Trump Culture has arrived in O Connell Street,

[Sister Sara]

That would open the proverbial Pandora's Box. A precedent would be established that any time any group doesn't like a taxation policy or wants their sector shielded from international price fluctuations they can hold a gun to the head of the public.

Not at all. All disputes are ended through meetings and negotiation.

If Hauliers can't make money then they need to increase their prices. If they haven't negotiated a fuel surcharge option then they are bad at running their business.

That's not possible or a reasonable outlook. Hauliers are in competition with each other. If their contracts functioned on fuel surcharges to mitigate rapid price increases then all that would occur is that some hauliers will forgoe the surcharge during stable times to become more competitive.
You quickly end up back where we are now.

Perhaps a statutory requirement to include a standard fuel surcharge in all contracts? Even during times of price stability? Then, I'm sure some would argue that they are ripping off retailers and the cost of doing business in Ireland is unnecessarily high.

 

[Purple]

Not at all. All disputes are ended through meetings and negotiation.

So are there never any riots or wars? I think there might be.

That's not possible or a reasonable outlook. Hauliers are in competition with each other. If their contracts functioned on fuel surcharges to mitigate rapid price increases then all that would occur is that some hauliers will forgoe the surcharge during stable times to become more competitive.

Yes, that's called competition. The competitive and well run Hauliers are still working. The inefficient and badly run ones are protesting.

The alternative to competition and market forces is a command economy. That ends up with economic collapse and starvation.

You quickly end up back where we are now.

No we wouldn't. The efficient Hauliers would expend their business to the market demand and the cost of the delivery of goods would not increase as much as it would if the State subsidised inefficient players.

Perhaps a statutory requirement to include a standard fuel surcharge in all contracts? Even during times of price stability?

What if they hedged instead? You are proposing that we legislate away innovation in the market. If they are not capable of anticipating changing market conditions then they shouldn't be in the market.

Then, I'm sure some would argue that they are ripping off retailers and the cost of doing business in Ireland is unnecessarily high.

That's exactly what the protesters want. They want other people to subsidise their business by shifting the taxation burden away from them and onto other people.

 

[Sister Sara]

So are there never any riots or wars?

Well, yes. So lets same 'most' disputes are resolved through dialogue and negotiation. Lets hope we don't veer down the road of riots or wars albeit I note the government has given notice to the Defence Forces.

The competitive and well run Hauliers are still working. The inefficient and badly run ones are protesting.

You don't have any real evidence of that. The size of the protests suggests a co-ordinated plan amongst a significant portion of transport workers. For other reports I heard they are being joined by more and more. To suggest its only 'inefficient' hauliers protesting is folly.

The efficient Hauliers would expend their business to the market demand and the cost of the delivery of goods would not increase as much as it would if the State subsidised inefficient players.

Yes, eventually, in time. But assuming for a moment that you are correct that it is only inefficent hauliers protesting and they should be replaced by efficient hauliers, how long do you think it will take for the efficient hauliers to take up the gap left by the inefficient hauliers who are now out of business? It would take months, maybe years.
In the meantime, that would push up the price of delivery of goods and invoke an inflationary spike on top of the fuel inflation.

You are proposing that we legislate away innovation in the market. If they are not capable of anticipating changing market conditions then they shouldn't be in the market.

I'm not proposing anything other than government should intervene to meet with the organisers in order to bring the protests to a swift end.

Its folly to suggest that all participants, in all industries, should be able at all times to anticipate changing market conditions. Particulary ones that are extreme as the war on Iran.
By that reasoning government should also anticipate market conditions and should have reduced the cost of fuel prior to the war.

 

[Leo]

Yeh but there are dozens of vehicles, if not hundreds, to move out of the way. I don't think it would be as straightforward as you are making out.

I'd imagine all they need to do is seize a couple of €100k tractors and you'll see the bandwagon shift pretty quickly.

 

[Purple]

Well, yes. So lets same 'most' disputes are resolved through dialogue and negotiation. Lets hope we don't veer down the road of riots or wars albeit I note the government has given notice to the Defence Forces.

