The Frances Fitzgerald controversy. Are we heading for an election?

trellheim

"Sent from my iPhone" ffs

fk lets that stuff go out on iphones ?

walshb

Mods....is this quite sensitive and confidential information permitted to be online here?

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

Mods....is this quite sensitive and confidential information permitted to be online here?

Its already in the public domain. Has been for a few days now.

walshb

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Its in the public domain.

I was thinking that....as in in an official capacity?

Larbre34

You might remember the scene in Where Eagles Dare where the uncovered double agent Colonel Wyatt-Turner is given the option by Richard Burton's Major Smith to either return to Britain for trial or avail of the open door of the transport plane, sans parachute.

That's where Frances is this afternoon, and as an election is unpalatable to either the Taoiseach or Mr. Martin, after some megaphone brinkmanship over the weekend I fully expect the Tánaiste's political career to be spread out all over a metaphorical Alp by Monday evening at the latest.

Not a snowballs chance of an election in advance of Christmas

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

I was thinking that....as in in an official capacity?

Not sure but I've seen it loads of places at this stage. Journal - boards - facebook- Twitter etc etc.

http://www.thejournal.ie/frances-fitzgerald-maurice-mccabe-3709542-Nov2017/

seamus

Just to note, the one I posted comes from the journal and is already in the public domain, so it's probably fine.

[Edit: Altering my post in light of other info]

I'm pretty much on the Minister's side on this one. Someone reported something to the DoJ that had already happened at the O'Higgins Commission. Presumably this person saw a reason that the Minister may potentially have to do "something", but agreed with the DoJ that it was a matter for Noirin O'Sullivan (and her legal team), and not the AG or the Minister for Justice.

So I completely understand why she didn't recall having received this nothing of an email; there was little of consequence in it, and nothing for her to do about it. The allegations against McCabe had already been made, this was just an FYI really for the Minister.

This seems like a lot of nothing for other parties to be trying to collapse a government over. I wonder are they eyeing up an election early next year and seeking to destabilise FG in advance of this.

CPTM

Larbre34 wrote: »

You might remember the scene in Where Eagles Dare where the uncovered double agent Colonel Wyatt-Turner is given the option by Richard Burton's Major Smith to either return to Britain for trial or avail of the open door of the transport plane, sans parachute.

That's where Frances is this afternoon, and as an election is unpalatable to either the Taoiseach or Mr. Martin, after some megaphone brinkmanship over the weekend I fully expect the Tánaiste's political career to be spread out all over a metaphorical Alp by Monday evening at the latest.

Not a snowballs chance of an election in advance of Christmas

A nice golden parachute will help her down to earth without too much trouble..

flaneur

trellheim wrote: »

"Sent from my iPhone" ffs

fk lets that stuff go out on iphones ?

It wouldn’t be that unusual. In fact, the majority of corporate bodies and state bodies have mobile email.

You can configure a mobile to be extremely secure. In many respects an iPhone is more locked down that a typical laptop. You’ve fully encrypted local drive, biometric authentication, multiple entry of wrong passwords can automatically wipe the phone, tracking which can completely destroy the contents of the phone remotely. You can also configure them to connect via VPN to secure email services.

They’re far from insecure devices.

It’s fairly clear from the Brexit stuff yesterday and quite a few other things that the Irish public sector leaks like a sieve anyway and it’s the human factor, not technology that’s doing so.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

The circumstances of the causes of the election would be the root of the problem.

FG can say that they cannot trust FF because of the way the government was brought down and a confidence and supply agreement won't work because of that lack of trust.

They can also say that in two successive elections, the electorate have voted against FG by reducing their seats and that means opposition.

IMO the prospect of putting SF in government trumps all of that. If after the election FF is the largest party but dependent on the support of either SF or FG to govern, I am confident they will do a confidence and supply deal with FG.

flaneur

The biggest concern I have about all of this is Brexit.
We do not need a general election in the middle of the chaos in the UK.

