Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand Deputy Pringle is sharing time with Deputies John Halligan, Catherine Murphy, Mattie McGrath and Michael Healy-Rae.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes statements by leading EU politicians and policy makers that the crisis of the Eurozone provides an opportunity to push ahead towards a fiscal/political union;

further notes that:

-- EU law making from 2014 will be put on a straight population basis;

-- the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, has announced that the unelected EU Commission will set out a range of fundamental EU treaty changes by early next year;

-- the Eurozone has developed a hegemonic economic model;

-- the plans for enforcing balanced budgets and draconian fiscal rules on the 17 Eurozone countries do nothing to address the sovereign debt and bank solvency crisis;

and

-- increasingly the EU is losing legitimacy and authority among ordinary citizens in EU states;

recognises that:

-- there has been no proper discussion of the fundamental flaws in the Eurozone from an Irish perspective;

-- the Eurozone exchange rate is generally unsuitable for Ireland's unique pattern of export and import trade both inside and outside the Eurozone; and

-- the Eurozone put us under the control of the European Central Bank; and as a consequence the Government has no economic policy beyond 'preserving the Euro';

and

calls on the Government to:

-- initiate a wide ranging public debate through civil society on the future direction of the European Union; and

-- ensure that treaty change includes a process to allow a Eurozone member state to voluntarily leave the Eurozone.

I think it appropriate at this time in our six-month Presidency of the European Union and on the 40th anniversary of our joining the EU that we evaluate where we are and where we are likely to go in the future. We need to move beyond the debate that Europe has been good for us, vote for jobs and follow the money. We all know now that those slogans were a con and are hollow. There is no doubt that there are big changes coming down the line in terms of our relationship with the European Union and what it will mean for us as a nation and indeed whether we will be a nation after those changes.

The Government is content to allow the debate in Europe to move on to treaty change and the development of a full banking union. Most European commentators and politicians are calling for closer and closer integration. The Taoiseach said in this House in June 2012 that "the Deputy asks if this country is going to be walked into a federalised Europe and the answer is "No"." Yet we see the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, saying that a federal Europe will soon become a reality. He has insisted that the fiscal union will lead to an intensified political union for all 27 member states. On 16 May last, the French President, François Hollande, called for a European government with full powers to deal with all the issues involved in solving the financial crisis.

So are we really to believe the Taoiseach when he gives us this categorical answer? Unfortunately, I think we should have learned by now that we cannot. There is an attitude within the European elite that we should not waste this crisis. The crisis should be used to push on with European integration and the creation of a European super state. Speaking in May 2010, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said:

We have a shared currency but no real economic or political union. This must change. If we were to achieve this, therein lies the opportunity of the crisis and beyond the economic, after the shared currency, we will perhaps dare to take further steps, for example for a European army.

It seems the deal on the promissory note has brought some benefit but it has put the repayment of the debt onto future generations and it has also put real easing of the debt burden off the agenda. According to Government sources it seems there might be a success with regard to the banking situation with the result that the European Stability Mechanism will buy stakes in our banks while a fraction of the taxpayers' money will be recovered. The trade-off for these successes appears to be that we will go along with whatever integration that Germany and the Commission suggest. It seems there will not need to be a referendum in Ireland because the Irish people cannot be trusted to give the answer that Europe wants. Unfortunately, this has been the trend with regard to every Irish Government's attitude to Europe; we do what we are told when we are told. If the people have the cheek to say something different then we will continually be asked until we return the right answer.

This motion asks for a wide-ranging debate about the future direction of Europe. This is needed because there are many things that are happening and developing throughout this crisis which are not for the good of citizens but instead are aimed at the preservation of banks and the financial system.

The direction of all policy in Europe is now being directed by Germany. The upcoming German general election seems to be the deciding factor in how policy in Europe progresses. Where now are the so-called founding principles of a Europe founded on the needs of all member states and on the principles of community and co-operation? Since 2010 European policy has been driven by the needs of the eurozone and the wishes of Germany, aided by the Netherlands, Finland and Austria on the sidelines, pushing their hardline austerity agenda. France wants to seem to be in the passenger seat acting as co-pilot when in reality it is only there to take the bad look off German dominance and in order to maintain a semblance of democracy and co-decision making. The aim is to place the neoliberal agenda at the heart of Europe. It had been said that this crisis would signal the end of neoliberalism and the free market capitalism that it espouses. It certainly does not seem to be the case. As Paul Krugman has observed, "the drive for austerity was about using the crisis, not solving it". For example, in recent years the Commission has called for the privatisation of water utilities in bailout countries even though the Commission is supposed to be neutral on these issues, according to Article 345 of the EU treaties. In the case of Italy, the ECB secretly called for the full liberalisation of local public services which should apply in particular to the supply of local services through large-scale privatisations. Thankfully, for the people of Italy, this agenda has been stalled by the Italian Supreme Court which ruled it to be unconstitutional. What hope is there of a similar outcome here?

The creation of Water Ireland is one of the planks of the troika bailout agenda. The setting of the tariff for water charging and the regulation of the water market is to be governed by the Commission for Energy Regulation. We have seen how it has liberalised the energy market and pushed up the price of energy in Ireland in order to attract competition. What will happen when the service level agreements that Water Ireland enters into with local authorities come up for review by CER after 2017? Will we see competitive tenders for the replacement of service-level agreements? I have no doubt that we will and the agenda of the troika will be fulfilled.

The second part of this motion calls on the Government to use the upcoming treaty amendments proposed by the Commission to ensure that provision is made for a member state to voluntarily leave the eurozone or cease to use the euro as its currency. Currently there is no provision in the treaties for a member state to leave the eurozone. The only provision in the treaties is for a member state to leave the Union itself. Indeed, there is considerable consternation in the ECB with regard to this provision.

In a legal working paper published in December 2009, the ECB considered the provision allowing for a member state to leave the euro and therefore the Union itself. The paper questioned why the drafters of the Lisbon treaty, "introduced such an abuse-prone provision into the treaties". The paper went on to conclude that the exit clause is, "one of the major faults of the Lisbon Treaty". The paper views the creation of economic and monetary union as the, "irrevocability of the substitution by the euro of the currencies of the participating member states and to the irreversibility of the monetary union process". If this statement is true and the Government agrees, then we are on a one-way journey to the creation of a federal European super state and the statement by the Taoiseach last June was clearly misleading the House on the purpose of the European project. The logical conclusion of this statement is that there has to be further integration within the eurozone and the creation of a federal Europe. The only solution to the crisis we have suffered for the past five years is to create a transfer union and full economic and political integration. There is another path that could be delivered if an exit procedure from the EMU were to be included in the treaty negotiations that the Commission has signalled.

