Thank you, Chairman. I am sure sub-committee members saw the poignant scene yesterday outside the Greek Parliament when a retired pharmacist took his own life because of his perception of what was a dire and desperate situation for himself, his family and country. The dignity of Europeans on the receiving end of some of the policies being pursued is something that is hurting. There is a sense of pride, national identity and solidarity - an overused word - or a lack of it.
I look at the treaty and ask what is it. I have watched the proceedings on and off in the last couple of days. They have been very informative and I congratulate the sub-committee on bringing so many people in. I found their contributions fascinating. I agree with the summary that this is, in effect, a firming up of the Maastricht treaty. There is a not a whole lot more to it than that. It is narrow in its terms and intent. There is a transfer of sovereignty that will take place, but one might argue it is something we would be doing anyway. It is also all stick and no carrot. It is a very Teutonic tonic for countries such as Ireland, Spain, Greece, Italy and so on and, unfortunately, it is not going to work for us and the European Union. It is, at best, a placebo. The idea of a placebo is that it should do no more. It may not cure the disease, but it should do no harm. The idea is that the fiscal compact treaty will resolve Europe's economic crisis and put us back on a path to recovery, but it will not work. This has been designed to placate the German popular press and electorate to give the impression that these bold, misbehaving countries - we are thrown into the pot - must be punished for their misdeeds and that we must all sign up to being good members of the family. However, it utterly ignores the fact that if the compact treaty had been in place in 2008 or November 2010, the bailouts would have gone ahead regardless. That was the policy being pursued by institutions in Europe, as we now know. Nobody of any significance in the European Union raised a voice against this and we find ourselves saddled with a hugely disproportionate amount of failed bad bank debt that was never sovereign. The basic concept of sovereign debt is that it was something we borrowed. If we borrow money, we have to pay it back. We were all brought up that way. As we did not borrow this money, morally, we are not responsible for it.
As a European federalist, as somebody who wants to see a united states of Europe and strongly believes that if we do not move towards a united states of Europe in short order, we will see an unravelling of the project, this is a waste of time, as it is giving false hope. It is a Potemkin charade to pretend that something is being done to solve the problem. It is like giving morphine to a cancer patient, which is not going to cure the problem. We have to encounter some of the pain necessary for the recuperation process to occur afterwards.
I have spoken before about the federalisation process and what it may entail. I have circulated a document that was prepared by YouGov and Cambridge University. It contains the findings of a poll carried out across a number of member states of the European Union and was published on 15 March. From the poll I underline the fact that without leadership or a debate on the subject of federalisation, an elected president of Europe, a combining of the roles of the Commission and the Council, a common foreign and security policy for the Union, there is actually an amazing amount of support among the general populace for these ideas. However, politicians across Europe are afraid to offer leadership. Therefore, the biggest deficit across Europe is the deficit of leadership which has resulted in us being asked to vote on a treaty that will do nothing to solve our problem - if anything, it will compound it - and to solve Europe's inherent economic problem, massive insolvency. The operation needed is to purge that insolvency, federalise the debt, issue a eurobond backed by the tax revenues of the eurozone and create a united Europe, with an elected leadership, an accountable executive and a bottom up system of democracy that would set us on a platform to achieve real economic growth.
Every day we kick this can down the road - the treaty is part of that exercise - we make the likelihood of our being able to solve this problem in a reasonable way less achievable. We need to bite the bullet now. By entertaining the likes of Mr. Draghi yesterday, for whom I have much respect, who has said we have to keep servicing these debts and handing over these billions, this is an illusion, as they and we all know we cannot do it. Why, therefore, are we pretending? Why can we not get to grips with the issue now and say we have to allow freedom to fail across the European financial sector? I work in the telecommunications industry. Eircom went into examinership in the last few days and I have not heard anybody say his or her telephone will be cut off, that he or she will not be able to make a telephone call, that our counterparts operating transatlantic or European backhaul telecommunications systems will cut him or her off and that nobody will be able to speak to his or her relatives abroad or business offices elsewhere. Nobody is saying this because it would be a ridiculous thing to say. The same argument can be made about the financial sector. The idea that we have to prop up failed private businesses with taxpayers' money is ridiculous and the repetition of the argument that we have to do so does not make it any more correct. It is incorrect. There is pain that has to be encountered, but there is a process, namely, examinership or bankruptcy, that the European financial system needs to go through and once we come out the other side, Europe will be all the healthier for it.
If sub-committee members were to force my hand today and ask how I would vote on the treaty, I would make the following comparison. If I were just below the bridge of Titanic and heard all of the officers say, “Full steam ahead, ram the iceberg, we can break this thing,” I would not say, “Carry on,” because they thought it was good idea. I would say, “Pull hard to port or starboard and take drastic action now; it does not matter if some of the tables fall over and people have tea spilled on them, as we have to avoid disaster.” By not saying this, it is all the more likely that the error in Europe will be compounded. That will release a set of centrifugal forces and nobody can predict how things will pan out. The Europe I would like to see is one that is united, democratically accountable and financially and fiscally healthy. The treaty will not deliver any of these things.
