Mayo TD responds to columnist over his analysis
I READ Dr. Richard Martin’s recent opinion piece about me in The Connaught Telegraph (published below) with both disappointment and, I confess, some amusement.
Disappointment — because I had often held him in high regard as a sharp commentator in the west. Amusement — because I hadn’t expected a man of such standing to abandon reason in favour of building straw men with the enthusiasm of a Halloween scarecrow competition.
Let me say at the outset: I have no objection to being criticised. Criticism, when tethered to truth, is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.
If my views on policy — whether on junkets, immigration, taxation, or potholes — offend Dr. Martin’s sensibilities, he is more than entitled to say so.
But if you’re going to skewer someone, at least make sure it’s them you’re skewering — not a fictional character assembled from fragments of out-of-context quotes, false attributions and wild conjecture.
To accuse me of describing Irish workers in pharma companies as “transitional” is not only incorrect — it is entirely made up.
Dr. Martin might consider himself a cartographer of public debate but, in this instance, he’s mapping a landscape that doesn’t exist. The technique on display here is a classic one — build a caricature, call him Lawless, and then gleefully set it ablaze.
It’s less journalism and more ventriloquism. And when the someone says something outrageous, it’s suddenly my voice that’s blamed. I suppose it’s easier to defeat your opponent when you invent one that suits your argument.
Dr. Martin also suggests I “ranted” about Knock. If asking legitimate questions on behalf of residents worried about community cohesion is ranting, then I must confess to being guilty. But if I’d known my comments would be framed in terms of apparitions and hay sheds, I might have worn more ethereal robes.
But beyond the straw men and scarecrows, a few specific claims deserve a more detailed rebuttal — not because I’m afraid of criticism, but because I’m rather fond of facts.
On Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Dr. Martin accuses me — falsely and quite dramatically — of disparaging Ireland’s corporation tax strategy and denigrating the contribution of multinational workers.
One would think I’d called for Pfizer to be turned into a pumpkin at midnight. In reality, I’ve been one of the most consistent voices in support of FDI in the Dáil. That’s not a matter of opinion — it’s on the record.
My speeches, press statements and public commentary have always highlighted the importance of FDI for Mayo and Ireland — from Westport to Ringsend.
Had Dr. Martin taken even a cursory glance at my statements — or heaven forbid, done his homework — he might have found himself agreeing with me. And perhaps that’s the problem.
Perhaps he suspects we might overlap in views, and that makes him deeply uncomfortable.
After all, agreeing with Paul Lawless could cause reputational damage in certain Fianna Fáil circles of his. So instead, he performs a kind of reverse alchemy: turning gold into straw and burning it for warmth.
On Aontú and Sinn Féin: Dr. Martin also insists on painting Aontú as a Sinn Féin offshoot — the political equivalent of a clone that never quite separated from the mothership.
This is, once again, demonstrably false. Yes, our party leader Peadar Tóibín was once in Sinn Féin — a fact that has never been hidden. But the other two Oireachtas members, myself included, have no background whatsoever in Sinn Féin.
Many of our candidates, councillors and membership come from all walks of political life — Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Independents, and just as many from none at all.
More importantly, our policies diverge radically from those of Sinn Féin more often than it overlaps. On economics, immigration and free speech to name just 3 puts us on an entirely different axis.
But Dr. Martin doesn’t let that get in the way of a lazily constructed narrative. The truth, I suppose, doesn’t always cooperate when you’re trying to draw ideological stick figures.
On the foreign “Junkets”: Ah yes, the junkets — the moment where Dr. Martin fell short of claiming I declared war on Aer Lingus. I am not opposed to councillors overseas trips if these projects offer the constituents the value the taxpayer is forking out.
I am opposed to trips that take place without scrutiny, without cost-benefit analysis, and without any attempt to demonstrate value to the taxpayer.
Dr. Martin finds this a radical notion, I know — accountability in public spending. I have said clearly at the time in Mayo County Council - and I will say it again - international trips which will lead to meaningful engagement or economic benefit for the people of Mayo who are paying it should be protected.
I will be the first to cheer them into the plane. I might even help them pack! But flying around the world on the public dime without even a discussion prior to the approval of the trip or a follow up report is not acceptable.
