Should Alan Shatter resign?

efb

Following the defeat of the referendum on oirearachtas enquiries should Alan shatter resign as Minister for Justice?

MrStuffins

No, just because his surname is hilarious!

granturismo

No, it was a referendum not an election.

unit 1

efb wrote: »

Following the defeat of the referendum on oirearachtas enquiries should Alan shatter resign as Minister for Justice?

No, he asked the electorate for their approval for THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION and they declined his offer. The result is not a reflection of him as he was not the subject of the vote. No doubt many closet FFers will say he should but then their opinion ( other than lip service ) does not count, becaust when they were the subject of the vote ie the GE they were rejected.
The governmet of the day make many decisions with our approval because we elect them to do so, and many without our approval because nobody can predict what may arise into the term of office, but the power to decide on these issues arises from the vote that elects them. The occasional rejection of a referendum is not a resigning matter, as his role as minister is actually a gift of the taoiseach.

johnnyskeleton

No.

Although he was definately pushing it, it was voted on by the whole oireachtas.

Equally, the judicial independence referendum passed with a significant majority so that is perhaps a vindication of sorts.

However, his attitude and reactions will presumably reduce his popularity.

sparkling sea

I really thought he would push for the Childrens Referendum - so I am wondering whats happening with him at all.

None of our politicans were particularly interested in informing us about the recent referenda - thats scary but I'm not sure its Alan Shatter fault - who do you think should replace him? Would the replacemnt be any better because its a pointless exercise if they are not equally as good/or better then Shatter

Xenophile

He has not brought people with him and is too much of a magnet for controversy. He should ask to be moved from Justice and accept a lower profile role with a lot less responsibility.:o

Manach

No but ... he had an excellent reputation on justice going into the job having written a well regarded family law textbook. It might give the Lab/FG pause before they introduce any more ill-concievced changes.
Though I'd like to know if the cost of this failed referendum outweights savings made for the passed one.

jonniebgood1

efb wrote: »

Following the defeat of the referendum on oirearachtas enquiries should Alan shatter resign as Minister for Justice?

I think he has the correct attitude and profile for his position.

expectationlost

it was brendan howlins brief

Manach

Mr Howlin reckons we might try it again?
"
[sic] has suggested in an interview at Dublin Castle that a ‘No’ vote for the Oireachtas Committee Constitutional amendment won’t be the end of it.
"
link

positron

Alan Shatter has done some really good stuff already, and purely based on his performance so far, I think he is very good.

jimmycrackcorm

So, basically the point is, if the government give us the rare chance to vote on a question and we disagree with their suggestion, someone should be fired?

Did I miss an episode of The Apprentice this week?

jimmycrackcorm

Manach wrote: »

Mr Howlin reckons we might try it again?
"
[sic] has suggested in an interview at Dublin Castle that a ‘No’ vote for the Oireachtas Committee Constitutional amendment won’t be the end of it.
"
link

The wording was pretty bad for starters - something has to be done to prevent us spending hundreds of millions on tribunals so it's critical to get something right.

cyberhog

Manach wrote: »

Mr Howlin reckons we might try it again?
"
[sic] has suggested in an interview at Dublin Castle that a ‘No’ vote for the Oireachtas Committee Constitutional amendment won’t be the end of it.
"
link

Kenny says the Government accepts the people's decision.

"the Constitution is something that belongs to the people and we acknowledge and accept the people's democratic decision."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1029/referendum.html

mistermouse

If the message gets through that we don't trust politicians, overall its a good day

Having said that they will still be incompetent, we just stopped a little incompetency and gave them a bloody nose.

Roll on the next referendum on EU issues, they'd better have something better to offer

henryporter

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The wording was pretty bad for starters - something has to be done to prevent us spending hundreds of millions on tribunals so it's critical to get something right.

So the million or so average punters actually understand the wording that's put in front of them, or they understand the 'Yes' or 'No' sides interpretations of the wording?

Bosco boy

Shatter and Co tried to railroad their own personal amendment on the people and push it through quiclkly. Not exactly a great start for a government seeking judical like powers for themselves and expecting us to trust them. The arrogance of howlin and shatter in the debate was worrying and proof that the seperation of powers needs to be kept so one side can keep the other in check with the result that joe publics rights are upheld! It's not a resigning matter but his ministery is damaged and also his relationship with the judicary.

CDfm

Alan Shatter should always resign for being Alan Shatter.


