Cap reform convergence

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

While I remember it.... Something the guy in the article should realise.

Irelands average cap payment is in or around €260/ha, which just happens to be in or around the European average payment.

Who cares? I hear from the crowd........

It's important because if we today had the magic money tree situation of upward only convergence argued for by some (a position never grounded in reality and never on the table) and if Ireland had above average payments then we would be in the same position as Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta. That is we would be transferring some of out national CAP % to other states.

Those farmers on low value entitlements have saved high entitlement holders from that by bringing down the national average, due to the shockingly unfair way sfp was constructed in the beginning.

And the budget wouldn't be as good now but for those that worked hard to have it as high as it is. There's something rotten about farmers lobbying to take other farmers income....at least we never lobbied to reduce anyones income

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

And the budget wouldn't be as good now but for those that worked hard to have it as high as it is. There's something rotten about farmers lobbying to take other farmers income....at least we never lobbied to reduce anyones income

I will leave you reconsider that post for the night

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

I will leave you reconsider that post for the night

Farmers expecting to get money for doing nothing is a fairly huge sense of entitlement as far as I'm concerned.
We amassed our payments abiding by the Ts and Cs when others couldn't be bothered and now you're making yourselves out to be badly treated.
I think you should reconsider what you're at, and maybe be ashamed

wrangler

Donald Trump wrote: »

Seems a bit thick to be penalising lads for having scrub and at the same time forcing others to plant, or at least not touch, stuff for biodiversity reasons



All Irish farmers should be getting credit from EU for hedgerows. At least be able to count them towards something!

Up to now land had to be kept in good agriculture condition, it'll be to our detriment if rubbish land is allowed to be claimed on, We could end up with a very low average payment
If some of subsidised land makes the tabloids we'll definitely destroy any image of hard working farmers,

wrangler

The videos of my land that everyone admired.
The person that owned the land before us was a builder and had no regard for land and had three large sandpits in one of the fields.
They were only growing scrub when I took over.
Its difficult to believe that now.
So you'll forgive me if I have no regard for anyone neglecting land

JohnChadwick

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers expecting to get money for doing nothing is a fairly huge sense of entitlement as far as I'm concerned.
We amassed our payments abiding by the Ts and Cs when others couldn't be bothered and now you're making yourselves out to be badly treated.
I think you should reconsider what you're at, and maybe be ashamed

Not very considerate of those who of us who were toddlers in the reference years and didn't get a chance to get in tune with the T&C's.

Be kind of happy to see a few of these farmers in their 50s getting a kick up the hole myself actually, so they can see how financially challenging farming is for a young farmer on low entitlements.

Their rep Tim 75% Convergence Cullinan is in Brussels this week, stuck onto McConalogue. Sounding quite desperate to cling on to the status quo.

MayoAreMagic

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers expecting to get money for doing nothing is a fairly huge sense of entitlement as far as I'm concerned.
We amassed our payments abiding by the Ts and Cs when others couldn't be bothered and now you're making yourselves out to be badly treated.
I think you should reconsider what you're at, and maybe be ashamed

But surely one group of farmers being handed a better rate of pay than another, for not only that year, but every year in the next decade, is money for nothing also?

I mean the second group are only looking for a reversal on that system to a fair rate, they arent looking to get paid more, like the guys in good land got initially. They just want parity on the base rate. How is that wanting money for nothing?

There is entitlement there alright, but I dont think you are looking in the right place.

MayoAreMagic

wrangler wrote: »

And the budget wouldn't be as good now but for those that worked hard to have it as high as it is. There's something rotten about farmers lobbying to take other farmers income....at least we never lobbied to reduce anyones income

Im genuinely unsure how you can support an unequal payment scheme and also take the moral high ground at the same time. Am I missing something?

DBK1

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers expecting to get money for doing nothing is a fairly huge sense of entitlement as far as I'm concerned.
We amassed our payments abiding by the Ts and Cs when others couldn't be bothered and now you're making yourselves out to be badly treated.
I think you should reconsider what you're at, and maybe be ashamed

It’s this attitude Wrangler that’s to the detriment of farming in Ireland. I’m not having a go at you personally but more so the attitude that IFA has engrained into all it’s over privileged members.

First of all it’s not your money, it’s European money that’s being given to you for something you done over 20 years ago. There’s no doubt that it was very unfairly set up at the start and there is a huge amount of people that are getting massive money for doing nothing, but they are mainly men in your position with the farm leased out and sitting back collecting big payments for nothing. I don’t know you personally, nor do I know anything about your farm or finances so I am only basing this on the various information you’ve given on this forum over the years. You have given your CAP figures here over the years and you have also stated how comfortable you are financially due to your BPS.

Can you not see how unfair this setup is for anyone on the other end of the spectrum? You do talk about farmers getting what they deserve as they or their parents didn’t work as hard as you at the time so therefore they got what they deserved but this is not true for all farms. Take for example a farmer who was rearing mainly heifers at the time versus someone that was concentrating mainly on bullocks. They could each have had the same amount of stock and doing the same amount of work but the heifer man would have nothing to show for this in his BPS whereas the bullock man could have a very high payment.

