Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

Muahahaha

BluePlanet wrote: »

Should politicians only step down after a successful prosecution or are there times when they should go regardless?

Only last summer Leo threw Phil Hogan under the bus even though Hogan wasnt under any Garda investigation for his golf tour of Ireland during lockdown. Yet Leo himself forced Hogan to resign altogether.

If I were Leo Id watch my back in that Fine Gael party, the last thing he needs now is an angry Big Phil Hogan seeking vengeance.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

Only last summer Leo threw Phil Hogan under the bus even though Hogan wasnt under any Garda investigation for his golf tour of Ireland during lockdown. Yet Leo himself forced Hogan to resign altogether.

If I were Leo Id watch my back in that Fine Gael party, the last thing he needs now is an angry Big Phil Hogan seeking vengeance.

It's the boss' prerogative to fire, and generally they only do so when forced. Hogan and Cowen were sacked by Varadkar and Martin respectively, which they can do as party leaders. Martin however doesn't have as tight control over Fianna Fail as Varadkar has over Fine Gael, meaning that Cowen has made it clear he feels a different leader should be in charge.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

He didn't approve himself? Maybe he was in a fugue state (an interesting defense)

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that anything an acting Taoiseach does is automatically an official authorised act of the office of Taoiseach.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Quite correctly. I appreceiate that his schedule was hectic and the government was up to its eyes, but he should always have followed standard procedure in relation to this. The way he did it was unprofessional, and more importantly, looks underhand.

Was both unprofessional and underhanded. In fact, he apologised for the manner.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right. He provided the president of the National Association of General Practitioners a draft copy of the General Practitioner agreement for the head of the National Association of General Practitioners to consult. There is no angle that can change that.

Quite right. The NAGP were not involved in the negotiation and not privy to the confidential document. It was slipped/leaked to a pal.

Jim Root

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

You must be very simple.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Intent is important.

From the whistleblower point of view you have to prove that they had legitimate concern of wrong doing. From the point of view of corruption you'd have to prove malintent. The same is largely true in terms of the Official Secrets Act, which basically says that it is okay to do so if it is 'in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.' Vardkar has some wriggle room there.

Moreover, so much for your expert. It defines a minister as

“Minister” means a member of the Government

So much of an expert that he couldn't google it.

In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority.

However! The act does specify that it is much better that that authorization be written down.

There you have it. The Gards opened a criminal investigation on Leo for something he was always allowed to do, but oddly enough apologised for doing.

And I am going to remind you for a final time that the apology was for the manner of disclosure, not the disclosure, which is an important distinction.

Untrue..

You must have missed this post of mine, here's a circle you can have lots of fun trying to square.

skimpydoo wrote: »

The more they begin to realise they have backed the wrong, the weaker their arguments are,

"The barrister was wrong on something before" was a cracker.

Also, there's a well peddled mistruth in here that "Leo only apologised for the manner in which he shared the document, not that he shared it" - absolute tripe and easily shown up as so.

Deputy Leo Varadkar wrote:

I was wrong in the way I went about it. I should have done it differently. I should have brought Dr. Ó Tuathail in and given a full briefing, even if it was line by line or page by page. That is the way it should have been done. I did not do it that way because I knew him and, almost as a shortcut, I did it in the way I did it. I should not have done it that way. I should have set aside an hour or two to do it in a more formal and proper way.

If Leo had of invited Zero Craic in, to go through the document line by line in a more formal and proper way, well that would have meant he would have officially liased with OTuathail, and went through the document in an official capacity. I.E not leaked it to him.

Unless of course Leo meant he should have leaked it in a more formal and official way, but that's an oxymoron, right?

Mental gymnastics here is only phenomenal!

RandomName2

Jim Root wrote: »

You must be very simple.

Your words, maestro:

In your opinion does this sin undue any perceived good he has done in office?

Does this sin undue?

Does this sin undue.

This is the most incomprehensible random series of words I have read today. I have read many questions written by people who aren't able to speak English and they have been far easier to understand.

