Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

First, I assure Labour Party Deputies that no sterling was wasted on my speech. Labour Deputies who have left the Chamber are clearly upset in this regard. I assure them that no sterling was wasted on this speech. I do not know about euro.

Speaking to the Dáil on the 28 February the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore explained that the purpose of the austerity treaty was to help build a "thriving and prosperous European economy that has moved beyond the current crisis". He then went on to claim that it was a package of measures that would help stabilise the situation in the eurozone and that it was "vital to our national interests".

On the basis of these comments it seems pretty clear that the Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party believes that, overall, the content of the austerity treaty is good for economic recovery and that we should all vote for it come referendum day. The "Yes" side claim it is simply a restatement of the existing Stability and Growth Pact rules with some modifications to these rules agreed to by the European Council in 2011. These modifications, known as the six pack, were approved by the European Parliament and European Council in September and November 2011 and came into force from December 2011. They are five separate EU regulations and one directive dealing with aspects of economic governance. They were described by the European Council as "the most comprehensive reinforcement of economic governance in the EU and the euro area since the launch of the Economic and Monetary Union".

Considering the Labour Party's support for the austerity treaty, including those elements whose origins are to be found in the so-called six pack, one would think its MEPs would have been equally supportive of the six pack proposals when they were voted on in the European Parliament last September. It appears that is not so.

The Labour Party's three MEPs - Proinsias De Rossa, Ms Phil Prendergast and Ms Nessa Childers - opposed the package of measures, voting against four of them, abstaining on one and supporting one. The reasons for their opposition to the overall package are interesting and put a different perspective on the debate.

Proinsias De Rossa, a former president of the Labour Party, said about the six pack that the "...legislative package will reinforce the EU austerity programme driving us into recession – that the measures are economically misguided ... will kill growth, destroy jobs and derail economic recovery." On the same day his party colleague Ms Phil Prendergast was critical of the European Commission proposals. She stated, "They are missing the most important ingredient: a jobs and growth strategy." She went on to say the "austerity-only approach is a recipe for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer." Focusing on the impact of the six pack on the economy Ms Nessa Childers said, "To focus only on the side of fiscal austerity will depress demand further and destroy job creation...," and called for a "change away from this extreme austerity approach."

Just as important, the reason the three Labour Party MEPs supported one of the six pack proposals was the inclusion of what is known as the "Monti clause". It states the regulation will not affect the exercise of fundamental rights or the right to negotiate, conclude or enforce collective wage agreements - Ferreira A7-0183/2011. This important clause is absent from the text of the austerity treaty. I suppose one could say it is not the full monty.

In the European Parliament the Labour Party strongly opposes the "irresponsible", "austerity only" approach of the six pack on the grounds that it will "kill growth, destroy jobs and derail economic recovery," yet their colleagues who were sitting in this Chamber earlier support the six pack inspired austerity treaty on the grounds that it is an "important milestone for Ireland on our road to recovery" and "vital to our national interests". In European-speak, it is a millstone around our necks, but in Gilmore-speak, it is an important milestone in our recovery. The European message seems to suggest that by signing up to the new eurozone treaty the Government will have surrendered control over Irish fiscal and budgetary matters to EU officials and be guilty of institutionalising austerity, with the result that generations of Irish people will be forced to endure unimaginable levels of debt and poverty.

The Government's reluctance to hold a referendum is matched by its abject failure to provide any justification to explain why it is in our best interests to sign up to a treaty that will shackle Ireland to the policies of larger EU member states and the troika. In my humble opinion, not only does the treaty surrender significant control over Irish fiscal and budgetary matters to unelected and unaccountable EU officials, it also imposes drastic and destructive austerity on ordinary citizens who have already had to pay the price of the casino capitalism of bankers, bondholders and speculators.

If the provisions of the stability treaty were put in place today, the 23 EU member states currently subject to the excessive deficit procedure would have to accept the Commission's recommendations, even if a majority of member states disagreed, and to agree to a detailed programme of economic reforms which would be legally binding under EU law. It is clear that, by any definition, this austerity treaty will put enormous pressure on ordinary people's welfare and living standards. It reflects the interests of big business lobbies such as Business Europe and the European Round Table of Industrialists which have been advocating a strengthening of EU economic governance. The new treaty is fully in line with such corporate demands.

This Private Members' motion exposes the duplicity of a Government which has embarked on the scare tactics designed to force Irish citizens into accepting the treaty. Let us be clear about the following points: the Government claims that if we reject the austerity treaty, we will be denied European Stability Mechanism, ESM, funding in the future; that if we do not say "Yes", we will not receive emergency funding in the future. Not only is that untrue, but the Government, in vetoing the Article 136 amendment on which the ESM treaty is based, would stop Ireland from being forced to institutionalise austerity in law. The "Yes" side, rather than freely and openly debating the merits of the austerity treaty, have resorted to scare tactics, using its muscle - possibly a six pack - to bully and blackmail and curtail debate and reasonable argument. Clearly, the blackmail clause is an empty threat, as it has little, if any, legal standing and conflicts with the primary mandate of the ESM to safeguard the stability of the eurozone as written into the EU treaties.

The motion challenges the Government to postpone the legislation on the European stability treaty until after the referendum takes place and veto it if the people reject the austerity treaty. It calls on the Government, in the event of a rejection of the austerity treaty by the people, to seek a further amendment to the ESM treaty removing the blackmail clause and to use its veto on this matter, if required. That would allow the public to debate and decide on the austerity treaty on its own merits, free from the blackmail implicit in the threat to deny future bailout funds. If the motion is defeated in the Dáil, it will be a clear indication that the Government is intent on using scare tactics to have the treaty passed.

See this speech in context