Skip to main content
Normal View

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 -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 2012

Reaction of Irish Society to the Treaty: Discussion (Resumed) with Deputy Gerry Adams

The sub-committee is now in public session. I remind everybody - our members and those in the public Gallery - that their mobile phones need to be switched off. It is not good enough to put them in silent mode because they will interfere with the broadcasting equipment.

I welcome everybody to the sixth meeting of the Sub-Committee on the Referendum on the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. Following the decision of the Government to hold a referendum on the treaty, this sub-committee was established by the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, to host an extensive and informed debate on the treaty and the impact of the referendum on Ireland and the European Union. As part of our work we focused on inviting in people to hear views from a cross section of Irish society and beyond. Addressing the committee this afternoon will be Deputy Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin, who is welcome. I invite him to make his opening remarks to the committee.

Tá mé fíor-bhuíoch don fhochoiste as ucht seans a thabhairt dom teacht anseo chun caint ar son Sinn Féin ar an gconradh seo. I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to speak on the treaty and the reaction of Irish society to it. We will only know the reaction and the response of Irish citizens when the referendum vote takes place. Creideann Sinn Féin gur chóir d'Éireann bheith san Aontas Eorpach. Tá cabhair ár bpáirtnéirí Eorpacha riachtanach chun na dúshláin atá os ár gcomhair amach a shárú. Theip ar Rialtas Fine Gael agus Páirtí an Lucht Oibre seasamh suas ar son na hÉireann san Eoraip tríd an chonradh déine a bhaineann leis an ngéarchéim i limistéar an euro a dhiúltú.

One can get a sense of the public opposition to the Government's austerity policies, because this is essentially an austerity treaty, from the fact that almost 50% of households refused to sign up to the household charge, many others who paid the charge did so under duress and said so, opposition to septic tank and water meter charges, and the succession of opinion polls which give a snapshot of public anger and dissatisfaction with the Government austerity policies. All the members are public representatives. Like you, everyday I hear from constituents of the hardships that austerity is causing. Small businesses cannot get credit from the banks even though we are supposed to own the banks. In my constituency in Dundalk and Drogheda, funding for women's centres to help women victims of domestic violence has been cut. Schools across Louth and Meath face difficulties in respect of funding for new school building projects. Children are being taught in buildings which are not fit for purpose or prefabs and in common with schools across the State, very dedicated teaching staff, committed parents and local communities are 100% behind them. What they do not have is a Minister for Education and Skills who is prepared to demand the resources needed to create a first class teaching environment. That is not acceptable and is a result of austerity.

The health service is also in crisis, as members will see in their constituencies. Louth County Council is being stripped of essential services, there is an absence of resources in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda and patients on trolleys. Yesterday there were 32 citizens on trolleys in Drogheda hospital. Citizens and patients in County Louth, like citizens in every other part of the State, are being treated in a second class health service which is underfunded as a result of austerity. That is also unacceptable.

One can visit public nursing homes such as St. Joseph's Hospital in Ardee and the Cottage Hospital Drogheda, where elderly citizens end up as the axe falls on them. I am bemused that Government Deputies and all Deputies who are all decent people - I know that from having met many of you - talk about meetings with the Health Service Executive and other agencies, complain about the unfairness and injustice and then return to the House and vote for the policies which are creating the problems. Let me say clearly that the Government's austerity policies are not working. This austerity treaty, in Sinn Féin's view, will not work. Tá sé seo ag déanamh cúrsaí níos measa do theaghlaigh atá ag obair ar fud an Stáit. All of these cuts to public services, including cuts to DEIS schools, slashing of school guidance counsellors, attacks on rural communities, imposition of cuts to essential community employment - this is all the stuff of austerity; it is what it is about. The effect of the new stealth taxes, such as the septic tank and household charges, and the dreadful social consequences of decisions taken by Fine Gael and the Labour Party, supported by Fianna Fáil, are to be found in the number of citizens unemployed and the thousands of our young people who are emigrating. Somebody told me it is one person every nine minutes. What is happening is crazy in regard to mortgages, people struggling to pay rent, household bills and small businesses, particularly in small villages and towns in rural Ireland. Members can go up any main street and see the small businesses and shops closing down. We have heard the Government's decision in recent times on water charges, which is another regressive tax that will have a very negative impact on disadvantaged and low and middle income families.

That is the context of this economic crisis. It is the substance of austerity and is what this treaty is about - more of the same. We need to be very mindful of the social consequences which will flow from all of this.

What I find interesting, as a relative newcomer to the Dáil, is that I do not hear anybody standing up and arguing for austerity. Thatcher got up and argued for austerity. Reagan got up and argued for austerity. People here do not do it - they blame other people, they blame Fianna Fáil, they say you have no other option, they say there is no alternative. It would be very refreshing to see the Government actively promoting and explaining its position in the course of this referendum campaign.

