Mr. Philip Kelly:

We have not identified pitfalls in the CETA agreement, save to say if we did not have it, those involved in some sectors of the economy would be denied access to markets. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are all the time calling on firms to diversify and get into new markets. One part of the equation is the work Enterprise Ireland does in helping firms to identify target markets. The other part is identifying the tariffs their goods will face in these markets and what other behind the border barriers they will face. We have to work on the terms of trade, as well as facilitating individual companies. The world around us is negotiating trade agreements. Will we step aside from taking part when our entire output requires the export of beef, services, pharma-chem products and ICT equipment? We are exporting far more than the domestic market could support in these areas of specialism and high value. The danger to us lies in not taking part and not liberalising and taking advantage of the opportunities when the economy and individual firms have shown how well they can compete. The danger posed by the agreement is that Irish firms will be out-competed by other member states and their companies or will not be equipped to avail of these market opening opportunities. It will come down to individual firms identifying market opportunities in Canada in public procurement for software, medical devices etc. My confidence comes from the Irish firms which throughout the huge recession managed to lead recovery through export-led growth. It will involve not being left behind. Trade openness tends to stimulate innovation in the economy. The pressure of competing with other countries and firms to sell in Canada will stimulate innovation and, therefore, sustainability in Irish firms. There is a feeling of being left behind rather than of being exposed to very specific threats arising from the Canadian deal.

On the US-UK deal-----