Leo is the new king of Ireland.

markodaly

Mr.Micro wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0316/947958-county-councillors-planning/

It is seen as a right here to interfere in planning.. Why not make it a criminal act, instead of sending out a letter that nobody will take any heed of. Varadkar had no right to interfere in any capacity IMO.

Yes, people should not unduly interfere with planning process, which in this instance there was no indication that he did.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Foreign tourism and hospitality investor contacts department in charge of tourism and hospitality as they have concerns of an infrastructure project.

Minister of department sends informal email to state body responsible for the advancement of tourism to review the planning.

State body, who has a statuary obligation and responsibility to make sure that tourism is not impeded nor damaged by new developments lodge an objection to the development.

Planning permission is declined (I think there were 40 other objectors), it was appealed to An Bord Pleanála but decision was upheld.

All of this is above board and lawful with no proof any any wrong doing, either legally or morally.

Put it this way, if there was a plan to erect wind turbines near The Hill of Tara, the Cliffs of Moher, NewGrange and a body like Failte Ireland, did NOT make an objection to it, then there would be blue murder.

So, lets put that to bed now.

The only thing Leo is guilty of is telling a story and getting some of his lines wrong.
It happens, he fluffed his lines a bit, its unfortunate but it happens and it was of no serious consequences and there is a very detailed paper trail.

If that is the biggest thing people have on him, then good luck to them as he will be a shoe in to be the next Taoiseach

'Fluffed his lines'? :D

He was clearly and unequivocally chuffed to be thought of as a criminal by Trump, a man a wet week ago he was publicly deriding while doing him favours in private.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He was clearly and unequivocally chuffed to be thought of as a criminal by Trump, a man a wet week ago he was publicly deriding while doing him favours in private.

Is this a new position from you Francie, because not even 24 hours ago you were declaring that he would have had to a) explain this in the dail and before that b) he would have to resign.

Now, by your amateur psychoanalysis he wanted to be seen as a criminal.

Quite a bizarre turn of events and interpretation of it.

But if you do have that gift, I would say go out there and make some money out of it.
What is my psycho analysis profile ? :cool:

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Is this a new position from you Francie, because not even 24 hours ago you were declaring that he would have had to a) explain this in the dail and before that b) he would have to resign.

Now, by your amateur psychoanalysis he wanted to be seen as a criminal.

Quite a bizarre turn of events and interpretation of it.

But if you do have that gift, I would say go out there and make some money out of it.
What is my psycho analysis profile ? :cool:

He will have to explain in the Dail, and if he has done wrong imo he should resign.

What was he doing telling the story and saying in clear English 'that he was happy to be seen as having done a favour/got the planning refused'?

Both of which would be criminal acts in Irish planning. A minister influencing a planning outcome.

He was chuffed to be 'believed to have done that'

No psycho analysis required.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He will have to explain in the Dail, and if he has done wrong imo he should resign.

Eh, no he won't

What was he doing telling the story and saying in clear English 'that he was happy to be seen as having done a favour/got the planning refused'?

Both of which would be criminal acts in Irish planning. A minister influencing a planning outcome.

He was chuffed to be 'believed to have done that'

No psycho analysis required

Did you miss the part when he said, that it probably would have been refused anyway.

It was a joke about claiming credit for something he had no or little hand in. It wasn't a good joke as it was fluffed but to stretch it to the limit that he wants to be some type of Marvel Comic book character, well no one will take that seriously, but go on, I am sure your rebuttal will be very thought out and evidence based.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If SF were involved in any of the above as a party, I would of course, like any decent person be disturbed by it.


I don't know if any laws were broken or not, but Leo was quite clearly (and cringely) delighted that Trump believed that he had aided the refusal of permission (which would be a breaking of all laws around planning).
Which is what I said.

So why refer to the man as a "lawbreaker" then?

You turn yourself inside out defending SF politicians when allegations of criminality are levelled and raise the howl of "evidence......evidence" to the rafters, but now you seem unwilling to extend to others that which you so readily demand for SF politicians with a much more flawed pedigree......namely evidence that justifies tarnishing their reputation.

Pretty typical, to be honest.

Sounded more like he got carried away at whatever event he was at, bit like Enda at Davos, and was just a bit flaithulach with the truth.

