Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)

I thank the Minister for taking this motion seriously and acknowledging that it was tabled in a serious fashion. Some of us resent the dismissive nature of some of the Fine Gael Members' attitudes to this motion, which they described as populist. That was not the intention; our intention in putting this motion down is to produce an alternative policy.

There is an alternative policy. The Government has found itself in a difficult place but it has accepted the situation, which was admittedly delivered to them by the last Government, far too readily. If it held a referendum, it would not just be a one-off pandering to public opinion, it would give the Government the strength to go back to those to whom we owe the money and say the Irish people have given a mandate to renegotiate the deal.

The Minister said that if the Government was to agree to a referendum it would be interpreted as a weakening of its resolve regarding its commitment to the bank bailout and EU-IMF programme. That is exactly what we want; we want a weakening of the Government's resolve in its attitude to the EU and IMF programme. We want the Government to say it must be changed. The Minister's interpretation of a weakening is our interpretation of strength.

He went on to say that if the answer was "No", we would be faced with an immediate crisis of trying to find new sources of funds, which is fair enough. He told the House that we cannot afford any ambiguity regarding our commitments on the bailout or the EU-IMF programme. We want that ambiguity. We want the Minister for Finance to be able to say the Irish people have said "No" and that the Government is trapped in a position where renegotiation of the deal is demanded by the people.

It is difficult to draw parallels because of the appalling situation in which Ireland finds itself economically. There was, however, a referendum on an IMF deal and financial crisis in Iceland. I concede it is not a direct parallel, but it is a parallel in that there was a deal between the British, Dutch and Icelandic Governments. When there was a default by the Icelandic banks to British depositors, the British and Icelandic Governments negotiated a new deal after a referendum where the Icelandic people said "No" to the deal the Icelandic Government had negotiated. The Government then went back and renegotiated to the extent that the interest rate on the loans was reduced by 40%, falling from 5.5% to 3.2%. That was only as a result of a referendum which the President of Iceland forced against the Icelandic Parliament's wishes. I am asking the Minister to ask the people for the mandate to go back and negotiate again.

There is a paternalistic attitude on the part of Government when it says it has been given a mandate by being elected to do whatever it likes. The Government does not have that mandate if it said the opposite a few weeks ago. The Government has the mandate to govern, and the right to do a U-turn, there is nothing we can do to stop that, but it does not have a mandate to do the opposite of what it said it would do.

See this speech in context