Sir, – Ireland teeters on the verge of bankruptcy due to the rise in State spending and the decline in taxation returns. This is due to Covid, for which the Government cannot be blamed. However, the three unwise men who lead this Government have seen fit to oust the former European trade commissioner, who could perhaps, have pulled us back from the cliff edge of insolvency.
As a member of Fine Gael, what I find really disgusting is that the leader of this party would bow to populist sentiment.
Stephen Collins rightly calls it "spinelessness " ("Appeasing the lynch mob has come at a high price", Opinion & Analysis, August 28th).
Micheál Martin, meanwhile, lauds Phil Hogan’s work in Europe and Ireland. Please, Taoiseach, do not speak out of the two sides of your mouth. – Yours, etc,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
MARGARET LEE,
Newport,
Co Tipperary.
Sir, – As an ordinary citizen, who is of the view that public figures and office holders should act responsibly during the Covid-19 crisis and give an example to the general public, I am disturbed at the possibility of being described by Stephen Collins as a member of the “lynch mob” .
As I understand it, contrary to your columnist’s assertion, the Government did not “publicly demand that the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen sack Mr Hogan”. Rather it was made quite clear all along that the European Commissioner’s position was a matter for the European Commission, not the Irish Government, while informing the Irish public that Mr Hogan had breached public health guidelines, despite his protestations to the contrary.
As regards Ireland losing a “powerful voice” at the centre of Europe and his departure being a cause of “serious damage to the national interest”, like his fellow commissioners, Mr Hogan was appointed to represent all 27 member states, not Ireland. In the context of that independent role, I am reminded of a recent article penned jointly by the European Commission president and Mr Hogan where they both called for Ireland to “seriously consider giving Brussels taxing powers”, contrary to Ireland’s strong view that these powers must remain a national competence and, in our own case, a basic tenet of our economic strategy, with the emphasis on foreign direct investment as a key economic driver. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN McDONALD,
Terenure,
Dublin 12.
Sir, At last a journalist who does not follow the herd. Fair play to Stephen Collins – Yours, etc,
TOM McGRATH,
Newtownforbes,
Longford.
Sir, – Stephen Collins asserts that the Government “went about getting rid of Mr Hogan by publicly demanding that European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen sack him”. The Government’s position was that Mr Hogan should consider his position, commonly understood to mean he should resign. I do not believe it is true to state that the Government publicly demanded Hogan’s sacking by the European Commission president.
The article also states that Mr Hogan “compounded the error of attending the Oireachtas golf society dinner by flouting the rules on quarantine, however inadvertently”. If you flout something such as a law, an order, or an accepted way of behaving, you deliberately do not obey it or follow it. To qualify “flouting” by the use of “inadvertently” stretches the meaning beyond accuracy. – Yours, etc,
PAT KELLY
Castleknock
Dublin 15.
Sir, – Ireland, as a nation, has in the very recent past demonstrated it’s ability to perform at the highest level. Paschal Donohoe’s election as president of the Eurogroup of finance ministers, Mairead McGuinness’s election as vice-president of the European Parliament, Ireland’s securing of a seat on the UN Security Council, and indeed Phil Hogan’s appointment to the senior post of commissioner for trade are but some examples of where Ireland has excelled.
Surely the Government response to Golfgate, which was a matter entirely internal to this country, cannot be in Ireland’s external interests. – Yours, etc,
MICK O’BRIEN,
Springmount
Kilkenny.
Sir, – Among the many issues that Stephen Collins raises regarding Phil Hogan’s resignation, one of them is his judgement that his “punishment” bears “no proportion to the crime”.
Is this the same Stephen Collins who wrote less than a month ago ("Coalition is doomed unless it learns to fight back", Opinion & Analysis, July 31st) that the Government was entirely justified in removing the pandemic unemployment payment from those who travelled to the Government's "green-list countries"?
Those affected by the latter were often given no communication about the changes in the conditions of the payment prior to their actions, save for a mad scramble to change Government websites overnight to reflect the Tánaiste’s statement in an interview.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the €350 per week were often the only source of income recipients had during a period when their usual workplaces were shut due to Covid-19, effectively leaving them in destitution if removed.
In contrast, Phil Hogan blatantly broke several regulations in relation to self-isolation, essential travel, and attending that golf dinner – all of which were clearly spelled out on Government websites and which were relatively consistent for months.
