Last week saw the first anniversary of the Eamon Gilmore scandal. It caused a brief stir this time last year, until the political journalists decided that stability demands that we brush such embarrassing stuff under the carpet. (In recent times, the country, the economy, the currency and the EU have all been destabilised, as a direct result of policies said to be aimed at creating stability.)
It would be obnoxious to raise the Gilmore scandal on the anniversary, wouldn't it? So, let's do so.
Here's the question: did Eamon Gilmore deliberately deceive the citizenry by pretending to hold one position, while secretly informing the US embassy that his real position was the reverse? Or, did someone in the US embassy create a false paper trail in order to undermine the leader of the Labour Party?
Briefly -- when the Lisbon Treaty was first rejected, Gilmore said there must be no second referendum. After a while, he claimed there was sufficient change to justify another referendum. Later, Wikileaks published a memo in which the US ambassador reported to the State Department. It said that Gilmore secretly told the embassy, five days after vigorously rejecting another Lisbon vote, that he wanted a second referendum. But it was "politically necessary" that he say the opposite publicly.
Gilmore denied all this. The media mostly ignored the scandal. Hardly anyone in the Labour Party seemed to care. If the Tanaiste is right, someone -- perhaps the CIA -- forged the memo, knowing that a later leak would undermine Gilmore. Who knows, perhaps the whole Wikileaks phenomenon was a CIA plot to get Gilmore.
Does no one in the Labour Party care about whether they have A) an untrustworthy leader, or B) an honest leader under foul attack from a foreign power?