with off farm incomes out there - some have it because they couldn't get into the system last time around and it simply wouldn't support them, now they can't make a real go at farming again as they have been frozen out for the second time

paddysdream wrote: »

4)Complete non runner.If your wife/girlfriend was in an interview for a new job would you consider it acceptable if she was asked how much you earn on or off farm or could she work for less due to her partners income?

I think you must not have read this bit, nowhere am i suggesting that a farmers partner should be requested by their employer to reduce their wages so the farm can have more or existing basic payment

Im suggesting the 40k limit discriminates against a single person with an off farm income because someone who farms full-time won't be ruled out by this stipulation……..their partner could be earning in the hundreds of thousands but they could still get max basic payments - it seems unfair, i do accept however that they are more likely to be raising a family and therefore have much greater overheads etc + I would be in favour of incentivising having kids - need someone to pay my pension when the time comes

I think that 40k limit should be increased to level the playing pitch for those unmarried with off farm income as long as they are active farmers

paddysdream wrote: »

Part 2 is a no no.Imagine the time needed to sort out how much exactly of your after tax income you and the countless other thousands are investing in your farms.Paper work heaven and no Eu or Government body would even give this the time of day.

I think you might be making a mountain out of a molehill here tbh - revenue have access to things like p21s, p60s and tax returns from a farmers accountant. …. take net off farm income and subtract from it farm losses in a loss making year, add back on tax rebates and then you have the persons true net income - an income which has been reduced because they invested in an asset admittedly for their own benefit but with associated benefits for the local economy and local people

it really shouldn't be that difficult- and all the information is just sitting there on a database

paddysdream wrote: »

5)Thats what the national reserve is for plus the convergence model will flatten payments gradually.

I accept the need for a convergence model - you can't just drastically reduce existing recipients payments in favour of dividing it out equally among new entrants and existing recipients overnight

but this is as much about not being allowed enter the system at all just because you started over five years ago - now that is just plain wrong.

paddysdream wrote: »

The above is maybe not what you wanted to hear but thats what I think.The system,despite what you might think from reading on here,works well in the main .

Where do you get the authority/arrogance to say that? Despite what I might think? You would swear I was a naive child.

You know what you are saying is irrefutably correct and no one could possibly argue against it do you?……

Not only does the system not work well from my perspective, it also doesn't work well from the perspective of hundreds possibly thousands of other farmers whose voices are drowned out by just that sort of rhetoric when they have the nerve to suggest even the smallest of compromises.

paddysdream wrote: »

Yes there are anomolies and unfairness but in a system with well over 100,000 farmers and 1 billion in payments in Ireland alone that is to be expected.There was never gonna be radical reform because basically starting a whole new system from scratch for all of Europe (system has to be basically the same EU wide) was never on as even the previous scheme took historic payments as its starting point.

I feel you might sing a different tune if you found yourself excluded altogether due in the main simply to timing

paddysdream wrote: »

Only way would be to have a total per hectare flat payment which would be 250 per hectare approx and then people would be screaming about the large farmers or the chequebook farmers or those with massive amounts of hilly scrub or those with ?????????????

Agreed, this would be wrong…….however as it stands I can get a grand total of zero from the current system despite being as productive as my neighbours I'd be better off backing such a system - at least every farmer would get something as opposed to nothing

paddysdream wrote: »

Can understand your points but just posing the reality.Hard to legislate for every case and we all only see our own situation in the main.

I think you may just be guilty of only seeing your situation/reality in this case tbh.

Username John

paddysdream wrote: »

Including pillar 2 I hope ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be a serious amount of farms being divided in that case as you have no minimum acreage in your radical proposal.
Or are you a Ciolios man and proposing a flat rate per hectare?Really suit large UK and French tillage farmers and those with vast acreage in the Scottish highlands.Not a lot there for the average Irish drystock man who has, by Irish or European standards, quiet a good SFP at the moment.Be careful what you wish for.

More ideas please!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, i wasn't really being serious Paddy.

The honest truth is I don't have a massive SFP - so I don't stand to gain or lose a massive amount.
So you could argue that it's easy for me to be flippant in these circumstances...

paddysdream

Ok pretty long reply.

What I mean is you tried.To be fair it aint easy and although it may seem like I am just knocking you ,what I mean to try and do is show it ain't all that simple to concoct a Europe wide scheme that suits everybody whilst having a reasonable amount of beuracratic oversight.Cant cost more to police and run the scheme than the total budget or we would get nothing at all!

There is no hectare limit in the SFP scheme or in the new BPS.Unsure where you got that idea.Maybe you are referring to the national reserve of which I am unsure about a limit on top ups/new entitlements etc.

The genuine farmer bit is not that easy.Big debate in the UK about that.Under BPS or SFP no requirement for stock/crops etc just keep land in good ag. condition,basically comply with their rules and you are ok.They don't want all the complication of stocking rates/herd registers/merchant dockets etc etc.