Didnt he have a nice family law business from his legislative legacy in government and in private members bills.

anymore

efb wrote: »

Following the defeat of the referendum on oirearachtas enquiries should Alan shatter resign as Minister for Justice?

Who resigned after the failure of Lisbon 1 ?

thebman

I hate the man because I think he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut about issues a minister for justice shouldn't be talking about but he shouldn't resign over this.

Though I imagine if there is a re-shuffle of the cabinet mid term he will be moved.

Preserved Killick

He will do a lot of damage before he is removed, hopefully to the back-benches..

hallelujajordan

No, he certainly should not resign on foot of a referendum defeat. What a ludicrous suggestion !

efb

I def think he'll be shuffled off the cabinet table- Flanagan as Minister for Justice

tayto lover

I have found both Shatter and Howlin to be arrogant and condescending throughout the Referendum debates. I went off them big-time.

walrusgumble

sparkling sea wrote: »

I really thought he would push for the Childrens Referendum - so I am wondering whats happening with him at all.

None of our politicans were particularly interested in informing us about the recent referenda - thats scary but I'm not sure its Alan Shatter fault - who do you think should replace him? Would the replacemnt be any better because its a pointless exercise if they are not equally as good/or better then Shatter

good reason that the child amendment was not pushed.them 2008 amendment bill is useless and did not go far enough,it retained the status quo on certain issues. the recent proposed amendment is far better,but won't guarantee certain success.expect a dirty campaign, sadly.he is pushing it,but he is the best man for the job,especially that referendum

walrusgumble

Manach wrote: »

Mr Howlin reckons we might try it again?
"
[sic] has suggested in an interview at Dublin Castle that a ?No? vote for the Oireachtas Committee Constitutional amendment won?t be the end of it.
"
link

get rid of the unnecessary paragraphs and it will pass

Bullseye1

When have politicians ever resigned in this country? And why should they, when Willie O'Dea gets re-elected. Whatever you might think of British policitans at least they resign.

CDfm

tayto lover wrote: »

I have found both Shatter and Howlin to be arrogant and condescending throughout the Referendum debates. I went off them big-time.

Howlin has always been affable before.

tayto lover

CDfm wrote: »

Howlin has always been affable before.

He likes to get things his own way though. Couldn't believe his bad manners on Prime Time. Heard he had to apologise too.

walrusgumble

henryporter wrote: »

So the million or so average punters actually understand the wording that's put in front of them, or they understand the 'Yes' or 'No' sides interpretations of the wording?

are you suggesting that people are incapable of not knowing the role of the courts and parliament and basic fair procedures? law is not the mysterious subject some people preceive it.much of the relevant cases can be viewed on free websites.books can be got in most decent public libraries.literature was available on the amendment.the wording was attached to the voting cards. if people were in doubt they just don't bother to read or inform themselves or ask questions.granted people have busy lives.if a large portion are willing to watch soaps about "real life" or act if sports is more than life n death surely they can take some time out to study their constitution,something that really matters

Bullseye1

People are getting fed up of policitans interfering with our every day lives. This was just another avenue for them to interfere.

walrusgumble

Bosco boy wrote: »

Shatter and Co tried to railroad their own personal amendment on the people and push it through quiclkly. Not exactly a great start for a government seeking judical like powers for themselves and expecting us to trust them. The arrogance of howlin and shatter in the debate was worrying and proof that the seperation of powers needs to be kept so one side can keep the other in check with the result that joe publics rights are upheld! It's not a resigning matter but his ministery is damaged and also his relationship with the judicary.

its more worrying that the opposition did not protest. they read the mood of the people wrongly. they geuinely thought that people would approve as a matter of course

walrusgumble

CDfm wrote: »

Alan Shatter should always resign for being Alan Shatter.


Didnt he have a nice family law business from his legislative legacy in government and in private members bills.

what a relavation!a talented lawyer becomes and TD and while a TD does something rare,get a bill while in opposition through,thereby dragging Ireland into the 21st century. Whatever next? Looses seat and returns to his profession and achieves success,as if he was the only former TD to do so. Oh the cheek. I have a long term dislike for the man and his politics in many areas but what the hell is your point? and how is it relevant and fair?

walrusgumble

Preserved Killick wrote: »

He will do a lot of damage before he is removed, hopefully to the back-benches..

