Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill which obviously my party will be supporting. More importantly, my party welcomes the decision of the people in the recent referendum. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, says a great deal. I suppose when he says a great deal, one is inclined to agree with parts of it and disagree with others. One part I found quite amusing early on was that referendums were a little awkward because often many of the issues discussed were not ones related to a particular referendum. When the treaty campaign started, it was evident that most of the issues not covered in the treaty were being introduced by those who were opposed to it in the referendum. There is a referendum commission to adjudicate on what is in and what is not included, but after this referendum we almost should establish a truth commission because there was nothing but lies and deception propagated throughout the country by various groupings which claimed to be political parties with responsibilities, yet at the same time they were instilling fear and causing confusion everywhere they went. It should be stated clearly in the House that this, to say the least, is dishonest campaigning. The holding of a referendum is very important in Ireland. It can change the Constitution which the people hold dear as their last protection. Nevertheless, certain political parties in the House and groupings which claim to be loose affiliates of socialists have wandered throughout the countryside telling bare-faced untruths to the people. They have tried to sow confusion and fear. In fairness, this time the people stood back and analysed the position. They voted not necessarily in their best interests but in the interests of the country. I could never understand the argument put forward by those opposing the referendum. They claimed it would legalise austerity for many years. The European Stability Mechanism establishes a fund to ensure countries which many be unable to access financial markets will have the ability to source funding elsewhere to pay for the delivery of services and the running of the state. If we did not have the ESM we would be at the mercy of the people who, according to those opposed to the treaty, got us into this difficulty in the first place. We would be dependent on the capital markets. We are told continually that those in the capital markets caused the difficulties because capitalism is blatantly a flawed philosophy. If that were the case all the people who voted "No" or who supported that campaign should have supported the establishment of the ESM to ensure we were not at the mercy of the vulture capitalists, as they are eloquently called from time to time by Deputies opposed to the treaty.

I wish to return to what this is all about. Fundamentally, this is about ensuring we have a facility to access funds in the event of our not being able to go back to the markets when we exit the current programme in 2013. Had we voted "No" it would have made it more difficult for the Government and the State to access markets in the years ahead. There would have been a dramatic dislocation in society because we would have had vast cuts to social welfare, health and education. That is not fear mongering or scare-mongering. It is a fact. We would not have had the capacity to fund the State on a daily basis. The establishment of the ESM is a positive step taken by the European Union. Some may suggest it is a belated step and I have been critical of the European Union and the ECB as well.

The role of the ECB should be changed to make it more proactive in terms of investment and acting as the lender of last resort. Clearly, the riding instructions and the establishment of the ECB relate primarily to controlling inflation at the cost of everything else. The Government should be to the fore in examining the ECB, its role and whether it should be expanded to ensure it can see beyond inflation control as its single remit. This should be put at the heart of the agenda. We are well aware there are inherent flaws in the euro mechanism. This is because there are many banks with many regulatory systems but, at the same time, only one central bank which keeps control of the purse strings per se. However, if a bank in a given country runs into trouble and is important to the stability of the economy of that country, the sovereign is forced to bail it out. I accept the view of the "No" camp that this is inherently unfair but one cannot avoid something at all costs because it is unfair. The fact is we need a functioning banking system in a modern economy. If we let all the banks fail then we would have a basket case economy. It is inherently unfair that the Irish person is asked to shoulder the complete burden of private debt. It is inherently wrong as well.

The Government has a mandate in this regard. Those now in government did not have to wait for a treaty to secure a mandate. They were given a mandate last year by the people to go forth and re-negotiate. They promised they would do so. Prior to the election they stated that they would burn bondholders and diminish private debt and the burden on citizens. The Tánaiste said he would take his battle to Frankfurt. The only man who has taken the battle to Frankfurt so far is the Irish Examiner reporter, Diarmuid O'Flynn, who is there with 15 people from Ballyhea protesting outside the ECB at present. The Tánaiste has not gone there yet. Those in government need not have waited for this referendum to pass to strengthen their belief that they were doing the right thing by seeking a reduction of private debt. They promised the people last year that they would reduce it if they were elected. They got elected but the promises have diminished.

See this speech in context