If there’s a problem with one minister whether it’s being unaware of something by accidentally missing the relevance of it or, something more complex, she should step aside in the national interest to avoid a political mess.

Regardless of whether she’s to blame or not, I don’t think just attempting to tough it out is going to work.

The bigger issue is that the department appears to not really have been keeping the political level in the loop. That is very worrying and I would think it might be a good idea do the Taoiseach to intervene and ensure that everyone is aware of their responsibility to alert the line minister.

It looks to me like one of those cases where an email arrived and the significance of it was not understood. I have had that myself in work environments where you end up at a meeting and it’s “I CC’d you on ... “ and I just didn’t see or grasp the significance of the email.

Communication only happens when the message is understood. Otherwise it’s just transmission. It looks to me like the message was sent, read and was simply not understood as being as serious as it was.

Something went badly wrong in the department if this didn’t set alarm bells off in the ministers office.

walshb

seamus wrote: »

Just to note, the one I posted comes from the journal and is already in the public domain, so it's probably fine.

[Edit: Altering my post in light of other info]

I'm pretty much on the Minister's side on this one. Someone reported something to the DoJ that had already happened at the O'Higgins Commission. Presumably this person saw a reason that the Minister may potentially have to do "something", but agreed with the DoJ that it was a matter for Noirin O'Sullivan (and her legal team), and not the AG or the Minister for Justice.

So I completely understand why she didn't recall having received this nothing of an email; there was little of consequence in it, and nothing for her to do about it. The allegations against McCabe had already been made, this was just an FYI really for the Minister.

This seems like a lot of nothing for other parties to be trying to collapse a government over. I wonder are they eyeing up an election early next year and seeking to destabilise FG in advance of this.

Spot on....FF and Sinn Fein just reeking of desperation to cause trouble....not at all surprising, and if FG were in opposition it would be no different.

jobbridge4life

flaneur wrote: »

The biggest concern I have about all of this is Brexit.
We do not need a general election in the middle of the chaos in the UK.

If there’s a problem with one minister whether it’s being unaware of something by accidentally missing the relevance of it or, something more complex, she should step aside in the national interest to avoid a political mess.

Regardless of whether she’s to blame or not, I don’t think just attempting to tough it out is going to work.

The bigger issue is that the department appears to not really have been keeping the political level in the loop. That is very worrying and I would think it might be a good idea do the Taoiseach to intervene and ensure that everyone is aware of their responsibility to alert the line minister.

It looks to me like one of those cases where an email arrived and the significance of it was not understood. I have had that myself in work environments where you end up at a meeting and it’s “I CC’d you on ... “ and I just didn’t see or grasp the significance of the email.

Communication only happens when the message is understood. Otherwise it’s just transmission. It looks to me like the message was sent, read and was simply not understood as being as serious as it was.

Something went badly wrong in the department if this didn’t set alarm bells off in the ministers office.

I don't really understand the argument that it was the Department's fault. The Taniste was informed on 15 May 2015. Charlie Flanagan was informed on 13 November 2017, the Tainaiste on 16 November 2015. Leo misled the Dail on 14 and 15 November, as Charlie Flanagan sat beside him. It was Fine Gael Ministers who didn't inform Leo.

I would have serious questions about the role the special advisors to both Charlie and Frances played in this.

murpho999

trellheim wrote: »

"Sent from my iPhone" ffs

fk lets that stuff go out on iphones ?

What difference does that make? Just as secure as a computer.

Chips Lovell

Deleted several posts for being below the standard required for this forum. If you're new, please have a read of the charter.

Thanks

Hitman3000

seamus wrote:

So I completely understand why she didn't recall having received this nothing of an email; there was little of consequence in it, and nothing for her to do about it. The allegations against McCabe had already been made, this was just an FYI really for the Minister.

So eventhough a senior civil servant, a justice minister and a Garda Commissioner lost their positions due to the McCabe debacle you can understand why she didn't recall receiving an email highlighting the course of action/attack to be used against McCabe by NOS. Yeah her lapse of memory totally credible as is your acceptance of same.

