JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on the Referendum on the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union) debate -
Thursday, 5 Apr 2012

The Reaction of Irish Society to the Treaty

Chairman

I remind people to switch off their mobile telephones. It is not good enough to put them on silent. They will interfere with the broadcasting equipment and these proceedings are being broadcast live on UPC channel 801 as well as being monitored by the national broadcaster. Will members please turn their phones off now?

Today's meeting is the third meeting of the Sub-Committee on the Referendum on the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. Following the decision of the Government to hold a referendum on the treaty, the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs established this sub-committee to host an extensive and informed debate on the treaty and the referendum's implications for both Ireland and the rest of the European Union.

Over the past three days, the sub-committee has benefited from hearing a range of views from across society under three main headings - views on the treaty from across the EU; the realities of what the treaty means for Ireland; and the reactions of Irish society to the treaty. In this morning's session, we will be focusing on the latter heading.

Addressing the committee this morning are Mr. John Bryan, Irish Farmers Association, IFA; Mr. Mark Fielding, Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME; Mr. Brendan Bruen, Financial Services Ireland, FSI; Ms Patricia Callan, Small Firms Association, SFA; and Mr. Brendan Butler, Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC. We will hear presentations from each of the organisations and then we will open the floor to members.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity, by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

The first presenter today is Mr. Brendan Butler.

Mr. Brendan Butler

I very much welcome the opportunity to address the committee.

In a sense, IBEC takes the position that it sees the debate leading up to 31 May as an opportunity to inform our European partners and the wider world that Ireland is very much open for business. The experience of Irish business in responding to the domestic and eurozone crisis demonstrates the flexibility of Irish business and its workforce in responding to these challenges. As a result of this flexibility, Irish companies have outperformed their European partners and have increased their customer base and gained new market share. As a result of this, our export performance for the past two years is the best among the EU member states. As a small open economy that exports 80% of everything it produces, this has allowed our economy to grow for the first time in five years.

IBEC sees the fiscal treaty as an important step on the road to recovery, not only for Ireland but also for Europe. Europe's reputation has been damaged over the past two years and as Europe competes on the global stage, it needs to begin to promote a strong growth strategy. Our EU partners can learn from the Irish experience and we should offer to share this experience with other member states.

IBEC and its business members will be supporting the treaty and actively campaigning for a "Yes" vote. This should not come as a surprise to anybody as the EU represents our largest trading partner.

The eurozone accounts for over €60 billion of our exports or 38% of the value of Irish exports of goods and services. The other 26 member states in the European Union account for close to €100 billion of our exports or 60% of the value of Irish goods and services.

A survey conducted by IBEC in February of 300 CEOs highlights the long-term commitment of Irish business to the European project and the eurozone. The key findings of the survey were that 88% of the CEOs regard Ireland's membership of the eurozone as critically important for the future prosperity of their business. Three out of every four of the CEOs stated that Ireland's ratification of the treaty was important to the future prosperity of their business. There is a clear signal from the business leaders in this country that they see this treaty as an important step in terms of our recovery but they also recognise that Europe needs to recover to compete on the global stage.

We need not only a strong Ireland, but a strong Europe. What we have done in this country over the past three years in terms of the response of business and employees should act as a signal to other EU member states and they should come and talk to us, and when we go to Europe, we should have a powerful seat at the table in explaining what we have done. We should become a role model for other member states.

Talking about the treaty and the other measures that form part of the new arrangements being introduced throughout the EU, we would see these new arrangements representing clearly a platform for growth and helping us avoid austerity. The treaty gives us an insurance policy for our public finances and will help ensure that we will never again experience the crisis of the past few years, and the crisis which many of us remember in the late 1970s.

Ms Patricia Callan

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to present this morning. I am here representing the Small Firms Association. We are the voice of small business in Ireland. We have 8,000 member companies nationwide and six affiliated organisations. Our governing board, our national council of member companies, decided unanimously to campaign for a strong "Yes" vote in this ballot on the fiscal stability treaty at its recent meeting.

There are three main reasons the members came to this decision. First, we view access to the European stability mechanism emergency fund as essential to market confidence. Without it, we feel that our re-entry into those markets could be seriously threatened and it would also be questionable as to whether we could leave the troika programme, as intended, in 2013. Obviously, the Government regaining control of Ireland's affairs is critical to our future prosperity and development.

The second reason we are saying, "vote Yes", is that we all are aware the nation's faces many challenges. We believe that it is more important than ever that we position ourselves at the heart of Europe. In particular, we are very concerned about being left behind in a two-tier eurozone as the other member countries might move ahead without us if we vote "No".

Third, and specifically from a small business perspective, we believe that both the euro currency and access to European markets are critically important. The euro has been beneficial to small Irish exporters. It has encouraged very many more businesses to move beyond our traditional trading partner, the UK, and to look into the eurozone. That is why our trade with eurozone markets has increased by 43% in the past decade. This is certainly from where the growth will be.

The euro has been beneficial in that it has removed the exchange rate risk, reduced transaction costs in international trade and shielded Ireland from currency crisis, for example, what may have arisen in 2008 with the collapse of the banking sector. In particular, we need this treaty to be passed in order to ensure that the currency is protected. We are acutely aware that domestic businesses are also suffering but we must remember that unless our exporters are doing well and bringing revenues back into Ireland, we will not have a domestic economy either. All of these matters are connected.

In terms of our own campaign, it is important that we hear individually from small business owners around the country. That will be our strategy. This morning, I want to share with the committee six comments from members who are dotted all around the country in different sectors, all of which are significant employers from a small firms' perspective. I want to start with Glenisk organic products which will be known to many of the members. It is based in County Offaly and produces a range of organic yogurts and milks. Mr. Gerard Cleary stated that Glenisk has an opportunity to grow in Europe and therefore create jobs at home, but needs an economically strong vibrant country to accelerate its growth, and that only a country that can be associated with economic success will create a positive image for the company's brand abroad. He added that inward investment is crucial for the economy so that we can develop sustained growth in future, and that a "Yes" vote in the fiscal treaty is key for creating an environment which will allow inward investment.

BMS Ireland designs, develops and manufactures a complete range of state-of-the-art electronic torque products in Limerick. It sells worldwide to the aerospace, automotive and alternative energy sectors. Mr. Liam Ryan, the managing director of that company, states that the company is very dependent on exports for over 90% of its business. He stated that the company needs stability in Ireland and Europe and a very strong Europe to compete with other great powers, and that to ensure this, he is voting "Yes" to the fiscal treaty.

