Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. Hillary Clinton spoke two months ago in Michigan. She is a former champion of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which was in many ways the template for these trade agreements and was one of the first of the new generation of trade agreements to be passed with these types of mechanisms. She has now changed her position. She now opposes TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, and acknowledges, in speeches such as the recent speech she gave in Michigan, that: "It's true that too often, past trade deals have been sold to the American people with rosy scenarios that didn't pan out and promises that now ring hollow." We have heard a number of rosy scenarios outlined by the Government today. We even heard that this might be seen as a positive antidote to all the depressing talk about Brexit. I cannot agree that we are facing a rosy scenario. I fear that if we plough ahead with provisional application, there might be considerably more depressing talk in the future.

I will respond to some of the points raised by the Government's spokespersons. With regard to some of the areas that were lauded as areas of opportunity under the agreement, such as agribusiness, today we have representatives of the food industry and small businesses in the Visitors Gallery who are extremely concerned. Darina Allen, Irish members of Euro-toques and those in the food and high quality food industry have been almost uniform in their opposition to this. Our Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, at the Council of European agriculture Ministers, called for an impact assessment to be carried out. That impact assessment on what CETA will mean for agriculture is due at the end of the month, but we are planning to sign before we get the assessment we demanded. That is our current position on agriculture. With regard to universities and university opportunities, it is notable that the Irish Federation of University Teachers is clear about its opposition to this deal and specifically about its opposition to provisional application.

In terms of the overall benefits, rather than speaking about jobs and opportunities, let us consider what the analyses show. Analysis from Germany shows that we might see, over ten years, a 0.03% to 0.08% increase in European GDP, largely concentrated in the larger northern European countries, which is €20 per citizen after ten years. Of course, that GDP may be added to our 26% GDP. There is no guarantee that the GDP increase will reach our citizens. Can we take that risk for such a small estimated gain?

I will not go into the detail of regulation, but I believe Senator Reilly knows that we are facing dangers in the area of regulation. While existing regulations might be protected and there is a right to introduce new regulations, that comes with the risk of the court system and must jump through the new hoops. There is a clear provision in CETA that allows corporate stakeholders to make their views heard on regulatory initiatives on the same basis as other stakeholders, for example, citizens. The court systems in Canada may be wonderful, but the court system we are discussing here has nothing to do with Canada's open society or its values. The press release issued by the European Commission states that this a step towards the EU's ultimate goal of a global investment court. That is what this is about, not Canada.

I respect Senator Richmond's thought and consideration, and there are many areas relating to Europe on which we agree. However, I was disappointed that he dismissed so many points as conspiracy theories.I believe the points I have put forward are not conspiracy theories. I have looked at the text of CETA. I have entered the private and special reading rooms. We have one in Dublin and I would encourage every elected representative to visit it. I have looked at the text of TTIP and the text of CETA. I am very confident that the clear points I am putting forward are of concern. Some points were addressed but points that were not addressed included concerns regarding the courts systems; the ratchet clause, which means that we cannot have real competition between public and private because the Government cannot choose to place an area under public provision if it has been previously under private provision; and the negative and positive lists.

It has been said across the House that this is a new departure. It is a very serious change in how we do trade. That has not been addressed. There are constitutional issues. I have raised different constitutional issues with the Minister of State. I appreciate that he referenced them again this evening. They differ from the issues of concern raised by Sinn Féin. I still believe those constitutional issues may be outstanding and I ask that the Attorney General be consulted in respect of them.

While I welcome the new declaration that may come on Friday, it will be meaningless unless it is a new legal position by the European Commission. The European Commission says that it has decided to propose CETA as a mixed agreement but this is without prejudice to its legal view as expressed in the case currently being examined by the European Court of Justice. Until we have a different legal view from the European Commission, and I urge the Minister of State to fight for that view and its inclusion in this declaration, we still have a situation in which provisional application may jeopardise our constitutional obligations. If we decide to that there are concerns about this agreement and to leave, I note that under Article 30.8.4 of CETA, there will still be a three-year period in which companies will be allowed to take cases. These cases put a public charge on our State that could violate those constitutional concerns.

I thank everybody for their participation in the debate and their kind words on this subject. Unfortunately, I am unable to leave this open and will push for a vote but I would encourage Fianna Fáil to raise this again and have further debate.