Doltanian

If there is an election people should support either Fine Gael, Labour or Sinn Fein, a vote for Fianna Fail is a vote for treason, corruption and mass theft of public money. Robert Mugabe may even consider joining them since his resignation in Zimbabwe.

hatrickpatrick

This in my view is a perfect example of the dysfunction at the heart of how our parliament operates. Why can't the Dáil pass a motion of no confidence in a specific, individual minister - resulting in his or her resignation - only for the Taoiseach, elected by the Dáil, to simply appoint a new one and carry on the business of government?

This is yet another example of how Ireland's "all or nothing" system - or rather, not our system, but how our politicians choose to operate within it - is a total failure and actually damages democracy. The Dáil, meaning a majority of its members, shouldn't be faced with a choice between tolerating the continued office of a minister they have lost confidence in, or throwing the entire Oireachtas out and calling for a general election. Ministers, on an individual basis, are accountable to the Oireachtas - the Oireachtas should have the power to remove a minister by vote, without that necessarily resulting in the entire government coming crashing down.

Personally, in my view we need a US style system for the cabinet in which each minister has to be vetted and approved by a vote of the Oireachtas after being nominated by the Taoiseach (as opposed to merely being the unilateral pick of the Taoiseach) - and individually accountably to the Oireachtas, in a way that does not result in the entire government collapsing should a minister be asked to resign.

James Brown

I'm disappointed all that might happen is Fitzgerald takes early retirement.

I'm sure it's political posturing on their part, but by what ever means, calling out Fitzgerald is the right thing to do. Fine Gael can whinge about the reasoning and probably have a point, but Fitzgerald needs to be held to account. I would like to see criminal proceedings into the whole McCabe affair. The whole thing was rotten.

Thanks to fine gael, Fianna Fail were given a soap box long before due, if ever. Now it's biting them in the ar*se. Good enough for them.

Any election will be on Varadkar and not simply removing a minister because Fine Gael are more about saving face and point scoring than governing.

seamus

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So eventhough a senior civil servant, a justice minister and a Garda Commissioner lost their positions due to the McCabe debacle you can understand why she didn't recall receiving an email highlighting the course of action/attack to be used against McCabe by NOS.

Yes. It's called comparmentalisation.

You see that last paragraph? That basically says, "This is not a matter that requires any action from you". At that stage, it gets filed away in most peoples' brains and they forget about the email.

I have emails I read last week which are FYI for me, that I wouldn't be able to recall. Never mind two years ago.

I'm sure practically everything which lands in the Minister's inbox is "super important". Do you think it's reasonable to expect that they can recall every one of them? For years?

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why can't the D pass a motion of no confidence in a specific, individual minister - resulting in his or her resignation - only for the Taoiseach, elected by the D, to simply appoint a new one and carry on the business of government?

It's not about procedure, it's about politics. Different circumstances, different timing, and she'd just be removed or resign. But enough of them reckon its worth having an election over, so it looks like that's what it'll be.

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's not about procedure, it's about politics. Different circumstances, different timing, and she'd just be removed or resign. But enough of them reckon its worth having an election over, so it looks like that's what it'll be.

That may be so, but I'm thinking about the whole confidence and supply arrangement situation - I find it ridiculous that this should extend to individual ministers, when the whole point of a parliament is to hold them accountable. The Dáil should not be in a position in which it is hamstrung between pulling the whole edifice down or tolerating the continued presence of a minister its members do not believe is fit for office.

Also, I'm not sure if your device did this or you did, but your quoting of my post using "the D" as opposed to "the Dáil" just makes it look unbelievably obscene.

Hitman3000

seamus wrote:

I'm sure practically everything which lands in the Minister's inbox is "super important". Do you think it's reasonable to expect that they can recall every one of them? For years?

I think it's reasonable in light of the McCabe controversy that she would have attached import to any communication referencing McCabe.

