Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FIANNA FÁIL TD ÉAMON Ó Cuív has expressed concern about what he has described as Fianna Fáil’s “becalmed” status in the opinion polls, but has denied it is an explicit criticism of the party leader Micheál Martin.
“It’s nothing to do with Micheál Martin per se, this can’t be reduced to one person,” he told TheJournal.ie this morning, saying the party’s 20,000 members “can all up our performance”.
The Galway West deputy said that some people in the party may lack the ambition he has for it, but declined to say who specifically he is referring to.
“I think some people’s expectations of what is possible wouldn’t be as ambitious as mine,” he said, adding: “I don’t differentiate [between grassroots and the leadership] in the way that the media seem to do. We are one totality.”
Ó Cuív tweeted last night after the latest Ipsos MRBI poll for the Irish Times showed Fianna Fáil at 22 per cent, which he described as “becalmed”:
Asked why he thought the party was stagnating in the polls, the former minister said this morning: “I don’t know, we got up from the 17 [at the last general election] to 22/23 per cent. At one stage, we went a little beyond that, but we seem to have fallen back.
“We just don’t seem to be going anywhere. The worrying thing is we got 29 per cent in the last local elections. So, we’re up on the general election, but we’re not at the local election level.”
He said the party “haven’t been great at explaining” some of the decisions it took in government or emphasising that the current government is, in his view, implementing “the four-year plan and the whole scenario we laid out in 2010″.
“As time goes on now the decisions are seen to be much more rational and much more sensible then they might have seemed in the heat of the moment in the 2008, 2009, 2010 period,” he said.
“It now seems to everybody that the easy answers of the opposition at the time were not operable. We don’t seem to have got that message across, and we just have to keep pounding it.”
He said that the party had to be “self-critical” from the front bench down to the ordinary members but said there would be no point in changing the frontbench team as all members of the parliamentary party are part of it.
“This is not about the leadership and you can ask me that question and you won’t get a different answer. This is about Fianna Fáil, we care about Fáil,” he insisted.
He said that the party should be recruiting, but said that more important than taking members into the parliamentary ranks, such as Colm Keaveny last week and possibly Peter Mathews in the coming weeks, “the most important place [to recruit] is at grassroots level.”
“If people want to join at parliamentary level that’s fine, but it’s not where you make your long term growth,” he said.
As the grandson of Fianna Fáil founder Eamon De Valera, Ó Cuív is highly regarded within the party but has clashed with the current leadership before after advocating a No vote in the Fiscal Treaty referendum last year.
This led to him being effectively sacked as the party’s deputy leader, as well temporarily losing the Fianna Fáil whip.
Ask Simon where will we get the €11 billion to fund the ESM when all the fund is required? He won’t seem to answer me on Twitter! Are he and Fine Gael proposing we borrow at 3% from EU to pay into a fund for the EU, to then borrow back out again at a further 3%? Cause if he’s not we must have a spare €11 billion lying around the place? 6% is a market rate that led us to a program! Talk about fantasy and toothfairies!
If the 12 countries fail to ratify it, (only 3 so far and Greece is one of them) will the EFSF remain in place as a temporary fund until another option is put in place. Or MUST it be wound down next year?
Lies……he was caught out again last night on VB don’t believe a word this man says !!!!!
Bit of an understatment on the dole. Vinny gave him a torrid time. Showed ipod for the spin/liar bully that he is.
him up not bloody ipod.
I thought the highlight of the debate last night, when VB asked Coveney, if he was lying or the Taoiseach was lying when the Taoiseach informed the Dail that he was proud to announce that the Irish Government had never requested a reduction on the Banking debt. Coveney insisted that the Irish Government had asked for a debt write down, but his face dropped and he was very angry at VB for showing the clip of Kenny in the Dail saying he was proud to tell the Dail, that the Irish had not asked for a banking write down. Coveney immediately attacked Brown for showing the clip. VB challenged him again and asked him who was lying… Coveney couldn’t answer it. Nearly as good as Gilmore today announcing he never informed the US embassy that Labour and the Irish Government were determined to re-run the Niece treaty after we voted No the first time.
