Should the Taoiseach resign?

BANZAI_RUNNER

Personally I think he should be brought out and shot, but that would be a waste of a bullet,fortuantley we dont live in a society like that so he should resign immediatly instead of dragging it out at more expense to the taxpayer

nicelives

He should resign, the sooner the better, I'm sick of every Fianna Fail press conferenece being about how hard done by they feel by dragging up all these wierd dealings of Bertie's past during the Haughey era.

Sick of very little media debate on the real issues of health, the economy, law and order.

Why is Bertie dragging this out further and further by not making a full statement on his past, this should have all been sorted out momths ago when he burst into tears on the telly, was that now only orchestrated?

Please God resign so we can get on with issues that really matter and a new Fianna Fail leader who isn't tainted by the Haughey years, a terrible era for this country.

sdanseo

BANZAI_RUNNER wrote:

Personally I think he should be brought out and shot, but that would be a waste of a bullet,fortuantley we dont live in a society like that so he should resign immediatly instead of dragging it out at more expense to the taxpayer

The only people dragging this out are the opposition. They should be bringing up pertinent points about issues concerning the people - not bringing up furballs that don't affect anyone directly.

nicelives wrote:

He should resign, the sooner the better, I'm sick of every Fianna Fail press conferenece being about how hard done by they feel by dragging up all these wierd dealings of Bertie's past during the Haughey era.

Sick of very little media debate on the real issues of health, the economy, law and order.

Why is Bertie dragging this out further and further by not making a full statement on his past, this should have all been sorted out momths ago when he burst into tears on the telly, was that now only orchestrated?

Please God resign so we can get on with issues that really matter and a new Fianna Fail leader who isn't tainted by the Haughey years, a terrible era for this country.

He has made a statement. He's explained everything and we have to take that at face value. Even if he is holding back some details, why does everyone care? It's his private business and nobody else's, not only because it was 15 years ago when he wasn't as big a figure. The only way it even touches on affecting his running the country is because everybody keeps b*tching about it.

Get over it - it's nothing to do with you, becuase it's in the past and doesn't directly affect his job. And leave the poor man alone, he's been terroised enough.

nicelives

sdonn_1 wrote:

It's his private business and nobody else's, not only because it was 15 years ago when he wasn't as big a figure. The only way it even touches on affecting his running the country is because everybody keeps b*tching about it.

Get over it - it's nothing to do with you, becuase it's in the past and doesn't directly affect his job. And leave the poor man alone, he's been terroised enough.

Agree with you that I wish we'd just move on from this but to think that when he was being paid off he wasn't a "big figure", the minister for finance!!! and next in line for the leadership, I think you're playing it down a bit too much.

ArthurDent

sdonn_1 wrote:

The only people dragging this out are theopposition. They should be bringing up pertinent poitsabout issues concerning the people - not bringiing up furballs that don't affect anyone directly..

last time I checked the Pee Dees were government partners

sdonn_1 wrote:

He has made a statement. He's explained everything and we have to take that at face value. Even if he is holding back some details, why does everyone care? It's his private business and nobody else's, not only because it was 15 years ago when he wasn't as big a figure. The only way it even touches on affecting his running the country is because everybody keeps b*tching about it..

Right so, he may or may not have done something wrong 15 years ago, and this is no concern to anyone because even if he did something worng it was when he wasn't as important as he is today - tell me this "get of of jail free card - because he was just an ordinary guy" - what would this apply to - trousering cash? not paying taxes? any other things? just curious.

RainyDay

sdonn_1 wrote:

He has made a statement. He's explained everything and we have to take that at face value. Even if he is holding back some details, why does everyone care? It's his private business and nobody else's, not only because it was 15 years ago when he wasn't as big a figure. The only way it even touches on affecting his running the country is because everybody keeps b*tching about it.

But that's just it - he hasn't explained everything. He has been (according to his partner in Cabinet), at best selective. His private business is indeed his private business, provided he operates within the law. If however he recieves donations without declaring them to Revenue, or to his wife's legal team, that is public business. If he takes donations intended for the FF party as personal donations (as is alleged by Padraic O'Connor from NCB stockbrokers - the guy Bertie described as his friend who has since stated that he is not a friend of Bertie), that is public business. If he (while Minister of Finance, the person responsible for regulation the banking industry) insists on keeping large amounts of cash out of the bank, that is public business.

PS Isn't it about time you updated your signature - Asking people to vote FF & PD doesn't make a lot of sense since McDowell has worked out that he can't trust Bertie.

