Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

I will focus on three themes in my contribution, the first being the stance taken by some Members of the Opposition on legislation due to be passed by the Oireachtas, whereby if they are not happy with the view of the people or of the Oireachtas, they believe the appropriate course of action is to challenge it in the courts. A dangerous precedent is being set in that if Members of the Oireachtas, who are deeply privileged in the first instance to be among of a small number who influence the development of law and vote on it, are not happy with the outcome of the process or where they perceive the will of the people to be, they take it upon themselves to march to the High Court and beyond to challenge the process of which they are a member, funded by the taxpayer. We have seen this in regard to the Bill before the House and in the recent action taken by Sinn Féin on the role of the Referendum Commission. If these Members are not happy with the outcome of a decision taken by a democratic institution of which they are Members, they then challenge it in the courts. It is a privilege to be a Member of this Chamber or of the Seanad. Everyone who is in the Houses has worked hard to attain membership but if one is not happy with the outcome or with where the debate is going we are elected to put forward our views. It is not a healthy precedent or correct to march into the courts to legally challenge decisions taken by the Houses of the Oireachtas because one fails to win the argument in the Chamber.

My second point relates to views I regularly hear from some Members of the Opposition on the element of conditionality laid down in the ESM. I refer to the idea that it is wrong that conditions would be laid down for accessing the European Stability Mechanism in the future. I say to those speakers, as I did during the campaign, that some of the money going into the ESM is from Irish taxpayers raised through taxes in the country, some of which we will have borrowed. The idea, therefore, that we would be happy to have our money spent elsewhere without conditions is not something we could reasonably expect the Irish taxpayer to accept or tolerate. If it is not acceptable to the Irish taxpayer why would it be acceptable to taxpayers in any other country? It is in our interest, as a country that is paying into this fund, to ensure there are terms and conditions on how the money is spent.

The final point I wish to emphasise relates to the use of the ESM fund in the future. Colleagues have referred to the fact that we are at a crossroads within the eurozone and the European Union. We are at a point I hoped we would never reach, where one country may well find itself with a banking system that is too big to be allowed to fail but is also too big to save by itself. We are also at a point where some European leaders who should know better by now are openly talking about the prospect of another country leaving the eurozone. All of that has got us to a point where the certainties of the past in terms of what could happen are out the window and, equally, the certainty of what the policy response should be has to be revised. If we do not do so the cost of the uncertainty and of being unwilling to examine new ideas in response to a radically new situation would be great not only for the European economy but for the huge political solidarity that still exists within the European Union. The ESM on which we are voting offers a vehicle for that new thinking to be embraced.

During the summer, allowing the ESM to lend directly to banking systems across Europe, including Ireland, will be essential. If we do not break the links between sovereign and national banking systems, we will break the links that bind the euro together. The euro breaking apart is a real prospect. Even with the full amount the ESM could have, it might not be large enough to save some of the sovereign economies affected by the crisis. However, it will have the capacity to support their banking systems. It will also have the capacity to ensure the mistake made in Ireland is not made elsewhere and allow the Irish situation to be fixed.

Other actions need to be taken in terms of the fund. It should have a banking licence in order that it might have the ability to act quickly in the banking crisis brewing in other countries.

I will conclude by emphasising some of the points I made during the debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill 2012 yesterday. Certain ideas were unthinkable 12 months ago because they were unnecessary. However, we have reached the point at which they are thinkable and necessary. For example, how might a banking union be put in place? The ESM will form a corner piece of that union and the time has arrived to consider such ideas. We must discuss and evaluate new ideas. For example, what might a fiscal union mean for this country and would we want to be inside it? This discussion will raise uncomfortable prospects for us. It will raise the need to examine the treaties to determine whether they provide the ideas and architecture to complete the euro project. There is one certainty - if we do not complete it and finally put in place the ideas and systems it requires, it will not weather the storm in its current form, given the challenges that lie ahead. We must face this certainty and act. I hope the ESM offers the lever that will allow European politics to move ahead of European and global economics. This will occur soon. If it does not, the cost will be too great for any of us to contemplate.

See this speech in context