I refer to the period 1993 to 1999 in Ireland. This is when the phrase the Celtic tiger was coined. During that period we had a genuine economic development built on having a competitive currency that floated freely on international markets. This is not to be confused with the period between 2001 and 2008, when the economy was built on property speculation and the availability of cheap credit that fuelled the property boom. Such a boom was predicted by many commentators who flagged the danger of pinning economies at different cycles to a single currency at a fixed rate. The Central Bank's only role was to keep inflation low. This was a time when Ireland, Spain and the other peripheral countries needed higher interest rates to control credit demands while Germany and the so-called core countries needed low rates to stimulate their economies. This motion suggests options that will put the citizens of Ireland and the citizens of Europe first, and not the interests of the European elites. The option of leaving the EMU should be available to us. In my view it is the only option that would give us the opportunity of coming out of this crisis.

Our own currency that would float with its own exchange rate would give us a tool to ensure competitiveness in the economy. The circumstances that would make the economy grow would be under our own control. Expanding domestic money supply could inflate away the burden of debt both corporate and personal and make our exports even more competitive, thus increasing domestic demand for goods and services. This would also allow the Government to invest in jobs and growth in the economy. In order to do this we have to have control of monetary policy in the State and not to be under the control of the ECB. The only way to achieve that goal is to ensure there is provision in the treaties for an exit from EMU. If the Taoiseach really has the interests of the Irish people at heart he will work to ensure that the treaties are amended to provide for it. We need to have all policy options available to us in order to build a recovery.

In recent weeks the President expressed concerns about the direction that Europe has been taking. He talked about the hegemonic development of economic policy in the EU, of a Europe dominated by the interests of one member state with no consideration for any other interests. There has also been comment on the disconnect of European citizens from the Union. This is very true and can be seen all across Europe. The policy that is being pursued is indifferent to the social consequences of those very same policies. This has led the Governor of the ECB, Mario Draghi to declare that social Europe is dead. We have seen the massive protests and national strikes in Greece, protests in Portugal and the rise of theindignadosin Spain. Youth unemployment all across Europe is at record levels with more than 26 million people unemployed. Emigration has devastated families and communities all across the country. It is acting as pressure relief valve and allowing the Taoiseach and his colleagues to implement the crippling austerity programme of the troika.

The European Union should be based on a union of member states which work together for the benefit of all European peoples, recognising that it is in the interests of all citizens that the Union works together and not for the benefit of the financial sector, international speculators and a political ideology that places their interests above the interests of everyone else.

The Government has an obligation to outline to the people where the EMU project is leading and what it sees the shape of the Union as being in the years to come as the drive towards a political and financial union continues. The debate should take place away from the heat of a debate on an imminent treaty change and in circumstances in which citizens can hear clearly what is being planned in their name. Alongside this debate, the Government should be mandated to work to ensure an option of withdrawal from EMU is enshrined in the EU treaties. This is the only option that will give the people the opportunity to change policy and the direction our membership of the European Union is taking.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague for tabling this timely motion, on which I welcome the opportunity to speak. The most recent figures show that approximately 26 million people are unemployed across Europe, while 150 million are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. This is the European Union as we know it today - a union which is not working. So-called experts on both sides of the fence are beginning to reach a consensus that eurozone policies are pushing countries into a black hole from which there will be no escape. People in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and other countries are suffering the terrible consequences of austerity policies which are designed primarily on the basis of a consideration of their impact on speculative markets rather than by reference to sufficient compassion and empathy with the predicament in which we find millions of European citizens, yet, while eurozone authorities continue to seek stability on the backs of the people mentioned, all indications are that we are sinking deeper and deeper into recession and stagnation. Peripheral countries such as Ireland are being confronted with stark choices because of the crisis and structural weakness of the eurozone.

The solution being pushed on us by the European Union is dramatically unfair and unjust. It imposes huge costs on working people who we all accept are not to blame for the crisis in the first place and all this to save the euro. We have committed ourselves to decades of austerity, despite a growing consensus among economists, including prominent economists in America, and politicians right across the world that it is not working. A review of Ireland's bailout programme by a Brussels-based think tank last week concluded that the deepening of the eurozone recession could be a central problem in Ireland's full return to the financial markets. The evidence is there that the economies of a growing number of countries, our own included, are being impoverished, while countries at the centre remain in recession. It is interesting that the latest statistics confirm that France is now deep in a second recession, while the economy in Germany grew by just 0.1% in the first quarter of the year, following a 0.7% fall in late 2012. The Italian economy recently receded for the seventh quarter in a row. The outlook for the entire eurozone must be admitted to be grim. Youth unemployment stands at 25% generally and almost 60% in some peripheral countries, yet the European Union continues to adhere to a version of a logistical economic theory, the assumptions of which have little or no regard for social consequences. Unless desperate calls for reform from the ECB are listened to and a dual strategy of price stability and growth is adopted, this will, according to experts all over the world, continue.

Eurozone policies are deeply flawed on a number of fronts, none more so than the fixation with debt reduction, while, effectively, ignoring GDP growth and the need for structural reform. It does not make sense to many of us. As it was, the eurozone was incapable of maintaining one currency, interest rate policy and exchange rate policy for economies with different levels of productivity, different implicit economic competitiveness levels, different resource endowments and different degrees of exposure to economic shocks. The powers that be in the eurozone made a sweeping decision that countries with very different economies and burdens conformed to the same stability growth criteria; a maximum 3% budget deficit and a 60% debt-to-GDP ratio. This one-size-fits-all approach makes no sense. If people think Ireland will come out of the recession in the next few years, they should think again. It is not going to happen on the basis of the policies being generated throughout Europe and forced through by Germany and France. CSO statistics show that, in Ireland, 700,000 people are in poverty, while an estimated 5,000 people are homeless. As I stated, 26 million people are unemployed across Europe, while 150 million are at risk of poverty. How can the eurozone be considered to be working, given these statistics?

It would be interesting to hear the Government's views on whether it would consider bringing forward a European Union referendum Bill as is currently being discussed in the United Kingdom. The draft UK Bill promises that by the end of 2017 the British public will be asked whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. It is an indictment of our political system that there is no rational debate about this possible scenario, notwithstanding the fact that arguments for a managed exit from the eurozone are becoming more credible by the day. Again, I refer the Government to economists across the world who say the make-up of the eurozone and the policies of austerity within it are failing. The American policy of job creation and growth is not based on austerity; it is based on internal spending and the assumption that if one gets people to spend rather than force austerity on them, the economy will grow. The two mechanisms for growth are external investment and internal spending. We are not generating internal spending. I am not an economist by any means, but I listen to what many of them say. Unless we can generate internal spending, we are not going anywhere.

In recent months the European authorities have started to make statements on rebalancing austerity, which is very much akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. At least some of these authorities are now grudgingly accepting the evidence that their short-term austerity doctrine has been enormously damaging to the eurozone and global stability. There is a real and valid argument for a managed exit by Ireland from the eurozone and, while I am not too sure about it either, the Government has a duty, at the very least, to open a debate on it.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Thomas Pringle for tabling this Private Members' motion. An opinion poll carried out across Europe in recent weeks showed that people were becoming more Eurosceptic. There is a lack of vision. We see bits and pieces of things happening in the absence of an overall vision of what kind of European Union will emerge at the end of this crisis. We are still in the middle of that crisis. I was looking at a recent paper by Jürgen Habermas, from which I have quoted before, in which he referred to the gulf between citizens' opinion and will formation, on the one hand, and the policies actually adopted to solve pressing problems, on the other. He says that what unites European citizens today are the Eurosceptical mindsets that have become more pronounced in all member states during the crisis, albeit in each country for different and rather polarising reasons. He says crisis management is pushed and implemented in the first place by a large camp of pragmatic politicians who pursue an incrementalist agenda but lack a comprehensive perspective. They are orientated more towards Europe because they want to avoid the far more dramatic and, presumably, costly alternative of abandoning the euro.