Nevertheless my opinion on the matter is that sin is often undue in the second trimester, but can be perceived as perishable goods if.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's the boss' prerogative to fire, and generally they only do so when forced. Hogan and Cowen were sacked by Varadkar and Martin respectively, which they can do as party leaders. Martin however doesn't have as tight control over Fianna Fail as Varadkar has over Fine Gael, meaning that Cowen has made it clear he feels a different leader should be in charge.

Hogan was sacked by the President of the European Commission, not by Varadkar.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

If Leo had of invited Zero Craic in, to go through the document line by line in a more formal and proper way, well that would have meant he would have officially liased with OTuathail, and went through the document in an official capacity. I.E not leaked it to him.

McMurphy wrote: »

Unless of course Leo meant he should have leaked it in a more formal and official way, but that's an oxymoron, right?

Hardly. The end result is the NAGP getting the details of the contract. That is, the end result is 100% the same. If the only two people in the boardroom going over the contract were the president of NAGP and Varadkar then nothing changes other than optics. Same thing really if you swap out Varadkar and stick in Harris in his place.

The reason why it appears to change is that we assume that if something occurs in a boardroom that it is more open to scrutiny, when the opposite is true. Something that is recorded on something informally, like WhatsApp, has a far greater paper-trail than any boardroom meeting. However, we can at least assume that someone who is meeting in a boardroom is happy for scrutiny to take place, whereas one would assume the opposite for private correspondence.

McMurphy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hardly. The end result is the NAGP getting the details of the contract. That is, the end result is 100% the same. If the only two people in the boardroom going over the contract were the president of NAGP and Varadkar then nothing changes other than optics. Same thing really if you swap out Varadkar and stick in Harris in his place.

The reason why it appears to change is that we assume that if something occurs in a boardroom that it is more open to scrutiny, when the opposite is true. Something that is recorded on something informally, like WhatsApp, has a far greater paper-trail than any boardroom meeting. However, we can at least assume that someone who is meeting in a boardroom is happy for scrutiny to take place, whereas one would assume the opposite for private correspondence.

Let's look at Leo's apology again so.

Deputy Leo Varadkar wrote:

I was wrong in the way I went about it. I should have done it differently. I should have brought Dr. Ó Tuathail in and given a full briefing, even if it was line by line or page by page. That is the way it should have been done. I did not do it that way because I knew him and, almost as a shortcut, I did it in the way I did it. I should not have done it that way. I should have set aside an hour or two to do it in a more formal and proper way.

Specifically these two lines.

He didn't apologise for sending it via taxi/courier/hot air balloon.

He apologised "for not bringing zero Craic in" and "going through the agreement with him line by line"

I should have done it differently. I should have brought Dr. Ó Tuathail in and given a full briefing, even if it was line by line or page by page

And here.

I should not have done it that way. I should have set aside an hour or two to do it in a more formal and proper way

No one, not even you I suspect are trying to say he meant he should've leaked the document in a more formal and proper way, because the formal and proper way to share the document, wouldn't have been to leak it, but to bring OTuathail in and an official capacity, and went through it line by line.

Something Leo's apologised for not doing.

You're being completely and utterly disingenuous and deliberately misrepresenting the apology.

Muahahaha

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's the boss' prerogative to fire, and generally they only do so when forced. Hogan and Cowen were sacked by Varadkar and Martin respectively, which they can do as party leaders. Martin however doesn't have as tight control over Fianna Fail as Varadkar has over Fine Gael, meaning that Cowen has made it clear he feels a different leader should be in charge.

Well Leo wasnt Hogans boss, but he got Hogan thrown under the bus with his boss Ursula von der Leyen. The boss of Leo here now is Michael Martin as Taoiseach.

Leo himself engineered the sacking of Phil Hogan who wasnt even under any Garda investigation for his tour of Ireland. Yet when Leo himself is under Garda investigation he wont even step aside, he seems to hold one standard for himself and another for others

McMurphy wrote: »

If Leo had of invited Zero Craic in, to go through the document line by line in a more formal and proper way, well that would have meant he would have officially liased with OTuathail, and went through the document in an official capacity. I.E not leaked it to him.

Unless of course Leo meant he should have leaked it in a more formal and official way, but that's an oxymoron, right?

Mental gymnastics here is only phenomenal!

