Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Social Democrat TD apologises for misleading the public

1246712

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 27,954 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Helpful to disentangle a couple of issues here.

    First, candidates aren't required to dispose of anything before the election. There's nothing to stop you running for election while holding a large chunk of the shares in Puppy Dismemberment Inc ("Feeding live puppies into meat grinders since 2016!"). The only reason for selling is a self-imposed one; you think if word of this gets out it might harm your chances of election.

    And, if you are successful, word of this will get out after the election if you still hold the shares then, because (a) you will probably be required to disclose them in a register of interests at some point, and (b) even if you're not, as a public figure more attention will be focussed on you and, one way or another, this may come to light. Company share registers are, in principle, public documents. And that might harm your chances of re-election.

    So, if you do decide to dispose of them, that's not because any requirement has been imposed on you; it's a choice you've made, motivated by your own self-interest and your own political advantage.

    (There's an extra dimension in the Eoin Hayes case. His party's platform, I think, includes a call for the State to divest from businesses that profit from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. So for him to be invested in just such a business himself would be acutely embarrassing. But, even still, divestment was his choice.)

    So, is a candidate meant to divest from an ETF? And, if so, is that based on imputing to the candidate knowledge of the activities of every business in which the ETF invests?

    The answer is that the only reason a candidate would divest from an ETF is if he thinks holding it is likely to be electorally or politically disadvantageous. He might think that it's unreasonable for the voters judge him negatively for being indirectly invested in businesses, some of which profit by doing objectionable things. But, if enough voters do take that position, then it's in his interests not to hold the ETF and he will act accordingly.

    I don't think you have to approach this based on an (obviously unrealistic) assumption that the holder of an ETF should be acquainting themselves with every business in which the ETF invests, and with everything that business does. If you invest in a broad market equity ETF, you know that it will hold shares in armaments companies, gambling companies, companies that publish pornography, companies that support Israel or Trump or evangelical Christian efforts to vicitimise trans people or even companies that crush puppies. You don't have to know which companies these are, or exactly when the ETF buys or sells shares in them; it's enough that you know that this will happen, and does happen, and a part of your return comes from these businesses.

    But the market will cater to your concerns. Ethical ETFs that screen companies and exclude those that engage in armaments trading, puppy crushing etc are widely available. So if you do have a concern that voters will judge you negatively for holding an unscreened ETF, there is a ready solution to the problem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,745 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    And I don't actually believe him. Typed and then written the same way wrong three times. Would love for DCC to confirm the date of receipt of the document…

    Additionally, the "before I entered politics" claim is still a blatant lie no matter which dates are used. You enter politics when selected as a candidate.

    He lied about that, and the only reason was embarrassment as holding the shares was not illegal,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,281 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    I don't think the form and whether is was a typo or not is the big issue here (virgin media said that they have seen information that does suggest it was a typo).

    The issue is that he stood alongside his party colleagues and said (23 times I think is what Gavan Reilly said) that he had sold the shares before he got into politics.

    All he had to do was say he got rid of them shortly after he was elected to the council and it's a non-story. But lying while standing next to your new colleagues is a bad, bad look.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭pureza


    It seems,the shares if he held them today a few weeks later would be worth more than double (€500k) according to it says in the papers this morning

    Little wonder he wanted to hide them

    That’s champagne socialists for ya



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,863 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Kinda like lying on an asylum application but still being allowed stand for election.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,900 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    I'm no expert in share trading but if I decide to sell shares today does the transaction go through today or is there a lead time? Might be a bit of straw clutching but could he have initiated the sale of his shares before the LE and then the sale closed a few days/weeks/months after

    Given his views on the Israel/Palestine situation I doubt he intentionally wanted to contribute to the Israeli side and it's a bit strange he would lie about the events.

    One way out for him now is to donate the money he earned from the sale to a Palestinian charity, or one that is going somewhat to providing aid to the area



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,281 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Then say as such. A line such as "I started the process to divest my shares in X, this was completed by Y. I now hold no shares in the company" would have covered him. He was trying to hide things rather than being open.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,207 ✭✭✭pureza


    if they’re publicly listed ordinary shares he could have set a price below which they wouldn’t sell and on or above they would sell

    Or best price of the day

    The latter would probably sell instantly especially if what I heard on it says on the papers on MI this morning is correct and that they more than doubled in value since he sold them



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,900 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Yeah it seems he lied, which is auful, I'm only saying it's a bit strange that he would lie about such a thing. Was he really expecting not to get caught?

    Dáil Eireann is a bit like coronation street. It might take time but the truth always seems to comes out



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    Well in that case they'll be calling for McDonald's, Starbucks and every business related to Israel, UK, USA, China and Russia etc to leave Ireland. They'll be calling on all their employees to voluntarily leave etc.

    Thankfully the vast majority of Irish people don't give a crap about any of this.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    The real problem is the stigma the far left have created around owning such shares. He shouldn't feel like he needs to hide them in the first place.

    However he did and that deserves criticism. No different to FF/FG this new lot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,217 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    The Israeli Intel plant is about 10 miles from Hebron in Judea, you can be certain that people live there and work in it. Are the soc dems going to ask them to leave.

    I've Yet to meet a soc dem that wasn't working in academia or a multi national it's a party for people isolated from their political beliefs and the effects on the rest of society



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭RoyalCelt


    They'll just virtue signal but thankfully like most politicians they know what's up. They won't be committing social suicide while a 250BN dept hangs over our heads. We're a neutral country and don't owe anyone anything. We need to look after our own.

    If people want to personally boycott certain products fire away it's your money but the vast majority will never buy into that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,281 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    I reckon he panicked and then got stuck in the lie.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Danzy, you don't need to rush in as the White Knight whenever anything you might be able to link to Israel comes up. The relationships of the company in question are incidental, and while possibly the reason for the attempted deception, are not the issue at hand.