StringerBell

seamus wrote: »

Yes. It's called comparmentalisation.

You see that last paragraph? That basically says, "This is not a matter that requires any action from you". At that stage, it gets filed away in most peoples' brains and they forget about the email.

I have emails I read last week which are FYI for me, that I wouldn't be able to recall. Never mind two years ago.

I'm sure practically everything which lands in the Minister's inbox is "super important". Do you think it's reasonable to expect that they can recall every one of them? For years?

I think its reasonable to expect she would remember one concerning something so high profile and in the public domain. One that has already accounted for other's careers.

tomwaterford

seamus wrote: »

I'm sure practically everything which lands in the Minister's inbox is "super important". Do you think it's reasonable to expect that they can recall every one of them? For years?

This is probably the biggest political issue to face her in her entire career

It's incomprehensible that she just forgot this
...country is fcuked if people believe this rubbish


The position of Leo varadkar is incomprehensible here too.....there's no benefit in standing by her like?

Chips Lovell

tomwaterford wrote: »

The position of Leo varadkar is incomprehensible here too.....there's no benefit in standing by her like?

If he's standing by her, it's because he wants to call Martin's bluff. If he didn't want to do that, he'd throw her under the bus.

flaneur

I think the biggest issue that's coming out of all of this is that we need major reform of the Gardai.

When you think about it, they're still running on what is basically a version of the old RIC management structure. That's where your problem is - a 19th century management system in a 21st century police force.

I see no major evidence of anyone really trying to tackle this.

tomwaterford

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

If he's standing by her, it's because he wants to call Martin's bluff. If he didn't want to do that, he'd throw her under the bus.

He's playing a dangerous game with his career here?

It looks from outside looking in,she helped him get the leadership and it's loyalty is keeping her there....woeful way to run a country if true

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

Yes. It's called comparmentalisation.

You see that last paragraph? That basically says, "This is not a matter that requires any action from you". At that stage, it gets filed away in most peoples' brains and they forget about the email.

I have emails I read last week which are FYI for me, that I wouldn't be able to recall. Never mind two years ago.

I'm sure practically everything which lands in the Minister's inbox is "super important". Do you think it's reasonable to expect that they can recall every one of them? For years?

There was an episode of "Yes Minister" in which they specifically discussed how to technically inform the Prime Minister of a controversial issue, but in such a way that he wouldn't have to bother taking any action on it. The issue was that a terrorist group was getting hold of British manufactured bomb making equipment, and informing the PM would have led to the shuttering of a huge employer (a British weapons manufacturer) which would have cost the government an election.

So instead of writing the letter to say "Prime Minister, we have been informed that Italian Red Terrorists have been supplied with British bomb making equipment", they instead wrote something like "Prime Minister, our attention has been drawn to potential irregularities under the Import/Export act of 1947, section 27, subsection A. It is possible that this merits further investigation under the Special Powers Investigatory Act of 1963, as amended by the Official Secrets Act of 1972, to determine whether a breach of section 27, subsection A or any of its related amendments may have occurred" - and then they arranged to make sure this letter would arrive in the PM's office on the same day as he was due to go to an EU summit meeting, such that he would glance at it and never bother doing anything, but everyone could publicly claim that they had informed him and that he had simply missed the letter's significance due to his legitimately busy schedule.

Again, I know I'm a serial cynic, but I do not believe that any of this is accidental. I fully believe that the government, the state, and the justice system have long sought to bury this controversy instead of addressing it, and that they do not regard Sgt McCabe as a Democratic hero but as an annoying thorn in their side. I realise this may seem harsh, but consider the litany of scandals we've had to put up with - in my view, it's blindingly obvious that this is not about accidental incompetence, this is about "we're too lazy to fix this and it would be too expensive / too much of an upheaval / too much work / too many of our friendly cronies would get fired - so let's instead try to make the whistleblowers go away and shut up, so we can continue doing as little work as possible and just sweep this entire issue under the carpet".