Rhonellen Developments is involved in the development and management of primary care centres nationwide and is based in Dublin. Mr. A. J. Noonan, the managing director, states that we need to participate fully in Europe to sustain and grow our recovery, that we must be cognisant that it is no harm to have a balanced budget, and that most importantly of all, we must keep as many avenues of finance open to us over the coming years as possible.

Poplar Linens, which is engaged in contract design, manufacture and distribution of household textiles and licensed merchandise to both national and international markets, is based in Westport in County Mayo. Mr. Seán Walsh, the managing director of the company, states that Poplar Linens, in buying internationally, for example, in China, Pakistan, India, Columbia and Egypt, uses letters of credit from its bank and that it is critical that its suppliers have confidence in these letters of credit in order to ensure that the company has confidence in the marketplace and, obviously, the role of the ECB is critical in that regard.

Aalto Bio Reagents, based in Dublin, supplies a range of purified human proteins for in-vitro diagnostic application. Dr. Aidan O'Boyle, the joint managing director, has stated that as a 100% export small business, his company needs Europe and the euro, and that is why he will be voting "Yes" in the fiscal treaty referendum. Ms Sue O'Neill, the managing director of Shellcove, a marketing and event management services company based in Kildare, stated that, notwithstanding the national debate required in respect of the forthcoming referendum, it was vital that the international perception of Ireland's fiscal stability remain positive. Government agencies and influential business people have recently been selling Ireland as a great place in which to do business and a "Yes" vote in the referendum would show potential investors and companies seeking to locate European bases in Ireland that our country intended to be at the heart of the eurozone. Investors seeking guarantees are bound to favour European countries that have access to the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, emergency fund.

This is just a flavour of the reaction from member companies. That these businesses will speak on the airwaves and participate in the debate is unusual, as entrepreneurs are busy building their businesses. They view the referendum as a critical issue and a "Yes" vote is critical to their success. Their companies create jobs around the country, ranging from a small number up to 50 each. Given the chance, they would create many more jobs.

Mr. Brendan Bruen

I thank the committee for its invitation. Financial Services Ireland, FSI, is a sectoral association within IBEC and represents the broader financial services industry, some 180 operations, including domestic and exporting so-called IFSC firms, for example, insurance banking, capital markets, fund administration, investment management, aircraft leasing and so on. Our mandate is representative and developmental. A key part of our role is ensuring that Ireland has the right environment to attract new firms and to create new jobs and businesses. We are heavily involved in a number of developmental initiatives, such as the Green IFSC, and were one of the founders of the IFSC Ireland initiative, which promoted the industry overseas. With the Department of the Taoiseach, we facilitate the IFSC Clearing House Group. The FSI was the lead group in the development of the strategy for the international financial services industry, which was adopted by the Government and launched last year by the Taoiseach.

Following an extended consultation with our membership, we have endorsed the treaty and will work with IBEC and the broader campaign to advocate a "Yes" vote. We view the treaty as the better economic choice for Ireland for two reasons. First, a "Yes" vote would bring clarity and certainty regarding our position in Europe and promote stability in the economy and public finances, thereby supporting long-term growth and job creation. A "Yes" vote would help to build a stable base for recovery and employment.

The committee should bear in mind the fact that the most important factor in the growth in financial services employment during the past five or ten years has not been corporation tax, but the development of the European Single Market. An Irish insurer based in Cork can sell to almost anyone within the EU. Approximately 11,000 people are employed in fund administration in Ireland. This sector is built on common EU products that can be marketed internationally to an understanding investor base. Our future as a financial centre can only be as a European centre and as a full member of the EU. While there are other target markets, for example, the US, the Brazilian, Russian, Indian and Chinese, BRIC, countries, Latin America, Hong Kong and Singapore, access to them is dependent on our position within the EU and the EU's position as a trade negotiator. Access to the free market in international services is dependent on the active role of the EU.

The second reason is our public finances. While a "Yes" vote would not be a guarantee, it would assist the State in returning to international markets towards the end of next year, given the insurance policy that would be in place. Buying Irish paper would be more attractive to external investors were there a measure of security about our long-term future and position within the EU. A "No" vote would not be tantamount to stepping away from the EU, but it would leave us with an uncertain long-term future. A firm considering investing in Ireland must examine the ten or 20-year horizon. Voting "Yes" would be a sizable boost in convincing those firms and act as a clear affirmation of our position in Europe and our commitment to the euro and to keeping our house in order.

Between 1999 and 2011, employment on the export side of financial services increased from 8,500 to 33,000. We estimate that almost 2,000 jobs were created in the sector last year, although net growth was in the order of 1,000. People are leaving domestic institutions, but the sector's growth can provide an opportunity for them and many others to find work in the economy. There are exceptional success stories. For example, Citi has 2,200 people and its global research, development and innovation centre in Ireland. State Street has 2,200 people. Recently, the Bank of New York Mellon increased to approximately 1,700 people. There is a platform to build on, but certainty concerning the future is critical.

Chairman

Mr. Mark Fielding is from the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME.

Mr. Mark Fielding

I thank the Chairman for his invitation to give the committee our opinions on the treaty. We are the independent business association, representing approximately 8,700 small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. We directly employ approximately 230,000 people throughout all sectors and regions.

ISME welcomes the referendum. We have consistently argued in its favour to address the perceived democratic deficit that has undermined the efforts in Ireland and the EU to tackle the crisis. However, we would rename the treaty the "Treaty of Tears and Regret", in that we regret that the treaty was not drafted ten years ago. Had it been, we would not be in this mess. The tears would be for the thousands of ordinary Irish people and SMEs who will suffer for years to come because they were let down by politicians, regulators, bankers and auditors. We must pay for that greed. We also regret that the crisis has its origins in how the eurozone was established and in the abject failure to install fiscal structures that would and should have protected us and allowed the eurozone to work properly.

When Ireland should have been raising interest rates to calm the boom down, we were tied into the lower interest rates that suited Germany. Those rates were imposed on the rest of Europe. True to form, our grabbing banks latched onto commission-driven lending and flooded the country with so-called cheap money. The German and French banks that gambled on the Irish property boom also have culpability, as they loaned billions of euro to Irish banks, which greedily saw the killing to be made and, as was their wont, grabbed the opportunity.