Seth Brundle

sdonn_1 wrote:

The only people dragging this out are the opposition. They should be bringing up pertinent points about issues concerning the people - not bringing up furballs that don't affect anyone directly.

From what I have read some backbenchers have complained about it mainly because it was being raised at the doorsteps. Also correct me if Im wrong but the PDs are unhappy about it also and I wasn't aware that they were in the opposition benches!

sdonn_1 wrote:

He has made a statement. He's explained everything and we have to take that at face value. Even if he is holding back some details, why does everyone care? It's his private business and nobody else's, not only because it was 15 years ago when he wasn't as big a figure. The only way it even touches on affecting his running the country is because everybody keeps b*tching about it.

When was this statement as I seem to have missed it? He claimed initially that this money was for stamp duty. Then kept saying how it was a matter for the tribunal. Then he said that it had nothing to do with him.
However, he received money from his landlord for something that was technically nothing to do with him - all whilst he was Minister for Finance. It is not a private matter. It is important for the people of a country to know that their leaders are not corrupt. So far I have not seen anything to suggest that our leader is not corrupt.

sdonn_1 wrote:

Get over it - it's nothing to do with you, becuase it's in the past and doesn't directly affect his job. And leave the poor man alone, he's been terroised enough.

How do we know. Was tax paid on this money? Were services offered in lieu of this payment? Should we sit back and accept Mayor Quimbys refusal to account for his actions?

sdanseo

nicelives wrote:

but to think that when he was being paid off he wasn't a "big figure", the minister for finance!!! and next in line for the leadership,

I presume you have the proof that he was being "paid off"? Technically he was paid to attend a function, that's all we've been told.

RainyDay wrote:

His private business is indeed his private business, provided he operates within the law.

That's just it, he hasn't been proven guilty of anything. Whatever happened to innocent until proven otherwise? If he can be chucked out of office because he has to be treated like anyone else, then shouldn't he be entitled to trial by tribunal or court like anyone else, instead of trial by media?

Even if bertie did take a personal payment because he was in dire need of it - it was a just that - a personal payment - and from what we can tell not in return for any political favour. I fail to see how such a loan can be construed as illegal.

RainyDay wrote:

If however he recieves donations without declaring them to Revenue, or to his wife's legal team, that is public business. If he takes donations intended for the FF party as personal donations (as is alleged by Padraic O'Connor from NCB stockbrokers - the guy Bertie described as his friend who has since stated that he is not a friend of Bertie), that is public business. If he (while Minister of Finance, the person responsible for regulation the banking industry) insists on keeping large amounts of cash out of the bank, that is public business.

A lot of If's in there. nobody gets convicted of anything on speculation, no matter how true it may seem. Maybe he should be given the benefit of the doubt - sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one

Eating some humble pie though - signature will be updated as soon as i can get the damn CP page to open - that was indeed written before Friday's little incident. Just because MMD doesn't trust berte doesn't mean everyone else has to turn against him.

Seth Brundle

sdonn_1 wrote:

Even if bertie did take a personal payment because he was in dire need of it - it was a just that - a personal payment - and from what we can tell not in return for any political favour. I fail to see how such a loan can be construed as illegal.

If he did need a personal loan why didn't he go to a bank like everyone else? Why did he not pay them back before it all came to light several years later?

Time Magazine

sdonn_1 wrote:

Even if bertie did take a personal payment because he was in dire need of it - it was a just that - a personal payment - and from what we can tell not in return for any political favour. I fail to see how such a loan can be construed as illegal.

You know bankrupted politicians aren't allow sit in the Dáil, right? The logic is that they'd have too many personal burdens to be good public representatives.

Nobody is talking about illegalities. We're talking about ethics and standards. The same ethics and standards Bertie said he'd uphold with such regard. The bollix. Politicians should not be taking large sums of money from anyone with the possible exception of close family. Everyone else has to get a loan from the Credit Union; I can only see reasons why an taoiseach would be under greater obligation to do the same.

sdanseo

If someone wants to lend him money personally it's not a crime. Not paying it back doesn't make it public business, however selfish it seems.

It's all very well to have ethics and standards in public office, but if any ordinary person could do it, and it's not technically illegal, then i can't understand why a public official should be viewed differently, simply for reasons of fairness. Just because someone runs a country as their day job doesn't mean they can't have a personal life, or at least shouldn't. And as long as these things don't directly affect his job and the running of the country, I just can't understand why it's any more of a problem than if Mary-Jean Bloggs from Inisheer fails to declare that daddy gave her €3,000 for a laptop.

