Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate him on his recent appointment. It is good to see him. As the Minister, Deputy Shatter, said previously, the stability treaty is simple in nature. It is straightforward in principle. It is a short document relative to previous treaties and is written in a language that is far more straightforward than previous treaties. In effect, it will enshrine sound budgetary principles.

The treaty is designed to prevent a repeat of the Greek debt crisis and protect against the potential collapse of the euro currency. It is a clever communications gimmick to call it an austerity treaty but that is all it is. It is a gimmick akin to a communications stroke such as calling an inheritance tax a death tax. The repetition of the phrase "austerity treaty" leads people to suspect and believe that it enshrines austerity. This is simply not true. It enshrines sound economic principles and the idea that over the medium term we cannot spend more than we bring in.

This treaty will protect the current and future generations from governments taking part in the type of reckless spending policies pursued in the recent past. It removes us from our endemic short-term nature in terms of budgetary policy whereby if one has it, one spends it, and if one does not, one cuts. This treaty, in isolation, will not solve our problems and this needs to be recognised. As the Minister, Deputy Shatter, said, it is merely one piece of the jigsaw. However, it is a central piece and we absolutely need it to be passed.

I urge people to consider the real implications of a "No" vote and the treaty does not come to pass here. This is not like other treaties. The train leaves the platform, as my colleague said recently. That phrase seems to be used all the time and I tried to think of another way to say this. The train leaves on 1 January and that is it. Even if the will existed to re-run the treaty, the practical implications are that it is impossible to do that. Due to the repetitive nature of the referendums on the Lisbon and Nice treaties, a dangerous precedent was set whereby a significant percentage of the population have come to expect that if a European referendum is rejected, it will be run again with minor tweaks in our favour, but not so this time. It is impossible.

In terms of why we are voting "Yes", it is a fairly simple argument. Our economy is hanging in the balance right now and all economies are predicated on the confidence of investors, consumers and those who can hire. A "No" vote will suck confidence out of the economy, particularly from investors in technology who are the ones fuelling our only growth sectors. That is the reason American Chamber of Commerce came out immediately in favour of the treaty. If those on the other side of the House wish to call it an austerity treaty, so be it. I will start referring to it as an investment treaty and invite others who believe in it to do the same.