General

Statement from Village, 9 November 2020 The cardinal political sin is lying to Parliament. It is a resigning matter for a Minister to lie to the Dáil. Village submits evidence below that suggests the Dáil has been lied to on what is currently an important and topical issue. In his Statement and replies to questions in the Dáil last Tuesday (3 November), Tánaiste Leo Varadkar defended his ostensibly illegal transfer to a friend of a confidential contract, by then a matter of serious political and ethical concern and scrutiny, on the basis of his “motivation”.  The central part of what he called his “defence” was that he transferred the document to Dr Matt Ó Tuathail with the motive to advance the public interest, to sow harmony: “to get the [GP-contract] deal done and ensure it secured universal acceptance across the GP community”.   There are several problems with this.  a) the recipient Ó Tuathail, head of an organisation that was a rival to the IMO, has said he intended to “destroy” the IMO, and would use the document to take “the wind from [the IMO’s] sails, especially with 17 roadshows to go!!”.   b) it seems strange if Varadkar was acting in good faith to promote government policy to unite feuding doctors’ groups, albeit covertly,  that he waited for his mate to approach him rather than doing anything at all of an overt nature to foster that unity. But this piece is not about how the transfer was not done with the intention of advancing the public interest, it is about what the transfer was. Its motivation was a favour for a friend.  A friend who was closer than Varadkar says. Village has contradicted, and can contradict, much more of what the Tánaiste has said, and for a magazine that generally avoids concerns about anyone’s social life it is discomfiting to be analysing anyone’s socialising, but fair-minded observers will accept that the issue of his friendship was the central one in the defence the Tánaiste himself made. As part of this defence the Tánaiste told Pearse Doherty TD in the Dáil of his relationship with O’Tuathail: “Yes, we are friends. However, there are friends and there are friends. We are not close friends. Dr Ó Tuathail is the kind of friend I would meet two or three times a year, probably at a drinks reception or through overlapping social circles. Otherwise he would have been in touch with me about medical matters such as Safetynet, the charity he works for through which GPs provide medical care to the homeless. I have had some involvement in that. We are not best mates or anything like that”. Speaking of O’Tuathail the Tánaiste stated: “Someone who is known to me, who is a friend but not a close friend, made out to various people that he was closer to me than he was”. And he said, “This is somebody who is not a close friend but is a friend. He is in my wider social circle”.   He then referred to just two meetings in the last year which is not the period for which Village has evidence. Note also that we are looking only at that part of his statement that dealt with meetings not contacts. So in summary the Tánaiste has solemnly told the Dáil he met Ó Tuathail “two or three times a year”. And this was particularly relevant for it characterised their relationship: Ó Tuathail was “the kind of friend I would meet two or three times a year”.  So is this the truth? Village here shows evidence by way of screenshotted WhatsApp exchanges (and one iMessage) between Chay Bowes and Matt Ó Tuathail and other independently verifiable evidence of at least 10 meetings between Ó Tuathail and the then-Taoiseach, around the relevant period in 2019 when the document was leaked and when favours – such as Ó Tuathail, personally, cheerleading for Varadkar – were possibly being done for Varadkar as a quid pro quo  for the leak.  There is no reason to think this is anything like an exclusive list.  The Tánaiste himself in his Dáil statement referred to “Christmas drinks” with Ó Tuathail within the period. Bowes has told Village that he met O’Tuathail and Varadkar along with Matt Barrett and others once during the period, at an uncertain date during the summer of 2019 in The Taphouse pub in Ranelagh, in the presence of two gardaí; and Darragh Bowes his son confirms picking Bowes up after the evening and discussing it.  Ó Tuathail and Varadkar also met at a festival on 29 June 2019 and there is ample evidence of this on the web and indeed in recent newspaper articles and the original Village piece. These were not included in the trove of WhatsApp exchanges (and iMessages) Village has obtained. Of course everyone knows that only a fraction of our social meetings with any individual are likely to be recorded in writing. In this case readers will make allowance for the fact there are definitely other meetings (three of which have just been described) but also that the trove of WhatsApp messages sent by Ó Tuathail is likely not to even include all his WhatsApp or other written evidence of meetings, since Bowes received only a limited selection. So Village has evidence of ten meetings in a year, seven evidenced by way of WhatsApp (and iMessage) communications some of which can be verified by independent research of the record and the media; and three verifiable entirely independently of Ó Tuathail. Any of the Ministers pleading their diaries do not describe these meetings should attract scepticism. Ministers’ diaries notoriously do not describe social meetings, especially with friends who have a business angle.  We have done some analysis of the time frames and are aware that, for example, the alleged lunchtime meeting on 30 June 2019 was on the same day as the then-Taoiseach went to Brussels.  We do not consider the meeting was impossible since a flight to Brussels takes 100 minutes and a car to the European Council from the airport only 15 minutes.  We could not find evidence to disprove that any of the meetings took place.  Dr Ó Tuathail

