Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will share time with Deputy Boyd Barrett - five minutes each.

The free trade agenda of right-wing governments, including this one, and the European Commission, has run into massive public opposition. As a member of the trade committee of the European Parliament for three years, I campaigned against CETA. We employed what we referred to as a Dracula strategy to try to bring what was happening in respect of TTIP and CETA out into the open and allow people to see what was a corporations' charter being written completely undemocratically, which would create a real problem for all the right-wing governments in Europe and for the European Commission. That has worked and TTIP has run into the sand of popular opposition and the complications posed by Brexit. Now the agenda is to get CETA implemented as quickly as possible without a vote in this House. That is contained in the Taoiseach's speech and I will explain that in a moment.

CETA is TTIP in Canadian disguise. A total of 81% of companies that operate in Canada are subsidiaries of US companies. In that context, 24,000 American companies operate in Canada. It is a way for the same interests in terms of major global capital to pursue the race to the bottom in respect of regulation, workers' rights, consumers' rights, and the environment, and to create a parallel supposed court structure to enshrine the rights of corporations to sue states if they interfere with their right to profit.

The agreement includes regulatory co-operation, which sounds like a nice thing. It would seem to make sense for countries and trade blocs to co-operate. In reality, however, what is proposed is lowest-common-denominator regulation in respect of a range of different things. First, the establishment of a regulatory co-operation forum under CETA, which will involve experts - people linked to the big businesses responsible for this - who will play a role in drafting regulations in the future will have a chilling effect on countries willing to regulate in the future. Second, the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism is renamed the investment court system. That is just rebranding of ISDS with the same essence, the right of corporations to sue states if they interfere with their investments or their right to profit, and a chilling effect will apply. Third, CETA is a living agreement, which means that it is fundamentally undemocratic. It is not accountable to this Parliament or to the European Parliament. Other bodies instead will hold sway. A range of committees, including at the top, the CETA joint committee - which is completely beyond any democratic control - will be established. Fourth, the threat to public services still exists in the drive towards liberalisation.

I want to deal with the process because what is contained in CETA is fundamentally undemocratic.

It is an attack on people's rights in undermining democratic checks and accountabilities. It is very appropriate that the method pursued to implement CETA is just as undemocratic. The Taoiseach said that Ireland sought the designation of CETA as a mixed agreement. That means there will have to be a vote on it in this House but he went on to state: "We also fully support the provisional application of CETA at the earliest opportunity." That means there will be no vote in this House and no vote in the European Parliament before it provisionally comes into force. In terms of what that means, we must read the agreement. Article 30.8.4 states: "If the provisional application of this Agreement is terminated and this Agreement does not enter into force, a claim may be submitted under Section F of Chapter Eight (Investment) within a period no longer than three years following the date of [termination of] the provisional application, regarding any matter arising during the provisional application of this Agreement..." That means that it comes into effect without any democratic decision of this House or anywhere else, and a Canadian company or a US company with a subsidiary in Canada can sue this State if we say we do not want fracking to take place or if we increase labour regulation. It can sue this State despite the fact that no vote has taken place, and it has the right to do that for a period of three years. That is what it states. That is the impact of provisional application, and that is why it is the road that is being taken, because the Government has met opposition in the Seanad, in the Walloon Parliament and in the German constitutional court. The Taoiseach has a real problem in terms of getting this measure through, and so this is the route to go down.

The other point that I raised with the Taoiseach previously is that it is arguably unconstitutional. Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution states that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann, but provisional application means there can be a charge on the State because a company can take Ireland to the investor court. It is an issue, therefore, in terms of the constitutionality of this agreement. The Taoiseach has met massive opposition to this agreement. He will continue to meet it. People will not buy the trick of provisional application.

See this speech in context