Don't worry, our army doesn't "do" fighting.

You don't have any real evidence of that. The size of the protests suggests a co-ordinated plan amongst a significant portion of transport workers. For other reports I heard they are being joined by more and more. To suggest its only 'inefficient' hauliers protesting is folly.

We have no problem dealing with any of the reputable transport companies we us where I work.

Yes, eventually, in time. But assuming for a moment that you are correct that it is only inefficent hauliers protesting and they should be replaced by efficient hauliers, how long do you think it will take for the efficient hauliers to take up the gap left by the inefficient hauliers who are now out of business? It would take months, maybe years.

It will be faster and cheaper than any State attempt to interfere with the market.

In the meantime, that would push up the price of delivery of goods and invoke an inflationary spike on top of the fuel inflation.

Really? I think that's aa stretch.

I'm not proposing anything other than government should intervene to meet with the organisers in order to bring the protests to a swift end.

That would require capitulation and a shifting of the taxation burden away from commercial fuel and onto other areas of the economy. A subsidy by other means.

Its folly to suggest that all participants, in all industries, should be able at all times to anticipate changing market conditions. Particulary ones that are extreme as the war on Iran.

It certainly would. Who did such a suggestion?

By that reasoning government should also anticipate market conditions and should have reduced the cost of fuel prior to the war.

Why do you think one should follow the other?

The Government is not our Mammy and we are not small children. It is neither possible or desirable for the State to attempt to shield commercial sectors from international market conditions.

 

[Sister Sara]

I'd imagine all they need to do is seize a couple of €100k tractors and you'll see the bandwagon shift pretty quickly.

Possibly, hopefully. But I would fear that would move things towards greater confrontation.

 

[Purple]

But I would fear that would move things towards greater confrontation.

Like putting fuel on the fire?

 

[Itchy]

But I would fear that would move things towards greater confrontation.

Blockading Whitegate was the escalation.

 

[Sister Sara]

We have no problem dealing with any of the reputable transport companies we us where I work.

And?

It will be faster and cheaper than any State attempt to interfere with the market.

Thats debatable. I would disagree. Assuming in a stable functioning sector market participants are working to capacity or close to capacity. If inefficiencies cause some participants to leave the sector the capacity to take up the shortfall in services falls on those remaining in the sector.

100k tractors and lorries, and the personnel to drive them, takes time. Depending on how many of the ineffcient participants leave the sector will depend on how long it will take to absorb the shortfall in services they leave behind.

Really?

Yes, obviously so.

That would require capitulation and a shifting of the taxation burden away from commercial fuel and onto other areas of the economy. A subsidy by other means.

You are jumping ahead of yourself. Calling out to meet the organisers of this protest is one thing. Let them come forward and present their case. There is no assurance that their demands be met. Let the govt present its case to the protesters. If no agreement move to adjudication in WRC?

In the meantime, protests are ended and everyone gets back on with their business.

It is neither possible or desirable for the State to attempt to shield commercial sectors from international market conditions.

The State interferes in markets all the time. In times of uncertainty it is absolutely imperative that the State attempts to shield the economy from irregular market conditions. Covid, bank-bailout, Russian invasion of Ukraine, flood defences, food rations during WWII etc.

The govt has already attempted to shield the population by reducing excise tax on petrol/diesel.

 

[Sister Sara]

Like putting fuel on the fire?

Quite possibly.

Blockading Whitegate was the escalation.

I don't disagree. I have no issue with peaceful protest and if they wanted to do a daily one-hour go slow I don't think that would be unreasonable. They would be making their point but not trying to cripple the economy.

Again, however, the protestors have said that they will call off the protests if the government meets with them. From where I am standing it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that if the govt agree to meet with the organisers, the protests will end.

From there, the details of their grievances can be presented. If they are genuine and hold up to scrutiny I would have no issue with govt formulating a package to provide temporary financial assistance.
If their arguements do not stand up to scrutiny then the govt will know who they are and can prepare better, including arrests and other enforcement measures, in the event of a return to the protests.