We have liars and liars in partnership in Government, who are only interested in securing 4 years to ensure their pension rights…
Saw that Cal, it was a thing of beauty. Is there a youtube clip floating around of the exchange?
And still no answer to the question Stephen Donnelly TD asked 3 times in the dail about whether or not Michael Noonan agreed, or at least tried to block, the Blackmail clause being inserted into the treaty to coerce a ‘yes’ vote from the Irish people.
i guess we’ll just have to use our own best judgement tomorrow about whether or not fine gael colluded with the other european ministers to threaten us.
“…ensure that Governments spend taxpayers money wisely.”
How does this work? Who defines ‘wisely’? Does wise spending mean bailing out unsecured bondholders while cutting education and health budgets?
This article does not inspire confidence. All the focus is on the short term, what happens in the long run? Are we still bound by the terms of the treaty if the euro collapses? What if there is some disaster in 50 years time and we don’t have enough money to keep the country afloat, are we still unable to borrow above the .5%/3% level? What is the point in having access to this fund if we are so restricted in how much we can borrow?
Ruth, that is an excellent point and one that has been too overlooked imo. Who defines wisely? Remember Yes voters, it was the EU who forced us to take debt on that’s not ours!
The 0.5% restraint on borrowing only applies if the national debt is above 60% of GDP.
Glad I read that. Not only did I get a great laugh out of it I know for sure to vote no. This treaty really is the scam of the century and clearly fluoride works.
“Let no man dare, when I am dead. to charge me with dishonor; let no man attaint my memory by believing that I could have engaged in any cause but that of my country’s liberty and independence, or that I could have become the pliant minion of power in the oppression or the miseries of my countrymen.”
Robert Emmet, 1803
You’ll never be able to say that Enda Kenny. Traitor
Oh, and its not a pie in the sky question either, Noonan was in the room then the clause was concocted, after it became apparent the Irish voter might get a say on ratifying the treaty.
I thought we were supposed to get answwers
After seeing this joker on VB last night I must say he is a bit of a bluffer and he’s been caught out too often over the last few days. You can also be sure as soon as the voting has finished Hogan will be left out of his box and from Friday on it will be back to the household charge.
Smart people will vote Yes. Luckily we’re not a nation of fools.
Baa baa yes baa baa
I’m not Irish but please read the comment I live in IRELAND and I love these country SO PLEASE VOTE NO !!! The media is putting fear in the people this treatment will just generate a new debt with the EU and the higher countries you people will have to pay a debt but you will not know why, I know this because it happens in my country. In Mexico around 1993 we sign the north American treatment is quite similar to these one, few years later my currency drop$1 usd = 3 mxp to $1 = 12.00 mxp, because we didn’t have money to pay the debt American companies start to work in Mexico wipe out load of mexicans companies, American oil companies are pumping oil from the golf of Mexico and the list keep going…. SO PLEASE VOTE NO SAVE IRELAND, I’m not an Irish citizen but I pay taxes my own tuition fees I don’t have any help from the government and I know what is to live in a 3 world country, u guys still have a chance now fight for ur country don’t sell it, I know what the media say hard time, crisis, emigration bla bla bla well I was born in crisis,about the hard times work for 9 to 9 per week incluiding Saturday’s just to get €260 per month and emigration don’t u know how many of us live in states or other countries, as I said this is a beautiful country and u still have the chance to save it SO PLEASE VOTE NO I KNOW THERE’S HOPE IN IRELAND BECAUSE I LIVE HERE AND I KNOW IT as I said I’m not Irish but I love these country with all my heart, if u say yes bank holders and politicians will get richer, I don’t know to much about economy but I know about debt and crisis for my life experience, have a good day
Thanks for that Samuel, I would have liked to have seen your comment sooner. I think people are more inclined to believe the word of a regular person who has had first hand experience of the negative impact these policies have had on periphery nations, rather than believe the lies being told by poloticians.
“A figure of €11 billion has been suggested as Ireland’s maximum input into the ESM. Does the ESM have the power to increase this figure if required?”
