P Flynn didn't sell his
soul for a measly
£50,000
 27
January 1999
HEAD ON THE BLOCK
The bould P. Flynn, we are told, is not going to get a
third term as Ireland's E.U. Commissioner. If that proves to
be the case, it will be a pity because Padraig was a skilled
operator who achieved a great deal.
There is a link being drawn between his future in
Brussels and his controversial appearance on the Late, Late
Show when he cast certain aspersions on the state of health
of a man accusing him of taking a £50,000 backhand.
In my humble view, the two issues should be kept
separate. Padraig had hinted many months ago that he was
considering packing up his commissionership at the end of
his current term. Whether he was having second thoughts, I
don't know.
But I don't believe that he would have got, or wanted, a
third term even if the current dispute involving
London-based contractor, Tom Gilmartin, had not blown up
again.
A number of issues puzzle me about this episode,
however.
1. If Flynn got the money and put it into his back pocket
instead of the coffers of the Fianna Fail party, then why
was he not hauled before the Flood tribunal?
2. Why wasn't Gilmartin prepared to give evidence to the
Flood tribunal?
3. If Flynn was trying to cover up something, then why
did he reopen the debate by saying what he said on the Late,
Late Show?
4. Why didn't the Fianna Fail party, which claims it did
not get a contribution from Gilmartin via Flynn, get to the
bottom of the controversy before it started to involve An
Taoiseach, Bernie Ahern?
5. Is Flynn, as wily and capable a public representative
as we have seen in these parts for a long time, foolish
enough to take a back-hander.
I have no own opinions on each of my questions and they
are as follows.
1. He was not hauled before the Flood Tribunal because he
did nothing wrong.
2. Despite his utterings on Radio One on Sunday,
Gilmartin hasn't a leg to stand on.
3. Flynn wasn't trying to cover up anything. He calls a
spade a spade and always will. His performance on the Late,
Late Show was vintage. He had every right to treat Gilmartin
with contempt.
4. They tried, but found nothing but lies and innuendo.
The fact Ahern is being implicated is for no other reason
but political gain by the non-Government parties.
5. No. But if you throw enough of dirt, it is inclined to
stick.
Maybe I am mad wrong on all counts. But I was not wrong
about Beverley when she was implicated in the NIB scandal,
was I?
P. Flynn was never going to put his political reputation
and integrity on the line for the sake of a measly
£50,000. Trying to clear his name could be difficult,
nonetheless.
But, as I say, this Gilmartin chap has no evidence. He is
trading on unsubstantiated allegations. P Flynn will
survive. You can count on that.
Connaught Telegraph - News &
Sport - January 1999
|
