IT'S CURIOUS that the motion of no confidence in Alan Shatter this week might actually help to shore up his position - but such is the dark art of the Dáil.

There is no prospect of Fianna Fáil's motion being accepted. The Dáil arithmetic is such that Fine Gael and Labour could tolerate two-dozen defectors and still have a Dáil majority. 

In fact, because these motions tend to unify the coalition partners, it could help to draw a line under the whole affair. With five external inquiries ongoing into GSOC bugging, the penalty points system, the McCabe dossier, the Garda tapes and Shatter's own use of sensitive data, it's strange to think that Fianna Fáil could park the whole question.

But such is the case: in fact, Shatter rarely had a quieter few months than he did after the last Dáil motion of no confidence in him. 

James Reilly faced a similar motion in September 2012 amid the furore about the placing of primary care centres - and the defeat of the motion helped to bury the crisis.

But the opposition would do well to remind Shatter that there are five external reports around the corner - each of them with its own potential landmines for the Dublin South minister.

At this juncture there are still many questions left to answer about GardaGate ”Š—”Šthe following among them:

• Was Alan Shatter among the people who spoke to Martin Callinan, and whose feedback led him not to withdraw his ‘disgusting’ remark?
• Did Alan Shatter speak to Martin Callinan between March 10 and 24”Š—”Šand if he did, did Callinan inquire about whether the taping issue had been brought to his attention?
• Did Alan Shatter learn of the taping before he attended the meeting with Kenny, Whelan, Fraser and Purcell on Monday night? If he did, who told him? Was it Brian Purcell”Š—”Šwho, it seems, did not see fit to pass on Callinan’s letter from a fortnight earlier?
• Is there truly nobody in the Department of Justice who is tasked with reading the reports published by the Garda Ombudsman Commission? 
• Is there truly nobody in the Department who was aware of the Garda tender, and raise the prospect that the technology could have illegal applications?
• Why did Enda Kenny opt to appoint a senior counsel to investigate the veracity of the Attorney General’s concerns? Why was Alan Shatter seemingly kept out of this loop until this senior counsel had reported back? Who was this senior counsel? Who chose them? And how, exactly, did they investigate? 
• Was there genuinely “disquiet at Cabinet level” (in Pat Rabbitte’s words) for Brian Purcell to relay to Callinan in their meeting at Callinan’s home? Given that Cabinet had not formally discussed the issue by that point”Š—”Šand that only three members (including two ministers) were aware of the tapes at the time, was “Cabinet level” a fair summary? Or was it simply an inelegant choice of words on Rabbitte’s part?

Gavan Reilly is Today FM's Political Correspondent. This is an excerpt from a longer blog post published here.