That is a reasonable analysis. He is quite prescriptive in saying that if one wants to preserve the monetary union, it is no longer enough, given the structural imbalances between the national economies, to provide loans to over-indebted states so that each should improve its competitiveness by its own efforts. What is required instead is solidarity, a co-operative effort from a shared political perspective to promote growth and competitiveness in the eurozone as a whole. Such an effort will require Germany and several other countries to accept short and medium-term negative redistribution effects in their longer-term self-interest. He is saying this is a classic example of solidarity. We are seeing bits and pieces that are more like crumbs from the table, although I am sure they were hard fought.

A small number of countries are dictating policy at European level in their self-interest. It is hard to see how the European Union can survive if that continues. The idea that EU lawmaking from 2014 will be done on a straight population basis gives large countries like France and Germany an even more dominant position. Ireland becomes even smaller and more insignificant. We can see the way the unequal way countries are treated, with Ireland and Cyprus good examples, in that situation.

We are being marched into a federal Europe in an undemocratic way behind closed doors. We will be presented with a treaty as a fait accompliand it will probably be sold in the same way as other treaties, such as the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty. We may not be given a raft of money but it will be sold on the basis that we might get a little debt forgiveness.

I opposed the Maastricht treaty, as did the Tánaiste. We were in the same party at the time and I remember knocking on doors on that issue. I was no fan of the Maastricht treaty because I thought that if it went wrong, those who would pay the price would be the people who are paying the price at the moment. There is no sign of European solidarity and until we can see that vision, the people and citizens of Europe will not continue to accept what is happening. It will come to a flashpoint in different ways in different countries but the European elections next year will be a decent test of what the citizens think.

The European Union was founded on debt forgiveness and Germany was the biggest recipient of that under the London debt agreement of 1953. The only thing that seems to be remembered is hyperinflation. A reminder is necessary because wonderful things happened in the post-war movement. One was the vision of Beveridge and it is astonishing to think that, in the middle of the war, he could come up with the social vision needed in terms of protection provided by the state. It gave people real hope. We lack any similar vision coming from the European Union today, yet the economic crisis for some countries is on a par with the period after the Second World War. There is a failure to articulate a social vision or if there can be a social Europe after the crisis is over. The only thing that is important is to keep banks and the European economy functioning. If the European Union is not there for the citizens of Europe, what is its purpose?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a pity the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not get to call me in the last debate but I will forgive him for tonight.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And Standing Orders.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Thomas Pringle on tabling this well-researched and carefully crafted Private Members' motion. Like most Private Members' motions from the Independent group or the Technical Group, there is little interest in it. A recent motion was tabled by Deputy Tom Fleming and during the debate on it, the Minister finished her script seven minutes before the end. She sat down and the Chamber fell idle for seven minutes even though the Government accepted the motion. I would have thought some Government Members would be interested and that some backbenchers would be present in the Chamber if Ministers cannot be here. Sin mar atá sé.

This is the 40th anniversary of joining what we called the EEC. I remember, as a buachaill óg, canvassing for it and supporting it. It was my first time being involved in politics, and from the agricultural point of view, it was sold as a wonderful group of countries supporting each other in a European-wide movement. This is the third or fourth time we have had the European Presidency and this time we are in the depths of a severe crisis of austerity. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who is in the Chamber, is making a hames of it because he promised us so much when he was in our position and I was on the opposite side. He told us what he was going to do with the bondholders and everything else and how he was going to transform everything when the last shower, including myself, made a hames of it.

I voted for the bank guarantee. I was summoned to Dublin and I was told that if we did not vote for it, the euro would be gone overnight, there would be no money in the ATMs and, worse, we could not quantify the number of credit unions that would be closed down. I begged the then Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, to come home and leave the deal on the table because I knew they would be over after us. We could have got a better deal, as the Tánaiste rightly said when he voted against it. When he got into the driving seat in the cockpit, the Tánaiste had a change of heart and decided to support everything he had spoken against.

Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to being in a party with the Tánaiste opposing the Maastricht treaty. I have an idea how many parties Deputy Catherine Murphy was in but I cannot count on two hands the number of parties the Tánaiste was in. It is like the flight of the earls, from party to party to where he is now.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do you hear your man speaking?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was in one party and now I am an Independent. The Tánaiste can speak for himself. He is in a spin because he does not know where to stop. We are in an unequal union. We are being mistreated and bullied in Europe for the failures of many aspects of our governance and financial issues. As Deputy Pringle pointed out, the Europeans banks and regulators allowed money to be pumped recklessly into our banks when they were bust and the situation was finished and crazy. This Government and the previous Government expect citizens to pay it back. We have had not one penny, shilling or cent of a write-off. I called the so-called bailout a cleanout and voted against it because we got reasonable interest rates from the IMF but penal interest rates from our so-called partners and compatriots. In crisis, our friends cleaned us out and now they are telling us they will give us a longer time to pay it back but that every last cent must be paid back.

Recently, we were told by leading EU politicians and policymakers that the crisis of the eurozone provides an opportunity to push towards fiscal and political union. The speak we get from these people is hilarious. EU lawmaking from 2014 will be put on a straight population basis. Live horse and get grass. The President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, has announced the unelected European Commission will set out a range of fundamental EU treaty changes by the end of next year.

It would be more important for Mr. Barroso and others to implement some of the things they promised under the Lisbon and other treaties. One of those promises related to the number of Commissioners. I understand that will not change. I do not wish to lose our Commissioner, but it makes a fallacy of the promises if the change will not happen. The cost of each Commissioner is ferocious during this time of savage austerity. The plans for imposing balanced budgets and draconian fiscal rules on the 17 eurozone countries do nothing to address the sovereign debt and banks solvency crisis.

We do not seem to be able to have a referendum on anything. Whatever else we have, the attitude is, "Do not let the people of Ireland vote again". The Paddies are not to be trusted with a vote. They voted on the Lisbon treaty and rejected it, so they had to be cajoled, begged and browbeaten into voting for it under all kinds of threats. They are not to be given the vote again, regardless of what it is about. That is certain. The Tánaiste made a great transition during his career to being a true anti-democrat, not allowing the people to have any vote. However, there will be a vote, sooner rather than later, and he will get his answer from the people. It will be the one he deserves.

The current situation is impossible. We are kowtowing to the German diktat. Deputy Murphy and others referred to the Second World War and the austerity that followed. As I have said many times previously, this is the third world war, but without bullets. It is financial. It is a takeover again by the greed of the Germans. It is pure bully-boy tactics. Nobody can talk to Ms Merkel. We do not even try to talk to her. Instead, we go over and pat her on the head and get a pat back. It is a case of "Go back Paddies" and "Croppies lie down", as if we are a backward people and not to be listened to. Why would we be listened to when we do not have a Taoiseach or Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to fight for the rights of the people in this country?

