I am not sure if I heard the question correctly but I believe the Senator asked me how the High Court makes findings. That is not a question for the Oireachtas to decide.

We cannot start to be prescriptive about what the High Court will or will not find. We are giving it guidance, through legislation, based on what the Supreme Court has said. The term "constitutional order" has been referenced by Irish courts in a number of cases. It would be a matter for determination in the ordinary manner by the High Court, and of course the Supreme Court if necessary, in any cases regarding the enforcement of awards in the State under the new Article 25A of the 2010 Act. It is not for the Execut…

Essentially, the Senator is trying to make the case that a CETA tribunal is going to make a decision that fundamentally affects how public policy is made in this country and I am telling her that is not possible. What we are doing is simply amending the Arbitration Act to allow us to ratify CETA. Ultimately, and quite honestly, we do not share the Senator's view. We have considered this very carefully from a legal position. We do not share her view or her concerns about how the Irish courts would interpret the new …

With regard to amendment No. 13, CETA includes commitments to co-operate on trade-related environmental issues of common concern, such as climate change. In fact, in this agreement between the European Union, its member states and Canada, everybody has agreed not to lower levels of environmental protection to encourage trade or investment. That has been agreed between the parties. In any event, there is absolutely no question of the State not meeting its obligations under the agreements referenced in the amendment …

There are commitments in CETA with regard to trade-related environmental issues of common interest, such as climate change.

It is just not credible to come into the Seanad and say that, while we know there is an agreement between Canada, the EU and its member states not to reduce the level of environmental protection, these big bad old corporations are going to be able to use little loopholes here and there to force all of those who came to this agreement to do what they do not want to do. It is suggested that sovereign states will be forced to do what they do not want to do and what they all agreed not to do as a fundamental part of th…

The agreement itself says that states are not going to reduce the level of environmental protection to facilitate trade and investment. I cannot continue to make that point. There has to be some realism to this debate. We keep hearing references to cases and I keep saying that this is a new system that is designed to address some of those concerns. Again, it comes back to the fundamental point that the certainty the trade agreement with Canada has offered, the reduction in tariffs and the openness to trade have gen…

A great deal is sold abroad. This is a general point about trade agreements. We must continue to support them. The interpretations that have been offered here in the Seanad are simply not the reality.

Again, I have to go back to the joint interpretative instrument on the environment, which states: CETA commits the European Union and its Member States and Canada to provide for and encourage high levels of environmental protection, as well as to strive to continue to improve such laws and policies and their underlying levels of protection. CETA explicitly recognises the right of Canada and of the European Union and its Member States, to set their own environmental priorities, to establish their own levels of envir…

They cannot handle the truth. That is the reality. They cannot handle the truth.

I have said it before and I will say it again-----

The fundamental difference between the position of the broad thrust of the Opposition and that of the Government is that the Opposition has no regard for the European Union, for trade agreements-----

I am not derailing it because we have another two hours of debate.

I am not derailing anything.

I have been here for hours already and I am happy to be here for hours to get through this legislation.

There is a point that is fundamental to the country and to the livelihoods of people of this country which is being completely ignored in this debate.

The Labour Party was in government when this was negotiated so Labour Party ministers would have been in Brussels.

I cannot put it any further. The reality is, although the Senators say this is about the investor courts - and in fairness their argument is about that; that is a fact - they keep giving precedents that are not relevant and they also ignore the fact that if we make a decision not to ratify this agreement, the agreement will collapse. That is the language of the Government's regulatory impact analysis. The agreement will collapse and we will lose its benefits. I do not know whether the Social Democrats, the Labour P…

As I have already said on a number of occasions, the Government, with the assistance of the Attorney General, has carefully considered the Supreme Court's findings in the Costello case. We take everything in the round on that. The amendment seeks to provide a partial definition of the meaning of the term "constitutional order of the State" but the Bill intentionally does not include a definition. This is because the term has previously been referenced by Irish courts in their case law. It would be a matter for dete…

I cannot explain it any further. I will not accuse anyone of a misunderstanding but the fact is that the right to regulate is contained within the CETA agreement. It is the investor courts that are bound by that. This legislation relates to enforcement of awards and we are saying that we have drafted this very carefully to comply with the suggestion given to us in the Supreme Court case. That has been done carefully over a period of time. It is not possible then for me to accept other amendments in relation to that…