Sir, – Steve Coronella (March 28th) writes that he fails to see the point of the Mahon tribunal, noting that in his native Boston prosecution of corrupt politicians is a thriving industry.
I believe I can enlighten him. I have long maintained that the entire point of the tribunals was precisely the frustration of any attempt to prosecute politicians or their patrons.
As a direct result of the tribunals, and the vilification of those deemed corrupt in the media and public discourse, it will be effectively impossible to conduct a fair trial of any accused politician or businessman and any charges would be dismissed, as happened to Charles Haughey.
There was never any need for any of the tribunals; merely a review of whether the law addressed the conduct in question. Surely, a routine exercise of professional expertise for the Attorney General and his staff?
If the law did not address the conduct in question, then no matter how unethical or outrageous the conduct may have been, no crimes were committed and legislation was required to remedy the situation.
On the other hand, if the law did address the conduct in question, there was no rational need to delay criminal investigations pending the results of unnecessary inquiries unless the unspoken, unsayable intent was to frustrate prosecutions. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Lonan McHugo (March 27th) notes the link between corruption and land values.
Such a link would be minimised by the introduction of a site value tax. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – After the Mahon report it is vital that the current Irish political class shows, especially to its own citizens but also to the international community, that it is serious about tackling political corruption.
One of the ways of showing this is to make sure that known corrupt politicians and those who are proven in the future to have been corrupt in the past do not continue to receive public-service pensions (or in their cases, “public-disservice pensions” would be a better description). In fact, I would raise legislation to allow claw- backs of already paid pensions to the people involved.
If, as I have read, a referendum is indeed necessary to enable these sanctions, then this should be acted on immediately by our Government.
Considering that we already have a referendum planned for May 31st, it strikes me that this would be an excellent opportunity to show both the appropriate urgency regarding this matter and save the expense of a separate referendum. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I have just read Harry McGee and Mary Minihan’s article (Front page, March 27th). I am incensed to learn that “Because of the precipitate actions of the two [Pádraig Flynn and Bertie Ahern], the motions to expel will not now proceed before the 97-strong [Fianna Fáil] national executive, nor will the matter be discussed”.
Is that not exactly what the two had in mind? Are we, as a people, to be fooled once again? I wish to add my voice (and I hope thousands of likeminded citizens) to those of Mary Fitzpatrick and Lisa Chambers who are calling for that motion to expel to proceed.
If not, we have once again allowed ourselves to be fooled by allowing these people to resign to avoid the humiliation of expulsion.
Has Micheál Martin not got the message yet? – Yours, etc,