Maybe this is harsh - but if so, the government has only itself to blame. The repeated deception, deflection, stonewalling, smearing and obfuscation gives the very clear impression that they are attempting to bury or slow-burn this issue rather than addressing it, and if that is the case, it's not incompetence, it is malpractice. Simple as that. The purpose of government is to deal with these situations, and if it's a case of it being too much work or too much upheaval - well tough sh!t, that's literally your job and you chose to apply for it when you stood for election.

Hell, look at the whole situation about Garda Breath Testing - same absolute sh!te as usual yesterday, nobody is going to be held accountable literally because "there are too many people who would have to be disciplined, so it's unrealistic / unworkable to do so and we'll just let it go with no accountability at all".

Sorry, but that's not how government is supposed to work. If you have to cite and discipline every single individual in the organisation, then do it. That's your job. Everybody's job involves some difficult, tedious, complex and troublesome work, but you have to do it regardless. You take the necessary time, you spend the necessary money, you get rid of your friends if they deserve to be gotten rid of - you do what's right, regardless of the consequences or inconveniences of doing what's right.

This government, and the justice department generally, seems to operate on the principle of "dealing with the problem is too much effort, let's bury it instead" - and that is an absolutely appalling state of affairs for any democratic nation to find itself in.

Tell me how

flaneur wrote: »

I think the biggest issue that's coming out of all of this is that we need major reform of the Gardai.

When you think about it, they're still running on what is basically a version of the old RIC management structure. That's where your problem is - a 19th century management system in a 21st century police force.

I see no major evidence of anyone really trying to tackle this.

Look what happened Maurice McCabe for trying to tackle it.

Sierra Oscar

flaneur wrote: »

I think the biggest issue that's coming out of all of this is that we need major reform of the Gardai.

When you think about it, they're still running on what is basically a version of the old RIC management structure. That's where your problem is - a 19th century management system in a 21st century police force.

I see no major evidence of anyone really trying to tackle this.

It's not really fair to say it's still running an old RIC management structure as it simply isn't. Besides, the management structure in the force has actually changed in the last decade.

Nonetheless major reform is clearly needed. However these latest developments show that a major overhaul of how the Department of Justice operates is necessary. We've already started reforming An Garda Síochána. Little to nothing has been done to reform the actual Department which is responsible for setting policy.

flaneur

Tell me how wrote: »

Look what happened Maurice McCabe for trying to tackle it.

That's the point. Is anyone, including political figures, willing to tackle it?

I mean, if any of us here blog about it or something, will we get a knock on the door or pulled over for "speeding"?

It's pretty worrying that there's a culture of intimidation coming from the police force.

seamus

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I think it's reasonable in light of the McCabe controversy that she would have attached import to any communication referencing McCabe.

And maybe she did. That still doesn't mean she's going to remember the email two years later.

Remember that the controversy here isn't about whether the Minister knew of the legal arguments that NOR's team were going to use at the commision. The "controversy" is that the Minister didn't remember she had received an email two years ago.

For everything you know, do remember how you learned of it? Would you be able to say, "Oh yeah, I read that in an email. I read that on X forum. I heard that from Bob. I saw that on PrimeTime"?

I'm pretty sure there's a huge dollop of double standards going on here.

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is probably the biggest political issue to face her in her entire career

It is now. Back when she received the email, it was just an FYI.

quad_red

What exactly, technically, happens if the FF motion of no confidence in Fitzgerald passes? So they defeat the Government.

Ok - not the first time this Goverment has been defeated.

Leo can seek the dissolution of the Dail as the Government isn't tenable. But does he have to?

What would happen if they lose and he insists Fitzgerald stays?

Hitman3000

seamus wrote:

For everything you know, do remember how you learned of it? Would you be able to say, "Oh yeah, I read that in an email. I read that on X forum. I heard that from Bob. I saw that on PrimeTime"?

I'm going to avoid responding any further to you. You have made up your mind that Fitzgerald is a victim in all this, so I wish you well.