I could say a great deal more but I will not take up the speaking time of others. I note that the discussions for next week under the Presidency are on energy and taxation. The energy that was generated in the last Dáil by the Tánaiste against the last Government was merely the energy of hot air.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work of Deputy Thomas Pringle and the Technical Group and I thank them for allowing me to share their speaking time.

People are genuinely afraid of what lies ahead for them in the eurozone. We are faced with a massive debt burden which will fall on future generations, people who had nothing to do with incurring the debt. People who have not yet been born will pay taxes to pay off this massive debt. We lost an opportunity for a write down and I will always regret that.

Our autonomy in terms of looking after and governing ourselves is being taken away on a continuous basis. The diktats that affect our farming community, our environmental interests and so forth all come from Europe. Funnily enough, if people in France or Greece are told by the European leaders they must do something, they will resist and fight. However, if we are told to jump, our politicians reply, "Exactly how high do you want us to jump?". It has been proven that the policies of austerity are not working. People are crippled by debt. They are demoralised and fed up. They are also genuinely worried about the future of the eurozone. There are currently 427,000 people unemployed in Ireland. How many people have left this country over the last number of years? If they had stayed here they would undoubtedly be on the live register because there is no work for them.

The politics of austerity are not working. We must generate and create work. I genuinely believe that our political leaders in Europe do not care about the future of Ireland. All they want to do is squeeze the last drop of blood and the last euro they can from us. There is a severe imbalance in the eurozone at present. I believe the euro crisis will continue for many years and it will be a long time before Ireland will be able to return to the markets to secure funding. The farming community is terrified of what the future holds due to the changes in the single farm payment and other supports. These supports are necessary if they are to survive into future years and be able to pass their family farms to their children and grandchildren.

We must all work together but we cannot simply lie down or bow down for everything. We do not want to go over to Europe to be patted on the head, as Deputy Mattie McGrath said. That actually happened and it was not nice to see it. We are a proud nation. We are a nation of workers, if we had the opportunity to work. We want to stand up for ourselves and earn our keep. We do not want to be bowing all the time and accepting everything that is thrown at us. That has been the case not just under this Government but also under previous Governments. Again, our response to Europe is to ask how high it wants us to jump. I do not agree with that. It is wrong.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is sharing time with Deputies Hannigan, Lawlor, Connaughton, Kevin Humphreys and Áine Collins.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

“recognises the achievements of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union contributing to stability, jobs and growth;

supports the Government's ongoing work to promote measures which will allow the European Union to respond effectively to the crisis currently facing the Union, particularly those steps which will help break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns;

underlines the importance of measures being prioritised by the Government to foster jobs and competitiveness; and

emphasises the importance of deepening public engagement with the EU and the need to ensure that democratic legitimacy and accountability remain fundamental pillars of the Union.”

There can be little doubt that the major challenge faced by this country in restoring our economy must be addressed in the context of our relationship with the European Union. This Government's commitment to restore our country's finances and to rebuild Ireland's reputation on the international stage is now well installed and delivering results. As we undertook this challenge, it was clear that Ireland's seventh Presidency of the Council of the European Union would play an important role. That is the reason the Government has focused the Irish Presidency policy programme on the most pressing issues facing Ireland and the EU today. As Deputy Healy-Rae said, Ireland is a proud nation and that is why, as Robert Emmet said, we take our place among the nations of the earth and we use the opportunity that is afforded to us now to play a leadership role in Europe and to dedicate our Presidency to the objectives of stability, jobs and growth.

When we look back over the past five months, we know that this was the right course. It was right for Ireland and for the European Union. Rarely have our national interests been so in tune with the overarching objectives of the Union. Ireland's recovery and Europe's recovery are inextricably linked. The House can be assured that the Government will continue to do all that it can during the remaining 40 days of the Presidency to deliver on the commitments set out in the programme that we laid before the Oireachtas last January.

Unemployment, especially the unacceptably high rates of youth unemployment, is the one of gravest challenges facing Europe today. Without decisive action the problem will have devastating social consequences for communities and states across our continent, now and for generations to come. This is why, as Presidency, we have worked, and will continue to all that we can, to tackle the crisis. In February, we secured agreement on the youth guarantee, ensuring that all under-25s without work will receive an offer of meaningful work, training or education. Implementation will be supported by the decision of the European Council to allocate €6 billion a new youth employment initiative.

The Presidency is also focussing on broadening access to education and will work to secure agreement with the European Parliament on proposals such as the Erasmus for All programme and the professional qualifications directive.

We have also sought to stimulate smart and sustainable growth in key areas of the economy to create the jobs of the future. To underpin growth in these areas, we are working to reach agreement on programmes such as Horizon 2020, which will support research and innovation in Europe.

The Single Market is the one of the greatest achievements of the Union. I refer to an integrated marketplace of 500 million consumers making it as easy as possible for firms to expand their businesses beyond national boundaries. Over the past two decades, access to the Single Market has provided SMEs with new opportunities but has also delivered strong benefits to consumers through increased competition. The Single Market remains incomplete, however. That is why we set about unlocking its full potential, particularly for SMEs. Growing businesses is the key driver of job creation. Proposals that the Presidency has delivered on, such as the accounting directive, will simplify financial reporting requirements for millions of European micro and small enterprises. The Unified Patent Court will bring protection of intellectual property rights within their reach. Finalising the public procurement package will streamline SME access to markets accounting for nearly one fifth of EU GDP.

The Presidency is also laying important foundations for the digital single market, creating coherent market rules that will support new growth areas. Most job creation comes from fast-growing young firms and, as holders of the Presidency, we will do all we can to support and foster the growth in these areas. We remain hopeful that we will reach agreement at the Council on the main elements of the data protection package before the end of June, and are making solid progress on the collective rights management and e-identification files.

The Presidency has also secured agreement on other proposals, such as the Union customs code, to reduce red tape for business and the re-use of public sector information that can also generate growth that, in turn, can support job creation in Europe. In addition to working to release the full potential of its Internal Market, the Irish Presidency also wants to open up new markets for exporters across the Union, providing Europe with new sources of growth and employment. The Presidency is working to advance a range of trade agreements with partners in Asia. Making progress on trade negotiations with Canada remains an important priority also. We have set ourselves the ambitious goal of securing a mandate for the start of negotiations on a trade and investment partnership with the United States. Such an agreement would contribute greatly to boosting trade, growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.

One of the major challenges facing the Presidency in the weeks that remain is finalising negotiations with the European Parliament on the EU budgetary framework for the next seven years, the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, for the period 2014 to 2020. This is important precisely because the MFF provides vital support for growth and employment at national, regional and local levels in every member state. In addition to supporting a continuing strong and well-funded CAP, which supports our growing and job-rich agrifood industry, some €125 billion has been allocated in the area of competitiveness for growth and jobs, with Erasmus and research and development being singled out for real growth. Some €325 billion has been allocated for cohesion funding, which is a major tool for job creation within the Union. Within this, a special allocation of €100 million for the BMW region was agreed, in addition to the regular cohesion policy allocations to Ireland and its two regions.

