All product development should be market-led and this remit now lies with Bord Bia. There is therefore a disjoint between what BIM and Bord Bia and duplication of roles. Furthemore, BIMs activities in the area of product development and innovation in the past has been non-existent and limited to a small amount of microbiologocal analysis at the Headquarters in Dublin. Their current interest in product development and innovation is a self-preservation attempt to ensure continued support for the new facility in Cloankilty. Value-added and innovation are words thrown around by many government agencies these days however in BIM’s case, they have no proven track record in this area and other agencies and third level institutions (e.g. UCC) have more expertise and dedicated programs in these areas.

Do the Greens now support duplication of services? I think the green values have been compromised by supporting this backwards initiative.

Some indeed have been engineered to provide greater pest resistance (i.e. incorporating ‘natural’ pesticide genes from other crops). They were the subject of a big fuss a while ago where some chap claimed that they could kill rats (i.e. the ‘natural’ pesticide treated humans as pests!), but I believe he was debunked to some degree.

A greater danger of them is perceived to be the effects they have on beneficial wildlife (bees in particular).

A particularly beneficial development was, I believe, the crossing of vitamin A producing genes from daffodils with rice? Or some such. A Swiss chap developed it to cope with vitamin A deficiency in Asia/Africa.

But as far as I am aware, much of what is developed is done so that broad spectrum pesticides and herbicides can be used. Monsanto make no bones about it:
http://www.asgrowanddekalb.com/web/
“The Most EXCLUSIVE Genetics and INCLUSIVE Risk Reduction Seed Choice. DEKALB® brand Genuity™ SmartStax™ combines the newest exclusive DEKALB DKC genetics and the most all-inclusive trait technology ever - all in one seed bag.”
“Spectrum

* The absolute broadest spectrum of above and below ground insect protection
* Roundup Ready® 2 Technology and Liberty Link® herbicide tolerance for broad spectrum weed control”

Actually I should correct myself, it is, I think, more herbicide, but less insecticide (the insecticide being generated internally in the plant).

I don’t consider myself anti-scientific in any way. I’m happy for human/animal genetic experimentation to take place, for example, but the thought of random effects in wild insect and plant populations gives me the willies!

It is not triffids I’m worried about, it is pesticide resistant insects, herbicide resistant weeds. The economic costs of buying differently engineered seed each year and the specific treatment that has to be applied to it to kill off the superbugs and superweeds. The same sort of thing we have seen develop over the last seventy years of feckless antibiotic usage.

Thanks for that considered and informed reply. I was under the impression that GM crops were more likely to be engineered so that they require fewer pesticides or pesticide in lower quantities (to save money).

In any case your outline as to the future seems very cogent.

Of course the fact that the US is not being plagued by giant Triffids and has been eating GM food for years will start to make EU protests look a bit thin.

Thanks for your considered post.

There appears to be a market for GM free food across Europe. In addition, there appears to be a move against GM food for economic reasons. This is along the lines that cheap imports of food may be GM contaminated and so should be labelled. Therefore GM-free gives european farmers an advantage in provision of components to agri-business. Put simply, it is a protectionist measure.

Finally, I’d see it linked in with the desired increase in horticulture and particularly organic. As far as I know, you can’t be certified organic if there is a GM crop grown within a certain distance. Given the fragmented nature of Irish farms (something NAMA might sort out ) the two are somewhat incompatible.

It is easier to say no now and yes later than vice-versa. I am reasonably sure that this will be the FF take on it! If I see a constitutional amendment, I will start to get worried, but until then it will be legislation that a simple majority can remove.

do not feed the troll. Eoin started as a person with a reasonable point of view that NAMA was a responsible soulution to the situation we were in becasue it provided for risk transfer, liquidity injection and capital provision to the banking system. As such it had the tacit support of the ECB/EU. It might work if it was combined with a fiscal strategy to put the Irish economy back on a growth path so underpinning value of the assets taken on. However, his writings have got more despairing as NAMA has evolved & he has resorted in time honoured FF fashion to playing the man and not the ball. Why is this the case-possibly because it is becoming increasingly obvious that the version of NAMA that is go down the slip way is bent out of shape in compairison with the original design
*we are overpaying for an even more toxic collection of assets
*public policy through taxing the collatoral and reducing the incomes of the property buying class will erode the value of the collatoral
*instead of true risk transfer, we have some cack handed subbies and levy at some indetermined time in the future-this will hurt the brains of anybody trying to figure out if the Irish banks are profitable
*We have no new regulatory framework
*we have no road map for recapping the banks.
In short we will end up with an undercapitalised banking system, dependent on ECB liquidity, with an unxceratin business model and no capacity to lend. The taxpayer will end up with a heap of overvalued dirt and a national debt that will strangle the private sector in this country for decades to come. I suspect that is why Eoin has to resort to the off the ball stuff.

