John Whelan (Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the stability treaty. That is what we are discussing. I welcome the robust, genuine and sincere contributions from across the floor. No one has a monopoly on patriotism or concern. We are all trying our best to represent the best interests of our families, children and those in our communities, many of whom are unemployed or not living in the country any more. We would all prefer if this were not the case.

I take a simplistic view of the stability treaty. The country is not in a good place. This is not a good time for Ireland nor is it a good time for many families in Ireland. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that it is not a good time to be making enemies. It is a time to harness the resources and the support we can draw from our friends economically and politically throughout Europe.

If one were to set out on the road to prosperity and one was given a roadmap, a Kerry person might say: "I wouldn't start from here if I were you." Certainly, this is not the place to be starting out in that direction. I will not use that horrible phrase but at this juncture we are at this location and, therefore, we must start from here. The Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, stated at our centenary conference last week that the Government had restored stability and confidence. He further stated that we must now seek to establish growth, job creation and investment from that platform. We must weigh up the possibilities from that juncture. I agree with Senator Walsh's view that it is by no stretch of the imagination a foregone conclusion that the stability treaty will find favour with the majority of the electorate. The reality is, however, that the electorate must weigh up the consequences if we have a "No" vote. This is not scaremongering. It would be irresponsible to suggest there are no consequences, that nothing would happen next or that we can stay where we are. That is simply not the case.

Some people are suggesting that we are raising household charges and water taxes to pay off banking debt. That is absurd and untrue. The country must borrow €18 billion per annum simply to pay its way, to pay for teachers, the Garda, nurses, doctors and pensions. Some have suggested that we should not worry about it because if we are stuck, we will be helped anyway. No bank operates like that. One cannot say to a bank, financial institution or resourcing agency that one intends to default unilaterally and not pay one's debts and then, if one is stuck at some stage in future, to expect them to give one a dig out again, regardless of what one did last time.

It was useful to hear somebody boil the matter down into further detail. It came as a shock to me to learn that we borrow €44 million each day to pay our way. That has nothing to do with Anglo Irish Bank, the promissory notes or banking debt. It is simply to run the country. Had there never been a banking crisis, which compounds and aggravates our circumstances, to all our indignation, we would still have a serious financial deficit that must be addressed. We are still indebted to the markets and, as everyone accepts, we are in no position to go back to the markets to borrow. I am uncertain at what stage we will be able to do so but I hope we will do so at the earliest juncture.

I make it my business to be here as often as I can when Senator Sean Barrett is speaking. He is an eminent economist but I take a layman's views on these matters. He pointed out that until the crash occurred, Ireland was abiding by the rules and regulations and operating within the boundaries of deficit limits and so on. We had good adherence. Unfortunately, this brings us back to the fact that we would prefer if the banking crash had not occurred. Regardless of whether we like it, warts and all and with all its flaws the euro is our currency and we bought into it in a big way. Are the opponents of the stability treaty realistically suggesting that we should return to the punt? That would represent a serious risk to take with people's lives. It is a fair risk to put to the 450,000 people who are unemployed and to suggest that we should take a chance with this move and see where it ends up. There are 450,000 people on the dole.

I agree with the point being made across the floor to the effect that there are serious aggravating problems in countries such as Greece, which is struggling to come to terms with the austerity imposed on it by Frankfurt. Problems are emerging in the Netherlands and Belgium which are aggravating matters and making the stability treaty all the more complex. They also give opponents of the treaty a grand opportunity to further muddy the waters, but that does not escape the reality that we must put our own house in order regardless of what occurs in mainland Europe. It is prudent and necessary that we do this and the provisions of the treaty will keep our minds on it. The debt brake - a good idea to keep the budget deficit within a certain band and in control - will bring an end to the practice of political parties of all persuasions bringing forward unrealistic and costly manifestos for which, ultimately, the taxpayer ends up paying a hefty price, with parties attempting to buy elections. What would be wrong with saying goodbye to this system of politics? It is high time we did so.

Where I come from a person cannot get money from someone, whether it be €44 or €44 million, and expect him or her not to ask what one intends to do with the money or what one has done with it. What is unreasonable about this? People are saying the European Union is interfering. If someone was giving money on that scale to anyone, much less a country, surely the European Union and the European Central Bank are entitled to expect we would put the money to good purpose. As a committed European, I believe the European Union has been good to and for Ireland. In that regard, Ireland is seen by multinational companies as a bridgehead to Europe because it gives them a toehold in the European market. It is not acceptable to say, therefore, that it will not matter in the morning if we are not a fully fledged member of the Union and the eurozone. It would have significant implications.

I welcome the comments of François Hollande. I will say a little prayer that he is elected the next President of France because the Sarkozy-Merkel axis, in terms of the philosophical approach they are taking to the problem, is too austerity driven and one-sided. It is welcome that we could have a socialist at the helm in France which would curb the excesses of the book-keepers and the bureaucrats who would have us on our knees with austerity for decades to come. Mr. Hollande's election would not be a bad outcome.

A total of 25 countries have committed to the treaty which only requires 12 to pass it. The idea being put forward in some quarters - I include certain elements of the trade union movement in this and Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív is not blameless in the matter - that we should not worry about rejecting the treaty because we would get a second shot at it is highly irresponsible. We will only get one shot at agreeing to the stability treaty. I, therefore, implore the people whom I will be canvassing door to door across the country to support it.