I was just wondering that if Zero Craic was lobbying both Harris and Varadkar did he register himself as a lobbyist on the Lobbyists Register? Not only that but as a lobbyist he is legally obliged to make a submission to the register every 3 months stating what activities he has been up to when lobbying Ministers, it must give details of all phone calls, emails, meetings, etc.

The whole idea of the Lobbyists Register is to bring transparency to lobbying between vested interests and the government of the day and to put to bed the idea of crony politics and politicians doing favours for their friends. It was set up by Fine Gael themselves.

The most recent entry by the NAGP was in April 2019, it was a meeting between Chris Goodley of the NAGP. Its purpose was to "Intended results-
To Gain support from Fine Gael members to allow the National Association of GPs to enter into official negotiations with regard to a new GP contract".
https://www.lobbying.ie/return/45927/national-association-general-practitioners
On that occasion Chris Goodley met with four members of Fine Gael.

Ive gone through all the recent submissions by the NAGP to the Lobbyists Register and nowhere does Dr Maithu oTuathill show up as a lobbyist. Yet we now know he was lobbying both Simon Harris and Leo Varadkar for this GP contract.

Which would beg the questions as to why Leo was facilitating a lobbyist who he would have known is not a registered lobbyist in accordance with the Register of Lobbyists Act. All the information is public and if he wasnt sure well he could have just asked O'Toole himself.

Pretty remarkable that the Taoiseach at the time was complicit at running a chariot and horses over legislation that his very own party had brought into law. Just another example of Fine Gael seeing the law as not applying to themselves.

RandomName2

McMurphy wrote: »

Let's look at Leo's apology again so.

Specifically these two lines.

He didn't apologise for sending it via taxi/courier/hot air balloon.

He apologised "for not bringing zero Craic in" and "going through the agreement with him line by line"

I am not going to discuss this point any further as I think it has been exhausted.

He never appologizes for giving O'Tuanthail the information.

in the way I went about it. I should have done it differently

The way: sending by courier
Done it: giving O'Thuanthail the information


'I am sorry I went to your house and didn't ask you to come to mine'
'So you aren't apologizing for coming to my house'

Strange English language some people seem to be speaking here today.

McMurphy wrote: »

official capacity

I would assume that some leaks in recent years have been in government buildings, in an official capacity. The media often gets hold of a message to publish, without any official government stamp. If the person giving out that information is a fool, they will send that information to the journalist by email, text message, courier. If they are smart they will casually meet them in government buildings, even in their office.

The term official capacity hasn't been defined here. Ideally it would include a couple of the authors of the agreement, and probably a couple of representatives from NAGP, but that's not what's been specified here. What is being specified is Varadkar, giving O'Thuanthail, the information, in person. That's the sum and total of it.

Of course it is possible to define a leak as information that is relayed outside of the context of wood paneling. :rolleyes:

What would certainly be different is that it would be professional, and would therefore shield the person providing the information with accusations of impropriety. I would expect someone with as much experience as Varadkar to be capable of this. I understand, as I said, that he had a tight schedule, and sloppiness of this nature doesn't always come back to bite you in the arse, but when you are wearing the boss' hat you have to make sure you are seen to do everything above board.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

I am not going to discuss this point any further as I think it has been exhausted.

He never appologizes for giving O'Tuanthail the information.



The way: sending by courier
Done it: giving O'Thuanthail the information


'I am sorry I went to your house and didn't ask you to come to mine'
'So you aren't apologizing for coming to my house'

Strange English language some people seem to be speaking here today.



I would assume that some leaks in recent years have been in government buildings, in an official capacity. The media often gets hold of a message to publish, without any official government stamp. If the person giving out that information is a fool, they will send that information to the journalist by email, text message, courier. If they are smart they will casually meet them in government buildings, even in their office.

The term official capacity hasn't been defined here. Ideally it would include a couple of the authors of the agreement, and probably a couple of representatives from NAGP, but that's not what's been specified here. What is being specified is Varadkar, giving O'Thuanthail, the information, in person. That's the sum and total of it.

