John Gilroy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this treaty. I will go off script because I would like to comment on the contribution of the previous speaker who has attributed some of our problems to low or less than optimum interest rates in Ireland over the past ten years. It is a reasonable position but it is not very satisfactory because low interest rates are a function of the accumulation of capital. That the accumulation of capital occurred at the centre is not an accident. Ten, 15 or more years ago, the Germans put in place a series of reforms that led them to reap economic benefits today. This treaty, while it will not allow us to be where Germany is, will certainly allow Europe to create the conditions in which these reforms can take place structurally. That is very important.

I will speak a lot more on this topic later. I now want to speak not so much on the treaty itself but on the language used in conversation on its merits. My colleague, Senator Bacik, rightly indicated that the way people talk about the treaty, that is, by referring to it as a fiscal treaty, austerity treaty or stability treaty, betrays or illuminates their position. Some of the language being used is associated more with rhetoric than trying to explain the detail of the treaty. I have heard terms such as "blackmail clauses" and "austerity treaty" being used by opponents of the treaty in a manner that does nothing at all to illuminate what we are asking the people to vote on in the referendum on 31 May. This type of language is not calculated to make a robust argument; it is calculated more to frighten people. That is being done by opponents of the treaty when anyone on the Government side tries to explain the implications of the treaty. It is essential for all sides in the debate to attempt to make their arguments with honesty and with a view to establishing what is best for the country. Their arguments should not use rhetorical devices aimed at playing on the fears of very many hard-pressed people.

Some commentators are betraying their real motivation in the use of some of their language. The motivation may not be placing the best interests of the country as a priority. I suspect commentators are using this opportunity to criticise Government policy in other areas. It is fair and reasonable to expect the Opposition parties to want to beat the Government but I appeal to them not to use the treaty as the stick with which to do so. I hope they do not.

Some commentators have voiced legitimate arguments against the treaty and this is where the debate should lie and what the conversation should be on. Other commentators are stirring up fears in an attempt to further party political gains. If they are doing so, it is nothing short of scandalous.

The language we use discussing the treaty is very important. I will give one example. I was recently speaking to some members of the board of a large US multinational corporation that may be interested in investing money in Ireland and creating the jobs our people so badly need. The company does not have a presence in Ireland. I was flabbergasted when one of the directors asked me whether his company's money would be safe if it invested in Ireland.