    Declarations of interest are very important in politics as the people who are making and influencing decisions need to be transparent as to whether those decisions benefit them. It would be the same if someone who was in a position to influence policy around alcohol was found to have dishonestly omitted from their declaration that they owned sizeable shares in a consortium of pubs for example. Once you have rules, then people have to follow them. You can't have an "ah shure it doesn't apply to me because I'm different" attitude to rules.

    It is not the (past) owning of the shares which is an issue, it was the false declaration and cack-handed attempt to cover it up. If he still owned the shares then he could just declare them and let the public decide if they had an issue with it or not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,529 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Virgin Media say that they have seen other materials which support his assertion that it was a typo.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,900 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Might be on to something there. Always better in politics to take your time to get your facts straight than to panic



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,623 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    This is quite a bizarre case.

    On the one hand, if a politician lies, they should pay a consequence. On the other hand, it seems that the typo explanation may be true. He submitted a form on 26 July, dated 26 June, saying that he had gotten rid of the shares. If the date is 26 July, that is true, if it is 26 June, it is not. In a criminal court, that would be sufficient to introduce reasonable doubt and likely find him innocent. Added to that, those forms are notoriously complex and difficult to understand. When is an investment an investment? If you have €500 in prize bonds, do you need to declare them?

    On the completely other hand, what does it matter that he had shares in a company that he worked for, but that later, after he left them, sold to the Israelis? Absolutely nothing to me. I am certain that there are other politicians out there with pension funds from private employment who have invested in similar companies, possibly even Social Democrat politicians. Politicians don't take a vow of poverty when they enter politics. Is it a bit hypocritical of him? Possibly, but, he was not doing anything illegal.

    Imagine a politician calling for pubs to close earlier at 11:00 for public health reasons (holding shares in companies that supply Israel to be illegal), and that politician being pictured in a pub at 12:00 on a Friday night (holding shares in companies that supply Israel). Should they be sanctioned for that? Not in my mind. I would favour a tax on airline flights in the interests of combatting climate change, but it is not going to stop me flying abroad.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    At the risk of dragging this off topic, if you favour a tax on airline flights "in the interests of climate change" but it isn't going to stop you flying abroad, then be honest and say what you really mean - you don't want people poorer than you being allowed to fly anywhere.

    Taxes on goods or services under the pretence of "fighting climate change" are inherently unfair, as all they do is allow those with the means to pay extra for that service, while people who can't afford it are excluded. It is effectively moving all the blame for the problem on to those who did the least to create it, and have no power to stop it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 231 ✭✭Bocadilloo


    I find this a really strange incident to have evoked such outrage as well. Little over a year ago, nobody in the country had much of an issue with Israel or maybe not much interest in them. I wouldn't be any sort of fan of the Soc Dems but this lad had shares in a software infrastructure company a decade ago due to his employment with them. I've worked in multinationals over the years and seen the absolute chaos employees get into trying to sell shares they have received from the company. Multinationals in Ireland with close ties to Israel i might add.

    I've been monitoring Palantir for the last few months for investment, so it peaked my interest when I saw it in the Irish media. The poor TD has lost out on the double with the share price increase recently. Whether he sold them in June, July or whenever, I couldn't care less. I would much rather a TD with solid investments in stocks, ETFs, pension planning portfolios etc. than much of the current crop, who rack up numerous rental properties whose ownership have a direct detrimental effect on the people they claim to represent.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,464 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Gary Gannon has apologised after his comments about journalists hoping to become special advisors for the government.

    I judge him more for apologising for this. What an amateur.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,281 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    The issue isn't really to do with who he had investments in. It's how he handled the communicating of this.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The Soc Dem TD is going to fall on his sword for misleading the public. TDs as a whole would be very silly to highlight the connection to Israel. Lots of TDs will have some sort of connection to a US or Irish company that is connected to Israel.

    I wouldn't say ouch. If the war ends next month, as promised by Trump, those shares will be worth less than that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75,425 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It was a shambolic mess of a presser from first off. Gannon was like a rabbit caught in the headlights and Hayes unintentionally? looked like he was trying to hide behind them all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,198 ✭✭✭Doc07


    ‘Added to that, those forms are notoriously complex and difficult to understand. When is an investment an investment? If you have €500 in prize bonds, do you need to declare them?’

    sorry they are not complicated, it literally states you only have to declare when it’s about €12k on that part of the form. So there is no need to introduce rhat type of whataboutery nonsense. Of course he’s not the first and FF and FG for example can’t make too much noise as they have active members who have failed to declare assets worth much more than €200k.

    Otherwise I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with him previously earning and keeping those shares. The problem for me ( and I gave him a 2nd preference) is the perception of lying to cover up the unfortunate timing as it introduces the concern that he might lie to cover any embarrassing issue.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,863 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    There was no invitation in the ROG tweets. He's not the one telling lies here.

    And Harris didn't sign the NCH contract. Ministers don't generally sign contracts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭JVince


    Why? - the Israeli part of the business is quite small. It would not have a material affect on their sales.

    The US military is possibly their biggest customer as well as many other counter intelligence agencies and countries worldwide



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,735 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    the date of submission is at the top of the combined declarations document https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/2024-08/combined-ethics-declarations-newly-elected-councillors-compressed_0.pdf



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,735 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    panicked? with a ~weeks notice that he may be asked about it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 983 ✭✭✭StormForce13


    Yep, I remember that shabby bit of Soppy Dem virtue signalling too! It ensured that I would never vote for them.

    Gannon was the "brains" behind that particular stunt, wasn't he?



Advertisement