Green Party wish list.

Bass Reeves

Airport access is another reason to prioritize the M20. The M20 could give Cork or Shannon Airport critical mass to compete with Dublin. At present because the M20 is such a terrible road it makes the choice of flying from Dublin easier. If the M20 was in place travel time compared to the present route could be cut by 30-40 minutes and give a stable travel time route. Both airports are underutilised especially Shannon.

With an M 20 motorway, Shannon would be an hour from Cork, 40 minutes from Galway, with the Adate bypass and motorway to Rathkeale 70 minutes from Tralee/Killarney and Portlaois and busses would not be much slower

end of the road

efanton wrote: »

Again denying things you know nothing about.

Google works for you just as easy as it does for me. The difference is before shooting my mouth of I try to verify what am saying. I remember researching this whole topic quite extensively a year or so ago.



https://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-projects-and-investments/fleet-investment

So its currently costing Irish rail €150 million for 41 ordinary non powered carriages. That's a whopping 3.65 million per carriage.

Irish rail previously bought second hand diesel locomotives to pull these carriages but declined to reveal the cost. They did however admit to spending 80 million referbishing them and converting them to the Irish rail gauge (Ireland's tracks are set apart a different distance to most countries).




Irish rail looked into electrifying the rail lines as far a Drogheda and the cost was absolutely horrendous.

Instead they then looked at electric/battery carriages. Basically these are commuter carriages that can draw power from overhead lines like the Dart trains, but also have massive battery banks so that they can continue to run on electricity when there are no overhead lines available.

Even with this cost reduction measure it is still going to cost Irish Rail €2 billion to extend the dart commuter service out to Drogheda (thats just an extra 30 miles) using these electric/battery carriages. although part of this cost is to replace carriages elsewhere. These trains will be no faster that the Dart service, certainty no where near as fast as the inter city train we have going between our cities.




https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/06/ireland-train-travel-battery-powered-tech-dublin-transit/591007/

So yes rail systems are expensive, really expensive. There you have a few examples of Irish Rail having to spend Billions, without even laying a bit of track or electrifying a single stretch of rail line.
D you still want to put new rail systems into rural Ireland?






(this is a very long and detail read, but if you want to see how expensive and complicated it is to run a rails service in Ireland its worth the read. It the 2016 Rail review report.)
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/151116_2016_Rail_Review_Report_Complete_Online.pdf

i'm denying nothing.
you didn't research hard enough.
anyway, for a start with the train fleets, the 41 intercity carrages are not the typical cost of a carrage, for whatever reasons they are going to cost more now then they would have when they should have been originally exercised as part of the original contract. generally carrages will cost from 1 to 2 million depending on what is being bought. by the sounds of it the 41 intermediot carrages will cost around the 3 million per car mark which is not typical.
the carrages will also be powered as they are multiple unit carrages and not locomotive hauled carrages.
irish rail bought no second hand diesel locomotives. all locomotives they have were bought new. there was an idea to lease second hand multiple units from the uk but it did not go ahead due to cost and that is what you are mixed up with.
the costs of electrifying to droghida were not horrendus, rather the government didn't wish to fund it as they were looking to, as they usually do, to cut costs unnecessarely.
i'm well aware what electric/battery carrages are and what they do thanks, i also know that simply sticking up the wires and getting it over with will probably be the better value option in the long run, batteries aren't exactly environmently friendly also.
the 2 billion is for the whole dart expansion project and that will possibly rise, however for expansion across 3 lines and all that brings that is pritty good.
you have provided examples of nothing, what you have provided is a mix of incorrect information and some costs that are not typical of normal situations and then claimed railways are horrendusly expensive when they aren't.
they are expensive but no more so then any big infrastructure.

Geuze

efanton wrote: »

https://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-projects-and-investments/fleet-investment

So its currently costing Irish rail €150 million for 41 ordinary non powered carriages. That's a whopping 3.65 million per carriage.

Irish rail previously bought second hand diesel locomotives to pull these carriages but declined to reveal the cost. They did however admit to spending 80 million referbishing them and converting them to the Irish rail gauge (Ireland's tracks are set apart a different distance to most countries).

Note the recent order for 41 new 22000 railcars - these are DMUs, so they have a diesel engine under the floor, there is no loco involved. They are additions to an existing type.

They do seem very expensive, 150m for 41 cars.