Finishing cattle for the processor and no payment?But you said if the farmer had the land in his name and was farming it.Nothing about who owned the stock(think they go into the farmers herd no. anyways under b and b rules?)
Get used to it cause this looks like the future for many sad as it is.

Maybe I am living in dreamland but 40k gross is pretty good sounding to me.Hell of a lot more than the average drystock farm will ever provide.Know there are a lot of top farmers on here bvut Teagasc figures show that on average both suckler and cattle farmers lose money before SFP and sheep enterprises barely creep over the red line.
Farm walk last summer- 500 ewes few cattle plus few pedigree sheep(about me without the cabbage growing!!!) on a top farm of good Kilkenny land well done showed a net profit of about 11k before SFP.Big jump to 40k net or gross.

Off farm income?You want the limit raised to 100k whilst others complain about people drawing less than half of this in SFP?

Maybe I am asleep but not many around here with full time off farm income and very very very few "froze out".One neighbour ok I think but that was due to very unusual circumstances.

On point no. 4 of my reply you seem to have totally missed the point.Anyways the idea is to support firstly those who are solely reliant on farming.Is that a bad thing ?
Also for many people farming is a way to make money,admittedly not a lot,and not an exercise in bookkeeping and tax(careful now) "planning".Some of us actually farm as an income earning career.Radical idea to some on here I think.

What I am saying is correct,its just that some people don't like it being pointed out to them.


Oh and by the way I was,by circumstance and timing and through no fault of my own excluded from a milk quota(long story and not on a public forum) but do I complain about it?No just get on with it cause there are few certainties in life and those who constantly look backwards and rake over past injustices instead of moving on annoy me.

Oh and by the way,the system works ok for the vast majority.Not saying that others shouldn't be accomodated but reading on here gives the impression that 90% of farmers are being downtrodden by the few.

paddysdream

Username John wrote: »

Ah, i wasn't really being serious Paddy.

The honest truth is I don't have a massive SFP - so I don't stand to gain or lose a massive amount.
So you could argue that it's easy for me to be flippant in these circumstances...

And I was??????????????
Look reality is that this scheme, like all others,is designed to suit the vast majority whilst having as little work /cost for Europe as possible to set up and run.
Easiest thing for them to do is to use all the data from 2005 onwards instead of taking 10m years to design a new Europe wide scheme from scratch.
Despite what some might think,I don't believe people in Brussels or in the Dept. sit down and think up of ways to screw some people, making up schemes and terms and conditions just to put us down whilst protecting"the big fella over the hedge".Life is a little bit different than that I should hope

rangler1

paddysdream wrote: »

Ok pretty long reply.

What I mean is you tried.To be fair it aint easy and although it may seem like I am just knocking you ,what I mean to try and do is show it ain't all that simple to concoct a Europe wide scheme that suits everybody whilst having a reasonable amount of beuracratic oversight.Cant cost more to police and run the scheme than the total budget or we would get nothing at all!

There is no hectare limit in the SFP scheme or in the new BPS.Unsure where you got that idea.Maybe you are referring to the national reserve of which I am unsure about a limit on top ups/new entitlements etc.

The genuine farmer bit is not that easy.Big debate in the UK about that.Under BPS or SFP no requirement for stock/crops etc just keep land in good ag. condition,basically comply with their rules and you are ok.They don't want all the complication of stocking rates/herd registers/merchant dockets etc etc.

Finishing cattle for the processor and no payment?But you said if the farmer had the land in his name and was farming it.Nothing about who owned the stock(think they go into the farmers herd no. anyways under b and b rules?)
Get used to it cause this looks like the future for many sad as it is.

Maybe I am living in dreamland but 40k gross is pretty good sounding to me.Hell of a lot more than the average drystock farm will ever provide.Know there are a lot of top farmers on here bvut Teagasc figures show that on average both suckler and cattle farmers lose money before SFP and sheep enterprises barely creep over the red line.
Farm walk last summer- 500 ewes few cattle plus few pedigree sheep(about me without the cabbage growing!!!) on a top farm of good Kilkenny land well done showed a net profit of about 11k before SFP.Big jump to 40k net or gross.

Off farm income?You want the limit raised to 100k whilst others complain about people drawing less than half of this in SFP?

Maybe I am asleep but not many around here with full time off farm income and very very very few "froze out".One neighbour ok I think but that was due to very unusual circumstances.

On point no. 4 of my reply you seem to have totally missed the point.Anyways the idea is to support firstly those who are solely reliant on farming.Is that a bad thing ?
Also for many people farming is a way to make money,admittedly not a lot,and not an exercise in bookkeeping and tax(careful now) "planning".Some of us actually farm as an income earning career.Radical idea to some on here I think.

What I am saying is correct,its just that some people don't like it being pointed out to them.


Oh and by the way I was,by circumstance and timing and through no fault of my own excluded from a milk quota(long story and not on a public forum) but do I complain about it?No just get on with it cause there are few certainties in life and those who constantly look backwards and rake over past injustices instead of moving on annoy me.

