Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

IFA “Day of action”

  • 10-06-2021 10:44am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭ Jjameson


    The ifa are looking for the “commercial farmers”
    to come out to defend their historical based payments from flattening tomorrow. Bring a vehicle.
    Should I try tax my 43 year old tractor today and go in support of W****** to enniscorthy mart tomorrow?


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,529 ✭✭✭ Say my name


    I really am torn on this.

    We've farmers with thousands of acres farming on one side with good bps.

    But then we've large landowners with thousands of acres of moorland in the west and they are using the small farmer bluff in calling for bps to come off the productive land and onto the moorland.

    There's a German by the name of (Mod snip) with thousands of acres of moorland in connemara already getting a bps over 200k.

    If I go to the lfa protest I'll be supporting no more money going to the likes of Hans but if I do I'll be supporting the current situation where companies have been set up to divide up the bps and under their management they'd all come to the 100's of k's anyway.

    There's big guys on both sides I don't know what to do.

    There seems to be no moral highground on either side.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,906 ✭✭✭✭ _Brian


    I really am torn on this.

    We've farmers with thousands of acres farming on one side with good bps.

    But then we've large landowners with thousands of acres of moorland in the west and they are using the small farmer bluff in calling for bps to come off the productive land and onto the moorland.

    There's a German by the name of (Mod snip) with thousands of acres of moorland in connemara already getting a bps over 200k.

    If I go to the lfa protest I'll be supporting no more money going to the likes of Hans but if I do I'll be supporting the current situation where companies have been set up to divide up the bps and under their management they'd all come to the 100's of k's anyway.

    There's big guys on both sides I don't know what to do.

    There seems to be no moral highground on either side.


    Which option supports more small farmers ??

    The large farmers are constantly saying only they are viable, if they are so viable hey don’t need the supports.


  • Registered Users Posts: 249 ✭✭ orchard farm


    And then theres the active farmers who just want to make a living of the land but like me are under 40 and werent farming during the reference years 20 years ago. The Ifa want the status quo forever no wonder young people arent taking up farming anymore. Protect the elite minority


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,816 ✭✭✭ Bullocks


    I really am torn on this.

    We've farmers with thousands of acres farming on one side with good bps.

    But then we've large landowners with thousands of acres of moorland in the west and they are using the small farmer bluff in calling for bps to come off the productive land and onto the moorland.

    There's a German by the name of (mod snip) with thousands of acres of moorland in connemara already getting a bps over 200k.

    If I go to the lfa protest I'll be supporting no more money going to the likes of Hans but if I do I'll be supporting the current situation where companies have been set up to divide up the bps and under their management they'd all come to the 100's of k's anyway.

    There's big guys on both sides I don't know what to do.

    There seems to be no moral highground on either side.

    I wouldn't think (Mod snip) would be representative of most of the Connemara farmers in fairness
    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,529 ✭✭✭ Say my name


    Bullocks wrote: »
    I wouldn't think (Mod snip) would be representative of most of the Connemara farmers in fairness
    .

    But sure (Mod snip) wouldn't be either on the other side.
    But they do exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭ JohnChadwick


    Wasn't farming in the reference years and it's unfair that my BPS is below average now.

    IFA justify demand for 85% convergence as maintaining viability of 30% of the bigger commercial farmers.

    If we had 100% convergence my farm and other small farms would be closer to 'viable'. The IFA are hammering rural Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭ Jjameson




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭ herdquitter


    I really am torn on this.

    We've farmers with thousands of acres farming on one side with good bps.

    But then we've large landowners with thousands of acres of moorland in the west and they are using the small farmer bluff in calling for bps to come off the productive land and onto the moorland.

    There's a German by the name of (Mod snip) with thousands of acres of moorland in connemara already getting a bps over 200k.

    If I go to the lfa protest I'll be supporting no more money going to the likes of Hans but if I do I'll be supporting the current situation where companies have been set up to divide up the bps and under their management they'd all come to the 100's of k's anyway.

    There's big guys on both sides I don't know what to do.

    There seems to be no moral highground on either side.

    Ah, why do I do this.

    That's pretty disappointing to read, particularly the language bit about a "bluff" and the moral highground.

    People in favour of convergence, redistribution of greening/eco scheme, CRISS/front loading, and capping at €60,000 without loopholes are not arguing the same agenda as the wealthy individuals drawing out of CAP.

    Productivity and CAP entitlement value, that those on the highest value entitlements are most productive, is something which was disproven based on Department of Agriculture figures in the last CAP years ago.

    Productivity measured only on food output is another red herring, there are public goods and eco system services produced also. CAP is funded by a European taxpayer who, rightly or wrongly increasingly puts value on these goods and services.

