Jimmy Harte (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State for this important business. During the referendum campaign many people to whom I spoke while canvassing asked what the ESM proposal meant. The best way I could describe it was based on my own insurance business. Let us imagine someone comes into my office and says, "I am not going to insure my house next year because it probably will not burn down and even if it does, my neighbours are all very good and they will probably help me out." We all know that when the event does happen, the neighbours have the same problem as the person who does not want to insure his or her house. Many believed the misconception propounded by those on the "No" side that we did not really need this measure because, if the worst came to the worst, the European Union would help us out. The best way I could explain it was that the measure was an insurance policy. Most Members in this Chamber and most people in the country will never have a major insurance claim, but if the house burns down, we will need that backup. One could use another analogy: if a person is going to lend me money to buy a house, he or she will say I need to insure the house because, if anything happens, I will need money to replace it. It is simple economics and common sense.

Many used the referendum campaign for different purposes such as electioneering and to propound their own views. It got to the stage where people were saying they would not vote for the treaty because their neighbours did not cut the grass. There were so many excuses. It is a very simple treaty, but until we passed it, that insurance policy was not in place. It was a lot to ask of people and many voted without knowing exactly what they were voting for, but they trusted the Government. They also trusted Fianna Fáil in opposition, the members of which, as Senator Michael D'Arcy said, stepped up to the plate. They saw the merits of the proposal and did not use it as a political trick to gain a few extra points in an opinion poll. Everyone recognises this and I commend them for it.

In its present form, the ESM may not be perfect, but it is like any house insurance policy. It cannot be exactly as everyone wants it; there are always bits and pieces that might not be covered. However, the ESM is the only show in town.

As to where the EU will go from here, like many people I attended the European football championship in Poland and I read about the country's history during the Second World War. More than 6 million Polish people died during the war, the highest per capita loss of any European country. That conflict came about because of hundreds of years of war in Europe. This financial battle does not compare with the First World War or Second World War.

The European Stability Mechanism, ESM, is only one part of the solution and the situation will work itself out in the long term. Without the ESM and like Greece, investors would not view Ireland as a country with a future. Greece's write-down of approximately 53% had consequences in that public spending and wages were cut. Many people point out that Greece received a write-down, but it was severe. Although it cut the debt, it cut the standard of living and wages as well. Now that our referendum has passed, a more measured debate can be held without a septic tank element being thrown into every argument. I commend the Minister of State, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the rest of the Government on their work.