Oh and by the way,the system works ok for the vast majority.Not saying that others shouldn't be accomodated but reading on here gives the impression that 90% of farmers are being downtrodden by the few.

When Ireland starts to enforce this ''convergence' they'll soon realise that drystock farmers like your example (and myself) will disappear to be replaced by farmers just doing the bare minimum, spending no money and producing shag all, all those subsidies were targeted at drystock farmers originally, now they're going to be shared with all farmers. They were targeted at active drystock farmers for a reason.
Anyone that thinks that the average entitlement/ha is going to be €250 when all this extra land is pulled in is being very optimistic.

grassroot1

and did anyone mention the trailer issue???

paddysdream

grassroot1 wrote: »

and did anyone mention the trailer issue???

?

amacca

paddysdream wrote: »

Ok pretty long reply.

What I mean is you tried.

That goes no further in explaining what it is you think I tried.

What specifically do you think I tried? I'll confess to being confused, do you think I tried arguing my case and failed? If so I'm not finished yet and I don't agree:pac:

It was only a long reply because I was addressing all the points in your long reply!

paddysdream wrote: »

To be fair it aint easy and although it may seem like I am just knocking you ,what I mean to try and do is show it ain't all that simple to concoct a Europe wide scheme that suits everybody whilst having a reasonable amount of beuracratic oversight.Cant cost more to police and run the scheme than the total budget or we would get nothing at all!

Except we are not debating the merits of the europe wide scheme - we are talking about the irish implementation of it. We are talking about how our politicians/legislators intend on implementing it - they have a lot of wriggle room and I believe they could have come up with a fairer deal

It wouldn't have lead to unreasonable amounts of administrative burden to implement some of my suggestions in fact I think they are working themselves hard to preserve existing benefits for the larger farmers etc (or the brown envelopes)

paddysdream wrote: »

There is no hectare limit in the SFP scheme or in the new BPS.Unsure where you got that idea.Maybe you are referring to the national reserve of which I am unsure about a limit on top ups/new entitlements etc.

perhaps its not what we have now although I can't get clarification what exactly the story with the limit is - it is my understanding that the young farmer scheme has a maximum allowed claimable area of 90 hectares.

I think if the YFS has a limit of 90 hectares it should be reduced…if the payments are based on average farm size of 30 hectares which is the average farm size then the limit on maximum allowable area should be closer to this imo

Why not? - if its average farm size then a larger number of farmers have farms closer to this hectarage - why not benefit the majority?

My argument remains the same - the money should be divided up amongst the smaller/medium size guys - they are much more likely to spend it in the local economy anyway.

+ It would free up some money for those that currently can't get anything simply because they started more than five years ago.

Where is the huge cost in terms of admin/policing with this?

paddysdream wrote: »

The genuine farmer bit is not that easy.Big debate in the UK about that.Under BPS or SFP no requirement for stock/crops etc just keep land in good ag. condition,basically comply with their rules and you are ok.They don't want all the complication of stocking rates/herd registers/merchant dockets etc etc.

I don't know anything about a debate they are having in the UK tbh…..what I do know is it can't be that hard in this day and age to tell if a person is an active or genuine farmer or not and I believe that sooner or later they will be going back down the route of doing just that when it comes to these payments

really how hard is it to see how much livestock a farmer has in this day and age

How much extra work would it be to take this into account along with the area they own when deciding on a payment - ffs you could write an app and automate off existing databases.

paddysdream wrote: »

Finishing cattle for the processor and no payment? But you said if the farmer had the land in his name and was farming it.Nothing about who owned the stock(think they go into the farmers herd no. anyways under b and b rules?)
Get used to it cause this looks like the future for many sad as it is.

the processor would pay more to compensate for their loss of bps

or

the processor would have less people willing to do this for them and will instead have to play fair when it comes to buying cattle

Yes I said farming it - I meant they were growing crops or rearing stock with the intent to sell not helping processors screw producers on price due to said processors being able to guarantee supply into the medium/long term…….perhaps its not workable but I think priority should go to those with their own stock as opposed to those rearing a processors animals or those with an forward contract with a processor.

paddysdream wrote: »

Maybe I am living in dreamland but 40k gross is pretty good sounding to me.Hell of a lot more than the average drystock farm will ever provide.Know there are a lot of top farmers on here bvut Teagasc figures show that on average both suckler and cattle farmers lose money before SFP and sheep enterprises barely creep over the red line.
Farm walk last summer- 500 ewes few cattle plus few pedigree sheep(about me without the cabbage growing!!!) on a top farm of good Kilkenny land well done showed a net profit of about 11k before SFP.Big jump to 40k net or gross.

Off farm income?You want the limit raised to 100k whilst others complain about people drawing less than half of this in SFP?

Maybe I am asleep but not many around here with full time off farm income and very very very few "froze out".One neighbour ok I think but that was due to very unusual circumstances.

