Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The more I read about and listen to the discussion on TTIP and ISDS, the more the word that looms large for me is "why". The Proclamation of Poblacht na hÉireann declared, "the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible". I do not think any of us here would argue with that declaration. If we accept that is the way it should be, why would the Government of an independent, democratic, sovereign republic willingly cede the power to determine and implement policy to anyone that is representative of the interests of international big business, profiteers and shareholders?

What threats, inducements or promises were made to somehow convince the Government and other European governments that TTIP and ISDS, with the consequential loss of sovereignty, could be viewed in any way as a good deal? Does a trade agreement have to contain trade provisions that provide that the ability of a democratically-elected Government to determine and implement policy can be usurped by big business? It is clear a trade agreement does not have to contain those provisions and it is equally clear that it should not contain such provisions. Despite the chorus of voices supporting it in this Parliament and others, TTIP and ISDS is not in the interest of the people of this republic.

A central tenet of TTIP is the investor state dispute settlement, ISDS. Under ISDS, a company is able to sue a state if a government introduces legislation which the company feels might be damaging to its business interests. Companies are able to bypass the national court system and go directly to the international, investor-based, tribunals. It is not just conspiracy theorists who are talking and writing about it. A moratorium on fracking was introduced in Quebec in 2012. Due to an ISDS arrangement which is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada is now being sued for 250 million Canadian dollars for loss of potential profit. Approximately 63% of ISDS cases which have been brought against Canada have been due to environmental protections Canada introduced and which the companies feel have been hurting their profits or potential profits. The use of this tactic is to force democratic governments to comply with the will of multinational business and thereby thwart the democratic process. This is the reason I ask why. If any proof were needed that we should stop the fundamentally flawed and compromised EPA study into fracking and ban fracking for ever, Canada is it. Think of the 250 million Canadian dollars, stop and study and then stop fracking forever in this country.

The beef industry supports more than 100,000 family farms. Any changes to it will certainly have an impact, and in my view an adverse one, on the agrifood industry in this country. We have meat from clean, grass-fed animals in this country and we are known throughout the world for it. Within TTIP and ISDS, a steer reared on a farm in Montana and fed artificial food will be as valuable as a grass-fed cow in Ireland.

As a democratic institution, we have a solemn responsibility to ensure the democratic process is upheld. As the inheritors of the men and women of 1916, we must demand that the will of the people is to the foremost of all decisions made in this country and not the will of some backroom investors who are keen to walk all over the democratic process of this country and others.

See this speech in context