In fairness to Fine Gael, this is in keeping with its right wing and conservative ideology because, like other conservative parties in the European Union, its core values do not include social guarantees, are not about equality and are not about citizens' rights. It does not place any value in terms of austerity on community solidarity, equality and protecting the weak and vulnerable. Fine Gael has a neoliberal agenda which believes in austerity and cuts to public services, in privatisation and bank bailouts and in protection for golden circles. It is that ideology which stripped away regulations on the banks and on businesses and which created the economic crisis in the first instance. For its part, the Labour Party is supposed to be guided by different core values but it imposes austerity which is hurting the very people it claims to represent.

In my view, the support for the austerity treaty from the Government benches is rooted in their ideological view of the world and in their political core values. Sinn Féin's approach to austerity policies and this treaty is rooted in our republican core values. We believe the economy should serve the people. We believe in citizenship and in a Republic in which citizens have rights - the right to a job, to a home, to universal access to a decent standard of education and health care, to live in a safe environment and to equality for the Irish language. We do not have that Republic at this time, and we are for an entirely new Republic which is accessible, responsive and inclusive. These are our core values.

We have looked at the treaty closely and we have concluded that, like the austerity policies of the Government, it is bad for Irish citizens, bad for Europe and is failing. We are not alone in believing this. The Mandate, TEEU and UNITE trade unions all call for a "No" vote, while SIPTU demands a €10 billion jobs package or it will vote "No". Across the EU, there is growing opposition to the treaty. European trade union confederations are against the austerity treaty, the Dutch Government has just collapsed and the Socialist candidate in the French presidential election wants to renegotiate the treaty. The fact is the crisis in the EU is part of a deeper crisis within international capitalism and this treaty is a child of European conservative Governments. It is their strategy for tackling this crisis. However, they plan to do so - the treaty is very clear about this - in a way that favours big business and the wealthy and protects the interests of the larger states. That is, in fairness, what conservative, right wing parties and Governments do, and that is what this Government is doing.

We are having a referendum, which is a good thing. The Government did not want the referendum. It sought and secured changes to the final draft of the treaty in an attempt to avoid it. The Government of Fine Gael and the Labour Party has, thus far, joined with Fianna Fáil in trying to frighten people into voting "Yes". The claim has been made that this vote is about staying in or leaving the eurozone or the EU, but that is not true. Ireland's position - this State's position - as a member of the eurozone is secure no matter what position we take on the austerity treaty. The Government parties and Fianna Fáil are trying to suggest that if we do not sign up to this treaty, we will not get access to emergency funding. This is complete nonsense. The simple fact is that this is not a done deal, and they must know this. If the ESM is to come into law, it has to go into the EU treaties under Article 136 and all 27 member states, including Ireland, have to agree to this, so it is over to the Government as to whether this is brought in or not. That decision is very firmly in the hands of Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Is anybody seriously suggesting that the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, or the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, intend to sign up to something that would jeopardise access to emergency funding, if the State needs it? For all that I might disagree with them, I do not think they are likely to do that or to be allowed to do it.

This sort of approach to the campaign thus far - I know it is early days - reflects the same type of approach that was taken during the Lisbon treaty campaign, namely, that passing that treaty would create jobs. There were all sorts of promises yet, since then, 170,000 jobs have been lost. What I want to hear is the Government coming forward with positive reasons for people to support the austerity treaty. The fact is it cannot find one single positive reason for it. Austerity does not work. The reason I took the committee members through this is in order to remind them, in case we in this bubble forget, that this is austerity as we know it. Why would we want more of it?

The treaty will also hand over significant control of fiscal and budgetary matters to unelected EU officials. Whatever view any citizen takes of this Government or any other Government, at least, by virtue of the vote, we can re-elect a Government or we can get rid of it, and we can make it democratically accountable at elections. We cannot do this with EU officials, who are not elected by Irish citizens and cannot be held accountable by them. Moreover, if the "Yes" side has its way, the new 0.5% of GDP structural deficit provision of this treaty will constitutionally lock this and future Governments into austerity policies. If a future Government were to offer a different path, this treaty gives the European Court of Justice the power to impose fines of up to €160 million. So much for sovereignty and so much for the Taoiseach's claim that he wants to be a Taoiseach who retrieves Ireland's economic sovereignty.

Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil ask us how we would pay for running the State in the event that their bailout scheme fails. The real question is how is the Government going to pay for anything. The treaty would mean an additional €6 billion in cuts and taxes, which is on top of the €8 billion in cuts over the next three years for the troika deal and the billions of euro that will be paid to Anglo and unsecured bondholders. To look at the figures, in 2008 the Exchequer deficit was €12 billion and in 2011 it was €24.9 billion, which includes €7 billion in bank recapitalisation and €3 billion for the promissory note, and all of that after six austerity budgets and €24.6 billion in cuts and a host of new charges. There are almost 500,000 on the live register, thousands are emigrating and the domestic economy is stagnant, yet they want to take more and more money out of the economy and underwrite this in the Constitution. We have argued consistently that there are alternatives. The focus must shift to investment, growth and job creation. The core difference between Sinn Féin and others is that we believe in reducing the deficit. We have put forward costed proposals to reduce it by 3.5%. We have also argued for getting rid of waste and ensuring things are run properly. In particular, we have argued the need for a jobs stimulus package on the basis that one cannot cut one's way out of a recession, one must generate growth. One must stimulate the economy, get people back to work and start the circle of economic solvency in communities upwards. We also argue for protecting public services and those on low and middle incomes. We have put across in numerous budget submissions how we would close the deficit, fund the State, pay the wages of nurses, teachers and gardaí, to paraphrase the Taoiseach, and, from our perspective, how we would provide decent front-line services. Sinn Féin would not pay the promissory note. We would support those on low and middle incomes. We would introduce a third tax rate and a wealth tax. We would produce savings by capping public sector salaries at €100,000. Critically, we would invest to ensure job creation and growth. We would not sign up to a treaty that would drive the country deeper into recession.

