Today on the show, Niall opens the phone lines to callers to debate major new changes to Ireland’s rental laws coming into force from March 1st.

Under the new rules, landlords will no longer be able to end a tenancy simply because they wish to sell their property. While landlords can still sell, any sale must now take place with tenants remaining in situ, and buyers must accept the property as an active tenancy rather than a vacant home.

Landlord groups warn the changes will have serious unintended consequences, arguing that properties with sitting tenants are harder to sell, often achieve a lower price, and may drive more small landlords out of the rental market altogether—further reducing supply.

Tenants and housing advocates, however, say the reforms are long overdue. They argue the new measures finally provide genuine security of tenure, protecting renters from eviction and offering stability for up to six years, particularly in a market marked by rising rents and limited housing options.

So where should the balance lie?

Do these new laws unfairly restrict a landlord’s right to sell their own property?

Or are stronger tenant protections essential in the middle of an ongoing housing crisis?

As always, callers are divided—and the debate is lively.

In this episode, Niall is joined by barrister Dominic Wilkinson to unpack a controversial case raising big questions about borders, politics, and free speech.

Well-known Dutch online commentator and public speaker Eva Vlaar claims she has been banned from entering the UK after posting a tweet critical of Labour leader Keir Starmer. According to Vlaar, she received a letter cancelling her travel permission, stating that her presence in Britain was “not conducive to the public good.”

Niall and Dominic explore the legal and constitutional issues behind the case: Do countries have the right to refuse entry to visitors based on their political views or public criticism of those in power? Where does immigration control end and political censorship begin? And how do these decisions sit alongside long-held principles of free expression in democratic societies?

Listeners are encouraged to get involved, with callers offering sharply divided views. Some argue it makes no sense to admit someone who is openly hostile to government policy, while others warn that banning individuals for their opinions risks crossing a dangerous line and undermining free speech itself.

A lively, thought-provoking discussion on sovereignty, rights, and the limits of tolerance in modern democracies.