[ad_1]
Last Friday, for anyone who had the time or desire to check the Seanad calendar, a motion on youth by Fine Gael senators was included, which was to be debated tonight.
In what is an incredibly difficult time for young people, there would have been a lot to discuss in what was a lengthy motion that covered labor and social issues and praised young people for being “stoic” in the face of the pandemic.
But that motion “got the push,” as Labor Sen. Marie Sherlock put it, when Fine Gael modified her plans.
In a revised calendar, distributed Monday, the time of Fine Gael’s private members would be used to debate a motion on what it describes as a loophole in the law on political donations that, in particular, sought to shed light on 4 million euros. . which had been left in the hands of Sinn Féin in the testament of an Englishman, William Hampton.
There was no indication that Fine Gael’s change of direction had anything to do with Sinn Féin’s no-confidence motion against Tánaiste and Fine Gael leader Leo Varadkar, announced Friday and debated Tuesday night.
Barry Ward, the Senator and Fine Gael attorney who introduced the motion, said he did so because the 4 million euros, the largest donation ever made to an Irish political party, was causing concern and was something that needed to be passed on.
But it certainly gave Fine Gael a chance to refocus on Sinn Féin and fight another round in the increasingly intense boxing match between the two sides.
Both debates, held on Tuesday and tonight, focused on concerns around transparency, accountability and ethics in public life. All sides of both Houses made valid points in both discussions.
Yet for Leinster House watchers, these motions had as much to do with politics, and in particular where those two parties are positioning themselves in the changing political landscape.
In a competitive political arena, with more parties and groups than ever before, there is a theory that Irish politics should both be presented as a binary choice between their opposing views or, as Labor Aodhán O Ríordáin put it, “among the Conservatives of Varadkar and populist nationalism “.
Sinn Féin failed to bring new revelations or arguments to the table when they debated the no-confidence motion on Tuesday night.
Mary Lou McDonald said that Tánaiste’s actions in leaking a document related to a GP’s contract were part of an “insider cozy club policy” involving “favors for friends, connections with friends”, while the Debenhams workers and the survivors of the mothers and babies houses were “frozen.” .
In the second round of the Seanad, Fine Gael tried to expose what he sees as hypocrisy at the heart of this argument.
Senator Sean Kyne made the comparison between America’s big money policy and what we have here, which is a “low-cost, low-spending, transparent and accountable political system.”
He said that anyone who puts their name on the ballot should not have to compete with anyone who does not follow the same guidelines. “How can we know that those 4 million euros are not going to be spent in the Republic? That is the issue that is at stake here,” he said.
His party colleague Senator John McGahon spoke of a “deep, dark and corrupt money pit used by the Sinn Féin party,” and said the motion was advanced to “shine a light on those dark corners of our democracy.”
Among the provisions of Senator Ward’s proposal is a requirement that political parties have to make an annual declaration that they are not spending funds raised in other jurisdictions.
In other words, they should declare that the € 4 million bequeathed by Mr Hampton would not be spent south of the border.
Most notably, he said, it “came under the conditions” that it was for the Republic of Ireland political party.
“Either they disagree with the terms of Mr. Hampton’s legacy, or they propose to spend it elsewhere than just in Northern Ireland,” Ward said. “And the difficulty is that we cannot be sure.”
Other parties agreed on the substantive issue of the need to reform this particular aspect of the SIPO rules and all parties, except Sinn Féin, supported the motion.
Labor’s Rebecca Moynihan said it’s a much bigger problem than Sinn Féin, comparing how money was channeled to the DUP for the Brexit referendum to get around campaign spending limits.
Senator Michael McDowell suggested that in the past he turned a blind eye to Sinn Fein’s fundraising in the United States, at a time when the government was trying to get the Good Friday Agreement to cross, but that now it is the time to legislate “to ensure that the legacy of distorting the democratic process ends now.”
I am concerned if our political debate becomes polarized between Sinn Féin on the one hand and Fine Gael on the other, said Malcolm Byrne of Fianna Fáil.
But other parties also criticized what they saw as a use of the Seanad calendar for what is a growing battle between Sinn Féin and Fine Gael, in which both seek to play on their base to mutually benefit from their strident opposition to each other.
“I think it is very unfortunate that we are taking two hours of what is a precious schedule to discuss these issues,” said Sen. Marie Sherlock.
She said that while there are serious problems surrounding donations, they should be addressed through legislation put forward by government parties rather than motions that have no effect. (Senator Ward said the proposed legislation is in the works.)
“I am concerned if our political debate becomes polarized between Sinn Féin on the one hand and Fine Gael on the other,” said Malcolm Byrne of Fianna Fáil.
“We can hear all the slogans and all the struggles between Sinn Féin and Fine Gael. But I will not allow polarization in politics to develop. For a party at the political center, we will respond with policies.”
It’s a polarization, he said, fueled by “fancy memes and hashtags.”
And that is something that was not lacking, as both parties spread their messages about their motions questioning each other.
[ad_2]