While agreement on the MFF is key for future growth, concerted action across the euro area and the wider EU remains vital in order to bring us beyond crisis and onto lasting recovery. A stronger, more robust, economic and monetary union is emerging, and will help to underpin the confidence that is so important to turning things around. The Union that entered the crisis was ill-equipped to deal with the unprecedented challenges it faced. However, in the best traditions of the Union, we have worked hard together to build stronger, more robust foundations. We have put rescue mechanisms in place, first the temporary EFSF and EFSM, from which Ireland received the European elements of its loans, and now the permanent ESM.

We have strengthened the rules underpinning the euro, through the legislative six-pack and the two-pack, with the latter finalised during our term as holders of the Presidency. We are now much better equipped to see trouble coming and to take the steps necessary to head it off. We have tighter rules and are better positioned to ensure that they are adhered to. Through the European semester, we have improved our economic co-ordination, ensuring that member states undertake the structural reforms needed to put their economies on a sustainable track for the future. If the crisis has revealed anything, it is how interdependent and interlinked our economic fates are. We have to be able to hold each other to account.

Of course, the crisis did not emerge solely because of unsustainable economic policies in member states. It was also the result of the type of risk-heavy calamitous banking practices with which we are all too familiar in this country, and the toxic relationship between sovereign and banking debt. Last June, the European Council made a firm commitment to break this vicious circle and mapped out a plan of action designed to being about a banking union. This was a critical decision which Ireland believes we must follow through upon and implement. We see it as a test of credibility for the European Union. Delivering on a fully fledged banking union, and on the ambitious timeline set by the European Council in December, has been a high priority for us as holders of the Presidency. One of the most significant steps was achieved by the Irish Presidency earlier this spring when we secured agreement on the single supervisory mechanism for European banks, a key move towards banking union.

By providing for oversight of the euro area's credit institutions, we have acted to restore confidence in the European banking system and to build stability across Europe. We have also strengthened democratic accountability by giving the European Parliament a greater role in the appointment of the supervisory board. Another landmark in the road to banking union is the agreement facilitated by our Presidency on the capital requirements directive, which limits the extent of bankers' bonuses and seeks to protect taxpayers by ensuring that European banks hold sufficient capital to withstand future shocks.

We are continuing to work for agreement on banking resolution and on deposit guarantees during our term, in keeping with the mandate from the December European Council. This is not an easy task. It is politically and technically complex and challenging. The timeframe is challenging but we have committed to this task. We must deliver on that commitment in order to bolster the confidence and trust of our citizens and the markets. Ireland will continue to press for early progress in putting in place the remaining measures to complete the task of achieving a robust banking union for all of the our citizens, who expect nothing less.

While Europe has been challenged by the crisis, it has acted resolutely and in concert to overcome it. We can be proud of our contribution to this vital work. We all recognise that if Europe's response to shared economic challenges had to be through deeper integration, then it was going to be all the more important that the Union be transparent, and accountable, to its citizens. Decisions on national budgets are at the heart of member states' parliamentary democracies, as they should be. Precisely for that reason, it is important that national parliaments play their part in the European semester process.

I welcome the steps that are being taken to improve dialogue between the national parliaments of member states and the European Parliament. This was expressly provided for in the stability treaty and helps to ensure there is adequate oversight of the decisions that are respectively taken at national and at EU level. Another innovation to be welcomed is the recent adoption by this House for the first time of an annual EU scrutiny work programme. One of the reforms introduced under our programme for Government was to mainstream the scrutiny of EU business across sectoral committees. Last year, I believe the European Commission published over 700 proposals. Oireachtas scrutiny of EU business will be better served by Members concentrating on issues of most relevance to Ireland and the 2013 priorities programme provides them with a very good roadmap.

This is a good time for a public debate in Ireland about what it means to be part of the European Union, coming as it does 40 years after Ireland's accession and at a time when we hold the Presidency of the Council and can help shape the EU agenda. It is also a time of unprecedented questioning on the direction and purpose of the Union. I acknowledge that there is continuing concern about the lack of popular engagement in EU affairs, both here and abroad. A challenge for all of us is how to interest citizens in issues that are often technical and may appear remote from them.

I do not believe that it helps the debate to engage in apocalyptic talk about the EU as if it will disappear, collapse or implode. We have heard a lot of that over the past number of years.

It is incumbent on us to work to shape the EU in the way in which we believe it should be functioning. That has been the approach this Government has taken from its very inception. We never accepted, and do not recognise, the kind of description we have heard to the effect that Europe tells us what to do. From the very start of the election of this Government, we set about changing the dynamic in Europe.

The recovery in Europe could not be based on budgetary adjustment alone. There had to be a jobs strategy and a growth strategy. That has now become an accepted part of European policy. When we started out the principle of thinking in Europe was that when banks went wrong in individual EU states, it fell on the taxpayers of those states to shoulder the burden. We have since put in place the European Stability Mechanism. We are now in the process of building a banking union. During the Irish Presidency of the EU we have advanced a lot of the pillars of the proposed banking union. If it had been in place at the start of the banking and financial crisis our situation would have been entirely different.

The kind of caricature which has been presented here, namely, that we take dictation from Europe, and are small and isolated, is not something I recognise. I have returned from chairing the General Affairs Council of the European Union this morning. We discussed a €960 billion budget for the future of Europe, what will have to be done to deal with the problems of tax evasion and tax fraud in Europe, what needs to be done to deal with the energy policies in Europe and what needs to be done to advance more effectively the compact for jobs and growth which was agreed last June. These are the practical measures we are advancing to make Europe relevant to the people we represent and to bring about economic recovery in Europe, which is part and parcel of bringing about economic recovery in this country.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the motion. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, I am grateful to the Independent Members for tabling the motion. It is very important that we have as much discussion about European issues as possible. It is essential that we in Ireland understand the issues that are currently being debated.

I disagree with the thrust of the motion. When it is said that there has been no proper discussion on the eurozone and Ireland, that is not the case and has not been my experience. Apart from discussions across the airwaves and in the media, organisations such as the IIEA and European Movement of Ireland have made sure that there have been discussions across town halls in Ireland. There has also been a lot of discussion in the House. For example, during the discussions last year on the fiscal compact treaty, we had in-depth, warts and all, discussions about the eurozone, the euro and the role of the European Central Bank. We discussed the fundamental flaws, and how we need to change them and introduce new systems and processes to protect the euro.

My committee is also examining financial integration, banking problems and integration, economic and monetary union, democratic legitimacy and accountability and political integration. We are having such debates because we all agree that the EU is at a crossroads. I agree with what the Tánaiste said. Irish and European recovery are inextricably linked. It is important that we have this debate to discuss how we got into the current crisis and how we can get out of it.

