The Frances Fitzgerald controversy. Are we heading for an election?

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

If it doesn't, its defence of Fitzgerald will lack any credibility. As I mentioned above, she's repeatedly claimed that giving the Garda Commissioner her view on the legal strategy of attacking Sgt McCabe's character would have been "illegal" and a "crime" with giving the slightest explanation of what law would have been broken or what crime she would have committed.

It is a serious point.

Imagine a Commission of Inquiry into the Gardai's handling of Smuggling along the Border. Now imagine Martin Ferris as Minister for Justice being able to direct the Garda Commissioner not to adduce evidence of Shlab Murphy's nefarious activities when the said Shlab was giving evidence to the Commission of how innocent he is and how the gardai are incompetent.

At the end of the day, Fitzgerald had no right to know what evidence the Gardai had on McCabe (it was nothing, but she couldn't know that) and therefore no right to stop them raising it (everyone has an entitlement to put forward their own defence, no matter how wrong the defence is).

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a serious point.

It's not a serious point unless Fitzgerald stops waffling and explains what the legal basis for her excuses is.

blanch152 wrote: »

At the end of the day, Fitzgerald had no right to know what evidence the Gardai had on McCabe (it was nothing, but she couldn't know that) and therefore no right to stop them raising it (everyone has an entitlement to put forward their own defence, no matter how wrong the defence is).

You're using the same straw man argument that Fitzgerald and Fine Gael have been all along. Nobody said she could have stopped the Commissioner's strategy. But why couldn't she have expressed her opinion on it to O'Sullivan?

"The AG said so" with no further detail is not a credible explanation.

Tell me how

Idbatterim wrote: »

Well I won't be voting fg again. Probably won't vote full stop. Same with a few family members and friends...

Would be interesting if another party puts forward proposals to make housing in any way affordable even for workers, how many votes they could potentially win.

If they did, it would likely be reactionary politics and would have little substance behind it.

I'd be very dubious of fireworks policies at the time of an election. Bright and loud but no staying power.

Tell me how

An election now would be a disaster for the country. It would automatically allow the UK to shout down any statement wrt Brexit as being posturing for the next 2-4 months which is a very significant period in the negotiations.

I can't believe we might end up in this position. We've seen the mess that the US and UK have made in politics and recently Germans are turning on Merkel. It's like we feel left out of the fiasco and are intent in joining.

jimmycrackcorm

Hitman3000 wrote:

When was the wishes of the electorate ever a concern of politicians.

People confuse that with the wishes of a small baying mob.

Wanderer78

Tell me how wrote:

I can't believe we might end up in this position. We've seen the mess that the US and UK have made in politics and recently Germans are turning on Merkel. It's like we feel left out of the fiasco and are intent in joining.

Abound to happen, have we all really 'recovered'?

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

An election now would be a disaster for the country. It would automatically allow the UK to shout down any statement wrt Brexit as being posturing for the next 2-4 months which is a very significant period in the negotiations.

Nobody in the EU cares what the UK shouts anymore, they are on their way out the door. The EU side of the negotiations is already set, has been for months.

Hitman3000

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

People confuse that with the wishes of a small baying mob.

There's that all too familiar arrogance, referring to anyone or group who takes issue with politicians as a 'baying mob'. Comical.

Water John

FG sending Regina Doherty to battle with SOR, no clever.
Everyone along the way, knew the import of the email. that's why each person took days to inform the next.
Charlie Flanagan sat next to Leo and let him give incorrect information to the Dail, when he knew contrary.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

If they lose seats, and are no longer the biggest party, Leo will say that the people have spoken and want FG in opposition, to coalition talks are for everyone else. Once again, FF will have to talk to SF and the general public don't want that.

But in that scenario FG would be blamed for effectively forcing FF to deal with SF. I don't see why FG wouldn't support a minority FF government in an inversion of the current arrangement. Given FG's self-image of being decent, fair-dealing citizens they would feel they owe it to FF...

Chips Lovell

I've split out this discussion into a new thread since it's no longer about the Garda Commissioner and the issue has moved on. Given the events of the past few days, it's probably worth a thread of its own.

Wanderer78

is it the end of this government?

Tell me how

Wanderer78 wrote: »

is it the end of this government?

Seems to be heading that way. First time I would nearly put myself in the "none of them deserve to be there camp".

This is a bad move for the country at this time. FF are playing politics. FG are allowing them to do so.

walshb

There is not a sniff of sincerity from Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail regarding this trumped up charge.... and calls for the Tanaiste's removal.

