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

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If it was no longer applicable, he would have a copy of a later version without the confidential markings.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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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 wrote: »

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

Do I ?

Care to answer any of the questions?

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.

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.