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

I have listened to the arguments of the Government in opposing our call for a referendum and the argument seems to run thus: in January and February of this year we believed that bailing out the banks at the expense of ordinary people was, in the words of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, morally wrong and economically unsustainable and in Deputy Gilmore's words, it amounted to economic treason. That is what the Minister stated. Presumably, unless he was trying to deceive people then, those words still stand, the policy is unjust, unacceptable and is still economic treason. However, the argument follows that because the Government is in a straitjacket, there is nothing it can do about it and it has no choice.

To use a somewhat hackneyed phrase, it is an appalling vista that the Government has no choice but to do something that is morally wrong, economically unsustainable, which amounts to economic treason and which is now bordering on political treason, in so far as before the election those now in Government said one thing but they are now doing the opposite. The justification for this argument is that if we say "No" to the EU-IMF package, they will pull the plug; that unless we do their bidding and continue to pay off the bankers and the bondholders at the expense of ordinary working people and families, our public services and the sale of our State assets, the EU will pull the plug. Let us consider this point because it is the Government's only argument. The suggestion is that they will pull the plug on the State. What the Government is really telling us is that we must concede to blackmail and bullying by the EU and the IMF, institutions which are acting on behalf of the bankers and speculators.

Should the Minister not show a little dignity and backbone and stand up to the institutions and interests in Europe, which are simply bullying and threatening us to defend the interests of bankers and bondholders? The Minister also maintains that he is doing what he is doing to get liquidity back into the banks and, ultimately, to create jobs. However, what the Minister will not accept or acknowledge is that the austerity cuts that the IMF demands to pay off these bankers' loans are doing the opposite; they are taking money out of the economy and forcing more job losses. The Minister's logic is somewhat like the American logic in Vietnam: they took the view they had to bomb a village to save it; the Minister believes he must create unemployment to deal with the unemployment crisis. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps the Minister could do me the courtesy of listening for one minute rather than chitchatting for the final part of the motion.

See this speech in context