Professional Documents
Culture Documents
elements of backstop
during EU
Commission talks
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
By Tony Connelly
Europe Editor
https://www.rte.ie/ne
ws/brexit/2019/0905/
1074163-brexit-eu-
commission/
In this truly alarming story I connect three significant articles to show that Brexit, far
from being the result of representative democracy, is in fact a campaign of covert
intervention by foreign billionaires to bring about economic chaos in Britain in order
create the circumstances for making huge profits. This is not the stuff of mere conspiracy
theories. Clear evidence has emerged that Brexit was engineered and is already proving
to be a catastrophe, as confirmed by the mainstream media frenzy over Theresa May’s
political mis-management of the greatest post-war challenge of our time. In part-one (by
left leaning, The Guardian newspaper) we see how Brexit really came about and who
influenced it. In part-two (by centre newspaper The Independent) we see how opaque and
deceptive think tanks have heavily influenced Brexit and in part-three (by right leaning
EUReferendum) we see that economic chaos is being planned in a post-Brexit era, who is
involved and why. These articles identify the actors behind the current attack on Britain
and what has happened to date so far. At the end, the reader should get a sense of the
impending disaster being constructed by the super-rich against the people of Britain
purely for profit. Just as oil speculators pushed up global energy prices to $145 a barrel
just prior to the financial crash in what was termed the London Loophole, and then
profited from short bets on the way down – Britain is being set up for a fall where those
with big money will ultimately clean up.
PART ONE: Carole Cadwalladr from The Guardian wrote a searing piece last May
on what really happened in Britain’s EU referendum vote. Her first sentence led
the reader into a 7,000 word setting of foreign actors and corporations intent on
usurping democracy in Britain. “A shadowy global operation involving big data,
billionaire friends of Trump and the disparate forces of the Leave campaign influenced
the result of the EU referendum.” The article entitled “The Great British Brexit
Robbery: How Our Democracy Was Highjacked” is now the subject of a bitter legal
battle between the accused; Cambridge Analytica LLC and SCL Elections Limited
and The Guardian newspaper. Several amendments to the article have been
made since the original publication in a climate of legal threats. The stakes are
very high just for reporting it.
The article went deeply into how technology and data was illegally used in
Britain’s EU referendum voting process. One former employee of the main
company involved, Cambridge Analytica, confirmed that they were using
psychological operations – the same methods the military use to effect mass
sentiment change. It’s what they mean by winning ‘hearts and minds’. “We were
just doing it to win elections in the kind of developing countries that don’t have many
rules.” Except they were doing it in Britain, and at a historical moment for its
future.
As the reader continues, names like Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of
PayPal, Facebook, Google, MI5 and other vested interests such as hedge funds
and banks litter the story.
It is clear from Cadwalladr’s investigation that British democracy was subverted
through a covert, far-reaching plan of coordination enabled by US billionaires and
she shows how Britain is in the midst of a massive land grab for power by them.
These determined individuals bypassed Britain’s electoral laws and swung the
margins in favour to Brexit. She also highlights some political activities much
closer to home – note the involvement of the DUP, now the balance of power
in Theresa May’s government.
“Vote Leave (the official Leave campaign) chose to spend £3.9m, more than half its
official £7m campaign budget. As did three other affiliated Leave campaigns: BeLeave,
Veterans for Britain and the Democratic Unionist party (DUP), spending a further
£757,750. “Coordination” between campaigns is prohibited under UK electoral law,
unless campaign expenditure is declared, jointly. It wasn’t”.
The story gets darker as it accuses the British military-industrial complex, old-school
Tories, a former parliamentary under-secretary of State for Defence procurement, director
of Marconi Defence Systems, and David Cameron’s pro-Brexit former trade envoy – of
involvement. Allegations are made that the head of psychological operations for British
forces in Afghanistan are in on the game. One alarmingly frank quote says:
“SCL/Cambridge Analytica was not some startup created by a couple of guys with a
MacBook. It’s effectively part of the British defence establishment” using “military
strategies on a civilian population.“
Data, algorithms, micro-ads, emotional manipulation, voter
engagement/disengagement, and psyops strategies are just some of the buzz
words in use to ensure enough votes go the right way. These strategies are all
connected to names such as the aforementioned Cambridge Analytica, but also
Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, AggregateIQ, Leave.EU, Vote Leave, Nigel
Farage, the DUP and big financial donors.
“We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are
then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying
situation.”
David Miller, a professor of sociology at Bath University and an authority in psyops and
propaganda, says it is “an extraordinary scandal that this should be anywhere near a
democracy. It should be clear to voters where information is coming from, and if it’s not
transparent or open where it’s coming from, it raises the question of whether we are
actually living in a democracy or not.”
This all conjures up the characteristics of a great novel, a story that helped to
bring about the biggest constitutional change to Britain in a century. In the end,
the article concludes that “we, the British people, were played.”
This conclusion is best described by Cadwalladre’s final words.
“This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy.
Paid for by US billionaires. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And
enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent.
This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first
step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.”
Unfortunately, Cadwalladr’s article is not a work of fiction or theory. And if you
think that is depressing – that foreign billionaires can usurp Britain’s democracy
at will, then it does in fact, get much worse, because obviously there must be
reasons why so much time, effort and money has gone into such a dangerous
high stakes game in the first place.
Dr David Green, the chief executive of think tank Civitas, and Ryan Bourne, head
of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), are both listed as
supporters of Economists for Britain, a group that was run by Matthew
Elliott, who was chief executive of the Leave Campaign (all names you will read
about in Part-Three).
Elliot is described as a ‘political strategist and lobbyist’ who was also co-founder
of right-wing The Taxpayers Alliance, was campaign director for the
successful NOtoAV campaign in the 2011, which left the UK as one of very few
modern democracies left with its archaic First-Past-The-Post electoral systems.
Elliot was the subject of a lengthy Guardian investigation who described TPA as
a right-wing lobby group with close links to the Conservative party. Vote Leave
ultimately garnered the support of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove for the Brexit
campaign.
Mark Littlewood, the director general of the IEA, was on the editorial board of
“Change or Go” – Business for Britain’s 1,000-page “bible” on the case for Brexit.
The multimillionaire hedge fund boss Sir Michael Hintze is a trustee of IEA, and is
also on the advisory council of Business for Britain. He has also been linked to
Vote Leave.
Vote Leave used reports generated by these think tanks to heavily promote the
case for Brexit.
Both Civitas and the IEA insisted that their work was entirely independent of the
Brexit campaigns and their organisation reflected a wide range of views.
“A closer look at the highly opaque institutions on our list confirmed our hypothesis that
think tanks that hide their donors usually have something to hide. For example, according
to research compiled by TobaccoTactics, the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy
Studies, and the Institute for Economic Affairs have all previously received undisclosed
funding from tobacco companies, and all have produced research that was then used to
lobby against stronger anti-smoking regulations. We found that the Adam Smith Institute
has created a structure so opaque that it concealed not only who gave money, but also
who took it, leaving us unable to determine where close to one million pounds given by
American donors had ended up. Meanwhile, Policy Exchange has previously used
evidence that appears to have been fabricated; the resulting report led to fake news
headlines in several media outlets that had naively trusted “research” conducted by an
opaque think tank.”
All of these names you will read about in part three.
PART THREE: By adding part one of this story to part two, you will start to gather
that all these actors are connected one way or another. Part three identifies yet
more actors whose end game is to bring about economic chaos in Britain, one
which has been described as “disaster capitalism“, designed to significantly profit
from a hard Brexit. “Here, a comparison could be made with Hong Kong, where a
similar situation might arise in a UK under the stress of a hard Brexit, where many
traditional firms have run for cover, or relocated in the EU, leaving many assets under-
priced.”
In other words – Brexit has been engineered to bring about economic chaos for no other
reason than making huge profits. Read on…
The Institute itself is part of the Legatum Group, set up in 2006 by the multi-
billionaire New Zealand born Christopher Chandler, formerly president of
Sovereign Asset Management.
In the 2015 report to the Charity Commissioners, senior management personnel
of the Legatum Institute were listed as Anne Applebaum, Giles Dilnot, Alexandra
Mousavizadeh, former newspaper columnist Christina Odone and Shanker
Singham, the latter acting as chairman of the Institute’s Special Trade
Commission, fronting most of the Brexit propaganda.
Applebaum is firmly on the political right, having been an adjunct fellow of the
American Enterprise Institute. She has an extensive career as a journalist,
working for the Washington Post, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and the Economist.
She was deputy editor of the Spectator and political editor for the Evening Standard.
However, she resigned from the Legatum Institute in 2016, having disagreed with
the director over the Institute’s support for Brexit. She now works for the LSE. If
Applebaum was described as ‘politically right’ – one can only imagine where
Legatum stands.