Inquitus

So does a successful "No Confidence" vote in Frances Fitzgerald automatically trigger an election? and will it happen at some point today unless FF's Martin backs down after talking to Varadkar?

Odhinn

seamus wrote: »

And maybe she did. That still doesn't mean she's going to remember the email two years later.

Remember that the controversy here isn't about whether the Minister knew of the legal arguments that NOR's team were going to use at the commision. The "controversy" is that the Minister didn't remember she had received an email two years ago.

For everything you know, do remember how you learned of it? Would you be able to say, "Oh yeah, I read that in an email. I read that on X forum. I heard that from Bob. I saw that on PrimeTime"?

I'm pretty sure there's a huge dollop of double standards going on here.

It is now. Back when she received the email, it was just an FYI.

Not really. You'd only have to remember the broad thrust of it. It was part of a prominent inquiry in regards to a very prominent issue.

Hitman3000

quad_red wrote:

What exactly, technically, happens if the FF motion of no confidence in Fitzgerald passes? So they defeat the Government.

There is a supply and confidence agreement between FF and FG. FF have tabled a vote of no confidence in the Tanaiste. Basically the agreement is out the window. Should have happened slot sooner tbh.

vicwatson

I hear tds are clearing out the oireachtas envelopes so something is brewing

The arrogance of FG tops even that if FF imo

seamus

quad_red wrote: »

What exactly, technically, happens if the FF motion of no confidence in Fitzgerald passes? So they defeat the Government.

Ok - not the first time this Goverment has been defeated.

Leo can seek the dissolution of the Dail as the Government isn't tenable. But does he have to?

What would happen if they lose and he insists Fitzgerald stays?

Inquitus wrote: »

So does a successful "No Confidence" vote in Frances Fitzgerald automatically trigger an election? and will it happen at some point today unless FF's Martin backs down after talking to Varadkar?

The specific motion that SF have put forward is “That Dáil Éireann has no confidence in the Tánaiste, Frances Fitzgerald T.D., and calls on her
to resign as Tánaiste and as Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation forthwith.”

I assume FF will put forward the same.

I'm not entirely sure of the process if the government loses a no confidence vote in an individual. I guess losing the vote is to be taken as vote of no confidence in the whole government. The Taoiseach and Government are then obliged to resign.
Leo can form a new cabinet and attempt to get appointed Taoiseach again, or he can go to the Aras and dissolve

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

The specific motion that SF have put forward is “That Dáil Éireann has no confidence in the Tánaiste, Frances Fitzgerald T.D., and calls on her
to resign as Tánaiste and as Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation forthwith.”

I assume FF will put forward the same.

I'm not entirely sure of the process if the government loses a no confidence vote in an individual. I guess losing the vote is to be taken as vote of no confidence in the whole government. The Taoiseach and Government are then obliged to resign.
Leo can form a new cabinet and attempt to get appointed Taoiseach again, or he can go to the Aras and dissolve

That is what happens, but it's moronic. A vote of no confidence in an individual should result in the dismissal of that individual and the government's appointment of a successor. The "all or nothing" nature of Irish politics is in my view a consequences of several decades in which governments had coalition majorities and never had to actually worry about losing any vote whatsoever in the Dail - they're totally incapable of dealing with individual losses because they're so used to getting their way 100% of the time. It's a ridiculous situation for a national parliament to find itself in, stuck between bringing the whole government down or putting up with a minister it believes is not fit for office, and this is an aspect of Irish political culture which is in desperate need of change.

devnull

I don't agree with what FF are doing, because it is a stroke, but in all due respect, even as someone who voted for FG in the last election, this would never have been an issue had they won enough votes to form a more stable non minority government.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That is what happens, but it's moronic. A vote of no confidence in an individual should result in the dismissal of that individual and the government's appointment of a successor. The "all or nothing" nature of Irish politics is in my view a consequences of several decades in which governments had coalition majorities and never had to actually worry about losing any vote whatsoever in the Dail - they're totally incapable of dealing with individual losses because they're so used to getting their way 100% of the time. It's a ridiculous situation for a national parliament to find itself in, stuck between bringing the whole government down or putting up with a minister it believes is not fit for office, and this is an aspect of Irish political culture which is in desperate need of change.