Compared to those who would have lost their pandemic unemployment payment, Phil Hogan is unlikely to experience much immediate financial hardship, given the salary and the severance package that came with the role of European commissioner.
Stephen Collins was also worried that a U-turn on the pandemic unemployment payment sanctions would result in the diminishing of a “sense of national purpose”. It is odd he does not apply the same standards to arguably one of the most senior of Irish politicians. – Yours, etc,
TOMÁS M CREAMER,
Ballinamore,
Co Leitrim.
Sir. – Stephen Collins thinks the Government appeased the mob in its approach to the monumentally stupid and careless golfing tour of Ireland by the former trade commissioner. On the contrary, the Coalition leaders stood firmly by the carefully designed containment measures in place. They could do no other. Mr Hogan must have been aware of his responsibilities, but chose to ignore them. If anyone does not know what the word hubris means, his actions were the clearest explanation. – Yours, etc,
ANDY JONES,
Mullagh,
Co Cavan.
Sir, – The event should have been held on a course close to Dublin with one day’s golf, no hotel stay, and definitely no dinner. What a disaster, and all because of a Mickey Mouse golf outing. Albert Reynolds was right. It’s the little things that trip you up. – Yours, etc,
LOUIS HOGAN,
Wicklow.
Sir, – I must congratulate Stephen Collins for his biting Swiftian satire comparing the ouster of Phil Hogan to the Government appeasing a lynch mob and not thinking through the consequences of same.
There is, of course, no negative implication to the country due to this resignation. European commissioners are not delegates of their appointing member state; they must, by law, act in the general interest of the European Union. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DINEEN,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – Anybody appointed to high office by the current Government should equip themselves with a reliable bus timetable. They must already know that the Government will, at the first sign of trouble, push them under the bus. If only for planning purposes, it would be nice to know when one is likely to be passing. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN O’SULLIVAN,
Phibsborough,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Can the media and politicians please give the public a break. The narrative has switched from “Phil has to go” to “How did we let Phil go?”
Mr Hogan has gone.
We do not need to hear any more about a person who couldn’t navigate the HSE website. – Yours, etc,
LOUISE JONES,
Mullingar,
Co Westmeath.
A chara, – When the initial event brings about a disproportionate response, look for another cause. That’s what a psychology lecturer in UCD remarked to us many years ago. When you say “Good morning” to someone, or brush against someone, and you get your head bitten off, there is clearly something else going on.
How did a dinner, apparently organised in accord with the current health guidelines (including over 50 guests split into two sections, as others have done) give rise to the outcome we have seen? How did it give rise to a level of widespread public outrage I have not seen for many years?
The Covid-19 pandemic is serious for our society. So is the aftermath of the dinner. I do not know Phil Hogan, and his own actions and statements have contributed to his difficulties, but the reactions indicate other factors are active. He was not the only one at the dinner who did not respect pandemic guidelines. Did our Government leaders feel they had to echo public outrage lest they seem negligent? Did popular frustration with ongoing restrictions and closedown contribute to public reaction? Did a feeding frenzy make a calmer response impossible?
The Irish Times Editorial (August 27th) said: "The mood of vengeance is never pleasant, and bloodlust must be avoided." Too late for that.
If it happened to Phil Hogan, who will be next?
Unless we reflect seriously on what has happened since August 18th, there is the possibility that lasting damage will have been done to the willingness of citizens to take part in public life in Ireland.– Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Sandyford,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – Jim O’Callaghan noted early in this controversy that it would be an own-goal for Ireland if Phil Hogan were to leave his critical trade position in the European Commission.
The winners? The UK and the media in the silly season of August.
STEPHANIE WALSH
Newport,
Co Tipperary.
Sir, – In your Editorial of August 27th, you state that to survive a pandemic, leaders have "two clear duties: don't provoke public rage and, if you do, move quickly and decisively to assuage it".
What if such rage is not well-founded and is in conflict with what a leader perceives is best for the common good? Should the rage be assuaged at any cost, either to an individual or a political party?
What the best course of action to take should be based on what is best for the country and its citizens. If a leader recognises that public anger is valid and determines a certain course of action, then a leader should act accordingly. Should a leader, to assuage anger, give in to the demands of the outraged, even though they may consider such demands not to be in the public interest? Decisions made primarily to assuage rage and anger are hardly a solid base on which any democracy can flourish. And should a philosophy of appeasement be applied at all times, not just “in a time of crisis”? – Yours, etc,
MÁIRE WHITE.
Kinlough,
Co Leitrim.