Currently top of the hierarchy is Philippa Stroud, CEO of the Institute. Previously. She
used to be Chief Executive of the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), a right-wing think tank
that she co-founded with Iain Duncan Smith in 2004. Prior to the CSJ, she was also
Special Adviser to Iain Duncan Smith MP (then Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions) from 2010-15. Another of the Legatum Institute directors is Toby Baxendale.
He is also on its board of trustees. As to other interests, he was director, alongside co-
director Steve Baker, of the now defunct Leadsom4Leader, a limited company set up to
support Andrea Leadsom’s Conservative Party leadership bid.
Baxendale is also co-founder, again with Steve Baker, of the Cobden Centre, a free
market libertarian think tank that influenced Margaret Thatcher). He also set up the
Hayek Visiting Fellowship at the London School of Economics and has been a significant
donor to the Conservative Party.
A senior fellow of the Cobden Centre is Professor Kevin Dowd, who is also an honorary
fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Dowd is a professor of finance and
economics at Durham University and a member of the lobby group, Economists for Free
Trade and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute – an American right-wing think located
just down the road to the Whitehouse in Washington DC that is funded by the billionaire
Koch brothers. The brothers allegedly spent nearly $900 million dollars trying
to influence the outcome of the last presidential race that saw Donald Trump move into
the Whitehouse.
The links with the Cobden Centre bring us to Matthew Elliott, who just happens to be
a senior fellow of the Legatum Institute (and you thought he was chief executive of the
Leave Campaign!). Elliott, founder of the aforementioned Taxpayers Alliance and one-
time director of Vote Leave, sits with another Legatum senior fellow Tim Montgomerie,
founding editor of Conservative Home and former Times columnist. At the Cobden
Centre, he sits on the Advisory Board with Sam Bowman, research director of the Adam
Smith Institute (categorised by Transparify as almost the most ‘highly deceptive’ think
tank in Britain), Ewen Stewart – a managing board member of the Freedom Association
(right-wing pressure group) – and Douglas Carswell.
Yet another senior fellow Legatum Institute is Danny Kruger, former chief speechwriter
to David Cameron, chief leader writer at The Daily Telegraph, and director of research
at the Centre for Policy Studies (categorized as highly opaque/deceptive think tank by
Transparify).
Listed as a Legatum fellow, along with many others, one also finds Graeme Leach,
founder and chief economist of Macronomics, a macroeconomic, geopolitical and future
megatrends research consultancy he launched in 2016. He is a visiting professor of
economic policy, a member of the IEA Shadow Monetary Policy Committee and has a
weekly column in the City AM newspaper. Between 1997 and 2013 he worked as Chief
Economist and Director of Policy at the Institute of Directors (IoD), where he was also a
main board director.
A trustee of Legatum is Richard Briance, the Chairman of PMB Capital Limited, a
newly formed merchant banking business and former Chief Executive of Edmond de
Rothschild Ltd. Before that, he had been Managing Director of Credit Suisse First Boston
Ltd, Vice-Chairman at UBS Ltd and Chief Executive of West Merchant Bank Ltd.
In terms of his other political activities, Briance was a Non-Executive Director at Oxford
Analytica from 1999-2010 and he has been a trustee of Policy Exchange, the think tank
(categorised as ‘opaque’ by Transparify) created in 2002 by Michael Gove, now
environment minister, Nicholas Boles and Francis Maude.
One of the key figures in the Policy Exchange was Lord (James) O’Shaughnessy,
formerly Deputy Director. He then worked for the Prime Minister, David Cameron, as his
Director of Policy between 2010 and 2011 and for three years (2007-2010) worked in the
Conservative Party as Director of Policy and Research. He has now become a senior
fellow at the Legatum Institute.
Another network is created with the use of Sian Hansen as chair the Institute’s
development committee. Formerly managing director of the Policy Exchange, she went
on to become executive director of the Legatum Institute”.
She is also also holds non-executive directorships with JP Morgan Income and Capital
Trust PLC, Pacific Assets Trust and EBF International (Shanghai) Ltd.
In October 2016, The Legatum Institute sponsored a report called The Road to
Brexit. The foreword was by Iain Duncan Smith, Philippa Stroud’s former boss.
Also writing for the report were the MPs John Redwood, Peter Lilley, Owen
Paterson and Bernard Jenkin – leading members of the “Ultras”.
As well as Shanker Singham, there were two other authors, Sheila Lawlor and James
Arnell. Lawlor directs the economic, education, constitutional and social policy
programmes of think tank Politeia who advocates the abolition of the NHS – while
Arnell is a partner as Charterhouse, displaying ultra right-wing views on Brexit.
The picture one gets of Legatum, therefore, is of an exceptionally well-endowed think-
tank with fingers in many pies and strongly networked with other think-tanks and the
media. With offshore finance, though, this is redolent of foreign interference in UK
politics.
The greatest concern, though, comes from reading the Legatum website. Having invested
heavily in Russia and developing countries, the business speciality is moving into markets
at times of crisis where assets are mispriced.
EUReferendum continues: With an eye for emerging trends and undervalued assets, it
invested heavily in the telecommunications sector in Brazil, just after the country
emerged from hyperinflation. It describes its own “investment heritage” in navigating
through choppy markets, following the great financial crisis.
The company takes great pride in its investments in Hong Kong real estate, a market
which investors had fled after the signing of the Sino-British Accord, an agreement that
promised to give Hong Kong back to the Chinese government. It saw assets mispriced,
and noted that “opportunities arise in times of crisis”.
This is a business style which has been described as “disaster capitalism“, which would
benefit significantly from a hard Brexit. Here, a comparison could be made with Hong
Kong, where a similar situation might arise in a UK under the stress of a hard Brexit,
where many traditional firms have run for cover, or relocated in the EU, leaving many
assets under-priced.
Looking also for opportunities arising from deregulation and further privatisation –
especially in the NHS, with Legatum having considerable healthcare interests – hard
Brexit presents multiple opportunities. This, after all, is a business
that openly states that it “finds value where disruptive transitions create unique
opportunities“.
In this, the Legatum Institute seems to be paving the way for its “parent undertakings”,
engineering a “disruptive transition” for Brexit, then to reap the profits from chaos. Its
task is assisted by useful fools and fellow travellers on the Tory right. What we have
often characterised as incompetence, therefore, may be more sinister. There is money to
be made out of a hard Brexit.
Brexit – The Evidence that W e’ve All Been Conned Keeps Piling Up
Finally, there are others who agree that Brexit on its own is one thing but what is
actually happening is something quite different.
Tax Justice Network, (one of the most transparent think tanks in Britain) are
very concerned:
“It was never quite made clear who would be the major beneficiaries of Brexit. One thing
was certain at the time: it wouldn’t be ordinary people. Instead, power is being
consolidated by the same old political and economic elites and the state is becoming
more, not less, beholden to big business and its demands. These are the real consequences
of Brexit.”
It is also becoming clear with this strategy, that a right-wing Tory Brexit will end
with huge deregulation. This will be sold to the general public as freedom from
the red tape of an EU bureaucracy that Britain escaped, not the public protections
put in place over decades to ensure civil society thrives. But as George
Monbiot opines;
“Ripping down such public protections means freedom for billionaires and
corporations from the constraints of democracy. This is what Brexit is all about. The
freedom we were promised is the freedom of the very rich to exploit us.”
EUReferedum states in its overall aims for a post-Brexit Britain that:
“Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people
who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and
national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core
of true democracy.”
On its current trajectory, Brexit is not going to deliver any of those noble
outcomes, unless of course, you happen to be a foreign billionaire with significant
interests in the game.
All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.
The original source of this article is TruePublica
Copyright © Graham Vanbergen, TruePublica, 2018
https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-brexit-was-engineered-by-foreign-billionaires-to-bring-about-economic-chaos-
for-profit/5614194
Eighteen months on, it’s this same insight – to follow the data – that is
the key to unlocking what really happened behind the scenes of the
Leave campaign. On the surface, the two main campaigns, Leave.EU
and Vote Leave, hated one other. Their leading lights, Farage and Boris
Johnson, were sworn enemies for the duration of the referendum. The
two campaigns bitterly refused even to share a platform.
But the Observer has seen a confidential document that provides clear
evidence of a link between the two campaigns. More precisely, evidence
of a close working relationship between the two data analytics firms
employed by the campaigns – AggregateIQ, which Vote Leave hired,
and Cambridge Analytica, retained by Leave.EU.
The leaked intellectual property licence document that shows a link between AggregateIQ and SCL
Elections (the company behind Cambridge Analytica)
But this signed legal document – a document that was never meant to
be made public and was leaked by a concerned source – connects both
Vote Leave and Leave.EU’s data firms directly to Robert Mercer, the
American billionaire who bankrolled Donald Trump.