Now that the property deals have collapsed, German and French banks want their money back. The EU and the European Central Bank, ECB, have made it a condition of us receiving our bailout that none of our errant and reckless banks can default on their debts. Most of those banks were guaranteed by the State on that infamous blackmail night in autumn 2008. They have been paid, but the State needed to borrow billions of euro to do so. That debt is being carried by the taxpayer. A large chunk of what we are receiving in bailout funds leaves as debt repayments.

It is crazy, unfair and unjust for the taxpayer and small businesses to carry this large burden. It is no wonder that there will be a protest vote. Adding insult to injury, we are paying a penal rate of interest, upwards of 8%, even though hundreds of billions of new money is being pumped into banks across Europe at an interest rate of approximately 1%. This is also outrageous, to say the least, and it is again no wonder that there will be a protest vote.

This situation arose because we did not have a fiscal structure to protect us from the factors that allowed the eurozone to get into this mess. For this reason, we need a treaty, even if it will be a treaty of tears. A treaty will guarantee financial prudence for the future, in that the political class will be unable to usurp power by promising all sorts of goodies to retain it. We will have a set of rules under which eurozone countries will need to run balanced budgets. We will need to reduce our national debt to the already agreed 60% of GDP. Before we exit our crisis, we will reach approximately twice that level, which means that reaching 60% will take us years. We must commit to working towards that target. This means severe austerity for another three, four or even five years while we get our financial house in order.

The bailout programme commits us to reducing our budget deficit to 3% by 2015. It will be close to 0% in approximately five years from now. This is the only way we will be able to return to the financial markets so that we can borrow for genuinely productive investment instead of the burgeoning day-to-day spending. In the meantime we must cut State spending, and introduce a series of austerity budgets, the likes of which have never been seen before. We must stick to the fiscal programme and get the bailout money for the next number of years, until we can balance our own budget. The alternative is an immediate cut off of funds - instant financial cold turkey, which could cause a total breakdown of our society.

At the start I stated that ISME is in favour of the referendum, and is also in favour of a "Yes" vote, in spite of this being a treaty of tears. The "No" side will have an easier job in putting their message across in that they can use potent examples to bolster their case, the reckless arrogance of our failed and bailed bankers, the failed and feckless regulators, the failed auditors who see no evil, the failed and false politicians together with evidence of the vast sums of money that were squandered in the recent past. These are potent examples, whether they are relevant or not, but will make it easier for the "No" side to paint those pen pictures.

In previous referenda campaigns, the Government side attempted conscientiously to over explain almost every sentence in judicial and Jesuitical jargon, which I would have thought was best left to the Four Courts. This went over the heads of the public. We in ISME have had to resort to bringing politicians to our regional briefing sessions around the country to explain in ordinary language the truthful meaning of the referenda.

This Government has shown itself to be extremely adept at PR spin, but it must now turn the explanation of the treaty into plain English and keep the message simple to combat the easier argument from the "No" side. We feel it is vital the Government and the proponents of this treaty are capable of explaining, in words of one syllable, all the reasons that it is imperative for people to vote "Yes".

Mr. John Bryan

Chairman, Members and Members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the fiscal treaty and its implications for Irish agriculture, Ireland and Europe.

The IFA believes that as a small open economy, Ireland benefits from membership of a stable currency regime, improving access to both EU and other European markets. This is of particular importance for export-dependent sectors such as agrifood and its key factors and also for attracting foreign direct investment. It is worth recalling the importance of the agrifood sector to the economy, particularly in terms of jobs and exports. Farming, the food industry and the service industries dependent on agriculture provide more than 300,000 jobs across all regions of Ireland. In 2011 the recovery in food and drink exports was particularly strong, growing by 11% to reach a record €9 billion. Agriculture is the only major economic sector with a common EU policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, which is centrally funded from the EU budget, and is in existence 50 years in 2012. As a significant food exporting country, Ireland's future prosperity is therefore dependent on a continued strong and effective European Union. Irish farmers, the food industry, and the economy benefit in a number of ways from CAP and have access to a marketplace of more than 500 million consumers, where the market is regulated to the benefit of both producers and consumers. The provision of significant direct payments to farmers is in return for the farmer's role in providing high quality, safe food and protecting the environment. There is financial support for a range of rural development measures that are designed to support economic activity and jobs in rural communities. The Common Agricultural Policy depends on the ongoing political support of the governments and peoples of Europe. Within the next 12 to 18 months, it is expected that the latest reform of the CAP will be agreed. It is critical for Irish agriculture and the economy that a strong fully funded Common Agricultural Policy is negotiated which maintains Ireland's existing funding envelope, provides flexibility and direct support towards active farmers in order to underpin agricultural production and economic activity. The decisions on the CAP are made by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Influence and goodwill in Europe are necessary conditions to ensure the best outcome in these critical negotiations. I believe that any withdrawal by Ireland from a central role in Europe would have negative consequences in the short term and potentially lead to Ireland's isolation in the longer term. This is a very difficult and uncertain time for everybody. Like every sector, farm families face serious challenges such as the loss of off-farm jobs and rising costs, in addition to the impact of cuts in public expenditure and increased taxation. The IFA, however, is clearly of the view that these and other issues must remain separate from the debate in the upcoming referendum.

The treaty must be debated on its own merits. What the treaty does is place what are largely existing targets for budget deficits and government debt already agreed at EU level into a more binding form in national legislation. We need to meet these targets in any case in order to restore our public finances to a sustainable position. Ratification of the treaty allows member states to gain access to the permanent bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism, should this be necessary. Failure to ratify the treaty will impact negatively on the strength of Ireland's future funding position, whether requiring the bailout fund or not. The treaty must be viewed as one element in the response by member states to the euro crisis. It is a necessary building block towards achieving a comprehensive solution. IFA supports the Government's position that the way forward for the euro must also include a sustainable path for recovery, and growth in Ireland and in Europe. A key element for growth will be securing a strong fully funded Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, which will underpin agricultural production and economic activity in Ireland and across the EU.

Ireland is a small, open economy with a growing export-dependent agrifood sector with great potential. Membership of a stable euro currency is critical to achieving the Food Harvest 2020 targets for investment, growth in output and exports. IFA is therefore recommending a "Yes" vote to the farming community and rural Ireland, as it believes ratification of the fiscal treaty is in the interest of IFA. It is also in the national interest. We believe a "Yes" vote is a vote of confidence in Ireland and in the EU.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Bryan and again I thank all who made a presentation this morning. We now come to questions and answers. May I ask members to limit their contribution to three minutes? I will let a speaker know when the three minutes are up, and would appreciate that he or she concludes. In that way, we will be able to get a thorough response from our guests.