Thats kind of my point - lots with off farm income already in the system can avail of the basic payments system - if its fair to prevent those outside that couldn't get anything from the national reserve in the past from even getting in due to off farm income then those already in should be re-assessed and perhaps their payments should be reduced and re-distributed on the basis of their off farm income.

or else allow those with higher off farm incomes entrance into the system….look perhaps those are non runners but it is laughable that the lad up the road in his 50s with 80k of a wage can have large basic payments and the guy who set up five years ago with an off farm of 40k some of which he ploughs back into his business and the local economy can get zero…..I wouldn't use the word anomaly for this…..

paddysdream wrote: »

On point no. 4 of my reply you seem to have totally missed the point.

Could you state exactly how I misunderstood you/missed the point?

You posted

"4)Complete non runner.If your wife/girlfriend was in an interview for a new job would you consider it acceptable if she was asked how much you earn on or off farm or could she work for less due to her partners income?"

I posted

"I think you must not have read this bit, nowhere am i suggesting that a farmers partner should be requested by their employer to reduce their wages so the farm can have more or existing basic payment"

I think I understood exactly what you posted - you may not have meant to type that but those are what the words mean if not what your point was.

paddysdream wrote: »

Anyways the idea is to support firstly those who are solely reliant on farming.Is that a bad thing ?

aaaah ok, so you were making the above point by asking me if I think it would be ok for a wife/girlfriend of mine to be asked how much she earns on or off farm or could she work for less due to her partners income?

sort of a tenuous way to make that point - it also made it look as if I had suggested I thought this should happen which I didn't.


To address that point, now that it has emerged - I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing at all, but I do think its a bad thing that there lots of people solely dependant on farming who can't get into the system at all simply because of when they started farming

paddysdream wrote: »

Also for many people farming is a way to make money,admittedly not a lot,and not an exercise in bookkeeping and tax(careful now) "planning".Some of us actually farm as an income earning career.Radical idea to some on here I think.

Just because some people have an off farm income does not mean they are farming for the fun of it :pac:

Neither is an exercise in book keeping….those rules are not there for anyones benefit but the local economy…..revenue are no fools……the beneficiaries of the much maligned book keeping exercises are the farm and non farm businesses in the locality where the farmer spends his/her cash.

paddysdream wrote: »

What I am saying is correct,its just that some people don't like it being pointed out to them.

Some people might consider that to be a mildly arrogant viewpoint!

paddysdream wrote: »

Oh and by the way I was,by circumstance and timing and through no fault of my own excluded from a milk quota(long story and not on a public forum) but do I complain about it?No just get on with it cause there are few certainties in life and those who constantly look backwards and rake over past injustices instead of moving on annoy me.

Perhaps you should have? like back then if there was still time or even the smallest chance to change the outcome.

I'm not really raking over past injustice here (although I don't see any problem with it as a means of establishing past form - past performance occasionally being a good indicator of future performance when it comes to govt depts and all that, people bring up past injustices all the time as a means of motivating themselves to try and prevent them from happening again)

But I digress, I was under the impression we are discussing a current injustice here and there is still time to remedy it, if even in just a small way so I fail to see how your annoyance at other peoples crying over injustices of the past applies to this thread.

paddysdream wrote: »

Oh and by the way,the system works ok for the vast majority.Not saying that others shouldn't be accomodated but reading on here gives the impression that 90% of farmers are being downtrodden by the few.

I honestly think a small group are benefitting here to the cost of a larger group

I think its happening because the powers that be are pandering to larger more influential farmers, big business interests (and a certain ideology which in the long run won't be beneficial for the majority of people living in the countryside imo - but then again it'll probably be depopulated longterm anyway so why worry I suppose)

paddysdream

I think the vast majority are happy and its a very small minority that are unhappy.

Look its late and time for bed so will have a look at your post tomorrow and reply in detail.

Young farmer top up is 60 euro or so on first 50 hectares limit not 90.
Forget stock numbers etc,thats out totally for any direct support for agriculture.They have to use things like beef geonomics etc to try and do it ,a numbers based scheme is a non runner according to Europe.
Any scheme in Ireland has to comply with the basics from Europe,very little wiggle room there I'm afraid.

Re. the farmer finishing cattle belonging to the processor;whats the difference between the bank financing the cattle and the factory?Moral arguement maybe but in the real world who cares?

Anomaly where someone with 60k off farm(doctor vet etc) can look for young farmer top up and reserve in your opinion but Paddy down the road farming full time with a SFP of 30k faces a cut. Fair?

Nothing tenous about point no. 4 Black and white in my opinion.Farmer assesed on his merits,why should his spouse be taken into account?
Methinks someone is now just looking at their own situation and not ther big picture.
I am more than mildly arrogant, you should hear me in real life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be blunt you have the ochone ochone poor poor me patter off to a tee.Well qualified to be a farmer!!!!Oh lord GRANT me this and that

amacca

paddysdream wrote: »

I think the vast majority are happy and its a very small minority that are unhappy.

I'd counter with significant minority and possible loads more ground down by the system.

paddysdream wrote: »

Any scheme in Ireland has to comply with the basics from Europe,very little wiggle room there I'm afraid.