I promised the Deputy that we would finish by 3.10 p.m. because he has another engagement. Several speakers have indicated that they wish to contribute. I will limit members' questioning to a maximum of three minutes. I will have to cut them off beyond this figure because many wish to get in. In that way everyone will have a chance to ask Deputy Gerry Adams particular questions.

I thank Deputy Gerry Adams for his presentation. I have been involved in the insurance business for a long time and the Sinn Féin stance appears to be somewhat like the old man who comes in and says he does not need house insurance because his house will not burn down. When he is told that it might, he says he will take that chance and anyway if it does burn down, all of his neighbours will help him out. This is, basically, Sinn Féin's position. It sees no need for insurance because either way it has friends it can ask for help. It sounds simple and many get away with it. They do not insure their houses and nothing bad ever happens to them. However, what about the person to whom something bad does happen? I have seen it happen during the years. It may not be the case that the house burns down, but perhaps the kitchen is burnt out. It may not be that the economy will collapse, but it may be that we will encounter severe financial difficulties and our neighbours will be in difficulty also. I do not see how rejecting an insurance policy would benefit this country. That is my analysis.

Let us turn to the matter of funding education and small schools. A Minister with responsibility for education has stated he recognises the "complexity of modernising the delivery of our education system and the anxiety that will be caused to those affected by difficult decisions." However, he has stressed that "institutional interests" would have to be set aside to "focus on the needs of pupils." He continued, "As Minister I will only endorse a recommendation to close a school following consultation with relevant stakeholders and if it is proven that it benefits the needs of pupils both now and in the future." Does Deputy Gerry Adams agree with this?

I welcome the president of Sinn Féin who will appreciate that there is a corrosive element in how people view politics in this country. Deputy Gerry Adams is doing a wonderful job in fulfilling that corrosive agenda. I do not say that lightly because I am fond of him personally.

Is that not lovely?

However, the treaty involves a little tough love. I note what Deputy Gerry Adams has said in the context that one must be mindful in the course of the debate of the needs of society. He maintains that he wants to protect public services as part of that agenda. However, he then uses the word "austerity" as if the state of the public finances could be rectified by some silver bullet. That we must borrow €1.25 billion each month has nothing to do with the fact that we must go to the polls on 31 May. He makes reference to the use of language in terms of the reaction of Irish society. However, his contribution to the debate is deliberately confusing the issue in terms of the state of the public finances. We talk about the stability treaty, but he uses the term "austerity treaty". This is deliberate and I know why he does it. He deliberately ignores the many achievements we have made in government, including the restoration of minimum rates of pay, an issue on which he is silent. Sinn Féin is also silent on the restoration of the legislative base for joint labour committees and employment regulation orders. He is silent on the universal social charge and the adjustments made in the last budget. He then refers to austerity as being an attack on schools and water services. He takes the most recent notion that comes into his head. However, he offers no solutions on the issue of the state of the public finances.

The Deputy referred to the need to protect public services. When he advocates a "No" vote in the referendum on the stability treaty, he is really saying he wants to destroy the Croke Park agreement, dismantle public service pay rates and numbers, reduce social welfare payments and fire nurses, teachers, etc. to a greater degree than we would have do in the context of an adjustment. Where is Sinn Féin's contingency plan?

The Deputy is absolutely wrong when it comes to the European Stability Mechanism. Unlike the Lisbon treaty, there is no need for unanimity on this issue. All it takes is for 12 member states to agree to proceed. We would lose the opportunity in the event that we need the comfort of a European Stability Mechanism bailout. We have no opportunity to get back into the markets. Therefore, we are trying to involve ourselves in the recovery of the country with one hand tied behind our back.

I am concerned that the Deputy is being selective in the context of the scale of the crisis. He has referred to the need to recapitalise the banks. It would not have been necessary to do this had Sinn Féin not voted for the bank guarantee. The people deserve a little more honesty and transparency. I expect as much on a personal basis. The Deputy does us a great disservice in the debate.

I welcome Deputy Gerry Adams. I draw his attention and that of the committee to a leaflet Sinn Féin is circulating entitled, "Sinn Féin: Austerity is not working". There is a nice picture of the Deputy in the middle and it contains many of the arguments he has detailed. I draw everyone's attention to a panel on the back of the leaflet entitled, "What the experts said". There are four quotes which I will read. I will then read what the same person has said about the stability treaty.