Lets just be glad he is not in Foreign Affairs,though I would not be surprised that he had a hand in a u turn of Gilmore's long held support on recognition on Palestine. Lets also hope that he does not put our troops in the Lebanon into avoidable trouble as defence Minister. If Enda is politically safe Shatter might be reshuffled,que sulking and threatening to step down at next election.but if enda is i trouble he will need Shatters support.In return Shatter will remain in the front benches

CDfm

walrusgumble wrote: »

what a relavation!a talented lawyer becomes and TD and while a TD does something r....... I have a long term dislike for the man and his politics in many areas but what the hell is your point? and how is it relevant and fair?

He is the architect of a whole bunch of family law which gets abused because it lacks basic safeguards for guys but adopted gender bias and blindness. He has been that influential that in oppostion he has sponsored legislation and had proposals amended his way. He also writes the legal text books used.



He is bright and the laws etc could be good laws and the constitition could be updated so everyone gets a fair shake.

This meant he alligned himself with the more extreme elements of feminism movement as other politicians have done. There is a reason for that and it is good PR and can translates to votes.

IMO laws should be fundamentally gender and orientation free & friendly but that is not what we have gotten from the country's most sucessful family lawyer(His legal partnership can charge 1,000 euro per hour and is one of the Irelands largest family law practices). His bias comes up again and again

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/shatters-bill-to-prevent-disclosure-of-legal-fee-disputes-in-family-law-cases-59364.html

So I reckon he has a bunch of vested interest and conflict of interest issues which have been translated into bad laws.

The basics and the fundamentals should be simple , but they are not, either in terms of the laws themselves or their administration.

When I see Shatter he personifies that for me all the vested interest group and backroom politics.We are a small country and irish people are by and large a tolerant and practical people who would accept good laws 'cept he has not delivered them.

Those are my reason's

Rant over.

EDIT

So whats that to do with loosing the referendum.

Its very simple, we the people do not trust him enough to give him and others in government those powers and we are not confident enough in them that with the powers they wont be abused.

Even if the referendum had passed by the margin it lost by still circa 50% of people do not have that trust.

I do not have confidence they/he will handle my rights equally, lgbt people dont have that confidence, and a host of others so we do not have confidence those powers would be used fairly.

Howlin and Shatter are off the mark by a country mile.

walrusgumble

CDfm wrote: »

He is the architect of a whole bunch of family law which gets abused because it lacks basic safeguards for guys but adopted gender bias and blindness. He has been that influential that in oppostion he has sponsored legislation and had proposals amended his way. He also writes the legal text books used.



He is bright and the laws etc could be good laws and the constitition could be updated so everyone gets a fair shake.

This meant he alligned himself with the more extreme elements of feminism movement as other politicians have done. There is a reason for that and it is good PR and can translates to votes.

IMO laws should be fundamentally gender and orientation free & friendly but that is not what we have gotten from the country's most sucessful family lawyer(His legal partnership can charge 1,000 euro per hour and is one of the Irelands largest family law practices). His bias comes up again and again

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/shatters-bill-to-prevent-disclosure-of-legal-fee-disputes-in-family-law-cases-59364.html

So I reckon he has a bunch of vested interest and conflict of interest issues which have been translated into bad laws.

The basics and the fundamentals should be simple , but they are not, either in terms of the laws themselves or their administration.

When I see Shatter he personifies that for me all the vested interest group and backroom politics.We are a small country and irish people are by and large a tolerant and practical people who would accept good laws 'cept he has not delivered them.

Those are my reason's

Rant over.

EDIT

So whats that to do with loosing the referendum.

Its very simple, we the people do not trust him enough to give him and others in government those powers and we are not confident enough in them that with the powers they wont be abused.

Even if the referendum had passed by the margin it lost by still circa 50% of people do not have that trust.

I do not have confidence they/he will handle my rights equally, lgbt people dont have that confidence, and a host of others so we do not have confidence those powers would be used fairly.

Howlin and Shatter are off the mark by a country mile.

1. You clearly are at lost as to how politics work and more importantly the previous attitudes to family law in Ireland. Go and read the Constitution Review Group Report of 1996 and the Ten Progress Report on Family by the All Party Oireachtas Group of 2006. The latter gives you an example of the strong support for the status quo, but a realization that things need to be changed. Shatter could not be accused of being in this camp and has complained bitterly regarding the current laws.