But this signed legal document – a document that was never meant to
be made public and was leaked by a concerned source – connects both
Vote Leave and Leave.EU’s data firms directly to Robert Mercer, the
American billionaire who bankrolled Donald Trump.
The companies may have had different owners but they were legally
bound together. And, the Observer has learned, they were working
together on a daily basis at the time of the referendum – both
companies were being paid by Mercer-funded organisations to work on
Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign in America. What is more, several
anonymous sources reveal the two companies, working on two separate
British Leave campaigns, actually shared the same database at the time.
Taxation Cross-Border
Trade Bill, If Passed In Its
Current Form, Would
Fatally Undermine The
British Manufacturing
Sector
9th January, 2018
As Parliament reconvened after the Christmas recess we hit the ground running with the Taxation
(Cross-border) Trade Bill. This seeks to establish a new post-Brexit trade defence regime, but as I said
in my speech in the House, in it’s current form it would fatally undermine the British manufacturing
sector, including the steel industry in my Aberavon constituency.
You can read my speech below.
https://www.biicl.org/documents/1773_bingham_centre_eu_withdrawal_bill_-
_discussion_document_-_09_10_2017_-_final.pdf?showdocument=1
Stephen Kinnock: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill
Grant), even though large parts of his speech were based on magical thinking.
I rise to address schedules 4 and 5, which propose the introduction of a new post-Brexit trade defence
regime. Trade remedies enable countries to defend themselves against underpriced and state-subsidised
goods, so they play a pivotal role in the rules-based WTO system. Governments would never have
agreed to the radical trade liberalisation of the past half century were they not reassured that they could
act to step in and defend their industries, if necessary. Trade defence remedies have therefore played a
central role in tearing down the walls that prevent free and fair trade. How ironic, then, that this Bill is
the work of a Conservative Government. The party that claims to be the voice of enterprise, free trade,
business and industrial strategy has produced a Bill that, if passed in its current form, would fatally
undermine the British manufacturing sector.
To illustrate my point, I wish to focus on what the Bill, in its current form, would mean for the British
steel industry, which is centred on the Port Talbot steelworks in my Aberavon constituency. Over a
third of the EU’s 92 trade defence instruments relate to steel, and over the years those 30-odd measures
have played a vital part in stemming the flow of the dumped Chinese steel that almost led to the total
collapse of the British steel industry. The Chinese Communist party owns 80% of that country’s steel
industry. The party subsidises the industry to the hilt and sells the steel at well below cost on the global
market. It is a well-established strategy that the Chinese state pursues relentlessly and ruthlessly in its
bid to extinguish all competition and establish monopoly status.
The all-party group on steel’s “Steel 2020” report, which was supported and signed by Members who
now serve in government, concluded that trade defence instruments exist not to unfairly protect certain
sectors of the economy, but rather
“to support the free, fair and efficient functioning of the market.”
I will certainly not stand here and claim that the EU’s trade remedies regime works perfectly; it does
not. It has often been too slow and bureaucratic, and it has unfortunately been hamstrung by the lesser
duty rule. The fact of the matter is that the European Commission acts on behalf of 28 member states
and 500 million consumers, so when it threatens action, even behemoths such as China sit up and take
notice. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that were it not for the anti-dumping measures taken by
the Commission at the height of the steel crisis, our precious steel industry would probably have gone
under.
I speak today not only to raise concerns about the Bill’s implications for our steel industry, but to
highlight the fact that this is about the future of our entire manufacturing sector. Indeed, the chief
executive officers of the British steel, paper, ceramics, minerals and chemicals associations, along with
their trade union counterparts, put it very well in their letter of 5 January to the Financial Times. They
said:
“Without a robust approach to trade remedies the UK government will be unable to achieve its
international trade or industrial strategy ambitions. The UK’s manufacturing base and tens of
thousands of jobs around the country…will be at risk if parliament gets the bill wrong.”
I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if they have any form of manufacturing in their
constituency, the Bill really matters to them.
As an MP who represents a constituency whose local economy relies almost entirely on manufacturing,
I desperately want the Government’s industrial strategy to succeed, but the fact is that it will not be
worth the paper it is written on if it is not underpinned by a robust trade remedies regime. It is in that
constructive spirit that I urge the Government to undertake a radical rethink of schedules 4 and 5, with
particular reference to five issues. First, the Bill contains very little detail about how the post-Brexit
trade remedies regime will operate in practice. Instead it enables the Secretary of State to legislate for
all-important details through statutory instruments. That really matters not only because it is yet
another example of Ministers attempting to sideline Parliament, which has become a recurring theme
of this whole Brexit process, but because there will be deep and widespread industry uncertainty until
the secondary legislation is in place. Labour Members have raised the issue of steel in this place more
than 300 times since 2015, but if this Bill passes in its current form, steelworkers and their families can
kiss goodbye to the idea that they will have a voice in Parliament standing up for their interests and
fighting their corner. We will not be able to do so because all the key decisions will be taken behind
closed doors and implemented by statutory instruments.
Secondly, it is imperative that the Bill includes a cast-iron commitment to scrapping the lesser duty
rule. This Government have been the ringleader of attempts to block EU moves to reform the rule,
which means that we have only been able to impose tariffs of 13% to 16%, whereas the Americans, for
example, can impose import duties of over 200% on dumped Chinese steel. An unreformed lesser duty
rule must not be retained in UK law. We therefore call on the Government to state precisely how they
intend to calculate the margin of injury to ensure that the process is at least as robust as the reformed
EU system, and to lay out all that detail in the Bill.
Thirdly, the economic and public interest tests would create an unnecessarily high barrier to
introducing any form of trade defence. None of those tests is required under WTO rules, so why are the
Government intent on placing multiple obstacles in the path of an industry that wishes to file a
complaint?
Fourthly, we need changes to the proposed remit and composition of the Trade Remedies Authority,
bringing it in line with global norms and ensuring proper representation of trade unions and industry.
Fifthly, the Bill must be amended to ensure that British courts are able to correct decisions made by the
Government that deny British industry WTO-complainant rights that our competitors across the world
enjoy. Without those changes, the Bill will fail in its essential task of establishing a fit and proper trade
defence regime.
Once we have decoupled ourselves from the EU’s trade defence regime, it is simply beyond debate that
we will have less leverage. Therefore, if anything, the post-Brexit regime that we create must be far
tougher and more robust than the one that we have left. That is why we simply cannot allow schedules
4 and 5 to pass unamended. Unless the Bill is amended, it will deny us even those scant protections.
For that reason, I urge hon. and right hon. Members to join me in the Lobby to amend and fix this
broken Bill.
https://www.stephenkinnock.co.uk/taxation-cross-border-trade-bill-if-passed-in-its-current-form-
would-fatally-undermine-the-british-manufacturing-sector/
PM statement on
priorities for the
government: 25 July
2019
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's
statement in the House of Commons
on the priorities for the government.
Published 25 July 2019
From:
Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP
Delivered on:
25 July 2019 (Transcript of the speech, exactly
With Mr Boris Piggy s it was delivered)
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/financial-
stability/fsr/html/ecb.fsr201905~266e856634.en.html#toc15
By Tony Connelly
Europe Editor
RTÉ News
✔
@rtenews
42:41
Over time, the Government would be expected to
communicate to the EU how it is managing different
checks and controls, if some controls are simply
politically too perilous, and what flexibility might be
available.
However, it is understood both Dublin and Brussels
acknowledge that there can be no derogations from
EU law.
"There will be an understanding on our side that
things are not exactly how they should be," according
to one person familiar with the issue, "but an
understanding on the [Irish] side that they need to
demonstrate they are progressing and that they have
a plan.
"The help they need will come afterwards. They'll
say, this is how we're doing it, we need help and we
need interaction."
Read more:
• Johnson wants no more 'dither and delay'
to Brexit
• UK High Court rejects legal challenge over
parliament suspension
• Govt working to maintain invisible border in
case of no-deal - McEntee
RTÉ News
@rtenews
'I don't expect any breakthroughs on Monday ... ':
@LeoVaradkar on his expectations for his meeting with
@BorisJohnson on Monday #Brexit
25
6:58 PM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
https://www.rte.ie/ne
ws/2019/0906/10742
98-eu-border-checks/
No infrastructure at
Irish border after
Brexit, says Foster
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019
Read More:
Johnson wants no more 'dither and delay' to
Brexit
U K High Court rejects legal challenge
over parliament suspension
L atest Brexit
stories
RTÉ News
@rtenews
Leo Varadkar
@LeoVaradkar
1,277
10:06 AM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Leo Varadkar
@LeoVaradkar
They are three qualities which are needed now more than
ever as we deal with the challenge of Brexit. We must be
hopeful about finding a solution, energetic in preparing for
the worst that might happen, and determined to defend the
all island economy, peace, and all that we value
https://
twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/st
atus/1169899647411769346
…
Leo Varadkar
@LeoVaradkar
303
10:07 AM - Sep 6, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Read More:
Corbyn to discuss UK election vote with
opposition
L atest Brexit stories
House of Lords
approves bill that
seeks to delay Brexit
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019
Boris Johnson says thinks the British public really 'want us to get
out'
The British parliament's upper chamber has
approved a bill that aims to block a no-deal Brexit at
the end of October by forcing Prime Minister Boris
Johnson to seek a delay to Brexit.
