That is the only thing the Senator is right about.

I am here.

I will try to deal with the various points that were raised. Senator Collins made the mistake that Senator McDowell made on Second Stage, which is to assume that the position started with the decision of Mr. Justice Charleton. The Senator makes worthy points, but when you are talking about constitutional law and trying to interpret the Supreme Court, you do not start with the dissent; you start with the majority. I wrote down the various points that Senator McDowell made about this Supreme Court judgment. I never i…

That is no problem.

The advice says that is not necessary because execution of awards is a national matter and under the-----

I have given an answer.

I have given the answer. It is not necessary.

Whenever the Leas-Chathaoirleach wants.

There is no intention to-----

I have not complained. I am just doing my job.

That was said in the context of CETA being reckless and dystopian. I never said he was infallible.

The Senator did not, but others did.

As regards some of the points Senator McDowell raised, first, he mentioned the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It reminds me of the Vienna Convention on diplomacy, which is relevant to a point made earlier by Senator Higgins, who suggested that the Villa Spada might be at risk. That is not the case. It could not possibly be the case. Senator McDowell also urged anybody here to contradict Mr. Justice Charleton. Mr. Justice Charleton was in the minority of the Supreme Court, so the majority clearly by defau…

They did, actually.

The Chief Justice did in fact read his judgment and refers to it in his judgment, so I think on that point the Senator is completely wrong. I think it is fair to say that.

For all this talk about obiter dicta , this is not a High Court bound by precedent; this is a Legislature making laws which the Supreme Court envisages. Nobody in the Attorney General's office could simply say this is worthless or not worth the paper it is written on. The Attorney General is not a High Court judge deciding a case; the Attorney General is giving advice to the Government, which wishes - for public policy reasons, for the betterment of our economy and for the prosperity of our country, the European Un…

The regulatory impact assessment clearly states the thing would collapse and we would be left with tariffs and whatever pertained before we had the CETA agreement with Canada, and that jobs around the country would be at risk. Investor courts are new and have been designed to deal with the issues raised regarding the previous system of dispute resolution. There have been many significant changes.

That is not the case.

That would only be possible where there is consent so that would not be case.

Yes, but that is not what the Senator said. She made out this was still in force when it is not in force. The State would not be bound by that because there would be required to be consent. I stand over what I said on Dáil Committee Stage that this is exceedingly unlikely. That is said by a number of the judges in the Supreme Court case. It does not cure any unconstitutionality or any difficulties with it, but they stated they feel it is unlikely too. We have all said the domestic courts are options as well for any…