Tonight, and in the past, this has been contentious legislation. On the one hand, there is always the situation where, if you join an organisation like the European Union, which still has massive support among the people, you give something up in return for getting something. The CETA agreement is like that. The question was whether we were giving up too much. There is the overarching issue of sovereignty. There is the fear the system would allow foreign corporations to bypass Irish courts and challenge laws in international tribunals. As previous speakers mentioned, there is also the idea of having less power, in that certain Irish governments may not pass legislation going forward because it might offend these corporations. There is a worry about subtle threats or that decisions will be made that prioritise investors over the common good. Valid criticisms were made that the ratification of CETA was rushed. Under the 2022 Supreme Court ruling, CETA could only be ratified following changes made via the Arbitration Act, highlighting the constitutional sensitives around it. The question is where we are now with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. A lot has changed and, as I will discuss briefly shortly, a lot changed following the US presidential election. Safeguards have been brought in. Unlike the old ISDS models, the investment court system recognises states' rights to regulate in the public interest. Some would argue the ICS better balances investor protection with our public policy safeguards because of the permanent tribunal of judges appointed by the EU and Canada, and we are a member state of the EU. Decisions made are subject to an appeal mechanism, which is better than the appeal mechanism in place previously, hearings are to be made public and documents are to be published. There is also more transparency and third parties, for example, environmental NGOs, can make submissions. Investors can only challenge discriminatory or unfair treatment, not the general policy decisions. There is explicit recognition that governments retain the right to regulate in areas like health, environment and labour. I am a firm believer in the European project, as supported by the people. The European Union's principle of subsidiarity holds that the EU should only act in areas where it does not have exclusive competence if the objectives or actions can be better achieved at a lower level. I have said before that our local government system is flawed. There is not enough power at local level to uphold this EU principle. Trade agreements are done at European level. The Germans have had issues with this proposal, as have the Belgians. It is good to put it through scrutiny. On balance, given the fact that the Trump administration is playing a dangerous game with our future in Ireland and given that Canada is a more reliable partner, we have to look at the pros and cons. On balance, I support the legislation as proposed for that reason and because it meets those thresholds.

Sentiment score: 0.18