Senator Terry Leyden

First, I welcome Mr. Brendan Butler, Ms Patricia Callan, Mr. Brendan Bruen, Mr Mark Fielding and Mr. John Bryan and compliment them on their precise and comprehensive assessment of the fiscal treaty. Mr. Brendan Butler outlined the IBEC approach, which was very important during the two referenda on the Lisbon treaty. IBEC membership comprises 17% of large enterprises and employs more than 7% of the private sector workforce. In the opinion of IBEC, there is no question mark over Ireland's corporation tax rate of 12.5%. This must be stated clearly so that nobody will try to raise the corporation tax rate as an issue during the referendum debate. IBEC can confirm this as part of its campaign. Mr. Brendan Bruen from Financial Services Ireland will confirm that the taxation of financial services is not part of the treaty. The Financial Services Centre is 25 years in existence and employs 33,000 people. I was a member of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench under the then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey when that was agreed. It is a great success story and it is nice to compliment those who were involved in the decision-making process at that stage.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Well done, Senator.

Senator Terry Leyden

Thank you, Deputy. In fact, when the document was circulated at the Front Bench meeting, I think the only person who really understood it was Mr. Haughey. It has been proven to be very successful. Championing the "Yes" vote is very important. I am pleased to hear of industry's involvement. Business people, including those in the IFSC, must stand up and champion a "Yes" vote. The IFA played an important role, particularly during the debate on the second Lisbon treaty. I am not sure about the first Lisbon treaty. There was a bit of a wobble, but it was helpful during the second debate. Given the fact that 300,000 people are employed in that sector, it is obvious that the IFA is in favour of the treaty. The other issues and protests should be set aside, as what is at stake is larger than anything else. Throughout every parish, the IFA's membership will play a crucial role.

Ms Callan provided impressive testimonials from people who were geared towards the treaty. Mr. Fielding made a strong case on behalf of the 230,000 employees ISME's members represent. It was fair that he criticised the previous Administration, but sufficient people did not shout "Stop".

Chairman

The Senator has exceeded his time.

Senator Terry Leyden

Most people shared in and enjoyed success during that period. Nevertheless, now is the time to rectify the situation. Had the fiscal treaty been in place, we would not have been exposed to the circumstances that resulted in our current difficulties.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome our guests and thank them for their presentations. I also thank them for their commitment towards taking an active role in the campaign. Due to their organisations' numerical strength, their involvement will be instrumental in ensuring a "Yes" vote. When it comes to referendums, politicians are often better off saying less than more. It is sometimes necessary to explain an argument when, for example, people get lost in the detail of a complex treaty, but this treaty is not particularly complex. It is better when those who have a direct role in society in terms of witnessing the impact of the passage or failure of a referendum are seen to be taking an active role in a campaign, as doing so makes a treaty easier for the general public to understand. Will our guests outline what their campaigns will be?

The organisations before us are from the business sector. Exports are a particularly important feature of our economy. Are our guests concerned by the UK not signing up to the treaty? Mr. Bruen comes from the financial services sector. The UK Government made a strong play and pushed the veto. I have an opinion on why it triggered that mechanism, but much of its commentary at the time was about the treaty's potential impact on the City of London and the UK's financial services industry. We have similar concerns about our industry. Will Financial Services Ireland, FSI, highlight this aspect lest there be confusion in the minds of some about whether the treaty will jeopardise our industry, in particular IFSC companies, or place greater restraints on it than those placed on the City of London?

Deputy Seán Kyne

I welcome the panellists and their presentations. Yesterday, an economist stated that the treaty was not about jobs and that he or she cringed whenever a politician raised that as an issue. Do Mr. Butler and Ms Callan agree that the treaty is about fiscal stability, therefore confidence, therefore investment and, therefore, job creation and job protection?

How concerned have the IFSC and the companies within FSI's remit been in recent years? Do they acknowledge the progress that has been made in terms of budgetary restraints and the importance of the treaty in that respect?

Mr. Fielding stated that the "No" side could discuss austerity, blame, etc. Where the EU-IMF programme is concerned, does he agree that no alternative sources of funding have been presented by the "No" side?

Farmers are generally pro-Europe. Is Mr. Bryan concerned that rural issues unrelated to the treaty might be raised during the debate? Will the IFA campaign actively contact members to ensure a "Yes" vote?

Chairman

We will take answers, starting with Mr. Butler. I ask our guests to limit their answers to four minutes each, as a number of other members wish to ask questions.

Mr. Brendan Butler

I thank the members for their input and questions. Senator Leyden referred to taxation. During the debate on the Lisbon treaties, a major suggestion was that they would have implications for our corporation tax rate. IBEC and other business organisations were unequivocal in stating that that was not the case. The Lisbon treaty is in place and there has been no issue at all. Nowhere in the text of the treaty, the six pack, the semester or any Government arrangement is reference made to taxation, be it personal or corporate. Taxation is not an issue and should not raise its head. If it is raised, it should be dealt with firmly.

Deputy Dooley asked about the campaign. IBEC's board and national council met on 7 March and agreed that IBEC should run a proactive campaign. We will put significant funds into our campaign, which will involve providing information. The dissemination of information is important, as is the use of technology, the Internet and social media. We also want to be visible. We put up posters during recent treaty campaigns. That will be our intention on this occasion. I am not referring to branding IBEC, but to conveying messages. We will hold a number of events around the country. Like the Small Firms Association, SFA, and its excellent example of small business champions, we have put together a team of business champions.

It is important that the treaty be addressed from a regional and local perspective, for example, on local radio, in regional newspapers, etc. Given our regional office structure, IBEC can feed into this process, which will help the campaign.

Within the IBEC family are 60 sectoral groups, from Retail Ireland to the Irish Software Association to ICT Ireland. All of these groups will support the treaty. We have established an organisation called Business for Ireland. It comprises groupings within IBEC as well as chambers of commerce, the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, hotels and restaurants. Together, we are building a platform to promote a "Yes" vote.

The UK's decision to stay outside will not damage Ireland's relationship with Europe or our export performance with the UK. The UK may have more to lose. Its decision will not impact on Ireland.

Regarding Deputy Kyne's questions, we will not tell people that the treaty will create jobs in and of itself. We view the treaty and the other arrangements as providing stability, certainty and responsibility, qualities that have been missing in recent years. Their absence caused this country and the rest of Europe considerable problems. The fiscal treaty and the other elements will put in place the grounds for stability, certainty and responsibility. For families, businesses, countries and the EU, these three elements are important to their future prospects. A connection could be made between this factor and jobs. What business will create jobs in an unstable, uncertain and irresponsible environment?

