Ireland: Libertas leader Declan Ganley must come clean on his desire to abolish the CAP

On March 11, 2003 Declan Ganley wrote an article for the American Foreign Policy Institute- titled ‘Europe’s direction? A Voice from Ireland’ - in which he attacked the CAP.

• He argued for the dismantling of the CAP and for zero dependence on farm subsidies.
• He declared that "our very own European Common Agricultural Policy because of its trade barriers and subsidization, will result in thousands of deaths around the world".
• He insisted that CAP structures were highly inefficient.
• He argued for the removal of all of Europe's trade barriers and for unfettered free trade.
• He propounded the view that the EU's decision to spend nearly half its budget on the CAP was "mindless".

Ganley's approach would decimate agriculture not alone in rural Ireland but also in Southern Germany and large areas of France, Scotland, Wales and Sweden. He is arguing for an extreme neo liberal approach which would benefit huge ranchers in the US and Brazil.
Mr Ganley is no friend of Irish agriculture.

Video: Spring Equinox Sun lights Neolithic Tomb at Loughcrew Co. Meath March 20 -2009

Video requires RealPlayer-Download here

Embedded from RTE.IE

Overall the collapse of WTO benefits the Irish economy

The collapse of the WTO talks is on the whole beneficial for the Irish economy. Certainly some Irish manufacturing and service sectors stood to gain from a WTO deal. However its likely benefits were strongly oversold not alone by some big business interests, but also by certain academics and elements in the media.

Irish proponents of the WTO proposals arrogantly dismissed their overall potential negative influences on the Irish economy. Opponents of the WTO proposals were painted as unpatriotic and representative of selfish agricultural interests.
Some big business interests in Ireland claimed to have concern for the poor of the Third World. Of course they were prepared to wrap themselves in a cloak of concern for the poor in an effort to convince a cynical Irish public of the merits of the WTO proposals.

Concessions made by Peter Mandelson at the WTO talks would have put 50,000 farmers out of business and wiped out at least another 50,000 jobs in food processing and services to the agricultural sector in Ireland alone. Agricultural proposals at the WTO would have benefited large ranchers in Australia, Brazil and the US. There were few if any benefits for the poor farmers of the Third World.

The loss in jobs to the Irish economy and devastation of rural Ireland would have far outweighed any potential gains in some industrial and service sectors. Indeed some Irish service jobs are now moving to India-such as Hibernian Insurance. So much for the security of service jobs in the financial sector.

The 100,000 jobs that Ireland stood to lose are based on indigenous natural resources.
We have had too much of the live horse and you will get grass approach-too many half-baked promises. To sacrifice 100,000 jobs would be economic lunacy.
Thankfully Nicolas Sarkozy galvanised opposition to the proposals. Ireland now owes him a huge debt of gratitude.

Mandelson sell out at WTO talks supported by some Irish businessmen and academics

Irish apologists for a sell out quote press releases on farm incomes from Teagasc (The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority). Even in the worst years for Irish farming Teagasc comes out with a positive spin in relation to Irish farming incomes. Teagasc figures tell half the story. Where for instance is there a reference to rocketing costs? Interest rates, electricity, gas and diesel prices have spiralled out of control. Farm maintenance, insurance and building costs are prohibitive. Government/EU imposed regulation hinder agriculture. Many farmers can no longer afford to purchase fertilizers. That is the reality. It is not spin.

Academics such as Alan Matthews seek to explain away the negative effects of any WTO deal. Matthews needs to get out of his academic ivory tower. His livelihood is not on the line. Irish supporters of the putative WTO deal make references to EU farm subsidies. They conveniently omit to state that these subsidies are paid as a quid pro quo for production cuts. And now Mandelson is supporting more EU agricultural production cuts.