The first quote is by Mr. Jack O'Connor who is advocating a particular point of view. The next quote is by Mr. Karl Whelan, professor of economics at University College Dublin: "The economics of this treaty are pretty terrible." However, the leaflet does not outline the text from which it is drawn. It reads, "All that said, although I think the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible, on balance, the arguments favour Ireland's signing up to it."

The next quote is by Mr. Colm McCarthy: "As an exercise in addressing the eurozone's twin banking and sovereign debt crises, the fiscal compact makes no worthwhile contribution." That is taken from an article in the Irish Independent of 28 February. In the same article Mr. McCarthy goes on to say: “But it is the correct response, unavoidable and in the country’s best interests.” The article concludes: “There is no conceivable strategy which involves running large budget deficits indefinitely, and opposition politicians who pretend otherwise are throwing sand in the eyes of the electorate.”

The third economist Deputy Adams quoted is Seamus Coffey from the school of economics in UCC. He quoted from a text in which Mr. Coffey stated that had the fiscal compact been in place since 1999 it could not and would not have prevented the crisis in Ireland. The same Seamus Coffey, in a contribution made immediately after that, stated:

If the Treaty is rejected we will be forced to adhere to the budgetary rules anyway but will be denied access to the new European Stability Mechanism [ESM] bailout fund. We cannot avoid the fiscal rules in the treaty. All in all there is little to be gained from rejecting the Treaty.

Every one of the economists Deputy Adams quoted in advance of his cause went on to say that they acknowledge the difficulties but that it is in Ireland's best interest to pass the treaty. The Deputy deliberately misquoted them. He selectively represented them. In his contribution he accused the Government of misrepresenting the case regarding the treaty. He spoke about the approach to the campaign that is needed. In his own leaflet, which has been circulated nationwide, in support of that he misquotes and misrepresents economists who have said that despite difficulty with the treaty, it is in Ireland's interest that it be passed. Three of the four people quoted on this leaflet the Deputy is circulating say the treaty should be implemented.

I put it to Deputy Adams that the reason he is doing that is because there is a black hole in his argument, namely, he cannot answer how, in the context of a "No" vote, our hospitals and schools would be funded. The only option he has, therefore, as this leaflet demonstrates, is to misrepresent impartial experts. I call upon Deputy Adams to withdraw this leaflet and acknowledge the deliberate misrepresentation contained in it.

To deal with Deputy Donohoe's point first, this leaflet is not being distributed nationwide. It is being distributed across this State. The nation is bigger than this State.

(Interruptions).

The people who are voting on the treaty are being circulated with the leaflet.

Yes, and the more the merrier. Second, the Deputy cannot deny that these three eminent people, who would not subscribe to the Sinn Féin position on many issues, said that the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible and then went on to make their judgment on what should be done with it and that they did say that had the fiscal compact been in place since 1999 it would not and could not have prevented the crisis in Ireland. One of them said that and he then went on to say whatever he said and-----

What he said is that the treaty should be passed.

The fact is that he made a judgment on it.

The Deputy said that-----

Deputy Donohoe, several questions were put to Deputy Adams and I ask that he be given a chance to respond.

Colm McCarthy did say that as an exercise in addressing the eurozone's twin banking and sovereign debt crisis the fiscal compact makes no worthwhile contribution. In the next round of questions the Deputy might explain to me how the fiscal compact makes a worthwhile contribution to addressing the eurozone's twin banking and sovereign debt crisis. He might tell me if he believes that this fiscal compact could have prevented the crisis in Ireland. He might tell me that the economics of this treaty are pretty good rather than, as Karl Whelan has said, pretty terrible.

They all advocate a "Yes" vote, Deputy.

Each of the economists you are quoting on balance said that the treaty-----

I remind Deputies that contributions must be made through the Chair. Deputy Adams has the floor.

I acknowledge that but what I have drawn to Deputy Donohoe's attention is that they have made a value judgment on the treaty. They went on to give their view of what should happen to the treaty but the important aspect is their value judgment of the treaty. Colm McCarthy said that the economics are pretty terrible, that it would not have prevented the crisis and it makes no worthwhile contribution to addressing the eurozone's twin banking and sovereign debt crisis. I am here to listen to some sense but we are discussing the Sinn Féin leaflet instead of a treaty.

In terms of the other points-----

The leaflet is on the treaty and these people are advocating a "Yes" vote.

Chairman, everybody knows the rules of this meeting. Deputy Donohoe consistently interrupted me for doing what he is doing now. We should have some consistency, Deputy Donohoe. Allow the man answer the questions.

Thank you, Deputy.

With respect, Chairman, Deputy Donohoe should be consistent and allow the man speak.

I am hoping, as with other party leaders, that when we finish the first round of questions we will have some time to have a more interactive debate during which people may raise brief points but for the moment we will hear the answers to the first three questions.