The debate we are having in my committee has had input from across our society. We have had academics such as Mr. Seamus Coffey from UCC, people from TASC, Professor Brigid Laffan, Dr. Gavin Barrett, Professor John McHale and other economists such as Dr. Alan Ahearne. We have also asked members of the media to come before the committee, and have heard from journalists such as RTE's Mr. Sean Whelan, Mr. Dan O'Brien of The Irish Times and Ms Ann Cahill of the Irish Examiner. We have also heard from people such as the head of the Central Bank, Professor Patrick Honohan, who told us his views on banking and monetary union. We have also heard from politicians such as Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, from Dublin, Ms Emer Costello, MEP, and Mr. Paul Murphy, MEP. We have heard a range of views on this debate.

The debates we are having in the committee are open to all Members of the House. While none of the signatories of this motion has taken part in any of the debates to date, I would like to extend an invitation to people like Deputy Pringle and others to make submissions in writing if they do not want to come before the committee. We are trying to make sure as many Members as possible take part in our debates. The debate is ongoing and if anybody has any suggestions about the type of speakers we should hear from we are very willing to invite them in.

Our debates will continue until the summer and are open to all Members of the House. It is important that we have as wide a range of views as possible expressed at those debates.

Anthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this debate. I find it confusing that a number of Independent Members have not signed the motion. We will never find out if they are in favour of it, but they come from both sides.

There have been five referendums in the past ten years in this country and plenty of opportunity for public debate. The last referendum on the fiscal compact was the only one which focused on what we are discussing, namely, the eurozone and the consequences of managing our public debt. Previous debates have taken place across the spectrum. The first Lisbon treaty referendum in 2008 was defeated. One could see that the public was worried about the fact we might lose our Commissioner and 12.5% corporation tax rate. They were sidetracks to the issues raised in the current public debate.

It is also confusing to hear Independent Members say we should leave the eurozone. Only last week the Conservative Party in the UK introduced a Bill which was probably designed to look after its eurosceptics and UKIP. Can I assume that the ragtag group of Independents be now called the Irish republican independent party? Based on the motion before the House, do they want to pull us out of the eurozone?

Deputy Ross is clearly very confused on this issue. He voted against the fiscal stability treaty. Yet, on a Second Stage debate on the Lisbon treaty on 1 May 2008 in the Seanad, he said, "On the whole, Europe has been good for Ireland and if gratitude exists in politics let us be grateful for what it has done for us. Much of the structural funding went in our favour. We are net receivers of money and donations for very long time." When I look at the people here who are trying to bring us out of Europe, and I find Deputy Ross was on his knees praising it, I become extremely confused.

I welcome the debate. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste bring information back on a monthly basis about the European Council meetings that take place. As far as I am concerned, sufficient debate is taking place. Matters are also in the public domain on a regular basis. We have had five referendums in the past ten years. Calling for further public scrutiny and debate seems to be a waste of time.

Paul Connaughton (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I very much welcome it because we have a problem in this country in terms of communicating the importance of the EU to people and how it works for them. It is probably the biggest issue we have.

Before we discuss the motion, both sides of the House would have to agree that, as Deputy Lawlor said, Europe has been good for us in terms of how far it has brought the country over quite a long period of time. The issue becomes somewhat muddled because we are now in a situation of financial crisis throughout the EU. Irrespective of whether we like it, we are inextricably linked to the rest of Europe.

We have heard many times in recent months that even as the economy is growing, and quite slowly at that, our exports have the capacity to increase to a much greater level. Unfortunately, however, much of the rest of Europe is in recession. In other words, the markets into which we are exporting cannot buy up the amount of product we can sell. That is causing a great deal of confusion.

I agree with Deputy Lawlor that the debate our near neighbours are having on Europe is taking place for all the wrong reasons. It is a discussion that is entirely politically motivated. What we are seeing there is a very far-right party suddenly becoming popular and one of the Government parties seeking to steal a march on it by upping the ante in regard to euroscepticism. That is not the answer to the problem no matter what way one looks at it. From an Irish perspective, what is important to bear in mind is how this affects people in their everyday lives. We remain in a very difficult economic situation. The main issue of concern for the people I talk to is unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. I welcome many of the developments that have taken place since this Government came into office, including the progress on a youth guarantee fund.

It cannot be denied, however, that there is an element of scepticism in this country in regard to the European project, which arises in part from our location on the periphery. Stories of our budgets being leaked to the Bundestag and German politicians knowing more about it than Members of the Oireachtas lead to cynicism. Irish people want to see how Europe works for us; that will be the key in all of this. There have been claims from many quarters that austerity does not work. It certainly helps with fixing the budget deficit, but people want to see more than that. The problem is that power is overly centralised in a certain group of countries. It is only when we reach the stage where we are promoting growth and jobs that we will see the true benefit of Europe. We need to get that stage and the first step in that regard is fixing our economy.

It is important, no matter what happens in terms of the future direction of Europe, that the Irish Parliament is always heard, that we are in charge of our budgets and that we do it for ourselves. I have no issue whatsoever with a debate on Europe, but this motion comes at the wrong time. We are still in a bailout situation and the people we are being urged to walk away from are the ones funding the country. Let us get back on our feet economically before having a debate on our role in Europe into the future.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the motion because it is important that we discuss this issue. In that regard, I do not agree with the previous speaker that it is ever the wrong time to discuss our position and role in Europe. I fully support the Government amendment to the motion and commend the work done by Ministers, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste in particular, and civil servants in the past five months as part of Ireland's Presidency. Their efforts have been crucial to restoring the reputation of the country and fostering stability, jobs and growth across the Continent. As the Tánaiste observed, as did Deputy Paul Connaughton, Ireland's recovery is inextricably linked with that of Europe. We must all acknowledge how tight that linkage is and that our role is very much at the heart of Europe.

It is critical that we achieve agreement on the European Union budget. A great deal of work has been carried out by both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste to bring matters as far as they have come. Agreement on the budgetary position will safeguard continued investment in research and innovation to develop the jobs of the future and the provision of the Structural Funds that will put workers back to work and facilitate the delivery of critical infrastructure. An agreed budget will ensure farmers throughout the country, who are currently experiencing such difficult circumstances, will receive the support they need. We have seen the problems they face every night on the news, and support from Europe is vital if they are to overcome them.

As the Tánaiste said, there were mistakes made by this State in the past which cannot be allowed to happen again. The continued work on banking union will provide much needed stability and regulatory control which will help to strengthen and support the currency. Deputy Connaughton mentioned the youth guarantee fund. Ms Emer Costello, MEP has done a great deal of work in this regard. When she started off on that road, most people said a youth guarantee fund would not make any real difference. However, €6 billion is now included in the budget for that purpose. Many young people in this country will access that funding and the pilot scheme is already up and running in Ballymun.

Investment requires money. We need shovel-ready projects to avail of support from the European Investment Bank. I have made the point before that there is €3 billion in EU funding to which we are entitled to make a claim. This arises from the sale of €20 billion of our bonds at a discount some years ago. We must seek an agreement in Europe that the profits from those bonds, amounting to approximately €3 billion, be returned to Ireland. It is essential that this happens, as has been done in the past for other member states. As it stands, the profits from bond sales are shared proportionately across the eurozone on the basis of GDP and population. A commitment that this €3 billion will be restored to Ireland would go a long way to securing further investment in our infrastructure. This issue must be pursued with the European Central Bank. It is funding that is rightly ours.

