Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if he will report on the negotiations between the European Union and the United States of America on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37225/15]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to report on the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, between the EU and the USA, particularly in light of the large and unprecedented protest in Berlin, involving 250,000 people, which reflects the growing understanding that, as John Hilary put it, "TTIP is correctly understood not as a negotiation between two competing trading partners but as an assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations seeking to remove regulatory barriers to the activities on both sides of the Atlantic".

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland has recovered strongly from the economic crash by developing our opportunities for strong export growth. The USA is an important trading partner for Ireland and Ireland stands to gain if barriers restricting trade are reduced. This is the purpose of the current negotiations with the USA. The mandate given to the EU Commission, which is the negotiator for the EU side, is a broad-ranging one, covering virtually all sectors of economic interest, not just tariffs but also non-tariff barriers, as well as opportunities for global standards setting.

One of the objectives in the EU–US trade agreement is greater regulatory coherence to ease red tape for firms. This will not be at the expense of consumers or standards. There will be no dilution of labour or of environmental standards, no change in governing access of GM products to Ireland, no dilution of the right to regulate and no interference in public service provision. The mandate recognises that each side can continue to organise public services and regulate in the public interest in sensitive areas such as hormone treated meat and genetically modified organisms. This has been reinforced by a joint declaration from EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and the US Trade Representative Mike Froman.

There have been 11 rounds of negotiations to date, the 11th round taking place in Miami from 19 to 23 October 2015. In concrete terms, the EU and the US have made substantial progress on all three pillars of the proposed agreement, namely, market access for EU and US companies, regulatory co-operation and trade rules. Both sides remain positive and expect further substantial progress by early next year. On 8 July, the European Parliament voted for a resolution supporting the EU-US trade agreement, including such a reformed investment protection mechanism.

At the Council of Trade Ministers scheduled for 27 November in Brussels, I will have the opportunity to discuss the European Commission’s proposal for a new investment court system. I will also discuss progress on these negotiations with Commissioner Malmström and with EU Council colleagues.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister's answer reflects the soporific strategy of the European establishment, which is to refer to large numbers of potential growth that are not based on reality and then to tell us not to worry because none of the concerns that people have will come to pass. Let us consider the question of the environment. In January, we had a concrete promise from the EU to safeguard green laws, defend international standards and protect the EU's right to set high levels of environmental protection.

However, we have the millennium negotiations, a leaked text that has not been released because the negotiations are not taking place in the open. The leaked text from the EU shows the commitment is purely rhetorical. It contains vaguely phrased, non-binding commitments to environmental safeguards. It is clear that in reality, the right of corporations to profit will take precedence over the right of Ireland, European states or America to regulate in terms of environmental interest. That is reflected in the kind of cases we have seen under NAFTA in the ISDS agreement, where, for example, Lone Pine Resources sued Canada for $250 million due to a moratorium on fracking introduced in Québec. The same could happen here if TTIP is signed off on.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These claims are simply untrue. The right to profit will not take precedence over the right to regulate, something both negotiators have recognised plainly. They have set that out not only in a joint statement, but in the mandate under which the EU is negotiating. It has been stitched into many of the documents to ensure it is respected through the procedure.

Government retains the right to regulate. There are great opportunities for trade. Ireland is three times more involved in trade with the USA than any other member state. The potential gain for Ireland is very significant. There could be a potential boost of €2 billion to GDP if there is a successful reduction in trade barriers. It will be particularly beneficial for small companies as it has been shown that trade barriers are the greatest obstacle for small companies which wish to trade in US.

There are also opportunities for very innovative Irish companies to bring technologies into the US public procurement area. There are significant opportunities for Ireland. Of course, any deal would have to be voted on at the end but this is a balanced negotiation, which is going well.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I simply do not believe, nor do those watching us, that the right to profit will not take precedence over the right to regulate. The big winners will be large corporations and the losers will be small businesses, consumers, working people and the environment.

In the draft text the definition of "expropriation" is being expanded dramatically. We know have terms like "measures tantamount to expropriation", "indirect expropriation" and "regulatory expropriation". That means that any interference with the right of corporations profit is seen as expropriation.

Under ISDA, of which the Irish Government is one of the biggest champions in the whole of the European Union - the Minister signed a letter to that effect to the Trade Commissioner - corporations can sue in private arbitration tribunals. They choose the arbitrators and are able to win large amounts of money in compensation or, more likely in reality, freeze the ability of countries to regulate in the interests of their people or the environment. The examples go on and on in terms of ISDS. They already exist under NAFTA and will exist under CETA and TTIP.

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, Deputy Murphy does not let the facts interfere with his ideology. The truth is that these negotiations and this arbitration will not be in private with arbitrators chosen by companies. The Commission has developed an approach to dispute settlement whereby it can only be invoked where there is targeted discrimination on manifestly unfair grounds. Adjudicators must be approved by Governments from among persons qualified to be judges. The procedures must be transparent. There must be an independent appeal process and it must respect and protect the right of governments to regulate. Deputy Murphy is simply inaccurate and, I suspect, is not reading the documents because they might interfere with the conclusions he reached years ago on any trade negotiations.