Of course it is possible to define a leak as information that is relayed outside of the context of wood paneling. :rolleyes:

What would certainly be different is that it would be professional, and would therefore shield the person providing the information with accusations of impropriety. I would expect someone with as much experience as Varadkar to be capable of this. I understand, as I said, that he had a tight schedule, and sloppiness of this nature doesn't always come back to bite you in the arse, but when you are wearing the boss' hat you have to make sure you are seen to do everything above board.

No stranger than apologising for sending a confidential document to a pal by taxi, but allegedly not apologising for sending the confidential document.

The fact is Varadkar leaked a confidential negotiation document to his pal, the then head of a union not invited to those negotiations.
Varadkar apologised for what he did. What he's not apologising for is conjecture.

blanch152

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well Leo wasnt Hogans boss, but he got Hogan thrown under the bus with his boss Ursula von der Leyen. The boss of Leo here now is Michael Martin as Taoiseach.

Leo himself engineered the sacking of Phil Hogan who wasnt even under any Garda investigation for his tour of Ireland. Yet when Leo himself is under Garda investigation he wont even step aside, he seems to hold one standard for himself and another for others



I was just wondering that if Zero Craic was lobbying both Harris and Varadkar did he register himself as a lobbyist on the Lobbyists Register? Not only that but as a lobbyist he is legally obliged to make a submission to the register every 3 months stating what activities he has been up to when lobbying Ministers, it must give details of all phone calls, emails, meetings, etc.

The whole idea of the Lobbyists Register is to bring transparency to lobbying between vested interests and the government of the day and to put to bed the idea of crony politics and politicians doing favours for their friends. It was set up by Fine Gael themselves.

The most recent entry by the NAGP was in April 2019, it was a meeting between Chris Goodley of the NAGP. Its purpose was to "Intended results-
To Gain support from Fine Gael members to allow the National Association of GPs to enter into official negotiations with regard to a new GP contract".
https://www.lobbying.ie/return/45927/national-association-general-practitioners
On that occasion Chris Goodley met with four members of Fine Gael.

Ive gone through all the recent submissions by the NAGP to the Lobbyists Register and nowhere does Dr Maithu oTuathill show up as a lobbyist. Yet we now know he was lobbying both Simon Harris and Leo Varadkar for this GP contract.

Which would beg the questions as to why Leo was facilitating a lobbyist who he would have known is not a registered lobbyist in accordance with the Register of Lobbyists Act. All the information is public and if he wasnt sure well he could have just asked O'Toole himself.

Pretty remarkable that the Taoiseach at the time was complicit at running a chariot and horses over legislation that his very own party had brought into law. Just another example of Fine Gael seeing the law as not applying to themselves.

This is a completely nonsensical attempt to throw mud.

There is no responsibility on the person being lobbied to do any checking. The onus on O'Tuathail to report lobbying is post-event, so even if Varadkar had checked, that would have told him nothing.

O'Tuathail should be prosecuted if he didn't record the lobbying, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Varadkar.

Having filled out the register myself, it isn't particularly onerous, so O'Tuathail is lax in that regard. Interestingly, speaking recently to a senior person in IBEC, they told me that they aim to be the top lobbyists because that shows their members they are active on their behalf.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You said it was false.

shatners bassoon wrote: »

You're in a perpetual state of confusion Blanch tbf.

If you can't find the phrase 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' or words to that effect in the relevant legislation then surely you have just proven Francie's point? It's not in the legislation.

This is what Francie said:

"The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation."

Francie's point was that it was in the legislation. What is very strange about this is that the part in quotes gives the impression it is taken from legislation and no search turns that up.

Anyway, this discussion can go no further until someone finds the mysterious piece of legislation this phrase is in.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is what Francie said:

"The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation."

Francie's point was that it was in the legislation. What is very strange about this is that the part in quotes gives the impression it is taken from legislation and no search turns that up.

Anyway, this discussion can go no further until someone finds the mysterious piece of legislation this phrase is in.

I'll see your request and raise you the name of one former Taoiseach who acted like Varadkar as you claim.

FrancieBrady

Remember all the posts from certain posters when this story broke that the Village were idiots for breaking it when the US elections were on and it would be side lined/forgotten about in a week.
Somebody just said on the telly there that Biden is approaching his 100 days in office and here we still are.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

This is what Francie said:

"The facts seem to be that no 'material gain or advantage needs to be proven' according to the legislation."

