Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, might confirm whether that is the time it is being considered.

The case and argument from my party, in Canada, Brussels and Dublin, is that we should put a stop to this process and that the agreement we are about to sign is not right. It is a fundamental undermining of some of the regulatory provisions that we have been championing for 30 or 40 years, and more than anything else, there is an issue of democratic accountability.

It is not only that the Upper House, Seanad Éireann, has voted already, with a majority stating we should put it on hold. It is not only that the parliaments in Bulgaria and Romania have real concerns around visa provisions within a trade agreement with Canada, but the decision by a sizeable majority in the Walloon Parliament to put a stop to proceedings has to be respected. There is considerable impetus within the Council, because of Brexit and because we want to be seen as being able to act, to plough ahead regardless, but that would not be the right approach.

As an alternative, one of the approaches the Taoiseach might take at the Council on Thursday is to ask that the European Court of Justice give an opinion on whether the really controversial elements within the trade agreement, namely, the investor-state distribution system or the investment courts system that modifies it, are, as many would contend, in breach of fundamental European legal rights and legal structures. If he were to do that, it would do much good in terms of restoring some of the reputation of the State on international trade issues and it would lead to far greater legal clarity prior to any agreement being signed. It would also address one of the main fundamental concerns with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which is also the case with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, that we are creating a mechanism where corporations have excess power over governments in terms of the regulatory systems we are putting in place. That is the reason the Green Party in Canada was the only party that was fundamentally opposed to the agreement and why we have also led the campaign against it in Brussels. We believe the agreement is yet another example in the globalised trade system where we are giving excess power to corporations over states. We are not opposed to international trade. We will need international trade to make the economic transition we need to have a sustainable future. We are not opposed to agreements with Canada or the United States, which set up laws to allow one to monitor them. We do not, however, agree to the existing systems where the powers of corporations are excessive compared to the powers of governments and where we lose control of some of the regulatory systems such as the precautionary principle for which we fought for 30 years on the protection of public services and the principle that our courts are no longer potentially sovereign and that there is a yielding of national sovereignty to international dispute resolution courts where corporations would have real power over this Parliament. As has been mentioned previously, the fact that the Government is seeking to approve this trade agreement in advance of it being approved in the Parliament here only reinforces the concern that we are not recognising the democratic mandate in terms of regulatory systems. This is not just about removing tariffs, it is about removing regulations, and that is all the more reason we should have had a more open and transparent process in how the yielding of democratic control over regulation has been ceded and why we should approve the agreement here prior to any signature going on any future agreement. There is real confusion in Brussels following the vote in Walloon yesterday. We should help address some of the uncertainty by asking the European Court of Justice to make a quick ruling on whether the new alternative court systems are in compliance with European law. If the Minister of State has time at the end to respond I would like to hear whether the Government would consider making a call, or joining others in doing so, in order that the European Court of Justice would make a ruling in that regard.

My second point is related because in the end Brexit will be an issue about what jurisdiction the UK will recognise in any post-Brexit situation. It was with real shock that we read the speeches made by Theresa May at the Conservative Party conference where she seemed to be slamming doors behind her in terms of not recognising the European Court of Justice in future, and adopting the body of European law but then reserving the right to remove it in the blink of an eye should the UK so wish. This is a connected issue because it would potentially allow the UK to operate as a rogue state in a race to the bottom whereby it would not apply jurisdictional control in terms of whatever trade arrangements are in place.

While it is not an immediate item on the agenda, it is very important that we do not just cede the argument in effect to the UK Government and wait until March to see what it does. It is important for us in the interim period that we set out our position. I do not believe our position can be to seek a side deal with the UK Government on which we would then go to the rest of the European Union to say it should be kind to us when dealing with Ireland or border issues because, in effect, that would amount to us acting as a subsidiary of the UK negotiating position. It would be far better for us to take a European position wherein we stand up for the right of the free movement of people, and make it very clear that there will not be a yielding on access to the Single Market without the UK Government yielding in terms of some of the other rights that come with such a benefit. Should the UK take the course of going the hard Brexit route, we should try to retain from the ashes some mechanism whereby we can get agreement with the UK in terms of labour, social, environmental and other standards so that the UK would not be able to play fast and loose with the Single Market. It is in all our interests to have joint accountability and jurisdiction and I would welcome if we could have some mechanism in place in that respect even if the UK opted for a hard Brexit route. It is preferable for us to analyse and investigate such mechanisms before Article 50 is triggered, which we have been told will happen in March, so that we are ahead of the game. That is something on which we must work with our European colleagues, the other 27 remaining members, and not do a side deal with the UK and then seek to get agreement from the other 26 members on whatever deal might be done.

Most important, I must say how disheartened I am at the numbers revealed by the Taoiseach today that, to date, we have brought in only 69 refugees from the port of Piraeus and the other transit camps in Greece. I see no reason why that number should be so low or why we should blame other bureaucratic systems such as that of the UN for the failure to act with due haste. It is disgraceful that we are leaving those people languishing in the most horrific basic conditions on a pier and in dusty yards in Thessaloniki and outside Greece. It behoves us as a nation not to seek to bring in 400 refugees by the end of the year but to bring in the bulk of the 4,000 people whom we have committed to bring in. If we lived up to that commitment it would say a lot that is positive and right about this country. It is not acceptable to point to the inefficiencies of the UN or whatever system is being blamed for the delay. There are hundreds of people among those refugees who would give their right arm to come to Ireland tomorrow. I cannot understand or accept that we have managed to bring in only such a small number of refugees to date. That speaks volumes about a lack of care for the issue and a lack of real attention to the detail and urgency that is required for us to act. I ask that the Government change its strategy and reality double quick.

See this speech in context