Eu Cap Plan Sends a Chilling Message on Farm Incomes Icsa
Speaking after a meeting with Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Martin Heydon on its Budget 2026 submission, the ICSA called the cuts to the CAP budget a "betrayal", and called on the government to use Budget 2026 to signal its support for the farming community.
"The ICSA left the minister in absolutely no doubt that the commission's proposal to cut the CAP budget by 20% is a complete betrayal of family farms and must be challenged at every level," ICSA president Sean McNamara said.
"What we saw from Brussels this week amounts to nothing short of the dismantling of the CAP in everything but name.
"Scrapping the two-pillar model, phasing out income supports for older farmers, and shifting the funding burden back to member states is a recipe for disaster. It sends a chilling message that farm incomes, food security and rural communities no longer matter to the EU elite," McNamara said.
According to the ICSA president, the proposed CAP cuts would hit low-income beef, sheep and suckler farms the hardest.
"These sectors risk being decimated completely. But the impact goes far beyond farmers - it threatens the very fabric of rural Ireland, undermining local economics, rural communities and any credible pathway to generational renewal," he said.
McNamara said that he urged Minister Heydon to "lead a united national effort to push back against the commission's proposals and to ensure that Irish farming is not sacrificed at EU level".
"We are at risk of losing the very people who produce our food, protect our environment, and hold rural Ireland together."
"In this context Budget 2026 must send a strong signal of national commitment safeguarding Irish agriculture. The government must show it has farmers' back," McNamara said.
The ICSA's comments come as part of an ongoing rejection on the part of Irish farm organisations to the European Commission's CAP proposals.
Most recently, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers' Association (INHFA) has said that a proposal by the European Commission to cut the CAP budget 'must be reassessed".
As discussions begin on the format of the next CAP programme, the INHFA has insisted that the proposed budget cut of 23% and the consolidation into one pillar must be part of any discussion.
INHFA national committee chair Pheilim Molloy stressed the need to protect the overall budget and the two pillar model.
He called on Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Martin Heydon and all Irish MEPs 'to do everything possible in protecting our interests'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell personified the perpetual importance of an independent Bar
On July 27, 1813, in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell rose to defend John Magee, publisher of the Dublin Evening Post, against a charge of criminal libel. His speech that day demonstrated how a skilled barrister could transform an oppressive legal system into an instrument of political change. The case of The King v. John Magee remains one of the most memorable examples of O'Connell's extraordinary ability to use his legal expertise in the service of justice and reform. The charge against Magee arose from his publication of a review criticising the departing Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond. The article condemned Richmond's errors in governing Ireland and compared him to the worst of his predecessors, who were described as 'the profligate unprincipled Westmorland, the cold-hearted and cruel Camden, the artful and treacherous Cornwallis'. More significantly, it challenged the fundamental principle of British rule in Ireland — 'a principle of exclusion, which debars the majority of the people from the enjoyment of those privileges that are possessed by the minority'. This was no ordinary libel case. As O'Connell understood, it was unavoidably a political case, and it demanded a political speech. The prosecution was designed to suppress dissent and maintain the exclusion of Ireland's Catholic majority from political participation. Attorney General William Saurin made this clear in his opening, describing Magee as a 'ruffian' whose purpose was 'to excite [in the minds of the population] hatred against those whom the laws have appointed to rule over them, and prepare them for revolution'. O'Connell faced formidable obstacles. The law of criminal libel was so broad that, as he later observed, 'every letter I ever published could be declared a libel' and the libel law could 'produce a conviction with a proper judge and jury for The Lord's Prayer with due legal inuendoes'. More damaging still was the composition of the jury — hand-picked to ensure conviction. With characteristic boldness, O'Connell confronted this unfairness head-on, telling the jurors: 'Gentlemen, he [the Attorney General] thinks he knows his men; he knows you; many of you signed the no-popery petition... you would not have been summoned on this jury if you had entertained liberal sentiments'. Rather than being cowed by these disadvantages, O'Connell turned them into weapons. He began by meeting Saurin's personal attacks, describing the Attorney General's speech as a 'farrago of helpless absurdity'. When Saurin had stooped to calling Magee a ruffian and comparing him to 'the keeper of a house of ill fame', O'Connell lamented how far Saurin fell below the standards of the great Irish barristers such as Curran and Ponsonby: 'Devoid of taste and of genius, how can he have had memory enough to preserve this original vulgarity — he is, indeed, an object of compassion; and, from my inmost soul, I bestow on him my forgiveness and my bounteous pity'. O'Connell was even able to use Saurin's own words against him. When the Attorney General accused Magee of Jacobinism, O'Connell recalled Saurin's defence of himself against the same charge in 1800, when Saurin, then anti-union, had declared that 'agitation is ... the price