Is Senator Harte still in the insurance business?

Fair play. I can understand why.

Because this-----

You do not know anything about my business.

The notion that in some way this is an insurance policy is entirely bogus. I hear the Taoiseach trotting out the notion that this is like a householder deciding to go for an insurance policy that he or she may not ever want to use but they are better having it anyway. A presumption on my part, and I suppose one should never presume anything, is that this is based upon the Government's assertion that if we do not vote "Yes" for this treaty we will not get a bailout.

It is based on experience.

I remind members that Deputy Adams has five minutes to respond. We will take further questions if we have time but it is not an interactive forum. Deputy Adams will continue without interruption.

The fact is that the European Stability Mechanism, which some people refer to as a blackmail clause, is not a done deal. It is not a matter of 12 members of the eurozone going ahead. They can go ahead with this austerity treaty but they cannot go ahead with the European Stability Mechanism because that has to be legalised in terms of all 27 EU member states, and each member state has the right to say "No".

I listened to Deputy Keaveney talking about tough choices and so on. It would have been a tough choice to put it up to the big boys in the bigger European states, just as it would have been a tough choice at any time to cease paying toxic bankers and unguaranteed bondholders and so on. The easy choice, and I do not say this lightly, is to take the funding and the rights away from those people who are least organised, most vulnerable and more dependent upon the State. That has been the record of the Government. If the Deputy looks at my record and that of Sinn Féin he will see that we have commended and applauded the good things the Government has done. I did it yesterday in the Dáil, if some of the members were listening. I commended the Taoiseach's initiatives around developing trade with China, the energy he has used to do that and all the potential in that regard. I have done it on a number of other occasions also where I felt that was right. We are not a negative Opposition. We have our own view, which is a positive view of the world and of Ireland, but we commend and applaud the Government where that is deserved.

The Deputy is trotting out that Sinn Féin voted for the banking guarantee. When the issue arose in the middle of all the madness that was going on at that time, our people agreed in principle that the banks needed a bailout but we said that we wanted to see the conditions. When it came to the vote, we voted on-----

A bold and a brave move according to Deputies Arthur Morgan and Pearse Doherty. The Deputy should quote-----

Are these interruptions going to be allowed to continue, Chairman? I have not seen it happen with any other witness in this committee so far.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn, I can remind you of a few.

(Interruptions).

Chairman, let us get this meeting in order.

Deputy, I can take care of this. You can stand down.

Okay. Let us have some order.

In the reflective, considered post-election atmosphere that prevailed the new Government voted for banking guarantee after banking guarantee.

We could not unwind the guarantee voted for by Sinn Féin.

Yes, it could.

Ciúnas, le do thóil.

We should try to make some sense of this debate before it becomes a scrap between Sinn Féin and other Teachtaí Dála and Seanadoirí. Despite the Government's unwillingness to give people an opportunity to vote, they will have a say on the treaty. This debate is about how society is reacting to the treaty. They were only given a choice on austerity once. The premise on which the Government was elected was entirely different from a policy of austerity. Apart from wanting to get rid of the Fianna Fáil Party, the electorate also voted for the Labour Party's platform of not giving a red cent to the banks and taking Labour's way rather than Frankfurt's way. That is the basis on which people voted. Not only did they want to get rid of the other crowd, they also voted for the different and positive message given by those who stated they would stand up for them. Following the election, the Government tore all that up. Since then, people have only been able to make a decision on one issue. When they were asked to voluntarily sign up for an austerity measure, the household charge, a huge number of them refused to do so.

It is my hope that we will get across the arguments. The crux of the debate is whether the Government will introduce in law a clause giving effect to a protocol that would prevent the State from receiving a bailout if one is required. The question for other parties to reflect on is whether the Government will do so given that member states can veto this provision.

Sinn Féin MPs-----

We are running short of time. Senator Harte will have an opportunity to contribute again.

I want to make a point about difficult decisions being made on the closure of the-----

Is the Senator referring to-----

I am referring to a Sinn Féin Minister's comments about having to make difficult decisions to close schools in the North.

To which Minister is Senator Harte referring?

We have a small window for Deputy Adams to conclude his responses because five other members wish to ask questions. I ask him to respond briefly to the question on the Minister and schools.

Was Senator Harte referring to the Minister for Education and Skills?

No, I refer to the Minister for Education in the North, Mr. John O'Dowd, MLA.

How on earth did I guess the Senator was messing about with this issue?

The reason I raise the issue is blatantly obvious.

It is not blatantly obvious. My longstanding colleague, Deputy Ó Caolaín, told me that the North has been mentioned more times in the past year than in any of the nearly 20 years he has been a Member of this institution. This is being done in a negative, silly and stupid way.

I ask Deputy Adams to conclude as other members wish to speak.

I will answer the question. The difference is simple. A Government in London still has control over fiscal matters. Despite the major advances made under the Good Friday Agreement, it controls a block grant which it has reduced by £4 billion. Any decision taken by the Minister in the North has not been taken for austerity reasons. Any reconfigurations in schools have been done in the interests of all schools and to ensure every child has a right to equal access to education. The details of this are available and the relevant committee is welcome to invite the Minister before it to discuss the issue.

