I welcome the fact we are debating this issue. It is very important that the true message goes out about the nature of this. While I understand Senator Michael D'Arcy's comments on consequences, I do not think the purpose of the public debate on this should be about what will happen if people do not vote for the treaty. I put it to colleagues that the negotiations that led us to our current position could have been better. While I agree that if we do not vote for the treaty, we will not have access to the ESM, which is a problem because we cannot access the private markets, it is a dangerous and precarious position in which to be left whereby there is no fallback mechanism at all should the people decide not to pass this referendum.
The treaty is a beefed-up version of the Stability and Growth Pact first agreed in 1996. Senator Crown has asked, rightly, on a number of occasions, including asking of the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, whether having certain provisions in the treaty in place prior to the financial crash would have made a difference. From reading the text, I believe they would have. I draw the attention of colleagues to the scorecard, which is very important because it has a warning mechanism for all states. It is interesting that if one looks at the scorecard in terms of macroeconomic imbalances, which covers ten areas, including public debt, unemployment and private debt, there is not one eurozone country that is not showing up red in one of those areas. It shows that this is a European and global financial crisis, but particularly a European banking crisis. When we had the Stability and Growth Pact, other larger states, such as Germany and France, decided to suit themselves and set it aside.
We know why we are in our current situation. It is the result of an over-reliance on one-off taxes, especially property related taxes during the housing bubble, which were used to increase current expenditure. While that is a fact, it is also a fact that no alternative was suggested at the time because everyone was on the same bandwagon. The fundamental part of the treaty is to allow for proper oversight and implementation of rules and the imposition of sanctions on countries where it is clearly flagged that there is a problem in areas like private debt, current account deficits and export market share. It will give not just the eurozone countries but also the 25 out of the 27 member states that wish to sign up to the treaty the clear assurance of proper oversight and the ability to see if a problem is coming down the track.
We in this country have a big job to do to get back to the requirements specified in the treaty whereby every state runs a current budget surplus. We are years away from that, but we are going in the right direction, even though it has been incredibly difficult for the citizens of this country. I would say to them that there is nothing in the treaty that will lead to the diminution of our sovereignty. If we are honest about where the EU has gone wrong, it is particularly with regard to the euro area in that we have a common currency but we do not have a common finance policy. I am not talking about tax but about co-ordination. The eurozone has had no co-ordination in real terms and this treaty will go some way towards bringing about that co-ordination. It does not go far enough, however, because it does not address the issue of the role of the ECB, which is the elephant in the room. I heard someone refer to the treaty and to the second Greek bailout as the most expensive pieces of Polyfilla they had ever seen. I can understand why that is being said given this treaty will not do everything that needs to be done. Nonetheless, it is a step in the right direction.
I disagree with anyone who says it is a diminution of our sovereignty in any way, shape or form. We are either in the European Union or we are not. Even in the current difficult climate, the economy is streets ahead of what it was when we joined the EEC, as it then was. If we look back just ten to 15 years, we have since doubled the number of people working in the economy. Ireland is not a basket case and has a diverse economy, which is due to ourselves, as a people, but also, to be fair, due to our interaction with and being a real member of the EU. Other parties will argue, as they are entitled to do, that the EU has not been good for us but I suggest that, not just for financial reasons but also for social reasons, this country is a different place, rightly so. Minorities are respected and people now have an outward view looking into Europe, and we are not just an island on the periphery of Europe. This treaty will go some way towards copper-fastening our role within Europe.
I would like to believe this is not the end of the road. The Government has to call the referendum and I assume it will be some time in late May. I would caution the Government on two issues. From being a member of a party that lost the first Lisbon treaty referendum, I suggest we should not in any way take the people for granted. Let us not assume that because the polls are as they are, this treaty will pass. We need a proper information campaign as to what it is about. The Referendum Commission, particularly in the referenda in the middle of last year, did not fulfil its role. While I accept it was a difficult role, we need to assist the Referendum Commission. Parties which support this treaty need to actively campaign for it. It is, of course, the right of parties who are against it to campaign against it.
I see nothing problematic in this treaty. I want stricter financial controls and a stronger, more cohesive European Union. We need more financial governance, not just because of where Ireland is at present, because we are doing quite well on many of the indicators while there are other countries that must address major issues. For example, Germany has major issues to address with regard to its banking debt, which has not yet been dealt with. This treaty will give us the warning system to tell us when we are going wrong and how to quickly correct the situation, which is positive.
Unlike the Stability and Growth Pact, this treaty will afford teeth to the European Court of Justice and the EU itself to bring about sanctions on member states, which is only right. We have nothing to fear from that. We are in a corrective mode at present, which is incredibly difficult for our citizens. However, without passing this treaty, we will be in a second tier Europe and we will have serious funding issues into the future. I would lay that at the door of the Government in this instance because it should not have been negotiated in this way, so that one cannot access the ESM and must go back to the markets. I do not believe the EU will or can leave us in that situation. I hope that will not be the situation, but that should not be where we are at.
It is important the Government deals with the date of the referendum quickly. Let us announce it and, if the date is at the end of May, that is fine. Let us get out there and talk to people about what is actually in the treaty, not what is not in it. I want to see eurobonds and I want to see the ECB playing a much greater role, like the Federal Reserve in the United States. However, we will not get to that stage without copper-fastening and tying down proper co-ordination among the 25 of the 27 states that have signed up to this. If that is not in place, we will never move to a situation of common eurobonds.
I do not believe there is any problem with our colleagues in Europe. We have oversight of all European budgets. We should know what other countries are doing and they should know what we are doing. We are part of a European Union and we need to move towards a greater financial union within that. Let us get real about where we are in this situation.
I welcome the debate, which I have no doubt will be one of many. The Government should quickly call the date for the referendum. For God's sake, let us get our information campaign right and let the people who support this treaty campaign positively for what it is about and not to play on the pitch of the nay-sayers who will scaremonger and tell us everything that is not in it. Let us look at the facts of the treaty, which does not harm Ireland's sovereignty in any way, shape or form.