necessarily paid for liberty'. O'Connell's response was devastating: 'We have paid the price, gentlemen, and the honest man refuses to give us the goods'. What made O'Connell's defence truly remarkable was how he transformed a hopeless legal case into a powerful platform for political reform. His bold claim: 'the Catholic cause is on its majestic march — its progress is rapid and obvious... We will, we must, be soon emancipated' is electrifying even now. What must it have sounded like in his voice, in that court, in that trial, in those times? His confidence in his legal position was equally striking. When Saurin threatened to crush the Catholic Board, O'Connell declared: 'I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject, I ought to know something; and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney General ... the Catholic Board is perfectly a legal assembly — that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law' Perhaps the most significant moment came not during the trial itself, but at the sentencing hearing on November 27, 1813. When Saurin attempted to use Magee's publication of O'Connell's defence speech as grounds for increasing Magee's sentence, O'Connell delivered what may be his most important statement on the role of the legal profession. In the face of personal threats of contempt and possible imprisonment following his denunciation of the Attorney General, O'Connell stood firm, delivering an impassioned defence of the importance of an independent Bar: 'It is the first interest of the public that the Bar shall be left free... the public are deeply interested in our independence; their properties, their lives, their honours, are entrusted to us; and if we, in whom such a guardianship is confided, be degraded, how can we afford protection to others?'. This was not merely professional self-interest, but a profound understanding of the Bar's constitutional role. In a system designed to exclude the majority from political participation, an independent legal profession became the last protection of individual rights. O'Connell grasped the fact that, without fearless advocates willing to challenge authority, the law would become merely an instrument of oppression. That is why, as the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, put it when addressing the O'Connell 250 Symposium in Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday last, The Bar of Ireland has always been rightly proud of the fact that O'Connell was such a distinguished member of the Bar. Two hundred years later, the existence of a fearless independent Bar, practising advocacy and giving legal advice to the highest professional standards, remains an essential guarantee of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. The many, often insidious, efforts that exist, whether prompted by powerful commercial, bureaucratic or political interests, to degrade or diminish the Bar are always, above all else, an attack on the rights of citizens and on the rule of law. O'Connell's performance in The King v. John Magee exemplifies the best traditions of forensic advocacy at The Bar of Ireland. Faced with a corrupt system, a biased tribunal, and impossible odds, he refused to bow his head or moderate his principles. Instead, he turned the forms and processes of an unjust and oppressive system against itself, using a political prosecution against dissenting speech as the means to condemn the oppressor and amplify the dissent. In an age when legal systems worldwide face challenges to their integrity and especially to the independence of barristers and advocates, O'Connell's example reminds us that the law's highest purpose is not merely to maintain order, but to secure justice. His defence of John Magee shows the difference a single barrister, armed with skill, courage, and unwavering principle, can make. Seán Guerin SC. Picture: Conor McCabe Photography. Seán Guerin SC is Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland
Irish Examiner
2 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: Obama's silence on Gaza makes Freedom of Dublin award deeply problematic
There's a long and noble Irish tradition of giving medals to people who don't need them. Mimicking our one-time oppressors, we're good at the pomp and pageantry, terrible at timing. And in this grand tradition of ceremonial sycophancy, we've now decided to give the Freedom of Dublin to Barack Obama — the same Barack Obama whose presidential legacy includes a kill list, expanded drone warfare, and now, more recently, a silence on Gaza so deafening it practically registers on the Richter scale. Now, before someone starts waving a Hope poster in my face and singing 'Is Feider Linn', let's be clear: this isn't a character assassination. Barack Obama is, by many accounts, charming, intelligent, a skilled orator, and less overtly monstrous than some who followed him. But if the bar for receiving Dublin's highest civic honour is simply 'better than Trump,' then let's all take turns. This isn't about left or right. It's about right and wrong. And giving Obama the keys to a city that prides itself on solidarity, social justice and neutrality — a city only a century since it's own liberation from colonisers, a city that once shut down its port in protest of apartheid — is a moral absurdity that would be funny if it weren't so grotesque. Let's talk about Gaza. Right now, we're witnessing an unquestionable genocide, one that even conservative estimates rank among the worst atrocities in recent memory. Tens of thousands dead. Children buried under rubble. Journalists and doctors targeted with impunity. And what's Obama's response? A few muted bromides about 'the complexity of the situation' and the usual plea for restraint — the kind of lukewarm platitude you'd expect from someone looking to protect a Netflix deal, not someone once hailed as the conscience of the free world. Remember, this is the same man who, while president, gave Israel the