From the videos put up last week it’s clear to see you worked hard on your farm and have a top class setup so I assume you invested a lot of money back into your farm but there are plenty in your position as regards high payments who didn’t do this. .

At this stage, now 20 plus years on from the calculation of payments, do you not think it fair to reassess the structure? For anyone with high payments but still working hard on their farm then they should keep a lot of them payments if it’s done fairly but for anyone with high payments who is not now farming but maybe has the majority of their land leased out and are armchair farming then they will lose out but can’t complain really as they are not farming the land?

Something has to be done to address the major unfairness in the system. I think there definitely needs to be an upper limit on payments, say even set at €52,000. That would break down to a max payment of €1,000 per week that any farmer would be given to assist them running their business regardless of how big an acerage they have. In my opinion anyone being given that amount of money, regardless of system or enterprise, that still claims they can’t make a living out of it if their payments were cut back to that amount is probably not fit to be farming anyway.

I also think young farmers should be given a much higher rate to get themselves set up in the first 5 to 10 years with it being tailored back as the years go on until they are back to the national average. I don’t mean makey uppy young farmers either where they are only farming 5% on paper, I mean proper young farmers who have a minimum of 51% of the farm and the farm income in their name.

I do agree with you about people neglecting land. There definitely should be much higher payments to people properly farming land versus land left growing wild but that won’t happen as severely as you might like as it then goes back to a production based model which is what everyone is trying to get away from.

For what it’s worth if the ideas I’ve proposed above came to pass I personally would lose out as I have above average payments and I certainly don’t qualify as a young farmer so what I’m suggesting will hit me financially. But I can accept that if it’s for the betterment of farming. The age profile of farmers is rising rapidly as young people don’t have the same gra for the land as previous generations and it’s not financially strong enough for them to be persuaded into it. There’s no point in you or I sitting in retirement with money in the bank due to big payments and no one left to farm the land. As the saying goes “there’s no tow bar on a hearse.”

This is where I think the IFA majorly fall down. They want to look after all the older farmers who have done very well out of the payments and forget about everyone else as generally the older well paid men make up the majority of its members as the men with poor payments had to work harder or work off farm to survive and didn’t have the time to waste sitting in IFA meetings.

Bass Reeves

JohnChadwick wrote: »

Not very considerate of those who of us who were toddlers in the reference years and didn't get a chance to get in tune with the T&C's.

Be kind of happy to see a few of these farmers in their 50s getting a kick up the hole myself actually, so they can see how financially challenging farming is for a young farmer on low entitlements.

Their rep Tim 75% Convergence Cullinan is in Brussels this week, stuck onto McConalogue. Sounding quite desperate to cling on to the status quo.

The standing at present are

EU Parliament
100% convergence right accross Europe ( intra European convergence as well)
30% environment

Council of ministers
75%Convergence and 20% environmental

EU commission is offering pariliment 85% convergence . A couple of states are trying to hold the 20% environment line but it hard to know. These states are also trying to allow states to opt out of redistribution. The EU Parliament might as well dissolve itself if that happens

There dose not seem to be any word on front loading but it may be something that is the fine detail.

One thing that amazes me is that the who platform of IFA presidential election ''upward only convergence'' is not mentioned or being fought for at all

MayoAreMagic

Bass Reeves wrote: »

One thing that amazes me is that the who platform of IFA presidential election ''upward only convergence'' is not mentioned or being fought for at all

That is because it was never an option in reality. How could it be? It is basically a request for more money from a reduced budget. Touch of the trojan horse about it.

MayoAreMagic

DBK1 wrote: »

It’s this attitude Wrangler that’s to the detriment of farming in Ireland. I’m not having a go at you personally but more so the attitude that IFA has engrained into all it’s over privileged members.

First of all it’s not your money, it’s European money that’s being given to you for something you done over 20 years ago. There’s no doubt that it was very unfairly set up at the start and there is a huge amount of people that are getting massive money for doing nothing, but they are mainly men in your position with the farm leased out and sitting back collecting big payments for nothing. I don’t know you personally, nor do I know anything about your farm or finances so I am only basing this on the various information you’ve given on this forum over the years. You have given your CAP figures here over the years and you have also stated how comfortable you are financially due to your BPS.

Can you not see how unfair this setup is for anyone on the other end of the spectrum? You do talk about farmers getting what they deserve as they or their parents didn’t work as hard as you at the time so therefore they got what they deserved but this is not true for all farms. Take for example a farmer who was rearing mainly heifers at the time versus someone that was concentrating mainly on bullocks. They could each have had the same amount of stock and doing the same amount of work but the heifer man would have nothing to show for this in his BPS whereas the bullock man could have a very high payment.

From the videos put up last week it’s clear to see you worked hard on your farm and have a top class setup so I assume you invested a lot of money back into your farm but there are plenty in your position as regards high payments who didn’t do this. .

