Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the treaty which has been called many things from an "austerity treaty" to a "fiscal compact" to a "stability treaty". What one calls it depends on the way one wants to look at it, which will decide the approach one takes.

The euro currency covers 17 countries. When this country decided that it should join the Economic and Monetary Union, it did so because it was in our best interests to do so. An overwhelming majority of the people decided that it was in our best interests to be part of the euro currency. We joined the full union on 1 January 2002 and have been part of it since. That is still the message from those who need a stable and strong currency. Those who have doubts about the treaty should listen to people outside the Chamber or the political sphere, those who deal in international trade. They are the ones who understand the importance of having access to a market, in a simple and straightforward way, by virtue of being part of a single, strong currency and remaining at the heart of it.

We must bear in mind that the euro is only ten years old. It is in its infancy in terms of the lifespan of a currencyand we did not get everything right at the start. One of the things we did not get right was taking prudent, preventive measures to stop the debt burden problem arising. We are dealing with the legacy of this now. It amuses me to hear those who refer to the treaty as an "austerity treaty" and say it will hamstring us for the rest of our days. They are the same people who said reckless lending, borrowing and a lack of prudence led us into the current mess. We must remember that if and when the treaty is ratified, it will not apply to this country until after 2015, when we are out of recovery mode. The treaty is about the introduction of preventive measures to stop the same pattern recurring. If I run a business or a household budget for a family, when I have a surplus, I save it and when I have a deficit, I either use my savings or seek a facility to borrow. That is what we are talking about - keeping our finances within wise and prudent parameters in order that we can never again overstretch an economy and put such a burden on the public and future generations. That is what the treaty is about.

I return to those outside the political sphere calling for a "Yes" vote. They are the people who understand how important it is that we have a currency that is at the core of the European economy. As the single, biggest exporting country within the eurozone and the European Union, it is daft to think we could consider putting ourselves outside it.

Reference has been made to using our power of veto over the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, treaty. That is not the language we should use when for the past three or four years we have been and are trying to work with others to cut us a better deal. The same people now say we should veto proceedings if we do not like what has been put in front of us. The notion that by saying "No" this time we will strengthen our hand, if and when there is another treaty, is nonsense. Whatever about the validity of the argument made in the context of the Lisbon treaty, that does not hold true in this case because as soon as 1 January 2013 arrives and 12 countries have ratified the treaty, one is either with them or one is not. It will be too late to join after that. We would be outside the door knocking on it and asking to come in. Introducing a veto would weaken our hand rather than strengthen it. I, therefore, urge people to judge the treaty on its merits and not to introduce other grievances. I urge them to listen to what is being said about the treaty and its merits.

See this speech in context