Jawgap

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He will have to explain in the Dail, and if he has done wrong imo he should resign.

What was he doing telling the story and saying in clear English 'that he was happy to be seen as having done a favour/got the planning refused'?

Both of which would be criminal acts in Irish planning. A minister influencing a planning outcome.

He was chuffed to be 'believed to have done that'

No psycho analysis required.

I'd post a suitably hysterical meme in response to this if it wasn't the politics forum.......

......a resigning matter? You really think so?

I don't doubt SF will waste their precious Dail time having a pop at him over it, and that it will become a bit of political shorthand for describing future political gaffes, as well as for the basis for some inevitable satire (the wind jokes are inevitable) but resign?

The only people who believe it so are the ones who thought we were heading for a GE last Christmas.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Eh, no he won't



Did you miss the part when he said, that it probably would have been refused anyway.

Which implies that he is saying he tried to get it refused but it was pointless as it was going to be refused anyway.

It was a joke about claiming credit for something he had no or little hand in. It wasn't a good joke as it was fluffed but to stretch it to the limit that he wants to be some type of Marvel Comic book character, well no one will take that seriously, but go on, I am sure your rebuttal will be very thought out and evidence based.

Deflection really because you want desperately to see him/and for him to be seen in a good light.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd post a suitably hysterical meme in response to this if it wasn't the politics forum.......

......a resigning matter? You really think so?

I don't doubt SF will waste their precious Dail time having a pop at him over it, and that it will become a bit of political shorthand for describing future political gaffes, as well as for the basis for some inevitable satire (the wind jokes are inevitable) but resign?

The only people who believe it so are the ones who thought we were heading for a GE last Christmas.

Not interested in you trying to make this about SF.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which implies that he is saying he tried to get it refused but it was pointless as it was going to be refused anyway.

Hence, the joke.

Deflection really because you want desperately to see him/and for him to be seen in a good light.

A great rebuttal, backed full of evidence.

McMurphy

This story is still breaking, but could be a further twist in the tale.




Check out @olivercallan’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/olivercallan/status/974776899925893120?s=09

Did I read correctly, and people think Leo won't have to explain himself in the Dail?

Anyone that believes this won't be mentioned in the Dail should seriously not place a wager on it

Jawgap

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

This story is still breaking, but could be a further twist in the tale.




Check out @olivercallan’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/olivercallan/status/974776899925893120?s=09

Did I read correctly, and people think Leo won't have to explain himself in the Dail?

Anyone that believes this won't be mentioned in the Dail should seriously not place a wager on it

Oliver Callan as a source,

.....and so what? Coveney's brother is head of Greencore and was so when Coveney was at Ag......Parlon went to head up the CIF.....

Point being, we're a small country and there's always links.

Jaysus, if Callan's tweet is news, then he's obviously not looked into the posts various Secretaries-General have assumed post retirement!

And of course it'll be mentioned in the Dail, and FG will be delighted to talk about it because it'll take time and attention away from more pressing issues on which they are politically vulnerable. I'm guessing when the trolley count is some 30% higher than the same time last year, you'd be more than happy to talk about stuff like this.

Edward M

Jawgap wrote: »

Oliver Callan as a source,

.....and so what? Coveney's brother is head of Greencore and was so when Coveney was at Ag......Parlon went to head up the CIF.....

Point being, we're a small country and there's always links.

Jaysus, if Callan's tweet is news, then he's obviously not looked into the posts various Secretaries-General have assumed post retirement!

And of course it'll be mentioned in the Dail, and FG will be delighted to talk about it because it'll take time and attention away from more pressing issues on which they are politically vulnerable. I'm guessing when the trolley count is some 30% higher than the same time last year, you'd be more than happy to talk about stuff like this.

I'd be happy to see it added to the list anyway.
There's a growing list of wind farm complaints throughout the country, I wonder does Leo make representations on them all?

Just google "wind farm objections!"!

charlie14

If Enda Kenny had shuffled off this mortal coil, the way this story has been going it would not be a stretch to believe Varadkar is channeling him.
Silly childish behaviour, especially from a Taoiseach attempting to big himself up in front of above all people Trump.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did I read correctly, and people think Leo won't have to explain himself in the Dail?