The IFA assessment of the loss of 100,000 jobs is correct. Not alone will many thousands of farmers go out of business, but thousands of jobs in food processing and other spin off industries will go. Rural Ireland will become a desert. Those 100,000 jobs exist at present. So why should we should throw them away for half baked promises of service jobs that we may secure in the future on the back of a new WTO agreement. It is time to get real. Mandelson wiped out the sugar beet industry. Dairying, beef, poultry will now go the same way.

Academics such as Matthews and certain business elements are prepared to throw away food security for cheaper food imports that often lack traceability. No mention of the health of consumers. The majority of Third World farmers will gain nothing from the proposed WTO deal. The ranchers in the US, Brazil and Australia will benefit. Meanwhile the US increases its subsidies to a handful of ranchers whilst EU farmers will be put out of business.

There is no guarantee that Ireland will continue to increase its service employment on the back of a revised WTO deal. Much of this-within the next 10 years-will start moving to countries such as India. Also there is a strong likelihood that the 12.5% Corporation Profits Tax will be neutered by the EU. I say hold what jobs we actually have. These farming jobs are based on our natural resources. An Irish failure to veto Mandelson's proposals -as currently constituted -would be the ultimate in political folly. Prior to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty Brian Cowen promised Padraig Walshe of the IFA that he would use the veto if necessary. It is time for the VETO.

Mandelson's WTO cuts: Time to use the veto

Mandelson's WTO cuts would result in:

• €4 billion per annum loss to the Irish economy


• 50,000 farmers put out of business


• 50,000 job losses in food processing and agricultural services


• Beef prices of €2/Kg (70p/lb)


• 1 million suckler cows slaughtered


• Milk prices of 24c/litre


• Sheep industry decimated by imports from New Zealand and Australia


• Damaging losses in pigs poultry and grain


• WTO has wiped out the sugar beet industry


• (Source:IFA)

As these statistics indicate Mandelson's concessions at the WTO will destroy rural Ireland and seriously damage the Irish economy. It is time for the Irish Government to use the veto. The Government must not fudge the issue. Failure to block the Mandelson proposals will result in the destruction of Fianna Fail in rural Ireland. Brian Cowen promised to use the veto if necessary in the run up to the Lisbon Treaty referendum.
The arrogant Mandelson has continued to plough ahead oblivious to the needs of the Irish economy. Put manners on him. Use the nuclear option.

New York Times-Roger Cohen attacks the Irish electorate's rejection of Lisbon Treaty in "The Muck of the Irish"

The following are some excerpts from his article in the New York Times titled The Muck of the Irish (Which I rebut):

"…But when it comes to sheer electoral crassness, it’s hard to beat what the Irish have just done. I can’t think of a country that’s benefited from European Union membership more than Ireland. It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater to the Celtic Tiger whose growth rates, foreign investment and rags-to-riches story were the envy of every languishing small nation with a thirst for a makeover.

Enormous E.U. farm subsidies, access for foreign investors to the E.U. market, and the liberation from a Britain complex afforded by new European horizons all contributed to the rebranding of Ireland. Dublin was suddenly hip; the peat bogs were passé. No wonder the Irish adopted the euro with élan while the British shrunk from “the Continent” and stuck with sterling.

Yet here we have the Irish, in a fit of Euro-bashing pique worthy of the worst of little-Englandism, rejecting the renegotiated Lisbon treaty essential for the functioning of an expanded 27-member E.U. Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness………………………………"

Comment:

To put it mildly this article is insulting and reeks of condescension and ignorance. It is written from a distance and is littered with half-truths. The use of the term beer-soaked backwater is a cheap shot. There is an element of the Paddy bashing about it often heard in British upper class circles. Sure Ireland has benefited from EU membership. Certainly we have access to the huge EU markets. Sure farmers have benefited from EU subsidies. This was not a vote to leave the EU. It was a vote for an improved version of the Treaty.