It is not moronic, given the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility enshrined in the Constitution.

The "all or nothing" nature of Irish politics is a direct result of our Constitution.

tomwaterford

seamus wrote: »

It is now. Back when she received the email, it was just an FYI.

She took over from a minister who was sacked/in constant controversy for issues arising from same person (and most likely biggest law and order issue to face state since haughey coined GUBU)


Can you name any bigger issue to have happened her in her career??

Are so naive to believe this was an non issue for the ministr of justice?

quad_red

seamus wrote: »

The specific motion that SF have put forward is “That D reann has no confidence in the Tiste, Frances Fitzgerald T.D., and calls on her
to resign as Tiste and as Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation forthwith.”

I assume FF will put forward the same.

I'm not entirely sure of the process if the government loses a no confidence vote in an individual. I guess losing the vote is to be taken as vote of no confidence in the whole government. The Taoiseach and Government are then obliged to resign.
Leo can form a new cabinet and attempt to get appointed Taoiseach again, or he can go to the Aras and dissolve

That's what I'm not sure about!

If Leo says f**k it, with the EU leaders summit upon us and so much to do etc. I am going to hold FF to their agreement and continue on the 'important work of gov blah blah'.

Then FF would have to force the issue, correct? By putting up a vote of no confidence in the Gov themselves or supporting an SF one?

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

This is probably the biggest political issue to face her in her entire career

It's incomprehensible that she just forgot this
...country is fcuked if people believe this rubbish


The position of Leo varadkar is incomprehensible here too.....there's no benefit in standing by her like?

The big political issues facing the Minister for Justice include reform of the Gardai, sentencing reform, immigration reform, refugees, etc.

The treatment of an individual - Garda McCabe - no matter how important that individual is, and no matter how symbolic of an issue the treatment of the individual is, is still of lesser importance than dealing with the actual issues.

It is incredible that a no-confidence motion is about an email when there are so many real issues that her performance could be analysed for.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

The big political issues facing the Minister for Justice include reform of the Gardai, sentencing reform, immigration reform, refugees, etc.

The treatment of an individual - Garda McCabe - no matter how important that individual is, and no matter how symbolic of an issue the treatment of the individual is, is still of lesser importance than dealing with the actual issues.

It is incredible that a no-confidence motion is about an email when there are so many real issues that her performance could be analysed for.

She lied to varadkar (or else he's lied to the dail)....the fact he has confidence in her is as telling about his judgement as pushing this to the wire politically



However if yous don't think setting out to destroy a whistle blowers reputation while publically supporting him is a non issue,that's your own point of view

(if you had knowledge of corruption in the gaurds....would yous go public after what McCabe has been put through? )

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

She lied to varadkar (or else he's lied to the dail)....the fact he has confidence in her is as telling about his judgement as pushing this to the wire politically



However if yous don't think setting out to destroy a whistle blowers reputation while publically supporting him is a non issue,that's your own point of view

(if you had knowledge of corruption in the gaurds....would yous go public after what McCabe has been put through? )

Except Fitzgerald didn't set out to destroy a whistle blowers reputation, neither did she lie to Varadkar.

seamus

blanch152 wrote: »

Except Fitzgerald didn't set out to destroy a whistle blowers reputation, neither did she lie to Varadkar.

I'm pretty sure by the time this is all over, this will be spun into a narrative that Fitzgerald conspired with senior Gardai to smear Garda McCabe's reputation within the force. Rather than just that she forgot about an email she'd received.

Sierra Oscar

blanch152 wrote: »

Except Fitzgerald didn't set out to destroy a whistle blowers reputation, neither did she lie to Varadkar.

She kept key information from the Taoiseach which resulted in him misleading the Dáil. Twice. He had to correct the record.