That’s not diplomacy — that’s the annual leave you don’t have to apply for. The MCC budget for international travel is significant and the taxpayers and ratepayers of Mayo deserve transparency.
The irony here is that had Dr. Martin engaged with what I actually said, rather than what he’d prefer I had said, he might have even agreed with me.
But instead, he opted for literary pyrotechnics over journalistic diligence. And yet, amidst all this theatrical straw-stuffing, what’s truly disheartening is not the criticism itself — but the betrayal of a journalistic standard.
Dr. Martin’s article, printed in a newspaper I deeply respect, is a disservice to both. The Connaught Telegraph has long been a proud institution in Mayo — a place where rigorous commentary could coexist with fairness and fidelity to facts.
This piece, I’m afraid, fell far short of that tradition. There is no problem whatsoever with attacking a TD’s policy. It’s part of the job. But inventing a position, attributing it falsely, and then criticising it — that’s not debate. That’s shadow-boxing in the dark. And no reader, no matter how partisan, is served by that.
Dr. Martin writes that “no man is an island.” I agree. But no man deserves to be marooned on one of lies either.
I remain committed to robust debate — with anyone, on any issue.
But let’s keep the argument real. There’s an old debating tactic — attributed to the more theatrical corners of university societies — where you deliberately misrepresent your opponent’s view, then declare victory over the version you just invented. Dr. Martin appears to have graduated summa cum laude in this technique.
If he disagrees with me, let him say so. But let him disagree with what I’ve actually said and done, not some imaginary Paul Lawless conjured up for rhetorical sport.
His piece may have been entertaining — for all the wrong reasons — but The Connaught Telegraph, a paper with a proud tradition of tough but fair journalism, deserves better than to be used as a platform for fiction.
If Dr. Martin wishes to continue the debate, I’d welcome it. But next time, perhaps he’ll bring a notepad and a few facts instead of some straw and a match.
THE ARTICLE, PUBLISHED ON APRIL 22, BY DR. RICHARD MARTIN TO WHICH DEPUTY LAWLESS IS REFERRING:
Paul Lawless is walking a tricky political tightrope
by Dr. Richard Martin
Paul Lawless was elected to the council last June and he wasn’t five minutes in the chamber before he was rattling cages and challenging the status quo.
Straight away he refused to join the Independent grouping in the chamber which coalesce to form tactical voting alliances and technical groups to join strategic policy committees.
His preference was to not cooperate with the civil war parties nor the wide mix of independents in the chamber.
No man is an island. Paul Lawless would say otherwise.
He made headlines straight away when he questioned trips taken by fellow councillors to the USA and wondered out loud if they were worthwhile or in the taxpayers interest. That rattled cages.
A senior FF figure decried his contributions as ‘populist’ and ‘grandstanding’. Needless to say, his contributions didn’t make him the most popular of councillors in the chamber.
To my line of reasoning, the reason why politicians go to the USA on ‘junkets’ is obvious, practical and reasonable. The Irish-American populace is roughly 30 million strong.
We as a nation depend on American business and corporation tax receipts (more anon). It makes sense then for our politicians to go there and network with corporate America on our behalf to encourage investment in a country with stable governance, a highly educated workforce and European Union membership.
But, as Paul Lawless well knows, it’s largely irrelevant how popular he is with his colleagues in the council chamber or any other. What really matters is his popularity with the electorate. And he is popular. Demonstrably so.
Along with railing against ‘junkets’ to the States, he also campaigned against the use of the vacant Belmont Hotel in Knock as an IPAS centre. He posted Facebook videos. He organised open public meetings in opposition to the placement of asylum seekers in a town famed for the appearance of the Virgin Mary.
One must wonder if the Virgin Mary was to land in Knock today would she find a bed or even a hayshed to rest awhile. She’d be better off coming as an apparition.
A few months later he was elected to the Dáil. His anti-immigration and anti-establishment rhetoric struck a chord with a significant cohort of the electorate.
His electoral success was a significant and momentous achievement for him personally and the Aontú party. There was significant overlap between the Kerr and Lawless camps during the election campaign and when Kerr was eliminated his transfers pushed Lawless for home.
You need luck to make it over the line and Lawless got the breaks. Aontú now have two representatives in the Dáil.
