Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)

The normal parliamentary niceties do not usually extend to colleagues commenting on the progress of the debate and how long people have spoken for. Nevertheless, it is somewhat striking, if not nauseating, to recall that on the Order of Business this morning there were several war dances on the other side of the Chamber because of the amount of time afforded to the debate, because it was not long enough, because it was to be wrapped up today and that it was being rammed through and so on. Many of those due to speak on the other side of the Chamber this afternoon fell short of the time allocated to them. They are entitled to do so and I am unsure whether I will get through ten minutes. I may do so or I may wish I had longer to speak. However, it is somewhat hard to take.

Deputy Lyons referred to the requirement of honesty and basic straightforwardness. Perhaps it is too much to ask for when people come to the House on the Order of Business and call for extended time for debate but when that opportunity is not taken up subsequently. Deputy Doherty make a substantial contribution earlier. Deputy Tóibín spoke some minutes ago and said more or less what Deputy Doherty said earlier and then went off about his business. It is simply not credible for Deputy McDonald to engage in a song and dance about it. It is not honest. People may take the view that the public will not notice but people notice such things. Deputy Lyons suggested there must be a requirement of honesty and fair play but that is not happening in this debate.

This dishonesty is precisely what occurred and what was at the heart of the "No" campaign throughout the four weeks. The campaign was littered with misrepresentations. There is always a margin of appreciation in political debate. A given set of events can be interpreted in various ways by people with different political perspectives. This is understood since we live in a democracy. I can maintain that a certain course of events will ensue and another could say that is not the case and that something else will occur. However, certain facts arise in most debates, for example, what treaties actually state on the face of them.

Time and again during the past four weeks Sinn Féin made claims about the stability treaty and what it contained or otherwise in the teeth of what it actually reads. This was the case, for example, in respect of issues such as conditionality. The "No" side told the people that the fiscal rules were being placed in the Constitution at one stage. They are not. Over and over, Sinn Féin told the people that the Court of Justice of the European Union could fine countries for failing to keep to the rules. That is not true. The court has a role in respect of supervising the transposition of the rules but not in respect of compliance. These may sound like technical issues that may not be of interest to most people but they were misrepresentations of the truth by Sinn Féin.

I understand and accept that we may have different perspectives but I do not accept and I will never accept a misrepresentation or straightforward lying to the people in respect of what was put before them. It calls into question the credibility of any political party if that is the trade they engage in. On the first day of the campaign Sinn Féin cheerfully and willfully misquoted three professional economists. I never heard a word of apology about it. The party lifted half of what these people stated and put it forward as an argument to vote "No". There is a margin of appreciation in our arguments and I have often argued with Deputy Doherty on these matters. To misrepresent people, however, is fundamentally intellectual dishonesty and amounts to crossing the line for any political party to seek to do so, to do so and to try to get away with it. Thankfully, Sinn Féin did not get away with it. These actions have reduced the party's credibility, at least in my eyes and as a Member who perhaps was more willing to listen to and engage with Sinn Féin representatives than others. Perhaps that is understandable given other people's experiences with Sinn Féin in the past. I am open to Sinn Féin and all political parties and Members and I am happy to engage in free and honest debate. However, what they did during the past four weeks was anything but honest. It was profoundly dishonest and has changed my perspective and view on that party's willingness, ability and preparedness to engage honestly in the debate. It colours my view of them and ultimately, in time, I believe it will colour the views of the people in respect of that organisation and party. Of that there is no question in my mind.

What is the role of any parliamentarian, whether he is in government or opposition, when presented with a Bill introduced by the Government? It is to examine the Bill, read it, assess it and determine whether it is in the interests of the people who elected us to the House.

I have not heard any argument in this debate to suggest that making available a back-up fund in the eurozone, one which I hope will not be required by Ireland although that may be the case at some point, could run counter to the interests of Irish people. I accept that one could quibble with aspects of the European Stability Mechanism. I agree with the Government's decision to support the position articulated by the new French Finance Minister and others in recent days that the fund should be able to provide direct funding support to banks in circumstances which would, I presume, be circumscribed.

The Sinn Féin position is that it agrees to the amendment to Article 136 of the treaties and accepts in principle the idea of an emergency fund but wants five different things to be done to change the fund. It is foraging around to try to find a reason to oppose the ESM in what is another example of dishonesty. This is a case of Sinn Féin deciding first how it wants to vote and asking how it will reach a position where it can half credibly state to people that there is a reason to vote against the European Stability Mechanism. Its position is devoid of credibility, realism and honesty.

I will focus on a few issues. Sinn Féin believes an emergency fund should be established provided five conditions are met. When it makes proposals, such as one to provide direct funding for banks, it does so as if it thought them up. When one listens to speeches made by its spokespersons, one always hears the party has argued for this position or proposed that measure as if it had suddenly thought up these proposals or as if the Minister and Government had not been arguing and pressing for concessions during every waking hour.

See this speech in context