Politics, Deal Making and Illegality- Adair/Kearney’s sweetheart deals #NAMA 

One aspect of the unfolding Nama scandal that was not afforded due attention, was the then DUP Finance Minister’s attempt to have former Anglo-Irish bank boss Neil Adair appointed to the Nama Northern Ireland advisory panel. 

The fact that Sammy Wilson had tried to appoint Mr Adair only became apparent when previously redacted Department of Finance papers were provided to the Departments scrutiny committee who were investigating the Nama scandal. 

In 2006 Neil Adair left the Anglo-Irish bank and teamed up Paddy Kearney. The pair, along with another man, Brian McConville, formed a company called PBM Ltd, which would later become Kilmona holdings. 

In a media interview given at this time Mr Adair stated “I’ve always seen myself as a deal-maker first and banker second.” 

As Adair, Kearney and McConville embarked on numerous business ventures together, they were funded by the Anglo-Irish bank to the tune of £260m. 

Confidential reports from the following years however show that the company were becoming “hopelessly insolvent” and were unable to pay their interest. 

By 2009 the company had debts of circa £317m. Over £200m of these debts would later be written off, after lobbying by then First Minister Peter Robinson, and Mr Kearney eventually received a sweetheart deal from Cerberus, in which he not only had millions of pounds written off but he was also permitted to purchase the assets of developers who were in far less debt than Mr Kearney. 

The favourable treatment of Mr Kearney by Cerberus must be viewed in the context that the Finance Minister Sammy Wilson sought to put Kearney’s business partner, Neil Adair, onto the Nama advisory panel in 2009. 

Mr Adair had worked alongside Mr Kearney as he accrued the enormous debts that followed him into Nama following the collapse of the Anglo-Irish Bank. 

Questions have been raised about why Mr Sammy Wilson sought to appoint Neil Adair and what due diligence was carried out prior to this proposed appointment, given the fact that Mr Adair’s business partner was a huge debtor in Nama. 

Following Paddy Kearney’s sweetheart deal from Cerberus, the then First Minister Peter Robinson attended a celebratory dinner in Carrickfergus. 

As part of this sweetheart deal, Mr Kearney had to refinance his loans through Jeffries loan core. 

One of the companies controlled by Paddy Kearney was previously owned by a man who will be referred to here as ‘GB’. 

This gentleman had assets of circa £90m but during the crash the value of these assets fell and the business began to fall into troubled waters. 

The Anglo-Irish bank approached ‘GB’ and informed him he would be going into administration- unless the sold 50% of his company to their former employees business partner, Paddy Kearney. 

Left with little option ‘GB’ agreed to this deal, but upon closing the deal he was informed that Kearney wanted 70% of his company. Anglo told him he had no choice but to agree to sell it for £1. 

Once these debts found their way into Cerberus they had to be refinanced as part of the package agreed with Jeffries Loan Core. The sticking point was that ‘GB’s’ company had to be owned 100% by Mr Kearney.

It is understood that individuals acting for Mr Kearney falsified ‘GB’s’ power of attorney, which was then witnessed by Tughans, and signed over- illegally- 100% of the company to Paddy Kearney. 

It was such deals that Mr Robinson celebrated when he attended the party hosted by Paddy Kearney in Carrickfergus following his sweetheart refinancing deal. 


SF ‘travel’ motion provides a clear example of their dying ‘harmonisation’ strategy 

Sinn Fein are currently moving a motion through the committees of Belfast City Hall that is, on the face of it, about travel. Duped into believing this is, naturally, the Alliance party; whose Councillor Michael Long has seconded the motion.

 The text of the motion seeks to walk Belfast City Council into a cross border and pro EU initiative, via the back door. Sinn Fein’s agenda behind this is clear. 

Firstly, they want to continue to promote the failed European Union, even through the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom has voted to leave. 

