Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)

I welcome this debate. It is good to be able to reflect on what was a long campaign and for us to be able to go back and talk to people we canvassed and worked with during it and bring their views here. Referendum day was the people's day and they spoke out clearly in favour of the treaty. I was proud to play a role in Sinn Féin's campaign against the treaty. We mapped out an alternative and we went from door to door to try and convince people we were right, but the fear of the people won out in the end. Although the turnout was low, I commend all those people who used their democratic right and voted on the day. It is important people exercise their right to vote, particularly considering that only a small number of people across the European Union got to vote on the treaty.

The campaign was an unsavoury one in some ways. For example, the Labour Party was campaigning, from the top down in particular, for rules that some of its own MEPs vehemently rejected not so long ago. Also unsavoury was the sight of Fianna Fáil preaching about putting the country first and advising us the treaty was in our economic interest. However, they had the right to do that, just as Sinn Féin had the right to put forward an alternative. I disagree with Senator Byrne with regard to restricting media coverage or trying to moderate it or balance it out over the course of a year with regard to parties that get disproportionate coverage in referendum campaigns in the context of the side they are on, whether "Yes" or "No". We do not want to introduce a section 31 that will muffle who appears on television or who can be seen, just because they belong to a smaller party or because those put forward to speak are not elected representatives.

We will continue to put forward our alternative. We will not stop arguing against austerity because we believe it has failed and will continue to fail and this was the basis of our argument throughout the referendum debate. We will not stop arguing for the promotion and protection of Irish sovereignty. Some 40% of the people agreed with our analysis that this is a bad treaty and they rejected it. It is important to note that the number of those who rejected the treaty was higher among those classes of society who the Government has decided should shoulder the burden of the mistakes of others. For example, working class areas voted "No" in general. The people of Dublin North-West wisely rejected the advice of the two Labour Deputies in that area. The people of County Donegal in which there is a huge rate of youth unemployment and emigration also decided that this would not be in their interests either. They will be proved right in the future. I also note the anecdotal evidence that young people voted "No", something that does not surprise me, given that this generation is increasingly rejecting the notion that it should suffer for the mistakes of its elders. All in all, these results point towards the establishment moving further away from the interests of young people and working people and only reluctantly dragging enough of the remainder to scrape by this test.

The purpose of this debate is to discuss the way forward. The "Yes" side has a lot of promises to keep and we will not let it off the hook that easily. When we talk about cynicism and misrepresentation during the referendum campaign, we need to look at some of the promises made by the "Yes" side. We were promised jobs during the Lisbon treaty debate and we all know how things turned out. Only one week after the latest referendum result Pfizer in Cork announced that it was laying off almost 200 workers. Had we not already been told by international CEOs, including the managing director of Pfizer, that multinational corporations were awaiting our decision before deciding whether to invest in Ireland? We gave them a "Yes" decision, but we are still losing jobs in these big companies. Since the referendum, there has been a round of redundancies in my county, with the closure of Flair International in Bailieborough. I accept that it will be some time before the true effects of the treaty will be seen, but the early signs for job creation are not promising.

What about the stability we were promised? Some €100 billion has been pumped into Spanish banks and their bond rates have spiked. The eurozone has never been more unstable. Stability comes from investment and employment in a working society, not from bailout treaties that shift power and money from working people to a protected class of capitalists.

What about the slogan "Yes for investment"? The rhetoric from the European Union and the Government has been grand and flowery, but what concrete measures have been promised? We have seen the announcement of microscopic project bonds and heard some talk about an extra €10 billion lending facility for the EIB, but this €10 billion stimulus package for a European Union of 500 million people should be compared with the €100 billion given for a handful of Spanish banks. I do not think this adds up. The reality is that we are sitting on a potential €5 billion investment fund from the National Pension Reserve Fund. If that was coupled with the billions of euro being paid out to Anglo Irish Bank, we would have the basis for an indigenous stimulus package that could be used to fund the creation of a world class broadband system, the eco-fitting of homes or help businesses the length of the State to create short, medium and long-term employment for young people. However, like the other promises made to get us out to vote on referendum day, the "Yes for investment" slogan is just as shallow as "Yes for Stability".

We were told that a "Yes" vote would strengthen the Government's hand in negotiating a better deal on our bank debt. It was not long, however, before we got our answer on that one. By signing up to this austerity rule book, we have weakened our hand and tied the hands of future, better Governments, although there will always be different opinions on that one.

The people have spoken on the treaty and that is their democratic right. Irish citizens who reside on this part of the island and who have not emigrated because of the failed economic policies to date are the only ones in Europe who were given the chance to use their democratic right to vote on the treaty. We have to wonder where is the democratic scrutiny of such matters. Those of us who opposed the treaty as a further giveaway of our economic sovereignty will continue to organise and resist the current failed policies and provide an alternative. The alternative is a responsive and democratic European Union which respects the rights of states to control their own economic policies. It is a Union that does not just do press releases on issues of major importance such as youth unemployment but actually starts to tackle them seriously and provide for real solidarity, not threats to member states in difficultu.