At this stage, now 20 plus years on from the calculation of payments, do you not think it fair to reassess the structure? For anyone with high payments but still working hard on their farm then they should keep a lot of them payments if it’s done fairly but for anyone with high payments who is not now farming but maybe has the majority of their land leased out and are armchair farming then they will lose out but can’t complain really as they are not farming the land?

Something has to be done to address the major unfairness in the system. I think there definitely needs to be an upper limit on payments, say even set at €52,000. That would break down to a max payment of €1,000 per week that any farmer would be given to assist them running their business regardless of how big an acerage they have. In my opinion anyone being given that amount of money, regardless of system or enterprise, that still claims they can’t make a living out of it if their payments were cut back to that amount is probably not fit to be farming anyway.

I also think young farmers should be given a much higher rate to get themselves set up in the first 5 to 10 years with it being tailored back as the years go on until they are back to the national average. I don’t mean makey uppy young farmers either where they are only farming 5% on paper, I mean proper young farmers who have a minimum of 51% of the farm and the farm income in their name.

I do agree with you about people neglecting land. There definitely should be much higher payments to people properly farming land versus land left growing wild but that won’t happen as severely as you might like as it then goes back to a production based model which is what everyone is trying to get away from.

For what it’s worth if the ideas I’ve proposed above came to pass I personally would lose out as I have above average payments and I certainly don’t qualify as a young farmer so what I’m suggesting will hit me financially. But I can accept that if it’s for the betterment of farming. The age profile of farmers is rising rapidly as young people don’t have the same gra for the land as previous generations and it’s not financially strong enough for them to be persuaded into it. There’s no point in you or I sitting in retirement with money in the bank due to big payments and no one left to farm the land. As the saying goes “there’s no tow bar on a hearse.”

This is where I think the IFA majorly fall down. They want to look after all the older farmers who have done very well out of the payments and forget about everyone else as generally the older well paid men make up the majority of its members as the men with poor payments had to work harder or work off farm to survive and didn’t have the time to waste sitting in IFA meetings.

Well said, fair play.

Id just add, as regards people keeping their land well. For some, the reality is they would have crawled over hot coals for the chance to be able to do this. But poor payments in rural areas meant they had to not only pack up farming, but leave the place entirely.

That isnt a 'spuds are black in the ground' type thing, but the jobs available to them would have been enough to stay in their homeplace and raise a family, if they had a reasonable income coming from their farm also. Those decisions have had serious knock on effects to rural areas in the country, that reach far beyond farming, that many at the top tables have never considered.

wrangler

Ten years ago IFAs policy was that no one should lose money and that seems to be the same today. That is the only policy that any organisation should have. We could never devise a scheme to take from one sector and give it to another. You need a one track organisation for that. They don't have to have a just cause, only a common grievance
When My father came here and was buying land to set up, there was a lot of agitation against him to the point of a protest up to a field he was trying to buy, At the time my father was no better off than the protestors. It wasn't an isolated case, there was gates being wound around gate piers all over the country in support of land commision taking farms and giving useless land bonds for them.
We had it tough when we started, those looking for a handy in now are way better off, a lot of the partnerships have jobs as well as all the bonuses, top ups etc they are only taking advantage of a system same as me. Don't tell me that most are depending on farming because they're not.
When I leased my farm every one advised to go share farming as I'd lose my entitlements in 2020, I didn't because I didn't think I deserved it, I think now that I deserve it as much as a lot that are going to get it,
I've two friends , both widows share farming 600 acres each and will be into perpetuity. go figure

Donald Trump

There are plenty of lads working ground for which no maps are supplied. The owners have effectively retired or else has outside jobs and don't work their ground any more. But they hold onto their maps and submit them as if they did.

DBK1

wrangler wrote: »

Ten years ago IFAs policy was that no one should lose money and that seems to be the same today. That is the only policy that any organisation should have. We could never devise a scheme to take from one sector and give it to another. You need a one track organisation for that. They don't have to have a just cause, only a common grievance
When My father came here and was buying land to set up, there was a lot of agitation against him to the point of a protest up to a field he was trying to buy, At the time my father was no better off than the protestors. It wasn't an isolated case, there was gates being wound around gate piers all over the country in support of land commision taking farms and giving useless land bonds for them.
We had it tough when we started, those looking for a handy in now are way better off, a lot of the partnerships have jobs as well as all the bonuses, top ups etc they are only taking advantage of a system same as me. Don't tell me that most are depending on farming because they're not.
When I leased my farm every one advised to go share farming as I'd lose my entitlements in 2020, I didn't because I didn't think I deserved it, I think now that I deserve it as much as a lot that are going to get it,
I've two friends , both widows share farming 600 acres each and will be into perpetuity. go figure

I don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of a system as best they can at any stage in the past or future. That makes good business sense and I say fair play to you and I and everyone else that done that with any system at any stage in our lives.

But when that system is found out to be as unfairly balanced as the CAP and the system has to change it seems ludicrous that anyone could be looking to keep the unfair position gained by using that advantage.