Anyone that believes this won't be mentioned in the Dail should seriously not place a wager on it

If Sinn Fein or some other party think this is worthy of mentioning in the Dail, let alone putting forward a motion, they have zero interest in contributing positively to anything. There is nothing to this, a waste of Dail time that could be spent legislating, if it is mentioned.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

If Enda Kenny had shuffled off this mortal coil, the way this story has been going it would not be a stretch to believe Varadkar is channeling him.
Silly childish behaviour, especially from a Taoiseach attempting to big himself up in front of above all people Trump.

So it was a criminal act yesterday according to some hysterical posters and it has now ended up as silly childish behaviour???

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Serious discussion only please. Less of the one-liners and linkdumps please.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

If Sinn Fein or some other party think this is worthy of mentioning in the Dail, let alone putting forward a motion, they have zero interest in contributing positively to anything. There is nothing to this, a waste of Dail time that could be spent legislating, if it is mentioned.

Some other party such as the Greens perhaps? This is the party you remind us all constantly that you give your number 1s to.

I posted this earlier in the thread and you seem to have missed it.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Blanch I see the leader of the party you keep reminding us that you give your number 1s to has come out condemning Leo.

Eamon Ryan

Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said the Government’s attempts to explain Mr Varadkar’s intervention in the planning system “don’t add up.”

“Who is telling the truth about then-minister Varadkar’s intervention in the planning process on behalf of Donald Trump? Do we take the Taoiseach’s word for it, that he intervened personally?” said Mr Ryan.

“Do we accept the excuse this morning that it was an inquiry by one of Mr Varadkar’s officials? Or Clare County Council, who have no record or knowledge of the intervention taking place?

“The story doesn’t add up.”

The Green leader said the “fact that he could not see the intervention was inappropriate is what he has to defend.” Public confidence had been further undermined by the council’s statement.

“What the Minister did was clearly wrong. If Fine Gael could only hear their own defence of the indefensible, it would make them blush,” he said.

Thoughts?

Maybe Eamon will bring it up?

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

So it was a criminal act yesterday according to some hysterical posters and it has now ended up as silly childish behaviour???

That you need to take up with the leader of the party you keep telling us you support, the Greens, not me.
For me it was an idiotic childish embarrassing attempt by Varadkar when abroad at bigging himself up unworthy of any public representative, let alone a Taoiseach.
It was to be hoped he had learned at least that much from Enda Kenny.
If this was anybody else, especially Sinn Féin, you would be all over it like a rash.

McMurphy

charlie14 wrote: »

That you need to take up with the leader of the party you keep telling us you support, the Greens, not me.
For me it was an idiotic childish embarrassing attempt by Varadkar when abroad at bigging himself up unworthy of any public representative, let alone a Taoiseach.
It was to be hoped he had learned at least that much from Enda Kenny.
If this was anybody else, especially Sinn F, you would be all over it like a rash.

Must be a tough one when your political party of choice side with the political party you seem to devote your life to criticising on the internet.

One can assume Blanch shares the thoughts on the Greens here.

Sinn Fein and Green Party criticise Taoiseach’s intervention over Doonbeg wind farm

Opposition politicians have criticised Taoiseach Leo Varadkar for showing poor judgment in passing on Donald Trump’s concerns about a proposed wind farm near his Doonbeg golf resort to Fte Ireland.

Mr Varadkar’s admitted on Friday night that as minister for tourism in 2014 he conveyed Mr Trump’s objections about a proposed wind farm to the State tourism agency and asked it to look into the matter.

Sinn Fein and the Green Party on Saturday questioned why he had intervened on behalf of the businessman.

Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said that Mr Varadkar or his advisers should have known that Mr Trump had been engaged in a long-running dispute with Scottish planners and politicians to stop a wind farm near his golf course in Aberdeen at the time of the contact.

“This was a very high profile person who was at war with renewable energy on this very issue and for the then minister, immediately on the back of a phone call to write to one of his agencies, in effect representing Trump, is taking sides in a way that I think is bad judgment,” said Mr Ryan.

Leo will surely be doing some squirming on this when he gets back to the home country.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Some other party such as the Greens perhaps? This is the party you remind us all constantly that you give your number 1s to.

I posted this earlier in the thread and you seem to have missed it.


Maybe Eamon will bring it up?

Yes, I do and I will continue to give the Greens my number one preference.