Francie's point was that it was in the legislation. What is very strange about this is that the part in quotes gives the impression it is taken from legislation and no search turns that up.

Anyway, this discussion can go no further until someone finds the mysterious piece of legislation this phrase is in.

Missed this yesterday.

Benefit, advantage or financial gain is assumed, and it is up to the defendant in a case to disprove it, as outlined in this legal opinion:

Before 2001 the anti-corruption laws in Ireland were very weak. Prior to that, the mere
proof that a payment was made to a public official was not sufficient to establish the
offence of bribery. It was necessary also to establish that the purpose of the payment was
so that the official would do an act or refrain from doing an act in the course of his duty
which conferred a benefit on the person making the payment. For this reason, the mere
proof of a payment to a politician was insufficient to establish the offence of bribery
since the politician would invariably state that the payment was made as a political
donation because the donor admired the particular work of that politician, which, of
course, in a sense was true.
The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2001, introduced a presumption of
corruption. In the case of criminal proceedings against public officials, if it is proved that
any gift, consideration or on advantage has been given to the official and that the person
who gave the gift or whose behalf the gift was given had an interest in the discharge by
the official of certain functions, the gift is deemed to have been given and received
corruptly unless the contrary is proved.

So if the file that goes to the DPP includes evidence that Varadkar did it for political advantage then it is up to him to prove otherwise.

https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/Directors_Speech_at_Burren_Law_School_-_1_May_2010.pdf

smurgen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Missed this yesterday.

Benefit, advantage or financial gain is assumed, and it is up to the defendant in a case to disprove it, as outlined in this legal opinion:



So if the file that goes to the DPP includes evidence that Varadkar did it for political advantage then it is up to him to prove otherwise.

https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/Directors_Speech_at_Burren_Law_School_-_1_May_2010.pdf

Plus the threatening letter to FG about the GP group threatening them shows the gain on the behalf of FG.

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

Plus the threatening letter to FG about the GP group threatening them shows the gain on the behalf of FG.

The back and forth shows to me that Varadkar leaked to curry favour.

Larbre34

Thankfully Sec Gen Robert Watt phoned Dee Forbes at Raidió Éireann about the illegal gathering of learning disability kids data, telling her the info gathered was a breach of the Official Secrets Act and not to broadcast the exposé, which they did anyway, so Watt and maybe Forbes will both have to lose their ten million a year jobs and that'll be talked about until the inevitable summertime wave of infection and vaccinations scandal comes up and basically there'll be no time to discuss Leo ever again.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Missed this yesterday.

Benefit, advantage or financial gain is assumed, and it is up to the defendant in a case to disprove it, as outlined in this legal opinion:



So if the file that goes to the DPP includes evidence that Varadkar did it for political advantage then it is up to him to prove otherwise.

https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/Directors_Speech_at_Burren_Law_School_-_1_May_2010.pdf

Who else provides a defense if not the defendant? Isn’t that how our court system works?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Who else provides a defense if not the defendant? Isn’t that how our court system works?

The law has changed Maryanne - the onus is now on the defendant to prove that no advantage or benefit accrued.

The DPP therefore does not have to provide evidence, it is 'assumed' if the act was corrupt.

Quite the sticky wicket for Leo.

McMurphy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The law has changed Maryanne - the onus is now on the defendant to prove that no advantage or benefit accrued.

The DPP therefore does not have to provide evidence, it is 'assumed' if the act was corrupt.

Quite the sticky wicket for Leo.

Wasn't it changed under a FG (law and order party) govt?

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Wasn't it changed under a FG (law and order party) govt?

Wouldn't doubt it.

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a completely nonsensical attempt to throw mud.

There is no responsibility on the person being lobbied to do any checking. The onus on O'Tuathail to report lobbying is post-event, so even if Varadkar had checked, that would have told him nothing.

O'Tuathail should be prosecuted if he didn't record the lobbying, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Varadkar.

Having filled out the register myself, it isn't particularly onerous, so O'Tuathail is lax in that regard. Interestingly, speaking recently to a senior person in IBEC, they told me that they aim to be the top lobbyists because that shows their members they are active on their behalf.

