Surely I'm not the only FFer that wants Bertie to go?

[Westmeath-student]

Firstly I'm particularly interested in this thread being the opinions of FF members and supporters, rather than the same partisan arguments being rehashed again. As Taoiseach he has been successful, and I don't want to argue over his previous record, but at some point principles have to take hold.

I think those of us in the party need to take a step back from the partisan bickering and ask ourselves whether Bertie Ahern remaining as leader is in the interests of the party, or the country. I certainly don't think the man is corrupt or that the allegations made by Gilmartin are in any way true, however some of the information uncovered by the investigations of the Gilmartin allegation is worrying.

Plenty may argue that the Tribunal is delving far deeper into Mr. Ahern's personal affairs than can be justified and considering Tom Gilmartins lack of credibility I'd be inclined to agree. However that's not sufficient reason (in my opinion) for one to simply ignore the information that is uncovered as a result.

I'd like to base my post (and hopefully this thread) on the information in the public domain that isn't in dispute so we can argue principles rather than versions of stories. The following are some of those facts that I think are clear:

1. In 1996 Bertie said in the Dáil:
"The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and above all of Ministers. They need to know that they are under financial obligations to nobody. (Dáil Éireann transcript, December 1996)"

In defending himself from his own "digout" payments he told the Sunday Indo:
"What I got personally in my life, to be frank with you is none of your business. If I got something from somebody as a present or something like that I can use it."

To hold up such flagrant double standards at a time when he was personally in debt for a large sum to a number of private individuals is not a quality I'd like to see in the leader of our country.

2. In 2002 Bertie applied for, and was granted, a Tax Clearance Cert as required under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. This required him to sign a statutory declaration (under penalty of £2,000 fine or 6 months jail) that, to the best of his belief, he had no outstanding obligations under the Tax Acts. This was in spite of the fact that he had received "loans" of £39,000 in 1993 and 1994 which had never been repaid and on which no interest had ever been paid.

If Bertie was a backbench TD that had been poorly educated and never had much dealings with the Revenue one might accept that he didn't realise these unpaid loans might have incurred a tax liability. However Bertie was the Minister for Finance (1992-1994) at the time of their receipt. He was the man responsible for drafting the nation's budget and more importantly WRITING THE TAX LAW!

For a man that had previously held responsibility for writing the Finance Acts 1992,1993 and 1994 AND that called himself an accountant (admittedly without being a member of any professional body) to claim 9 years later (2002) that they had no outstanding obligations (regarding those unrepaid loans) to the Revenue Commissioners in a statutory declaration, is to me, absolutely ludricous.

Finally, I'd like to pose a number of questions to potential respondants:

1. How can Bertie's two statements regarding politicians receiving moneys be reconciled?
2. Was his statutory declaration in obtaining a Tax Clearance Cert in 2002 misleading or false?
3. If so, is his position tenable?
4. Even if you believe he did nothing wrong, is it healthy for politics in this country for such a scandal to drag on and on thus leaving more voters cynical and disengaged from the process?
5. More selfishly, even if he did nothing wrong, would his departure be in the best interests of the party by providing a leader that isn't under the shadow of alleged impropriety and can focus their efforts on improving the workings of the State rather than defending their good name?

[returning officer]

deleted.

[pfkf1]

excellent post, you are right in everything that you say, ahern has misled the Dail, he fraduently got his TCC in 2002, the problem for FF is that all of your TDs are tarnished by this at this stage due to them not standing up to Ahern but instead supporting him to the hilt.

In FF at the moment it must be like Hitlers last days in the bunker

[Catalpa]

excellent post, you are right in everything that you say, ahern has misled the Dail, he fraduently got his TCC in 2002, the problem for FF is that all of your TDs are tarnished by this at this stage due to them not standing up to Ahern but instead supporting him to the hilt.

In FF at the moment it must be like Hitlers last days in the bunker

Yeah and there was a Big Fat Bloke who wanted to take over from him too...

[digoutday]

Firstly I'm particularly interested in this thread being the opinions of FF members and supporters, rather than the same partisan arguments being rehashed again. As Taoiseach he has been successful, and I don't want to argue over his previous record, but at some point principles have to take hold.

I think those of us in the party need to take a step back from the partisan bickering and ask ourselves whether Bertie Ahern remaining as leader is in the interests of the party, or the country. I certainly don't think the man is corrupt or that the allegations made by Gilmartin are in any way true, however some of the information uncovered by the investigations of the Gilmartin allegation is worrying.

Plenty may argue that the Tribunal is delving far deeper into Mr. Ahern's personal affairs than can be justified and considering Tom Gilmartins lack of credibility I'd be inclined to agree. However that's not sufficient reason (in my opinion) for one to simply ignore the information that is uncovered as a result.

