Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Martin for his question. The point I made is that I see little point getting involved in an argument between the IMF and Commissioner Rehn. Deputy Martin is well aware the situation, as it happened a number of years ago, resulted in the country having to borrow €64 billion. The claims made by the Government at the time were rejected in respect of the hierarchy of bail-ins for the owners of banks, bondholders and so on. I am interested in continuing to negotiate with our colleagues at European level and with the troika in respect of the memorandum of understanding, which we hope to exit later this year. This solution will bring further benefits for the Irish taxpayer because of the economic train wreck that occurred a number of years ago. Far from arguing against further benefits for the country, the strategy has been very clear. This happened, as a matter of historic fact. What has been achieved since then? Interest rate reductions have taken place, the promissory note agreement with the ECB took place, and an extension of loan maturities was granted to Portugal and Ireland. As a consequence, yields have fallen from 15% to below 4%. The decision taken on 29 June last year must be implemented.

A number of issues about it arise, as Deputy Martin is aware. The single supervisory mechanism has been put in place, the capital 4 directive has been put in place and the process of dealing with resolution and recovery is under discussion as we speak. We hope to bring it to the next level at the next meeting. We also expect legislation from the Commission in respect of single resolution. All are important steps. The decision of 29 June is a credibility test for the European Council and the leaders of Europe. We want to see banking union implemented and we want to see it happen. In the lead-in to many discussions and meetings, comments will be made and interpreted in different ways. The decision has not been changed or altered. The decision was that the ESM could have the possibility of direct recapitalisation of banks. Since then, Cyprus happened and a bail-in hierarchy applied. In the past number of days, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Lithuania, Prime Minister Dombrovskis of Latvia, Prime Minister Katainen in Finland and Prime Minister Cameron in London and, yesterday, Prime Minister Letta in Italy. All of these leaders want to see the European Union follow through on the decisions it makes. It is a bad signal from the point of view of European Union citizens if they have the view that leaders make decisions at Council level and do not follow through. It was never the intention that banking union would be a reality by June but the next meeting of the Council, at the end of June and just over a year since the decision was made, must continue to send a very strong signal about the process we need here. Why enter into making a decision in the first place if leadership is not going to follow through on banking union? That is an issue I have raised at the European Council on the past two occasions and with the directly elected prime ministers of the countries I visited and the French President, the Prime Minister of Spain, the Prime Minister of Portugal and others to whom I have been speaking.

A meeting will take place later this evening in respect of the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and we want to see it become a reality because the budget for 2014 to 2020 is contained in it. When Deputy Martin and I were much younger, there were a number of exceptionally powerful leaders at European level. It is necessary there is a strong Germany, a strong France, strong Italy and a strong Spain. The big economies must be in a strong position to assist smaller countries as one of the principles of the EU.

See this speech in context