Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)

I would not have allowed the Minister of State to interrupt me. It was someone else he interrupted. Of course, it is completely untrue that the corrective mechanism is the draconian regime suggested. The obligation is that Ireland would support and implement proposals with which the Commission would come forward. Such proposals would be country-specific, based on the particular conditions in an individual country. Moreover, there would be a timeframe for the implementation of such proposals. The Commission does not operate in the manner characterised by Members on the other side of the House. There must be a high degree of consultation, as there always has been and as I believe there will be in the future. The treaty states specifically, "Such correction mechanism shall fully respect the prerogatives of national Parliaments". Consequently, Members will also have a responsibility in this regard. Their role is set out clearly in the treaty and they must step up to the plate. One might ask what this Parliament is doing about budgetary discipline. Obviously, the Government brings forward the budget, but what responsibilities are Members, as parliamentarians, taking on? They need to engage in self-criticism on how quickly, how carefully and in what detailed way they become involved in budgetary assessment as parliamentarians.

On the 3% target, I again remind colleagues that Ireland is already committed in this regard. I acknowledge Members opposite disagree with this and I certainly disagreed strongly with the decision taken in 2008 to provide the guarantee that led inevitably and inexorably to what happened last year in respect of the bailout. However, the State has made a solemn commitment to reduce its deficit to 3% by 2015. Moreover, the treaty provisions will not kick in for Ireland until at least 2015 because the programme of assistance will be in place until then. It is true that Ireland would then be obliged to go further than the figure of 3%. Were it to get out of the programme by 2015, it would be obliged to reduce the deficit further to comply with the new rules. However, if one considers the proportionate reduction that would be needed beyond 3%, it pales somewhat when compared with what we have been asked to do and are obliged to do up to 2015.

In respect of the debt brake, in a genuine spirit of debate I seek to discover the origin of the annual 5% reduction cited by Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, as well as the source of his figures of €2 billion or €3 billion per year. On the reduction of the debt, Members should consider a country with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100% - I acknowledge that Ireland's debt is somewhat higher. As one is obliged to reduce the debt by one twentieth of the amount above 60% of GDP, in the aforementioned case one would be obliged to reduce it by one twentieth of 40%, which is 2%. If such a country experiences growth of 2%, it is covering it. Historically, the manner in which countries have dealt with debt and the way in which one eats into it is through growth. One may argue that Ireland may not experience growth, but if that is the case, we will be back in the same position in 2015. Ireland will not get out of the programme of assistance without growth. Moreover, the European Union and the world economy will not get out of its problems without growth. Consequently, no matter how one approaches the future, it is a given that growth is a necessity.

On sanctions, there is a belief abroad that the treaty states the European Court of Justice can impose sanctions on countries that do not implement the rules. This is completely untrue. The involvement of the European Court of Justice is confined to a circumstance in which a country has failed to put the rules into law. A country cannot be brought to the European Court of Justice under the treaty for breaching the rules, it can only be brought before it for failing to put the rules into law. This point is not well understood. People are suggesting Ireland will be brought to the court and fined unless it does this, that and the other. However, the treaty does not provide for this. The sanction in this regard would only apply were the referendum to be passed and Ireland then to fail to bring forward the legislation in, say, June. That might occur, but it seems highly unlikely that were the treaty to be ratified by the people, the Government would not then proceed with the legislation.

The treaty is about more than stability. It is also about solidarity and trust between the peoples and governments of Europe. I state to Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan and other Members that just occasionally Deputies may need to think about the perspectives of other peoples in Europe apart from thinking, as they must, about our own. They represent the people and have a duty to them principally before anyone else. While I accept this point, occasionally, they might think about how the world in which they live looks from the perspective of German, Finnish, Belgian or Dutch taxpayers and how they perceive what has happened. It might be worthwhile to consider how they perceive what they have been called upon to do and why they might require a certain amount of mutual trust. In this context, one might consider it to be not at all surprising that in response to further calls on their resources and them to vote in parliament to fund bailouts, they would seek to have people take the rules seriously by incorporating them in their own laws. I repeat that this is all the treaty asks us to do. It does not bring in new rules, but it commits countries to putting the existing rules into domestic law.

As for the imbalances and all the other crucial issues that must be addressed, Deputy Mick Wallace referred to uneven development. He is absolutely right in this regard and has put his finger on the real problem in Europe. It is absolute necessary for the countries of the eurozone and the wider European Union to address now and in the future the question of how to deal with the fact that different countries have different levels of economic development and how to have in place a system and a strategy for growth that simply does not direct itself towards meeting the needs of the so-called core countries but that genuinely serves all the states of the European Union. I have mentioned these are political questions of huge importance. The outcome of the French presidential election at the weekend and the subsequent second round is of massive importance also. These are big political questions and people are thinking about such issues in Europe. The way to approach this issue is not to walk away and suggest the people concerned will only bring trouble to us. I refer to the attitude that suggests it is all trouble, that we do not want it and, consequently, should vote "No". It reminds me of the little boy holding back the flood with his finger in the dyke. It is as though we can walk away from it and that such things will not matter to us, which is ludicrous. I apologise, as I have tried to avoid using phraseology that sounds as though I am suggesting people are ludicrous. However, one must be serious in this regard.

If people are not convinced, they will be by the following point. There is uncertainty almost everywhere one looks in the world, certainly in Europe. Consequently, one should apply a test and balance risk. One should ask oneself whether voting "Yes" or voting "No" is the riskier course of action. It appears the Irish people will not take a punt on the idea that we should simply cut ourselves loose, sail out into the ocean in choppy waters, in the expectation someone will turn up to save us.

That is the sort of proposition that is being put forward.

I am of the view that we should remain at the heart of both the European Union and the eurozone. We should also work hard - by means of the rules contained in the treaty and also through other instruments which need to be introduced - in order to strengthen the opportunities for growth in the European Union and those that exist for this country if it remains within the latter. We must fight alongside those in Europe whose views are the same as ours. We must argue in favour of our political beliefs and we must never give up. The strongest argument in respect of this matter is, quite literally, a comparative risk analysis. In other words, we must ask which course of action is more risky or uncertain. If people apply a basic, rational level of thought to this matter, then it is obvious that there is only one way to vote.

See this speech in context