In all walks of life, not just farming, people try to take advantage of the system they’re in, be that something like what led to the banking collapse or something as simple as a hurling match at the weekend. Lads will play hurling on the edge and play the referee and when they get caught out they will argue their case with the ref even when they know they were wrong but secretly go away happy they had got away with it for so long. This is the same. Us “above average” payment recipients have got away with it for a long time, we should be happy with that and look for ways we can take advantage of the new, fairer system that it all should be changed to.

IFA policy all sounds well and good that no one should lose money but the entire budget is decreasing so I’m afraid IFA policy means f all in the scheme of things, someone has to lose when the entire pot is reducing. IFA policy should be to look for the fair distribution of the new scheme but as said numerous times that doesn’t suit the IFA top men as the majority are getting too much money for nothing and greed has taken over.

wrangler

Donald Trump wrote: »

There are plenty of lads working ground for which no maps are supplied. The owners have effectively retired or else has outside jobs and don't work their ground any more. But they hold onto their maps and submit them as if they did.

Yea,, I could've done that too as the tenants are using the land for silage up to july.
There's a department guy locally that does inspections himself doing that too..... keeping the maps and setting the land for two cuts of silage so it must be legal.
I see the CAP talks have broke down at 5am this morning so it isn't only on Boards that they/we can't agree.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

And the budget wouldn't be as good now but for those that worked hard to have it as high as it is. There's something rotten about farmers lobbying to take other farmers income....at least we never lobbied to reduce anyones income

IFA agreed and then reneged on fighting against 80% collective agreement in GLAS. If it weren't for the rebel element that was then Hill Farmers For Action, and now INHFA, breaking ranks then most commonages cold have seen no agreement. That would have resulted in no schemes for the majority of those farmers.

IFA told farmers no monies were available for designated lands, when Hill Farmers For Action went to Brussels as a break away group - with threats called in by IFA and the Dept hanging over us - Julia Loritz Hoffmann who was in charge of the entire Rural Development (pillar 2) said, yes this option had been available at the time.

An IFA employee lobbied other farm groups at a department/farm group meeting against a proposal to properly pay farmers on designated lands for suffering with those designations.

In the last CAP IFA lobbied vehemently on false arguments (that farmers on higher value entitlements were more "productive") to keep 80% of Irish farmers on 20% of Irelands CAP funding.

Just yesterday, IFA threw historical high entitlement value farmers on low hectares under the bus.

IFA has been working against Irish farm family incomes for decades.

Those examples are just the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg.

You have some neck.

wrangler wrote: »

Farmers expecting to get money for doing nothing is a fairly huge sense of entitlement as far as I'm concerned.
We amassed our payments abiding by the Ts and Cs when others couldn't be bothered and now you're making yourselves out to be badly treated.
I think you should reconsider what you're at, and maybe be ashamed

You want to keep time frozen where life never changes, but unfortunately change is a constant in the world, working as farmers with the natural world surely we're best placed to recognise that. You're one of the lucky few who've benefited from being in the cohort of farmers getting 80% of CAP funding while only making up 20% of farmers. You have consistently bragged about your finances over the years, you've had more than enough time and resources to account for a handsome pension plan instead of relying on, to paraphrase Tim Cullinan (don't be like Tim) CAP as a social welfare budget to pay for your pension.

I am in fact, immensely proud of and lucky to know the hard working people who are trying, against all of the forces of Irish farm lobbying to work towards a deal that contains something alien to those other groups, fairness. We're not looking to put other farmers into the position we've come from ourselves. In supporting CRISS we're looking to protect those in the most difficult situation of low hectares in a hectare based payment system, rather than the other orgs who have used those farmers as the mudguard for their arguments then discarded them at the very first opportunity.

wrangler wrote: »

If some of subsidised land makes the tabloids we'll definitely destroy any image of hard working farmers,

What's destroying the negotiating power of all farming organisations across Europe in regards to the entire CAP budget is the constant moaning that those in receipt of the MOST money need more. How does anyone think that is received by the European tax payers.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

But surely one group of farmers being handed a better rate of pay than another, for not only that year, but every year in the next decade, is money for nothing also?

I mean the second group are only looking for a reversal on that system to a fair rate, they arent looking to get paid more, like the guys in good land got initially. They just want parity on the base rate. How is that wanting money for nothing?

There is entitlement there alright, but I dont think you are looking in the right place.

Precisely, for protecting our national CAP budget, for allowing this state to draw down monies on "naked hectares", and other reasons including that inconvenient fairness one.

DBK1 wrote: »

In my opinion anyone being given that amount of money, regardless of system or enterprise, that still claims they can’t make a living out of it if their payments were cut back to that amount is probably not fit to be farming anyway.

That is what taxpayers are seeing, and some people still think this is a hidden truth. The reality is that there are organisations and NGO's outside of farming shouting it, and proving it, from the rooftops.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There dose not seem to be any word on front loading but it may be something that is the fine detail.

One thing that amazes me is that the who platform of IFA presidential election ''upward only convergence'' is not mentioned or being fought for at all

Front loading is actually the "redistribution" you mentioned afaik, it's called CRISS and the position so far as I know it is that 12 countries including Ireland but led by Austria are against front loading be applied across all member states, instead they want it to be voluntary so a member state can decide whether to introduce front loading or not. In my view? Ireland won't agree to bring in front loading unless it's made mandatory on all member states.

