Luke Ming Flanagan: Irish budget cut 'totally and utterly wrong'
Luke Ming Flanagan MEP responds to the EESC opinion presented by Joe Healey, criticising EU budget reductions and the defence of historic area-based payments. He warns that real-terms cuts amount to nearly a 70% reduction for Ireland since 1991 and says this will harm farmers and the wider rural economy.
Main criticism: Flanagan says the committee and the European Court of Auditors are right to flag problems, but he condemns the scale of the real-terms budget cut. He emphasises that in Irish terms the reduction since 1991 is almost 70%, a change he calls "totally and utterly wrong."
Impact on rural communities: The MEP stresses that cuts to the budget do not only affect farmers. He points out that rural economies depend on that money circulating - from mechanics to hairdressers - and that a major reduction will hit all those who live and work in rural areas.
Pillar 2 and degressivity: Flanagan concurs with criticism of removing Pillar 2, and questions an EESC warning in paragraph 1.16 that degressivity of area-based payments will erode incomes. He argues current payments reflect activity from 25 years ago and queries whether defending those payments supports young farmers today.
Generational renewal question: Flanagan highlights the generational issue explicitly: many prospective new entrants to farming were not even born when these payments were set. He asks the EESC to explain how protecting legacy payments helps bring young people into farming and secure the sector's future.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thanks very much to the EESC for their opinion and for Joe Healey to come in here and present it. I would agree with an awful lot of what's in the report, an awful lot of the criticisms you make have been made here at the committee, they've been made by the European Court of Auditors. Without doubt it is disappointing to say the least, totally and utterly wrong that the budget in real terms is being cut and in Irish terms since 1991 we're looking at nearly a 70% cut in the budget. For me, my audience here wouldn't just be farmers, it would be people who have never been involved in farming, who live in rural areas, who basically get this money second hand when the farmers spend it and it goes around in the local economy. So for me this massive reduction in budget is a massive reduction for all rural areas, whether that be farmers, whether that be mechanics, hairdressers or anyone who lives in rural areas. I would agree with what you're saying in relation to getting rid of Pillar 2 and to me that just doesn't make any sense. One area where I would question your opinion is on 1.16 where you warned that degressivity of area-based payments will erode farm incomes and undermine the viability of existing farms. These payments that we're talking about applying degressivity to were based on activity of a quarter of a century ago. A quarter of a century ago, many of the people who are now trying to get into farming haven't even been born. So I'm just wondering how 1.16 supports young farmers because you also mentioned young farmers and I'd agree we need young farmers because we will not have a future in farming without it. But if we protect payments that were based on what someone was doing a quarter, a century ago, when people like Donald Trump were staring in Home Alone, it's a pity he didn't bloody well stay there, we cannot make decisions on what happened 25 years ago. Can you explain to me how you support generational renewal if you try to defend payments that were decided on what we did a quarter, a century ago? It doesn't make sense to me. Thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
