David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The motion has four cardinal points. The first is that there has been a lack of clear communication. During the TTIP negotiations, some European parliamentary members were reluctantly allowed into a closed room in which they could not make records of the documents they saw. There was absolutely absurd secrecy. The second cardinal point of the motion, as I take it, is as follows: "Given this anticipated change in the scope of provisional application, the Irish Government is not in a position to fully assure the public that provisional application will not open Ireland up to potential Investor Court System procedures". This is the delayed impact of the Singapore court case. In the light of these things, the Government should neither agree to sign up nor authorise "provisional application". That would seem to me to be absolutely sensible, as would upholding Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement unless it is agreed by the Dáil. Let us have a bit of democracy.

An international document, from which I cannot quote because I do not have it, states that this would be a real threat to democracy. That is an internationally-established standard. With regard to the hormone-injected beef, what happens if one of the United Nations subsidiaries in Canada takes an action? In the light of the judgment of the ISDS in the past, we cannot really guarantee that it would not happen.

Allow me to outline to the House a couple of cases of what happens under ISDS. In the 1990s, Argentina embraced a privatisation scheme for its national water system. It gave it to a firm called Azurix, which was a subsidiary of Enron. Hello? Does anybody remember Enron, that wonderful sign of liberal capitalism that collapsed disgracefully? This subsidiary of Enron eventually produced filthy, undrinkable water at unaffordable rates. The Argentinian Government put something out requiring it to produce clear water at affordable rates but it was sued under ISDS and the company was awarded $165 million. A government cannot even require that a privatised company give it clean water. That is a pretty astonishing situation.

What was even more astonishing was Achmea B. V. v. The Slovak Republic. In this situation, there was deregulation of the health insurance industry and subsequent re-regulation.The arbitrators awarded €22 million. This is the crucial thing. In their judgement, they insisted that the public good and the public interest were not sufficient reasons for the Government to interfere in the free market. How is that? A government elected by the people cannot operate for the public good and the public interest because it is not sufficiently important as weighed in the balance against profit. How is that for democracy? Even modified, this ISDS system is rotten to the core and grotesquely undemocratic. It amazes me that elected or even partially elected Senators could vote in favour of this system.

What about closer to home and our own wonderful Veolia that put in the Luas system? It brought a case against Egypt that was successful. What was that all about? The Egyptian Government decided to raise the minimum wage in the interests of workers. However, the profits of Veolia are much more important than decency, justice and equal rights for the ordinary Egyptian civilians. This is what we are opening ourselves up to.

The European Association of Judges has expressed serious reservations about this situation. It says that provisions for the election, time of office and remuneration for the ICS judges do not meet the minimum standards for judicial office, as laid down in the European Magna Carta of Judges. The UN independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, has called for the total abolition of ISDS mechanisms. He noted that far from contributing to human rights and development, ISDS has compromised the State's regulatory functions and resulted in growing inequality among states and inside them.

This country is contemplating giving away control over policy in various areas - not even to other governments or the EU. We have heard so much about giving away sovereignty to the EU. This is not giving away sovereignty to another political body. It is giving away sovereignty to companies like Veolia, Monsanto and the tobacco companies.