The Aontú policy approach seems largely ad-hoc and simplistic. Oppose, oppose and oppose. Don’t conform. And oppose some more.
Aontú itself is derived from SF. Peadar Toibín was a Sinn Féin TD and left the party because of its stance on abortion. He then founded Aontú in 2019. As Aontú is a derivative of SF, one would presume that their policy would align with parties on the left.
They don’t. They align with the prevailing wind.
Aontú have chosen the right of centre path on immigration policy and puzzlingly enough recently decried Ireland’s corporation tax policy as ‘bargain basement’ and the employment that American business provides as ‘transitional’.
First of all the language is all wrong. It’s insulting to the highly qualified employees in AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis and the huge range of big American businesses domiciled on our island.
They are here for several reasons but a key reason is our education system. These companies need a wide range of university graduates, ranging across a multitude of disciplines like law and accounting to biochemistry and microbiology. We are unique as a nation in that we produce the niche workforce that’s required to manage and run a concern like AbbVie in Westport.
Using the term ‘transitional’ to describe the Irish workforce in these factories is belittling and ill-informed. It implies that the service provided by the Irish workforce is trivial, menial and equates them to a J1 student on a summer visa in Chicago working in a carwash or a bar for the summer.
Nothing wrong with that of course. Student summer jobs by nature are ‘transitional’. Running a multi-billion dollar enterprise isn’t.
Alan Dillon rightly challenged Paul Lawless and Aontú in the Dáil. He calmly asked them to ‘reflect’ on their ‘approach’ and was perfectly placed to challenge Aontú as he is a former employee of Allergan.
As a former employee he would understand what Allergan has done for the people of west Mayo and further fields beyond. The houses that have mushroomed across the terrain of west Mayo over the past 30 years have directly or indirectly come from Allergan employment.
Eaten bread is soon forgotten. Allergan bread is different. It buys pints in pubs and groceries in shops. It builds new A rated houses and provides much needed tax receipts. Nothing wrong with that.
Aontú are quick to criticise the Irish tax system, but do they have a solution? The Irish tax base is far too narrow. That isn’t in dispute.
In 2023, €116 billion in taxes were collected. The four main tax pillars are Income Tax (€33 billion), Corporation Tax (€24 billion), VAT (€20 billion) and PRSI (€21 billion). Our Corporation Tax receipts are akin to the Norwegian Oil fund.
Without it we’d be goosed. Over the past years public expenditure has doubled. The Department of Finance has repeatedly warned that it’s not sustainable. Public spending must be curbed. Excluding corporation tax our tax base is at its narrowest since 1980. These are huge red flags. What’s the solution?
Cut public spending and increase income tax. Easier said than done but this is no time for wimponomics. Those two tough measures will give us shelter when our over exposure to corporation tax receipts takes an inevitable hit. It’s always a good idea to keep some grain for the rainy day.
Will Lawless keep his seat? It’s hard to call. He didn’t reach the quota in the GE after being placed fifth. That said the tide is moving out for the civil war parties.
Trump. Trade wars. Impending global economic contraction. These things are out of the reach of Dáil Éireann. What is within the reach is housing and rent.
A generational and existential crisis and if this coalition government can’t make a significant indent into the housing crisis, then they don’t deserve to be returned to power. €600k for a second hand house in Dublin is lunacy. And immoral.
If the tide is moving out for the establishment it is moving in for the anti-establishment. His sister Deirdre was co-opted in his stead to the council. She will have discretionary funding of €300,000 over five years and they will work closely together. Having a councillor working closely in concert is vital for any incumbent TDs. All politics is local. Potholes won’t fill themselves. A TD that refuses to fill potholes won’t fill a seat in Leinster House.
FF performed poorly in the last GE in Mayo. One TD returned out of five in a historically anti-treaty county must be defined as rock bottom territory.
East Mayo was always fertile FF country. PJ Morley, John Carty, Sean Flanagan, et al. FF will be targeting the Aontú seat in the years ahead.
My sense is that seat will come back into the clutches of FF again. Strong candidates are emerging in the county town. The disparaging comments about the Irish workforce won’t be forgotten in a hurry. Never send for whom the bell tolls.