Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Let no one be fooled: there is no negotiating of exit terms from the troika programme. The programme is coming to an end after three years and we would have to negotiate to avoid exiting it. It is cynical, even by the standards of the Government, to try to redefine the end of the programme as "negotiating an exit", particularly as Fine Gael and the Labour Party voted against measures which delivered 70% of the savings in order to meet the programme's targets. The issue at hand is whether Ireland will have available to it a guaranteed fund from which it can draw if market rates are too expensive. Such a back-stop would reduce the risk of holding Irish bonds and as a result, reduce the cost of borrowing for the State.

The budget announced last month involved a large amount of putting off decisions. In nearly all areas of spending no multi-annual figures were provided and the Government threw up a large cloud of smoke over what its medium-term targets were. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, has commenced a round of meetings on which he provides expansive off-the-record briefings, but he has not provided a single scrap of paper stating what he hopes to achieve or the basis on which the Government will take its decisions. Reports claim that the Government's main objective is to avoid anything that looks like a programme. This morning's report that the it will probably not seek a formal back-stop arrangement was presented as usual in off-the-record briefings to journalists rather than in a forum in which questions could be asked. This is, of course, being claimed as a position of strength. If that is so, why did the Government not state up-front that it did not see the need for a conditional credit line? Why did it not produce a document showing that it would be of no benefit? Why did it enter into the process of stating it was exploring options?

Both the ECB and the IMF stated publicly that this credit facility would make Ireland's medium-term funding more secure and cheaper. The Commission took a position on both sides of the fence, claiming that the facility would help but would not be essential. No doubt one of the Commission's objectives is to limit the number of calls on the inadequate bailout funds provided by member states. Given past experience, what we are seeing is yet another example of a Government driven by putting political strategy first in everything. The single most defining characteristic of the Government's approach to European affairs has been its refusal to ever state exactly what its policy is. Its primary objective in negotiations is always political – manoeuvring to hail whatever emerges as a great victory.

We are two years into a process of discussing the future structures of Economic and Monetary Union, but the Government has yet to state what it thinks is required. When negotiating the fiscal treaty, for the first time ever, the Government produced no statement of objectives and no White Paper explaining its approach. From European sources, it emerged that the only requirement of the Government was that whatever emerged should involve avoiding a referendum. There was nothing about fixing the euro or Europe developing the ability to fund real growth measures, merely a political demand which was hidden from the people. This approach has been followed in every single negotiation. The failure to produce a specific proposal before negotiations is due not to a fear of showing our hand but to the fact that this might undermine the ability to claim credit for what emerges.

We saw this with the reductions in the interest rates on Ireland's EU loans. The reductions were delivered at summits for which Ireland had not put the issue on the agenda and circulated no papers. It had been seeking reductions of only one quarter the size of what was granted to other countries and automatically extended to Ireland. Within minutes of a deal we had not sought, the Taoiseach's staff were putting out statements rewriting history and indicating that doing nothing had actually been a cunning plan.

There was the agreement to break the link between sovereign and banking debt.  This also came about without a significant input from Ireland, but the Taoiseach and his Ministers were active in talking about the significant financial benefits which were about to flow to Ireland at the time. The Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, while encouraging talk that it could be worth up to €60 billion for Ireland, stated he would not say what we were looking for in terms of bank recapitalisation because it would give away our hand and we might only receive the minimum. Over one year later we have received exactly nothing and the Minister still will not say what we are looking for. As one commentator astutely put it, look closely and what one sees is not substance but masterful misdirection. This is happening yet again at the end of the troika programme. The first phase of the campaign-----

See this speech in context