I had a look to find out, and it seems IE are buying new hybrid power packs to reduce energy consumption.

efanton

end of the road wrote: »

i'm denying nothing.
you didn't research hard enough.
anyway, for a start with the train fleets, the 41 intercity carrages are not the typical cost of a carrage, for whatever reasons they are going to cost more now then they would have when they should have been originally exercised as part of the original contract. generally carrages will cost from 1 to 2 million depending on what is being bought. by the sounds of it the 41 intermediot carrages will cost around the 3 million per car mark which is not typical.
the carrages will also be powered as they are multiple unit carrages and not locomotive hauled carrages.
irish rail bought no second hand diesel locomotives. all locomotives they have were bought new. there was an idea to lease second hand multiple units from the uk but it did not go ahead due to cost and that is what you are mixed up with.
the costs of electrifying to droghida were not horrendus, rather the government didn't wish to fund it as they were looking to, as they usually do, to cut costs unnecessarely.
i'm well aware what electric/battery carrages are and what they do thanks, i also know that simply sticking up the wires and getting it over with will probably be the better value option in the long run, batteries aren't exactly environmently friendly also.
the 2 billion is for the whole dart expansion project and that will possibly rise, however for expansion across 3 lines and all that brings that is pritty good.
you have provided examples of nothing, what you have provided is a mix of incorrect information and some costs that are not typical of normal situations and then claimed railways are horrendusly expensive when they aren't.
they are expensive but no more so then any big infrastructure.

Actually you are right, I stand corrected.
I remember going to try see the Antonov land when they brought the first one of the diesel locomotives into Ireland by air, I had always wanted to see that massive cargo plane.

I recalled Ireland was looking to purchase second hand locomotives that the time so yes I got mixed up.

Rail solutions are expensive. Having said that in Dublin and its commuter towns with the high volume of commuters they do offer value.


Like I said I was something I researched a few years ago, I'm sorry I didnt keep all the links now I had related to that now.

One of them outlined the studies done for a Cork Limerick link and a improved rail link was looked into but appeared to have been dropped.

I have been searching trying to remember the name of that website and now have found it again.

https://corklimerick.ie/



https://corklimerick.ie/subsequent-phases/

Phase 2 (Options Selection)
The purpose of Phase 2 is to examine alternative options to determine a Preferred Option. The preferred road-based scenario and the rail-based scenarios will be carried forward to Phase 2 Option Selection, as indicated in Figure 10. For the preferred road-based scenario, we will develop route options within the N20 corridor. The road-based route options along with the rail-based options will be appraised in relation to the project objectives to identify the preferred transport option for connecting Cork and Limerick in the N20 Corridor.

Basically they have gone for the M20 option as that has been considered the preferred solution and that has been approved by government, but it seem they are now considering the rail option in addition as well.

The last time I recall looking at this it seemed to be a choice between M20 or an improved rail link and the M20 won. If they are prepared to do both then that's brilliant.

The link to Phase one seems to have disappeared from the website.


THe latest update to the project has been posted here
https://corklimerick.ie/feb-2020-update/

Work on the N/M20 Cork to Limerick scheme is now progressing to the examination of alternative options to determine a Preferred Option to connect the two cities. During this Phase, the N/M20 project team is developing and appraising road-based and rail-based options, to initially identify a shortlist of options and following detailed examination and appraisal to identify a preferred option.

The work completed in Phase 1 (Concept and Feasibility), identified the preferred road-based scenario as being broadly within the N20 corridor via Charleville and Mallow. This road-based scenario performed best overall in relation to the project objectives following appraisal of seven road-based options. (See Phase 1 Update for a more detailed explanation)

Two rail-based scenarios were identified in Phase 1, one involving improved service frequency with through services at Limerick Junction on the existing line, the other providing a new direct line between Charleville and Limerick.

In Phase 2, the project team will develop, assess and appraise the road-based options in the broad N20 corridor and further develop and appraise the rail-based options to identify a preferred transport option to connect Cork and Limerick.

Water John

Quite disappointed if the Greens won't accept Agriculture being put in a separate box, a la NZ. The research and scientific knowledge in this area is only evolving and that is what should be applied. Not arguing up or down but let the science when it's fully researched dictate policy.

efanton

Water John wrote: »

Quite disappointed if the Greens won't accept Agriculture being put in a separate box, a la NZ. The research and scientific knowledge in this area is only evolving and that is what should be applied. Not arguing up or down but let the science when it's fully researched dictate policy.