largest military aid package in US history — $38bn over ten years. The same man who watched as Gaza was pummelled in 2014, and then blocked efforts at the UN for accountability. In Obama's world, apparently, some lives matter more than others — and it's not the ones buried under the debris in Khan Younis So let's ask: What, exactly, are we honouring? Is it the weekly 'Terror Tuesday' meetings where he personally signed off on drone strikes — many of which killed civilians, including children, with such frequency that his administration had to redefine the word 'combatant' to keep the numbers palatable? Is it the Nobel Peace Prize he received before bombing seven countries? Or is it the charming eloquence with which he explained away extrajudicial assassinations and mass surveillance? Maybe it's the warm pint he had in Moneygall. Maybe that's enough. Maybe our foreign policy is so thin it can be blown over by a puff of Guinness foam. Obama's defenders, and there are many, will say: "He tried." They'll point to the Iran deal. They'll mention the thaw with Cuba. And fair enough — no presidency is black and white (though drone strikes absolutely are). But a Freedom of the City is not a footnote in a CV. It's a declaration of values. And at a time when Dublin has become a symbol — however small — of international moral conscience on Gaza, this award feels not just tone-deaf, but actively insulting It's worth asking how we'd feel if another country handed such an honour to, say, Tony Blair, citing his contribution to the peace process while politely ignoring Iraq. We'd scoff. We'd march. We'd write strongly-worded op-eds, the kind I'm doing now. And yet, because Obama quotes Seamus Heaney and has a smile that makes white liberals feel good about themselves, we're expected to ignore the trail of bodies left in his geopolitical wake. It's also galling because the Freedom of Dublin isn't just symbolic fluff — at least, it wasn't meant to be. It should be given to people like Nelson Mandela and John Hume — people whose lives were defined by their resistance to violence, not their management of it. To toss Obama into that company is like inviting Monsanto to an organic farming festival. Let's not pretend this is just a harmless bit of civic theatre. In a world as interconnected and morally muddled as ours, gestures matter. They signal what we stand for And giving Obama this award now — as children in Gaza die in silence, too exhausted to even scream — sends a very clear message: that brand is more important than behaviour, that the image of progress is more valuable than the practice of it. And to those in Dublin City Council who greenlit this award: shame on you. Not because Obama is uniquely evil — he's not — but because you should know better. You should know that real solidarity isn't measured in photo ops, but in principles. You should know that timing matters. Context matters. And right now, there's blood on the sand in Gaza, and silence in the White House archives. We don't need empty ceremonies. We need moral courage. And giving the Freedom of Dublin to Barack Obama is not an act of courage. It's an act of cowardice wrapped in a velvet sash.
Irish Examiner
3 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Trump's global tariff agenda puts Ireland's pharmaceutical industry at serious risk
The whole world is in thrall to the whims of Donald Trump's tariff agenda, as it has been since the 47th president of the United States' swearing-in last January. We've learned a few uncomfortable truths along the way. Much of the early outcry from America's allies and trading partners surrounded the lack of economic logic to the imposition of tariffs – which are effectively a tax for Americans on foreign products, in theory making them less attractive to US consumers and heightening the allure of their own domestic suppliers. Critics said that the new regime would disrupt the world economy needlessly and perhaps bring about a global recession. That may well come to pass. The problem is that in this stand-off America has the greater wherewithal in terms of raw economic power. It holds the cards as Trump himself might say. And nations worldwide are beginning to fall into line, the EU just the latest after agreeing to a blanket 15% tariff on goods and services going forward. After President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump agreed the trade deal, the spin is that the pain of those tariffs is worth it in order to avoid a global trade war. Also, 15% is better than 30% or worse, is the thinking. Photo:The spin is that the pain of those tariffs is worth it in order to avoid a global trade war. Also, 15% is better than 30% or worse, is the thinking. Whether that represents capitulation in the face of bullyboy tactics, given that little or nothing has been asked of the US in return, is a separate conversation. Ireland's pharmaceutical industry Here in Ireland we have a bigger problem though, and that problem is the pharmaceutical industry. That industry contributes massively to the economy here via billions of euro in corporation tax contributions, with about 90 companies employing 50,000 people in highly-paid roles. A total 30,000 of those jobs are with American firms. Should foreign pharmaceutical concerns exit Ireland the impact on the country would be catastrophic. The industry globally had pleaded with Trump for it to be exempted from any tariff regime, ostensibly for altruistic reasons – that lifesaving medicines shouldn't be subject to capricious taxation. At an EU level, the industry asked that the bloc not apply reciprocal tariffs, one wish that has at least been granted. Pfizer is one of the massive American pharmaceutical companies holding bases in Ireland, in this case Cork. File picture: Dan Linehan Oddly enough, in Trump's world of permanent grievance where everyone has been making a sucker of the United States for decades, the outsize presence the US pharmaceutical industry holds in