Ms Patricia Callan

The SFA will run an independent campaign. We have also joined up with Business for Ireland and are touching base with broader civil society organisations. During the last campaign, we were involved with Women for Europe and Generation X, as many of our members cross those categories. Our campaign will have many facets.

In the first instance, information is critical. We have disseminated information to our members, who will hopefully discuss the matter with their employees. Doing so would be important. This will really be decided when people have conversations about it over cups of coffee or in the pubs. It is important for people with the right knowledge to be involved in communicating the information. We are also running a national roadshow - the Better Business show - which is to be launched by the Taoiseach on 17 April, which is the week after next. That will go all over the country over a four-week period. We will build this message into that. We are expecting more than 3,000 businesses to attend. That will be a core part of what we are doing. As the campaign progresses and issues arise, we will deal with any specific business issues that may be thrown up by the opposition. We will give our opinions on the arguments that are made and offer counter-arguments to them.

A question was asked about jobs in small businesses. I would say that everything is ultimately connected. The eurozone turmoil was the reason for the dire results for the last quarter that were quoted on television last night. People shelve investment plans - they do not take risks or make progress with them - when they see uncertainty all around them. It is critical that we have this certainty. Many of our members have investment plans and are waiting for the right opportunity to proceed with them. In some cases, people still have cash reserves and quite big plans. We need this to be passed quickly. That is why we welcome the early date for the referendum. We cannot have this hanging over our heads. Internationally, many of our companies would have been involved in the China trade mission. They are talking about things like this in Asia. That affects our ability to get on with business. The quicker this is successfully put through, the better.

Mr. Brendan Bruen

I absolutely agree with Senator Leyden's comments. The IFSC has benefited from political support for the entirety of its existence. The close relationship between the public and private sectors in relation to the IFSC development is what has set the Irish financial services industry apart from the industries in many other countries.

I would like to respond to what was said about a financial transaction tax and also to Deputy Dooley's remarks. Absolutely no element of the treaty would introduce a financial transaction tax or create a situation in which the IFSC would be put at a competitive disadvantage by comparison with any other jurisdiction. On the contrary, if we vote "Yes" we will have clarified our position in respect of Europe and we will have far greater certainty than the UK in respect of our future relationship with the European Union. That would be of real benefit. It is something we would emphasise.

I assure Deputy Kyne that there is significant recognition of the steps that have been taken. Confidence has been maintained. The fact that a sovereign rating can have an impact on them has been an issue for firms operating within the IFSC. It has been seen that there is a tendency to examine countries with respect to the base they are in. That has naturally caused questions to be asked.

Ireland has an extremely strong constitutional tradition. A strong message to the effect that there is no question of any assets or anything else being called into question as a result of anything has come out of Ireland. That will be emphasised during the campaign.

There is a sense, perhaps, that this country beats itself up a little bit. Huge positivity is shown by the global boards of multinational corporations. We meet them regularly when they come to Ireland. There is a real sense that Ireland is at a point at which it can move on. That message has been coming through. Although nothing is settled, there is a lot of positivity around that.

Mr. Mark Fielding

I would like to respond to Senator Leyden's suggestion that not enough people shouted "Stop". We are on the record as having done so. I remember a specific instance in September 2000. A letter and a press release were sent to the Central Bank and the Government calling for the sending of unsolicited letters, almost offering free money to people, to be brought to an end. I could go through a number of such instances. Every time we acted in such a manner, we were shouted down and told we were not wearing the green jersey. I assure the sub-committee that some people shouted "Stop".

Senator Terry Leyden

Were the people in question like John the Baptist?

Mr. Mark Fielding

I will pass on that one.

Mr. John Bryan

His head will not get cut off.

Mr. Mark Fielding

Exactly. On Deputy Dooley's question, I agree with what Mr. Butler said about the UK's decision not to sign up. It will not affect our exports into the UK as much as it will affect the UK's relationship with Europe.

We were asked how we are promoting a "Yes" vote. As a poor independent body that represents small and medium-sized businesses, we are not funded or sponsored by the banks or by big business. We will find it difficult to go out and put up posters. We will let our members know that we are in favour of this treaty.

Deputy Kyne asked about alternatives to this approach. As I have said, we know there are no alternatives. It is austerity and that is it. We have to take it. The reasons for that have been well documented. We are still waiting for the "No" side to come up with an alternative. The nearest thing will probably be the tooth fairy. Other than that, there is no alternative.

Mr. John Bryan

I assure Senator Leyden that farmers have always strongly supported the Common Agricultural Policy. We believe that Europe, the euro, the stable currency and the Common Agricultural Policy have been of benefit. We are looking forward now. The belief and confidence in agriculture is good for us. We see this as positive. The 500 million consumers in Europe have a much higher average income than the 7 billion people in the world. We are looking forward to the stability that will be provided by a stable currency.

I assure Deputy Dooley that the IFA will run an active campaign. I will say more about that in a minute. I agree with the other speakers that this is about exports, jobs and rebuilding. I see a bit of a bounce coming back into Ireland. We all have to work together to try to help community spirit and confidence in Ireland. We are over in Europe with Marian Harkin, MEP, fairly often. We also meet the other MEPs.

The British were always seen as eurosceptics. They have almost jumped out of the lifeboat at this stage. There are 60 million people in Britain. They have not gained any ground by using their veto. They have lost a lot of ground. When one sits down with the Germans and the French - there might not be any love lost between the French and themselves - one finds they have added a lot more people to that club. The British example can be compared to a child learning a lesson from putting its finger in the fire. Some people who were already semi-isolated have definitely moved a lot further. There is a good example there for us. One can clearly see it on the ground over there.

I agree with Deputy Kyne that this is definitely about investment, the future and growth. China has already been mentioned. The Vice President of China did not come here by accident. He sees Ireland as a country with potential. Food exports are a big part of that. We intend to run an active campaign. The IFA is not about money. Its voluntary officers provide a voluntary service. Our boys go out every night of the week. They do not get paid for doing it. They work on the ground.

Over the past two months, I have probably spoken to 4,000 or 5,000 farmers from Ennis to Letterkenny. I have been positive on the euro and on membership. We have a very democratic consultation process. While I have been a strong proponent of a "Yes" vote, that was not the official policy of the IFA until it received the unanimous endorsement of our national council last Tuesday. It has been our policy since last Tuesday. We intend to run campaigns at county executive level. We will also lead a strong "Yes" campaign at four regional meetings around the country.

