Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for having to leave after I speak as I am due to speak in the Chamber. I thank both our guests. I read their presentations and they are very comprehensive. I was a Member of the European Parliament for quite a number of years and am fairly familiar with the background to all of this. I am certainly not an expert but I am familiar with it. I am pro-trade, I voted for many trade deals, and I agree this agreement is progressive, modern and forward-looking but there are issues. The main one we discussed was the investment court system, ICS, or the investor state dispute settlement, ISDS. I agree this is a much better form. It is reformed but it was put into this treaty because the Commission or the Canadians expect it will be used. Something was not put into it that would be a redundant measure. There is the expectation it will be used. As far as the ISDS or the ICS is concerned, many countries have them in trade treaties but Ireland was one of the few countries that was almost an ISDS free zone. There is the energy charter treaty etc. but we have been largely ISDS free, yet we have managed to trade. We say we are small open economy, and we are, but we have managed to trade without the need for an ISDS. That is an important point to make. When Irish citizens listen to this debate that will be one of their questions.

I would make a final point but I come to my questions. I agree the chilling effect on regulation will be much less in the ICS than in the ISDS. It was also stated that reducing investors’ expectation of profits does not create a breach under CETA. I agree that was said as if it was something positive but the truth is that is how it is for everybody. Our guests could ask any Irish farmer about their expectations under the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and they would see that as just being normal.

I will move on to my questions. Mr. Schlegelmilch said the ICS is a safety net to prevent discrimination against foreigners.

That is not correct. It prevents discrimination against foreign investors but there is no protection for workers outside what is in the treaty. I know the ILO conventions are there and I am not speaking about the treaty itself, as the treaty is quite positive. We are talking about protections outside the treaty. The only people who are protected outside the treaty in a separate court are investors, not workers, not the environment and so on. If I am speaking to Irish citizens, how do I say to them that this treaty protects foreign investors but not workers?

Second, the Commission document tells us there is a 50% increase in trade compared with the position before CETA. In other words, without ratification of this part of the treaty, the trade deal seems to be working quite well. In this Parliament, we have three choices. We can vote for it, and that is the end of it, we can vote against it, or we can defer it. I would like to hear the views of the witnesses specifically on the last one. I know Deputy Richmond asked the question and it is a bit of a repeat, but I would like to hear the witnesses’ views on the fact it might be decided here to defer a decision.

My third question refers to some other trade deals, for example, EU-Japan. The witnesses can correct me if I am wrong as I am not as up to date on this as I used to be. As far as I know, the new NAFTA does not include investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS. Canada saw the need to include it with the progressive EU but did not include it with the US and Mexico. If it is not in NAFTA and not in some other trade deals, why specifically is it needed in CETA?

My final question is separate to that and is around positive and negative listing. When there is positive listing, what is listed is in, it is done, it is dusted, and it is finished. However, negative listing does not list what is in; it lists what is out, and that means everything else is in. It is a dynamic agreement and there could be new services, new aspects of technology and so on, and they will all be included. I want to ask the witnesses’ view as to why that is the situation with this deal.

I apologise but when the responses of the witnesses are finished, I will have to leave.