Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

Cé nach raibh cúlra géarchéime taobh thiar den chruinniú seo an tseachtain seo caite, i mo thuairim, is oth liom a rá, níor thuig ceannairí na hEorpa cé chomh práinneach is atá an sceál fós ó thaobh cúrsaí eacnamaíochta de, go háirithe easpa creidmheasa, mar a dúirt mé ar maidin, do chomhlachtaí beaga agus meánmhéide, ní amháin ar fud na tíre seo ach ar fud na hEorpa. Nílim sásta ón méid a tharla gur thuig daoine go bhfuil sé riachtanach i bhfad níos mó a dhéanamh chun níos mó tacaíochta a thabhairt do na comhlachtaí seo ionas go rachaidh cúrsaí eacnamaíochta i bhfeabhas. Ní léir ó na cinntí a rinneadh an tseachtain seo caite go bhfuil sin ag tarlú.

Thankfully, last week's European summit had none of the sense of panic which gripped many of last year's gatherings. Unfortunately, it also lacked any great sense of urgency. Nothing on the agenda would suggest that this was a gathering of leaders whose countries are slipping back into recession and who continue to face an unprecedented debt crisis.

The summit's conclusions contain many big claims concerning action under way, but little detail to provide optimism. It remains the case that the European Union has no credible growth agenda and is at best delaying, rather than preventing, further a major crisis.

The heads of eurozone countries issued a separate statement which directly mentioned a number of big issues facing the block including the new programme of support for Greece. The early indications are that the programme will not succeed. The debt level which Greece will have after the restructuring of its debt is still too high and the absence of any potential investment for growth means the target figures are almost impossible to meet. There is a real need for the Union to step in with a significant increase in its support for growth enhancing measures. There is no doubt that Greece needs to remove a wide range of practices which have undermined its ability to grow. However, their removal is not enough. A real chance for Greece to recover requires other special measures, which should include an increase in its EU budget allocation and special funding for business investment by the European Investment Bank. The sacrifices of the Greek people and the commitment of their Government must be recognised. I hope the Taoiseach will take the opportunity to reject publicly the damaging and disgraceful attacks on Greece which have emanated from the usual anonymous sources in different capitals.

At the end of their five-paragraph statement, the leaders of the eurozone countries included the sentence that they "recall their determination to do whatever is needed to ensure the financial stability of the euro area as a whole, and their readiness to act accordingly." Throughout this crisis the language of action has been devalued dramatically. Each statement of resolute determination has been followed by the reality of entrenched orthodoxies. Pre-crisis policy positions have changed but fundamental red lines remains intact in spite of clear evidence of the need for a more radical departure. If it is genuinely true that the euro leaders have a determination and readiness to ensure the financial stability of the zone, then a much more assertive agenda is required.

As I stated repeatedly over the past year, lasting financial and economic stability in the eurozone can only come when the design flaws of the euro have been fixed. These include the need for a much larger budget to address national economic shocks, a reform of the ECB and strong central regulation of the financial sector. None of these points is even been mentioned, let alone addressed. I will return to this wider reform agenda later.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the signature of the fiscal treaty on Friday, not because it is the answer to Europe's problems but because it is only one part of the answer. It was not a good day for the Union that two member states were not present for the signing. The fault for this is to be shared equally between those who were pushing the treaty but made little effort to achieve unanimity and those who were looking for an opportunity to appease real or imagined eurosceptic opinions. There is nothing in this treaty which affects either Britain or the Czech Republic. Their failure to sign it is a demonstration once again that eurosceptics can find threats in anything at all.

For Ireland, the lack of unanimity in the signing of the treaty at least demonstrates that this is not a typical European Union treaty. Every EU treaty requires every country to ratify it before it can come into effect. This maximises the potential negotiating position of each country and it also makes leaders more respectful of each other's positions. There is no such requirement for the fiscal treaty. We do not have a veto power over its operation. Therefore, the question for Ireland is a much simpler one: is it good for Ireland?

I believe that there is a positive and practical case for the treaty which must be made if the current high level of support for ratification is to be maintained. There are serious downsides to voting "No", but Ministers should back off their default position of emphasising the negative consequences of a "No" vote. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, predicted the collapse of the euro. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, called this a wise statement and others have spoken of colossal damage. Let us not get sucked into the game of the sceptics who have already undermined their case by the shrill prophecies of doom which they have been trotting out in recent weeks.

Equally, Ministers should remember that they can not pass this purely with voters of their own party. They need to put aside the sharp partisanship which characterises most of their public comments and adopt a more consensual and credible approach. Speeches dominated by such nonsense as the claim to have transformed Ireland and its international standing are not winning them votes and are getting in the way of setting out a coherent case for the treaty.

There are two major benefits for Ireland in this treaty which are enough in themselves to achieve a strong "Yes" vote. First, it will provide Ireland with a major reserve which can be called upon to keep funding State services if the financial markets will not lend to us. At the weekend, one Sinn Féin representative made the ridiculous statement that Europe would just have to give us the money if we needed it, whether or not we vote for the treaty. This is part and parcel of a deeply cynical politics which claims it can make all problems go away with no consequences.

Second, the framework of the treaty and the potential to access ESM funding will make access to market funding easier and cheaper. In fact, if the ESM facility had been available in 2010, it is highly likely that Ireland would not have needed any international help.