The legislation, which requires Mr Johnson to ask for
a three-month extension to Britain's EU membership
if parliament has not approved either a deal or
consented to leaving without agreement by 19
October, is expected to be signed into law by Queen
Elizabeth on Monday.
The House of Lords approved the bill without a formal
vote at its final stage.
Mr Johnson has dubbed it the "surrender bill" and
said it has scuppered his Brexit negotiations with the
EU by removing the threat of leaving without a deal.
Yesterday, he said he would rather be "dead in a
ditch" than delay Britain's EU exit.
Read More:
• UK High Court rejects legal challenge over
parliament suspension
• Taoiseach warns of 'growing risk' of no-deal
Brexit
• Latest Brexit stories
Taoiseach awaiting
'realistic' and 'legally
binding' backstop
alternatives
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said there was a 'growing risk' of a no-
deal Brexit
By Will Goodbody
Business Editor
04:38
Government contingency planning has identified that
some sectors have low levels of Brexit preparedness,
he said, with smaller and independent businesses, as
well as retail and construction sectors particularly
underprepared.
That needs to change, the Taoiseach stated, and all
businesses need to listen to the advice and help on
offer.
Even if the UK leaves the EU on 31 October, that will
not be the end of the story, the Taoiseach warned.
If there is a deal, a new difficult and fraught phase will
begin involving several years of negotiations on a
new free trade agreement and an economic and
security partnership.
A no-deal, on the other hand, which could last for a
period, will also require negotiations to begin again
he claimed, with the first and only items on the
agenda being citizens' rights, the financial settlement
with the EU and a solution to the Irish Border.
"All the issues we spent the last two years on," he
remarked.
Despite the challenges and permanent changes in
the political and economic environment, the
Taoiseach expressed the view that Ireland can
withstand the challenge.
"The UK is geographically and culturally our closest
neighbour and will continue to be a vital trading
partner, no matter what shape Brexit takes," he said.
He said certain things like the Common Travel Area
and the rights of Irish and Dual British-Irish citizens in
Northern Ireland and Britain to travel, work, do
business and study through the EU without a visa or
permit will not change.
Significant changes in medicine supplies are not
anticipated, and food will remain on shelves, although
possibly not all the same brands, he added.
Mr Vardakar said there will have to be checks on
goods and live animals and, as far as possible, they
will take place in ports, airports and at businesses,
although some may take place near the border.
The details of this are currently being worked out with
the European Commission, he said.
Taxes would have to be paid on goods bought from
the UK and EU consumer protections will no longer
apply, he said.
Tariffs will also apply to goods imported into Ireland
from the UK, he warned, and vice versa, and
importers and exporters will need to make customs
declarations.
Flights, trains and business will continue to operate
normally for a period, the Taoiseach stated, but a
permanent agreement would be required.
He added that while a no-deal Brexit will have
adverse effects on the economy here, a recession is
not anticipated and as a result there will be no need
for tax increases, spending cuts or reduction in pay,
pensions or welfare.
'Nobody should be surprised' by no-deal
implications - Coveney
Earlier, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs
Simon Coveney said Tuesday night's briefing to
Cabinet was not his first on the potential impact of a
no-deal Brexit, so nobody should be surprised that
there are vulnerable sectors such as fishing, agri-
food or tourism.
His comments come following newspaper reports
that some ministers were taken aback by the severity
of the warnings he gave yesterday.
Speaking in Cork, he said that no report he gave at
the Cabinet meeting referred to a figure of 10,000 job
losses in three months in the tourism and hospitality
sectors in the event of a no-deal.
However, he said it was important to level with
people and feels he has always been straight up in
terms of the impact of a no-deal Brexit, and why it
should be avoided because everyone loses in a no-
deal scenario.
Mr Coveney said the onus was on the UK
government, who now want the backstop removed
from the Withdrawal Agreement, to put forward an
alternative, but that has yet to be given.
"They want the backstop removed from the
Withdrawal Agreement, we know that that creates
huge problems and the onus is on the UK who are
looking to change things to be able to put an
alternative that solves those problems on the table
and we haven't got that yet," he said.
Asked about any potential border arrangements, Mr
Coveney said that the Government had some sense
of arrangements, but did not have the detail yet, as it
had not been agreed with the European Commission.
The Tánaiste said the public would know once he
knew.
"As soon as we know, you will know because this is
not just an Irish border we are talking about, it is also
an EU frontier with the UK so the solution has to be
worked out collectively with Ireland and the EU," he
said.
"It needs to take into account the unique
circumstances on this island and the unique
circumstances in Northern Ireland, and we need a
dual objective here - to protect Ireland's place in the
single market so that we don't get dragged out of the
single market against our will as a result of Brexit,
and secondly, we have to try and do all we can to
protect the all-Ireland economy as it function."
Read More:
Boris Johnson's brother resigns as junior
minister
L atest Brexit stories
00:53
Elsewhere, Minister for Finance and Public
Expenditure Paschal Donohoe said the risk of a no-
deal Brexit had "grown" in recent days amid
continued turmoil in the UK parliament.
Mr Donohoe also warned of the need to maintain a
"stable political environment" in Ireland, while it waits
for the British government to make a final decision on
what it will do about Brexit and when it will leave the
EU.
Speaking in Waterford after attending a council
presentation on regional infrastructure projects, Mr
Donohoe said: "I believe that the risk of a no-deal
Brexit has grown.
"Of course it is a significant development to see that
within the current House of Commons, there is a
majority there that is in favour of avoiding a no-deal
Brexit, but of course it's equally apparent to all of us
that that there's a really high level of uncertainty and
volatility now afoot in British politics."
Mr Donohoe's comments came after a night of further
House of Commons defeat for Prime Minister Boris
Johnson, with MPs backing legislation to try to
prevent a no-deal Brexit, and not backing in sufficient
numbers Mr Johnson's call for an October election.
The visit of Mr Johnson to Dublin next Monday to
meet Taoiseach Leo Varadkar would be "really
important" in that context, Mr Donohoe said.
He added: "But as we're looking at uncertainty
developing there, as we're looking at risk growing
there, it's very important that the stable political
environment that we have here in Ireland be
maintained.
"It will be maintained, our sole political focus is on
doing all we can to try and get Ireland ready to deal
with consequences that might develop after the end
of October."
Mr Donohoe said he and his Cabinet colleagues were
"well aware of what will be the employment
consequences of a no-deal Brexit," and reiterated the
Government's warning from earlier this year that, in
that eventuality, "up to 50,000 jobs would not be
created in our economy that would otherwise be
created".
Next month's Budget will involve him "outlining the
supports and the plans that we will put in place to
deal with the consequences of a no-deal Brexit if we
get to that point," he said.
Asked if he thinks there will be border checks in
place in six months' time, the minister said: "All that
depends on the decisions that are made by the
British government in the coming weeks."
Elsewhere, the British minister in charge of no-deal
preparations has said he had not talked to members
of the Irish Government about what will happen on
the border in a no-deal Brexit.
Michael Gove told a House of Commons committee
that no tariffs would be collected on goods moving
from Ireland to Northern Ireland in a no-deal
scenario.
Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald has said
Ireland must not lose its nerve as a potential no-deal
Brexit draws nearer.
Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, Ms McDonald said
that we need to maintain focus and not get tied up in
"the theatrics of the zoo that is Westminster".
Ms McDonald also called on the Government to be
more forthcoming with information about Brexit.
She also said the Government should not think its
way into a position where it is making a choice
between the single market and the Good Friday
Agreement, and also said her party has begun
preparations for a potential general election at
Westminster.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0905/1074042-brexit-no-deal-ireland/
Boris Johnson's
advice to Queen over
suspending
parliament 'unlawful'
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
The High Court in London was told Boris Johnson's advice over
suspending parliament was an 'unlawful abuse of power'
By Fergal Bowers
Health Correspondent
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0905/1074021-brexit-ireland-
medicines/
Serious claims
against McGuinness
and Paisley in BBC
documentary
Updated / Friday, 6 Sep 2019
By Tommie Gorman
Northern Editor
00:21
The bomb was subsequently detonated at the bottom
of Shipquay Street in Derry city centre and caused
extensive damage to property, but no deaths.
The scene in Derry city centre following the explosion (Pic: BBC
NI)
The footage featuring McGuinness was from
1972. The following year, he was convicted of IRA
membership by the Special Criminal Court in
Dublin. He refused to recognise the court and was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Rev Ian Paisley, who died in September 2014,
always denied allegations linking him to Loyalist
paramilitary organisations.
