Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

This week's summit has a number of important items on the agenda but only one will receive any real attention. The formal signing of the fiscal treaty will be accompanied by further discussions about the economic crisis. While the sense of panic which prevailed during most of last year's summits is absent, there is still an unmistakable sense of crisis. My main concern is that this sense of crisis be clearly accompanied by the urgency and ambition that Europe needs.

The agenda is a partial agenda which will not tackle the recession or restore confidence. The fiscal treaty is not the answer to Europe's problems, but it is part of the answer. The question for the Government today is whether it is willing to start demanding the other measures, ones which can return Europe to growth. If it is not, it will, sooner rather than later, face a much bigger crisis.

There is a sense of complacency in the agenda for this summit, with minor initiatives being over-sold yet again. The Government's decision to agree to hold a referendum is welcome. It is at best unfortunate that this decision took so long and gave the clear and unmistakable picture of the Government trying to find a way of not consulting the people.

This is a Government that puts great store on media management. It is becoming increasingly clear that no matter how slick and controlled the launches and speeches are, the public is not convinced. There is a large and growing gap between the view promoted by the Government in the Leinster House bubble and the opinion of the public. The addiction to over-spinning and over-claiming on nearly everything has been seen through. We heard more of the same yesterday in the Tánaiste's contribution, where the unrestrained self-praise was exactly the wrong tone to start a process of trying to win the people's support.

This is what we saw last year when a Greek debt deal was extended to Ireland and hailed by Ministers as a great negotiating victory although it was four times the size of what had been asked for. It is exactly the same approach that emerged in this morning's newspapers, with Ministers trying to claim this referendum as part of an ingenious negotiating strategy concerning the promissory notes.

Saying that the Government is "putting it up" to other governments is nothing more than empty posturing. It is fooling no one and it has returned levels of distrust in government to levels the Taoiseach himself condemned as unacceptable.

When this treaty is signed, it will have been almost eight months since it was agreed by Europe's leaders to consider new treaty provisions. It was prepared in a rushed process which limited ambition and maximised disagreements. The biggest problem in Ireland has been that the Government chose to have no public or political consultation. It would not even tell the Dáil what its negotiating objectives were.

Allied to this was the undeniable evidence from sources here and in Europe's capitals that every effort was being made to avoid a referendum. It would have been much better if it had accepted my proposal of three months ago to say that the needs of democratic legitimacy would prevail. A referendum was always necessary, irrespective of the legal opinion.

The Government has yet to publish the Attorney General's opinion. It should do so immediately because it will provide crucial information about the impact in Ireland of the treaty's provisions. From what the Taoiseach said yesterday, it is clear that the referendum is legally required because of there being no full EU treaty and the significance of the requirement to have "permanent" budget rules in national law. This is exactly in line with the legal opinion that Fianna Fáil received.

My party's position on Europe is and always has been absolutely clear. We believe in a strong European Union. We believe it has been a great force for peace and growth. Our supporters have been absolutely consistent in supporting each European treaty and supporting our pro-EU position. A Euro-positive position is a core part of our tradition and this will not change.

I held a detailed discussion in our parliamentary party about our approach to this international treaty. I did not impose my opinion but I did set out a detailed case secured endorsement of it. In accordance with a tradition that goes back over 50 years, in line with the views of our members and supporters, and following a democratic decision of our parliamentary party, Fianna Fáil will support ratification of this treaty in the Dáil and in the referendum.

We will support ratification for a number of reasons. First, it is part of an agenda to show that Ireland and the rest of Europe are dealing with the escalating sovereign debt crisis. It is not a magic bullet that will tackle the crisis but it is a confidence building measure. Second, it provides access to a reserve of back-up funding which will help Ireland to return to the market and do so at a lower interest rate. There is no other funding available if we cannot access the market or do so at an affordable rate. With regard to funding deficits and securing normal re-financing, we need the ESM and, therefore, we need the treaty. If the impact of the Government's VAT increase continues, as we predicted, to drive down growth and undermine the budget, the ESM may become vital to funding public services in the next two years.

We support the introduction of fiscal rules. They make sense and I have not heard a credible argument against them. It was the late Mr. Brian Lenihan who first put them on the Dáil's agenda in the first half of 2010, long before the EU-IMF deal. He subsequently brought to Government an in-principle agreement to proceed with fiscal control legislation and an independent fiscal advisory council. The rules contained in the treaty closely reflect what we supported before and we are not going to switch our position.

Each of these is a positive reason to support the treaty. They stand in contrast to the tone that Ministers set in the past two months. This treaty will not pass if it is sold in an aggressive way. People must be given positive reasons for supporting it. They must be shown that it is a part of the agenda to restore growth to Europe and ensure that Irish public services can be funded. The standard line being used by its opponents is that it is an austerity treaty. It does not matter how often they repeat this; it is just not true.

There is a major gap between tax revenues and spending on public services. This must continue to be reduced. It is nothing less than dishonest to claim we can carry on regardless or that everything would be easy if we defaulted on a bit more debt. It is a classic piece of political cynicism to claim in the House that there is an easy answer, that the money would just be available to pay pensions and keep services going. That is nothing more than the politics of exploiting people's problems.

There are four more budgets in the life of this Dáil and none of them will be significantly tougher because of this treaty. In fact, they may be easier. If the treaty helps to keep our costs of borrowing down, then it will provide significantly extra room to maintain public services.

A core justification for the treaty is that it will help save the euro. It cannot do this by itself; other measures are also needed. What is surprising is that the Government has yet to actually set out a case for why we should retain the euro.

The overwhelming evidence is that any attempt to adopt a new currency would make the current crisis look like a boom time. The transition to any new arrangement would be deeply traumatic and it is ordinary people who would feel it and bear the brunt most. However, we need to push this reasoning to the side since membership of the euro cannot be sold on fear alone. What can the euro's long-term future be if its main justification is that countries have no alternative and are trapped? Fostering resentment of a currency among the people who use it is not a way to secure its future.

There is a positive case which can and must be made for both the success of the euro and its future. The evidence shows that the euro has enabled significant growth throughout the Union that has been maintained even after the declines of the last few years. Some of the countries that have benefitted the most have been rather reluctant to acknowledge the euro's role.

In Ireland, the story is even clearer.

For example, a study released in December by ESRI and Trinity College researchers concluded that the adoption of the euro has had a significant and positive impact on our exports to all regions, which has increased over time. They showed how it has given a boost in markets which ranges from 30% to 60%. Given the centrality of exports to our economy, this in itself is a powerful argument for saving the euro. Without the euro, our already too high unemployment would be dramatically higher.

The key part of securing the people's support for European treaties has been work to provide clear reassurance on legitimate areas of concern. In each ratification process, additional measures have been adopted which go beyond the core text. These measures are never enough to satisfy Europe's opponents who see a conspiracy in everything. They do not care what arguments they use or who they work with. This is how in the Nice referendum, for example, one could end up with left-wing groups and Youth Defence sitting down under the co-ordination of Anthony Coughlan to discuss how to help each other. Where they always get caught out is that they never change their arguments to reflect the proposals before the people. In the first Lisbon treaty they said Ireland's loss of an EU commissioner was fundamental, whereas in the revised proposal they said the retention of a commissioner was irrelevant.

After the 2008 referendum, I faced quite an amount of pressure to try to find a way of avoiding a referendum. I rejected this and secured agreement to engage with the people and reflect their views in a significantly revised proposal. It is not true that the "Yes" vote always declines during a campaign. As we saw then, it can actually increase if the people are properly engaged.

See this speech in context