Ms Marian Harkin, MEP

I thank our five witnesses for the strong endorsement they have given to the treaty. I am pleased to be in attendance to listen to them. I will be a very critical "Yes" voter. I will frame my questions in that context.

Mr. Butler said that the treaty is an important step on the road to recovery. I thought that in his first presentation, he linked Ireland's membership of the EU with the fiscal treaty. I would like his comments on the fact that Czech Republic and the UK are not part of this. François Hollande has said that if he is elected, he will renegotiate this on behalf of France. The Dutch Government is debating what it will do. There is no unanimity across Europe on that. What are Mr. Butler's views on it?

Mr. Butler also said this will help Ireland's recovery. I will frame a broader question on this aspect of the matter at the end of my contribution and put it to everybody. Mr. Butler used three terms "stability", "certainty" and "responsibility". I will come back to them at the end of my contribution. Recovery was mentioned. If the treaty is not accompanied by eurobonds, a redemption fund and other fiscal measures leading to a transfer union, how can it aid the process? One of the reasons I will vote "Yes" is that this is one in a series of treaties we may have. Ms Patricia Callan gave very strong reasons, and there is no stronger endorsement than listening to business people talking about their companies and the possibility for exports. She mentioned the growth coming from the EU. In that context what about the BRICS countries and what has been done recently? Given that the eurozone is in recession, apart from some of the stronger countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, where will our exports go? Mr. Brendan Bruen also endorsed the treaty and responded to Deputy Timmy Dooley's question about the financial transaction tax. While I agree there is nothing in the treaty that will endorse an FTT, none the less it is being talked about prominently at EU level. There is no link between the two but it is an issue we will have to face as well as the CCCTB, but that is an aside.

I agree with Mr. Mark Fielding that it is a treaty of tears and regret. It would be fine if we had had the treaty ten years ago but we are in a different position now. He also said that given the way the eurozone was set up, its architecture is unstable. It is still unstable. We see the German economy powering ahead. As inflation begins to creep up, how soon will we have the same argument about interest rates again because one thing we cannot take is higher interest rates. Many of the problems still exist and we have to recognise that.

Mr. John Bryan gave a very strong defence of the treaty and mentioned the link between the fiscal treaty and the CAP. If we vote "No" I would be concerned that we will have the Presidency in 2013. We will be looking at the overall size of the budget and at the slice for the CAP. I am genuinely concerned that it would weaken our hand if we vote "No". I would like to hear Mr. Bryan's view on that issue. He said the treaty is viewed as just one element. What are his views on the other elements?

We need to be careful about how far we push stability, certainty and responsibility. The firewall is not big enough and everybody recognises it should be more. The ECB is well on the way but it has not pumped in enough money. It is interesting to note that little if any of that money is going to small business, rather it is stabilising the banks. The architecture problem to which I referred still has not been fixed. There are fundamental flaws in the euro and we have to be careful to let people know that, but this will not solve them. Greek debt is unsustainable and in my humble opinion so is Irish debt, although the Government is moving in the right direction. There is no redemption fund, no eurobonds and no clear pathway to the future for Europe. We need to say all of that when we speak to the people and not let them think the treaty will deliver all those issues. It may be the first step, and that is an important message.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank the presenters. It is very nice sitting here to hear an optimistic story. I am concerned given that the media will be 50% for and 50% against and that there will be a group which will probably not connect with what is going on in the newspapers or in television and how that message is broadcast. I am glad to hear the representatives say they will be on the ground talking to their members.

Perhaps the representatives can advise us. Given that there will be banana skins along the way, I ask that issues such as turf cutting, household charges, septic tanks, same-sex marriages and so on are not brought into the debate. I think it was Mr. Mark Fielding who said there will be austerity if we vote against the treaty. One of the main political parties in the House speaks in the media about the austerity treaty. How do the representatives think we can best deal with that issue? From the point of view of Fine Gael and, I am sure, the political parties represented here, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party, we are organising ourselves but we are conscious of the need to bring civil business and the farming sectors of society with us, and that it is not just a political issue. We realise that many people switch off and would almost vote "No" if they hear one of us recommending a "Yes" vote. We need the help of the representatives. Fine Gael has organised a national, local and regional campaign with the aim of getting to all sections of society. We will probably contact the representatives for help along the way.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I congratulate the guest speakers for their presentations. It is a rarity nowadays to get people who are on message and positive at the same time. Apropos the point raised by my colleague, in regard to referenda, equal time must be given to both sides, regardless of whether each is equally representative of the community at large. This is a cause for concern as time goes by. Yesterday one of the speakers pointed out that nearer to the time of a referendum there is a tendency for the positive side to lose ground because far greater latitude is given to those on the “No” side, by virtue of having to give 50% of time to both sides. A court case determined something of that order some years ago but there is no obligation to stick with it in a democracy, except here.

I congratulate each representative for identifying the important elements they see as necessary as we proceed into the future at a difficult time. Stability and confidence were the issues raised. They also emphasised clearly the importance of taking ownership of the European project, being part of Europe and getting away from the issue of being outsiders looking in to some place to which we have no contribution to make or over which we have no control. We have made and will continue to make our contributions. It is very important, as the speakers said, that we recognise we are Europeans, that we are equal in terms of our influence and input and are capable of doing it at all times. As politicians we must give leadership, as stated by Mr. Mark Fielding in respect of the past, and we will give it. If a member of a major political party gives leadership, there is a tendency to regard him or her as somehow eroding the constitutional rights of those who hold an opposite view. I do not accept that.

A speaker mentioned yesterday that a "Yes" vote means jobs. That is a bit simplistic. What he was really saying was that a "No" vote certainly does not improve the employment position. In the past we may have made the mistake of simplifying the slogan by saying a "Yes" vote means jobs. Of course it does indirectly because we have to go the European route. We note that point.

On the issues of the CAP and the World Trade Organization, the CAP is important and much more so than in the past ten years. It is important also to watch the WTO carefully because the benefits of the CAP can be eroded easily in the context of the WTO and we cannot allow that to happen. The cost of doing business has been mentioned. We have repeatedly made the point about the need to be competitive.

The last point I wish to make relates to the euro. We had a submission from a member of the House of Commons who would be less supportive of the euro and the European Union in general than most. The euro has been identified as being the villain of the piece. However, if adequate credit controls had been applied across the Union, there would be no difficulty with the euro. The availability of cheap money is hugely beneficial to growing economies and the manufacturing and business sectors in general, and it is to be hoped that the lessons that have been learned over recent years are well absorbed and that we start now in a positive fashion.