They don't give a toss about confidence, competence or Garda McCabe...

This for me is not a resigning or government collapsing issue.....

Hitman3000

walshb wrote:

There is not a sniff of sincerity from Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail regarding this trumped up charge.... and calls for the Tanaiste's removal.

I keep seeing tgos claim being made by both FG amd their supporters, what trumped up charge? She has been shown to be incompetent, aware of a disgraceful strategy but continued to offer full support of the Garda Commissioner. What happened to morals and ethics?

devnull

FF historically put party before state in their final days of power previously, I don't know why anyone is surprised that they are going to do it again, they can change leaders and say they've changed but it's the same old FF under it all and it always will be, the problem is that a proportion of the election are gulable to that.

If they were to get in power as the major party they would simply pull the same old strokes again and again, with all the populist measures that they are famous for, kicking cans far along the road as they can by short term fixes and populist actions, without sorting out the underlying problems all whilst distracting the electorate with strokes to make them look good.

Edward M

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I keep seeing tgos claim being made by both FG amd their supporters, what trumped up charge? She has been shown to be incompetent, aware of a disgraceful strategy but continued to offer full support of the Garda Commissioner. What happened to morals and ethics?

Fair point.
But who is going to safeguard these things after an election?
Will the voters vote based on that, in view of some ethically and morally questionable TDs elected time after time?
Which possible governing party are ethically and morally better than any other?

devnull

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I keep seeing tgos claim being made by both FG amd their supporters, what trumped up charge? She has been shown to be incompetent, aware of a disgraceful strategy but continued to offer full support of the Garda Commissioner. What happened to morals and ethics?

You believe this issue is more serious than housing, health and other issues that FF have quite happily sat by and places no real pressure on the government only to pull it down over something like this?

Simple fact is FF are using this to take advantage of the situation in SF, they do not care about the country, just about themselves, it's always the party in FF, even when they kicked out of office last time they were always talking about doing what is best for the party behind the scenes, it was all over the media.

This is a stroke, pure and simple.

blanch152

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But in that scenario FG would be blamed for effectively forcing FF to deal with SF. I don't see why FG wouldn't support a minority FF government in an inversion of the current arrangement. Given FG's self-image of being decent, fair-dealing citizens they would feel they owe it to FF...

The circumstances of the causes of the election would be the root of the problem.

FG can say that they cannot trust FF because of the way the government was brought down and a confidence and supply agreement won't work because of that lack of trust.

They can also say that in two successive elections, the electorate have voted against FG by reducing their seats and that means opposition.

I would see the order of probability of election outcomes as follows:

(1) FG minority government with a renewed confidence and supply agreement. The balance of power in that confidence and supply agreement will vary depending on the outcome of the election, and the parties that join FG (if any) will also depend on the outcome

(2) FF/SF government, given the numbers and the recent Ard-Fheis outcome, this is now a real possibility.

(3) FF/SF/Others, if number 2 falls short, which is possible if SF vote drops during the election campaign as it traditionally does.

(4) FG/Lab/Greens/Others This would require further significant gains by FG above their current 34%, but that is very very unlikely but isn't impossible. The even harder part would be a Labour resurgence and a willingness on their part to go back into government

(5) FF minority government. While FG are the obvious case for confidence and supply, I don't think Leo will offer this even if FF are the bigger party as they will be the main opposition party. In reality a FF minority government would require a confidence and supply arrangement from SF and I think they would prefer government.

All of that will change in a general election campaign and those different options will have greater or lesser probability as we approach the election, but if the Dail breaks up because of an email and the election is tomorrow, that is how I would expect it to go.

listermint

devnull wrote: »

You believe this issue is more serious than housing, health and other issues that FF have quite happily sat by and places no real pressure on the government only to pull it down over something like this?

Simple fact is FF are using this to take advantage of the situation in SF, they do not care about the country, just about themselves, it's always the party in FF, even when they kicked out of office last time they were always talking about doing what is best for the party behind the scenes, it was all over the media.

This is a stroke, pure and simple.

Stroke or no stroke. Fitzgerald is at fault here.

Major fault.

Your argument seems to be that because it's opportunism then she gets a get out jail free card.


Explain

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

There is not a sniff of sincerity from Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail regarding this trumped up charge.... and calls for the Tanaiste's removal.

They don't give a toss about confidence, competence or Garda McCabe...