:           Ruadhán Mac Aodháin, Solicitor, Prospect Law Re:       Whether the Official Secrets Act applies to Ministers and TDs? Client:  Ormond Quay Publishing Limited Date:   3rd November 2020 From:  Diarmuid Rossa Phelan SC Thank you for your instructions of last night raising the above question to be answered by noon today. The short answer is that there is no exclusion in the Official Secrets Act, 1963, to the person prohibited from communicating official information by virtue of the person’s status simpliciter as Minister or member of the Oireachtas. Whether the prohibition on the disclosure of official information falls within Section 4 of the Act applies depends on whether the information is “official information” within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and if so whether it is excepted. Official information includes a document  which is confidential or expressed to be confidential, and which is or has been in the possession custody or control of a holder of public office or to which the holder of public office has or had access, where such control or access is by virtue of the public office holder’s office. Public office includes an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas. Therefore information does not become official information by virtue of it being in the possession etc. of a member of the Oireachtas. However, official information does not cease to be official information solely by virtue of the fact that it has come into the possession custody or control of or accessed by a member of the Oireachtas, or indeed any other person who is not a holder of public office as defined by the Act. If the information falls within the definition of official information, the prohibition on disclosure of official information applies to a person without qualification or exclusion de ratione personae. However the communication by any person may nonetheless be excepted from prohibition, not because of status for example as member of the Oireachtas or Minister, but if the disclosing person either is duly authorised to communicate the official information – “duly authorised” here means (S.4(4)) authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority to communicate the official information, or communicates the official information in the course of or in accordance with his or her duties as the holder of a public office (not including membership of the Oireachtas), or when it is his or her duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

In advance of the Dáil debate on Tánaiste Leo Varadkar’s now-admitted leak of a confidential document last year, Village wants to express a hope that the debate will be forensic, not the usual populist, adjective-heavy grandstanding, that may let a culprit off a lazily-cast hook.  To this end we suggest that TDs framing the debate about wrongdoing not criminality are wasting parliamentary time. It is to be hoped that the public and media can distinguish such speakers. For the moment we want to address assertions a) that Mr Varadkar’s agenda was in the public interest and b) that his offence is minor – one of ‘less than best practice’ (!) –  not criminal. The reason the public interest is important is because if the release were in the public interest it might exculpate Mr Varadkar under the Official Secrets Act which essentially excludes from its ambit Ministers acting, driven by the public interest (i.e. when they have a duty – and importantly not merely a power – to do so) but not otherwise. So looking at the public interest, scandal-blower Chay Bowes has told Village that Matt O’Tuathail told him he had approached Varadkar to get him the draft document, as a favour to a friend. Not – as FG is spinning it – that Varadkar considered it would be in the public interest, and chose the President of the NAGP as the conduit. It has not been as clear as it could be that Varadkar and O’Tuathail were friends. A major absurdity is that Mr Varadkar is claiming he leaked the document to facilitate agreement by the NAGP: “Mr Varadkar hoped to use Dr Ó’Tuathail’s influence to encourage all GPs to accept it”, as the Tánaiste’s Halloween statement has it -when the Village article shows it was received by his mate on the basis it would be used by the NAGP to undermine the IMO’s negotiating stance.  Village has copies of messages showing this. As to the second point – criminality – the Act, let us be clear, applies to ‘people’, all people.  It is utterly wrong in law for the Tánaiste, supported by torpid commentators who have not taken legal advice, to say the Act does not apply to Ministers or then-Taoisigh. The media are failing to do basic research about this – allowing Varadkar to bluster behind legal bluffs as in his windy Halloween statement. The Official Secrets Act says at Section  4.—(1) “A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person UNLESS he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it”. . The rule applies to PERSONS – all persons including Oireachtas members.  That is the central case. The EXCEPTION  to the rule is for holders of public office acting in a particular way not for public office holders per se. (and in any event Ministers and Taoisigh are excluded – so excluding Mr Varadkar from the exception not the rule). The Tánaiste’s Halloween statement says “the ambit of the [Official Secrets] Act is limited to persons holding a public office”. It is to be hoped he will be asked today if he considers the Act does not apply to him as Tánaiste. So, the Minister did not act in the public interest.  And he has committed a crime.  That is why the Village article was framed as “Leo, Law Breaker”. We hope these issues are properly explored in the debate.

