Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)

I thank the people for making the right decision last Thursday by supporting the amendment to the Constitution with regard to the stability treaty. I acknowledge the 57.9% who voted "Yes" within the Galway West constituency. One reason the Irish ratified the treaty - it was clear on the doorsteps - was that doing so would ensure access to the ESM. A "No" vote would have meant Ireland could not access ESM funds, if required. This Bill establishes the treaty in Ireland.

I concur with the comments of Deputy Olivia Mitchell on issues such as eurobonds. I hope eurobonds become more possible in light of our ratification of the stability treaty and its eventual ratification across the European Union. I refer also to the stimulus and project bonds, which clearly ought to be part of Europe-wide recovery, irrespective of whether they pertain to investments in capital projects or otherwise. There is no shortage of projects across the Union and certainly in Ireland.

The European Communities (Amendment) Bill facilitates in Irish law the amendment to the EU treaties to allow the member states to establish a stability mechanism to assist member states in difficulty. It also allows for the appointment of 18 more MEPs. This has arisen following the enlargement of the European Union. During the recent treaty campaign and other campaigns, it was clear that those who argue decision-making has been transferred to Europe, that Brussels is where the real power lies and that we have signed away more of our sovereignty with each treaty were not correct. Their claims are baseless. The falseness is exposed by the very fact that this national Parliament's representatives of the people are debating this Bill only following the successful acceptance of the stability treaty by the people in a democratic vote. We are, in effect, exercising our right as a sovereign, independent people to accept or reject the amendments being sought to European treaties. These amendments have been on the agenda for a number of years now. The idea of establishing a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area arose in October 2010 before the last general election. This explains why Fianna Fáil campaigned alongside Fine Gael and the Labour Party for a "Yes" vote, on the stability treaty, which treaty is undeniably necessary to guarantee Irish access to the new stability fund.

It is worth noting that when the European treaties were consolidated into their present form some five years ago, it was stipulated that the Union would intervene financially to assist a member state only when that state found itself in serious difficulties caused by natural disasters, exceptional circumstances or circumstances beyond its control. It is through this ad hoc mechanism that the Union was able to support various countries, first Greece and then Ireland and Portugal. With the benefit of hindsight, it has been logical and appropriate over the past few economically turbulent years that the Union and its member states moved to create a structured and comprehensive assistance fund.

Opponents are continuing to insist that ratification will institutionalise and impose austerity for years to come. This is incorrect. Ireland agreed long before now to reduce its deficit and to tackle overspending, primarily out of necessity. Everyone should know and understand that the country cannot spend indefinitely when it does not earn.

Another inaccurate contention of opponents to the stability treaty and the creation of a stability mechanism was that we could veto the legislation setting up the ESM by failing to pass the required legislation. As the European Union has grown as a community of nation states, the use of qualified majority voting has replaced the national veto in most policy areas, chiefly because the veto has been used to the detriment of Europe and to stall the functioning of the Union on several occasions. A famous example was the empty-chair crisis of 1965, whereby President de Gaulle and other French representatives refused to attend Council meetings, paralysing the Community. The institutionalisation of the national veto led to decades of stagnation. Qualified majority voting promotes co-operation, negotiation and consensus building. The idea that Ireland should resort to using a veto by refusing to ratify the legislation before us is as ludicrous as it is unfeasible.

To be clear in this case, exercising the veto we have would exclude us from a stability mechanism and a bailout fund. Regrettably, Ireland is in a relatively weak position, despite the encouraging economic signs. Why on earth would we wish to block the establishment of a stability mechanism we may ultimately need? I hope that with further responsible decision-making plans and programmes and with a certain amount of fortune in the world economy, we will not require additional access to a stability mechanism. However, as a majority of the electorate realised last Thursday, it is vital we ensure this option is open to us.

See this speech in context