I'd like to base my post (and hopefully this thread) on the information in the public domain that isn't in dispute so we can argue principles rather than versions of stories. The following are some of those facts that I think are clear:

1. In 1996 Bertie said in the Dáil:
"The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and above all of Ministers. They need to know that they are under financial obligations to nobody. (Dáil Éireann transcript, December 1996)"

In defending himself from his own "digout" payments he told the Sunday Indo:
"What I got personally in my life, to be frank with you is none of your business. If I got something from somebody as a present or something like that I can use it."

To hold up such flagrant double standards at a time when he was personally in debt for a large sum to a number of private individuals is not a quality I'd like to see in the leader of our country.

2. In 2002 Bertie applied for, and was granted, a Tax Clearance Cert as required under the Standards in Public Office Act 2001. This required him to sign a statutory declaration (under penalty of £2,000 fine or 6 months jail) that, to the best of his belief, he had no outstanding obligations under the Tax Acts. This was in spite of the fact that he had received "loans" of £39,000 in 1993 and 1994 which had never been repaid and on which no interest had ever been paid.

If Bertie was a backbench TD that had been poorly educated and never had much dealings with the Revenue one might accept that he didn't realise these unpaid loans might have incurred a tax liability. However Bertie was the Minister for Finance (1992-1994) at the time of their receipt. He was the man responsible for drafting the nation's budget and more importantly WRITING THE TAX LAW!

For a man that had previously held responsibility for writing the Finance Acts 1992,1993 and 1994 AND that called himself an accountant (admittedly without being a member of any professional body) to claim 9 years later (2002) that they had no outstanding obligations (regarding those unrepaid loans) to the Revenue Commissioners in a statutory declaration, is to me, absolutely ludricous.

Finally, I'd like to pose a number of questions to potential respondants:

1. How can Bertie's two statements regarding politicians receiving moneys be reconciled?
2. Was his statutory declaration in obtaining a Tax Clearance Cert in 2002 misleading or false?
3. If so, is his position tenable?
4. Even if you believe he did nothing wrong, is it healthy for politics in this country for such a scandal to drag on and on thus leaving more voters cynical and disengaged from the process?
5. More selfishly, even if he did nothing wrong, would his departure be in the best interests of the party by providing a leader that isn't under the shadow of alleged impropriety and can focus their efforts on improving the workings of the State rather than defending their good name?

well said, if only some of your comrades in FF realised that this is above party politics and like you, put the good of the country and politics first, well done!!!!!!

[badboy2]

You are in the wrong party if you have a problem with what Bertie did.

I think its fair to say most FFers genuinely don't think he did anything wrong.

I'd go as far as to say that Mick Lowry would probably still be in cabinet if he was an FFer.

[aodh_rua]

1) They can't. But what of it, that was then, this is now.

Are you seriously suggesting that blatant hypocrisy can be forgiven because it happened ten years ago? Saying one thing and doing another is not the kind of ethical standards that we should expect - especially when the original comments were on the issue of ethics in public life. If you do support that line of thought, then you are responsible for the lowering of expectations of politics and I say shame on you.

And for another matter - this only came to light when Bertie came under the spotlight. How do we know this was an isolated example of double standards? He hid it for 10 years, what else might he be hiding.

The man is an embarrassment - and while relativism might mean on balance his achievements outweigh his failings, I for one don't think that holds water.

[moloney]

You re defintely not the only one.I m not a member of FF but I am a supporter and I don t believe a word Bertie said in the tribunal.It would be better for the party if he stepped down.
He would have been great if he wasn t a corrupt liar that pulled the name of FF threw the dirt.
Because of corruption from Haughey and Ahern, Ireland would nt have problems with public transport or the health system.Offcourse he done things that I thought were right, a lot of things, but nobody will remember that when he s found guilty.I hope he ends up in jail it would be a sign of no tolerance.

[Seamus]

They'll be a brown envelope on your mat by the end of the week im sure.

Fair points if you are indeed a fianna failer because fine gaelers who dont want to be reminded of the election results but want to criticise bertie are known to go to extreme lengths for that purpose.

[pfkf1]

You re defintely not the only one.I m not a member of FF but I am a supporter and I don t believe a word Bertie said in the tribunal.It would be better for the party if he stepped down.
He would have been great if he wasn t a corrupt liar that pulled the name of FF threw the dirt.
Because of corruption from Haughey and Ahern, Ireland would nt have problems with public transport or the health system.Offcourse he done things that I thought were right, a lot of things, but nobody will remember that when he s found guilty.I hope he ends up in jail it would be a sign of no tolerance.

and the correct thing to do.