“So remember that it’s easy to sling mud when you know that your own reputation isn’t at stake but think for a second whether you’d like these kind of accusation thrown at you in public.”

Point taken.

1. Correction of the public finances
We will take into account reports and existing aspirations. We will use GDP as a frame of reference (not a good idea given the GDP / GNP gap and its reasons)

2. Restoring our damaged banking system.

NAMA will help get credit flowing again….- no it won’t. Period.

3. Regaining competitiveness
‘The future of the economy lies in exports’. …..No it doesn’t. It lies in improved productivity and better marketable skills..and fiscal restraint and lower taxes….

4. ‘Protecting jobs and investing in retraining those who have lost jobs
The number of people in employment has fallen sharply and we must take all possible and sensible measures to protect and support existing jobs.’

Drivel.

If anything the Sunday is too kind to this nonsense.

Look I don’t know what your problem is.

1. Left of center Green party produces anti-enterprise, big-government plan, stuffed with token ideas to ‘help’ the economy.

2. People who don’t confuse press release boilerplate with real analysis say it’s bullshit…

…and suddenly we’re into ‘you hypocrite..’….. ‘don’ be nasty to the poor old Greens’……

Really. It brings my inner Alex (Clockwork Orange). One just wants to take a baseball bat to this document.

I don’t even care much about whether debate here is serious or not — I’m not going to delete comments because people are a having a joke nor do I worry about the usual personalised cut and thrust that goes on here all the time. But I simply don’t see why people need to frame their disagreements via accusing others of “prejudice” and “hypocrisy” and all that other stuff.

As a final point on this (not addressed at jc specifically) I would note that people might want to take into account that nobody knows who the anonymous commenters are but those of us who write posts here do so under our own name. So remember that it’s easy to sling mud when you know that your own reputation isn’t at stake but think for a second whether you’d like these kind of accusations thrown at you in public.

Some people respond to this by saying that you can’t expect to make statements in public and not have people respond, and to a point that’s fair enough. Clearly I adopt a very permissive approach to criticism here (as Eoin and others can agree to — I have never deleted or edited any of Eoin’s comments for example).

But that’s not the same thing as saying there is a public right to anonymously slander someone. And, for sure, one should not expect this same person to agree to publish this material.

Fair enough (and apologies for personalising the debate). If you want serious discussion, however, you have a responsibility to lead by example.

@ Paul McDonnell

Have you read the PfG or just the Sunday Independent??? The PfG states that “the public finances would need to be corrected by €4 billion in each of the next three years (2010, 2011 and 2012).” With regard to the tax raises - these moves are implementation of Commission on Taxation recommendations, and in line with principle of keeping labour taxes to a minimum and providing more stable tax base in future.

The claim that this post mocks transgendered people is patently ridiculous. I am not mocking rural pubs, films, or the Irish language either. The repeated attempts to personally attack me are unfair and it’s hard to view them as anything other than comments designed to damage someone that you view as an opponent to either your favourite political party or your favourite banking policy.

I’ll delete any further comments that engage in this kind of thing. And spare me whinging about clamping down on “free speech” — we’ve been over this many times. I’ve allowed all of your original disparaging comments to stand but these things need to have a limit.

The long list at the start of the post makes it clear that the document is largely a wish list of small initiatives designed to keep Green Party members happy. That’s the only point being made in the summary — no Eoin, it’s not about NAMA.

As for some notion that I have somehow radically changed my opinion of the Green Party because they voted for NAMA, Eoin I really have no idea what you’re talking about (note the post was written before the NAMA vote and I have believed all along that the Greens would vote for NAMA.) You don’t know me from Adam, so I’d appreciate laying off with the consistent accusations of hypocrisy and acting in bad faith.

I have clearly allowed you guys far too much freedom here and will be watching carefully. You can discuss the PFG and its various proposals but other stuff has to go.

Now that they’ve voted for NAMA, well sure we knew all along that they were f***ing insane organic gardeners and transgendered-minkophiliacs who couldn’t even get through a junior cert economics module without scratching their heads. They’re a danger to the entire political process to be sure.

The new found honesty shown in the wake of the Green’s decision is just as worthy of the political process as the Green’s input into the PfG is.

(Note: i obviously exempt Paul MacD from this, his virtiolic contempt for the Greens has been reasonably obvious from a while back)

Your mockery of a commitment to secure the rights of transgendered people is nothing other than disgusting. Whatever about your views on the Greens decision on NAMA, if you have nothing better then to denigrate the situation many transgendered people find themselves in, you should say nothing. I am genuinely disgusted.