Senator Mary M. White

I compliment all the witnesses who have made presentations today. Since the time of Seán Lemass, Fianna Fáil has been consistent in its support for the European Union.

My main concern is how people have reacted to this issue. We have seen people react stridently through strikes in Greece and Spain. I and Fianna Fáil totally supported the reaction of the Irish people to the household charges. In the overall scheme of things, a charge of €100 for facilities in local areas is very small, but I believe the decision not to pay up was a protest against the Government. I know the application of the fee was badly managed, but the decision not to pay was a serious protest. It was in fact a kind of revolution that the people refused to pay this small amount.

If Mr. Fielding's company did not have the finance for marketing and posters, it would be adequate for him to appear on "Prime Time" and other programmes to advertise. I doubt if any of the people promoting the other side on the treaty are business people or that they ever had to go out and gain sales and pay people's salaries. It is the test of a business person to be able to do that - to make sales so as to be able to pay employees. It is a pity we do not have any of those people here today so that today's witnesses could hear their comments. Yesterday, we had a very strident young MEP here who was totally opposed to the treaty. The "No" side will be very strident on television programmes. It is crucial, therefore, that we get the point across that this treaty is critical for Ireland and part of how we will regain respect following what has happened in recent years. I am concerned about how we will get past the noisy opposition we hear currently. There is opposition to everything being done, but how can we get past that and get the "Yes" message across?

Chairman

The Government will supply every household in the country with information. For the first time, the full text of the treaty will be sent to every house, along with explanatory material. The Labour Party will mount a full campaign, as if for a general election. Our conference will take place next weekend and several events are planned during the conference to help raise awareness of the stability treaty and to plan for our campaign.

Senator Mary M. White

The Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis will take place the weekend preceding the referendum. There will be significant coverage of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis then.

Chairman

As the Senator is aware, the coverage must be balanced in accordance with the rules.

Senator Mary M. White

Yes, but there is a certain cachet with having an Ard-Fheis and the negative view will be promoted.

Chairman

A number of questions have been put and we have some time left. I will ask witnesses to conclude their responses after approximately three minutes.

Mr. Brendan Butler

I will try to be brief. With regard to the two areas raised by the MEP, I do not subscribe to the notion being put forward that if this goes the wrong way, we will be thrown out of the European Union. The euro is going to limp on, despite its problems, and there is no necessity to start frightening the life out of people. That is the wrong way to approach this. We should approach this referendum as an opportunity. We should see the eight weeks between now and 31 May as an opportunity for Ireland and its different groupings to put forward the arguments on this treaty and the future of Europe.

We are a very small member state and there has been a great fear that small member states are being pushed aside. We now have an opportunity to lead by example and to show leadership. In the past two or three years we have gone through enormous difficulties, yet the business community sitting around this table and our friends from the agricultural community and the agrifood sector, which has been a great success in these difficult times, can show that in very difficult circumstances, they can make the necessary changes to come through hard times. We should be out in Brussels and Strasbourg every day pointing out what a small country can do in difficult times. We should use this time as a real opportunity and should make the case for other smaller member states and let Europe know that we will not be dominated by the large powers. We must show we have influence and lead by example.

I do not want to talk about the consequences of a "No" vote in any detail. I do not believe a "No" vote would be good for Ireland or for Europe and that would be the view of the business community in general. However, on the broader point of the issues facing Europe, it is quite right that this treaty is only a tiny step. What this treaty involves is just a few basic rules about housekeeping. It just puts some of the basic rules in place and these apply to individuals, families, businesses and countries. However, even if we have good rules in place, we can still find ourselves in difficulty.

Europe is in difficulty. We must be sensible and remember that on 1 June, the issues confronting Europe and Ireland will remain to be dealt with. This treaty is just a very small step on a very long road, but it is a step we must take. With regard to all the issues mentioned by the MEP, such as eurobonds, we have first move or advantage. Many other EU member states will find themselves in difficulty in years to come and they may come to us, or we should go to them and tell them what we have done. This treaty will not solve the euro crisis, but it is a step forward we should take.

With regard to the contributions of Deputies Durkan and Mitchell O'Connor, it is very difficult to bring this to a level where people really understand what is involved. We mentioned already that Business for Ireland has come together to work on this. We have also set up a group for civil society, the Alliance for Ireland.

Chairman

Is that the title of the new group?

Mr. Brendan Butler

Yes. It is similar to the group formed previously. With regard to the difficulty of communicating the issues, somebody gave the example of going into a newsagency the day before the second vote on the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. A number of workers there asked whether it was true that if they voted "Yes", their minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84. This question was asked just the day before the referendum and it illustrates the point made by the Deputies about the difficulty of communicating with people on the issues. Although the issue had been explained, the imagery of the poster mentioned was dramatic. We all have a huge job of work to try to inform people.

On Senator White's contribution, I agree that of course there will be banana skins. She referred to Greece, but we could also talk about Spain and Portugal. There is a danger that at some point in the future there will be some degree of social unrest here. We have been extraordinarily mature and responsible as a people and having taken the knocks we have in this country over the past three or four years, it is extraordinary that people have not taken to the streets. Great credit must go to the trade unions which have been responsible by making sure they did not take action. We must work this through and get to 1 June.

Senator Mary M. White

The point I was making is that not paying the household charge was a protest. People did not go on the streets. However, the point I made was that so few people paid €100 to provide facilities for their own area. That was spelled out clearly.

Mr. Brendan Butler

Okay.

Senator Mary M. White

It was a different type of protest. I worry about people protesting against the Government and austerity measures.

Mr. Brendan Butler

Senator White is correct. I will conclude on that point.

Ms Patricia Callan

Many issues have been covered by Mr. Butler. Previously it came up in discussion about how we should address MEPs. Is it Deputy or Senator?

Chairman

One can say MEP Harkin.

Ms Marian Harkin, MEP

Marian is just fine.

Ms Patricia Callan

Now I know. Please accept my apologies. In terms of growth and a growth strategy, when people set up a business they normally have an idea. They get the finance in place. They start on a small scale and then they begin to grow. It is natural for them to gravitate initially towards their nearest market. In our case that is the United Kingdom. We have a common language and it is located across a small sea. People go from there into the European market.