The main thing is that they said they will call off the protests if the govt come and meet them - thats different to capitulating to their demands.

 

[Purple]

And?

And what?

Thats debatable. I would disagree. Assuming in a stable functioning sector market participants are working to capacity or close to capacity. If inefficiencies cause some participants to leave the sector the capacity to take up the shortfall in services falls on those remaining in the sector.


100k tractors and lorries, and the personnel to drive them, takes time. Depending on how many of the ineffcient participants leave the sector will depend on how long it will take to absorb the shortfall in services they leave behind.

The drivers and vehicles are still there. The business is liquidated, not the people and plant. They are employed and purchased by a better business and fill the capacity.

Yes, obviously so.

See my previous point.

You are jumping ahead of yourself. Calling out to meet the organisers of this protest is one thing. Let them come forward and present their case. There is no assurance that their demands be met. Let the govt present its case to the protesters. If no agreement move to adjudication in WRC?

The WRC had no function in this. It would be outrageous if the Government outsourced their essential function to rule to an unelected State body.

In the meantime, protests are ended and everyone gets back on with their business.

And then starts again when they don't get what they want.

The State interferes in markets all the time. In times of uncertainty it is absolutely imperative that the State attempts to shield the economy from irregular market conditions. Covid, bank-bailout, Russian invasion of Ukraine, flood defences, food rations during WWII etc.

Yep, but not in one part of one specific sector. We wouldn't bail out Irish Steel or any of the other non viable businesses that we used to prop up. That's a good thing.

I work in a manufacturing business. Our costs have increased significantly over the last few weeks and months. We trade internationally so we can't just put up our prices. It was quite obvious a few months ago that the current situation was likely to materialise. We acted accordingly.

We have no one to whinge to and no one to blackmail. We don't look for handouts or subsidies. We operate in a very competitive international market where our labour prices are very high and our location on a small island is a disadvantage. We plan and act accordingly. It's hard to listen to people in protected sectors of the economy and those with a captive market moan and complain instead of planning and investing in the medium term interests of their business.

The govt has already attempted to shield the population by reducing excise tax on petrol/diesel.

Yes, a stupid populist decision.

 

[Itchy]

I don't disagree. I have no issue with peaceful protest and if they wanted to do a daily one-hour go slow I don't think that would be unreasonable. They would be making their point but not trying to cripple the economy.

But they are trying to cripple the economy, so we cannot accept their bona fides.

Again, however, the protestors have said that they will call off the protests if the government meets with them. From where I am standing it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that if the govt agree to meet with the organisers, the protests will end.

You should listen to that rocket scientist as it is not as simple as that. Meet with who exactly? It's a disparate group. The main speakers are insisting they have no control of the other elements of the protest. There is no coherence or organisation of what they want or what they can do. Their demand for an unlimited liability on the State for fuel prices, that are going to remain elevated in medium term, is ludicrous.

I would also say that a meeting would validate this deeply, deeply cynical abuse of the democratic process and possibly set the precedent for future, similar action (remember, you may not be on the same side as the next group who choose to take similar action). I too have no problem with protest, but this is not that.

 

[Howth Head]

they seem to have gone down the far right pro-Trump rabbit hole

I'm not seeing this from the protesters - where is the "far-right rhetoric" or is that just a broad assumption? Are they waving anti-migrant banners and wearing MAGA hats? The Green/net-zero/anti-farmer agenda would't appeal to them for obvious reasons but that doesn't make them far-right. Even at that - what's so wrong with being right-leaning on a range of issues? Our political, NGO and media landscape is top-heavy with cultural and economic socialism - some of it quite extreme.

As far as I'm aware a lot of these hauliers, private bus operators and farmers etc would be self-employed or small firms and not natural socialists or union members. Which is presumably why the likes of Paul Murphy wasn't exactly given a hero's welcome. (Perhaps they should wave a few Palestinian and Cuban flags and the left-wing parties would be lining up to bat for them.)