    Those in the "West" are the only ones attempting to fairly reform the system. There are farmers with **** payments in all corners of the country, convergence will help them.

    In a pasture based farm, redistribution of greening/eco schemes will ensure that farmers are getting paid the same amount each for carrying out the same action per hectare.

    CRISS/Front Loading, if adopted and funded as it should be through taking a % of Pillar one, plus the monies from capping individual payments then giving every farmer for example an €80/HA top up on the first 15 hectares ensures those farmers on high value entitlements but only farming small number of hectares are protected.

    Capping at €60,000 with no loopholes ensures the Larrys, Hans, and Sheikhs aren't drawing the small fortunes they currently enjoy.

    I'm not going to tell you what to do, but based on your post, and to give the most moderate reply I possibly can, "could do better" would be in red pen on the homework.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,817 ✭✭✭ bogman_bass


    I’m torn also. There is an inherent unfairness to the current situation, but an extra couple of hundred to smaller farms won’t make them any more viable but taking a few thousand from a far could certainly make it unviable


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,906 ✭✭✭✭ _Brian


    Ah, why do I do this.

    That's pretty disappointing to read, particularly the language bit about a "bluff" and the moral highground.

    People in favour of convergence, redistribution of greening/eco scheme, CRISS/front loading, and capping at €60,000 without loopholes are not arguing the same agenda as the wealthy individuals drawing out of CAP.

    Productivity and CAP entitlement value, that those on the highest value entitlements are most productive, is something which was disproven based on Department of Agriculture figures in the last CAP years ago.

    Productivity measured only on food output is another red herring, there are public goods and eco system services produced also. CAP is funded by a European taxpayer who, rightly or wrongly increasingly puts value on these goods and services.

    Those in the "West" are the only ones attempting to fairly reform the system. There are farmers with **** payments in all corners of the country, convergence will help them.

    In a pasture based farm, redistribution of greening/eco schemes will ensure that farmers are getting paid the same amount each for carrying out the same action per hectare.

    CRISS/Front Loading, if adopted and funded as it should be through taking a % of Pillar one, plus the monies from capping individual payments then giving every farmer for example an €80/HA top up on the first 15 hectares ensures those farmers on high value entitlements but only farming small number of hectares are protected.

    Capping at €60,000 with no loopholes ensures the Larrys, Hans, and Sheikhs aren't drawing the small fortunes they currently enjoy.

    I'm not going to tell you what to do, but based on your post, and to give the most moderate reply I possibly can, "could do better" would be in red pen on the homework.

    Surely though with IFA and their minister in pocket this is a done deal on retaining the status quo??


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭ herdquitter


    _Brian wrote: »
    Surely though with IFA and their minister in pocket this is a done deal on retaining the status quo??

    I don't know is the answer. There are things outside of our ministers power as well remember.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,096 ✭✭✭ GrasstoMilk


    I really am torn on this.

    We've farmers with thousands of acres farming on one side with good bps.

    But then we've large landowners with thousands of acres of moorland in the west and they are using the small farmer bluff in calling for bps to come off the productive land and onto the moorland.

    There's a German by the name of (Mod snip)with thousands of acres of moorland in connemara already getting a bps over 200k.

    If I go to the lfa protest I'll be supporting no more money going to the likes of Hans but if I do I'll be supporting the current situation where companies have been set up to divide up the bps and under their management they'd all come to the 100's of k's anyway.

    There's big guys on both sides I don't know what to do.

    There seems to be no moral highground on either side.

    Two of the biggest guys in our area have suddenly fallen out of thr biggest CAP beneficiary's,
    Split up 3 or 4 ways


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,096 ✭✭✭ GrasstoMilk


    _Brian wrote: »
    Which option supports more small farmers ??

    The large farmers are constantly saying only they are viable, if they are so viable hey don’t need the supports.

    Whats a large farmer and whats a small farmer?
    Should a part time farmer not relying on the farm for income get a bigger bps than someone full time farming with a "large farm " trying to feed and educate his/her family off the land


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,529 ✭✭✭ Say my name


    Two of the biggest guys in our area have suddenly fallen out of thr biggest CAP beneficiary's,
    Split up 3 or 4 ways

    If you look at that link that Will put up. There's none I'd say of those names there anymore.

    They all expect a cap on payments coming.
    If the cap on payments becomes a hollow victory for one side then it comes back to payments per hectare that the likes of you and me should be concerned with.
    We won't be effected by a cap anyway.

    The budget is seemingly being reduced anyway. So does supporting the ifa ensure more money stays in the country via not levelled out between other EU countries and payments per hectare stay the same as now to us both?