This for me is not a resigning or government collapsing issue.....

What do you mean by trumped up charges?

In thought it was common knowledge now that Frances has messed up?

Are you disputing hee admittance now?

Red_Wake

If the government were to fall, where would that leave the referendum on repealing the eight amendment?

There'd be serious recriminations if it fell off the radar.

walshb

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I keep seeing tgos claim being made by both FG amd their supporters, what trumped up charge? She has been shown to be incompetent, aware of a disgraceful strategy but continued to offer full support of the Garda Commissioner. What happened to morals and ethics?

I am not aligned to any party. I think people are simply trying their best to o the right thing. Well, most people anyway. The lie of the land today is slate slate slate slate. It's the way we rock. It's always blame and blame and his fault and her fault and their fault.

You wouldn't have anyone in government if nobody was allowed make "mistakes."

This is not a resigning issue. I think Fitzgerald is a genuine and sincere and honest type person doing the best she can.

Tell me how

listermint wrote: »

Your argument seems to be that because it's opportunism then she gets a get out jail free card.

She should resign. If not, Leo should remove her to try to start to restore confidence in the mess that is the justice system (Government and Gardai).

That is no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot in the midst of Brexit negotiations.

We've spent 18 months laughing at the US and the UK at the folly of their politics, we'll show we can mix it with the best of them if we have an election now.

listermint

walshb wrote: »

I am not aligned to any party. I think people are simply trying their best to o the right thing. Well, most people anyway. The lie of the land today is slate slate slate slate. It's the way we rock. It's always blame and blame and his fault and her fault and their fault.

You wouldn't have anyone in government if nobody was allowed make "mistakes."

This is not a resigning issue. I think Fitzgerald is a genuine and sincere and honest type person doing the best she can.

Why?

She let the Garda knowingly pursue a method of attacking a fellow officer on false charges despite being the minister of justice.....

What is honest about that or sincere. It's the opposite

Tell me how

walshb wrote: »

This is not a resigning issue. I think Fitzgerald is a genuine and sincere and honest type person doing the best she can.

I'm not that far from agreeing with you about it not being a resigning issue, but where we are now, FF, SF will never shut up about it if she remains so, genuinely, for the good of the country, she should go.

trellheim

All committees, planned legislation and bills automatically fall with the dissolution of the Dail . ( includes the Committee on the 8th ) . It would be up to any incoming government to do whatever they wanted.

This would mean Budget=Finance Bill, HSE Supplementary ( as they always run out of cash around now ) , 8th Amendment committee would all fall. Since the taoiseach stays until a new one is elected there will be some Brexit fallout damaging to us.

I cant see FF wanting to canvass in December as no-one likes opening their door in winter - its that simple - so I'd say unless Mickey martin can't keep the backbenchers in line we'll see fitz staying but a March GE as the price ( and unless they stick on the 8th Amendment referendum with the GE it will vanish in the wind as the opportunity will have passed by )

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

I am not aligned to any party. I think people are simply trying their best to o the right thing. Well, most people anyway. The lie of the land today is slate slate slate slate. It's the way we rock. It's always blame and blame and his fault and her fault and their fault.

You wouldn't have anyone in government if nobody was allowed make "mistakes."

This is not a resigning issue. I think Fitzgerald is a genuine and sincere and honest type person doing the best she can.

I respectfully disagree.

She publicly supported Maurice McCabe, (and other whisltleblowers) while at the same time, privately knew of the Garda strategy to smear him with the most vile and disgusting rumours and innuendo anyone could be accused of.

When caught out - she hides behind legal restraints (but not clarifying what these are) and even if this is the case, there were no legal restraints preventing her from offering the Garda commisoner confidence on several occasions - knowing what she knew about NOS and the strategy she let carry on against McCabe.

That's snake like if you ask me.

I highly doubt that Fitzgerald was the only senior figure in FG circles that knew of the smear campaign. But that's another argument.

Much as it pains me to say it, but I actually have sympathy for Leo here. He's been blindsided here by the older FG generation.

If I was him, both Fitzgerald and Flannagan with her would both be put out to pasture.

walshb

Rick Shaw wrote: »

In thought it was common knowledge now that Frances has messed up?

Messed up? Made mistakes, maybe didn't get everything right....she's human...

The "standards" these opposition parties are setting are not sincere...

To collapse the government on this is very wrong. It is not a resigning issue. It's just stroke politics at play.

devnull

listermint wrote: »

Stroke or no stroke. Fitzgerald is at fault here.