But the BBC programme includes an interview with a
former British Army officer who claims the founder of
the DUP had financed the loyalist bombers who
carried out a bombing campaign in 1969.
The officer, David Hancock, who was a British Army
Company Commander in Northern Ireland from 1968
to 1970, said the local (RUC) District Inspector told
him that "Paisley had supplied the money that
financed the Kilkeel explosion".
A reservoir at Kilkeel, Co Down, was one of the
facilities attacked by the bombers in 1969.
00:35
The programme also alleges that one of Ian Paisley’s
bodyguards, Samuel Stevenson, was involved with
the bombers.
A founding member of the SDLP, a former Fine Gael
TD and a former Fine Gael Presidential candidate,
Austin Currie, claims during the documentary that Mr
Stevenson told him in October 1969 the gang
intended to blow up an ESB sub-station in
Ballyshannon, Co Donegal.
In the subsequent attack, one of the loyalist bombers,
45-year-old Thomas McDowell, a father of ten from
Kilkeel, was electrocuted and died from his injuries.
The claims about the establishment of the Provisional
IRA are made by Republican Sinn Féin veteran Des
Long.
He alleges that a meeting took place at the Athlone
home of Victor Fagg in the days immediately before
Christmas in 1972. (Victor Fagg was interned in the
1940s and following his death in 1988, Ruairí Ó
Brádaigh spoke at his graveside in Athlone).
Victor Fagg (Pic: BBC NI)
Lord Michael Carver, who died in 2001 aged 86, is
one of the senior British Army officers who features in
the programme.
In 1971, he was appointed the British Army’s chief of
the general staff and his role involved providing
advice to the British government on the response to
the early stages of The Troubles.
The programme makers suggest that a 1972
assessment by Carver, so sensitive that it was seen
by only one British government minister,
recommended that "the British government gradually
escape its commitment to the border" and that his
report amounted to the recommendation of a united
Ireland.
A picture of the assessment by Lord Michael Carver (Pic: BBC NI)
Another former British Army officer who features in
the programme is 84-year-old Lord David
Ramsbotham. He subsequently served as the
Inspector of Prisons in England and Wales for a five-
year period.
In the early 1970s, he was the military aide to Lord
Carver. In an interview, Lord Ramsbotham tells how
a fellow British Army officer described members of
the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment as
"hooligans in uniform".
The criticism came in a conversation in the days
immediately before Bloody Sunday when the soldiers
were involved in killing 13 civilians in Derry city.
Working Group on
Unification Referendums
on the Island of Ireland
A project examining how any future
referendum on the constitutional status of
Northern Ireland would be best designed and
conducted.
Project Information
This project is led by Dr Alan Renwick, Deputy Director of
the Constitution Unit.
Project Dates: September 2019–March 2021
Funder: The British Academy
Scheme: Humanities and Social Sciences Tackling the
UK’s International Challenges programme
Contact: a.renwick@ucl.ac.uk
PM letter to_His_Excellency_Mr Donald_Tusk
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
826166/20190819_PM_letter_to_His_Excellency_Mr_Donald_Tusk.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
786255/eea-_pr_-03-19.pdf
NORTHERN IRELAND TROUBLES OF deceased politicians who led Sinn Féin and the
DUP into power-sharing are the subject of serious allegation Sept 6th 2019
There is nothing new in this...Martin was a proud self proclaimed IRA man..never denied it , and was
proud of it..rightly so. What a lot of people may not know however is the founder of the DUP (now in
partnership with the British government) were responsible for the first bombing of the troubles...and
indeed the first gun attack on the British army
Dead people can't defend themselves
Serious alegations? They were the orchestraters on both sides, what did everyone think they were up to,
backgammon?
It’s war, it wasn’t pretty. What’s the news here? More Stockholm Syndrome nonsense from the West
Brits at RTE.
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/2356348941291097/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARBfNYslVcf-
AS2T8Pc4W6S7jWKL-Ocdk_o5aZeJ6xha-HANWElYzhnkBOz4-P_xwbp99zzIa9l8OLnZ
Boris Johnson in London, US Vice President Mike Pence said negotiations on a free
trade agreement between the US and UK would begin immediately after Britain's
departure from the European Union.
Burgers and more , from the U.S...We can then call them, North Korea and Britain ,would be very a
like, we can then say hello fat boys..
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/2404440746482940/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARBfNYslVcf-
AS2T8Pc4W6S7jWKL-Ocdk_o5aZeJ6xha-HANWElYzhnkBOz4-P_xwbp99zzIa9l8OLnZ
PM calling David Cameron a 'girly swot' have been uncovered during a court battle.
Earlier this week, Boris Johnson called Corbyn a 'big girl's blouse' in the Commons.
So why have the Tories got Johnson critics spitting feathers?
https://www.facebook.co
m/itvnews/videos/742774
972812290/
Boris Johnson’s team is ready for Brexit
What elements of
Britishness would be
incorporated into a united
Ireland?
Republic should consider what it would be willing to give
up in event of unity
Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 01:12
Hugo MacNeill
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/ICR_Final_Report.pdf
W orking Group on Unification Referendum s on the Island of Ireland, A
NORTHERN IRELAND BORDER POLL
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-
unit/files/185_a_northern_ireland_border_poll.pdf
EU was rejected on the basis that it would create a hard border between
Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Although the talks, which culminated
on 11 March, produced new ‘legally binding’ documents,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/instrument_0.pdf
I know you must all be sick of me pointing out to ye how corrupt our country is: Well today
i would like you all to question yourselves on how stupid the government think ye are:
The Taoiseach made a statement some months ago that the Irish [His Government]
would not be responsible for the reintroduction of the border on the island of Ireland why
then has he now made another statement saying that the government have employed
more soldiers, more guards, and more custom and excise, and revenue inspectors.
Now maybe he is going to sublet these people to Britain: well i believe Leo Varadkar is a
liar
Boris Johnson's
advice to Queen over
suspending
parliament 'unlawful'
Updated / Thursday, 5 Sep 2019
The High Court in London was told Boris Johnson's advice over
suspending parliament was an 'unlawful abuse of power'
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on
indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.
Background
The facts of the case are not in dispute. Gardaí arrested Sweeney on suspicion of
murder and advised him of his right to silence. They did not advise him of the
consequences of s 9 of the 1998 Act. The Gardaí questioned Sweeney and released
him without charge in relation to the offense on which he was arrested. At a later
date, the State prosecuted Sweeney under s 9 of the 1998 Act.
Sweeney challenged the constitutionality of s 9 of the 1998 Act. The High Court
(here) granted him a declaration that it was unconstitutional, on the grounds stated
above. The State lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal and also sought leave of
the Supreme Court for a leapfrog appeal.
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/7CCA175C9B4F6858802581E10065CF0F
THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACTS, 1939 - 1998 The right to silence and
the Offences against the State Acts 185 Section 2 of the 1972 hederman report
Act 186 Sections 2 and 5 of the 1998 Act 187 Recent case-law 189 Averill v. United
Kingdom 197 Supreme Court decisions in National Irish Banks and Finnerty 200
The European Court of Human Rightsand the Quinn and Heaney cases 201 Conclusions 204
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/hederman%20report.pdf/Files/hederman%20repor
t.pdf
offences against the state (amendment) act, 1998 AN ACT TO AMEND AND
EXTEND THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE ACTS, 1939 TO 1985, AND
CERTAIN OTHER ENACTMENTS RELATING TO CRIMINAL LAW AND TO
PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/39/enacted/en/pdf
Offence of withholding
information ruled as
unconstitutional
Man challenged in the High Court an accusation that he
withheld information on killing
Thu, Nov 23, 2017,
Mary Carolan
General Scheme of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2012,
Section 12 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is hereby
repealed.
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 – No. 39 of ... Act to amend and
extend the Offences against the State Acts, 1939 to 1985, and certain other
enactments relating to criminal law and to provide for related matters
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/1998/39/eng/enacted/a3998.pdf
General Scheme of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2012,
Section 12 of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 is hereby
repealed.
Supreme Court
The State argued that the case raised questions of general public importance,
specifically:
1. The High Court judgment has resulted in an important provision for tackling
serious crime being declared unconstitutional and hence unavailable to the State’s
investigatory and prosecutorial authorities.
2. It is important both for the individual and State authorities that the question of the
potential future use of such a provision be settled in early course.
3. The case involves consideration of the interplay of the right to silence, privilege
against self-incrimination and fair trial rights, in the context of the State’s duty to
protect it’s people, combat crime and subversive activity and to legislate for these
aims.