2. Shatter, in his 20-30 years in opposition has being very vocal in these areas. It is only in 2011 that he is in a position to address them. He still has to act within the Confines of the Constitution. I would weight to see how he goes in the Children's referendum before judging him.

3. Bit dis indigenous to think that he aligned himself with "extreme" feminists simply for votes. How do you know, what do you know about his genuine views, his views as a student. Have you ever read his articles? His book won't indicate it because its mostly a statement of law. Feminists? You would swear that men are totally not effected. You don't go sticking your head out of a window for it to be chopped off so easily (ie any family law issue tends to be very controversial and dirty, look at divorce referendum, father's rights)

4 As for his firm, that is pathetic. He has a partner too ya know. People are free to shop around to other solicitors. What numpty thinks, just because its family law, solicitors should not be paid, or paid as per their worth? Some funny man purporting to be a solicitor claimed that they "have no soul". A funeral undertaker charges for his fees, does he have no soul either? In many cases (not all) you deal with extensive property etc in divorce, that takes alot of time and work. I have heard a few comments like this. Its as if they are coming from very unhappy former clients who prefer to blame their lawyer than accept that their case was not as strong as they thought. This ain't rate your solicitors.com you know. Shatter never claimed to be a "man of the people" / or "worker".

5. You could have made your point without referring to Shatter. This was not his brief. Your making suggestions of self interest and conflict of interests where this brief does not concern Shatter but Howlin. Its too early to discuss that view, wait until a referendum that concerns Shatter. I would put it to you that the child amendment would provide more work for lawyers anyway.

6. What have the LGBT got to do with this?. The Government would only bring issues of public importance before Parliament Committee. Ie when law has being alleged to be broken, or serious crisis occurred. LGBT need to be more concerned about the views of the people rather than politicians. Many ****ed on about Norris be a President and how the polls said XYZ, yet when it came to the real poll, he was no where to be seen. but, yeah, the politicians can't be trusted

expectationlost

efb wrote: »

I def think he'll be shuffled off the cabinet table- Flanagan as Minister for Justice

flanagan considering how he's acted recently? more petulant and far more uninformed then shatter

CDfm

walrusgumble wrote: »

2. Shatter, in his 20-30 years in opposition has being very vocal in these areas. It is only in 2011 that he is in a position to address them. He still has to act within the Confines of the Constitution. I would weight to see how he goes in the Children's referendum before judging him.

He has been a TD how long ?

And I seem to remember on their old website his firm made a huge point about his pre-eminence in the Dail on family law. and actually cut and pasted it somewhere on boards.

I shall hope he will handle it fairly but will remain relativellly unexcited about it.

6. What have the LGBT got to do with this?.

Thats encapsulate my point on party politics -we are citizens and not interest groups and their rights matter to me and I would hope mine to them.

If he is going tidying up the constitution lets do it for all.

Zubeneschamali

walrusgumble wrote: »

its more worrying that the opposition did not protest.

What opposition? We've got FF, a dead party walking, and SF, who are just SF.

There is no opposition.

tayto lover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What opposition? We've got FF, a dead party walking, and SF, who are just SF.

There is no opposition.

Yes. Just like when F.F. were in power the opposition was made up of Trappist monks.

walrusgumble

CDfm wrote: »

He has been a TD how long ?

And I seem to remember on their old website his firm made a huge point about his pre-eminence in the Dail on family law. and actually cut and pasted it somewhere on boards.

I shall hope he will handle it fairly but will remain relativellly unexcited about it.



Thats encapsulate my point on party politics -we are citizens and not interest groups and their rights matter to me and I would hope mine to them.

If he is going tidying up the constitution lets do it for all.

First Elected in 1981ish. Sure Enda Kenny was in longer and only got the Tourism Ministerial ship for that short period in the 1990's. Shatter has achieved substantially as a member of the opposition. He has lost his seat at least once, and regained it - SOuth Dublin is a very unforgiving Constituency and one of the most competitive for middle of the road Ireland.

He has been heavily involved in family laws. There are not that many, but the most recent ones in the last 2 decades, he more or less had a hand in them, Separation and Divorce.


Do it for all, what do you mean. The notion that people vote for the benefit for all, is kind of naive. Very few do, lets be honest, we vote to make sure our turf is sound. You mentioned LGB, so please clarify what you real purpose was for making the comments that you did.