The various left-wing parties in the House, opponents and their allies outside the House have been arguing that this should be termed the "austerity" treaty. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Ireland needs to borrow money, not only to finance deficit spending but also re-finance existing borrowing. The cost of that borrowing will have a bigger impact on the money available for public services than anything in this treaty.

No-one can question the basic fact that the availability of the ESM facility will give greater confidence in the market for State debt. Greater confidences means lower interest rates and lower interest rates mean more money for public services. If one takes the most conservative estimate possible and assumes that the treaty and ESM back-stop will reduce the interest rate on Irish debt by 1% over time, that is more than €1 billion every year which will not have to be paid in interest. That is a large benefit to Irish taxpayers which will be available before any of the other provisions of the treaty have an impact. It is the exact opposite of the increased austerity which the treaty's opponents claim.

On fiscal rules, we should note how common they are in countries which have welfare states and standards of living which many here envy. In Sweden, for example, the social democratic party in government viewed fiscal rules as the protector of the welfare state, not its threat.

One element we do not need in the debate here is the distraction of false claims suggesting that these rules would have prevented the crisis. In the decade before the crisis, the European Commission never suggested that there was a structural deficit here, and actually praised fiscal policy. The "never again" argument does not stand up to even basic scrutiny and it takes time away from much stronger arguments. During last week's debates, quite a few speakers referred to the issue of the promissory notes. They have nothing to do with this treaty and are not available to us as a bargaining tool in seeking a reduction in their cost. There should and will be a significant move in the cost of the promissory notes. They were required purely because Ireland was acting in the interests of the wider European financial system and they are structured in a way which is completely different from normal sovereign debt. It is this different structure which makes changes relatively easy. The European Central Bank can in the morning lift the bulk of the burden of the notes without any risk of contagion. Equally, no one can credibly argue that lengthening the term and changing the payment conditions of the notes will have any other significant impact on the wider European economy.

This is a Government which is today claiming to have skilfully negotiated the reduction in interest rates on the bailout even though the reduction was four times what is was asking for and is available to every country receiving funds. If the one-year briefings to journalists are any guide, it will run out of superlatives in praising itself when the promissory note reduction comes. In truth, a lot of time was wasted last year by the failure to put the issue on the agenda of any significant meeting.

As I have said consistently for months, there is nothing to fear from holding this referendum. As was shown in the revised Lisbon proposal, the pro-EU position can actually grow during a referendum campaign. The key is to talk to people directly and put a positive case.

The Taoiseach has talked repeatedly about a number of growth measures agreed at this summit. Individually, they are welcome. Ireland will benefit from the measures if they are agreed as legally enforceable actions rather than declarations of good intentions. However, the measures taken together are not actually a growth agenda. They are a slight quickening of the pace of measures already under way, which will have a marginal impact on growth and competitiveness. For example, the European research area is a great idea but there is nowhere near enough money in its budget to have a major impact, nor is there any discussion of providing it with enough funding.

There was a lot of choreography before the summit, with Prime Ministers combining to call for things to be agreed which were already likely to be agreed. Each has then been in a position to give speeches about how they are tabling papers and pushing a growth agenda. A genuine growth agenda requires a much more radical discussion and one which includes addressing the core flaws in the design of the euro. What we need now is to push for this more radical discussion to begin and be used as the basis of the new treaty, which is due within five years at the most.

On page 8 of the summit's conclusions it is stated that it was agreed to carry forward work on a range of tax measures, including the financial transactions tax and the common consolidated corporate tax base. Neither of these taxes has any place on the agenda of an organisation which is focused purely on getting through the crisis and returning to growth. The G8 and G20 summits will be important in developing international co-ordination. It is already clear that the non-EU members of these groups are deeply impatient with the fact Europe refuses to use all of its resources to tackle its own crisis. Several of the larger members of the Union are members of these groups, as is the Union itself. There is a real need for the Union to have a distinct position at these meetings and not allow a situation where national positions are presented as European ones.

I welcome the extension of candidate status to Serbia. President Tadic and his Government have made enormous strides in a very short time. I hope their progress through the accession process will be as fast as possible.

There is a growing sense of drift in regard to the neighbourhood policy, with little urgency evident in the Union's work. Now is not the time to back off from the task of challenging our near neighbours to adhere to democratic standards and to work with them on development. In particular, the situation in the Ukraine is becoming grave. As we have recently seen in regard to one case relevant to Ireland, the legal system is backing off from basic protection for international investment. Domestically, the situation is much more serious. The imprisoning of Ms Yulia Tymoshenko, the lengthy term she has been given and the conditions she is being held in are unacceptable. We need to speak clearly and in a united voice to the Ukrainian Administration: adhere to basic democratic norms or there will be consequences.

The situation in Syria continues to get worse by the day. The strong words of the summit are welcome but not enough for the besieged communities of Homs, where the scale of slaughter by the regime is clearly escalating. Russia and others have played a deeply dishonourable role in giving comfort to the regime and vetoing international action through the United Nations. Europe must introduce comprehensive sanctions against every element of the regime and those who support it, and should prepare direct aid for the opposition. The recognition of the Syrian National Council is welcome and every state should support it. The people of Syria are demanding their freedom and they will not be denied. In the face of gruesome repression, they are making unimaginable sacrifices. Europe must stand with them in every possible way.

See this speech in context