Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

The anger that permeates our country currently will either be replaced by complete despair or by weariness. Both of these forces are in their own way as dangerous and volatile as what we face at the moment. It is fundamentally important for the next government to ensure a period of stability within which businesses, individuals and families can make choices. They must know the horizon and what is ahead of them. It is these two elements, economic stability and clarity on taxes and honesty on how they will be funded, that must drive the formation of a new government and for that reason I want to see Fine Gael lead that government. I believe it will lead it, but it will be the choice of the people. We will campaign on an agenda that is honest and look for support on it.

This debate has been very interesting because we have seen two different philosophies outlined. The first was the Labour Party's philosophy that was articulated by Senator Alex White. He talked about the need for a social democracy within the country and the need to develop it. I disagree with Senator White on that. This disagreement is a good thing, because political parties are different and we should be honest about that. I am not being critical of Senator White, I just disagree with him. There are two reasons this is a route that is not appropriate for our country. First, any form of social democracy, as suggested, inherently involves a willingness to tax more. I know from working and talking to the people I seek to represent in the future that the majority of our people have no money left on which they could pay higher taxes. Our retail and service economy is fundamentally fragile, to the point of almost breaking apart, and any suggestion that people should face dramatically higher tax levels will smash it completely. Second, that philosophy inherently involves a degree of collectivism, a degree of running our economy and politics in a way that has been shown to be discredited. People will look to elect politicians to govern the country. They will want these politicians to talk to them and gain their consent and support. They want to elect people who will govern, and will reject any who cannot make decisions on their behalf. The dispersal of authority throughout our system has had disastrous consequences for our ability to look after our banks and our health system and it must come to an end.

The second philosophy was articulated by Senator Shane Ross, a man for whose work I have huge respect. I will touch first on the points on which I agree with him. He said we need to take a stronger stance on senior banking debt. This is Fine Gael policy and also the policy of the Labour Party. He said we need to take a strong stance on the funding and management of semi-State bodies. It should be apparent from what I have said that this is something in which I believe. Fine Gael is also in agreement on that. However, the Senator then moved on to other territory. It is important to comment on what he said then given his willingness to comment on Fine Gael. He asked why the option of sovereign default was not being advocated here. It is not being advocated because that is the politics and economics that would turn our country into a pariah state. Take a look, for example, at the last country that considered doing that. Look at Russia or Argentina, which are still paying double digit interest rates on the money markets and consider that they are far bigger and far less globalised economies than ours. If one gets into the economics of default, one question has to be answered. Where will the €16 billion we do not have to fund public services be found? If we do not have that money, what cuts will be made? That is what the politics of default means. When I hear anybody advocate default, no matter how much I respect him or her, it reinforces my belief that the politics of the centre must hold. Extremism comes with smiling faces at times. That option for our country represents the route back to a history we looked to escape from on the foundation of the State. It is dangerous and it must be challenged.

A similar example is the notion of decreasing corporation tax. Many people want to do this but, leaving aside the political feasibility of doing this, where will the money come from to replace this revenue? How will it be funded? It is not good enough any more in our politics to say what one is against; one has to say what is one for. There is the notion of advocating an economic policy and saying the one thing I will do to make that happen is to reduce funding of semi-State companies. Oh but that it were that easy. Oh but that the existential crisis gripping our country could be solved with that one fell blow. It is not as simple as that. A great deceit is being peddled by members of our society that the solution to the crisis is simple and cost free but it is a pity that all our politicians are so venal, stupid or corrupt and cannot recognise that solution. Politics will not be that simple if it is to rescue our country. The politics of default is the clearest example.

I refer to the need to examine the deal with the IMF and the ECB. With regard to the margin being charged for the funds, Professor Karl Whelan stated:

The margin goes back to the EU budget and it is distributed to member states at the end of each financial year. The European Commission does not charge any fees or keep any margin for its own use. It is clear this is something that has to be looked at.

However, it has to be looked at in a centrist and sensible way.

A number of weeks ago a respected Senator compared the way Ireland was treated to the way Germany was treated following the conference of Versailles. Too many politicians from various parties refer to our "European masters". The moment they use language such as this, they are giving space to others who will use it to pursue a sinister agenda.