Regarding IFA's fantastical magic money tree. The EU CAP budget has already previously been set and agreed. This trilogue is, or was since it's collapsed, discussing the finer details. To get "upward only convergence" either the entire CAP budget would have to be increased re-opening that ants nest, OR every other member states CAP budget would have to see a reduction to increase Irelands CAP budget.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Time isn't being wasted on it because no more than the low hectare high ent farmer, upward only convergence is like running the ball into the corner in a match. It's pure time wasting to attempt to sabotage other efforts. Thankfully, no one is paying attention to that nonsense.

Just to add to that. Our national average entitlement value is IMPORTANT. Farmers on low entitlement values have dropped our national average to in or around €260, which is close enough to the European average. This has protected Irish farmers on high value entitlement - are we seeing why they don't want change? We will. These two things are very important. Why? Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta, all have national CAP average entitlement values ABOVE the European average. So, under EXTERNAL convergence - that is convergence between member states - those three member states have to give up %'s of their over all National CAP budget allocations.

Had Ireland IFA's position today of everyone getting more, we too would have to give up a chunk of our CAP budget.

wrangler

DBK1 wrote: »

I don’t blame anyone for taking advantage of a system as best they can at any stage in the past or future. That makes good business sense and I say fair play to you and I and everyone else that done that with any system at any stage in our lives.

But when that system is found out to be as unfairly balanced as the CAP and the system has to change it seems ludicrous that anyone could be looking to keep the unfair position gained by using that advantage.

In all walks of life, not just farming, people try to take advantage of the system they’re in, be that something like what led to the banking collapse or something as simple as a hurling match at the weekend. Lads will play hurling on the edge and play the referee and when they get caught out they will argue their case with the ref even when they know they were wrong but secretly go away happy they had got away with it for so long. This is the same. Us “above average” payment recipients have got away with it for a long time, we should be happy with that and look for ways we can take advantage of the new, fairer system that it all should be changed to.

IFA policy all sounds well and good that no one should lose money but the entire budget is decreasing so I’m afraid IFA policy means f all in the scheme of things, someone has to lose when the entire pot is reducing. IFA policy should be to look for the fair distribution of the new scheme but as said numerous times that doesn’t suit the IFA top men as the majority are getting too much money for nothing and greed has taken over.

All farmers are getting too much money for nothing and greed is the problem in all sectors.
Like your hurling match everyone will fight any penalty to the bitter end, there is no organisation going to take money off one member and give it to another. , You know I've said this many times in 2013 and coming iinto this CAP reform expecting different is a bit unrealistic. Apart from a one track organisation. No organistion is going to try to redistribute the pot.
Of course no one should lose and if they do it should be minimum.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

IFA agreed and then reneged on fighting against 80% collective agreement in GLAS. If it weren't for the rebel element that was then Hill Farmers For Action, and now INHFA, breaking ranks then most commonages cold have seen no agreement. That would have resulted in no schemes for the majority of those farmers.

IFA told farmers no monies were available for designated lands, when Hill Farmers For Action went to Brussels as a break away group - with threats called in by IFA and the Dept hanging over us - Julia Loritz Hoffmann who was in charge of the entire Rural Development (pillar 2) said, yes this option had been available at the time.

An IFA employee lobbied other farm groups at a department/farm group meeting against a proposal to properly pay farmers on designated lands for suffering with those designations.

In the last CAP IFA lobbied vehemently on false arguments (that farmers on higher value entitlements were more "productive") to keep 80% of Irish farmers on 20% of Irelands CAP funding.

Just yesterday, IFA threw historical high entitlement value farmers on low hectares under the bus.

IFA has been working against Irish farm family incomes for decades.

Those examples are just the snowflake on the tip of the iceberg.

You have some neck.



You want to keep time frozen where life never changes, but unfortunately change is a constant in the world, working as farmers with the natural world surely we're best placed to recognise that. You're one of the lucky few who've benefited from being in the cohort of farmers getting 80% of CAP funding while only making up 20% of farmers. You have consistently bragged about your finances over the years, you've had more than enough time and resources to account for a handsome pension plan instead of relying on, to paraphrase Tim Cullinan (don't be like Tim) CAP as a social welfare budget to pay for your pension.

I am in fact, immensely proud of and lucky to know the hard working people who are trying, against all of the forces of Irish farm lobbying to work towards a deal that contains something alien to those other groups, fairness. We're not looking to put other farmers into the position we've come from ourselves. In supporting CRISS we're looking to protect those in the most difficult situation of low hectares in a hectare based payment system, rather than the other orgs who have used those farmers as the mudguard for their arguments then discarded them at the very first opportunity.



What's destroying the negotiating power of all farming organisations across Europe in regards to the entire CAP budget is the constant moaning that those in receipt of the MOST money need more. How does anyone think that is received by the European tax payers.



