After two years we have come to know our prime minister better, we think.

When he professes a certain contrition and admits that maybe things could have been done better regarding the Café Premier case, then surely things are very bad for him to come up with this damage limitation exercise.

The facts, as outlined in the National Audit Office report, are bad and no amount of whitewash can hide the mistakes that have been made.

The amount due to government in the form of unpaid rent, VAT, social security contributions and utility bills was €689,684. That means government paid out six times what it was owed and then claimed to have recovered its costs. At least, that is one reading of the outcome.

This, more than the use of the prime minister’s private email address, is what should be the focus of public comment. Predictably, we focus on the former and disregard the latter.

Let us be magnanimous. The kind of wrangling, discussions verging on the physical tussles, can be found in many enterprises, with partners quarreling and disagreeing, and the whole enterprise missing its goals and ending up at the wreckers’. Accountants, bankers, and especially lawyers well know this kind of atmosphere.

What makes this case special and toxic is the involvement of politicians and the fact that the government is ultimately not just a party in the question but also the one who in a way judges and ultimately ‘solves’ the issue.

There is such a thing as the national interest. Was national interest served in this case? Was it served by handing out public funds to settle a private matter? That keeping such a prime site in neglect and dereliction was not something that could be countenanced is true, but throwing money at it is surely exactly what should not have been done, at least if we do not want other enterprises facing failure to try their best to get the government to bail them out.

The national interest is served more clearly by not allowing private interests to override public interest.

This is not the first case, nor the first administration, to show up close, very close relations between the private sector and the public administration. A government is called upon to be sympathetic to private industry, to remove the red tape that may hamper private industry and to offer help in times of crisis, but hardly to bail out those who are sinking.

Private enterprise is specifically private because it does not have, it should not have, any government ready to bail it out. Private ventures fail and fail again – but that is because they are free to take risks. Otherwise, if they cannot fail at all, they have become part of government, where no one loses jobs, and losses are compensated. If this precedent becomes the rule, people will feel free to leave private employment and we will all become government employees.

The suspicion, however, dawns: this bailout was not due to a government acting to stave off collapse but because these specific entrepreneurs were at the risk of a bailout. In other words, because of the identity of entrepreneurs, or their partisan leanings or closeness to political persons.

If this is the case, then we should really worry.

For beyond the political stereotypes, and the obeisance shown to democratic formalities, we could be ruled by a hidden power of which some are members of and some definitely not.

However, we are not that sure this is a lesson the prime minister said one must derive from this case.