Seanad debates

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

2:30 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

Mr. Rehn has clearly indicated that the agreement is contingent on certainty flowing from the passing of the budget. For that reason it is very important that it is passed. That will provide us with certain opportunities, for example, to fling off some of the parasites of the political body in the Lower House. I refer to people who pose as Independents but who are, in fact, very happy to sell the interests of their country for small parochial advantage. We would be better off without them.

Senator Boyle referred to the interest in our difficulties of some of the international banks. A bank which I indicted in this House in a matter raised on the Adjournment which was taken up subsequently by the Allgemeine Zeitung is on the list of senior bondholders and has been using three of its subsidiaries, including an Austrian bank which stands indicted of moneylaundering for the mafia, to hoover up the money of the Irish taxpayer. It is very important that we review the situation. I placed a number of original suggestions before the House which were all ignored. I will now place before it a second-hand one, although it might also be ignored. I was impressed by what Mr. David McWilliams wrote in the Sunday newspapers in which he suggested it was not too late to convert the senior bondholders into shareholders of the banks and, therefore, save some money for the taxpayer. I hope this might happen.

I also hope there will be reasonably temperate language from politicians and commentators who seem to want to exacerbate the situation on the airwaves and in the newspapers. I listened with interest this morning to a number of Government supporters being interviewed on radio. One of them said the Taoiseach and his Government had led us in this very difficult situation. The preposition was wrong — the Taoiseach and his Government have led us into this situation. However, it is not an opportunity for all of us to score partisan political points. We have to recognise he made decisions in what he thought at the time were the best interest. There is no doubt, however, that there is responsibility there.

I am sure it was well intentioned but another person said that this was a time when we all as politicians should put the interests of the country before the interests of the party. Surely, for God's sake, that is what we should do all the time. That is what I have done for the past 25 years in this House. It is essential that as a matter of course and routine we put the interests of the country above the interests of the party and learn we are here to serve the people. The people never needed it more.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.