Áine Collins (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters in the House. There is no doubt the ongoing financial crisis in Ireland and Europe has raised many questions. These include the entire structure of the Union, the democratic deficit, monetary policy and the role of the European Central Bank, new structures to deal with banks, and the difference between the northern European states like Germany and Finland and the peripheral states of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. Ireland was the first country to face the banking crisis and, as a result of the bank guarantee, we as a nation face huge debt problems. This was exaggerated to a certain extent by the ECB's stance in not burning bondholders.

However, this Government and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, in particular, are constantly renegotiating that position. Substantial progress has been made. Interest rates have been reduced and the loan period has been extended. Huge progress is being made in setting up the new Europe-wide bank supervisory roles which will help to ensure bank debt in the future does not become a burden on taxpayer and state. This type of progress will lead to greater stabilisation across the eurozone. In addition, first steps are being considered to broaden the power of the ECB which will make it more like the Federal Reserve in the United States.

Eurobonds, sharing the debt burden and lowering interest rates will benefit the weaker economies in the eurozone in particular. The Germans are of the opinion that this will require treaty change. Ireland will, of course, play a major role in any discussions that may or may not lead to a proposal for treaty change. We are a small, open economy. Remaining within the eurozone is vital to our economic future. We are the only English-speaking nation within the zone, providing a vital link between the United States and Europe. Also of great advantage is our time zone which allows us to provide a linkage between the United States and Asia. Should the United Kingdom decide to leave the Union, the strategic importance of our remaining at the centre of Europe will be even greater.

Of course, it would be more desirable if we had control over our own currency and interest rates. It is interesting to examine what is being proposed here. Is there a suggestion that we revert to the punt or move to sterling or the dollar? A country with an economy the size of ours must stay inside the largest market, and the eurozone represents 40% of the world economy. We cannot be subject to costs involving currency exchange and leave ourselves vulnerable to unpredictable interest rates. Ireland has generally done well out of the EU. Despite the weather, our agriculture and farming sector has a great future within Europe. The Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, is making great progress in protecting the Common Agricultural Policy from Ireland's point of view in the current round of negotiations. We must continue to engage with our European partners in seeking ways to improve structures, reduce bureaucracy and enhance laws and regulations from a social and economic perspective. Engagement is the name of the game. The aim is to remain firmly at the heart of Europe as one of its strongest supporters.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Private Members' debate and thank Deputy Thomas Pringle and his colleagues in the Technical Group for tabling the motion.

The first point we need to recognise is that the sentiments expressed in the motion put down by Deputy Pringle and his colleagues are shared by many Irish people. That is a statement of fact. I believe that the Irish people are fundamentally pro-Europe but I recognise that loyalty is being tested. The longer this economic crisis goes on throughout the eurozone and the longer people see a failure in political leadership to deal comprehensively with this crisis the more that loyalty will be tested. That is why it is important that resolute action be taken. That is where I disagree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when he says that in response to the crisis Europe has acted resolutely and in concert. I do not understand how any senior political figure can arrive at such a conclusion when one considers the evidence of Europe's actual response to this crisis since 2008.

Only the most naive of commentators would conclude that the euro has been an unqualified success since its inception. We were told at one time that the euro would add 1% per annum to economic growth in perpetuity; such hopes are now sadly a distant memory. While the motion does a reasonable job of identifying some of the defects in the European Union and the monetary union project, I have to disagree with the prescription as to the action that is now needed. Currency union is not a passing economic phase but a permanent, irrevocable commitment. What the proposers of the motion seem to want to do is to recreate the kind of exchange rate mechanism which collapsed in the 1990s, a kind of opt in or opt out arrangement. This is not the path we should pursue.

When deficiencies in the euro design are identified they must be tackled by robust action from the ECB, the Commission and importantly, the Council of Ministers. Our amendment recognises that countries cannot have an each way bet on the euro. Every country must be equally committed to making it work, not just for themselves but for all member states. This applies just as much to Germany as it does to Greece, though one could be forgiven for thinking otherwise when one looks at the evidence.

Simply throwing up our hands and calling for an exit mechanism for individual member states might be superficially attractive but it would lead to far greater problems for us and the wider eurozone down the line. I do not consider it possible to construct an orderly means of allowing a country to leave the euro. For those who advocate it I would advise them to be careful what they wish for. Despite our current difficulties, life for Ireland or any other member state outside of the eurozone would be considerably worse than that we are experiencing although I recognise there are many eminent economists who would disagree and put forward a different thesis. We need only look at the turmoil that was unleashed in Cyprus when a reckless economic gamble was pursued to see the potentially catastrophic effects of letting the genie of that country's exit from the eurozone out of the bottle.

The challenge is not to scrap the entire project or undermine it in such a way as to render it fatally damaged but to design and implement the changes that are needed. If people are to be honest about it there is a general consensus as to what needs to be done to put this right. Despite the improvement in sentiment under the current ECB leadership of Mario Draghi, the EU remains embroiled in its most serious crisis since the project's launch in the 1950s. Every quarter brings new and gloomier news on the economic front. Eurozone unemployment stood at 12.1% in March of this year, higher than the 10.9% recorded for the wider European Union. These figures are a shocking indictment of a failed policy of clinging rigidly to policies that target low inflation and balanced budgets without taking account of the consequences of those policies on growth and employment.

It will be of little consolation to the millions of unemployed people throughout Europe who feel let down by the EU that official data shows eurozone consumer price inflation at just 1.2% in April, considerably below the 2% threshold by which the ECB is bound. Low inflation is not a sign of success on the part of the ECB, the Commission or Council of Ministers. If anything it is a sign of failure. Low inflation has not been achieved by some economic miracle. It has been achieved by suppressing demand. In simple terms, it is easy to keep the grass cut short in winter and the unemployed are paying the price for the ECB's inflation obsession. That is an issue that will have to be addressed. The mandate of the ECB will have to be broadened and I agree with Deputy Joan Collins' views in that regard because it is quite evident that the German obsession with keeping inflation low for obvious historical reasons is impeding the recovery of the European Union. A widening of the mandate of the ECB is an essential element in the recovery of the European economy.

The unemployed will not be impressed to see that Germany, the supposed powerhouse of the European economy, recorded a general government surplus last year. The EU talks about the need to support growth and yet does little about providing such supports. The "Compact for Growth" announced last year has been a flop. The prospects for Ireland's recovery, or that of any of the European states mired in an economic slump, have to be seen in a broader European context. The eurozone fell into a double dip recession in 2012. Many parts of the eurozone are suffering from slow growth, very high unemployment and falling living standards. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated eurozone response. The countries that have stabilised their debt ratios should avoid further austerity measures. Germany, which has achieved a balanced budget, could allow its budget deficit to rise temporarily while keeping its debt to GDP ratio constant. Similarly, other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Austria could avoid further expenditure cuts and tax increases without worsening their debt to GDP burden. If one considers the impact of all of the countries in the eurozone engaging at the same time in fiscal consolidation, trying to reduce their budget deficits, reducing government spending and imposing higher taxes on their citizens the consequence of that is obvious for all to see. The countries that have the scope fiscally to invest in their economies and not to be proceeding blindly down the road of further fiscal consolidation, which is unnecessary in some cases, should pursue an alternative path. When we consider that Ireland exports between 80% and 90% of the goods and services we produce the bottom line is that if there is no external demand in Europe or the wider world for our goods and services we are not going to have the export-led recovery for which this Government is aiming.