The simple reality is in an industrialised environment it is relatively easy to reach the 7% target. Less use of fossil fuels, lowering emissions through insulation and filtering exhausts from machinery and chimneys, and changes of production methods and materials all would have a very quick and dramatic result. In fct is quite possible that we could reduce emissions in this are by greater than 7%.

In an agricultural environment, its not only difficult it near impossible on a short timescale.
Agricultural machinery would have to remain diesel powered (not possible to use an electric alternative), its hard to reduce emissions from livestock although some feeds have/are being developed to help.
and there are very little improvement that can be made in the growing /husbandry /manufacturing process. Nature continues to do its thing and will keep doing its thing no matter which party is in government.
The only way that dramatic cuts in carbon emissions can be made is through a reduction in livestock numbers, but if farmers reduce livestock number many will be going into a situation where they are no longer economically viable.

The only logical answer is the country as a whole reducing its emissions by 7%.

political analyst

The Attorney General advised that the Occupied Territories Boycott Bill would be in breach of EU law on trade.

As for reducing the national herd, one can imagine what the IFA's response would be if any effort was made to confiscate cattle.

efanton

political analyst wrote: »

The Attorney General advised that the Occupied Territories Boycott Bill would be in breach of EU law on trade.

As for reducing the national herd, one can imagine what the IFA's response would be if any effort was made to confiscate cattle.

The occupied territories act could be passed by any government in the EU.
EU law does not have sovereignty over any countries diplomatic or foreign relations.

The bill called for sale of products from the occupied territories to be
banned not ALL Israeli products. That's very important to note. As it stands the bill is perfectly legal and has been proven to be legal. Had it been a ban on all Israeli products then yes I would imagine you would be correct.

political analyst

efanton wrote: »

The occupied territories act could be passed by any government in the EU.
EU law does not have sovereignty over any countries diplomatic or foreign relations.

The bill called for sale of products from the occupied territories to be
banned not ALL Israeli products. That's very important to note. As it stands the bill is perfectly legal and has been proven to be legal. Had it been a ban on all Israeli products then yes I would imagine you would be correct.

The AG wouldn't have said what he said if it wasn't true.

This is not the same as refusing to sell South African oranges in the 1980s. The territories haven't legally belonged to any country at all since the British left the former Mandatory Palestine.

blinding

Imagine after the last time the Greens were in Government the Irish people were daft enough to put Fertiliser on the Greens again ! ! !

political analyst

efanton wrote: »

The simple reality is in an industrialised environment it is relatively easy to reach the 7% target. Less use of fossil fuels, lowering emissions through insulation and filtering exhausts from machinery and chimneys, and changes of production methods and materials all would have a very quick and dramatic result. In fct is quite possible that we could reduce emissions in this are by greater than 7%.

In an agricultural environment, its not only difficult it near impossible on a short timescale.
Agricultural machinery would have to remain diesel powered (not possible to use an electric alternative), its hard to reduce emissions from livestock although some feeds have/are being developed to help.
and there are very little improvement that can be made in the growing /husbandry /manufacturing process. Nature continues to do its thing and will keep doing its thing no matter which party is in government.
The only way that dramatic cuts in carbon emissions can be made is through a reduction in livestock numbers, but if farmers reduce livestock number many will be going into a situation where they are no longer economically viable.

The only logical answer is the country as a whole reducing its emissions by 7%.

Are FF and FG willing to run the risk of a parade of tractors causing a gigantic traffic jam in Dublin? Imagine what that would do to those two parties' prospects in the next general election!

Leonard Hofstadter

Can they just get off the stage now and let the grown ups run the country for a few years instead?

Their attitude towards road building is the one that gets my goat the most - how can it be good for the environment to have everyone stick in every highway and byway between Cork and Limerick, for example:rolleyes:?

They just have a hatred for the private car which is conveniently dressed up as saving the planet.

Water John

The perceived largest element in agriculture is the methane However this is part of a carbon cycle production model. Plants that cattle eat absorb CO2. That CO2 comes from the breakdown of methane (CH4).
Reducing the national herd (no reflection on posters here echoing the opinion) is in effect a simplistic kneejerk reaction.
The science needs to be followed.
BTW isn't it strange we don't pin all the GHG from fossil fuels on the countries that export the oil.

political analyst

Apart from the effects of IFA protests, there is the issue of whether the compulsory culling of cattle to reduce the national herd would violate Constitutional property rights - and given that it's not proven beyond reasonable doubt that cattle are causing most of the damage, compulsory purchase order might not be a viable option. The IFA would drag the issue through the courts.

