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

joemurt

smurgen wrote: »

Four other legislators on Dail record on Tuesday 16th saying they hadn't seen the details.

https://twitter.com/OConnorOisin/status/1322577088415674369?s=19

Next question - Time to start asking the people who said they did have access to it where or who they got it from. O T's copy?

Phoebas

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The glee shown by the NAGP 'Inner Sanctum' in their WhatsApp group is a fairly good indicator of their benefiting.

Fair enough if you're arguing that 'glee' counts as a benefit.
I was looking for something a bit more substantial.

Fann Linn

suicide_circus wrote: »

So how big a banana skin will this prove to be for Leo?

Didn't Denis Naughten have to resign over lobbying irregularities?

joemurt

Wombatman wrote: »

The worst thing about Golfgate for me was the stench of cronyism.

This is just more of it. While the golden circle might not be illegal as such, it really sticks in the craw of the average working stiff.


Leo always delivers, but I expect only to those who have delivered to him, and his ilk, first.

Well said. As someone else pointed out; how Regine Doherty is on the board of Pieta house given recent comments is very, very strange. Have anything to do with government support?



Would be the equivalence of Varadkar resigning over this scandal only to walk into a charity board gig for refugees.

Phoebas

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If it was no longer applicable, he would have a copy of a later version without the confidential markings. People here are really desperate to play down this leak that undermined his own Minister.

Was there any difference, at all, between the agreement that was sent and the agreement that was later published?

It's the same text, so then the question is, what makes it confidential on one day, but not on another?

thomas 123

joemurt wrote: »

Well said. As someone else pointed out; how Regine Doherty is on the board of Pieta house given recent comments is very, very strange. Have anything to do with government support?



Would be the equivalence of Varadkar resigning over this scandal only to walk into a charity board gig for refugees.

Don’t forget Noreen O’Sullivans promotion to Europe.

AndrewJRenko

Phoebas wrote: »

Fair enough if you're arguing that 'glee' counts as a benefit.
I was looking for something a bit more substantial.

Have a think about why you think they were expressing such glee.

tigger123

Fann Linn wrote: »

Didn't Denis Naughten have to resign over lobbying irregularities?

Nope, he didnt have to at all. Nobody was calling for his resignation, not even the opposition. Everyone was shocked when it happened.

smurgen

joemurt wrote: »

Well said. As someone else pointed out; how Regine Doherty is on the board of Pieta house given recent comments is very, very strange. Have anything to do with government support?



Would be the equivalence of Varadkar resigning over this scandal only to walk into a charity board gig for refugees.

Any board that wanted to be taken seriously couldn't have Leo Varadkar on it. It would be detrimental to any organisation with confidential information having someone with a history of sharing it involved.

Im not even starting with the breach. The casual access to influence varadkar which is on display here is sickening...remarks like "community integration" but not our community im guessing, right lads..they seem far to at ease with "speaking to leo" for their own ends if you ask me...you have to wonder now if adding " Mean girls" tweets to a national address was even a joke type dare from their camp to see if the dullards were unacquainted with such pop culture.. trust funders getting the limelight in a national disaster whilst boosting their own profiles ta boot...i hope it was phil hogan that fukt them to be honest..house of cards style

Phoebas

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have a think about why you think they were expressing such glee.

That's a pretty weak line of arguement.
If you're saying there was a benefit, you really need to spell out what that benefit is.

Sir Oxman

smurgen wrote: »

It was all so public that on 17/04 GP's were wondering where the contract documents were. Any politician defending a leak of confidential legal document isn't fit for government it's that simple. It is a black and white matter. The reason? Because contracts and legal agreements are subject to change until they're signed by all parties involved. The devil is in the detail. And if this wasn't the case here how come Leo wrote subject to amendments/changes on the covert of the documents he delivered to his friend?

https://twitter.com/andyjjordan1/status/1118604334688866304?s=19

There's also the very bad vibe from a former Taoiseach and current Enterprise, Trade and Employment minister disregarding established procedures in union contract negotiations and basically showing he cannot be trusted.
This is why he should be on very dodgy ground and IMO should resign
I say should be because in this country, bad politicians are usually very well guarded.

Man with broke phone

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a pretty weak line of arguement.
If you're saying there was a benefit, you really need to spell out what that benefit is.

They had time to go over every detail of it and be the union that stood against it and have all the answers ready on the day its made public, with 40 per cent of GPs not in a union it would give them a big recruitment opportunity if they could rouse these GPs into thinking they werent getting a decent deal.

smurgen

Man with broke phone wrote: »

They had time to go over every detail of it and be the union that stood against it and have all the answers ready on the day its made public, with 40 per cent of GPs not in a union it would give them a big recruitment opportunity if they could rouse these GPs into thinking they werent getting a decent deal.

And it also helped his friend Dr Maitiú Ó Tuathail appear more credible in his organisation NAGP.

yabadabado

Phoebas wrote: »

Was there any difference, at all, between the agreement that was sent and the agreement that was later published?

It's the same text, so then the question is, what makes it confidential on one day, but not on another?

If there was no issue with passing on the information, why did he do it covertly and not follow proper procedures?

Maybe there was little or no change in text but that doesn't make it OK.

Using hindsight as an excuse doesn't really cut it.