I sense that you do not actually know what both the 2008 amendment bill or the recent proposed amendment (2011) says. You can find it on the internet. As a Minister, he does not have to be fair, but at least honest, when debating the issue. Fairness is a matter for the Referendum Commissioner. A Government Minister can fully support an Amendment and a party can pay for ads etc , so long as its not tax payers money as per McKenna (All parties distort the truth by using that case as reason for its lack of presence in Referendums, yet have no qualms squandering money for elections - nice to see where their priorities are). Looking forward to the Lunatic Right coming out of their shells, and the idiots from the left taking man and not ball by blaming the Church for this, ignoring the lay persons role (ie need for Child Rights)

walrusgumble

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What opposition? We've got FF, a dead party walking, and SF, who are just SF.

There is no opposition.

Dead party walking? Sadly, I put it to you that this is wishful thinking.

Independents have some vocal people as too some in SF.

CDfm

walrusgumble wrote: »

He has been heavily involved in family laws. There are not that many, but the most recent ones in the last 2 decades, he more or less had a hand in them, Separation and Divorce.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

You mentioned LGB, so please clarify what you real purpose was for making the comments that you did.

Oh that old thing. I believe in equal rights for all .

Do it for all, what do you mean. The notion that people vote for the benefit for all, is kind of naive. Very few do, lets be honest, we vote to make sure our turf is sound. You mentioned LGB, so please clarify what you real purpose was for making the comments that you did.

I sense that you do not actually know what both the 2008 amendment bill or the recent proposed amendment (2011) says. You can find it on the internet. As a Minister, he does not have to be fair, but at least honest, when debating the issue. Fairness is a matter for the Referendum Commissioner.

I sort of believe in the common good thing too and the constitution is supposed to be about rights for the people and he is supposed to protect those for all the people and not just the ones he likes.

Could it be that people voted no for that reason ?

Have the coallition published a draft of the legislation they intended from the referendum if passed. Have they said who they wanted to question and why the current rules are inadequete ?

I do not think they have ?

jmayo

walrusgumble wrote: »

what a relavation!a talented lawyer becomes and TD and while a TD does something rare,get a bill while in opposition through,thereby dragging Ireland into the 21st century. Whatever next? Looses seat and returns to his profession and achieves success,as if he was the only former TD to do so. Oh the cheek. I have a long term dislike for the man and his politics in many areas but what the hell is your point? and how is it relevant and fair?

The thing to watch is the legal reform bill coming down the tracks.
Watch the whole legal profession claim that this bill will infringe on the rights of the citizens, what with it's proposals that the legal professions fees aren't just set and monitored by their old buddy the taxing master.
The legal profession do not like Shatter and that in my book means he is doing something right and long may he continue.

At least Shatter appears to be trying to take on his old profession rather than line their pockets.
Noticable how one of the few big contributions that supposed fine legal professional mcdowell made while in office was try and bring in a cafe culture.

No matter what anyone says we need our parliament to have the ability to bring individuals in front of it to answer questions.
After all the DPP, Office of Corporate enforcement, An Gardaí, Companies Office have all been investigating for the last few years the goings on at Anglo and INBS and nobody has been offically charged never mind been brought to trial as of yet.

Wasn't it nice to see our nearest neighbours parliament, who are scoffed at most of the time around here, dragging the very powerful murdochs in front of an enquiry to answer questions about the bugging scandal.
Can that happen here, probably not because they would be lawyered up and be down the High court finding reasons not to appear.

As for the OPs question ...
Well why didn't the entire ff party resign, seen the mess they made of our economy and the fact that they sold out our soverignty ?
You see we can all ask these questions.

walrusgumble

CDfm wrote: »

Thank you for acknowledging that.




Oh that old thing. I believe in equal rights for all .


I sort of believe in the common good thing too and the constitution is supposed to be about rights for the people and he is supposed to protect those for all the people and not just the ones he likes.

Could it be that people voted no for that reason ?

Have the coallition published a draft of the legislation they intended from the referendum if passed. Have they said who they wanted to question and why the current rules are inadequete ?

I do not think they have ?

Sorry, at that point I was referring to the Child Amendment, in response to your comment.

As for equality for all, that depends ulitmately on the majority of citizens view of what is to be equality and reasons to say yes or no, and why people are treated differently. There is no such thing as absolute equality. (That is in no way to indicate the rights or wrongs of treatment of the gay community) Either way, that issue is entirely irrelevant here.