If his financial position can be proven to have directly affected any of his goverment's decisions or actions, (such as a donation being linked to rezoning, cough cough) then naturally it's an entirely different ball game.

nicelives

sdonn_1 wrote:

If someone wants to lend him money personally it's not a crime. Not paying it back doesn't make it public business, however selfish it seems.

Fianna Fail used to have higher standards under Jack Lynch and Sean Lemass, it's really sad seeing you defending such behaviour.

Seth Brundle

sdonn_1 wrote:

If someone wants to lend him money personally it's not a crime. Not paying it back doesn't make it public business, however selfish it seems.

You seriously see nothing wrong at all with his actions and lame excuses?
Maybe you are an ideal candidate for them in the future!

ArthurDent

sdonn_1 wrote:

If someone wants to lend him money personally it's not a crime. Not paying it back doesn't make it public business, however selfish it seems.

It's all very well to have ethics and standards in public office, but if any ordinary person could do it, and it's not technically illegal, then i can't understand why a public official should be viewed differently, simply for reasons of fairness. Just because someone runs a country as their day job doesn't mean they can't have a personal life, or at least shouldn't. And as long as these things don't directly affect his job and the running of the country, I just can't understand why it's any more of a problem than if Mary-Jean Bloggs from Inisheer fails to declare that daddy gave her €3,000 for a laptop.

I don't think I've ever read a more succinctly written reason for NEVER voting for FF:eek: :eek:

Please tell me you're just trying to wind people up here.

Lennoxschips

I just can't understand why it's any more of a problem than if Mary-Jean Bloggs from Inisheer fails to declare that daddy gave her €3,000 for a laptop.

The people who "lent" him money ended up being appointed to influential state boards.

That's the difference.

Victor

sdonn_1 wrote:

The only people dragging this out are the opposition. They should be bringing up pertinent points about issues concerning the people - not bringing up furballs that don't affect anyone directly.

Actually, I've seen very little from the opposition on the matter.

sdonn_1 wrote:

If someone wants to lend him money personally it's not a crime. Not paying it back doesn't make it public business, however selfish it seems.

Recieving large sums of money and not paying tax is a matter of genuine public interest.

It's all very well to have ethics and standards in public office, but if any ordinary person could do it, and it's not technically illegal,

If my mates gave me the guts of €100,000 (or more) and I didn't pay tax on it, it would be illegal.

then i can't understand why a public official should be viewed differently, simply for reasons of fairness.

The difference being, my friends can't hold that money agaisnt me when they want something done.

And as long as these things don't directly affect his job and the running of the country

Didn't he appoint one of the donors to the board of Dublin Port?

, I just can't understand why it's any more of a problem than if Mary-Jean Bloggs from Inisheer fails to declare that daddy gave her €3,000 for a laptop.

Becuase the threshold for Capital Acquisitions Tax for receipts from parents is a lifetime total of €500,000 thats alot of laptops. For non-family its a lifetime total of €50,000 (indexed to 2007, it used to be a lot less).

SeanW

RainyDay wrote:

Not a crossed cheque. A crossed cheque cannot (and could not in the past) be cashed - it must be lodged to an account in the name of the payee of the cheque.

I'm not so sure. I thought you had to cross a cheque to make it cashable by the payee only, but add "A/C Payee Only" between the cross lines to add the extra protection of forcing it to be put into the payees account.

Heinrich

kbannon wrote:

If he did need a personal loan why didn't he go to a bank like everyone else? Why did he not pay them back before it all came to light several years later?

Because the banks charge interest from day one.
Strange business for a Finance Minister. Maybe Miriam was not getting her full due.

Strange way to purchase a house by a Finance Minister.

Did someone say devious? Cunning?

Let's try to remember that we are talking about a man who held a very senior position in Government, who claimed he was on his uppers needing a "dig-out". This would leave him open to *pressures* for RoI.

Lennoxschips

Didn't he appoint one of the donors to the board of Dublin Port?

Yep, and Dublin port is potentially the hottest property in all of Ireland. Developers are very interested in turning it into a new residential/commercial area.

Akrasia

sdonn_1 wrote:

He has made a statement. He's explained everything and we have to take that at face value.

Excuse me, but why should we take his Bertieness at face value? Would you take the word of a criminal at face value? "I didn't do it boss, I was practising with my string quartet when the petrol station was robbed" "Alright so, I suppose we'll have to take your word for it, it's funny tho, yer man on the cameras is the spitting image of ya... but sure why would you lie?"

Even if he is holding back some details

If he is holding back details, then he was LYING when he said he had already made a 'full explanation' and that all of his financial dealings had been submitted to the tribunal

, why does everyone care? It's his private business and nobody else's, not only because it was 15 years ago when he wasn't as big a figure.