Cohen makes no effort to investigate possible causes for the defeat of the referendum. Rural Ireland revolted against the oppressive burden imposed by EU bureaucracy. Un-elected Commissioners have made decisions, which have severely worsened the quality of life in rural communities. Mountains of bureaucracy and quotas hamstring farming and fishing. EU agriculture Commissioner Peter Mandelson is viewed as a second Cromwell who is prepared to sell out EU farmers at the WTO. EU Commission restrictions on turf cutting proved the last straw for many. Rural Post Offices are closing because of EU competition rules in the postal service. Often the postman is the only visitor to the isolated homestead of an elderly person.

Fishermen watch as Irish waters are denuded of fish by EU trawlers. Ireland with 16% of the EU sea area has only 4% of the fish quotas. EU trawlers have taken at a conservative estimate €50 billion-€60 billion worth of fish. Some estimates are as high as €120 billion. Ireland is in all probability a net contributor to the EU.

Many small businessmen dependent on farmers and fishermen voted No.
Other businessmen voted No fearing that the 12.5% Corporation Profits Tax is under threat. And it certainly is.

Working class communities in Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Dublin and other cities came out against the Treaty fearing that paid employment has become a race to the bottom under pressure from EU decisions on workers rights and immigrants.
Others assessed correctly that the EU Commission is undemocratic.
There are fears that the EU courts will legalise abortion in Ireland.

Also there is the fear that an EU army would compromise Ireland’s neutrality. Many female voters feared that their sons could be sent to war.

Stupid comments from some French and German politicians and from Jose Manuel Barroso angered the electorate. So you see Mr Cohen your diatribe failed to detect the reality on the ground. In short you are out of touch.

Ireland's Voters Have Rejected the Lisbon Treaty-(Reasons why)

Firstly this is a vote against the Lisbon Treaty and not a vote against the EU as such. However it indicates a strong concern at the direction in which the EU is moving. This concern exists amongst voters not alone in Ireland but in countries such as France, Holland, Denmark and Sweden. There is a strong belief that Eurocrats are following their own agenda and are not in tune with the views of the voters. As the EU enlarges it runs the risk of disintegrating under the pressure of its own contradictions.

It is noticeable that Working Class areas voted strongly against the Treaty whilst more Middle Class areas were more in favour. In general rural voters leaned against the Treaty. The combined strength of FF, FG and Labour and the political establishment was unable to secure a Yes vote.

Reasons for Ireland’s No vote:

(1) Voters were not prepared to accept a loss of influence- particularly the loss of a Commissioner.

(2) Fear of the development of a European army- many women feared that their sons could be sent to war.

(3) Interference from Jose Manuel Barroso and threats from French politicians that Ireland would suffer angered voters.

(4) A fear that Europe is becoming increasingly bureaucratic and a pent up anger at high levels of bureaucracy.

(5) Anger in rural areas with Peter Mandelson, EU Trade Commissioner and a fear that the EU is determined to sacrifice farmers at the WTO. Agriculture is under enormous pressure. The destruction of Ireland's sugar beet industry is fresh in the minds of farmers.

(6) Fishing communities are under extreme economic pressure. They have protested strongly in the ballot box.

(7) Working class voters vented their anger at high inflation and increasing unemployment especially in building and construction.

(8) Many voters did not understand the Treaty.

(9) Respected businessmen such as Ulick McEvaddy and Declan Ganley-leader of Libertas- came out against the Treaty. In addition the NO campaign had excellent media performers such as Caroline Simons.

(10) Fear that Ireland’s 12.5% Corporations profits Tax would disappear.
A feeling that the EU Commission is undemocratic and is unprepared to listen to ordinary voters.

(11) Fear that abortion could be legalised.

(12) Some newspapers such as the Sunday Times opposed the Treaty. Shane Ross- business editor of the Sunday Independent- outlined arguments against the Treaty in a very influential article.

(13) Some voters wished to protest against the Government.

(14) The Government campaign was in all probability too slow getting off the ground.

(15) The NO campaign - a loose coalition of Libertas, some businessmen, Sinn Fein, some unions,the Socialist Party tapped into the mood of discontent which has been heightened by bleak economic news. Many voters are fearful for their future economic prospects.