FF supporters opinion on Bertie

pigeonbutler

Firstly I've been a member of Ógra Fianna Fáil for a number of years. I'm very curious as to what the party's members and supporters think of our leaders position.

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?

Tommy T

I'm an FF voter and I don't care about Bertie's dealings with revenue. I really don't care.

All I know is he, along with his colleagues have been at the healm during this country's transformation from a drab mono-cultural wasteland into a vibrant, multi-cultural happening place. Where people with imagination can make things happen, experience new and exciting oppertunities and live comfortable lives without the dread of emigration and civil strife in the North on our minds.

For these reasons I am thankful to Bertie. The coronation of Brian will happen in good time. 18 months prior to the next election...

guinnessdrinker

Good post, very well worded pigeonbutler. I was convinced there were no objective or independant thinking FF supporters left.

I'm not an FF member or supporter (or a member of any party) but to answer your questions from the view of an ordinary voter with no party allegiances.

1. His two statements regarding politicians receiving moneys cannot be reconciled, its just plain contradictory.

2. I can understand the argument that if it was a genuinely poorly educated TD that did not have many dealings with revenue and simply did not realise that the money he recieved were liabile to incure tax liability. But he was, after all Minister for Finance when he recieved the money and was also an accountant, (according to himself), so that argument does not cut it.

So at the very least his declaration was misleading.

3. His position is simply compromised to put it mildly.

4. In my opinion, the longer this drags on, the more cynical voters will become towards all politicians, which does not help FF or any other political parties, as they may be tarred with the same corrupt brush.

5. I think his departure is in the best interest of FF because the longer he remains leader, the longer the rest of his party will always have to cover him (rightly or wrongly), which may prove detrimental to their own integrity in the long run.