Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

As far back as 80 years ago, Seán Lemass articulated the idea that the potential of European nation states could only be fulfilled through systematic, rule-based co-operation. A man second to none in his life-long dedication to Irish republicanism, it was a great regret of his that Ireland was not in a position to join the earliest stages of what is today's Union. He and others of his generation fully anticipated the era of opportunity that our participation in European institutions opened-up. They built a tradition in which I and my party still fully believe, namely, that active and constructive engagement in European integration is essential for our country. No matter how euro-positive one is, it is not possible to avoid the fact that the European Union is today faced with a series of fundamental challenges which combine to represent the biggest crisis in its history. This is not about one country or a few smaller member states but involves key principles underpinning the Union itself. It is not simply about economic matters, as recent events in the Schengen Area show.

The architecture of European integration evolved rapidly in the decade after Jacques Delors rightly set out to reinvigorate the most important multinational organisation ever established. There have been regular changes in the basic law of the Union and the competencies of different bodies have changed significantly. It is natural that not everything carried out in such a dynamic period will have been successful. One of the great failings that is evident today is a lack of clarity within institutions on how they review their own work and how they can develop a culture of welcoming oversight and criticism, rather than reacting defensively.

I do not believe there is any logic or benefit to a new programme of major European constitutional change as such a programme would potentially undermine the collective spirit that represents Europe when it is at its best. Rather, a serious re-evaluation of how the institutions work is required. In particular, ways must be found of involving more independent oversight at both strategic and operational levels. It is necessary to reduce the incentive to self-justification which comes from having so many tightly closed senior leadership teams. It would be a highly positive measure, were there fewer tendentious off-the-record briefings.

In the face of the economic crisis there has been a disturbing inability to adopt measures which are urgent or comprehensive enough to deal with emerging issues. A lack of the type of broad leadership shown in the past has resulted in an agenda which is torn between half-measures and opportunism. There has been a willingness to retreat into pandering to perceptions of national self-interest, rather than to follow the example of leaders like Helmut Kohl, who always spoke of how financial generosity towards partners was repaid many times over in terms of economic prospects for his country.

The debate on the terms for financial support for Ireland is a very good example of this weakness of today's leaders. It has been clear since the start of the year that everyone agrees that better terms must be agreed. Although a reduction of at least 1% in the interest rate was signalled well before the Irish general election, there remains a constant demand, offered in tones often verging on moral indignation, that Ireland first must offer up a major concession. This ignores the fact that we have already made huge concessions during nearly three years of policies made more painful by a commitment to the common interests of the eurozone.

There has yet to be a credible explanation offered for demanding that a package to help Ireland's economy to recover should include concession which would undermine the economy further. It has been well known since January that a cut in the interest rate would happen and the figure put forward at briefings at the weekend suggested an eventual saving of €400 million a year. The refusal of successive Governments to concede on the rate of corporation tax has worked. However, it appears there still is pressure on Ireland to sign up for the common consolidated tax base, CCTB. The only independent study of the Commission's proposal for the CCTB has stated this would immediately reduce our national income by 3% with equal reductions in employment and investment. Consequently, we would gain €400 million a year on one hand and would lose €4 billion a year on the other. At a time when Europe needs to show it is committed to comprehensive and credible action, allowing such distractions onto the agenda serves no positive purpose.

Given its centrality to economic and financial issues, the European Central Bank deserves greater attention. It is nearly two decades since it was agreed to establish a monetary union and central to this decision was the establishment of the ECB. It is a young and powerful institution that does not appear to have the humility required to evolve or the diversity to encourage rigorous debate on policy alternatives. Its defensiveness in the face of criticism serves no positive purpose. Some members of the executive board of the ECB are the only people left in Europe who do not accept that the financial crisis also has exposed serious errors in their work.

The workings of the ECB should be examined and I agree with the Taoiseach's remarks in this regard. There is more than enough evidence to support the need for a review of the governance and operation of the bank. While it must be independent, equally it must not be allowed to ignore clear failings in a key European institution. For example, raising interest rates after a crisis has begun and doing so again before it is over has deeply damaged the credibility of both the mandate given to the bank and its often rigid orthodoxies.

I acknowledge that time is elapsing and it is a pity I do not have more time in which to contribute to this important debate.

See this speech in context