When it came to agreeing an EU budget earlier in the year, however, what we got was an was an act of economic madness. In February it was decided to cut €34.4 billion over the next seven years after the EU budget following talks that were likened to 'a bazaar'. The last thing that Europe needs now is a deflationary package. The only effect that this will have is to risk further delay to recovery and keep unemployment at unacceptably high levels. There is a strong case to be made for addressing excessive bureaucracy in Brussels, but there is no reason that could not be achieved while maintaining investment levels. The decision to cut EU wide infrastructure projects like Connecting Europe is crazy and completely counterproductive. This decision, with wide-ranging effects across Europe, is being made in order to placate British domestic political concerns. Europe should not be sacrificing growth in response to British Conservative Party politics. David Cameron might have thought talking tough at European level would shoot the UKIP fox for him but if anything such weakness has only emboldened his enemies to ask for even greater concessions.

Ironically, the British Prime Minister has spoken often about the threat Europe faces from the aggressive growth of the BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The decision to cut EU spending and growth will play directly into the hands of the BRICS economies.

It was not always this way in the European Union. Those of us who are supporters of our membership of both the European Union and the eurozone should not be afraid to point out that for nearly 50 years from its foundation the Union had a very positive effect on living standards, particularly in peripheral countries, including our own. Through a combination of trade and regional aid, the living standards of poorer member states rapidly converged with richer ones. In our case, they exceeded the average. Now it appears that the euro has operated as a convergence machine in reverse. Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland have all experienced their own economic turmoil. It is clear to all that a currency union not accompanied by a banking union is inherently unstable.

Giving practical effect to banking union is taking an inordinate length of time to achieve. The crisis, having begun in summer 2008, is now in its sixth year. On paper, the tool-kit Europe's authorities will have at their disposal has expanded considerably in that time. These include a single bank supervisory mechanism, common deposit insurance, a single rulebook for bank bail-ins, direct ESM, European Stability Mechanism, injections into failing banks, outright monetary transactions to reduce peripheral bond yields, co-ordination of fiscal policies and fiscal stimulus measures. However, in reality this list is progressing at a snail's pace. Earlier today during finance parliamentary questions I debated the topic with the Minister for Finance. There is no doubt that ECOFIN is adept at producing grandiose statements on what is going to be done. Does anyone seriously believe, however, that all of the measures I have listed will be completed in the next 12 months? To date, the only action that has had a real impact is the declaration by Mario Draghi that the European Central Bank will do whatever it takes to preserve the euro. From his point of view, the intervention was a success. Nine months later and peripheral bond yields have fallen dramatically, while stock markets are at record levels. Mr. Draghi has achieved what he wanted without firing a shot in anger. However, the core problem of low growth, high unemployment and falling living standards remain unsolved. The recurring feature in the past five years has been for European leaders to fall back into complacency once any lull in the crisis is achieved. Should a fully fledged banking crisis arise again in any member state, with the inevitable spillover effect on sovereign finances, the European authorities may regret their tardiness in actually putting in place the solutions they have spent so long designing.

A debate is necessary on Ireland’s future in the European Union and the European Union’s overall direction. The changes that have happened so far have been incremental, piecemeal and conducted in the absence of any overall vision as to where the European Union is going. We know Germany and other member states want it to become a complete political and fiscal union. What does the Government want to see in the evolution of the European Union and the eurozone? It is not good enough for it to take every issue as it arises. We have to work to an overall vision of where we would like to see the European Union in the next ten, 20 and 30 years, as well as Ireland’s place in it.

Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin has pointed out many times that the creation of a single currency was for many an ideological and political act entered into without sufficient economic or social consideration. The euro was never designed to serve and benefit the peoples of Europe. There was no popular demand for a single currency. It was a project of the few for the few. We are of the view that the euro is seriously flawed in both its fiscal design and the political economy which underpins it, as well as its institutional structures. For example, Ireland, like other countries, is essentially a member of a currency system over which it has no monetary control. In a nutshell, this means that as a nation state, we lack fiscal autonomy. We cannot devalue or inflate our own currency, while the euro has no lender of last resort. Even worse, it was cheap credit from the ECB that facilitated reckless banking and fuelled the gigantic property bubble that brought the country to its knees. All of these factors contributed to the current crisis and are a serious concern for Sinn Féin, particularly on issues of sovereignty and economic independence. However, we need to keep in mind that while the euro was undoubtedly a factor in the crisis, it was not the sole cause. Every day we are reminded of the appalling hardships and worry which a significant section of the people have to endure with unemployment, poverty, an inability to keep up with mortgage repayments, personal indebtedness, issues around access to decent health care, access to housing, fuel poverty and, more recently, the appalling reality of food poverty, all of which are coupled with a profound and deep mistrust of politics, politicians and the political system in general.

This is the legacy of years of Fianna Fáil misrule, clientelism, corruption and indifference. We now find ourselves, as a nation, part of a monetary system that is underpinned by a neoliberal political economy which operates in the almost sole interest of advanced capitalist accumulation and Germany. Hence, we see the socialisation of private debt and the politics of austerity that is destroying the social fabric of Europe. Nonetheless, Sinn Féin believes it is naive to suggest Ireland withdraw from the euro and go it alone at this stage. We are far too entwined and embedded within the European and global financial systems for such a move; rather, we are of the view that a Europe with an economically stable euro at its core is the best hope for kick-starting economic recovery in Ireland and across the eurozone in the years ahead. This means that Europe’s political elite must immediately address the democratic deficit that lies at the heart of the EU project. There must also be an end to the destructive and counterproductive politics of austerity, while an investment programme on the scale of the Marshall Plan and a social insurance fund to assist struggling countries should be introduced. The Eurogroup must follow through on its commitment to separate sovereign debt from private banking debt. This, as we know only too well, did not happen in the recent Cypriot case. In keeping with the laws of the free market, bondholders and investors must bear the brunt of investments that fail. It is the duty of the State to protect depositors as far as possible.

At the wider European level and at the level of the nation state, there is a profound and urgent need to address inequality in wealth and income with the concept of redistribution to become embedded in and central to all economy policy. It is important that the politically deliberate rejection of egalitarianism is challenged and that we begin to seriously conceive of and work towards a European Union and an Ireland without poverty. What rich people call the problem of poverty, poor people call, with equal justification, the problem of riches. We have a duty to build a fairer and more egalitarian Europe, a Europe that will operate in the interest of all its people, not an elite class of financiers and political statesmen. That is the challenge ahead. Leaving the euro tomorrow would not make that challenge any easier.