Mr. Philip Kelly:

We argued that member states had a role in the ratification of these trade agreements because the subject of the trade agreement was not entirely within the competence of the EU and some aspects of the deal were within the competence of the individual member states. That was the case, and that is why the Government intervened in the European Court of Justice, ECJ, case concerning the Singapore deal, and that is the current judgment of the Advocate General. We had a similar position in the Canadian deal. With respect to opening up services markets, concessions are made to allow people to come to Ireland or the EU or to go to Canada to try to promote their services or deliver a services contract. If a person got a contract to deliver ICT services or something, he or she would get temporary permission to enter Canada to deliver that service. We maintain that control of our national border outside of the Schengen Agreement is a matter for the member state in Ireland's case, and therefore that falls to the national competence. That is just one example of an area of the agreement over which we want to retain control and insist that member states get to ratify, not just the EU.