HOWLIN'S NON-APOLOGY

Preserved Killick

"I regret that answers that I gave to questions during the count were seen to be critical of the referendum commission"

This is a mealy-mouthed non-apology--- RESIGN NOW!!!

jonniebgood1

Preserved Killick wrote: »

"I regret that answers that I gave to questions during the count were seen to be critical of the referendum commission"

This is a mealy-mouthed non-apology--- RESIGN NOW!!!

He has absolutely nothing to resign for. He gave his backing to the referendum and wanted it passed. The people voted no and he accepts that. Why would he resign? At that rate the whole government would have to resign by Christmas.

Preserved Killick

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

He has absolutely nothing to resign for. He gave his backing to the referendum and wanted it passed. The people voted no and he accepts that. Why would he resign? At that rate the whole government would have to resign by Christmas.

He made a disgraceful attack on the Chairman of the Referendum Commission, calculated to divert attention away from his failure to promote the referendum, then "apologised" when forced by the Government to do so, but didnt even have the gumption to withdraw his disgaceful remark.
Resign now..

jonniebgood1

I didnt think he said anything out of the ordinary. For the sake of the thread you should probably give more information on what you object to so much. i.e. what comments and why they were wrong.

Wildlife Actor

Don't like to be seen to butt in on this little tete a tete but here's why I think he should resign:

1. The wording of that referendum couldn't have been worse if a child wrote it. The obviously orwellian "It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest" was a bad start and when he realised this, instead of actually changing it he inserted the hollow "with due regard to the principles of fair procedures" which either negated or left unaffected (nobody can tell) the original formulation.

2. The Indo reports today that Alex White, one of his own party TDs, explained to him in a letter that the role of the courts wasn't explained, 4 weeks ago. He did nothing about that.

3. He didn't bother registering Labour with the Referendum Commission as an approved body for attending the counts.

4. Neither he nor Shatter (who was front of house until it went ar$e over t!t, whereupon he was off like a rat off a sinking ship) ever actually debated the merits of point 4 of the amendment, they just banged on about lawyers making money and bankers and builders "getting away with it" (what were FG and Lab doing while FF screwed us all).

5. When the referendum chairman pointed out (a lot more delicately than I would have in his place) the obvious point that the role of the courts was entirely unclear, he didn't bother go out and explain what his view of the court's role. He waited until the referendum was lost and whinged later.

6. The whinge, quite apart from being childish and inappropriate was wrong wrong wrong.

7. Now, in a sulk, they're not going to bother inquiring into anything despite David Byrne who was Attorney General for the much celebrated DIRT inquiry saying that he put that together knowing about and catering for the constitutional restrictions.

I'm sure there are more reasons...

sensibleken

Hardly a resigning matter.