Shane Ross: When Dermot Desmond and Michael O'Leary call for MetroLink to be scrapped, they have earned the right to be heard
Dermot Desmond will be 75 on Thursday. The billionaire financier has been an important player in Ireland's business world for 50 years. Last week, he entered the heated MetroLink debate, signalling his intent to remain at the centre of Irish business for at least another decade.
He joined Ryanair's Michael O'Leary in rubbishing the Government's great misnomer, its 'rapid transport' programme. Two of the sharpest minds in the business jungle are suddenly thorns in the side of the Coalition's fuzzy plans for its flagship project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Journal
an hour ago
- The Journal
Fine Gael councillor didn't declare 50% stake in firm accused of charging nurses unlawful fees
FINE GAEL COUNCILLOR and former South Dublin Mayor Baby Pereppadan did not declare his 50% shareholding in a recruitment agency that has been accused of charging migrant nurses unlawful fees. In 2022, 2023, and 2024 Pereppadan failed to disclose his interest in Angel Care Consultancy Limited. The councillor has denied knowledge of nurses being charged additional fees and said that he was not involved in the daily operations of the company. For a period of time in 2022-2023 he was also a director, which he has also not declared. Councillor Pereppadan was appointed director in November 2022 and resigned in May of the following year. Pereppadan told The Journal earlier this month that he had been offered 'a 50% shareholding' in the company as a gesture of goodwill after assisting in some of the early administration aspects of the company in 2021. He has not responded to questions on why he did not declare his directorship and a 50% shareholding in the company. The Journal Investigates last week reported on the councillor's interest in the company and that he is a former director of the recruitment agency. The company has been accused of charging three migrant nurses thousands of euros in agency fees on top of their standard costs, as part of their recruitment to work in an Irish nursing home. One of these nurses claims she was directed to pay the equivalent of €3,000 directly into the bank account of Britto Pereppadan, Baby's son, who is also a Fine Gael councillor in Tallaght, and a hospital doctor. Britto Pereppadan does not have any shares in Angel Care and he is not formally associated with the company. Advertisement He has said that the payment of €3,000 was made to him for a personal debt by another co-founder of the company, businessman Babu Valooran Kochuvarkey. These kinds of agency fees are not allowed under Irish employment law, under rules that are designed to stop people from profiting directly from those seeking work. Fine Gael reserving judgement Since the article was published on Friday, People Before Profit and Sinn Féin TDs have called on Fine Gael to launch an investigation into the councillors, and a complaint has been made to the South Dublin County Council Ethics Registrar. The Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) clearly sets out in its code of conduct for councillors that they must furnish the Ethics Registrar of their council with an annual declaration of their interests, including financial, property, and business interests. Records show that Baby Pereppadan reported no company directorships or shareholdings in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Baby Pereppadan was a director in Angel Care from 22 November 2022 until 19 May 2023. When he resigned his daughter, a 22-year-old dentistry student, was appointed as director. Baby Pereppadan has said that his daughter's involvement was 'nominal' and 'administrative' and that she has not had any involvement in running the company. In response to a series of questions, Baby Pereppadan said that he did not know anything about agency fees being charged to the three nurses. 'I have no knowledge of the allegations regarding agency fees being charged to nurses, and I am shocked to learn of these claims, should they be true. I have had no involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company, nor was I made aware of any extra fees being levied,' Baby Pereppadan said in an initial response to The Journal Investigates . Related Reads Two FG councillors have 'questions to answer' over migrant nurse agency fees, say opposition TDs Fine Gael councillor co-owns company accused of charging migrant nurses unlawful 'agency fees' He also said that he was given a 50% ownership stake in the company as a gesture of goodwill from Valooran, the other co-founder. Fine Gael response Baby Pereppadan's business partner businessman Babu Valooran Kochuvarkey has claimed that nurses had full knowledge of the fees that they