And secondly, it is another transparent attempt at advancing the agenda of all-Ireland harmonisation via all means possible, including trade and commerce. The purpose behind these harmonisation attempts is not primarily economic, but rather as part of the core republican political strategy of wedding together all aspects of political, social, cultural and business life between Northern Ireland and the Republic. 

Unionism must grasp the opportunities Brexit provides to strengthen the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. 

The hysterical reaction from Nationalism following the Brexit vote demonstrates their fear that the process of harmonisation- that was one of the core tenets of the Belfast Agreement for Nationalism- could be severely damaged. 

Some say that a more clearly defined border would encourage and validate dissident republicanism. 

The parading issue at Twaddell avenue is a microcosm of the state of dissident republicanism. Isolated from the democratic process with zero political support, their strategy encompasses threatening elected MLA’s, their local priest and journalists. 

Dissident republicanism is a rudderless ship, both militarily and politically. They are isolated and repudiated even from within the communities they claim to represent. 

Aside from questioning what is the point of the diabolical and imploded debris that currently constitutes dissident republicanism, and therefore leaves them ripe for destruction, there is another core aspect that must be kept in mind. 

Democracy and the articulating of lawful political viewpoints should never be held hostage to the threats of those, such as the numerous factions of dissident republicanism, who would seek to use terrorism to subvert the democratic will of the people. So why should concerns that such terrorists could cause further damage factor in discussions. To allow such considerations to play a role is to provide leverage to those that seek to attack democracy and the rule of law.

The Brexit vote was a democratic vote by the majority of the United Kingdom, voting as a whole. Northern Ireland is not a member state of the EU as a single entity, but rather as part of the United Kingdom. Therefore the argument that Northern Ireland should stay in the EU is preposterous and fanciful, not least a repugnant attempt to override the democratic will of the majority of people within the United Kingdom. 

Northern Ireland’s integral place as part of the United Kingdom is guaranteed via the principle of consent, which was ironically enshrined within the Belfast Agreement that Nationalism clings to so valiantly. 

Nationalism recognises a key point, and this is why they are so infuriated. The Belfast Agreement provided the vehicle for North/South harmonisation, a gradual and practical eradication of the border by means of eventual joint policing, trade, commerce and a neutralised cultural identity. The EU of which Nationalism wishes to be part is not only an trade and economic union, but also a political one. 

A European political union was the senior project that hoovered, like a guarantor, above the North/South harmonisation project designed to harmonise practical relations and thus make the constitutional question eventually irrelevant. If North/South was harmonised in every practical sense, then what relevance would the border have? And if it had no relevance, then why keep it? 

The European Union project was an identical strategy on a larger scale. It was primarily about creating a fully functional political union by harmonising member states in a web of financial and economic institutions. From this would naturally flow a political union. 

Now that the United Kingdom has voted to leave the EU, one of the key aspects of Nationalism’s interpretation of the Belfast Agreement has been thrown into disarray. With a clearly defined land border between one state (Republic of Ireland) that is a EU member state and another (United Kingdom) that is an independent and sovereign state, the harmonisation project is greatly demoralised. 

It is for the interlocking reasons of promoting North/South harmonisation, and continuing to desperately attempt to cling to the European political union dream, that Sinn Fein propose such motions as that put forward by Mr McVeigh. 

Cloaked in the monotonous language plucked straight from the peace process dictionary and no doubt being underpinned by such manipulated themes as ‘parity of esteem’ and the Trojan horse of ‘equality’, the motion disguises their political objective under the veil of trade and commerce. 

A prime example of the republican strategy if ever one was needed. Unionism must be alert and aware of these manipulative actions from an increasingly desperate nationalist/republican play-book. 

The harmonisation strategy, ironically as a constitutional and security imperative, died the moment that Brexit became a living reality. 

When Nationalists and republicans repeat the line ‘what does Brexit mean’, it is really a rhetorical question, they know the answer full well. It means that their entire political strategy lies in tatters.