Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

I have found the debate illuminating and wish the public could hear more of it. One of the difficulties will be getting the message across to allow the people to make up their minds in a relatively short period.

This morning I paid my household charge. As I wrote the cheque I thought of all the people who did not have the €100, who might only have €10 in their pockets. I accept this has nothing to do with the referendum but try to explain that to those who are down on their uppers. They will ask what the European Union has done for us. The same will apply in cases in which loved ones have emigrated, but one can say Irish people have always emigrated in their thousands. In the current climate the following questions will certainly be asked. What does the European Union mean to us? Why should we rally to the flag? I make these points because we should be very careful not to constrain people who wish to express several views which may not fit in exactly with the modus operandi of the debate on the fiscal compact treaty, but the referendum will allow people to put in context where they are and their vision, if any, for the future.

Years ago I spoke against Ireland joining the European project. I recall standing with the trade union leader Matt Merrigan on a platform in a small provincial town on a drizzly evening when 12 people listened to us. I knew we were not going to make an impact, but when one is young and idealistic, one thinks about sovereignty. My only concern at the time was what would happen to our sovereignty if we joined the European project. In the meantime I have apologised by saying the European Union has been good for us in many ways. If one wishes to be analytical, one can say we have squandered all of the good things it has given us, the benefits have been diluted or they have been undermined by global movements. One can balance this by asking what would have happened if we had not joined. On the positive side, farmers have done exceptionally well; we have benefited in an important trade area and have exceptionally good infrastructure. However, if we had a choice, would we support the treaty today? I genuinely think not. Therefore, if we want it to succeed - it is still a big "if" - we must start from the question of whether we have a choice. Having listened to Senator David Norris's passionate and powerful contribution - I have no doubt both elements will be released into the debate - I am not 100% sure all of the niceties in keeping everything else out of the equation and only debating what is involved will apply. Scaremongering is not what it is about, but there has been some on both sides. Perhaps this is part of the cut and thrust of political debate. I am not sure, however, that we will convince people by asking them whether they want to leave the European Union. That is not on the table, but it is being said and does not help the debate.

With regard to the contents of the treaty, it is like what a bank manager did in pre-Celtic tiger days. When one sought a loan, one literally had to tell him or her what one had eaten for breakfast and when one had changed one's clothes. Perhaps I am being a little extreme, but I can recall sitting in front of a bank manager and enduring a forensic and surgical interrogation when I had sought a loan. At the end of the meeting I had the distinct feeling that I would be able to repay the loan, but I was in hock to the manager and the bank for all time. Until the loan was repaid I felt the bank would own me.