Phoebas

Man with broke phone wrote: »

They had time to go over every detail of it and be the union that stood against it and have all the answers ready on the day its made public, with 40 per cent of GPs not in a union it would give them a big recruitment opportunity if they could rouse these GPs into thinking they werent getting a decent deal.

That's something.
And now explain what in the world is wrong with a GP representative body knowing the detail of a deal that was done without their input, that greatly effects their members, knowing about what was in that deal?

_Kaiser_

Phoebas wrote: »

Fair enough if you're arguing that 'glee' counts as a benefit.
I was looking for something a bit more substantial.

I think the whole question of "how do they benefit" is answered in the texts.. ultimately it's all about who has access and influence on the decision-makers.

It would appear from the article/texts that Ó Tuathail was trying to highlight his connection to Leo by having access to the document itself, the "Leo always delivers" remark, the supposed knowledge of how he (Leo) feels on refugees etc

As to what the benefits themselves could be.. ability to make suggested amendments on the final (or future) agreement, insider-information on proposals/deals offered to a competitor, more members of their group (I presume who pay fees?) etc

And if, as the FGers here suggest, this was all known info at that point.. well, it's clear from the text exchanges quoted in the Village article that this document shouldn't have landed in their hands and they knew it, hence the stressing the need to keep it very confidential and asking how he got it with him replying he couldn't say but it was the "real deal".

Leo isn't out of the woods here by any stretch.

Phoebas

yabadabado wrote: »

If there was no issue with passing on the information, why did he do it covertly and not follow proper procedures?

Maybe there was little or no change in text but that doesn't make it OK.

Using hindsight as an excuse doesn't really cut it.

I agree that it should have been done using proper procedures. As does Leo.

boombang

RTE Radio One's This Week are covering the issue, but the news bulletin beforehand made no mention of it. I continue to be unimpressed by RTE.

Sir Oxman

Children's TV presenter's voiceover star, Paschal Donohoe is reeling out the 'not best practice' line on RTE Radio One News now.

smurgen

rusty cole wrote: »

Im not even starting with the breach. The casual access to influence varadkar which is on display here is sickening...remarks like "community integration" but not our community im guessing, right lads..they seem far to at ease with "speaking to leo" for their own ends if you ask me...you have to wonder now if adding " Mean girls" tweets to a national address was even a joke type dare from their camp to see if the dullards were unacquainted with such pop culture.. trust funders getting the limelight in a national disaster whilst boosting their own profiles ta boot...i hope it was phil hogan that fukt them to be honest..house of cards style

Exactly. Take this line here in this message "talk to Leo".
Who is this person and would this now be considered lobbying? Legally doesn't all lobbying attempts on politicians need to be logged?

yabadabado

Phoebas wrote: »

I agree that it should have been done using proper procedures. As does Leo.

Did he willfully ignore procedure and undermine the process or was he not aware of what he was doing.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Was this the first and last time or has he passed on confidential information more than this occasion.

yabadabado

Phoebas wrote: »

That's something.
And now explain what in the world is wrong with a GP representative body knowing the detail of a deal that was done without their input, that greatly effects their members, knowing about what was in that deal?

If its such a non event and nothing wrong with it, why is Leo seeking legal advise,why did he not ask that it be released to everyone and for it to be released using the proper procedures?

Phoebas

yabadabado wrote: »

If its such a non event and nothing wrong with it, why is Leo seeking legal advise,why did he not ask that it be released to everyone and for it to be released using the proper procedures?

You already know the answer to this, so don't be playing dumb.
Leo acknowledges that he shared the information; he denied that this was illegal.

yabadabado

Phoebas wrote: »

You already know the answer to this, so don't be playing dumb.

Do I ?

Care to answer any of the questions?

Cluedo Monopoly

Colm Brophy FG TD was an absolute shocker in Newstalk today. He had been given instructions on how to defend Leo today but actually came across as a simpleton.

His main argument was that "It was a good deal. He just kept repeating it.

FrancieBrady

It would set an extraordinary precedent if the 'I was only trying to help' excuse is allowed to fly.

Just think about how that could be used in the future by various Taosigh and Ministers.
Has he done this before in other negotiations needs to be fully investigated IMO.

ddarcy

yabadabado wrote: »

Did he willfully ignore procedure and undermine the process or was he not aware of what he was doing.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Was this the first and last time or has he passed on confidential information more than this occasion.

I think this is the main thing. I am wondering if the village has other instances of this going on. So they could be waiting to see if Leo digs a deeper hole for himself. They’re not backing down, which makes me think they have something else.

The opposition should definitely have him show all instances of this occurring in the past, if it happened... or this could be a nothingberg, we shall see

Man with broke phone

Phoebas wrote: »

That's something.
And now explain what in the world is wrong with a GP representative body knowing the detail of a deal that was done without their input, that greatly effects their members, knowing about what was in that deal?

It was decided at the start of the talks that they had no seat at the table. It gave them the power to go public against the deal before the deal was finalised.

It could have been catastrophic to the deal itself.

smurgen

ddarcy wrote: »

I think this is the main thing. I am wondering if the village has other instances of this going on. So they could be waiting to see if Leo digs a deeper hole for himself. They’re not backing down, which makes me think they have something else.

The opposition should definitely have him show all instances of this occurring in the past, if it happened... or this could be a nothingberg, we shall see

This is why I asked if he outlined the exact parts they reports that are inaccurate. He's keeping it vague in case they release more.