In essence, while the BRICS countries are critical and will be, for the average, typical small business owner, he or she will want to prove the concept and to figure out how to do that in practice in nearer markets. The eurozone itself is a huge market of 500 million people. Even in recession or a depressed economic environment we can still gain market share if our businesses are better and if they are more competitive. One of the things on which our members have been focused in the past five years is reducing business costs and regaining competitiveness. We have done that, which is the reason our exports are increasing.

We are only at the start of the journey. There is a very small proportion of businesses in this relative to the overall population and a whole raft of things need to be done domestically to support that. We are making some progress. The worldwide markets will be critical. One of the companies to which I referred earlier, BMS in Limerick, has now set up an office in China. The son of the family business is out there. He has learned the language and is trading successfully. The company employs 18 people and one of them is now in China full-time. It is possible and can be done but we need a lot more of it.

In most of the international studies on costs in the eurozone, we have made significant advantages in recent years because we have had to take difficult decisions, whereas they have been relatively cushioned in that sense. There will be huge opportunities in the future.

In general, we see this very much as a stepping stone. There are issues of broader concern. There is not all that much that is new in the treaty but, none the less, it is critical that it is passed. It will give a degree of certainty for the moment that will allow people to get on with things. In business terms, traditionally industrial policy has always been about exporting from this country but it is much more sophisticated now. It is about joint venturing and attracting inward investment in joint ventures in this country as well. Many other decisions are being made, not just about exporting.

In general, in terms of the campaign itself, civil unrest and domestic issues, it is a problem we have all faced. We have a lot more competing voices on the "Yes" side, which sometimes militates against us. If there are one or two people giving a consistent message on the other side, it is easier for them to communicate. That is why we put these structures in place both at the business community level and the civil society level to try to get a degree of co-ordination. We are very focused on that. It is critical.

Mr. Brendan Bruen

I accept the point made by Ms Marian Harkin in respect of both the common consolidated corporate tax base, CCCTB, and the financial transaction tax, FTT. We must be clear that they are out of scope in terms of this treaty. They are very much in scope in terms of political developments. The argument on FTT, to an extent, has been making progress. It is not just a case of displacement effects. With the UK there are fundamental flaws with the idea. That is a reasonably recognised aspect. The more recent European discussion has acknowledged that point.

What cuts both ways on the treaty is that it is relatively short and it is relatively easy to say this is definitely not in scope, which perhaps cuts out some of the aspects in terms of what was said in the debate on the Lisbon treaty in terms of the minimum wage, conscription and other such issues. When one cuts to the other side of that, it does not cover several aspects which will ultimately need to be covered on the economic side. That will ultimately play both ways.

In terms of the commentary and the strident nature of material, the quote that comes to mind from the first referendum on the Lisbon treaty is that everyone has the right to their own opinion but just not to their own facts. That has crept into the discussion. A huge amount of pressure is evident in terms of the membership of our community to get the facts out there, to make sure that people are making an informed decision and understand the material that exists because the facts do support a "Yes" vote.

Mr. Mark Fielding

I accept the point made by Ms Harkin that this is not the be-all and end-all of all treaties. In fact, on its own it is not enough to solve the euro crisis. There are a number of other problems. I jotted down three immediately. The limited mandate of the European Central Bank is a difficulty. The lack of uniform financial regulation, including a pan-European bank resolution regime, is a problem. The lack of a more ambitious fiscal union right across Europe, in particular one which involves transfers between states, is another. They are the three things which come to mind.

In response to the comments in toto, we must get back to saying what this is all about. As Mr. Brendan Butler said, it is about just sorting out a couple of small issues such as how we can manage ourselves in the future.

To return to Senator White's issue on the protest vote, too much thought goes into the opposition. When I was playing sport, one did not think about the opposition. One thought about one's own team and how one went for it. If we start to say it is not going to be this or that, all we are doing is adding fuel to the fire of the opposition, the "No" side. What we must guard against is the protest vote that may have been part of the reason for the response to the household charge in the past week. People saw it as a way of protesting without it costing them much more than a tenner, which they would pay in three months' time. The same may happen on 31 May. People may decide this is not really going to help or hinder much and we will still be able to barrel along. We must show, as Deputy Durkan said, that we are proud Europeans and this is the way we should be going. It is a matter of putting a couple of dots on i's and crossing our t's and getting with it. That is what we need to do.

Mr. John Bryan

I feel the same way as the other speakers. I see the referendum as positive for this country. We are the only country holding a referendum. A strong "Yes" vote would be a vote of confidence in Europe. To respond to what Ms Marian Harkin said, we have the Presidency of the EU in the first six months of next year. Critical negotiations are ongoing. A strong "Yes" vote will put us in a very strong position. Goodwill is something that never goes astray. We can gain a lot of goodwill and put ourselves in a position to have great influence in the first half of next year.

As Ms Callan said, the BRICS countries see us as being part of Europe. No more than China or even the United States, they look at a European standard. It is all plus. I know there is a recession in Europe but there would be a bigger one if we were on the outside of it. We see the treaty as moving in the right direction. I fully agree that there must be stronger financial support between countries.

In response to Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, it annoys me - one should never let anything annoy one - that equal representation is provided to someone who invents himself in the morning as a pothole campaigner and someone else who represents a couple of hundred thousand people. That is annoying. I do not know whether it is totally undemocratic but, unfortunately, that is the way it is. Those who are positive should give a clear message and try to focus on the positive. I agree that civil society has a part to play. I also agree with the point made by others that politicians are elected and they stand for election. They do not get there by accident. They have a part to play and they must use their grassroots machines, whether they are Deputies, MEPs or councillors, and they must use the people who work hard for them on the ground.

Deputy Durkan referred to the media. One of the most important things is the availability of credit and cash. Over the past two years I have visited countries like Argentina and the Ukraine, where money costs 30% if one can get it. Ireland, which is in a central place in Europe, can access money at 5%, 7% and 8% - it should be closer to 3% or 4% - which is critical for business, agribusiness and exports. It is not optional. CAP is very important, as are WTO bilateral trade deals. When we are central we have much more influence. In Europe we form alliances with the French, Germans and Austrians. One has to be central to the process. I agree with Senator White; we all have to work together. Politicians from the three parties represented at this meeting have been in touch with the IFA and have offered any help they can give. We have to run a strong campaign and I intend to focus the campaign on people.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Bryan on behalf of the committee for coming here and sharing his presentations. It is refreshing to feel the energy and enthusiasm emanating from his benches today. It bodes well for the future of the country. We enjoyed the presentations and wish him well.

We will suspend until 2 p.m. when the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed, the European Movement and the IIEA will be in attendance.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.