General Irish politics discussion thread

It has to be remembered what happened here and some of the comment from within SIPO itself. The predictable shooting of the messenger (Murphy) should be ignored as this case could have been taken by anyone and should have been whatever your politics.

All of this was set out in records Sipo released under the Freedom of Information Act.

But Sipo redacted some of the files. It was only after an appeal to the Information Commissioner – an office held by Deering – that further disclosures were made showing McCarthy’s concern about the potential for Sipo facing “credibility” issues as a result of its response to the Varadkar case.

“Would our arguments be enough to satisfy a judge in a judicial review proceeding (whichever way we go)?” McCarthy asked as Sipo considered its stance.“A court order to reconsider rejection of a complaint would be appalling, and would compromise the credibility of any subsequent decision we made.

A court order to stop an inquiry would at least explain why we had no power to pursue a complaint in this matter.”

With Mr Justice O’Donnell’s ruling, that “appalling” prospect has now come to pass.This very bad for the standards commission, the body that is supposed to promote transparency and accountability in public life. That it relates to a decision concerning the actions of a taoiseach makes it all the worse.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/06/21/high-court-sipo-decision-is-a-bad-outcome-for-leo-varadkar/

Have a good read of the RTE article and the judgement.

"It added that "it may be that there was a concern about the entitlement of the Commission to gather evidence that may be found in the confidential discussions of the cabinet.

However the court found that "this was not stated by the Commission. Ultimately it is not for this court to fill in the blanks"."

They practically gave SIPO the reasons in the judgement. If SIPO turn around and say something along those lines, the Court have said that is fine.

SIPO have said that the behaviour was ethical, the Court didn't disagree, just that SIPO should explain itself better.

As is usual, people are getting overexcited by something that isn't there.

The answer to which will further highlight how successive governments have seen to it that SIPO is under powered and hampered.

Wouldn't be highly inappropriate. Have seen that type of judgement before.

In essence they have struck down the SIPO decision on a technicality, but hinted that they agree on substance. I have seen it done before and it is an effective way to prevent future judicial challenges. Of course, Paul Murphy is so pig-ignorant, stubborn and obstinate, he is unlikely to take the hint and court time will be wasted in future.

Cabinet confidentiality has constitutional protection. Everybody has to operate within the confines of the constitution, including the Gardai, GSOC and SIPO as investigative bodies. Are you suggesting that the constitutional protections on cabinet confidentiality and the good reasons around that should be changed merely to pursue a vendetta against Leo?

Yes, the purpose of the case taken by Murphy was to pursue a vendetta against Leo. He will continue on that road.

Isn't it the case that opinions expressed on all this are divided across party political lines anyway though in the main,but unless parties opposed to Varadkar are willing to question the DPP's office's repute (dangerous and pointless territory),they're on a hiding to nothing

I don't disagree with the Court that SIPO should have explained itself better, but in my opinion, the whole thing was a storm in a teacup from start to finish, which would explain why SIPO were careless in explaining themselves.

It's also entirely reasonable to think that he did what he did,albeit unconventionally to get the contract across the line with as many gp's as possible, with no malicious intent whatsoever

Its the angle taken that depends mostly either on party lines or on whether it's another easy angle to take if you hate a government

Its mostly multi registered hacks on boards and twitter involved to be frank

I think it's perfectly fair to ask where cabinets members should beallowed carry out whatever unethical behaviour they feel like without any repercussions or should there be a system in place(which might require a constitutional referendum) to ensure that isn't the case.

He could have, off the record' verbally acquainted his friend as to the essence of the contract. He didn't need to give him the complete document, very naive.

Also has implications if another vacancy arises during the next Dail: FF leadership. Presume McG couldn't run for that as commissioner? And quitting as commisssioner to run presumably wouldn't go down well in Brussels…

Nothing against McGrath per se but he wouldn’t be a great leader. Zero charisma.

I think he'll stay on until the budget (😉probably earlier and have it in September), they'll call the election once the finance bill is passed in November or so.

McGrath can take up his job when his term starts in December, his brother runs for his seat, and most importantly for the government, no by-election!

Oh interesting. They'll probably go earlier so with the budget, finance bill, election etc!

only 47. Maybe hoping for a second term…

He's got a big family and has been at the politics thing for quite a while now. You'd have to imagine he could earn better money for less work in the private sector now

What unethical behaviour? Why do people keep inventing ideas? There is a thread on the subject if you want to go down the rabbit hole of whether Leo did something unethical. When you go there and read from the start, there were people salivating about him doing time for a criminal act, now posters like you are reduced to claiming that somehow it was unethical for the government to get a deal done that the country needed. Bizarrely clinging to the hatred of a former Taoiseach.

Is there are a clearly superior option? I'm sure there's a case from Martin's POV for bringing in someone young & gay & fancy-free…

Jack Chambers named finance minister. **** hell.

Maybe FF still feels the need to burnish its credentials in this area? Norma Foley was also in the frame appparently. I'll let you make your own judgement as to how she compares to young Jack in terms of ability and intellect

Mr McConnell also suggested Education Minister Norma Foley could make the move to Finance. 

“A rather curious choice to some, but it's been mentioned that Micheál may want to be seen to appoint the first woman Minister for Finance,” he said. 

A very left field choice for sure, only 33 years old and with no particular background in finance. I was convinced he was Lisa Chambers' brother btw, but apparently they are no relation.

My only issue with him being finance minister is that he has never been a senior minister and he has relatively little time to prepare for the budget that will be the (presumably) last major action of this government before the election.

The problem is the body responsible for determining if this unethical behaviour aren't allowed properly investigate that. I don't see how that's an acceptable situation. It gives cabinet members carte blanche carry out unethical behaviour and get away unpunished.