With regard to the recent referendums, they did bring out a draft of the legislation on Oireachtas, a link was put up by a few poster including me on other threads. I agree with you on that, I was extremely opposed to it my self.

walrusgumble

jmayo wrote: »

The thing to watch is the legal reform bill coming down the tracks.
Watch the whole legal profession claim that this bill will infringe on the rights of the citizens, what with it's proposals that the legal professions fees aren't just set and monitored by their old buddy the taxing master.
The legal profession do not like Shatter and that in my book means he is doing something right and long may he continue.

At least Shatter appears to be trying to take on his old profession rather than line their pockets.
Noticable how one of the few big contributions that supposed fine legal professional mcdowell made while in office was try and bring in a cafe culture.

No matter what anyone says we need our parliament to have the ability to bring individuals in front of it to answer questions.
After all the DPP, Office of Corporate enforcement, An Gardaí, Companies Office have all been investigating for the last few years the goings on at Anglo and INBS and nobody has been offically charged never mind been brought to trial as of yet.

Wasn't it nice to see our nearest neighbours parliament, who are scoffed at most of the time around here, dragging the very powerful murdochs in front of an enquiry to answer questions about the bugging scandal.
Can that happen here, probably not because they would be lawyered up and be down the High court finding reasons not to appear.

As for the OPs question ...
Well why didn't the entire ff party resign, seen the mess they made of our economy and the fact that they sold out our soverignty ?
You see we can all ask these questions.

I heard very few people say, they they oppose the idea or principal that Parliament be allowed to have inquiries. The opposition complained about the wording and the insertion of one paragraph in the amendment bill. That went completely over the politicians head, and if that was the case, its no wonder why their reactions made the opponents even more exercised in ensuring that it was defeated. People don't even bother to listen, yet have no qualms with looking stupid in trying to dissect what was actually said.

The days of Lawyers, both Solicitor and Barrister, thinking they are the untouched industry are over, and I welcome that. Some think that the law is a mystery for which only they have the key to decipher, and some, I believe are more interested in the money (whatever is left in light of so many entering the profession) and the status it brings - Dermott Aherne's excuse for becoming a solicitor was because he would have less years to study)

Comparing the UK with Irish system is ignorant. Its based on different foundation.

CDfm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Sorry, at that point I was referring to the Child Amendment, in response to your comment.

As for equality for all, that depends ulitmately on the majority of citizens view of what is to be equality and reasons to say yes or no, and why people are treated differently. There is no such thing as absolute equality. (That is in no way to indicate the rights or wrongs of treatment of the gay community) Either way, that issue is entirely irrelevant here.

I am not naive and you wont get absolute equality

With regard to the recent referendums, they did bring out a draft of the legislation on Oireachtas, a link was put up by a few poster including me on other threads. I agree with you on that, I was extremely opposed to it my self.

Its a value system thing and constitutionally the country should be striving towards that.

@jmayo

As for the OPs question ...
Well why didn't the entire ff party resign, seen the mess they made of our economy and the fact that they sold out our soverignty ?
You see we can all ask these questions.

Can I have a go.

As the country is ruled via a system that does not really answer to parliment.

The IMF coming in is a moot point as we joined the EURO first and that was the event. Under our own currency it is unlikely we would have needed to take that route.

The Central Bank is , by law, independent from the Minister of Finance so that would be an ecunimical matter.

Has it ever been explained how they the IMF came to Ireland or even who invited them ?

The Jaw

I hope this is not off thread, but did anyone hear Alan Shatter on Matt Cooper last night ( Wed 9th Nov). Cooper asked him about his thoughts on the Irish aid workers/activists being arrested in International waters and being brought to Israel.
Shatters reply really did stun me slightly. He displayed an arrogance similiar to that which is displayed during the referendum ( referenda?). Basically he accussed them of not being " real aid workers" ( They are his words when he suggested if they were real aid workers, they should helpin Syria and not in Israel. He also insinuated that they were lying.( "The last Irish vessel which travelled was supposed to be carrying aid, but infact just had activists on board"). I am pretty sure he called Hamas terrorists. He references the slaughter of innocent civilians and said that the establishment of an independent Israeli state was the way forward ( to be fair he also said there should be an Indepenent arab state also) but his personal opinions and faith seems to be a great divergence with the Office he holds and his duty of care to Irish citizens abroad, the Governments stance ( remember these guys did forge Irish passports and had some embassy workers expelled) as well as a number of International agencies.I found it very weird