Ireland is one situation on which he indisputably has a legitimate point. Drug prices in the US can retail for as much as five times what an EU citizen would pay. Meanwhile, American pharma firms make a pretty penny avoiding American tax by basing themselves here. Trump's protectionist agenda demands that those jobs and companies should return home. The Government has been worrying about and planning for a worst-case scenario in terms of tariffs on pharmaceuticals for months. Reaction from the pharma companies But what of the pharma industry itself? The official line from the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA), the industry's lobby group here, is that it is reviewing the announcements coming out of Washington as and when they happen 'as key implications for the pharmaceutical sector remain uncertain'. A stance it's hard to argue with given the whole world has grown used to the haphazard nature of the Trump administration's demands. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) notes that tariffs are 'a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact on investment in research and development, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic'. It added that if the goal is to rebalance trade and ensure a 'fairer distribution' of how pharmaceutical innovation is financed, then 'there are more effective means than tariffs that would help'. Impact on pharma in Ireland The IDA, the body with prime responsibility for attracting foreign investment to Irish shores, says of the pharma implications that it 'welcomes' the deal made between Europe and the US, arguing it provides 'much-needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world'. 'We are very much reliant (on the US market), there's no arguing with that,' says one industry insider. Last year a massive €44bn in pharmaceutical products were exported directly from Ireland to the US. 'But when you stand back €100bn was exported globally. So half went to America, but it's not like all business went there, though it is certainly the biggest partner,' says the source. That doesn't mean that those massive American companies holding bases here – MSD, Pfizer, ELI Lilly, Johnson and Johnson etc – are about to up sticks on the back of the new tariff regime. 'They are not going to leave today or tomorrow, no. But it could definitely impact future investment decisions,' the source says. One of the problems is that a great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the 15% tariff agreement, particularly with regard to pharma. One of the Eli Lilly production buildings at its state-of-the-art facility in Dunderrow, Kinsale, Co Cork. For starters, most people concerned thought that the pharmaceutical industry wasn't to be included in the deal. Then about two hours after the deal was agreed European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said it would be included, a point Trump appeared to back up. The following day the White House produced a 'fact sheet' describing how the new regime would work, and affirming the 15% rate for pharma. Except that the same sheet stated that the European Union would pay the tariff – which isn't how tariffs work. Then there is the Section 232 investigation which the US Department of Commerce initiated into the pharma industry in April – aiming to establish if how the pharmaceutical system worldwide currently functions impacts negatively on the US from a national security standpoint. Should the answer arrived at be a 'yes', then additional tariffs on pharma may well follow (such investigations typically take a minimum of six months to conclude, so we'll probably get an answer sometime towards the end of the year). 'Pharma plans in the long-term,' says Aidan Meagher, tax partner specialising in life sciences with consultants EY, noting that most pharma manufacturers will have been planning for this scenario for months and will have frontloaded stock into the American market, thus negating immediate impacts in the near term. He says that companies will be likely looking at 'dual sourcing' initiatives, supplying the American market from within the US itself and using Irish operations for its trade around the rest of the globe. 'Ireland needs to up its game' But Meagher says that it would be 'remiss' of Ireland, and the pharma industry here, to take a 'wait and see' approach, perhaps with the supposition that Trump's policies will last for the remaining three-and-a-half years of his term, and no longer. 'It is all about the next investment. A lot of these drugs only have patent protection for a certain life or longevity. Ireland needs to maintain investment and to incentivise the right kind of activity in terms of attracting that innovation,' he says. That means thinking outside the box in terms of tax credits for research and development, and improvements to infrastructure, particularly housing, Meagher says, areas in which we are notably lagging behind in terms of international competition. But he argues that the situation is far from a doomsday scenario. 'It's not as simple as that, it's a whole range of business factors that need to be considered – it's all about impacts for specific companies,' he says. 'It's not all necessarily doom and gloom. Companies have had plenty of time to consider this. And pharma companies are long-term thinkers. Ireland has had just two issues with the FDA (the US food and drug administration, responsible for approving new drugs) in its history. "The country has a strong reputation. These countries have invested significantly and Ireland is the owner of a lot of valuable intellectual property.' But it's certainly not a time to be complacent, Meagher argues. 'We have dropped down the competitiveness radar, and our competitors now aren't in the EU – they're in Switzerland, Singapore and the US itself. We need to be a top competitor for inward investment, and R&D and infrastructure will be critical. That is where Ireland needs to up its game.'