paid, and that the two sums of just over €3,000 and one sum of €3,600 that were charged to the three nurses were expenses related. Mr Valooran said that he would further engage with one nurse who had requested a refund of additional fees. The three nurses have told The Journal that these were lump sum agency fees that they were asked to pay at the outset of their recruitment, and that they themselves paid for expenses including accommodation in Dublin during their examination period and transport in cash; they have also provided documentation which appears to support their claims. Britto Pereppadan has claimed that his father's business partner, Babu Valooran Kochuvarkey, had owed him a sum of money, which he paid to him, and that he didn't know how it was obtained. Asked for a response to the revelations in the article last Friday, a spokesperson for Fine Gael said that Councillor Baby Pereppadan had himself made the party aware of the piece. Yesterday at a press conference Tánaiste and party leader Simon Harris said that he is going to 'reserve judgement' on the matters covered in the article until he is provided with clarifications by the Pereppadans. Asked if he planned to take action on any of the revelations Harris said: 'I understand that the councillors are disputing some of that and are currently seeking legal advice, and my party headquarters has sought more information from them in relation to that and I await the outcome of that.' When pressed on whether Fine Gael would investigate further the Tánaiste said that the two councillors 'will provide my party headquarters with more information and I will wait until I have all the facts'. 'Once I have all the facts, I will make a judgement then,' Harris added. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Agriland
an hour ago
- Agriland
Former farm leaders oppose Mercosur deal at Tullamore Show
Former leaders of two of the country's leading farm organisations joined forces at the 2025 Tullamore Show and FBD National Livestock Show to opposed the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement. Former Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) president John Dillon and former Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association (ICMSA) president Pat O'Rourke – now a political and agriculture adviser to MEP Ciaran Mullooly - made a joint effort at the event on Sunday (August 10) to warn about the deal. The two men said that said the Mercosur deal will have a "devastating impact" on Irish beef farmers. If ratified by EU member states, the deal would grant significantly increased access for South American beef into the European market. Speaking at the show, the two former farm leaders highlighted what they called a "massive price gap" between Brazilian and Irish beef, which they said was driven by a differences in production standards. Dillon claimed: "The farmgate price for beef in Brazil is just €3.20/kg. In Ireland, it's €9.50/kg. That difference is explained by the lower animal welfare standards, use of growth hormones, and weaker environmental protections in Mercosur countries. "The structural disadvantages for Irish farmers are equally stark. While farms in Mercosur countries can be as large as 15,000ha, the average Irish family farm is just 34ha. 'Irish farmers cannot and will not be able to compete on price with beef produced under vastly different rules and on an industrial scale. If the government is serious about backing Irish farmers, there's only one option – say no to Mercosur," O'Rourke said. The two men jointly called on the government to take a firm stand against the deal in upcoming EU negotiations, warning that its ratification would undermine the Irish beef sector, threaten rural livelihoods, and reward production systems that fail to meet the high standards demanded of EU farmers. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Simon Harris, recently said he had discussed international trade developments, including the Mercosur agreement, with his counterparts from France and Germany, among others. He said: "The government is committed to supporting free, fair and open trade. Indeed, recent developments in the global trading environment have highlighted the importance of market diversification via an expanded set of EU free trade agreements. "We have always been clear, that such agreements must defend our most vulnerable sectors and that our farmers' livelihoods must not be undermined through weak or ineffective environmental standards in other countries." "Our position is clearly outlined in the Programme for Government, which states that the government will work with like-minded EU countries to stand up for Irish farmers and defend our interests in opposing the current Mercosur trade deal," the Tánaiste said.