He was the MINISTER OF FINANCE. Probably the second most powerful man in the country and the money in question was about 3 times the average industrial wage at the time. A huge amount of money (for ordinary people, maybe not to the fat cats who control FF and the media)

The only way it even touches on affecting his running the country is because everybody keeps b*tching about it.

How dare us expect the leader of the Irish government to have honesty and integrity.

gandalf

Everyone knows my position on this. When this broke last Autumn Bertie should have had the sense to walk. Every dog on the street knew this would rear its ugly head again at election time especially after the "crying game" that Bertie spewed out aided by RTE.

cast_iron

gandalf wrote:

Everyone knows my position on this. When this broke last Autumn Bertie should have had the sense to walk. Every dog on the street knew this would rear its ugly head again at election time especially after the "crying game" that Bertie spewed out aided by RTE.

Even in hindsight, that would have been silly, considering his approval rating went up afterwards.
As for what it will do this time around, who knows? I don't.

In any case, the whole furore is being created by the media, due to their heads stuck own their own ar*es. You had to love Charlie Bird, and the big burning question in the middle of the PD's news conference - "Were the papers handed over in a transparent duvet bag or not?", delivered as if the nations survival depended on it.
God help us!

gandalf

I'm sorry but this whole situation has been created by a man in a position of authority and responsibility compromising himself to a group of businessmen, one of whom now says he thought he was donating monies to FF and not Bertie directly.

Morally Bertie should have stood down, in any other country he would have. It says a hell of a lot about Irish society that someone tarneshes the office of Taoiseach and his rating goes up :rolleyes:

sdanseo

I'm not going to win am I :rolleyes:

My point is one of principle, maybe I've gone a bit long winded in the way I tried to make it. I'm sure I've made it though, no point in me continuing to debate it. We'll agree to differ.

Villain

Its not very often I agree with Gandalf but he is spot on here and just because the Public give him an increase in support doesn't make what he did right.

Lennoxschips

Let's look at the facts once more:

1.) Bertie gets given loadsamoney by businessmen and property developers in 1992.

2.) Said businessmen and property developers get appointed to influential state boards.

3.) Not a single penny/cent of said "loans" is ever paid back, in interest or installments, until 2006, when it gets discovered by the press.

These three facts are all established to be true, and Ahern himself admitted them all to be true in his interview. There's no "wait and see" here at all.

Either you find it acceptable or you don't. I most certainly don't. It surprises me that it's legal.

Jean Dwyer

Bertie Ahern today announced that he is changing our emblem from a shamrock to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.


Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that!

Jean Dwyer

This is my dog BERTIE and his pet lamb.
Looking for a name for it .....thinking of calling it "THE IRISH PEOPLE" for obivious reasons..

redspider

One thing that struck me about Bertie's chequered financial past and the questions and issues surrounding is that it suits FF and PD to stretch it out, and deflect from other issues as was shown back when Bertigate 1 broke in October. As Pat Rabitte admitted on Questions and Answers, it is not in Labour's or FG's interest to tease this out in the public/media as FF/Bertie gain in popularity according to the polls, and McDowells posturing over the weekend was all about PD's role as bringing FF to book. A win win scenario for FF and PD's, if you ask me, and I'd say polls will back that up.

> The only people dragging this out are the opposition. They should be bringing up pertinent points about issues concerning the people - not bringing up furballs that don't affect anyone directly.

I fear that it is FF and PD who are dragging it out. That is obvious to the blindman, but there is not much FG and Lab and GP and others can do except to state that he should make a statement to answer the issues. FF are loving it in the meanwhile.

Of course the truth of the matter is that Bertie is as guilty as sin, and every dog on the street knows that. A Minster for Finance signing blank chques for Charlie Haughey is a resigning matter alone never mind all the stuff coming out. Ahern wont resign though, and like perhaps too many politicians these days has a solid brass neck. Politics and morals do not co-exits by and large alas.

The people get what they vote for though, the Lowry's, the Bertie's, etc. People are voting-in crooks, so I dont think the populace has a leg to stand on when it then complains that we need more Gardai, etc, and that things such as govermnet services and quality of life are not good enough. We get what we vote for.

We need to lead by example with our voting, not putting into office the hoodwinkerers, the corrupts, etc.

I dont have much faith in the average voter alas ...... but I would be more than happy if they proved me wrong!

Redspider

ps: I agree with you Gandalf !

oscarBravo

Jean Dwyer, the humour forum is that way.