Major fault.

Your argument seems to be that because it's opportunism then she gets a get out jail free card.


Explain

I'm not saying that Fitzgerald is perfect, but it this such an issue that it is serious enough to bring a government down? Not at all, it's merely FF playing a stroke by taking advantage of the current situation with SF who just happen to have a ready made reason such as this to take advantage of.

For all the FF apologists, do you really think that this issue is the most serious one in the state right now and that FF are putting the country first by going in hard on this matter that is relatively low on the list of issues of people, whilst standing by idly about issues people do actually care about?

It's the same old FF, happy to play a stroke to score points over SF to help the party but oddly quiet in comparison on issues that effect the country more but making a stand on benefit them less.

Red_Wake wrote: »

If the government were to fall, where would that leave the referendum on repealing the eight amendment?

There'd be serious recriminations if it fell off the radar.

Unfortunately it seems that FF may well now deem that playing a stroke is more important than the 8th amendment, the border issue and everything else for that matter, you should take up this issue with them.

McMurphy

devnull wrote: »

I'm not saying that Fitzgerald is perfect, but it this such an issue that it is serious enough to bring a government down? Not at all, it's merely FF playing a stroke by taking advantage of the current situation with SF who just happen to have a ready made reason such as this to take advantage of.

For all the FF apologists, do you really think that this issue is the most serious one in the state right now and that FF are putting the country first by going in hard on this matter that is relatively low on the list of issues of people, whilst standing by idly about issues people do actually care about?

It's the same old FF, happy to play a stroke to score points over SF to help the party but oddly quiet in comparison on issues that effect the country more but making a stand on benefit them less.



Unfortunately it seems that FF may well now deem that playing a stroke is more important than the 8th amendment, the border issue and everything else for that matter, you should take up this issue with them.

FF care far too much about the party and their joust with SF to worry about something such as the country.

If only FG could do something to prevent that election. (Apart from blame everyone else for their shortcomings)

Chips Lovell

It's been really fascinating to watch all this unfold because it reminds you how in politics, a confluence of events can trigger something that takes on a momentum of its own.

For a start, it was the perfect issue for the opposition, a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't." They can hammer Fitzgerald for not acting on the email. But if she had acted on it, they could hammer her for interfering in the work of an independent commission. The minute she said she forgot receiving that email, they had her.

It didn't have to be an election until Sinn Fein said it was going to table a motion of no confidence. As Pat Leahy said in the Irish Times today:

From the point of view of Sinn Fein – according to a number of its TDs – a motion is a win-win option for Sinn Fein: either the Tanaiste is forced to resign or Fianna Fail is forced to save her.

That forced Fianna Fail's hand. And apparently Martin is under some pressure because a lot of his TDs felt he should have pulled the plug earlier this year when the McCabe controversy blew up:

They believe they can win, and form a government of some sort. And they believe, not to put too fine a point on it, that Martin bottled it last time. The existence of this view will make it harder for Martin – even if he wanted to – to give Fitzgerald a pass.

Right now, I think the only person who can put the pin back in this grenade is Varadkar, by telling Fitzgerald to resign. And, at the moment at least, he seems happy enough to go to the country.

Another question is, have Sinn Fein let this one blow up in their faces? Did they consider it could result in an election. Because it's hard to imagine they'd want one until their new leader was in place.

Edward M

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

She publicly supported Maurice McCabe, (and other whisltleblowers) while at the same time, privately knew of the Garda strategy to smear him with the most vile and disgusting rumours and innuendo anyone could be accused of.

When caught out - she hides behind legal restraints (but not clarifying what these are) and even if this is the case, there were no legal restraints preventing her from offering the Garda commisoner confidence on several occasions - knowing what she knew about NOS and the strategy she let carry on against McCabe.

That's snake like if you ask me.

I highly doubt that Fitzgerald was the only senior figure in FG circles that knew of the smear campaign. But that's another argument.

Much as it pains me to say it, but I actually have sympathy for Leo here. He's been blindsided here by the older FG generation.

If I was him, both Fitzgerald and Flannagan with her would both be put out to pasture.

There's nothing wrong with that if you have something to back it up.
Even FF aren't saying she was complicit in any smear, just dealt with it incompetently.
That's a big claim with no conviction of your statement as yet!

cruizer101

Just to clarify FF have tabled a motion of no confidence in Frances Fitzgerald, this does not mean there has to be a general election. That is the case only if a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach or Government is passed, thats not to say its not the death knell of the government and a GE isn't far behind but constitutionally it doesn't have to happen.

