Is it ok to default with FG - so long as you're a FG Minister ?

He should resign and take his coffee machines with him

FG really are an appauling lot. They are basically FF dressed in different clothes with a huge amount of arrogance and smugness thrown in.

I didnt vote for them as I was under no illusion that we would get something "new" from them.

thecommietommy wrote: »

Back in January 24th, Enda said Ireland will not " have name of defaulter across our foreheads ", but today we find a FG minister doing just that.

Fairly tenuously linking two completely unrelated things. Kenny was referring to sentiment about Ireland internationally.
It's a nice soundbite, but I fail to see the relevance.

Not only that, but the default is over a nursing home and to compond things, Reilly is the Minister for Health !!!

To a certain extent it would be quite reasonable to consider possible conflict of interests when you have the Minister for Health, who has domain over the public health system, with investments in a private health facility.
There's always the question there over whether he will do the right thing for his position or his wallet.

But at the same time if someone has experience in the area, it makes them a more suitable candidate. Who would you prefer to be minister for health - a businessman who has experience in the private health sector, or someone whose only experience with the health system was the time he had to bring his kids to A&E?

Same is true for any ministerial position in government really. The challenge is keeping tabs on their interests and ensuring that they're kept at arms length.

A government minister disobeyed a court order, and has been registered as a defaulter. Surely in a normal functioning democracy he resign?

Kind of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" thing going on with this one. Reilly basically gave someone else the power to do what they wanted to on his behalf for this one. So when they screw it up, Reilly gets blamed. If Reilly had held onto the reigns and managed the case, he would probably be accused of trying to strongarm the court or being fiscally incompetent.

On what basis should he "surely" resign, as a matter of interest? Go through many of the TDs from any of the parties and you'll find failed businesses & investments in their wake.

Does defaulting on a debt immediately make someone a bad person, or incapable of holding public office?

(b) Will FG/Lab (especially Labour) give Reilly the same inquisition as they gave Mick Wallace ?

Reilly didn't break the law. It's the outcome of a private business dealing, which to be fair is a totally different matter. It naturally does raise questions about Reilly (since someone who is financially insolvent cannot take up their seat), but I don't see any reason why the same level of scrutiny need be applied to a private business dealing as to deliberate tax evasion.

Really the primary issue here is whether Reilly actually did anything inherently wrong.

(c) Is there any difference between FG/Labour and the previous shenanigans of FF ?

This week will tell if FG have the balls to not make the same mistakes as their predecessors.

It's not possible to convincingly speak to a public about being proud of their country and working to build the economy, when members of that government are defaulting on debt, or in the case of Phil Hogan, have been found to have previously obtained favourable loans from failed banks

If Enda had any sense, he would remove them both from their respective positions and appoint new ministers in their place. It would be a fairly meaningless move as neither minister has done anything technically wrong, but it would illustrate whether FG consider themselves to not be a carbon copy of FF and put the integrity of the party above the interests of its individual members.

seamus wrote: »

To a certain extent it would be quite reasonable to consider possible conflict of interests when you have the Minister for Health, who has domain over the public health system, with investments in a private health facility.
There's always the question there over whether he will do the right thing for his position or his wallet.

But at the same time if someone has experience in the area, it makes them a more suitable candidate. Who would you prefer to be minister for health - a businessman who has experience in the private health sector, or someone whose only experience with the health system was the time he had to bring his kids to A&E?

Same is true for any ministerial position in government really. The challenge is keeping tabs on their interests and ensuring that they're kept at arms length.

I can see your point about experience but there is a difference with experience in private health care and carrying those interests with you into a position where you are charged with the management of public health care. He should have offloaded his investment and cut all connections with private providers the moment he had responsibility for health (as early as when he was given that shadow position in opposition).

It is not appropriate for the minister of health to hold a stake in private health care. Same goes for any ministry. For instance it would be equally inappeopriate if he Transport Minister had interests in private bus hire companies or the like.

It's especially damaging to Reilly's position given the cuts in health, the closure of beds and people's reliance on private sector care now.

Barring some amazing clarification its a resigning matter.

I don't know which is worse, the situation mr reilly finds himself in, or the fact that the taoiseach thinks that mr reillys business affairs are entirely in order :eek:

Just to add a little clarification on this as they were talking about it on Matt Cooper.

Reilly was involved in this investment as part of a consortium with the agreement that half of the group would buy out the other half after ten years.

Things go tits up and for whatever reason, the group renege on their agreement to buy out the other half. The reasons don't seem clear for this, but it may have been the case that just one or two members couldn't (or wouldn't) meet their obligation and the remaining members were unwilling or unable to cover their shortfall. As it was a consortium investment, the option simply isn't there for an individual to pay in their share and walk away, it's all or nothing.

When Reilly was appointed minister, he set about disconnecting himself from all interests (including being removed from the medical register). However, as he was unable to unilaterally get out of this particular investment, he was advised by a government body (PAC?) to hand it over to a trust instead. Which he did - he gave control of it to his solicitor. A court agreement was made to settle the debt, but the date to settle it was not met, which resulted in the registration of the judgement. It's not a default. Reilly claims that they're close to an agreement to ultimately settle it, but he'll probably give details of this when he makes a statement about it.

So it would appear that there are really only two ways that this could have been avoided:

1. Reilly could have covered the entire debt of all members of the consortium when he was elected, in order to discharge it.
2. He could have not gotten involved ten years ago just in case he one day became a government minister

Neither of which are reasonable solutions, I think anyone will agree.

So, in the absence of any proof of wrongdoing on the part of minister Reilly, I don't see any reason to question the man's moral character or suitability for his position. Indeed, it would appear he did the best he could to rid himself of any possible claims of conflict, it just appears to be a matter of bad timing and circumstance. Which those of us in negative equity can sympathise with.

Assuming that he will later go on to clear his share of the debt, this is very much a non-story, notable only because he's the first minister to have a judgement registered against him while in office. Enda may still have good cause to remove him in the interests of cleaning some egg off FG's face, but I would actually feel sorry for minister Reilly in that case, as I can't see that he's done anything wrong except get stuck with a bad investment.

IMO, Reilly is a person (for want of a better word) that isn't in politics for the long haul.
I maybe wrong but I believe Mr Reilly is the biggest and bravest bluffer in FG since Ml Lowry!
Does anyone disagree & if so names please?

I await the FG response.