Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)

I have one final point, to which the Minister referred at the conclusion of his Second Stage speech. For the record, I am not naive and know this is not the legislation under which the ESM will be introduced. It will be provided for later. However, we cannot get away from the fact that by passing this legislation we are referring to the ESM for the first time. It is mentioned not once or twice but three times in this legislation. I have said in that regard that what we are doing in this Bill is underhand. It has been agreed to by 17 members sitting around a table in Brussels. The Taoiseach and the Minister signed up to an agreement which we believe should be put to the people.

Leaving that aside, the ESM has not been agreed to by this Parliament. It has not come into existence and may never do so. However, the legislation before us makes provision for its establishment in law, to which we have not agreed. We are facing a massive liability in respect of this matter. As the Minister stated, we are going to be obliged to contribute €1.3 billion to the facility in question. It is for this reason that I believe what is being done is underhand in nature. The Bill should not contain reference to the ESM. If this and other Parliaments across the European Union to which the ESM is relevant want to introduce it, it is at that point the relevant legislation should be amended. That happens all the time. If the ESM were to be established in the future, we could amend the legislation before the House to make reference to the transfer of rights, obligations, etc., to it at that stage. However, referring to the ESM in this Bill is an underhand way to proceed.

I am not surprised by what is being done because this is the way the European Union works. Those in the European Union are considering how to circumvent the constitutional issues in Ireland and Germany. Their approach is that the matter should be kept from the public at all costs and that the ESM should be introduced by the back door, the side door or any way at all. We are losing our sovereignty bit by bit. I am completely alarmed by the lack of focus and leadership at European level. With respect, the Minister and the Taoiseach are both European leaders. It is not just Chancellor Merkel or President Sarkozy who hold sway, all of our European leaders are in it together.

We have offered suggestions to the Government. Deputy Donnelly made suggestions in respect of quantitative easing. Other proposals have been brought forward in respect of ECB bonds and the forced recapitalisation of the banks. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform a fortnight ago I pressed representatives from Anglo Irish Bank and the NTMA on the restructuring of that institution's loans. The Minister subsequently made an announcement on this matter in Brussels last week. However, I have never heard him or the Taoiseach who are our leaders in the European Union clearly state what they would like to see as the outcome of the European crisis. What solutions can we expect? A multitude of views on that matter have been expressed by Members on this side of the House. We represent various parties, groups and interests and, as a result, there is no clear, unified solution among us as to how we should proceed. However, people are at least offering ideas and solutions. On the opposite side of the House, the Government is not providing a clear direction with regard to how the European Union should deal with this matter.

A Greek economist, Mr. Yanis Varoufakis, has offered his own solutions to the crisis which are supported by seven or eight former European Prime Ministers, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and many interest groups. When Mr. Varoufakis appeared on TV3, neither Fine Gael nor the Labour Party would allow any of their Deputies to go on the programme to speak on the issue because they did not have a policy on it. There is a need for the Minister, as a European leader, to state he believes in quantitative easing or burden sharing or that he is of the view that we should move in a particular direction. I say this with the utmost respect. I accept that his position and that of the Government is to wait on the sidelines and nip into and out of the negotiations. That is wrong. The Minister possesses many skills and should be front and centre in the negotiations. He should also spell out in very clear terms the direction Ireland wants the European Union to take in the future. Furthermore, he should also spell out the principles on which we should seek to proceed.

Unfortunately, I will be opposing the legislation because it contemplates the wrong approach to take to solve the euro crisis. I recognise that it will give rise to benefits, but one cannot take someone outside and beat the living daylights out of him or her and then state it is okay because one will drop him or her to the nearest accident and emergency department. That is what has happened here. The European Union is beating up on us big time. On 7 November a bond worth €700 million will come to maturity. The Minister and everyone else in the House is aware that this bond should not be paid. I reiterate that the European Union is beating up on us big time, but it is going to take us to the accident and emergency department and stop screwing us on the interest rate. As a result, we should all be happy. That is not good enough for the people. It is unfortunate that we are in the position in which we find ourselves.

See this speech in context