I do think this is just FF being opportunistic, while I feel Frances should go I don't think this should be a government toppling issue. Really not a good time for GE anyway.

Tell me how

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Right now, I think the only person who can put the pin back in this grenade is Varadkar, by telling Fitzgerald to resign. And, at the moment at least, he seems happy enough to go to the country.

Another question is, have Sinn Fein let this one blow up in their faces? Did they consider it could result in an election. Because it's hard to imagine they'd want one until their new leader was in place.

Leo should learn from Theresa May's experience by going to the country on a whim.

I think that this would suit SF as Gerry would still lead them for the election and then they might get a couple of years of a new leader before going to the polls. I think if he stepped down and they had to compete in an election within 6-12 months, they would be decimated because they wouldn't have a consistent strategy and some rogue elements would try to undermine the new leader from the start.

Odhinn

walshb wrote: »

I am not aligned to any party. I think people are simply trying their best to o the right thing. Well, most people anyway. The lie of the land today is slate slate slate slate. It's the way we rock. It's always blame and blame and his fault and her fault and their fault.

You wouldn't have anyone in government if nobody was allowed make "mistakes."

This is not a resigning issue. I think Fitzgerald is a genuine and sincere and honest type person doing the best she can.

That's your view, but I don't know how you can hold it. She didn't ask very straightforward questions that logically arise from the situation - personally I can't understand how she didn't.

Odhinn

devnull wrote: »

I'm not saying that Fitzgerald is perfect, but it this such an issue that it is serious enough to bring a government down? Not at all,...............

A minister doesn't ask questions when a tactic to smear a whistleblower is withdrawn because he has recordings of the conversation, one of the gardai being a chief superintendent - that's an appalling act of political cynicism.

McMurphy

Edward M wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with that if you have something to back it up.
Even FF aren't saying she was complicit in any smear, just dealt with it incompetently.
That's a big claim with no conviction of your statement as yet!

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Fitzgerald was part of the strategy set out by the gards, just that her account of "prob read it, but don't remember it" isn't really credible, and due to the nature and seriousness of the e-mail, not remembering it would in my eyes deem her incompetent anyway.

Fianna F TDs have indicated they might back Sinn Fein in that instance.

In particular, opposition TDs have queried the decision of the then Justice Minister not to act upon an email she got in May 2015 which mentioned a strategy to discredit Sergeant McCabe.

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

Why?

She let the Garda knowingly pursue a method of attacking a fellow officer on false charges despite being the minister of justice.....

What is honest about that or sincere. It's the opposite

The question is whether she knew the charges were false, not whether she allowed them to do it.

1) If she allowed them to pursue that angle believing the allegations to be true or not being aware that they were untrue, then she hasn't done anything wrong;
2) If she allowed them to pursue that angle knowing or reasonably should have known that the allegations were untrue, then she should go.

ThisRegard

Tell me how wrote: »

Leo should learn from Theresa May's experience by going to the country on a whim.

It's wouldn't be on a whim though. FF say they're not breaking the supply and confidence agreement but that's not really true. You can't have a government stumbling along without the confidence or backing of the other party propping them up.

Tell me how

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's wouldn't be on a whim though. FF say they're not breaking the supply and confidence agreement but that's not really true. You can't have a government stumbling along without the confidence or backing of the other party propping them up.

I think it is though given FG have the choice of removing Fitzgerald and the need to split the government going away.

(not excusing FF behaviour in this in any way)

seamus

listermint wrote: »

She let the Garda knowingly pursue a method of attacking a fellow officer on false charges despite being the minister of justice.

That's ultimately irrelevant anyway, a sitting minister should not be interfering directly in these matters. It is not her place to "tell" or "let" the Gardai in any respect. But as the man says:

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

For a start, it was the perfect issue for the opposition, a real "damned if you do, damned if you don't." They can hammer Fitzgerald for not acting on the email. But if she had acted on it, they could hammer her for interfering in the work of an independent commission. The minute she said she forgot receiving that email, they had her.

Leo is stuck between a rock and a hard place given that Fitzgerald was one of his primary supporters in the leadership push. It looks bad for him to fire her for this, it looks bad for him if she stays on.

Fitzgerald ultimately is probably the one holding all the cards right now. If she chooses to try and weather this one out, Leo has to back her no matter what happens next. Leo may promise her a cushy cabinet position in a future government, but he can't put too much pressure on her to resign.