Water John

There are still only two ways to change any behaviour or action, the carrot and the stick. I generally go for the carrot. Pay farmers who sequester carbon.

efanton

Water John wrote: »

There are still only two ways to change any behaviour or action, the carrot and the stick. I generally go for the carrot. Pay farmers who sequester carbon.

The amount of heat generated in slurry and silage pits is huge. I wonder if there is an economical way to harness that.

Other than that, its hard to see where the major saving are going to come from.

Maybe a scheme where if farmers are prepared to give sites for wind turbines as a sort of carbon offset payment.
Or indeed farmers erecting their own small wind farms and feeding into the grid, that way they are not only making income, but contributing carbon free electricity. That could possibly be a way that they could afford to reduce their herd number. SF have already proposed legislation so that those with their own turbines and solar panels can sell their surplus to the national grid.

You cant simply reduce herd numbers, not only does it affect the income of the farmers, it will have a dramatic affect on the factories and their workers who process meat, dairy, fruit and veg.
Many towns are dependent of these factories and processing plants. If they go, then a lot of the shops and businesses in that town are at risk as well.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

The occupied territories act could be passed by any government in the EU.
EU law does not have sovereignty over any countries diplomatic or foreign relations.

The bill called for sale of products from the occupied territories to be
banned not ALL Israeli products. That's very important to note. As it stands the bill is perfectly legal and has been proven to be legal. Had it been a ban on all Israeli products then yes I would imagine you would be correct.

Is this based on actual unbiased legal advice or just a whim from activists?

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

Is this based on actual unbiased legal advice or just a whim from activists?

https://www.thejournal.ie/occupied-territories-bill-4354083-Nov2018/

New legal advice finds Occupied Territories Bill is 'fully compliant with EU trade rules'

Voicing his concern about the Bill earlier this year, Tánaiste Simon Coveney recognised that to prohibit the import and sales of goods from the territories would “send an important signal to the Palestinian people”.

However, he argued that the memory of such a signal may fade over time and Ireland’s reputation would be of a country willing to go it alone, rather than a country determined to influence, persuade and bring others with Ireland.

Questions were also raised about whether Ireland could act solo by banning the trade on goods from the region, with the government said to be relying on advice from the Attorney General that finds because trade is an EU competence, individual EU member states cannot impose trade bans unilaterally.

A number of legal experts, including Senator Michael McDowell, who is also a former Attorney General, disagree with that advice.

The new advice, written by Professor Takis Tridimas, an expert in EU law at King’s College London and a practicing barrister with an extensive record before the European Courts, concludes that the Bill is fully compatible with EU law.

The professor, who is regularly cited by the Irish Supreme Court, as recently as July 2018 by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, states in his opinion that the law is very clear.

He states that while trade is an exclusive competence of the EU, EU law also provides that individual Member States can introduce restrictions on trade when they can be justified as a matter of “public policy” (under Article 36, TFEU).

https://www.ipsc.ie/docs/briefingnoteotb.pdf

Is this measure compatible with EU law?
Under the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU, trade rules are generally uniform across all EU Member States. However, exceptions are granted where they can be justified “on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security, and the protection of health and life of humans”.
The legal basis of the bill and its permissibility under EU law are provided by two formal legal opinions: the first from Michael Lynn, Senior Counsel in Ireland, and the second from Professor James Crawford of the University of Cambridge, Senior Counsel in the UK and one of the most eminent authorities on international law worldwide. The bill was drafted with the oversight of the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor (OPLA) of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

And finally the icing on the cake how about what EU law actually says

Article 36 The Free Movement of goods (EU LAW)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/38/free-movement-of-goods#:~:text=Article%2036%20of%20the%20TFEU,public%20policy%20or%20public%20security).

Article 36 of the TFEU allows Member States to take measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions when these are justified by general, non-economic considerations (e.g. public morality, public policy or public security). Such exceptions to the general principle must be interpreted strictly and national measures cannot constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or disguised restriction on trade between Member States. Finally, the measures must have a direct effect on the public interest to be protected, and must not go beyond the necessary level (principle of proportionality).