Precisely, for protecting our national CAP budget, for allowing this state to draw down monies on "naked hectares", and other reasons including that inconvenient fairness one.



That is what taxpayers are seeing, and some people still think this is a hidden truth. The reality is that there are organisations and NGO's outside of farming shouting it, and proving it, from the rooftops.



Front loading is actually the "redistribution" you mentioned afaik, it's called CRISS and the position so far as I know it is that 12 countries including Ireland but led by Austria are against front loading be applied across all member states, instead they want it to be voluntary so a member state can decide whether to introduce front loading or not. In my view? Ireland won't agree to bring in front loading unless it's made mandatory on all member states.

Regarding IFA's fantastical magic money tree. The EU CAP budget has already previously been set and agreed. This trilogue is, or was since it's collapsed, discussing the finer details. To get "upward only convergence" either the entire CAP budget would have to be increased re-opening that ants nest, OR every other member states CAP budget would have to see a reduction to increase Irelands CAP budget.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Time isn't being wasted on it because no more than the low hectare high ent farmer, upward only convergence is like running the ball into the corner in a match. It's pure time wasting to attempt to sabotage other efforts. Thankfully, no one is paying attention to that nonsense.

Just to add to that. Our national average entitlement value is IMPORTANT. Farmers on low entitlement values have dropped our national average to in or around €260, which is close enough to the European average. This has protected Irish farmers on high value entitlement - are we seeing why they don't want change? We will. These two things are very important. Why? Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta, all have national CAP average entitlement values ABOVE the European average. So, under EXTERNAL convergence - that is convergence between member states - those three member states have to give up %'s of their over all National CAP budget allocations.

Had Ireland IFA's position today of everyone getting more, we too would have to give up a chunk of our CAP budget.

I know hill farmers had poor representation in our meetings, which comes from farmers hanging back from taking up jobs, I told you that at the time.
Hw many times did I say why didn't he open his mouth. Oh yea, shove anyone into a prominent positon and then wonder why it goes wrong.
Also your crowd nearly blew Glas out of the water and thats €140m ayear coming in to farmers . no wnder you got departments backs up.
If you did succeed in finishing GLAS your conspiracy theorists would shift the blame over to IFA

Someone interviewed on the radio has just said that they need a lobby organisation like the IFA to push their cause. That's the respect we get outside of begrudging farmers...... it's not the first time I've heard similar

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

I know hill farmers had poor representation in our meetings, which comes from farmers hanging back from taking up jobs, I told you that at the time.
Hw many times did I say why didn't he open his mouth. Oh yea, shove anyone into a prominent positon and then wonder why it goes wrong.
Also your crowd nearly blew Glas out of the water and thats €140m ayear coming in to farmers . no wnder you got departments backs up.
If you did succeed in finishing GLAS your conspiracy theorists would shift the blame over to IFA

Someone interviewed on the radio has just said that they need a lobby organisation like the IFA to push their cause. That's the respect we get outside of begrudging farmers...... it's not the first time I've heard similar

We left IFA as it was clear advancing fair positions/terms&conditions for low income farmers wasn't on the associations agenda and never would be. We were right. This was confirmed many times, not least at a meeting in Athlone with the then president, probably top two employees, a number of county chairs and at least one regional chair. I sat around that table and heard a former IFA employee threaten farmers with a bony pointed finger "Be very careful what YE look for".

So, you know, to continually castigate lads as being lazy and unable to communicate is plainly disrespectful - might I add towards people you yourself expressed admiration FOR when you heard them speak outside Kildare Street.

You're on here for years shouting that farmers aren't worth your time. That farmers must get involved, then when farmers get involved you shout at them for that.

Somehow you expect low income farmers to allow themselves be represented by people who, you've said many times, think lands are untidy, or low income farmers are lazy.

Sorry, but you know, the days are long gone when ordinary people buckled at the sight of suits claiming authority.

The SINGLE best thing any farmer can DO is to take the responsibility for represent THEMSELVES. A position you agree with, but constantly criticise others for taking up.

The fact is you're bitter the the times of the CAP 80/20 apartheid is coming to an end as you've been a long time beneficiary of it.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

We left IFA as it was clear advancing fair positions/terms&conditions for low income farmers wasn't on the associations agenda and never would be. We were right. This was confirmed many times, not least at a meeting in Athlone with the then president, probably top two employees, a number of county chairs and at least one regional chair. I sat around that table and heard a former IFA employee threaten farmers with a bony pointed finger "Be very careful what YE look for".

So, you know, to continually castigate lads as being lazy and unable to communicate is plainly disrespectful - might I add towards people you yourself expressed admiration FOR when you heard them speak outside Kildare Street.

You're on here for years shouting that farmers aren't worth your time. That farmers must get involved, then when farmers get involved you shout at them for that.

Somehow you expect low income farmers to allow themselves be represented by people who, you've said many times, think lands are untidy, or low income farmers are lazy.

Sorry, but you know, the days are long gone when ordinary people buckled at the sight of suits claiming authority.

The SINGLE best thing any farmer can DO is to take the responsibility for represent THEMSELVES. A position you agree with, but constantly criticise others for taking up.