Youve missed the point, Leo knew he was being lobbied by O'Tuathill to try to get the GP contract. All Leo had to do was look up the Lobbyists Register and he would have seen that O'Tuathill was not a registered lobbyist, therefore he couldnt legally lobby him as per legislation. I would have thought that the Taoiseach of the day would be smart enough to ensure he wasnt being lobbied by someone who was breaking the law, if only for the purposes of avoiding political scandal further down the road. Its pretty simple due diligence for a politician not to be getting involved in something that could later blow back on them.

But of course we all know that o'Tuathill was seen as Varadkar as a friend rather than a lobbyist. He wasnt even bothered to make sure that anyone lobbying him was legally permitted to do so. He's got six special advisors on massive salaries and not one of them thought to do this most basic of due diligence either. It really speaks to the culture at play here, they all knew that the legislation for lobbyists exists but they couldnt care less about it.

skimpydoo

Muahahaha wrote: »

He's got six special advisors on massive salaries and not one of them thought to do this most basic of due diligence either. It really speaks to the culture at play here, they all knew that the legislation for lobbyists exists but they couldnt care less about it.

It sounds like these six special advisors were just yes men/women and agreed with everything Leo said. Sure why wouldn't you when you have a cushy paid number.

RandomName2

Muahahaha wrote: »

Youve missed the point, Leo knew he was being lobbied by O'Tuathill to try to get the GP contract. All Leo had to do was look up the Lobbyists Register and he would have seen that O'Tuathill was not a registered lobbyist, therefore he couldnt legally lobby him as per legislation. I would have thought that the Taoiseach of the day would be smart enough to ensure he wasnt being lobbied by someone who was breaking the law, if only for the purposes of avoiding political scandal further down the road. Its pretty simple due diligence for a politician not to be getting involved in something that could later blow back on them.

But of course we all know that o'Tuathill was seen as Varadkar as a friend rather than a lobbyist. He wasnt even bothered to make sure that anyone lobbying him was legally permitted to do so. He's got six special advisors on massive salaries and not one of them thought to do this most basic of due diligence either. It really speaks to the culture at play here, they all knew that the legislation for lobbyists exists but they couldnt care less about it.

Aren't trade unions exempt from lobbying laws?

Trade union negotiations: Communications forming part of, or directly related to, negotiations on terms and conditions of employment undertaken by representatives of a trade union on behalf of its members. It should be noted that this particular exemption applies to a trade union as defined in the Act. The definition of a trade union set out in the Act, and consequently the exemption, may not apply to all employee representative bodies.

https://www.lobbying.ie/help-resources/information-for-lobbyists/guidelines-for-people-carrying-on-lobbying-activities/are-you-affected-by-the-legislation/

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

Aren't trade unions exempt from lobbying laws?



https://www.lobbying.ie/help-resources/information-for-lobbyists/guidelines-for-people-carrying-on-lobbying-activities/are-you-affected-by-the-legislation/

Seems to relate to negotiations. Neither Leo nor his pal were involved in the negotiation.

RandomName2

James Brown wrote: »

Seems to relate to negotiations. Neither Leo nor his pal were involved in the negotiation.

I think that lobbying by definition must include negotiations.

If someone is lobbying, but not seeking to influence legislative action, they aren't lobbying.

Edit -

Maybe

The award of any grant, loan or other financial support, contract or other agreement, or of any licence or other authorisation involving public funds (for example, the criteria for the award of housing grants for people with disabilities, the purchase or sale of a property or other assets by the government.)

Though such communication is exempt if it is a technical matter or to do with implementation.

But the GP contract was definitely relating to employment conditions of GPs, who were the members of the NAGP union.

James Brown

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think that lobbying by definition must include negotiations.

If someone is lobbying, but not seeking to influence legislative action, they aren't lobbying.

Edit -

Maybe



Though such communication is exempt if it is a technical matter or to do with implementation.

But the GP contract was definitely relating to employment conditions of GPs, who were the members of the NAGP union.

No GP was a negotiator by default. The IMO had representatives taking part. Aside from the government's team, nobody else was a negotiator. Varadkar and Zero Craic were not involved in the negotiations. They had no official involvement.