Also the bill has majority support in the Dail and would have passed but for FG using a money bill order to block it. Its very strange that FG have refused to publish the legal advice they claim to possess and also very strange that not one EU representative made any public comment while this bill was put before the Dail, and has and will get majority vote of which the EU are well aware. Had the EU been upset surely they would have said something.

Now do you want to post the advice FG got?
Does it even exist? or is it more likely with an eye on a UN security council seat, and harsh words from some US representatives as well as the Israeli Embassy are the main reason why FG have abused a money bill order to block this bill.

Why didn't the Irish government refer this to the EU and seek their advice?

political analyst

efanton wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/occupied-territories-bill-4354083-Nov2018/

New legal advice finds Occupied Territories Bill is 'fully compliant with EU trade rules'





https://www.ipsc.ie/docs/briefingnoteotb.pdf




And finally the icing on the cake how about what EU law actually says

Article 36 The Free Movement of goods (EU LAW)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/38/free-movement-of-goods#:~:text=Article%2036%20of%20the%20TFEU,public%20policy%20or%20public%20security).




Also the bill has majority support in the Dail and would have passed but for FG using a money bill order to block it. Its very strange that FG have refused to publish the legal advice they claim to possess and also very strange that not one EU representative made any public comment while this bill was put before the Dail, and has and will get majority vote of which the EU are well aware. Had the EU been upset surely they would have said something.

Now do you want to post the advice FG got?
Does it even exist? or is it more likely with an eye on a UN security council seat, and harsh words from some US representatives as well as the Israeli Embassy are the main reason why FG have abused a money bill order to block this bill.

Why didn't the Irish government refer this to the EU and seek their advice?

Banning import of goods from Jewish businesses - what does that remind me of?

efanton

political analyst wrote: »

Banning import of goods from Jewish businesses - what does that remind me of?

But its not is it. No goods from Israel would be banned only those from the illegally occupied territories, ( or are you going to argue the UN is wrong as well, despite Ireland and its government supporting the UN stance).


I find it very strange that FG were qite happy to vote for a UN resolution condemning US support of Israel's openly hostile act of trying to make Jerusalem the Israelli capital despite half of it being in Palestian territory
https://www.thejournal.ie/un-vote-ireland-jerusalem-3765914-Dec2017/


And if you were hinting at racism how about this

In December 2012 the IsraelinIreland posted on the Embassy's Facebook page a comment that was viewed as racist and slanderous to Palestinians: "A thought for Christmas. … If Jesus and mother Mary were alive today, they would, as Jews without security, probably end up being lynched in Bethlehem by hostile Palestinians. Just a thought ...".[37][38][39][40] The post resulted in protests, and the Embassy removed the statement issuing an apology, and posted the following statement: "To whom it may concern: An image of Jesus and Mary with a derogatory comment about Palestinians was posted without the consent of the administrator of the Facebook page. We have removed the post in question immediately. Apologies to anyone who may have been offended. Merry Christmas!"

On 31 July 2014 on the 23rd day of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, Ireland's Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan said he shared "the horror and revulsion of senators and very many of our citizens at the horrendous scenes we have witnessed since the start of the Israeli military operation." The Irish government, he said, condemned "both the unacceptably high civilian casualty rate resulting from disproportionate military action on Israel's part as well as the firing of rockets by Hamas and other militants into Israel."[48] The Israeli embassy in Dublin came under criticism twice in the month of July 2014, first for posts likening Free Palestine activists to Hitler, and second for posting edited images of iconic European art in ways that imply Islam is taking over Europe (see Islam in Europe and Islamophobic incidents). The image of the Irish Molly Malone statue was edited by the Israeli Embassy to show her covered with a Muslim veil along with the words, "Israel now, Dublin next." Following criticism that the anti-Muslim posting promoted hatred and were offensive, they were taken down. The embassy claims it meant no offence.[49][50]