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Finally, a large-scale anti-war protest in Israel
An estimated 100,000 Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv last Saturday night to protest against the Israeli Government's announcement to intensify and prolong the war on Gaza. This was the largest and most raucous anti-government demonstration in months. The anger was palpable; it was probably the first demonstration that I can recall that had a decidedly anti-war sentiment. For many months, smaller demonstrations have been held every Saturday evening across the country. Whilst these protests have always had an anti-government message, their focus remained squarely on the fate of remaining hostages held in Gaza. Explicit anti-war messages at the mainstream weekly demos have remained muted – up until now. Saturday night's demonstration felt different. This was arguably the first large-scale anti-war demonstration in Israel since the conflict began almost two years ago. The government's announcement to expand the war came after a 10-hour cabinet meeting last Thursday, indicating, unusually for this government, some real cabinet dissent. Netanyahu, in a press conference on Sunday evening, doubled down on that commitment. Israeli activists take part in a protest last month in Tel Aviv against the war in the Gaza Strip. Many demonstrators believe that Netanyahu's motivation to expand military operations is fuelled by nothing more than a cynical desire for political self-preservation. File photo: AP/Ohad Zwigenberg In language reminiscent of the infamous quote of the Vietnam War, 'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', Netanyahu on Sunday spoke in English, without any hint of irony, 'We do not want to occupy Gaza but free Gaza'. This is after 22 months of relentless Israeli assault that has already killed over 60,000 Palestinians, including 18,000 children. Netanyahu's announcement to intensify the war on Gaza, including a plan to occupy and 'evacuate' Gaza city, has shocked but not surprised Israelis. Details of the military plan remain unclear. Initial local media reports over the weekend suggested that the plan included a full evacuation of Gaza City, to be completed by October 7, the second anniversary of the Hamas massacre. Recent polls suggest that more than 70% of Israelis want the war to end now. Presumably, an even higher percentage are opposed to any intensification of fighting that puts at risk not just the lives of the remaining hostages but also the lives of thousands of young Israeli soldiers who are now tasked with the unenviable job of ethnic cleansing. The IDF's (Israeli Defense Forces) Eyal Zamir has let it be known publicly that he is opposed to Netanyahu's ground plan for logistical reasons, arguing, like almost everybody else here, that the expansion of the war as outlined by the government puts the lives of soldiers and hostages at risk. Zamir's very public opposition has provoked accusations of treason from Netanyahu's son Yair, who has not been shy of weighing in with politically provocative outbursts since the war began. The political mood in the country has grown increasingly tense in the past 72 hours, with calls from both the family of the hostages and opposition leaders for a national strike later this week. Many political pundits in Israel, however, are genuinely scratching their heads as to the motivation behind Netanyahu's decision. Most are asking, why now? And why such a brazen and provocative call for an intensification of war, that has generated fierce condemnation from leaders across the globe, flies in the face of the majority of Israeli public opinion and is resolutely opposed by the Israeli military itself. If we take Netanyahu at his word, the war plans are simply a 'proposal for defeating Hamas'. If we do not take him at his word - and many Israeli political pundits say we shouldn't - the announcement is a ploy for Netanyahu to prolong the war, to ensure his short-term political survival. Israeli activists take part in a protest last month in Tel Aviv against the war in the Gaza Strip. The political mood in the country has grown increasingly tense in the past 72 hours. File photo: AP/Ohad Zwigenberg Any proposal to end the war that doesn't include a commitment to full Israeli occupation, ethnic cleansing, or expulsion, the argument goes, will not satisfy his far-right messianic coalition partners. The so-called never-ending war is designed to stave off the collapse of the government. Some have argued that the announcement is nothing more than a negotiation tactic to force Hamas to make concessions in the negotiations to end the war. There is a fourth and altogether darker interpretation. This is the opinion that none of this is being forced upon Netanyahu by political expediency, but instead driven by a deliberate, pre-planned strategic goal to eventually expel two million Palestinians from Gaza. This was the opinion of Aluf Benn, editor of Haaretz newspaper, the Israeli paper of record, just last week. The few demonstrators I spoke to on Saturday night were unanimous that Netanyahu's motivation to expand military operations was fuelled by nothing more than a cynical desire for political self-preservation. 'He [Netanyahu] cares nothing about the hostages, everything he does is for himself,' said Yoav. 'We need to get rid of this 'crime minister 'before more hostages die,' Yael added. Netanyahu has been indicted for corruption. His trial has been dragging on for years. Posters with his face behind bars with the caption 'Crime Minister' have been visible at all demonstrations for two years now. Lior was visibly angry. 'What are we fighting for? What are our soldiers dying for? Nothing, absolutely all a lie.' Israeli activists take part in a protest last month in Tel Aviv against the war in the Gaza Strip. Recent polls suggest that more than 70% of Israelis want the war to end now. File photo: AP/Ohad Zwigenberg 'We are killing children every day – it has to stop,' said Taly, one of the few people I spoke to who first raised the plight of Palestinian civilians. Her voice remains a minority. A little reported poll from the Israel Democracy Institute this weekend revealed that 78% of Jewish Israelis think that 'given the circumstances of the fighting in Gaza, Israel is making efforts to avoid causing suffering to the Palestinian population there'. A perhaps shockingly naive or wilfully ignorant viewpoint, indicative that many of the demonstrators on Saturday continue to either turn a blind eye to the reality what their state has done in the past 22 months of war. Many observers, I am sure both inside and outside Israel, would agree however, whatever the motivation of the demonstrators, any protest by ordinary Israelis that brings 100,000 of its citizens onto the streets to call for an immediate end to the war on Gaza should be welcomed by all.