3 In the circumstances, the Court considers that this is an appropriate case to appeal
to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.4°. There is no factual
controversy in the case. The case was a matter of legal argument alone. It appears
unlikely that the issues in the case would be significantly reduced or clarified by
requiring a full hearing in the Court of Appeal. The decision of the High Court
involving as it did the invalidation of a piece of legislation, means that while an
appeal is extant, uncertainty will exist in relation to the legislation itself, and
moreover the implications of the decision for other offences. It is desirable therefore
that there should be a final resolution of the issue.
https://scoirl.wordpress.com
Seanad Speech: Offences
Against the State
(Amendment) Act 1998
Seanad Éireann
Thursday, 11 June 2015
“That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences
against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for
the period beginning on the 30th June 2015 and ending on the 29th June 2016.”
Speech by the Minister for Justice & Equality, Ms Frances Fitzgerald T.D.
The House will be aware that the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was
enacted in the wake of the murder of 29 people by the Real IRA in Omagh on the 15th of
August that year. It was a necessary response to that atrocity and the loss of 29 innocent
lives.
That bombing and those murders represented a direct attack also on the fragile peace
process and indeed on this State. It demanded a resolute response from the State and a
clear statement that the morally bankrupt culture of death adopted by these murderers
would not prevail over the will of the majority in this island who wished to live in peace.
There was a clear necessity to provide strong legislative powers to ensure that the
Gardaí and the Courts were in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those
opponents of peace. In that regard, the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act
1998 provided that response.
It is right at the outset that I pay tribute to the excellent work of An Garda Siochana and
the Police Service of Northern Ireland in countering the threat from the paramilitary
organisations. Their ongoing seamless cooperation has foiled many attacks and saved
the lives of innocent people.
The Act contains a series of amendments to the Offences against the State Acts 1939 to
1985 to make them more responsive to the threat from certain groups. Principally, these
amendments concern:
§ changes in the rules of evidence for certain offences under the Acts, including the
drawing of inferences in certain circumstances,
§ the creation of new offences, such as directing an unlawful organisation, possession of
certain articles and collecting information, and
§ extending the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the 1939 Act
to 72 hours.
Section 18 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999,
provides that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at
specified intervals if they are to remain in force. By virtue of resolutions passed by both
Houses of the Oireachtas in June 2014, these sections were continued in force for a
period of 12 months.
Renewal of the Provisions
Prior to moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires that I lay before the Oireachtas a
report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The present report covers the period
from 1 June 2014 to 31 May 2015. The report was laid before the House on the 10th
June 2015. It also includes, following a commitment given previously, a table showing the
figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. This table is helpful in
showing the importance of the Act in equipping the Gardaí to detect and prevent terrorist
actions.
It is the fervent wish of the Government and, no doubt, this House, that the time will come
when these provisions will no longer be required. But as Minister for Justice and Equality,
I must take into account the reality of the situation.
In that regard the Garda assessment, shared by the Police Service of Northern Ireland
(PSNI), in relation to the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is that it is regarded as
severe. We all know that those groups vehemently opposed to peace seek to attack the
institutions of Northern Ireland and destabilise the peace process. They will never
succeed.
While the direct threat level in this jurisdiction may be different, it is imperative that our
laws and our police are properly equipped to deal with the threat, whether in this
jurisdiction or Northern Ireland; and let no one be under any illusion that these groups do
not represent a threat to this State as well as to Northern Ireland. It is a clearly
established fact that these groups operate hand in hand with organised criminals and in
their behaviour are indistinguishable from such elements. Any ideology, if indeed it was
ever possessed by them, has long ago been eroded by a culture of extortion
kidnappings, beatings, and drug dealing.
The Gardaí must have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet this threat. The
powers available under the 1998 Act are considered paramount in maintaining effective
preventative action against the terrorist groups. Consequently there is a clear need for
the continuance of these provisions.
North/South cooperation in the area of security is vital and I can give the House the
assurance that it has never been better. As was the case with my predecessors I
maintain close contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers
and with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, David Ford. In addition, the Garda
Commissioner maintains close and frequent contact with her counterpart in the PSNI and
this relationship is mirrored by contacts between the two forces at every level.
While countering the threat posed by terrorist groups is very important, it is necessary not
to lose sight of the threat from international terrorism. The 1998 Act grew out of our own
domestic troubles. However, its provisions form an essential element of the State’s
response to the threat of terrorism from any source. As seen with events in Paris and
Belgium and the continuing conflict in Syria, we cannot ignore the growth in recent years
of the international terrorist threat. In co-operation with our EU partners, we must
continue to counteract any threat from such sources. The 1998 Act forms part of the
response to that threat also, as does the recently commenced Criminal Justice (Terrorist
Offences) Act 2015 which came into force on the 8th June.
It is the firm view of the Garda Síochána that the Act continues to be a most important
tool in its ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Garda authorities have stated
that the provisions of the Act are used regularly, which is evident from the Report which I
have laid before the House. It is essential, I believe, that the Act’s provisions should
continue in force to support the ongoing investigation and disruption of terrorist activity.
Operation of the provisions of 1998 Act
I would like to turn to the provisions of the 1998 Act which are the subject of the
resolution. As I mentioned, on the 10th June, I laid before the Houses a Report on the
operation of the relevant sections between 1 June 2014 and 31 May this year. The
Report demonstrates the value of the relevant sections to the Gardaí and the necessity
for their continued availability in tackling the terrorist threat.
Looking at the sections themselves, Section 2 allows a court, in proceedings for
membership of an unlawful organisation, to draw appropriate inferences where an
accused person fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to questions.
However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on the basis of such an
inference. There must be some other evidence which points towards a person’s guilt. The
section was used on 42 occasions in the period covered by the report.
Section 3 requires an accused, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful
organisation, to give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his
behalf. This section was not used in the period in question.
Section 4 provides that evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation can be
inferred from certain conduct, including matters such as ‘movements, actions, activities,
or associations on the part of the accused’. This section was used once in the period
covered by the report.
Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of
which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act
1939. This section was used once in the period covered by the report.
Section 7 makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a
reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the
commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. It was
used on 21 occasions.
Section 8 makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to
be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences.
This Section was not used in the reporting period in question.
Section 9 makes it an offence to withhold certain information which might be of material
assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the
apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for such an offence. It was used on
10 occasions.
Section 10 extends the maximum period of detention permitted under Section 30 of the
Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express
authorisation of a judge of the District Court following an application by a Garda of at
least Superintendent rank. Furthermore, the person being detained is entitled to be
present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his
behalf. An extension was applied for in 20 cases and granted in 19.
Section 11 allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a
person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under Section 30 of
the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. This further period must
not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised where the judge is satisfied on
information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána that further information
has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person’s suspected
participation in the offence. It was used on 18 occasions.
Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the
making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority
or reasonable excuse. It was not used in the period covered by the report.
Section 14 is, in effect, a procedural section which makes the offences created under
sections 6 to 9 and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of
the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences may be
arrested under Section 30 of the 1939 Act. It was used on 9 occasions during the period
under Report.
Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the
forfeiture of property. Where a person is convicted of offences relating to the possession
of firearms or explosives, and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994
Act the court is required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that
there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The section was not
used in the reporting period in question.
As the Report indicates a number of sections, namely Section 3 (Notification of
witnesses) Section 8 (unlawful collection of information) Section 12, (training persons in
the making or use of firearms) and Section 17 (forfeiture of property) were not utilised
during the reporting period in question. It should however not be inferred from this lack of
use that these provisions are in some way redundant or unnecessary as the usage of the
different Sections can vary from year to year.
The existence of the provisions means that members of terrorist groups are aware that
the State remains resolute in its determination to use every lawful means to defeat them.
I might point out, incidentally, that far from being redundant, Section 12 has in effect been
strengthened by a provision in
the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2015 which creates the three
new offences of Public Provocation to commit a Terrorist Offence, Recruitment for
Terrorism and Training for Terrorism. These offences carry sentences of up to 10 years
imprisonment on conviction on indictment.
Conclusion
As I have already stated, terrorist groups remain a threat to the peaceful lives of people
on this island. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process
and are determined to undermine it. The State must retain, in its laws, the capacity to
defeat them.
On the basis of the information set out in the Report and on the advice of the Garda
authorities I consider that the House should approve the continued operation of the
relevant provisions of the 1998 Act to remain in operation for a further 12 months
commencing on the 30th June 2015.
I commend the motion to the House.
https://agsi.ie/articles/seanad-speech-offences-against-the-state-amendment-
act-1998/
Concerns expressed about oversight of the Garda in two recent opinion
pieces in The Irish Times are fully justified and merit consideration not
only by the Department of Justice and Equality but also by the
Government.
In her article (July 25th) Josephine Feehily, chairwoman of the Policing Authority,
questioned how the new Policing and Community Safety Oversight Commission
(PCSOC), as recommended by the Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland
(CFPI), would work in practice.
