Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Two weeks ago in the Seanad we passed a motion expressing concerns about certain aspects of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and the EU, focusing in particular on the lack of legal clarity surrounding what "provisional application" might mean. These concerns have been echoed and vindicated across Europe in the week since by lawyers who have made it clear that declarations do not carry legal weight; by the German Constitutional Court, which last Thursday demanded new and explicit assurances; by the Council of Europe Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development; and by a vote in Wallonia, in Belgium, on Friday. While our Government happily signed off on the deal last week, others have been demanding something better. Germany, for example, produced today a new declaration of its own designed to address constitutional concerns, Belgium has spent the weekend in negotiations and, finally, belatedly, at 9 p.m. last night, we began to hear reports of new text emerging from the European Commission, which mentioned the Vienna Convention and included actual legal references. These changes did not come soon enough or go far enough, and provisional application has not been signed at the meetings of the Council of Ministers today.

The talks now continue. It is thanks to public and parliamentary pressure that we are achieving the changes deserved. We are now told there will be an EU leaders' summit on 20 and 21 October, later this week. It hopes and plans to send a strong message of reassurance to citizens that their concerns about the side effects of new generation trade deals will be addressed. This will be the first comprehensive debate on trade since the current European Commission was appointed, and it must be a robust debate because there is no consensus and not everyone agrees. The President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, said in recent weeks, "The fact is that in the Council of Ministers you have 12 [countries] in favour of ... strengthening trade defence instruments, and you have ... 12 [countries] who do not like the idea". By "trade defence instruments", he means investor courts.

Where does Ireland stand among these countries? CETA is still a badly designed new generation deal which represents a dangerous overreach from the proper area, an appropriate area of trade and tariffs, to the areas of public policy and public accountability. However, if there is a chance now to potentially remove the worst element, namely, the investor courts, corporate courts which can place such huge charge on our public finances, will Ireland seize this opportunity? Will Ireland support changes that might remove these investor courts at the summit this week? I ask the Leader to put it to the Government, which so lightly dismissed the Seanad motion last week, to reflect now on the legitimate concerns of this House and the concerns of the Irish public and reflect them at the summit of leaders.

I note - this is a compliment to the Government - that the Minister, Deputy Naughten, today announced plans to ratify our climate change commitments. This is a welcome development. However, will the Government press for good trade deals that support rather than threaten those climate change commitments, deliver trade while protecting quality, health and workers' rights and recognise that public good and public accountability must always remain the bottom line?