Biden is unexciting and past his best but not mad ‘Vote Joe’ For Village’s agenda of equality of outcome, sustainability and accountability, Bernie Sanders was the best champion.   By comparison, his conservative Democrat vanquisher Joe Biden is ideologically vague, compromised,  wedded to mid-twentieth-century agendas and lacking timely radicalism. Biden’s persona is attractively folksy grandfatherly – and Irish-American – but he is past his best, inarticulate.  Biden’s opponent Donald Trump is post-ideological/psychotic with no interest in ideas, still less in the ideas that comprise Village’s agenda. His persona is entirely self-unaware, crass and bombastic.  He delivers his incendiary lies in  repetitive, unyielding chunks like a fairground barker. Trump is narcissistic to the point of insanity making him again the most dangerous candidate President in history.  His paralysed opponents haven’t realised that only attacks that puncture his – and his supporters – image of himself ‘Brand Trump’ work – not ones that, for example show him immoral or illiberal.   Trump does not distinguish truth from lies, argument from abuse or policy from whimsy. Even Reagan and W Bush regarded themselves as accountable for untruths; he does not.  A self-confessed greedy plutocrat he lies about his wealth, dodges taxes, abuses women, and plays with public health. He is incompetent. He takes no responsibility for anything at all.  He expressly says he takes no responsibility for the, at least 100,000, excess Covid-19 deaths. Worse, he casually incites hatred. Trump has incited hatred against Muslims, Mexicans and Chinese, and denigrated Black Lives Matter and victims of police racism. In practice he has reduced the US’ intake of refugees from 86,000 in 2016 to 11,000 in 2020. Parents of 545 children separated from their families at the Southern border as part of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy cannot be found. Economic immigration is down by 50%. Trump has never had clear policies, only policy-substitute mantras, instincts chief of which – after self-advancement – is aiding both the richest and the ordinary white supremacist.  Nevertheless some of his stuff amazingly, worked out ok.  He has not started any wars or incited as much violence as might have been predicted. He has undermined some international trade, particularly with China.  For Village that is not a bad thing.  It is fair too to record that Trump has managed the US economy effectively if explosively – by deregulation against the common good.  According to the Economist magazine: “GDP growth was somewhat faster in 2017-19 than it was in either Barack Obama’s first or second term, according to official data. America also did well relative to other countries…There is clear evidence of an acceleration in the growth of America’s median household income from 2017 onwards”. While  Biden wants to raise taxes on high-income households – over $400,000 –  Trump still aims to cut taxes for all income brackets – with no budgetary concern. The deficit for 2020 is over $3tr. The US national debt is over $27tr.  On abortion, Biden is pro-choice; Trump, on the back of fake religiosity,  is pro-life. Biden would pass a federal law that protects a woman’s right to have an abortion so that even if the Supreme Court bucks the Roe v Wade precedent going back almost 50 years, that right would still exist. Trump aims to achieve a strong conservative majority in the Supreme Court that would probably leave the States to legislate on abortion, making it illegal in most parts of the US. Trump is an incoherent climate denier. He claims ‘It’ll start getting cooler. You just watch… I don’t think science knows, actually”.  In practice US carbon dioxide emissions peaked on Trump’s watch in 2018. They fell for the last two years, but remain higher than they were before he took office. The average American emits 16.56 tonnes of CO2 a year, over twice as much as the average Chinese or European. Implementing the fruits of a joint Sanders-Biden taskforce on climate, Biden’s climate plan has improved but he supports unsustainable fracking and is a devotee of the US car industry, albeit moving to electric,  and indeed of his own cherished sports car. That these two defective candidates compete for the most powerful office in the world says more about the system than it does about the candidates. But most of all it bespeaks problems with the political culture of what has passed for a great nation. Ultimately Biden will take us back to the political era of his biggest mentor, Obama. This piece is consciously and remarkably similar to a piece in Village from October 2016 assessing the  respective appeals of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  Biden will disappoint even people considerably less radical than Village.  Trump’s policies on climate, foreigners and equality; his iconoclastic geopolitics and his tiny fingers on the nuclear button; risk taking us back to the stone age.  So, in the unlikely event you have a vote, use it for Sleepy Joe.