Then why do the schemes differ in more than just minor details across eu countries?

How come we are trying to get a "scottish derogation" - why weren't our negotiators looking for this from the start?

I'm sorry but I don't agree

paddysdream wrote: »

Re. the farmer finishing cattle belonging to the processor;whats the difference between the bank financing the cattle and the factory?Moral arguement maybe but in the real world who cares?

Yeah your right of course, who cares about morals or whats right and fair…this is the real world after all

paddysdream wrote: »

Anomaly where someone with 60k off farm(doctor vet etc) can look for young farmer top up and reserve in your opinion but Paddy down the road farming full time with a SFP of 30k faces a cut. Fair?

You are right, it must be late….In my post I mentioned that paddy down the road also had an off farm income but could get maximum payable simply because he was already in the system whereas other guy who only set up five years or more ago and has much less of an off farm income gets nothing. Fair?

paddysdream wrote: »

Nothing tenous about point no. 4 Black and white in my opinion.Farmer assesed on his merits,why should his spouse be taken into account?

I didn't say the point was tenuous, just the manner in which it was made.

As far as I can make out….you were making the point that the system should support first and foremost those that make their living from farming alone (which I agree with and indicated so) - but you made that point by making out I had somehow suggested that, and I quote

"If your wife/girlfriend was in an interview for a new job would you consider it acceptable if she was asked how much you earn on or off farm or could she work for less due to her partners income?"

that was the tenuous bit….I didn't suggest the above anywhere.

paddysdream wrote: »

Methinks someone is now just looking at their own situation and not ther big picture.

And I think I've struck a nerve related to your situation……..obviously what I'm arguing for relates at least in part to my own situation.

paddysdream wrote: »

To be blunt you have the ochone ochone poor poor me patter off to a tee.Well qualified to be a farmer!!!!Oh lord GRANT me this and that

Thats not really blunt imo, I'd call it a little bit insulting to be fair, do you think all farmers are whingers or something or that you occupy some sort of moral high ground?

I'm not asking the lord to grant me anything nor am I whining, I'm debating an issue here and making my point (which may or may not be correct)

I'm not working from the starting point of…..I'm right, full stop no debate and if anyone does argue then they are a whiner.

I look forward with some trepidation to your reply tomorrow where I hope I will encounter new and interesting words like ochone - if nothing else I'll gain an enlarged vocabulary, hows that for optimism for you!:D

Connemara Farmer

Just saw this on Agriland

http://www.agriland.ie/news/politicians-farm-organisations-called-deliver-old-young-farmers/

Sunset V

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Just saw this on Agriland

http://www.agriland.ie/news/politicians-farm-organisations-called-deliver-old-young-farmers/

Aye, saw that theer too. Journal had a piece from it too. I didn't see it when I asked you the other day.

What are you making of the whole thing? Are you affected?

Connemara Farmer

Sunset V wrote: »

Aye, saw that theer too. Journal had a piece from it too. I didn't see it when I asked you the other day.

What are you making of the whole thing? Are you affected?

I haven't looked at the issue properly to be perfectly straight with you. I'm 36, I've been farming a fair while now since 97 or there abouts, no green cert but I've my name down for it. I bought most of my own farm and was lucky enough to have an uncle leave me the rest. My Dad is still farming his own farm.

I don't know where I stand in relation to it really. The last time the GC opened up for students here the top up age was 35 so I wouldn't have qualified. There were rumours about 40 but no evidence to suggest it'd be done, I basically hadn't the money to gamble on the course at the time so didn't take the risk.

paddysdream

amacca wrote: »

I'd counter with significant minority and possible loads more ground down by the system.




Then why do the schemes differ in more than just minor details across eu countries?

How come we are trying to get a "scottish derogation" - why weren't our negotiators looking for this from the start?

I'm sorry but I don't agree




Yeah your right of course, who cares about morals or whats right and fair…this is the real world after all




You are right, it must be late….In my post I mentioned that paddy down the road also had an off farm income but could get maximum payable simply because he was already in the system whereas other guy who only set up five years or more ago and has much less of an off farm income gets nothing. Fair?



I didn't say the point was tenuous, just the manner in which it was made.

As far as I can make out….you were making the point that the system should support first and foremost those that make their living from farming alone (which I agree with and indicated so) - but you made that point by making out I had somehow suggested that, and I quote

"If your wife/girlfriend was in an interview for a new job would you consider it acceptable if she was asked how much you earn on or off farm or could she work for less due to her partners income?"

that was the tenuous bit….I didn't suggest the above anywhere.




And I think I've struck a nerve related to your situation……..obviously what I'm arguing for relates at least in part to my own situation.




Thats not really blunt imo, I'd call it a little bit insulting to be fair, do you think all farmers are whingers or something or that you occupy some sort of moral high ground?