The fact is you're bitter the the times of the CAP 80/20 apartheid is coming to an end as you've been a long time beneficiary of it.

No comment from you on the poor hill commitee at the time then...., not surprising.
I'm sure they were in Brussels too and should've known what was available.
Maybe it was a lot of your own fault. National Executive could only act on the version they got from commitees. I sat beside your Hill Rep for two years and he never opened his mouth. The jokes on you, boy
I often said to be careful what you wish for at a meeting because some farmers would hang you, especially if there was some department guys there.

Sure don't you know that everyone's out to get you, as long as you keep thinking that, some day you'll be right.
I can assure you I'm not bitter about anything,.... while it was a thankless job, I feel I protected my farm inside and outside my gate and not afraid to represent similar farmers of which there was thousands .

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

No comment from you on the poor hill commitee at the time then...., not surprising.
I'm sure they were in Brussels too and should've known what was available.
Maybe it was a lot of your own fault. National Executive could only act on the version they got from commitees. I sat beside your Hill Rep for two years and he never opened his mouth. The jokes on you, boy
I often said to be careful what you wish for at a meeting because some farmers would hang you, especially if there was some department guys there.

Sure don't you know that everyone's out to get you, as long as you keep thinking that, some day you'll be right.
I can assure you I'm not bitter about anything,.... while it was a thankless job, I feel I protected my farm inside and outside my gate and not afraid to represent similar farmers of which there was thousands .

The Hill Committee was never a commodity committee in IFA, in my time in it or before that. It was an "at the pleasure of whomever" sorta committee that had to defer to the Sheep Committee. It had neither weight nor value. The second best move I ever made in my real world education was join IFA, the best decision was leaving it.

On one point you're spot on, a lot of it was our own fault, for believing that an Association purporting to represent us, actually would.

The national inequity of farm family incomes is as a direct result of the apathy and opaqueness of IFA towards those people. In the previous CAP IFA's stance was the high value entitlement farmers were most "productive", another falsehood that was disproven by Department of Agriculture figures.

Even this morning IFA 's president comes out admitting 2/3rds of farm families are in poverty and they're happy to keep them there for the sole benefit of those in receipt of high value entitlements. A private social welfare system for the wealthy only funded by public money. The IFA falsehood in this CAP is that there's a magic money tree beyond in Brussels that'll solve everyone's problems. That anyone pointing out this is a fantasy isn't quoting reality but "pitting farmer against farmer". While the reality is an increase in Ireland's average payment above the European payment would see a % of Ireland's CAP allocation sent to other member states below the European average in External convergence.

I don't believe anyone is out to get me. What I believe is what I've already said, that the best thing a farmer can do is grasp the nettle of responsibility of representing themselves. No easy thing to do, but nothing worth doing ever was.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

The Hill Committee was never a commodity committee in IFA, in my time in it or before that. It was an "at the pleasure of whomever" sorta committee that had to defer to the Sheep Committee. It had neither weight nor value. The second best move I ever made in my real world education was join IFA, the best decision was leaving it.

On one point you're spot on, a lot of it was our own fault, for believing that an Association purporting to represent us, actually would.

The national inequity of farm family incomes is as a direct result of the apathy and opaqueness of IFA towards those people. In the previous CAP IFA's stance was the high value entitlement farmers were most "productive", another falsehood that was disproven by Department of Agriculture figures.

Even this morning IFA 's president comes out admitting 2/3rds of farm families are in poverty and they're happy to keep them there for the sole benefit of those in receipt of high value entitlements. A private social welfare system for the wealthy only funded by public money. The IFA falsehood in this CAP is that there's a magic money tree beyond in Brussels that'll solve everyone's problems. That anyone pointing out this is a fantasy isn't quoting reality but "pitting farmer against farmer". While the reality is an increase in Ireland's average payment above the European payment would see a % of Ireland's CAP allocation sent to other member states below the European average in External convergence.

I don't believe anyone is out to get me. What I believe is what I've already said, that the best thing a farmer can do is grasp the nettle of responsibility of representing themselves. No easy thing to do, but nothing worth doing ever was.

Commisioner Ciolos told us he was going to transfer some of our budget to poorer countries at a meeting in 2013 but we opposed it.
We never gave in, nor won't

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Commisioner Ciolos told us he was going to transfer some of our budget to poorer countries at a meeting in 2013 but we opposed it.
We never gave in, nor won't

Irelands current average payment IS NOT above the European average payment. There's literally nothing to give in to on that subject :pac:

To drag you kicking and screaming towards reality, three member states, Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta DO have payments above the European average and ARE transferring %'s of their CAP allocations to countries below the European average.

It's called External Convergence and it's where IFA's upwards only convergence fantasy would put Ireland in some alternative universe.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

Irelands current average payment IS NOT above the European average payment. There's literally nothing to give in to on that subject :pac:

To drag you kicking and screaming towards reality, three member states, Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta DO have payments above the European average and ARE transferring %'s of their CAP allocations to countries below the European average.