Sinn Féin in the North, through its Ministers, Martin McGuinness, Caitriona Ruane and John O'Dowd, has introduced the biggest reform of the education system since partition and it is working. To compare that with the disgraceful position of the Minister, Deputy Quinn, who signed pledges for students who-----

Deputy Adams has not answered the question.

I ask Senator Harte not to interrupt. Is Deputy Adams ready to answer more questions?

Senator Joe Gilroy

I welcome Deputy Adams. It is touching to note his concerns for the welfare of the Labour Party. I have listened to the same argument being made by his colleagues in the Seanad and I am no more wise today having heard the Deputy's contribution than I was yesterday after listening to his colleagues. Things are sometimes right or wrong and one can argue about them but my feeling on this issue is that Sinn Féin's argument is meaningless. One cannot argue with anything that is meaningless. In the debate on the treaty, Sinn Féin has raised household charges, septic tank charges, banks, sovereignty and right-wing economics. None of these issues is referred to in the treaty, which does not deal with expeditions to the North Pole either. Sinn Féin is throwing all sorts of extraneous stuff into the mix which makes me suspect that the party's main objective is to frighten people who are already hard-pressed. Does Deputy Adams see the reason I have a major concern that instead of doing the right thing, he is putting party before country in this debate, perhaps with an eye to gaining electoral advantage?

In addition to referring to household charges, septic tank charges, banks, sovereignty and right-wing economics, Deputy Adams indicated his party opposes paying the promissory notes. Such a decision would be considered a credit event. Has the party given any great thought to the consequences of taking such a decision given that the country is borrowing €46 million per day to run services? With what would it replace this borrowing?

Deputy Adams was definitive on the issue of access to the European Stability Mechanism when he used the term "complete nonsense". Which part of the treaty states that Ireland would have access to the ESM in the event of a "No" vote in the referendum? While I firmly believe we will be able to return to the markets next year, if the treaty is rejected and Ireland is shut out of the markets, how would Sinn Féin explain its position to an electorate that is dependent on a non-existent source of funding? What would be its responsibility in that regard? In light of Deputy Adams's definitive response on the prospect of Ireland losing access to the European Stability Mechanism, Sinn Féin is clearly prepared to take a risk on the issue.

Deputy Adams challenged speakers to outline what would be positive about voting in favour of the treaty. I will return the challenge by asking him to cite one positive aspect of voting against the treaty? All the commentators I have heard, including the economists cited by Deputy Donohoe, have indicated there is not a single upside to voting against the treaty.

I welcome Deputy Adams to the sub-committee and thank him for his submission. Like Deputy Keaveney, I am very fond of the Deputy and only the width of the table prevents me from hugging him.

There will be none of that kind of stuff in this committee.

I know that would not be allowed. Deputy Adams has a predilection for using the word "austerity". He must love the word because he used it more than 15 times. It is used as if it were an end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. Does he agree that it is good economic practice to introduce a slow-down in spending if a household, business or country is in debt or has spent or borrowed excessively? Does the Deputy have an alternative to what he describes as "austerity" and what others would describe as "good housekeeping"? Incidentally, the approach he advocates is in marked contrast with the policy pursued by Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland. I am not criticising it by the way. I congratulate the Deputy on what Sinn Féin has done in Northern Ireland. It was a tremendous leap of faith. It took 30 years, but it was a tremendous leap of faith, and I sincerely compliment the Deputy on the work that has been done. He is doing himself a disservice, however, because he is telling the people in Northern Ireland what must be done must be done because there is a limited budget. That is what he has just said to this meeting. He called it a block grant, which is a limited budget. We all have limited budgets, and we are unable to continue as we were before until we get to better times. He is absolutely right, but he is saying what suits him politically to the citizens of the South.

I draw the Deputy's attention to a particular slogan, and I apologise to Fianna Fáil in advance because part of the slogan is taken from a Fianna Fáil election poster in 1987, which said that cuts hurt the old, the sick and the handicapped. An alternative poster showed people queueing up for passports to leave the State. Nevertheless, cuts took place at that time. It was unfortunate and it did cause hardship, but we were eventually were able to work through that.

I have not yet heard or seen any economic theory which will prove the point being made by the Deputy, which is that if one is in debt and one needs to borrow more, the way to do it is to find the money from some invisible source - the Deputy has been unable to tell what that is - and to continue spending for what is admittedly a good cause, namely, job creation. Would it not be much more politically advantageous to the Deputy to tell the people the truth so as not to be punished in the way Fianna Fáil was punished in the last general election for allegedly misleading the public for political advantage? To mislead the public for political advantage is a very precarious position to adopt. I genuinely make that point.

I call on Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

I call on Senator Heffernan.

