Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It has been a wonderful engagement and I thoroughly enjoyed reading the papers. Is it not a given to say that all or some of the hallmarks of arbitration are that it is done in private, it is confidential, binding and enforceable? Although it is not an ad hocarbitration, where does one get recourse to the courts, if at all, if there is an error on the face of the arbitration? It may have been in the award or the arbitrator may have misconducted the investor court state dispute arbitration. Where in this agreement is the recourse to the courts? If one opts for arbitration, does it stay in the domestic court, as often applies? One cannot be in two different places at the same time. How does one go back to the courts? I would like to know that. Removing an arbitrator is provided for under the Irish Constitution. I am not making political points today, but I would say that we have a fine judicial system in Ireland, as does Canada.

However, I accept that some jurisdictions do not. I can see a purpose for this but I am far from convinced that one size fits all when we have such a brilliantly fair system, which has been tried and tested and exercises and delivers judgments beyond fear or favour. That is my first question.

Second, we have adopted some agreements without recourse to a referendum, like the Aarhus Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Do the expert speakers think this agreement is different as regards sovereignty? Would it have more in common with the unified patent court, for instance? I am thinking of it from a sovereignty point of view and how it might engage the Irish Constitution.

I missed a few minutes of the meeting earlier so I ask the committee to forgive me if this question has been asked already. I can catch up with my party colleague, Deputy Duffy, later. Have any of the expert speakers commented on the view of the European Association of Judges in respect of CETA? If not, I would be grateful to hear their comments.

I have a final question for Dr. Fennelly and Dr. Suttle, if it does not put them on the spot. A former judge has expressed the view that Pringle has put Crotty to sleep. Do either of them have an opinion on that? It is perfectly legitimate and the intellectual discussions are invigorating but there seems to be an incremental move to undermine - for want of a better term because I do not mean it in a pejorative sense - or water down Crotty. Could it be that the correct case, which could be closer on all fours with Crotty, has not arrived yet? That might stroke the monster's back, to quote Kavanagh, a non-lawyer. It is the monster that I admire. It might not be the correct term but it is a creature of constitutional vigilance for the people of Ireland, which is being slightly eroded by jurisprudence and expert commentary. Maybe the commentary follows the jurisprudence. I accept that. Do the expert speakers concur with former Supreme Court Justice Mr. Hugh Geoghegan, who said Crotty is slowly being put to sleep? From a political perspective I certainly hope it is not.