This protest has more in common with the Yellow Vest movement in France from a decade or so ago - which drew support from across the political spectrum.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Crazy b's. The government should threaten to blast them back to the plough and horse and cart age.

 

[odyssey06]

I'm not seeing this from the protesters - where is the "far-right rhetoric"

A far right councillor from Kildare was addressing them on the first day and started ranting about IPAS.~
At one point actually said... forget about Iran.
It was all over the FB pages organising it.
You think the likes of Eddie Hobbs are there just about fuel?

 

[Purple]

I'm not seeing this from the protesters - where is the "far-right rhetoric" or is that just a broad assumption? Are they waving anti-migrant banners and wearing MAGA hats? The Green/net-zero/anti-farmer agenda would't appeal to them for obvious reasons but that doesn't make them far-right. Even at that - what's so wrong with being right-leaning on a range of issues? Our political, NGO and media landscape is top-heavy with cultural and economic socialism - some of it quite extreme.

There is a tendency in the Irish media to refer to any group or protest that is not left wing as right wing when in fact they may be just protesting about a specific issue. That said I have seen the usual crowd of muppets waving Irish tricolours at the protests. That, unfortunately, is indicative of an anti-immigrant/racist cohort. Their presence, and the acceptance of their presence by the other protesters, automatically disqualifies them all from my support or even sympathy.

This protest has more in common with the Yellow Vest movement in France from a decade or so ago - which drew support from across the political spectrum.

The yellow vest protest were a populist-left wing movement. They wanted a reintroduction of Frances wealth tax (not something that any populist left wing party here supports) as well as fuel subsidies and tax cuts on low and middle earners. We don't tax low earners and hardly tax middle income earners so not much scope for that here.

Remember that Hauliers and bus operators already get a rebate of 12 cents per litre and farmers use green diesel which costs around €1.60 a litre.

 

[Sister Sara]

Meet with who exactly? It's a disparate group. The main speakers are insisting they have no control of the other elements of the protest.

This is fair point. But also works into my point to call out the leaders to meet with government. Find out who they are, what they want.

If their arguement stands up to scrutiny then I'd take no issue with temporary measures to relieve the financial burden. If their arguements do not stand up to scrutiny, then at least the State will know who to hold to account the next time they try this full-on protest.

In the meantime, while govt meets with the organizers of this protest the protest is called-off . This is the most immediate imperative.

I would also say that a meeting would validate this deeply, deeply cynical abuse of the democratic process and possibly set the precedent for future

Meeting with protest groups is not setting a precedent to anything. Agreeing to their demands outside of the democratic process would be - we are long way from that. Either way, this is secondary to the most immediate imperative - to call-off the protest.

 

[Sister Sara]

The drivers and vehicles are still there. The business is liquidated, not the people and plant. They are employed and purchased by a better business and fill the capacity.

If you were talking about 1 tractor or lorry, I'd agree with you. But there appears to be hundreds, if not thousands of vehicles participating in this protest. All of whom are inefficient, according to you.

How long would the liquidation of all these assets take and the purchases by a 'better' business - should they be inclined to step-in, take? Let alone the logistics of taking up a new market share, customer base, etc.

And what?

I work in a manufacturing business. Our costs have increased significantly over the last few weeks and months. We trade internationally so we can't just put up our prices

And comparing apples and oranges.

It was quite obvious a few months ago that the current situation was likely to materialise.

No it wasn't. Thats why oil price fluctuations a few months ago were stable. The idea that sole-traders who may be operating one-tractor, one-lorry, earning an industrial wage should be clued into the implications of geo-political negotiations of the Iranian nuclear program, or was it the regime-change?, is simply not realistic.

 

[Firefly]

Anyone see any trojan horses in "galway"???

 

[cremeegg]

I think this is the most mean spirited protest we have seen in Ireland in my memory. These really are contemptible people.

They seem to think that the government should insulate them from the consequences of a war half the world away. They really are like spiteful children, if you won't subsidise my fuel I will stop anyone from driving.

The government should re-consider the green diesel subsidy in the light of this protest.