Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

As I have much to which to respond, I will do so as comprehensively as I can. Moreover, I might be back in the Chamber early in the new year. I will take up the general point on the role of the Seanad. Members will have noted that since last March, the Dáil has been facilitating statements both in advance of, and after, European summits. This is a good model because it allows both Opposition Members and Government backbenchers to feed into the process and to have a much more constructive and engaged debate. I am quite happy to do this, time permitting. While I am only one person, unfortunately, I would like to try to replicate that model here in the Seanad, if possible. While this does not deal strictly with the issue of European Union scrutiny, which was discussed when I was last here, it would play an important and constructive role in framing the debate regarding what is happening in Europe and on Ireland's place therein, which is very important.

I thank all Members for their contributions and will begin with that of Senator Leyden, who spoke of the history and model in Europe, which is one that avoids the use of the veto and which operates on the basis of consensus. While this is the strength of the European Union, in times of crisis it also can be a weakness because it is extremely difficult to move forward. It is extremely difficult to achieve consensus in a speedy and timely fashion and while one can condemn and lambast the European leaders and European institutions for not acting sufficiently swiftly, all member states are anxious to retain their vetos in areas of vital national importance. A balancing act is required in this regard and there is no simple solution.

However, if one wishes to vaunt the fact that one has the use of a veto on so many occasions, one cannot really then scratch one's head and wonder why it takes so long to make decisions. There must be a certain amount of compromise. I am not nor have I ever been a fan of the veto. While it is a flawed method of decision-making, in certain areas Ireland will of course hold onto its veto and will continue to fight for it.

As for the fear expressed by the Senator on the threat to financial services and to corporate tax rates, I can only reiterate there is no mention of Ireland's corporate tax rate. First, one should note there is no consensus on this issue at a European level. Even with qualified majority voting, I do not believe one would come anywhere close to an attack on Ireland's corporate tax rate. Other member states have a lower rate and many member states are as attached to their corporate tax rate as is Ireland, if not more so. These are peripheral islands such as Malta and Cyprus, many eastern European countries and the United Kingdom. Tax rates are still subject to the veto, so there is no question of a position being forced in this regard.

One member state has a very important and heartfelt attachment to bashing our corporate tax rate, and so be it; it is healthy debate. We expect further reference to our corporate tax rate as the election campaign takes off in that particular state in the new year. We need to be confident enough in our own position not to go running to the media every five minutes when the issue of Ireland's or anybody else's corporate tax rate is mentioned. It is simply irrelevant. People can use it as a political football in their domestic politics but the bottom line is that it will not affect matters at a European level, and this is clear.

With regard to financial services, it is interesting how these issues get whipped up and everybody jumps on a bandwagon. Not so long ago I received e-mails from people all over the European Union and Ireland asking for a tax on financial services because they were the people who destroyed our economy and rode roughshod over Irish citizens, and that it was more than reasonable that we demand they pay 0.01% tax on certain financial transactions. Since Mr. Cameron took his position last week, which is still ambiguous quite frankly and I still do not quite know what the UK wanted from the summit, we have suddenly jumped on the British bandwagon stating we will not have our hallowed financial services subject to such an unfair and unjust tax.

We need to be rational about this. The Government is analysing the proposals, which have come by way of the multi-annual financial framework, which is the budget to 2020. This is how the proposal entered the fray and these negotiations are ongoing and will last for at least another year, if not longer. There are very mixed views on the issue of a financial transaction tax. We want to see full analysis. We saw one analysis from the European Commission which stated it would not be a very effective method in which to do business or to raise revenue and that it could distort competition between the European Union vis-À-vis the rest of the world. This is one perspective and we will look at others.

We will also do our own analysis. One thing is clear: we will not disadvantage financial services in Ireland relative to our nearest neighbour. We are quite dependent because much of the investment in the IFSC is spin-off from London. This is not to say we want a totally unregulated laissez-faire approach. We have to be nuanced in how we deal with this. There is absolutely no immediate threat with regard to corporate tax, and we will analyse and assess very carefully the financial services tax prior to taking a final decision on it. This work is ongoing in the Department of Finance.

Senator Walsh spoke about the failed political system in Ireland and Europe. I must state I disagree. This goes back to a point that was made by other contributors. I attended a meeting of the OSCE the week before last which was also attended by the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Everyone in Ireland speaks about Australia being the absolute golden model. It was the second occasion on which I attended an international meeting with Mr. Rudd, and he stated Australians would give their left arm if they could aspire to one hundredth of the success in their part of the world the European Union has had in a political and economic sense. They think we have done a great job and admire what we have done and are doing. He stated he cannot understand why the European Union and EU member states bash themselves at every meeting he attends and are self-flagellating themselves about what a disaster and mess the European Union is when quite clearly it is not. We must get things a little more in perspective and speak about the enormous successes from an Irish and European perspective, while also being self-analytical, self-critical and understanding we must do things better and shape up in the modern globalised world. I do not accept the outright criticism.

I have repeatedly called for leadership at a European level and for European leaders to take the bull by the horns. We have seen some signal of this from France and Germany. These are the two largest economies in the eurozone and European Union. They are the two countries which came together after the two devastating world wars at the beginning of the previous century, to which Senator Quinn alluded. They set in train this wonderful process, this wonderful political and economic union we have. On Tuesday evening, I attended a meeting with my counterpart, Jean Léonetti, at the French Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs at the Quai d'Orsay. As we were casually walking to the area where we would sit, have dinner and hold our bilateral meeting, one of the officials stated it was the room where Schuman made his wonderful speech. The first thing I thought was, "Where is my camera?". There was a very modest clock on the wall and a little photograph. It was the room where the most monumental and fundamental moment in history occurred, the moment when the European project began. Nothing that has happened in European or global history prior or since can compare to this. I felt quite humbled by this. We must keep things in perspective.

I am not deluded. I did not come away from the summit meeting last week overjoyed by the wonderful success and thinking we would not have a 16th or 17th summit. We will continue to have summits, but it was a little step in the right direction. Our position was clear prior to going to the summit. We wanted a much more decisive and considered response from the European Central Bank. I have repeatedly called for the ECB to take a leadership role, set out a clear agenda and make it clear that the ECB will do whatever is necessary to save the currency. This is what we need it to say. This is the Irish position. Going back to the point on the veto, consensus and bringing countries together, it is not the position of some other member states. We think they are wrong and they think we are wrong. I do not know who has the moral monopoly, but the bottom line is that in the European Union and eurozone we have, we must arrive at point where we finally find consensus. We have taken some steps in the right direction. We have a total of €500 billion between the EFSF and the ESM. Ultimately, it is probably not enough.