    I haven't a clue what way to stand on this.
    And if I haven't a clue it probably means I'll drive in to be on the safe side.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭ herdquitter


    The budget is seemingly being reduced anyway. So does supporting the ifa ensure more money stays in the country via not levelled out between other EU countries and payments per hectare stay the same as now to us both?

    Nope, it does not.

    Within Ireland, as a member state of the EU, individuals on entitlement values below average have served a function of protecting individuals in receipt of above average entitlement values. This is because Ireland's internal average is so close to the overall EU average payment.

    What's happening in countries like Germany, The Netherlands and Malta is that their internal member state average payment is higher than the EU average payment. So, %'s of their CAP allocation will be transferred to other states under what's called External Convergence.

    To give substance to IFA's calls for shaking a few euro out of a non existent magic money tree beyond in Brussels.....

    Let's assume that had happened in the last CAP, that would have raised Irelands internal average payment above the EU average payment, THEN we would be subject to External Convergence as a member state and a % of our member state CAP allocation would be sent to other member states under the EU average payment.

    The EU CAP budget was agreed last Summer. Priorities are changing and since CAP is such a large percentage of EU spend, money is moving into other European projects like PESCO etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,906 ✭✭✭✭ _Brian


    Whats a large farmer and whats a small farmer?
    Should a part time farmer not relying on the farm for income get a bigger bps than someone full time farming with a "large farm " trying to feed and educate his/her family off the land

    Indeed.
    That’s why a complete scrubbing of the old system and a new system is needed.

    Can’t see why 100% of money doesn’t go to biodiversity projects, frontloaded and cap at a reasonable level. Everyone gets to partake and everyone gets a fair chance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,529 ✭✭✭ Say my name


    _Brian wrote: »
    Indeed.
    That’s why a complete scrubbing of the old system and a new system is needed.

    Can’t see why 100% of money doesn’t go to biodiversity projects, frontloaded and cap at a reasonable level. Everyone gets to partake and everyone gets a fair chance.
    Would the likes of Bord na mona then be eligible for payments if 100% went for biodiversity?
    Capping means nothing as you've read from the likes of grasstomilk and myself the accountants have shored that up.

    If more land becomes eligible for CAP in Ireland the payments will go down. The new average would be lower than the average now.

    Hoping to be proven otherwise.

    The fear is the opposition to the ifa don't really know their figures either of what could happen bar 'naked' acre farmers will benefit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,906 ✭✭✭✭ _Brian


    Would the likes of Bord na mona then be eligible for payments if 100% went for biodiversity?
    Capping means nothing as you've read from the likes of grasstomilk and myself the accountants have shored that up.

    If more land becomes eligible for CAP in Ireland the payments will go down. The new average would be lower than the average now.

    Hoping to be proven otherwise.

    The fear is the opposition to the ifa don't really know their figures either of what could happen bar 'naked' acre farmers will benefit.

    Pitfalls on every system really.
    But there’s no reason a sensible compromise can’t be reached. Let’s not kid ourselves that a new system can’t be brought forward and implemented. If we thought like that all the time you’d still be milking by hand in a byre.

    The IFA funding hold on milk, animal sales and slaughter needs to be stopped. If it’s allowed continued to be collected ot should be distributed to officially recognised farmer representative bodies based on proven membership numbers. That would force them to fight to hold onto all members amd not just represent a small %


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭ blue5000


    Mod note; Could we not name individuals in this thread please.

    If the seat's wet, sit on yer hat, a cool head is better than a wet ar5e.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,071 ✭✭✭✭ wrangler


    _Brian wrote: »
    Pitfalls on every system really.
    But there’s no reason a sensible compromise can’t be reached. Let’s not kid ourselves that a new system can’t be brought forward and implemented. If we thought like that all the time you’d still be milking by hand in a byre.

    The IFA funding hold on milk, animal sales and slaughter needs to be stopped. If it’s allowed continued to be collected ot should be distributed to officially recognised farmer representative bodies based on proven membership numbers. That would force them to fight to hold onto all members amd not just represent a small %

    Selling membership is of no importance to those that decide policy in IFA


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,906 ✭✭✭✭ _Brian


    wrangler wrote: »
    Selling membership is of no importance to those that decide policy in IFA

    If the organisation was reliant on membership numbers for funding maybe their “policy decisions” would be more aligned with more farmers rather than pandering to the select few.

    Continuing to push for a deal that supports a minority of farmers over the majority of farmers shows their priorities are well set for that minority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭ farawaygrass


    _Brian wrote: »
    Indeed.
    That’s why a complete scrubbing of the old system and a new system is needed.