No political party is perfect.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, I do and I will continue to give the Greens my number one preference.

No political party is perfect.

Agreed.

But I'm at a loss as to why exactly you're showing support for Leo on this occasion, surely any right thinking green supporter would be rowing in behind Eamon Ryan here, surely one would want to disassociate themselves from someone who lobbied on behalf of someone who was in a long running dispute with renewable energy source company's?

Fairly confusing stance I must say.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Agreed.

But I'm at a loss as to why exactly you're showing support for Leo on this occasion, surely any right thinking green supporter would be rowing in behind Eamon Ryan here, surely one would want to disassociate themselves from someone who lobbied on behalf of someone who was in a long running dispute with renewable energy source company's?

Fairly confusing stance I must say.

Firstly, I am not rowing in behind Leo. There doesn't appear to be anything of substance worth rowing in behind or against, it is all a ball of fluff and there are far more important things for people to get concerned about. There is no evidence Leo lobbied for or against anything.

Secondly, I am not a -bot that supports everything the Green party does. I am very open about voting for them, but that doesn't mean I will or should be held to support everything they support. There is a class of poster around here who support every single thing another party does and are ready night and day to defend them to the last logical inconsistency. I find that type of behaviour anti-intellectual at one level, fascinating in its twisting at another, but that is not me. I will not parrot a single party's line on any issue, I will change my mind when it suits, so any criticism for differing from Eamon Ryan is silly.

Thirdly, I am hugely in favour of renewable energy. I think the attempts by the current government, particularly the independent ministers, to increase the distance wind farms must be from housing, to be a retrograde step. Funnily, while I have heard loads of crap from politicians over the last few days, where were they when the real issue of housing distance from wind farms was being discussed? Most of them were hiding, playing the populist card.

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

So why refer to the man as a "lawbreaker" then?

You turn yourself inside out defending SF politicians when allegations of criminality are levelled and raise the howl of "evidence......evidence" to the rafters, but now you seem unwilling to extend to others that which you so readily demand for SF politicians with a much more flawed pedigree......namely evidence that justifies tarnishing their reputation.

Pretty typical, to be honest.

Sounded more like he got carried away at whatever event he was at, bit like Enda at Davos, and was just a bit flaithulach with the truth.

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, I am not rowing in behind Leo. There doesn't appear to be anything of substance worth rowing in behind or against, it is all a ball of fluff and there are far more important things for people to get concerned about. There is no evidence Leo lobbied for or against anything.

Secondly, I am not a -bot that supports everything the Green party does. I am very open about voting for them, but that doesn't mean I will or should be held to support everything they support. There is a class of poster around here who support every single thing another party does and are ready night and day to defend them to the last logical inconsistency. I find that type of behaviour anti-intellectual at one level, fascinating in its twisting at another, but that is not me. I will not parrot a single party's line on any issue, I will change my mind when it suits, so any criticism for differing from Eamon Ryan is silly.

Thirdly, I am hugely in favour of renewable energy. I think the attempts by the current government, particularly the independent ministers, to increase the distance wind farms must be from housing, to be a retrograde step. Funnily, while I have heard loads of crap from politicians over the last few days, where were they when the real issue of housing distance from wind farms was being discussed? Most of them were hiding, playing the populist card.

This issue has nothing to do with 'distance''.

It has to do with political hypocrisy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This issue has nothing to do with 'distance''.

It has to do with political hypocrisy.

You completely misunderstood the point I was making.

Opposition politicians getting up on a high horse about whether or not Varadkar made a phone call or not to Clare County Council, yet running miles away from genuine debate about wind farms are demonstrating another low in political cowardice and rampant populism.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

You completely misunderstood the point I was making.

Opposition politicians getting up on a high horse about whether or not Varadkar made a phone call or not to Clare County Council, yet running miles away from genuine debate about wind farms are demonstrating another low in political cowardice and rampant populism.

As are those willing to not only turn a blind eye but encourage others to do so.
A lot of green energy going into dismissing a nothing, and a party leader nobody is defending.
We shouldn't ignore flaws, a given 'no party is perfect'. We should push, cross party, for better based on issues not which team colour is more or less preferable.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As are those willing to not only turn a blind eye but encourage others to do so.
A lot of green energy going into dismissing a nothing, and a party leader nobody is defending.
We shouldn't ignore flaws, a given 'no party is perfect'. We should push, cross party, for better based on issues not which team colour is more or less preferable.