I welcome Deputy Adams and I thank him for his submission. Earlier Deputy Donohoe referred to the black hole he seems to have picked in the Deputy's argument, the €46 million per day we in this country are borrowing to keep our services going and to keep us ticking over. The Deputy alluded to it in his address, but he did not put forward how he intends to come up with that money. It is important he does this so that the people can be clear on things in this debate in the run-up to the referendum. I hope the Deputy and his party will begin to specify their alternatives.

It has been said by previous speakers that the Deputy's party is trying to muddy this debate, and I agree. I am sure red herrings such as neutrality, sovereignty, water charges, septic tank charges, dog licences and so on will be thrown into this debate. The Deputy seems to be encouraging a "No" vote for the sake of it. That has been the default position of Sinn Féin in all previous European referenda we have had. We all know why this is done. We are all involved in politics and we know why Sinn Féin adopts this position, but I believe it is highly irresponsible for it to do so.

All the arguments being put forward by the Deputy seem very similar to arguments I have heard from the likes of Ian Liddel-Grainger, who is a far-right Tory Party MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset. We have Sinn Féin and the ultra-left alliance on one side of the argument, but in Europe they are speaking the same claptrap as the likes of Ian Liddel-Grainger and the likes of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which is looking to pull out of government in Holland. I find it very difficult to marry those two arguments in my head. Does the Deputy have concerns that his arguments are on the same side as those of the far right in Europe?

I welcome Deputy Adams and congratulate him and his party on their continued growth in the polls. It is obvious the electorate is listening to their message and - a positive development - that they have got over what we saw rising to the surface during the presidential election campaign.

I agree on the issue of austerity. The country is in a dire state. I am the Fianna Fáil spokesperson for jobs in the Seanad and I relentlessly speak about the Government's unwillingness or inability to free up money to make it available to small and medium-sized companies. The Government has failed to do this and we are being distracted by water charges, property taxes and so on. The big challenge facing Ireland is the 14.3% unemployment rate.

We in the Twenty-six Counties are Irish first and Europeans as well. The people in the Six Counties have not had the privilege we have had of participating. I made the point in this committee before to Andrew Muir of the Alliance Party that we are Europeans and that when Ireland joined the EU in 1973, we leapfrogged our dependency on Britain. He said he envied our Europeanness here. We feel as European as we are Irish here. I feel European because I know it liberated our country, socially and economically.

I am not being argumentative. I am delighted to be here. So much of my life has been involved with foreign direct investment. The American Chamber of Commerce Ireland, in launching its campaign, stated that 2,300 jobs have been created by American multinational companies in the first four months of 2012. The only thing on which I agree with this Government is the fact that it has welcomed foreign direct investment more than any other Government did in the past. It was taken for granted by previous governments and there is no question about that. Investors in the US want to see stability and they must have confidence in our economy. Their investment decisions are based on whether Ireland is now a stable economy. I am not being provocative, but Louise Phelan, who is vice-president of PayPal, brought 1,000 jobs to Dundalk in the Deputy's constituency. She is one of the key drivers of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland encouraging a "Yes" vote. The captains of American multinationals in Ireland are all Irish now. That is in contrast to 20 years ago when Americans were running them. The managing directors of Microsoft and IBM have called for a "Yes" vote. They want a "Yes" vote. That is where I am coming from. We live in a democracy and it is important that people are entitled to say "No" but I am talking about the creation of jobs and the bottom line is that America is the only country that is creating jobs here.

Senator Heffernan alluded to extremes in Europe and their views on the treaty. It is important to state that for the first time ever the European Trade Union Confederation is opposed to a European treaty. That is the gravity of the situation in the ETUC's view. We also have a scenario where three of the largest trade unions in Ireland, Mandate, UNITE and the TEEU, have come out against the treaty. SIPTU has stated that unless there is a €10 billion stimulus package, it cannot support the proposition. There has been a considerable gathering of mainstream trade unionism in opposition to the treaty. The French presidential candidate, Francois Hollande, is seeking to renegotiate the treaty, the Dutch Labour Party-----

(Interruptions).

Deputy Mac Lochlainn will make his comments and will do so without interruption.

I acknowledge it is painful for Labour Party Deputies to hear but the reality is that the social democratic movements and their sister parties throughout Europe, their members at grassroots and in the trade unions - not those on the fringes but in the centre - have expressed grave concerns about this treaty. We have a growing wave of opposition across the Labour Party's sister parties and the labour movement. A member of SIPTU is here asking questions but he is at odds with his own organisation. That is an uncomfortable reality that we should not distort by talking about fringes and extremes. I would like to hear Deputy Adams's views on the shifting sands in Europe.

Many economists, including those quoted in the document, have talked about how dreadful the economics of the treaty are, said that the prescription within the treaty would not have solved the crisis and concluded that it offers no solution or stability for the eurozone. The issue they were concerned about was the European Stability Mechanism. We know the issue is in the gift of the Government to resolve because it has a veto over this and can prevent this happening if it wishes. The question, then, is whether Government Members will call on the Government to defend the interests of the Irish people and ensure that under no circumstances will this issue they express so much concern about be allowed to happen.