    Can’t see why 100% of money doesn’t go to biodiversity projects, frontloaded and cap at a reasonable level. Everyone gets to partake and everyone gets a fair chance.
    I wouldn’t like to see 100% going to biodiversity. We all want to farm after all don’t we?
    IMO that would see farmers doing feck all benefiting the most , keeping the minimum.
    I would love to see it tied to production in some way, so those who actually are putting in the hard yards get rewarded. But also with a biodiversity payment to obviously promote that side of thing, like hedgerow and tree planting etc.
    I know I’m only dreaming though


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,071 ✭✭✭✭ wrangler


    _Brian wrote: »
    If the organisation was reliant on membership numbers for funding maybe their “policy decisions” would be more aligned with more farmers rather than pandering to the select few.

    Continuing to push for a deal that supports a minority of farmers over the majority of farmers shows their priorities are well set for that minority.

    It'll be ''aligned'' to those that serve on the various commitees, That's the way it is,


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,915 ✭✭✭ Birdnuts


    From speaking to my neighbours around Erris and a few lads I bumped into recently at Ballina Mart, there is near zero support for the IFA stance on this. I would hazard a guess that the general public wouldn't have much time for their outdated, head in the sand approach either: rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,906 ✭✭✭✭ _Brian


    I wouldn’t like to see 100% going to biodiversity. We all want to farm after all don’t we?
    IMO that would see farmers doing feck all benefiting the most , keeping the minimum.
    I would love to see it tied to production in some way, so those who actually are putting in the hard yards get rewarded. But also with a biodiversity payment to obviously promote that side of thing, like hedgerow and tree planting etc.
    I know I’m only dreaming though

    Many viewpoints indeed on this.

    Amd remember it’s wouldn’t be compulsory so if you wanted to opt out amd farm away then that would be acceptable too.

    One aspect of any new system should create some sort of rolling payment averages over a number of years allowing new entrants to build into the system amd rewarding people keeping to them new ethos, not just create another system where lads in the know build up payments and then expect to have them to hand down through the generations, that idea has to go.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,699 Mod ✭✭✭✭ greysides


    blue5000 wrote: »
    Mod note; Could we not name individuals in this thread please.

    MOD:

    In answer to on-thread questions that should have been sent as PMs.......

    Picking out a private individual for comment is a bit unfair when they're unlikely to have a chance to respond. Politicians put themselves in the spotlight, it's part of the job. No one here would want to find some anonymous on-line persona commenting on their payments.

    The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. Joseph Joubert



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,529 ✭✭✭ Say my name


    greysides wrote: »
    MOD:

    In answer to on-thread questions that should have been sent as PMs.......

    Picking out a private individual for comment is a bit unfair when they're unlikely to have a chance to respond. Politicians put themselves in the spotlight, it's part of the job. No one here would want to find some anonymous on-line persona commenting on their payments.
    Ye missed one mod snip at the opening post if ye want to be fair overall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,546 ✭✭✭ Blaaz_


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    From speaking to my neighbours around Erris and a few lads I bumped into recently at Ballina Mart, there is near zero support for the IFA stance on this. I would hazard a guess that the general public wouldn't have much time for their outdated, head in the sand approach either: rolleyes:

    Its 20 odd times,the justification for not at a minimum updating it to present year or reforming it are non-existant


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,158 ✭✭✭ alps


    It's a time thing...and a financial commitment thing.

    There's hardly any doubt that payments are going to be leveled within a few years.

    That means the biggest farmer is going to get the biggest payment, and the smallest farmer will get the smallest payment.

    Payment has to issue around some parameter. Historically that was around how much you produced. There are lots of parameters it could link to; proficiency, skill, age, need, animal welfare, decrease of chemicals, but we're bent on linking it to land....or how much land you have..

    O ly pillar 1 payment is being levelled here, and historically attempts were always made to assign pillar 2 payments towards those who didnt have pillar 1...to the point where the pillar 2 payment is the equivalent of 148/ha on these farms...This is not being redistributed here, and there is an allowance for government to Co fund this to a greater extent.

    The IFA proposals taken as a whole, look like they strengthen this Pillar 2 payment while getting everyone up to 75% of average on pillar 1. It also seems to look towards an end to sofa farmers receiving payments.

    Have a look down who has the high payments. It will surprise you. I see hill farmers in it currently with payments of 95k....

    Payments come from a myriad of different angles here, but we seem hell.bent on dividing on pillar 1 only..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 308 ✭✭ newholland mad


    Birdnuts wrote: »
    From speaking to my neighbours around Erris and a few lads I bumped into recently at Ballina Mart, there is near zero support for the IFA stance on this. I would hazard a guess that the general public wouldn't have much time for their outdated, head in the sand approach either: rolleyes:

    Try taking to farmers in marts around the South East and I assure you that you will find the exact opposite.


Advertisement