Simon says
“Ireland is going to contribute €1.27 billion to the ESM over three years. While this is significant, it should be looked at in the context of the amount of money the ESM could potentially provide to Ireland in the future.
The €11 billion figure refers to ‘callable capital’, and it is extremely unlikely that we will ever be called upon to inject this money, for a number of reasons. First of all, the ESM will be able to raise money on the markets to boost its lending capacity. And secondly, Ireland would only have to contribute this much if all of the ESM’s €700 billion was used up, and if all of it was defaulted upon. This is highly unlikely.”
I say you didn’t answer the question Simon can the ESM increase the figure? Simple Yes or No please.
“What interest rate will the ESM charge? Is it ‘at cost’ as some in the ‘Yes’ campaign have claimed?”
Simon says
“The interest rate and other conditions will be agreed on a case by case basis. Ireland has already secured a cut to the interest rate being charged on our current EU/IMF funding. The purpose of the ESM is to ensure stability across the euro area; in my view this would of course be taken into account when interest rates are being agreed. In other words, it would not be in the best interest of the ESM or the countries it lends to if it charged punitive interest rates. It’s important to add that voting Yes is the only way to guarantee access to the ESM.”
Simon do you remember the terms of our original bail out? When punitive interest rates were set to ‘punish’ Ireland for it’s behavior. Not so sure I’d credit the ECB/EU with the sense you credit them with.
Given that Simon didnt bother answering the question – here is the answer
Chapter 9 ESM Treaty
ARTICLE 9
Capital calls
1. The Board of Governors may call in authorised unpaid capital at any time and set an appropriate period of time for its payment by the ESM Members.
2. The Board of Directors may call in authorised unpaid capital by simple majority decision to restore the level of paid-in capital if the amount of the latter is reduced by the absorption of losses below the level established in Article 8(2), as may be amended by the Board of Governors following the procedure provided for in Article 10, and set an appropriate period of time for its payment by the ESM Members.
3. The Managing Director shall call authorised unpaid capital in a timely manner if needed to avoid the ESM being in default of any scheduled or other payment obligation due to ESM creditors. The Managing Director shall inform the Board of Directors and the Board of Governors of any such call. When a potential shortfall in ESM funds is detected, the Managing Director shall make such capital call(s) as soon as possible with a view to ensuring that the ESM shall have sufficient funds to meet payments due to creditors in full on their due date. ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them by the Managing Director pursuant to this paragraph, such demand to be paid within seven days of receipt
So the answer to this question is yes they can increase it as stated in the last and most important sentence
……”ESM Members hereby irrevocably and unconditionally undertake to pay on demand any capital call made on them by the Managing Director pursuant to this paragraph, such demand to be paid within seven days of receipt
Link to the ESM Treaty in full
http://www.european-council.europa.eu/media/582311/05-tesm2.en12.pdf
@Paul. Good point where is Phil Hogan? Haven’t seen him in weeks. Maybe he’s off dealing with legal issues around his refusal to pay his apartment charge in Portugal
Their hiding him away so he doesn’t do damage..oh hang on Enda is still there what gives?
The most crucial question is what will happen in the event (which is not beyond the realm of possibility at this point) that the German Bundestag don’t sign up to this treaty and Mr Hollande in France does the same. Is it possible that peripheral ‘economically quarantined’ states of the Eurozone will sign up to the fines system in this treaty but that the core of the Eurozone will be free to breach the Maastricht rules yet again in pursuit of a growth agenda as they have done in the past?
we only went outside the Maastricht criteria in 2008 in circumstances that could only be described as unprecedented and exceptional. Germany and France meanwhile have frequently run roughshod over agreed European budget rules long before the economic crisis.
The table here illustrates this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact#Member_states_by_SGP_criteria.
Will any of this change if we ratify the treaty? I think not.
Changing the rules to make it harder for large countries to avoid the excessive deficit procedure is a major plank in the Treaty, so yes.
Feck. Haven’t heard that one before but excellent point. Is the whole thing a trick to get all the ailing nations in the same sinking ship?
have your say