Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment by Deputy Doherty. The moral case for retroactive recapitalisation is absolutely clear. This is a country with less than 1% of the population of Europe shouldering the burden of 42% of the cost of the total European banking crisis. Despite all the attempts by the Government, echoed by right-wing economists, to suggest that this is a done deal, that it is over and that the banks and the bailout are not a problem for us any more, this remains the central political issue in Ireland today. It is central to the nature of the budget produced the other day. The €64 billion is an important part of our massive national debt. Furthermore, the banking crisis and the policies around the banking crisis are responsible for the explosion of our debt, from a debt to GDP ratio of 25% to over 120% as it currently stands. All this is rooted in the policy of bailing out banks and developers at the expense of working class people. The payments that we make on the national debt are rooted in this decision. Next year, for every €5 collected in tax, €1 will go to pay the bondholders. This is rooted in the decision made in the interests of the European banking system and made at the behest and under the threat, undoubtedly, of the European Central Bank, but it was not made in the interests of working class people here or anywhere else in Europe.

The legal case for an application is absolutely clear. An application can be made to the European Stability Mechanism. The other finance ministers can say "No" or "Yes" but at least we would have clarity. The Minister can and should make an application. The question is why the Minister is less than enthusiastic about making such an application. I believe the answer is simple: it is to avoid political embarrassment with his fellow finance ministers throughout Europe and political embarrassment at home with the exposure of the strategy of being the good pupil of austerity.

The source of that embarrassment stems from June 2012 and the Eurogroup summit and the statements secured at the time: "We affirm that it is imperative to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns" and "The Eurogroup will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector with the view of further improving the sustainability of the well-performing adjustment programme." We all know how this was translated at home by the Government. It was translated by the Taoiseach and the then Tánaiste into "a game changer" and "a seismic shift" with the assistance of most of the media in the country. The media also assisted this translation into the message which went home for political benefit, which was that Irish working people were going to get our money back in respect of this deal and that was what had been agreed. The reality was at that stage it was not written down and we pointed out as much. I am sure at that stage the Minister got a nod and a wink from Angela Merkel and others to the effect that something would be forthcoming, but it was not written down at the time. It is like what they say about an oral contract: it is worth the paper it is written on. It was oversold at home, it never transpired and it is now perfectly clear from all statements etc. from all the leading figures throughout Europe that the establishment in Europe has no interest in this retroactive recapitalisation taking place.

I believe the Minister, Deputy Noonan, is keen to avoid the embarrassment of going to the other finance ministers and asking whether we could have our money back now because that was what we agreed two years ago. Simply put, that is not the way so-called European solidarity works. European solidarity works in the interests of the banks, with people throughout Europe paying for the banks again and again. Ordinary people do not get any money back from that. It is seen as a little impolite to go and ask for money back for the benefit of ordinary people as opposed to for the banks.

The Minister would like to avoid a definitive "No", although that is most likely the answer he would get. The total fund available for all of Europe for recapitalisation, retroactive or otherwise, is €60 billion. Ireland would have a case for €64 billion. Clearly, the ESM and the ability to recapitalise banks directly are entirely inadequate. Moreover, there is the question of political embarrassment at home. The whole strategy of the Government on this issue, that is, being the good pupil of austerity and getting a slap on the back from the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel, would lie completely in tatters and the idea of an alternative strategy would be given succour.

We should pass this amendment and send the Minister, Deputy Noonan, to ask clearly for direct retroactive recapitalisation and we should get a clear answer. Regardless of the answer and even if the answer was "No", which I believe is the most likely scenario by a long shot, the moral case would remain for this being not our debt and for an alternative strategy to be put in place.

A left government would put in place a debt repudiation strategy for this debt which is simply not our debt. It would impose a moratorium on debt repayments. It would initiate a debt audit commission made up of representatives of ordinary people, progressive left economists and experts from throughout the world. Essentially, we should and still can refuse to pay this debt which is not our debt.

See this speech in context