Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

We have called that clause linking those two issues a blackmail clause, as that is precisely what it is. The Government is inviting citizens to set in stone a set of economic policies in a binding international agreement that will, by definition, place serious restrictions on our capacity to borrow, with penalties if we fail to measure up. Not alone must we take this austerity but the Government is threatening that if we do not, access to the stability mechanism and emergency funding will be ruled out. By any definition, that is political blackmail.

We have noted in this Chamber and I will repeat that it is a matter of disgrace that whoever negotiated these matters on our behalf allowed that position to emerge. It should never have been permitted to proceed. There is a real chance that the Irish people will consider this austerity treaty and the implications of billions of euro of further cuts before saying "No, thank you." They have seen what austerity has done not just to the economy but society. In those circumstances, the Government would be very foolish and irresponsible to have agreed that as a precondition for access to emergency funding. I am pleased the Government decided to postpone bringing legislation on the European Stability Mechanism through the House until after the referendum. That was a wise decision because it does not have any option other than to seek at European level to have the blackmail clause removed. The Tánaiste may ask how this will be achieved. The Government knows the State has a veto in respect of amending Article 136 of the European treaties. As matters stand, bailouts are expressly prohibited at European level. Germany, specifically its courts and legal system, was anxious about this issue. For the European Stability Mechanism to be built on a solid legal foundation requires a change to the European treaties, specifically a change to Article 136, on which the State has a veto. As a matter of protecting the national interest and citizens, it is incumbent on the Government to make clear that neither it nor the citizens of this country will be blackmailed.

Let us have a debate and let people consider whether they wish to enshrine austerity in an international and legally binding document. Let us also be clear that it is the responsibility of the Government to separate the debate from the ability of the State, on behalf of its citizens, to access emergency funding. I do not share the view of the Fianna Fáil Party that it is fair and proportionate that we sign up to austerity in perpetuity as a quid pro quo for accessing funding. It is neither fair nor proportionate. Moreover, it is not sensible because even if the stability treaty, as the Tánaiste describes it, or austerity treaty, as I see it, had been in place, it would not have seen off the economic catastrophe in which we are immersed.

The Tánaiste stated he does not want the debate on the treaty to be about tangential issues or to be used by people to sound a note of discontent with the Government. As the leader of the Labour Party, he should note that his party has taken a confused and inconsistent position on these matters in recent times. I probably should not have to remind him that a number of Members of the European Parliament from his party correctly voted against the so-called six pack modifications to the Stability and Growth Pact on the basis that the proposed measures were economically misguided and the Irish and European economies did not need more austerity and cutbacks. They also stated that what was needed was growth. Austerity and growth do not go hand in hand. The Tánaiste is wrong to claim one can pursue an aggressive strategy of cutbacks and other austerity measures and expect economic growth. If he examines the recent past, he will see evidence that austerity damages prospects for growth and has a deep and damaging effect on the domestic economy.

Sinn Féin believes the treaty, as with much of the policy that preceded it, is bad for Ireland and the European Union-----

See this speech in context