Gorman: EU budget changes ‘risk undermining support for farming'
The president of the Irish Farmers' Association (IFA), Francie Gorman has said that changes to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget would have a 'devastating impact' on supports for rural Ireland.
Copa Cogeca, the umbrella organisation representing farmers and agricultural cooperatives, confirmed that a 'pan-European flash action' against changes to the CAP budget will take place in Brussels tomorrow, May 20.
The IFA is a member of Copa, while the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society's (ICOS) is a member of Cogeca.
The demonstration will coincide with the Annual EU Budget Conference 2025 where the next long-term union budget will be discussed.
The IFA president will attend tomorrow's protest in Brussels, where he is hoping to engage with MEPs and members of the EU Commission.
He told Agriland: '(We are) protesting against the possible proposals to have a single fund for all EU expenditure, with none of it ring fenced specifically for agriculture.
'At the drop of the hat, they could pull money out of that and put it into defence, or put it into something else.'
'Since the foundation of the EU, there has always been a designated common agricultural policy to protect farming across the European Union. It's the one common policy that we have in Europe, without it, we risk undermining the support for farming,' he explained.
According to the IFA president, the EU needs both a dedicated CAP budget, and an increased CAP budget that goes 'over and beyond' the previous CAP.
EU budget
To coincide with the protest in Brussels, similar protests will take place tomorrow across all 27 EU member states.
Ireland's protest will take place in Dublin, and will be led by IFA deputy president Alice Doyle and ICOS president, Edward Carr.
According to the IFA president, the group of protestors is set to meet at the Irish Farm Centre, Dublin, at 8:00am tomorrow morning.
The group will then travel to the European Commission's building, Mount Street, Dublin 2, for the protest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
‘Arts' dropped from department's title after series of renamings following Coalition shake-up
Arts has been dropped from the name of a Government department as part of series name changes in recent days to reflect a shake-up of their responsibilities following the formation of the new Coalition. The old Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is now known as the Department of Culture, Communications and Sport. The Tourism and Gaeltacht responsibilities now come under the remit of the, now renamed, Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment and the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. Those functions officially transferred on June 1st. READ MORE Asked about the dropping of the word 'Arts' from the Department's name – and whether this signalled any downgrading of priorities in this area – a spokeswoman said: 'The title Department of Culture, Communications and Sport more succinctly captures the full remit of the Department. 'The word Culture includes the Arts and is a common term used in the title of equivalent Ministries in the EU, noting also that EU Ministers meet at the Education, Youth, Culture and Sports Council.' She also said: 'It should be noted that a previous format of the Department was the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.' The old Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is now known as the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. The Department of Justice is now called the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, reflecting a significant change in function with the responsibility for housing asylum seekers transferring from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth . It is now known as the Department of Children, Disability and Equality. A Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration spokesman said the order changing its title took effect on Thursday. The transfer of functions from the Department of Children took effect on May 1st and 'this included responsibility for all aspects of international protection accommodation, Ukraine accommodation and integration'.
Agriland
7 hours ago
- Agriland
French and Brazilian leaders disagree on Mercosur after meeting
The presidents of Brazil and France spoke of their differences on the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement yesterday, during a visit of the Brazilian leader to the European Country. According to reporting by Reuters, French president Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva differed with each other on the issue, with Lula calling for Macron to 'open his heart' to the deal, and Macron pushing back, highlighting the negative impact to French and European farmers. Lula is set to shortly take up the rotating presidency of the Mercosur bloc – which also includes Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay – and indicated that he intends to use his six-month tenure to push the agreement over the final hurdles. 'I will not leave the Mercosur presidency without having concluded the trade deal,' he said. He also called on Macron to tell his fellow European leaders that Brazil was committed to fighting deforestation. According to the Reuters report, Macron said he was in favour of free and equitable trade, but that the deal, in its current form, would harm farmers as they would have to compete against South American farmers who are not subject to the same environmental regulations as European farmers. The French president said that the inclusion of so-called 'mirror clauses' may improve the deal. Reuters also reported that French farming organisations met with politicians this week and urged Macron to work with other EU countries to form a 'blocking minority' in the Council of the EU against the deal, (a blocking minority is four EU member states). Mercosur France and Ireland have been the two EU countries most steadfast against the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, with Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Simon Harris recently telling the Dáil that he is unconvinced that Ireland's concerns about the trade agreement have been 'adequately addressed'. According to Minister Harris, both he and his officials continue to engage at EU level at every opportunity, with both the European Commission directly and with counterparts in EU member states, including France, to 'voice our concerns with the agreement'. Harris said both he and his officials have sought to 'interrogate the outcome of negotiations to assess if our concerns have been adequately addressed'. However, he said: 'I am not convinced they have been.'
