Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As I might have said before, the joint interpretive instrument was included specifically to set out the right to regulate in social and environmental areas. It is always the case that states and companies can end up in court. I believe I know the example the Deputy is thinking about. That has nothing to do with any international treaties but it is always the case that companies and states can end up facing each other in court. Of course, that could have a chilling effect, deter investment or deter people from tendering. It is a question of whether the inclusion of this additional mechanism, an investment court system, makes it better or worse. I believe it makes it better because there is a clear system that companies can use. It involves a panel of three people: one for Canada, one for the UK and one independent. It is an alternative mechanism and is very difficult from what could be a much more complicated and difficult process, namely the process of trying to get through different courts in different legal systems, whether it is across Canadian provinces or EU states. The risk exists. It is a matter of whether the existing mechanism, this arbitration and mediation option, makes it better or worse. I believe it alleviates the problem and makes things better.

With regard to the process for CETA and the argument that it is somehow being rushed, it was in negotiation for eight years and was agreed in 2016 with the joint interpretive instrument. It was approved by the European Parliament and the 15 member states in 2017. This was sorted out already. One gets one shot at allaying concerns, as was done after the ratification of the Nice and Lisbon treaties. We have already been beyond that process with CETA. That was done through the joint interpretive instrument and the ECJ ruling. I do not believe we can go back again. It would be like rejecting Lisbon twice, or at least twice. One would get a very different answer.