Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

My apologies, I did not see Deputy Keaveney.

I appeal to the Government to withdraw its amendment to the motion and allow, as the motion calls for, a referendum to be held on the continuing bailout of the banks and the EU-IMF deal. The Government will be aware, as is I am sure everyone in the country, that we are facing the most grave economic crisis in the history of the State. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs, while tens of thousands have been forced to emigrate. Brutal austerity measures are being imposed on ordinary families, working people and the poor and vulnerable in Irish society whose incomes have been savaged, while services have been cut. Many families are threatened with repossession of their homes. People are not able to pay their bills or make ends meet.

It is important to point out that the people suffering the consequences of this austerity which is being dictated by the IMF are not bankers or speculators but individuals who have worked and reared families and are now trying to enjoy their old age. They did not cause the crisis, yet they are being asked to pay for the criminal greed of bankers and speculators. This is often obscured in technical economic argument. It is often suggested this is a complicated matter, one above the heads of ordinary people. However, it is a simple one. It is about whether ordinary working people, families, communities and the vulnerable in our society, including the young and the old, should pay for the crisis created by the reckless gambling and speculation of bankers and bondholders or whether the bankers and bondholders who caused it should pay for it.

Before entering government, Fine Gael and the Labour Party were unequivocal about on which side of the debate they stood. In February Fine Gael stated it was morally wrong and economically unsustainable to ask the people to beggar themselves to enrich speculators and profiteers. What has changed? With another €24 billion being pumped into the banks, the case for saying we should not beggar ordinary citizens country to enrich bankers and speculators is even greater than it was when Fine Gael made that statement. If it was morally wrong and economically unsustainable to pour €46 billion into the banks, surely it is even more morally wrong and economically unsustainable to put €70 billion into them.

It is a pity the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, is not here. He went further in stating his view of the case when he said for the second time earlier this year that the previous Government was guilty of economic treason for continuing to bail out the banks at a cost to taxpayers. It is worth quoting what he said: "If your Government [talking about the previous Government] knew that Anglo Irish Bank was insolvent and you asked the Irish taxpayers to bail it out and to pay the cost we are now paying for it that was and is economic treason ... I stand over that." If it was economic treason to bail out an insolvent bank at the expense of taxpayers, is it even greater economic treason to bail out all of the banks at greater cost to ordinary taxpayers?

I put to the Government the charge which the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, put to the previous Government, namely, that it is guilty of economic and political treason for saying one thing before the general election and something quite different afterwards and continuing with the same policies. It is shocking for ordinary people to hear Fine Gael and the Labour Party, given all the rhetoric about change and ohow they would do things differently, sound exactly the same as the previous Government. They are using the same phrases, justifications and arguments for defending a continuation of the failed policy of bailing out the bankers, speculators and bondholders. Whenever these points are put to the Government, it states there is no alternative. We believe there is. If we were to threaten to default, this would put the ball back in the court of the IMF and the European Union, the ones who are trying to dictate to us who should pay for the banking crisis. We must put it up to them that if they wish to save the euro and the banks, they should pay for it and unload the cost of so doing onto the banks, bondholders and speculators guilty of causing the crisis in the first instance. By standing up to them and threatening to default we would at least force the ball back into their court and put it up to them to come with a fair, just and sustainable package to deal with the crisis.

It is important to point out that other countries have defaulted and that the sky has not fallen in on their heads. Iceland defaulted. As a result of campaigning by ordinary people for months, the Icelandic Government was forced to concede default. The Icelandic people, because they were outraged by the thought of this type of package being imposed on them without their having any say, took to the streets, surrounded their Parliament and demanded a referendum on whether to accept a similar package from the IMF. In a referendum they voted by a figure of 93% against a similar deal and the sky did not fall in on their heads. The IMF was forced to consider the outcome of the vote and reduce by a significant amount the interest rate it was charging Iceland. I am not suggesting that is the end of the story for Iceland, but the referendum outcome forced a change and debate. Other countries that defaulted, including Ecuador and Argentina, are still alive and kicking. The sky has not fallen in on their heads. If we leave the European Union to its own devices, as the Government is proposing to do, it will squeeze us. It will use the debt burden it is imposing on us to squeeze more concessions out of us in terms of the agenda it is pursuing. That is clear from what happened in the case of Greece.

The Government states it will negotiate a 1% reduction in the interest rate charged on this unsustainable package. To achieve a 1% reduction in the interest rate applied to its loan, Greece had to agree to a €50 billion programme of privatisation. Will such a programme be the quid pro quo required of the Government in the event that it manages to wangle a tiny concession from the International Monetary Fund and European Union in the forthcoming negotiations? The Government has already been forced to agree to sell State assets worth €2 billion. What will the IMF and EU demand at the next round of meetings if they are not satisfied that Ireland is doing enough or believe it will not be able to repay its loans? What will they seek in return for a small reduction in the interest rate on our loans? How many more privatisations of State assets will they demand? How many more cuts in social welfare and the incomes of ordinary people will they require? Is the Minister aware that at its most recent meeting with the IMF and EU, the Greek Government was told by the IMF-EU representative to start selling beaches and islands. Is this what the Government wants for Ireland?

While some of the Technical Group may differ from me on what are the alternatives, there are other options available. It is unconscionable that the Government refuses to reverse budget cuts which took €6 billion from ordinary people and the vulnerable given that just a few weeks ago we discovered that the 300 richest people in the country are €6.7 billion richer than they were last year. Why will the Government not consider introducing a wealth tax? Why will it not even agree that such a tax would be fair?

While the Government and even some members of the Technical Group will not agree with many of the points I have made, surely they accept that it would be democratic to have a referendum on the bailout. The purpose of our call for a referendum is to enable people to debate the options and allow everyone to set out their stall in order that the country can make a decision on the issue. Does the Government not trust people to consider this matter objectively and make the best decision for the country? This is what democracy and the motion are about. I ask the Government not to move its amendment and instead allow citizens to vote on the bailout package which will determine their social and economic future for many years to come.

See this speech in context