In a subsequent piece (August 2nd), Conor Brady, former member of the Garda
Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC), elaborated on the problems with PCSOC
and also aired his own long-held misgivings about the Garda continuing to discharge the
dual role of civic policing and national intelligence and security. Referring to these CFPI
recommendations, he feared “much of the progress towards independent oversight of
policing that has been achieved in recent years may be reversed”.
The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform set out the official definition of
accountability in the public service in 2014: “The original and long-standing core meaning
of accountability and its conventional meaning in Ireland (and other Westminster-type
parliamentary democracies) is the formal obligation to submit to a mechanism designed
to achieve external scrutiny in explaining and justifying past conduct or actions with the
possibility of consequences arising.”
There is a third element to the Garda governance architecture recommended by the
majority of CFPI members but disputed Dr Vicky Conway of DCU and myself, as
members of the commission, in a minority opinion carried in its final report. Having
stripped the Policing Authority, an external body, of its powers to hold the Garda to
account, the CFPI majority recommended the addition of an “internal” board, modelled on
boards of State bodies, for example like Fáilte Éireann or Bus Éireann, which would in
turn report to the Department of Justice and Equality.
The fundamental problem has always been
stubborn Garda refusal to ‘submit to . . .
external scrutiny’
Justification for diluting external, independent accountability was twofold. Firstly: “The
blame culture that has infected relationships between them [ie the oversight bodies and
the Garda] should be swept away.” When challenged last November by members of the
Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality to defend this derogatory characterisation
of the work of the Garda Inspectorate, GSOC and the Policing Authority, the defence
offered by the chairwoman of the CFPI, Seattle police chief Kathleen O’Toole, was: “The
oversight bodies were frustrated, the police were frustrated . . . there was an atmosphere
of finger-pointing at the time.”
The oversight bodies were indeed frustrated. Judge Mary Ellen Ring, chairwoman of
GSOC was driven to threatening to sue the Garda for endless delays in surrendering
documents. The Garda simply ignored hundreds of recommendations contained in 11
inspectorate reports. The Policing Authority met with blank refusal to comply with
legitimate demands, for example to produce a breakdown of the number of false
breathalyser tests by Garda district.
The fundamental problem has always been stubborn Garda refusal to “submit to . . .
external scrutiny” and, crucially, “with the possibility of consequences arising”. For
decades, as the Toland review of the Department of Justice found, it failed to exercise
the powers it had in its armoury to hold the Garda to account.
In Brady’s estimation, the truth is: “Government, the bureaucracy and the Garda
themselves have no enthusiasm for oversight that is vigorous or adequately resourced.”
So, the challenge is not to stop “finger-pointing”, but to exorcise a deeply embedded
culture of impunity in our national police force. Regrettably, the governance
arrangements proposed by the CFPI, which would mean the Garda reporting into a
closed system, comprised of an internal board and the Department of Justice, represent
a backward step.
The second justification for an internal board was: “Typical police officers rising through
the ranks to leadership positions do not arrive at the top fully equipped to manage large
organisations employing thousands of people.” This may be true, but it would merely
reflect poor systems of continuous professional development and is no basis for the
design of permanent governance structures.
https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-
communications/press-releases/2019/august/media-factsheet-220819.pdf
Expertise
A valid point made was that police organisations would benefit from access to high-level
expertise in human resources, finance and other specialisms more commonly found in
the business community. In the Seattle police department (SPD), often cited as an
example of how such expertise can be accessed, such specialists are integral members
of the senior executive team, equal in rank with senior police colleagues, and not
members of an internal board to whom the SPD is accountable. There is an office of
police accountability “to safeguard the culture of accountability within the SPD” and,
crucially, the office is “physically and operationally outside the SPD but has immediate
and complete access to all SPD-controlled data and evidence”. Contrast this with the
freezing out of our oversight bodies.
I wrote to the Taoiseach last January on behalf of Dr Conway and myself, documenting
our concerns. I received a reply from Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan
saying the Government had accepted the CFPI majority recommendations.
Such is the gravity of the issues at stake, however, hopefully the Oireachtas committee
and Opposition parties will work to modify this position before enabling legislation is
passed and the die is cast, that is until the next spate of policing scandals prompts yet
another sequence of tribunals and another commission on the future of policing in
Ireland.
https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/our-departments/office-of-corporate-communications/press-
releases/2019/august/garda-op-model-august-2019.pdf
Ireland_2012 citizen of Ireland. 2°. The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship
shall be determined in accordance with law. • Requirements for naturalization
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ireland_2012.pdf
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Submission to the Committee to Review the Offences Against the State
Acts and Other Matters Amnesty International welcomes the initiation by the Irish Government of the
Review of the Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/148000/eur290011999en.pdf
Eddie Molloy is a management consultant and was member of Commission on the Future
of Policing in Ireland
https://agsi.ie/articles/culture-of-
impunity-in-garda-deeply-embedded/
DPP v Doyle: Supreme Court’s
Information Note
The Supreme Court issued the following Information Note to accompany the Court’s
five written judgments, which are available on the Courts Services website.
18th January 2017
The Supreme Court
DPP v. Barry Doyle
Information Note
1. Barry Doyle, the accused/appellant, referred to as “the appellant”, was granted
leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the 8th June,
2015: [2015] IESCDET 45. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the
prosecutor/respondent, is referred to as “the DPP”.
(i) Whether or not the appellant was, in the circumstances of this case, entitled to
consult with a solicitor, and have a solicitor present, prior to and during the 15th
interview with the Garda Síochána, during which admissions were alleged to have
been made. This raises the question of whether the right to have a solicitor present
during questioning is a matter of right of the detained person, or a matter of
concession by the Garda Síochána.
(ii) Whether the appellant, in all the circumstances, including that he was convicted
in the Central Criminal Court on the 15th February, 2012, and the decision of the
Supreme Court in DPP v. Damache was delivered on the 23rd February, 2012, can
rely on that decision on his appeal.
This will be referred to as “the Damache” issue.
(iii) Whether the matters set out in the appellant’s application under the heading
“Relevant facts considered not to be in dispute”, or any of them, constituted threats
or inducements made to the appellant and calculated to extract a confession from
him. This is a matter not decided by the Court of trial or the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, if they do constitute such threats or inducements, whether their effect had
“dissipated” or “worn off” by the time of the admissions relied upon by the State, as
held by the trial judge; and whether or not there was any evidence on which it could
have been determined that the effect of the said threats or inducements (if any) had
“dissipated” or “worn off” by the time of the alleged admissions.
3. On the first issue, as to whether the appellant was entitled to have a solicitor
present during the 15th Interview, 6 members of the Court would dismiss the appeal,
although on different bases; a majority of the Court (Denham C.J., O’Donnell J.,
Laffoy J. and Charleton J.) hold that the constitutional right is to have access to legal
advice, and that it was not required that the appellant, in the circumstances of the
case, have a solicitor present during the 15th Interview.
6. McKechnie J. dissenting, both as to reasons and result, holds that the presence of a
lawyer is required under the Constitution and would allow this ground of appeal.
However, in light of his conclusion on the third issue, he did not find it necessary to
determine the consequences of a breach of such a right in this case.
7. On the second issue, the Damache issue, the Court held that the appellant, in all
the circumstances, could not rely on the decision in DPP v Damache [2012] 2 I.R.
266, on his appeal.
8. On the third issue, the issue of threats or inducements, the majority of the Court
dismiss this ground of appeal.
9. McKechnie J., dissenting, holds that each of the three limbs of the test in People
(DPP) v. McCann [1998] 4 I.R. 397 has been satisfied and, accordingly, that the
admissions made result from an inducement. As a result, the admissions so made
were inadmissible and on such basis he would order a retrial.
10. For the reasons given, the Court dismisses the appeal.
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/dpp-v-doyle-supreme-courts-
information-note/
The Court, however, upheld the High Court decision that the administrative regime
introduced under the 2014 Regulations breached the standard of fair procedure
required by the Constitution, and the Regulations were therefore invalid.
Background
O’Sullivan owns a fishing vessel, The Tea Rose. In April 2015, Sea Fisheries
Protection Officers boarded the vessel as it returned to harbour. After inspection and
weighing of the fish on board, a garda cautioned the Master of the vessel and brought
him before Bantry District Court to be charged for under-recording his catch contrary
to the Sea Fisheries Regulations 2011. The following day, O’Sullivan requested that
the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority suspend the application of points to the
vessel’s licence under the 2014 Regulations pending the outcome of the criminal
proceedings. The Agency informed the O’Sullivan that it had no discretion to defer
the assignment of points to a fishing licence once it is notified of a serious
infringement.
