Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. As we face into the forthcoming referendum campaign, I do not believe any of us would have chosen the current political climate, with the difficulties relating to the household charge, water charges and the septic tank charge, in which to launch such a campaign. The French presidential election campaign has given rise to talk with regard to add-ons being made to the treaty halfway through the referendum campaign here. Since the debate on the Bill began earlier, the Dutch Prime Minister has gone to Her Majesty, Queen Beatrix, to offer his Cabinet's resignation. All of this is happening in the background and, in my opinion, it makes it even more important that the information campaign relating to the referendum be wide-reaching in nature.

I welcome the establishment of the website, stabilitytreaty.ie. However, if we reflect on recent referendum campaigns, it is obvious that there is a need to use a diversity of media and that the information supplied must come from a wide range of trusted sources. Let us prove we have learned our lesson in this regard as we proceed with the forthcoming referendum campaign.

During the debate in the House on the fiscal stability treaty a number of weeks ago, I encouraged Members to reserve their opinions until the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment emerged. I raised concerns during that debate in respect of the treaty. Now that I have read the Bill that has come before the House, however, I commend the Government on its drafting. As I understand it, the proposed wording does not, despite some people's concerns, insert austerity into the Constitution, nor does it bind us to the terms of the treaty at constitutional level. The wording merely facilitates the treaty's introduction into law. I agree that this is the best course of action.

It seems that the current wording also means we must treat the fiscal stability treaty and the measures prescribed within it as separate matters within themselves. However, these matters and measures remain unclear. While the fiscal treaty is probably the most accessible treaty to emerge from Europe, it is also, in ways, the most nebulous. We still do not know how or by whom the structural deficit will be estimated nor do we know the timeframe in which Ireland and other contracting parties should be delivering "rapid convergence towards their respective medium-term objective". We do not know the format of the automatic correction mechanism the Government is examining or what aspects of the Constitution create the need for a referendum in the first place. I am concerned that this lack of auxiliary information is contributing to the divergence of opinion which is apparent when one examines the claims made regarding the treaty. On one side I have heard that a "Yes" vote will bind us to austerity while on the other side I have heard that it is tantamount to saying "Yes" to jobs. While both points have been made forcefully and often, I have yet to see any evidence to support either of these positions absolutely. In the absence of empirical verification, these claims amount to nothing more than histrionics and only seem to cloud the issues that are before us as we debate it. Rightly or wrongly, we are bound to austerity, not by Europe but by our current domestic economic policy. This treaty only serves to formalise the commitments to the course of action we have already adopted. Equally, it is not about creating jobs, nor will it defend against the inept fiscal policies that originally brought us to the brink of ruin, as some of the media have erroneously claimed. We have a duty as Members of this House to challenge these claims.

During the boom years Ireland was more in compliance with the terms of the treaty than Germany. There is nothing within the measures contained in the treaty that would have protected the Irish economy from the financial crisis in which we find ourselves, nor is there anything to repair the damage that has been done by it. My feelings are best summed up, surprisingly enough, by the Czech ambassador, His Excellency, Dr. Tomas Kafka, who noted that the treaty is designed to restore mutual trust and confidence at EU level. That, for me, is what the treaty is about, namely, restoring mutual trust and confidence at EU level. We are faced with a choice between maintaining the ESM safety net or facing the deficit crisis alone. We have already subscribed to the terms of the treaty and have already set on our current course. Surely we should capitalise on the only positive opportunity with which we have been presented. I have researched, deliberated and decided to advocate strongly for a "Yes" vote in the forthcoming referendum.