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

I do not understand the logic of what the Tánaiste is saying or of what the statements emanating from the European Council appear to imply. How is it possible to state that, on one hand, steps will be taken to tackle unemployment, promote growth, restore normal lending, etc., while seeking to pass a treaty which will ban borrowing, on the other? The Tánaiste can correct me if I am wrong but the fiscal compact treaty effectively bans states from borrowing. It might be reasonable to argue that we should not borrow for frivolous purposes or to finance ongoing expenditure. It would be quite normal to borrow for capital and infrastructure projects, job creation or initiatives to promote growth. If that is banned under the treaty to which we are signing up, how can we seriously hope to promote job creation? Is there not a supreme irony in us being told that such borrowing will be banned in perpetuity but the same people arguing that we cannot borrow for those purposes are stating we must borrow to pay off bankers' gambling debts?

Will the Tánaiste clarify comments from a Danish MEP at a meeting we had this week which concerned the treaty? He suggested that the penalty rules and strictures of the fiscal treaty would not apply to all states equally. He indicated that although Sweden, for example, has signed up to the treaty, there are agreements which mean the penalties and strictures for states stepping outside the criteria of the treaty will not apply to Sweden. In other words, there is one law for some states and another for other states in the implementation of this treaty.

See this speech in context