On 22 October 2014, the Seanad (Irish upper house of parliament) passed a motion calling on the government to give formal recognition to the State of Palestine and take active steps to promote a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The move follows similar initiatives in other European states, including Sweden and the United Kingdom.[51][52][53] While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most Israelis are opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders,[54] in December 2014 a petition was sent by over 800 Israelis asking Ireland to offer Palestine this recognition. The petition was sent to Ireland's Lower House ahead of a recognition vote already approved in the Upper House. Signatories to the letter included three well-known authors, Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, both Israel Prize winners, and David Grossman, as well as former Foreign Ministry director-general Alon Liel.[55] Subsequently, the Irish government announced that it would accept a motion proposing the recognition of Palestine, with 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as the capital, as specified in U.N. resolutions. According to the Jerusalem Post, European countries have become frustrated with Israel, since peace talks have collapsed and Israel is still building settlements in Palestinian territories. Ireland will not be alone in recognising Palestine; Sweden became the largest Western European country to offer Palestine recognition, and parliaments in Spain, Britain and France have backed resolutions in favour of recognition.[56] However, the Spanish and British governments, are at this time, refusing to recognise a Palestinian state.[57][58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Very hard to see how a FG government can support the creation of a Palestinian State, strongly criticise the Israeli government and then deliberately block a bill supported by all other political parties that actually does something meaningful.

THe bill has nothing to do with racisim, nor religion.

Yurt2

political analyst wrote: »

The AG wouldn't have said what he said if it wasn't true.

This is not the same as refusing to sell South African oranges in the 1980s. The territories haven't legally belonged to any country at all since the British left the former Mandatory Palestine.

Not speaking on the merits of the bill but it must be remembered that the AG is ultimately a political appointment and the individual is often a flunkie of the political party in power.

They will frequently (and know well to) offer legal advice advice in a maximilist fashion to fall in line with the government position on any given issue.

Often when pressed to the pin of their collar on a contentious issue, the gov will refuse to publish AG legal advice when they are skirting around an issue they'd rather not deal with.

Used cynically, the AG becomes a legal mudguard for the government and general inaction or obfuscation.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

The occupied territories act could be passed by any government in the EU.
EU law does not have sovereignty over any countries diplomatic or foreign relations.

The bill called for sale of products from the occupied territories to be
banned not ALL Israeli products. That's very important to note. As it stands the bill is perfectly legal and has been proven to be legal. Had it been a ban on all Israeli products then yes I would imagine you would be correct.

Legal advice doesn't prove anything.

In this case, only an ECJ decision will prove something.

At best, the bill is legally dubious.

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Legal advice doesn't prove anything.

In this case, only an ECJ decision will prove something.

At best, the bill is legally dubious.

Surely you are contradicting yourself

How do you know the bill is legally dubious being that multiple legal opinions have verified that it is indeed legal under EU law.

I agree that the most sensible action would be to seek an opinion forum the EU, so why has the FG government not done that? Why instead abuse a money order to block this bill?

Water John

So now FG can do 6% annual reduction in GHG emissions but 7% is a step too far for them?
That is semantic codology. Amazingly no problem going from their commitment of 3.5% to 6%.

McMurphy

It's all imploding for the greens by the looks of things, there's a heave against the leadership, infighting and then Eamon made the mother of all clusterfcuks today in the Dail when he dropped the N word.


I do not for one minute think Eamon Ryan is a racist, but given recent events, what in under jaysis was he thinking?

7/4 on Catherine Martin being leader come Jan 21 seems like too good an offer to pass up.

Galwayguy35

I'd say making Ryan disappear would be on their wish list now, for a party that goes out of its way to be seen as woke and liberal its just the kind of attention they don't want.

Really brightened up my day.

jmayo

What did the plank say now ?

And are the gobshytes blattering on about banning import of certain Israeli goods as one of their targets for government ?

FFS it is fooking stag hunt time again.

thebaz

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'd say making Ryan disappear would be on their wish list now, for a party that goes out of its way to be seen as woke and liberal its just the kind of attention they don't want.

Really brightened up my day.

Was he not hilghliighting a racist issue highlighted in the IT ??

I grew up with friends of all colour , treted them all equally - defended them on the football field , to horrible real racist abuse of the 90s - Listened to 90's Hip Hop, loved it - but some of the extreme wokeness of today is just pure snowflake nonsense like the witch hunt on Eamon Ryan today. Do people think Eamon Ryan is racist for highlighting a case of racism in the Dail ??

suicide_circus

He's the gift that keeps on giving

McMurphy

jmayo wrote: »

What did the plank say now ?

And are the gobshytes blattering on about banning import of certain Israeli goods as one of their targets for government ?

FFS it is fooking stag hunt time again.

https://twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/1271103878931644417?s=19



Take a look at these search results: https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Eamon%20Ryan%22&s=09