I was looking for that Bushism.

you’ve clarified what you were trying to say. But i didn’t misquote you.

Your cynicism, possibly completely correct, meant that you never really cared what was going to be in the pfg, right? But that doesn’t make the Greens all of a sudden a bunch of whack jobs, or this thread any less about NAMA.

BL said:

“I could have cared less what would be in the PfG - it was clear to me that they would do what was needed to stay in power. Thats what political parties do.”

You did not even quote his full sentence, and context is everything.

I think we should not misunderestimate each other:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHy6IZcleic

i didn’t misquote you. Please don’t accuse me of such.

It’s just that people who understand the numbers and the moral hazard issues have their hands over their faces and they are murmuring - ‘No. Please. This is not like saving lesbian badgers. This is actually serious. Find some other example to prove how ‘economically realistic’ you are. But not this…’

As a self-appointed defender of the bond-holders in Irish banks you cannpt blame us tax-payers if we complain about being ripped off by you and the NAMA policies you support. My vested interest group is a tad larger than yours.

‘you’re missing the point, and by quite some distance. This thread isn’t really about the PfG, its about NAMA. Everything is now about NAMA. It now dictates how we view the sanity and competency of everyone involved in public life. Per most of the posts on this site:’

- It’s about the Greens sense of priority. NAMA for the left / Greens who support it etc.. is a way of faking ‘hard-headed’ realism. It checks that box which the Greens probably feel self-conscious about. The box that says ‘economically literate’. The Greens who support NAMA are like an illiterate / uncultured millionaire stuffing his library with great books to prove how clever he is.

You say - ‘Anti NAMA: all your policies are sane, coherent, and level headed.’

Pro-NAMA: cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.’

Yes. That’s right. And with evidence to prove it.

‘Give credit and bravery awards to the Greens Against NAMA (GAN), sure the rest of them were probably out back smoking hemp…’

Sure the Greens who opposed NAMA deserve lots of credit.

Are you complaining that the Greens in general are being dissed for what the majority have decided??

‘At no stage do i remember there even being a discussion about what the Greens would or would not look to put in the new PfG prior to the last couple of days, but now everyone wants to tell anyone who’s listening how batsh1t crazy the whole party is. Thats the whole point of this thread, and its 95% based on NAMA and about 5% or less on the PfG.’

The PfG as outlined is beneath contempt. Which part of the stupid, arrogant, feckless cocktail of government waste do you want us to discuss?

It’s no use telling us how ‘long’ they spent ‘thinking’ about it - or how ‘democratic’ was their process. NAMA is a virtual parody of everything they have spent their entire lives standing against.

The sad irony is that many on the left who support NAMA have built careers / identities out of attacking ‘corporate greed’. Almost always ‘corporate greed’ is an ideologically-driven figment of the leftist imagination. And on the one occasion when an exceptionally rare and huge example comes along, they choose not to see it for what it is but instead to label it ‘necessary and realistic’ - or some such.

In their endorsement of NAMA and the simultaneous promotion of their vacuous, gratuitous tokenist agenda, the Greens are like a paranoid schizophrenic who having decided that everyone is trying to kill them actually befriend the only person who really is trying to kill them.

You couldn’t make it up.

Joe’s got the copyright, but Enda has obviously licenced it.

“”As a result of the decision today by the Green Party, it is the Irish taxpayer who is going to be the victim of this “criminal” policy,” he said”

The whole point of this thread has been to discredit the Greens and the policies they have included in the PfG, not because of the policies themselves, but because they voted for NAMA. You said it yourself:

“I could have cared less what would be in the PfG”

At least your honest about it. Not so a lot of others on the thread.

you’re missing the point, and by quite some distance. This thread isn’t really about the PfG, its about NAMA. Everything is now about NAMA. It now dictates how we view the sanity and competency of everyone involved in public life. Per most of the posts on this site:

Anti NAMA: all your policies are sane, coherent, and level headed.

Pro-NAMA: cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

Give credit and bravery awards to the Greens Against NAMA (GAN), sure the rest of them were probably out back smoking hemp…

At no stage do i remember there even being a discussion about what the Greens would or would not look to put in the new PfG prior to the last couple of days, but now everyone wants to tell anyone who’s listening how batsh1t crazy the whole party is. Thats the whole point of this thread, and its 95% based on NAMA and about 5% or less on the PfG.

The Greens
They are not a party. They are a bunch of individuals! Think of defanged mink! Those involved will be punished electorally, but others who care for green things will come along and ensure that they get a vital seat or two.

Nama
Lobby the president! Dissolve the dail and if the new bunch are bought off, then lobby the President to refer to the Supreme Court.