What probably will happen is that Fitzgerald will voluntarily step down and Coveney will be appointed Tanaiste, as should have happened anyway.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The question is whether she knew the charges were false, not whether she allowed them to do it.

Ultimately we don't know if the charges were false. The complaints were referred to the DPP, who chose not to pursue them. McCabe is of course innocent, but that doesn't mean the charges or the complaint that was made, were fraudulent.

FreudianSlippers

seamus wrote: »

Ultimately we don't know if the charges were false. The complaints were referred to the DPP, who chose not to pursue them. McCabe is of course innocent, but that doesn't mean the charges or the complaint that was made, were fraudulent.

Sorry - that's what I meant. :pac:

blackwhite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The question is whether she knew the charges were false, not whether she allowed them to do it.

1) If she allowed them to pursue that angle believing the allegations to be true or not being aware that they were untrue, then she hasn't done anything wrong;
2) If she allowed them to pursue that angle knowing or reasonably should have known that the allegations were untrue, then she should go.

I think point 1 is being ignored by most at the moment - but it's gotten beyond that now.
She should have admitted to being aware of the strategy, but didn't know that the allegations were false.
Then there might have been some of the normal howling form the opposition benches, but no more than the usual grand-standing and point-scoring - with all sides knowing that at the nub of it, she hadn't done a whole lot wrong.

However, by claiming not to remember the email means that she has either lied about what she did/didn't know, or she is painting a picture of herself as being careless in her job as Justice Minister.

walshb

listermint wrote: »

Why?

She let the Garda knowingly pursue a method of attacking a fellow officer on false charges despite being the minister of justice.....

What is honest about that or sincere. It's the opposite

Where is the proof that she willingly and knowingly allowed this happen, and where is it that she knew the charges to be false?

Edward M

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Fitzgerald was part of the strategy set out by the gards, just that her account of "prob read it, but don't remember it" isn't really credible, and due to the nature and seriousness of the e-mail, not remembering it would in my eyes deem her incompetent anyway.

Fair enough.
But you as so many others are probably basing your opinion on political machinations, what apart from that are you basing your statements on?
I believe Fitzgerald should resign BTW, but I believe forcing an election based solely on that is wrong. I also think anyone outside politics who are pushing for an election are doing so based more on their own political views rather than any sense of morals or ethics.
I personally would welcome an election, I don't believe the current govt is strong enough to deliver any real change in any dept, but I don't believe the reasons for causing such an election strong enough right now or yet.

FreudianSlippers

I don't actually blame FF if an election is imminent. Fitzgerald has made some massive errors in handling this - regardless of whether she knew the allegations to be false - and she should resign or be forced to resign. FG are the ones forcing the election by holding their ground on this point and not demanding resignation.

seamus

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry - that's what I meant. :pac:

Many people (myself included) may not have actually read the email in question, and only heard about he said/she said:



So it's easy to understand why the Minister would read this and go, "OK, yeah, I know of these allegations. And there's not a whole lot I can do here, except shake my head. I can't tell the Gardai to change their plan, if I go to Noirín, I risk being accused of interference. Let's just see how this plays out".

And then forgets about that specific email. It happens to me all the time - I know pieces of information, but I wouldn't be able to tell you that I know them from an email I received two years ago.

Unfortunately the dancing around it, the declarations that there was no email, and then there was, and then confusion over the dates, just made everyone look ridiculous.

There is a nuance in that email that I may be reading wrong though - perhaps someone can confirm/clarify.

The "allegation" the mail appears to refer to is not the allegation of sexual assault against McCabe. The allegation is that the sexual abuse case was not properly investigated, and therefore that McCabe had interfered with the investigation, or benefitted from an abuse of process. Therefore undermining his credibility.

Have I got that right?

CPTM

Regarding the "Are we heading for an election" part of this title. Wouldn't Fine Gael want this? I feel they have the majority of the public vote now - not necessarily because the majority of the public would vote for them, but because those who are anti-Fine Gael are not unified with a single alternative party. After the last budget, where we saw "something for everyone in the audience", I reckon they would do pretty well. There will certainly be a lot of people voting against, but those votes will be shared across the other parties.. Sinn Fein..FF, independents..

I think if they were to hold an election, they'd get back into government with some of the independents.. Or at least, wouldn't have to be in a coalition with FF again..

constance tench

Unredacted from http://www.broadsheet.ie/