It's called External Convergence and it's where IFA's upwards only convergence fantasy would put Ireland in some alternative universe.

I was only making the point that it's not over until it's over, I don't know the inside track this time but it was interesting in 2013 the way that IFA recruited allies on different issues and deals were done on suport for various proposals.
I'm sure Germany is sacrificing farmers to sell indutry like wise the other countries.
You must want tim to get up and say that farmeers in Irland are the richest is Europe....... some hope of getting extra yo yos with that spiel. See why I think you see conspiracy in everything, but keep spewing it out AND YOU'LL BE RIGHT SOME DAY

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

I was only making the point that it's not over until it's over, I don't know the inside track this time but it was interesting in 2013 the way that IFA recruited allies on different issues and deals were done on suport for various proposals.
I'm sure Germany is sacrificing farmers to sell indutry like wise the other countries.
You must want tim to get up and say that farmeers in Irland are the richest is Europe....... some hope of getting extra yo yos with that spiel. See why I think you see conspiracy in everything, but keep spewing it out AND YOU'LL BE RIGHT SOME DAY

We agree that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, pop the champagne quick (you're buying) We've reached an agreement on nothing :pac:

Tim is in a FIndo article today kicking a couple of super own goals as to insights to IFA's culture, so let him talk away, he's doing trojan work.

The point I was pulling you up on was "nor won't", that external convergence battle is not a thing for Ireland today thanks to low value entitlement holder bringing down the Irish national average payment therefore protecting higher value entitlement holders.

As for the extra YoYo's, they don't exist. Sorry, but that's how it is. Same argument, even in some alternative universe if they did exist, they'd bring UP our National Average Payment above the European average and we'd lose them again with External Convergence between member states.

Oh another point made earlier regarding walk outs (not by yourself). Our Minister needs 1/3rd support in the Council of Minister to stage what's considered in those circles a "walk out". He doesn't have that support. If he just walked out himself, he'd only have to walk back in again next week so........ yeah.

wrangler

Deleted User wrote: »

We agree that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, pop the champagne quick (you're buying) We've reached an agreement on nothing :pac:

Tim is in a FIndo article today kicking a couple of super own goals as to insights to IFA's culture, so let him talk away, he's doing trojan work.

The point I was pulling you up on was "nor won't", that external convergence battle is not a thing for Ireland today thanks to low value entitlement holder bringing down the Irish national average payment therefore protecting higher value entitlement holders.

As for the extra YoYo's, they don't exist. Sorry, but that's how it is. Same argument, even in some alternative universe if they did exist, they'd bring UP our National Average Payment above the European average and we'd lose them again with External Convergence between member states.

Oh another point made earlier regarding walk outs (not by yourself). Our Minister needs 1/3rd support in the Council of Minister to stage what's considered in those circles a "walk out". He doesn't have that support. If he just walked out himself, he'd only have to walk back in again next week so........ yeah.

Nothing to be gained by walking out

It was beef plan put in Tim, say no more.

Bass Reeves

Just after the last CAP negotiations I pointed out that farm org needed to go out and tell farmers that convergence was going to continue and gather pace. It was important as it would make farmers aware of the risk of financial commitments dependent on BPS to cover repayments
.
I said then that I expected full convergence by 2030 and that capping would happen as well. I think I will not be too far wrong. I also pointed out there was a good chance of greening being flat rated in this round. Capping in some form will be put in place as well.

wrangler

wrangler wrote: »

Nothing to be gained by walking out

It was beef plan put in Tim, say no more.

I'm amazed you got a mention of Beef Plan in here and at the same time slightly disappointed teachers weren't woven into the web.

A walk out was proposed by another poster earlier. I agree there's nothing to gain in it.

MayoAreMagic

wrangler wrote: »

Yea,, I could've done that too as the tenants are using the land for silage up to july.
There's a department guy locally that does inspections himself doing that too..... keeping the maps and setting the land for two cuts of silage so it must be legal.
I see the CAP talks have broke down at 5am this morning so it isn't only on Boards that they/we can't agree.

In all honesty wrangler, everyone here seems to be agreeing, bar yourself. Your defence seems to be basically soundbytes about the ifa reducing no payments, which falls flat at the first hurdle, whether convergence happens or not, as the budget is going to be lower than the last one.
There is no reasonable argument against convergence. Nobody has put one forward on this thread, or anywhere else for that matter. Personally I find the counter argument a bit insulting, not because of how it will affect me - in truth it wont put me up or down - but rather the dismissive attitude shown towards farmers on poorer ground.

Farmers awarded high entitlements in previous systems have had their soft run of it. They should be thankful for having something that nobody else is likely to ever get, instead of cribbing about the system releasing the chokehold it has on other farmers around the country.

I notice this sort of 'I worked the land and made something of it while others didnt etc etc' attitude in your posting. Christ man do you not see that your subs allowed you to go that road, and put that time into your own business and something that im sure you enjoyed doing, while the subs others got, who may be the same as yourself only born elsewhere, stopped them from doing the same? You seem to give yourself credit for things that, as I said before, others would have crawled over hot coals for the opportunity to do.