I'm not asking the lord to grant me anything nor am I whining, I'm debating an issue here and making my point (which may or may not be correct)

I'm not working from the starting point of…..I'm right, full stop no debate and if anyone does argue then they are a whiner.

I look forward with some trepidation to your reply tomorrow where I hope I will encounter new and interesting words like ochone - if nothing else I'll gain an enlarged vocabulary, hows that for optimism for you!:D

Right,lets have a go at this!!

Would be pretty confident that its a very small minority that are very unhappy or ground down by the system.Where were they when the Cap thingie was going on?
Average payment is 10k and for full time drystock farmers would be nearer 20k I should think.

Basic scheme is pretty similar across Europe.Differs for instance in France which retained limited coupling(they had this since 2005 and not an option for Ireland to couple more than 10% I think but Coveney did not go for it TG.
Greening etc is the same more or less Europe wide.

Todays paper has Coveney saying(like I said!) we were limited by Europe in deciding what an eligible young farmer was ie they wouldn't accept more than 5 years established.

According to Dail answers some Irish farmers will qualify under the Scottish derogation,we (Ireland) don't have to look for it.

In the real world morals and doing the right thing are admirable but sometimes reality is that most schemes(welfare tax system etc etc)are designed to suit the vast majority with the least amount of office work or hassle .In every scheme there are those who fall between the cracks.Not saying they should be ignored but you cannot design a scheme to cater for each and every single situation.thats the real world bit.

The idea of allowing Young farmer top up to be on up to 50 hectares was to put it bluntly,give those with half a chance (and 50 hectares aint really all that much to live on) of making a go of it full time.In other words give something to those who might have a chance of getting going a viable full time farm business.

Ah. the wife/girlfriend bit!! Still think you are missing my point.
In your origional post you stated that it was unfair not to take into account the income of the spouse/partner when assessing the ability to get entitlements.I likened this to the other person being asked or assessed in their work on the basis of their partners income.Cant have it both ways and any employer who mentioned this would have his ass handed to him pronto.

To be honest my own situation doesn't come into it in this discussion,Too long farming and over the age limit for young farmer.Honestly only interested in this as a discussion doesnt affect me in the least(only the cuts from convergence but they were well signposted).Have split SFP a number of years ago as all this was bound to happen at some stage so should escape the worst of it .

All farmers whingers?Do you really want an answer?Well, maybe not all whingers but to be fair ,a serious amount of them would give Peig Sayers a run for her money.
Example Eddie Downey on TV last week or so about farm safety with the HSA guy.When cost of improvements was mentioned it was "but shur unless there is a grant for it then how could we do it?Not exact quote but thats the impression given. As farmers we are too quick to blame others for our problems and look to others for the solutions.
Take the beef price crisis last Autumn.Like I said at the time a ten cent rise and all is rosy again.Try get anyone to picket now or try and tell them that they are paying way over the odds for stores and will have nobody but themselves to blame this coming Autumn if prices fall.

Not calling you or anyone else a whiner but constant looking backwards does no one any good.

Oh and I always start from the point of view that I am right and its everybody else who disagrees with me who has a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ochone is an Irish word for sorrow(I think) as in ochone ochone poor poor me the weight of the world is on my shoulders.

Think that just about covers it for the moment.Time for coffee and look at a few sheep.

amacca

paddysdream wrote: »

Right,lets have a go at this!!

Would be pretty confident that its a very small minority that are very unhappy or ground down by the system.Where were they when the Cap thingie was going on?

Depending (perhaps naively given whose interests they seem to look out for imo) on their representative organisations, lobby groups etc to negotiate for them a much fairer solution or at least one that allowed them access to the system, rep groups make their submissions to the politicians that go over to the negotiations - either they did not make the case clearly enough or the politicians decided to ignore it in favour of acting in their own interests (my money is on the latter rather than the former)….its not like they could go over to the eu themselves and negotiate - it didn't become clear to many until much later that not only might the young farmer thing etc not be a runner but they might be excluded from the system altogether for the next ten years by virtue of not being able to get entitlements at all.

It was clear last friday night that after all the rhetoric about supporting young progressive farmers many who had been excluded last time around thought that 2015 would be their turn to get a slice of the cake - after all by their reasoning it was only fair and I have to say I agree with them.

paddysdream wrote: »

Basic scheme is pretty similar across Europe.Differs for instance in France which retained limited coupling(they had this since 2005 and not an option for Ireland to couple more than 10% I think but Coveney did not go for it TG.
Greening etc is the same more or less Europe wide.

Todays paper has Coveney saying(like I said!) we were limited by Europe in deciding what an eligible young farmer was ie they wouldn't accept more than 5 years established.

So you believe everything the minister says? - it wouldn't be like a politician to bluster, muddy the waters and obfuscate and wind down the clock to protect one more important group (in terms of votes/power and influence) over another less important group in his eyes…..I remain unconvinced.

Wasn't he saying nothing could be done for the hill farmers - as in point blank flat out thats the best we could do lads sorry and then as if by magic suddenly something could be done - didn't something similar happen north of the border?