I don't understand your post. What flaw are people ignoring?


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/government-rolls-out-strict-new-wind-turbine-rules-but-keeps-minimum-500m-set-back-distance-near-homes-35822964.html

Certainly there is a major flaw in policies such as these which put restrictions on wind farms. The disastorous planning that allows one-off housing is compounded by this type of short-sighted policy.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't understand your post. What flaw are people ignoring?


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/government-rolls-out-strict-new-wind-turbine-rules-but-keeps-minimum-500m-set-back-distance-near-homes-35822964.html

Certainly there is a major flaw in policies such as these which put restrictions on wind farms. The disastorous planning that allows one-off housing is compounded by this type of short-sighted policy.

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, I am not rowing in behind Leo. There doesn't appear to be anything of substance worth rowing in behind or against, it is all a ball of fluff and there are far more important things for people to get concerned about. There is no evidence Leo lobbied for or against anything.

You are going from saying 'nothing to see here' to 'look over there'.
If you don't see anything to it, why continue to consistently encourage others dismiss it?
Leo Varadkar claimed he contacted the council, then true to form, changed his recollection (to Failte Ireland, no doubt as a concerned private citizen) regarding jumping in to, in my view, kiss Trumps arse, with little mind to process which might be in place.
People have issue with this, 'putting in a word' not to mention the lack of thought for any green energy implications.

I endeavoured to do what I could do about it," said Mr Varadkar.
"I rang the county council and inquired about the planning permission and subsequently the planning permission was declined and the wind farm never built, thus the landscape had been preserved.
"And the president has very kindly given me credit for that, although I do think it would have been refused anyway, but I'm very happy to take credit for it, if the president is going to offer it to me."
Clare County Council has said it does not have any record or recollection of Mr Varadkar making an inquiry about a planning application for a proposed wind farm four years ago.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43425048

Now Leo is either interfering with due process to curry favour with Trump or pretending he did to seem like a big man, (reminiscent of Kenny's shenanigans) but either way he's 'happy to take credit'.

Now if you've no issue, fine, but it's not a nothing story. And to dismiss it as might not/probably never happened is to call Leo a liar or a fool.

smurgen

blanch152 wrote: »

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Did I read correctly, and people think Leo won't have to explain himself in the Dail?

Anyone that believes this won't be mentioned in the Dail should seriously not place a wager on it

If Sinn Fein or some other party think this is worthy of mentioning in the Dail, let alone putting forward a motion, they have zero interest in contributing positively to anything. There is nothing to this, a waste of Dail time that could be spent legislating, if it is mentioned.

Your protesting speaks volumes.varadkar has done reputational damage to ireland as it stands in front of the world's media.lets see how much of a weasel he us behind closed doors.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are going from saying 'nothing to see here' to 'look over there'.
If you don't see anything to it, why continue to consistently encourage others dismiss it?
Leo Varadkar claimed he contacted the council, then true to form, changed his recollection (to Failte Ireland, no doubt as a concerned private citizen) regarding jumping in to, in my view, kiss Trumps arse, with little mind to process which might be in place.
People have issue with this, 'putting in a word' not to mention the lack of thought for any green energy implications.



Now Leo is either interfering with due process to curry favour with Trump or pretending he did to seem like a big man, (reminiscent of Kenny's shenanigans) but either way he's 'happy to take credit'.

Now if you've no issue, fine, but it's not a nothing story. And to dismiss it as might not/probably never happened is to call Leo a liar or a fool.

smurgen wrote: »

Your protesting speaks volumes.varadkar has done reputational damage to ireland as it stands in front of the world's media.lets see how much of a weasel he us behind closed doors.

I still don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think it is a very minor affair. Even if it is big in some people's eyes, what seems to have happened is like this:

Trump thinks Varadkar did him a favour, and probably feels he owes one in return. There is no evidence that Varadkar did do anything to favour Trump. Looks like Varadkar gained something for Ireland.

Not going to criticise him for that, now if someone wants to discuss the failure of his government to adequately promote alternative energy, I am available for that, but it seems most people are only interested in superficial political appearances rather than real politics.