Irish Times
14 hours ago
- Irish Times
Can belated economic sanity save the US from a Liz Truss-style fiasco?
The US approach to trade restrictions is a roller coaster. The tactic so far has been to announce a big increase in tariffs on its trading partners, then some degree of rowing back pending negotiations, then some new threats if negotiations aren't going fully the US's way. Now the US courts have intervened to at least delay proposed tariffs. It's not clear where all this will land. China confronted US tariffs that escalated to more than 100 per cent with its own countermeasures. Then negotiations opened and there has, for now, been significant rowing back . Alongside higher tariffs on steel and cars, the opening salvo against the EU was for 20 per cent tariffs, scaled back to 10 per cent while negotiations opened. The latest threat from the Trump administration is for 50 per cent tariffs on imports from the EU , unless agreement on a trade deal is reached by midsummer. Trade deals are complex and the window for reaching a deal is very short. The short-term effects of these threats are destabilising, both for exporters to the US and for US producers relying on imported inputs. READ MORE The objective of the US administration is, presumably, to see US production replace imported goods. However, unless US firms have spare capacity to replace imports, they need to build such capability. [ EU-US tariff talks: What happens next? Opens in new window ] No sane US firm will invest in new factories until it is clear what the final outcome will be from the negotiations with different big trading partners. In many cases, it could take years to bring such investments on stream – possibly only after the next US presidential election. If Trump's successor were to pursue a different trade policy, import-replacing investment might struggle to make money. The Republic of Ireland exported more than €50 billion of pharmaceuticals to the US last year. New US pharma capacity would be needed to replace imports from Ireland. Firms are unlikely to decide to invest in new factories in the US until they know what the final trade landscape will be. Then, if new plants are built, they will need regulatory approval to produce the relevant drugs in the United States, likely also taking years. Thus, it could take considerable time before pharmaceutical production could switch from Ireland to the US. How to manage your pension in these volatile times Listen | 37:00 Recent studies by the EU Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have looked at the possible effect of the US-initiated trade war on the EU and the US economies. The studies suggest that the trade war is likely to be particularly damaging for the US, with a much more muted impact on the EU. That is because the tariffs will raise the cost of US imports for US consumers and producers. In turn, this will lead to higher inflation, which could require the US central bank, the Fed, to raise interest rates, slowing the economy further. The EU research suggests that the unilateral imposition of tariffs by the US, just through their effects on trade, would reduce US national income by 1 per cent next year, while the impact on the EU would only be 0.2 per cent. Retaliatory action by the EU and others would raise the United States' loss to 1.5 per cent. The EU analysis also indicates that the US costs would be magnified by any increase in interest rates needed to choke off inflation. If the Fed were to raise rates to counter rising inflation, this could provoke a Trump response, overturning the Fed's vital independent role in setting interest rates. If this were to happen, the loss of faith in US economic policy would be likely to have even more serious consequences. However, the United States faces a further problem. US government debt is 120 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), back to where it was in 1945 after the second World War. In the OECD, only the Greek, Italian and Japanese governments are more indebted. Nevertheless, the Trump administration plans to implement big tax cuts for the coming years. While serious cuts in expenditure, affecting social and health services, are also promised, the net effect will still mean borrowing of 6 per cent to 7 per cent of GDP each year, adding rapidly to the already high debt burden. The lesson we learned from the fiscal crisis in the 1980s, and again 15 years ago in the financial crash, is that if your national debt goes above 100 per cent of national income, you face big challenges borrowing at reasonable rates. Current US policy raises the possibility of a Liz Truss type event , where government interest rates rise significantly due to the prospect of an ever-increasing government debt burden. Hopefully, before this happens, sanity will prevail in US economic policy.