Pretty similar - to me that means not the same - to me that means there is wriggle room (even if limited) - I think something could and should have been done for those excluded simply on the basis of when they started farming especially those that had been exclude last time round for, if you'll excuse the phrase "bull**** reasons"

paddysdream wrote: »

According to Dail answers some Irish farmers will qualify under the Scottish derogation,we (Ireland) don't have to look for it.

Up until one week ago, the cap 2015 helpline was saying they had no definite answer on this, Supposedly he guys in Brussels still had to green light and give criteria.

I did see the answers supplied by Coveney to O'Cuivs questions on the matter but you already know how much faith I put in our political system to play fair given past experiences (i know how much you hate crying over spilt milk but past experiences do tend to colour ones opinions of and dealings with of a system that has arbitrarily disadvantaged you in the past - especially when it looks to be about to bend you over and have at you again.

Also, it was my understanding that we Ireland did have to look for it - The scottish looked for it and then we requested inclusion - It seems we didn't take the lead or show any initiative on the matter of this who had no entitlements at all and only hung on to the scots coat tails - hence why its taken so long for confirmation or official criteria for our version to emerge - yet more proof that CAP 2015 can be different from country to country - or at the very least different enough to benefit a group of previously excluded/marginalised farmers - the scots argued for changes and got them.

paddysdream wrote: »

In the real world morals and doing the right thing are admirable but sometimes reality is that most schemes(welfare tax system etc etc)are designed to suit the vast majority with the least amount of office work or hassle .In every scheme there are those who fall between the cracks.Not saying they should be ignored but you cannot design a scheme to cater for each and every single situation.thats the real world bit.

I'm no expert (and I'm sure theres more to it) but It is my understanding that if you are entitled to jobseekers benefit or unemployment benefit then you get it without any barriers to entry beyond a certain waiting period for the formerly self employed (which seems a bit unfair) and some recent new criteria like proof you are actively looking for work and willingness to undertake certain training courses.

They don't get the hand out unemployment payments to people from 2001 -2014 and then bring in a new scheme in 2015 but say to the unemployed that have been that way for five years or more - sorry lads you're unemployment is just not our kind of unemployment, we want the recently unemployed or the long term unemployed…ye lads in between can just fcuk right off but we have no problem paying the lads around you

Now we could get into the whole social welfare thing but I think you can see how its not a great analogy and I also think its clear how ludicrous it is to keep farmers from accessing payments simply because of dates they started farming - they could be just as productive/progressive as guys that just started or those that were already in the system - its discrimination, simple as.

If the system can't address this then its a) not much of a system to begin with or b) deliberately designed that way to protect a certain groups interests

paddysdream wrote: »

The idea of allowing Young farmer top up to be on up to 50 hectares was to put it bluntly,give those with half a chance (and 50 hectares aint really all that much to live on) of making a go of it full time.In other words give something to those who might have a chance of getting going a viable full time farm business.

O.K I see your logic here, 50k seems reasonable enough to accommodate the small to medium guy although if 30k is the average size I would still argue a limit of 30k would benefit the local economy more

so out of curiosity what exactly is the story with not one but two speakers last friday night referring to a 90 hectare limit……I thought I was perhaps hearing things but a soundbite played back on midlands radio this morning confirmed I had heard correctly and they also thought there was a 90 hectare limit…one of the speakers was an IFA representative ----I'm confused, I can see the 50 hectare limit in the young farmer scheme (and only one mention of 90 hectares in a teagasc submission to the department regarding 4 possible options for the YFM and reasons why two were preferable)

Did the speakers last friday night have access to more accurate criteria or were they talking through their holes do you think?

paddysdream wrote: »

Ah. the wife/girlfriend bit!! Still think you are missing my point.
In your origional post you stated that it was unfair not to take into account the income of the spouse/partner when assessing the ability to get entitlements.I likened this to the other person being asked or assessed in their work on the basis of their partners income.Cant have it both ways and any employer who mentioned this would have his ass handed to him pronto.

But thats not an analogous situation so I'm not having it both ways - theres a difference between receiving EU funding and getting paid for doing a job…..you can't liken assessing a families need to receive grants to an employer telling someone to earn less so their partner can receive a grant - thats putting the cart before the horse in my book….and thats why I was highlighting it, its not analogous and just because you think it is, that does not mean thats what I said.

By way of explanation: (and I think this is also fair because married couples benefit from being assessed differently to non-married in terms of taxation)

Couple A : One Spouse a full time farmer. Other spouse has 200k off farm income.

Couple B : One spouse a full time farmer. Other spouse a stay at home husband/housewife with small part time yearling earnings of 10k.

If they are treated beneficially or as one for taxation purposes then couple B is more in need of the farming related support than couple A who are not as dependant on the farm given the 200k off farm income…some sort of sliding scale should take into account the spouses off farm income for the purposes of reducing the overall payout to those less dependant on farming if we are going down the route of punishing/excluding those with off farm incomes. - By your own admission you think the BPS should be targeted at those depending on farming for a livelihood first and foremost - surely couple B are much more dependant on farming than couple A and should receive more farming related supports than them if fair were fair or failing that Couple A should be excluded from the system as the don't need them - seems like a better reason than excluding farmers on the basis they have set up over five years ago and shur them lads are up and running now!