2014 Regulations
Under the 2014 Regulations, the Officer in charge of an inspection of a vessel issues a
report of any infringements to the Master of the vessel. The Officer submits a report
to the Authority on any infringements by a licence holder. The Authority appoints a
panel to determine the seriousness of any infringements. Where the panel finds that
there has been a serious infringement, it determines how many points to assign to the
licence and notifies the Master (or licence holder) with information on the right to
appeal that decision in writing within 21 days. An appeals officer (Ministerial
appointment) may allow an appeal where it is proven on the balance of probability
that an infringement did not occur. A licence holder may appeal to the High Court on
a point of law. The High Court’s decision is final and conclusive. There is no provision
to defer the appointment of points pending a High Court decision.
High Court
The High Court granted O’Sullivan an injunction preventing the Authority from
applying points to his fishing licence, prior to a full hearing of his challenge to the
2014 Regulations. O’Sullivan argued that the 2014 Regulations breach a number of
Articles of the Constitution: Art 15.2.1, which vests sole power to make laws in the
Oireachtas; Art 34.4, which does not permit a minister to restrict the right of appeal
from a decision of the High Court; and O’Sullivan argued that the 2014 Regulations
went beyond the limited functions of a judicial nature which Art 37.1 permits an
administrative body to perform.
O’Conor Tony J held that the 2014 Regulations were ultra vires s 3 of the European
Communities Act 1972 and were, as a consequence, invalid having regard to the
provisions of Art 15.2.1 of the Constitution.
The State sought leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court granted
leave to appeal on three issues (subject to refinement during case management):
(i) That the trial judge was incorrect to conclude that the Regulations contained
measures which were not necessitated by Ireland’s membership of the European
Union by virtue of those measures going beyond the principles and policies
contained within relevant EU law;
(ii) That, consequently, the determination of the trial judge that the Regulations
were ultra vires s.3 of the European Communities Act and thus invalid having
regard to Art. 15 of the Constitution was incorrect; and
(iii) That the trial judge failed to have adequate regard to the requirement that it
must be assumed that all procedures mandated by the Regulations will be operated
fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Supreme Court
O’Donnell J wrote the judgment for a unanimous five judge panel.
Drawing a comparison between the facts of this case and Maher v Minister for
Agriculture, O’Donnell J held that the matters dealt with in the 2014 Regulations
were “incidental, supplemental and consequential” to the provisions of the Council
Regulation, and the 2014 Regulations did not contravene Article 15.2.1 [43].
But on an overall assessment of the fairness of the procedures introduced—the
requirement that the licence holder initiate proceedings and carry the burden of
proof, the serious consequences for a licence holder of losing a licence, and the
limitation on the right to appeal to the High Court on a point of law—O’Donnell J
held that the High Court decision that the 2014 Regulations are invalid must be
upheld on the narrow grounds of breaching fair procedure [44-52].
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/osullivan-v-sea-fisheries-
protection-authority-ministers-administrative-scheme-breached-fair-
procedure/
Background
In 2011, under s 6 of the 2008 Act, the Minister for Finance issued promissory notes
to the value of €31 billion to two financial institutions, the Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation (IBRC) and the Educational Building Society (EBS). That imposed a
repayment liability of €3 billion per year from the State’s budgetary expenditure.
Joan Collins TD took judicial review proceedings in the High Court seeking a
declaration that the Minister’s decision was beyond his power and that s 6 of the
2008 Act was an unconstitutional delegation of the Óireachtas’s power to approve
expenditure to the Minister. Collins argued that the issue of the promissory notes
should have been subject to a Dáil vote. The Divisional High Court rejected that
claim. Collins appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution
Article 11:
All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall, subject to such exception
as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes
and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed
by law.
Article 17:
1 1° As soon as possible after the presentation to Dáil Éireann under Article 28 of this
Constitution of the Estimates of receipts and the Estimates of expenditure of the
State for any financial year, Dáil Éireann shall consider such Estimates.
2 Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for
the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the
appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the
Government signed by the Taoiseach.
Article 28:
4.4° The Government shall prepare Estimates of the Receipts and Estimates of the
Expenditure of the State for each financial year, and shall present them to Dáil
Éireann for consideration.
Supreme Court
This case was heard by a seven judge panel. However, due to the death of Justice
Adrian Hardiman earlier this year, the judgment was deliver by a unanimous six
judge panel who each contributed to the single judgment. The Court agreed with the
High Court’s assessment that the issues should be examined with a similar approach
as the courts have taken when dealing with the impermissible delegation of the
legislative function. But the Court made the distinction that the Constitution
expressly provides that the sole and exclusive power to make law is vested in the
Óireachtas. No similar statement is made in respect of financial matters [66].
On analysis of the facts surrounding the issue of the promissory notes, the Court
found that the technical requirements of the 2008 Act were met. What was at issue is
whether the powers that the 2008 Act delegated to the Minister are consistent with
the Constitution [63]. The Court found that the 2008 Act provided sufficient
limitations on the Minister’s power to grant financial assistance to be constitutionally
valid:
76 The opinion formed by the Minister after consultation with the Governor and the
Regulatory Authority, and necessarily endorsed by the Oireachtas, is threefold, and
requires three related opinions in ascending order of seriousness: first, that there is a
serious threat to the stability of credit institutions in the State generally, or that there
would be such a threat if the functions under the Act were not performed; second,
that the performance of those statutory functions is necessary for maintaining the
stability of the financial system in the State; and third, that the performance of those
functions is necessary to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of the State.
Significantly, under s. 2(2) it is envisaged that the Minister may continue to consult
with Governor and Regulatory Authority in the continuing performance of the
functions under this Act.
On the issue that the 2008 Act did not limit the financial assistance that the Minister
could provide, the Court stated the Constitution does not “expressly or by implication
require such a limit”[82]. That the potential exposure was enormous does not render
the Act unconstitutional. And the situation surrounding the issue of the promissory
notes was itself exceptional [83]. Although the Act is exceptional “it was a permissible
constitutional response to an exceptional situation. It cannot therefore be considered
to be a template for broader Ministerial power on other occasions” [84]. And the
Court found the argument that the lack of a financial limit in the Act impermissible
under the Constitution unpersuasive: s 54 of the Finance Act 1970 imposes no limit
on the amount of national debt that State can accrue, “even though such borrowings
may burden present and future generations, and constrain present and future
decisions in relation to the economy” [85].
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2016/12/17/collins-v-minister-for-finance-e31-
billion-promissory-note-was-a-permissible-constitutional-response-to-an-
exceptional-situation/
Seniors Money Mortgages Ireland Limited v Gately and McGovern Judgments &
Determinations Courts Service of Ireland
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac46ef3
71c91480258345003b233a/$FILE/102-18%20Respondents%20Notice.pdf
Background
Noelle McGovern granted Senior Money a deed of mortgage over home in County
Leitrim in 2007. Noelle McGovern died in 2009. Her daughter, Jacqueline McGovern
(notice party and appellant), now resides in the property. Gately (defendant) is the
administrator to the estate.
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac46ef3
71c91480258345003b233a?OpenDocument
Senior Money issued High Court proceedings against Gately for possession of the
property under s 62(7) of the Registration of Title Act 1964. Gately had legal
representation. The High Court added Jacqueline McGovern as notice party. She
represented herself in court. The information before the court was that the property
was a registered property. The High Court granted the order for possession in
January, 2017.
http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/5c975dd22ad51b5580257db0003d88a2/9cfac46ef3
71c91480258345003b233a/$FILE/102-18%20AFL.pdf
In April 2018, McGovern, through her solicitors, issued a notice of motion in the
Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time to appeal the High Court decision. Her
grounds of appeal is that the property is unregistered therefore the High Court order
was made without jurisdiction. Refusing that application (here), the Court of Appeal
applied the three part test from Eire Continental Trading Company Limited v
Clonmel Foods Limited[1955] 1 IR 170. It held that that McGovern had established an
arguable ground of appeal but did not meet the other two parts of the test: she had
not formed a bone fide intention to appeal within the permitted time, nor did she
establish a mistake that would justify the delay.
McGovern applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Granting leave the Court
stated:
the Court considers that the decision of the Court of Appeal does raise a matter of
general public importance namely the question as to what matters the Court of
Appeal should take into account in exercising its discretion whether or not to extend
time to issue a notice of appeal in circumstances where, having regard to the
questions identified by Eire Continental, an applicant establishes that she has an
arguable ground or grounds of appeal but does not satisfy the Court that she formed
a bonafide intention to appeal within the time and there is nothing in the nature of a
mistake which would justify delay.
https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/new-appeal-how-should-the-court-
of-appeal-exercise-its-discretion-to-allow-an-appeal-out-of-time-in-cases-
concerning-constitutional-rights/
Leaked British documents spell out no deal risks
The British government believes a hard border on the island of Ireland is "inevitable" in
the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to documents leaked to the Sunday Times
newspaper.
https://www.facebook.com/rtenews/videos/423025845015712/