Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I have read their written submissions, which are extremely helpful. My first question is for Dr. Ankersmit. It follows on from the answer given by Dr. Suttle. In respect of all the presentations we have received so far, the focus of our attention has been on the investor court system. How likely is it that we can continue formalising the current CETA agreement without the investor court system being ratified? Dr. Ankersmit has talked to the European Commission and the European Parliament. Linking into Dr. Ankersmit's paper, the presentation we have been given is that this is the ideal opportunity for Canada and the EU, both of which have very developed legal systems, to refine and improve the existing arbitration systems and that this gives us an opportunity to model that. If we take that out, how likely is it that this agreement will be ratified?

My next question is for Dr. Suttle. I was taken with his paper and some political conclusions he drew as a lawyer. Of course we have plenty of lawyers drawing political conclusions. I would not always agree that politicians make decisions because of external pressures. Sometimes external excuses suit decisions. That is my experience having been involved in politics for over 30 years, including in government.

When we say one of the matters that may have been challenged was the 2008 bank guarantee, would that not have been a blessed and glorious thing had it happened? We cannot pick and choose the things we would like to challenge.

The argument is given to us constantly that significant constraint will be on states to regulate matters relating to environment, public health and housing and so on. The counterargument being given to us is that Article 8.9 of CETA expressly recognises the rights of parties to regulate. The witnesses clearly have an opinion but if there are two countervailing arguments put to us, how do we know where the element of right falls? I was going to ask a third question but in the interests of time I will leave it at that.