Then look at the inequity of asking a single person with an off farm income of around 40k to stay out of the system - into their household they are getting what ever 40k net less possibly what they have to plough in to get the farm off the ground or fund an expansion or productivity measures etc etc..but couple A above are getting whatever 200k nets + they can have the basic payments as well - they are well ahead on off farm income and they can get the basic payments as well - a) remove the income limits on all or b) find fairer criteria to assess under or c)put those income limits on a household or couple to level the playing pitch.

paddysdream wrote: »

To be honest my own situation doesn't come into it in this discussion,Too long farming and over the age limit for young farmer.Honestly only interested in this as a discussion doesnt affect me in the least(only the cuts from convergence but they were well signposted).Have split SFP a number of years ago as all this was bound to happen at some stage so should escape the worst of it .

fair enough, if you don't mind me saying it doesn't seem like that to me, your responses make it seem like theres more at stake than a simple discussion but perhaps thats a mistaken perception on my part

paddysdream wrote: »

All farmers whingers?Do you really want an answer?Well, maybe not all whingers but to be fair ,a serious amount of them would give Peig Sayers a run for her money.

Fair enough, If thats what you think. I've found most farmers I've dealt with to be as normal as any other cohort of people engaged in a job or profession out there - I have the benefit of being involved with lots of disparate groups of people and I haven't found farmers to be more or less prone to whinging than your average group of people…there are some taciturn ones, some depressed ones, some conniving scum baggy ones, some optimistic ones, some decent ones, etc etc….maybe you are living in an area with a high concentration of a certain personality type…or maybe you have a perception problem?

For instance you thought I was whinging, probably still do but I don't think I am, just debating something I believe in….which of us is correct?

paddysdream wrote: »

Example Eddie Downey on TV last week or so about farm safety with the HSA guy.When cost of improvements was mentioned it was "but shur unless there is a grant for it then how could we do it?Not exact quote but thats the impression given. As farmers we are too quick to blame others for our problems and look to others for the solutions.

Well controversial perhaps but I'm heartily sick of the "if it saves one life" mantra

My exact reaction to that would depend on the cost of improvements tbh - I run my farm alone, I'm not in favour of safety features if the are prohibitively expensive or a huge obstacle to getting a job done without high levels of frustration etc - I'm careful, I take my time but I think its folly to think you can take the risk out of it altogether

I accept the risk and I will accept the consequences if an accident happens - I don't want administrative bull****/nonsensical paperwork or cost prohibitive measures imposed on me unless the equation is balanced with some form of payoff - I'm with downey on that one….even though he's probably only towing the company line

paddysdream wrote: »

Take the beef price crisis last Autumn.Like I said at the time a ten cent rise and all is rosy again.Try get anyone to picket now or try and tell them that they are paying way over the odds for stores and will have nobody but themselves to blame this coming Autumn if prices fall.

That doesn't really prove farmers are in the main a bunch of habitual whiners though does it?

theres a lot of complex factors and disparate groups of buyers and sellers in the mix there leading to those price fluctuations.

paddysdream wrote: »

Not calling you or anyone else a whiner but constant looking backwards does no one any good.

If you are not calling me or anyone else on this thread a whiner or crying unnecessarily over spilt milk then why do you keep bringing up references to it like prig sayers and ochone etc etc

If its not relevant to me or my argument or others on the thread, why mention it or associate it with the thread?

paddysdream wrote: »

Oh and I always start from the point of view that I am right and its everybody else who disagrees with me who has a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the above is lighthearted or tongue in cheek with maybe an element of truth to it?

paddysdream wrote: »

Ochone is an Irish word for sorrow(I think) as in ochone ochone poor poor me the weight of the world is on my shoulders.

Oh I know, I looked it up, remember - that being the reference to farmers whinging in your previous post.

paddysdream wrote: »

Think that just about covers it for the moment.Time for coffee and look at a few sheep.

Sure maybe they'd like a cappuccino too.

Farmer Pudsey

Ì always tell my children that the world was not supposed to be fair. It is up to you to make it fair for yourself.

While it will be of little comfort to those that lost out this time and last time I think there will be serious changes to SFP in 2019. Too many within the Government and lobby groups as well as farmers with higher payment consider it a production support. It is supposed to be a income support with the idea that it gives active farmers the choice to farm at what level it suits them. However criteria that set it up in the early noughties can no longer be used as criteria from now on. More and more payment is being used as a retirement fund by non active farmers.

Also a lot of money was tied up in feedlot and stacked payments. Will the future system be completely fair no but it will redistribute the money there will be wailing and nashing of teeth but it will happen. Personnelly I lose a little bit but may no longer be competing around the ring that are gambling with EU money.