I am aware Deputy Adams has other commitments but I ask him to limit his responses to about five minutes. We can then have a more interactive session.

I do not know if I can because there were so many diverse questions.

We will try.

I will do my best. I want to note Senator White was the only person who put forward a positive reason when she argued that investors want stability. Whether they will get stability under the treaty is a moot point but the rest of the committee did not address any of the arguments I put forward and did not answer any of the big questions that will hopefully inform opinion in the course of the debate.

Irish republicanism, if it is nothing else, is a European and international philosophy. It predates our party and any other party in the Oireachtas. It is about citizens' rights, the shape of society and solidarity; it is about equality, fraternity and freedom. That is how we approach this within our limitations. Some of the other parties give us too much credit when they say we seize on an issue like this.

First of all, it is a stupid to ask me if I think Sinn Féin is putting the party before country. What do people expect me to say?

Why is that a stupid question? Does Deputy Adams disagree with that? It seems to me that is why the Deputy feels it is stupid. Maybe the Deputy will answer me.

It is great to see committee members so animated.

It is stupid because I wonder what people expect me to say.

We expect the truth. Can the Deputy tell the truth?

The truth clearly is that Sinn Féin has consistently put the nation before the party. There were many black days in the North that I do not want to revisit but many, many members of Sinn Féin were shot dead putting country before themselves and their families. I know of many other people-----

(Interruptions).

We must have ciúnas.

The Labour Party has made its stance clear on that in this committee. God almighty, it is unbelievable.

Please, Deputies and Senators, no more interruptions.

Given this is the centenary of the Labour Party, it might be useful for members to reflect on its achievements in that 100 years.

In terms of the meat of the treaty, the ESM is explained in Article 3, which states "The purpose of the ESM shall be to mobilise funding and provide stability support under strict conditionality, appropriate to the financial assistance instrument chosen, to the benefit of ESM Members which are experiencing, or are threatened by, severe financing problems, if indispensable to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and of its Member States." In other words, this is a European Union problem. I have made this point a number of times. This is within the authority of the Government when the European Stability Mechanism is being brought into law, because it is still not a done deal. It must be done by ratifying the EU treaties through an amendment to Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. All 27 member states must sign up to that, each and every one of them. Some people may be surprised but I have some confidence in the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and I cannot see them signing up to a provision that would deny this State the financing and funding outlined here if we needed it. Why would they? How could they? This is an entirely bogus aspect of the argument.

There is a separate discussion of how we secure funding and return to economic growth.

I love you too Bernard, and you can hug me anytime.

That is a lovely offer.

And me too, Gerry?

Yes, Colm. And anyone else.

We are running out of time.

We part company, however, where we have outlined three main elements to our strategy to regrow the economy.

One is fair and progressive taxation, but the Government has set its face against this. The second is cutting waste, on which we would probably agree, but there might be a debate on what the substance should be. The third is a jobs stimulus package.

From where would the Deputy get the money for it?

We would get it from the European Investment Bank which has the ability and the authority to invest in capital projects, as well as from the National Pensions Reserve Fund.

The Deputy has spent it two or three times.

There is €3.1 billion-----

Thanks to the bank guarantee.

Please let the Deputy finish.

(Interruptions).

One of the things I learned-----

No, answer the questions, Deputy.

May I share this because it might help us all?

The Deputy is under pressure, not me.

I am due to leave for another appointment. I have learned from watching the tackling, messing and manoeuvring, like very bad ground hurling, that take place sometimes in the Chamber. On one occasion Deputy Mary Lou McDonald was interrupted 67 or 76 times. I talked to some of the Labour Party Deputies about this. In fairness, they checked the Official Report and discovered that what I was saying was true. However, they all said to me: "This is politics; this is how we do it. This is to put you off." One or two of them said: "When we see you standing up and giving out to our guy, we come down to the Chamber to have a go at you." In Stormont which does not have the same authority as this Chamber there are some very tough cookies, but that does not happen to the same degree.

There is only one government. There is no opposition.

It does not happen to the same degree.

The Deputy should respond to the points raised.

As a result of these discussions, there might be little gems of wisdom which we can use to both educate and inform each other. However, it is very difficult to do it when there are mad distractions and silliness. If nothing else, we have been able to express that there are three in this relationship, Colm, me and Bernard.

However, there are serious issues to be considered.

We are all in this together.

What we need to do is get out of this together, but we will not do it through the Government's policy of signing up to the treaty which will just not work. The proof is what happened in the last four years, when all of these things were tried. To institutionalise them is a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.

I realise the Deputy is under pressure of time, but does he have time to take more questions or will we now conclude?

I have to leave. I regret that we only had one hour, but I am running late.

Can the Deputy answer a few of the questions he was asked?

It is the Deputy's prerogative to answer whatever questions he chooses. On behalf of the committee, I thank him for attending, his presentation and engaging with members with such good humour. Tomorrow morning the Taoiseach will attend. I look forward to seeing everyone then.

The sub-committee adjourned at 3.15 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26 April 2012.
Top
Share