With the malevolent Trump Administration, we need to closer links with Canada through the EU and this legislation is clearly facilitating what is essentially a trade-off with pluses and minuses. The question is not about whether we are losing sovereignty but whether sovereignty is worth giving up in certain situations, and I believe it is. We have agreed to pool sovereignty at EU level in multiple areas. The Supreme Court decision stated CETA created a parallel system of justice but it did not say the ICS was unconstitutional and required a referendum. Instead it suggested amending legislation would be needed to meet the threshold and that is the Bill before us. I said on Second Stage it struck a reasonable balance to meet the threshold so I do not have a problem with it. The old-style ISDS system has been improved in the ICS. The ICS will have open hearings, independent decision-making processes, judges appointed who cannot engage in outside activities and some, admittedly limited, facility for NGOs, civil society, trade unions, etc. It is a trade-off some will hate and others will reluctantly see as necessary. EU companies, as has been mentioned, can sue Canadian companies and Canadian companies can sue EU companies so while Ireland can be sued without recourse to Irish courts, the action cannot be spurious and must show a company has been affected detrimentally in some way because of a breach of the agreement. We might not like it but companies have a right to be compensated for loss of expected earnings and the threat is overemphasised because making such amendments would not in itself be in breach of the agreement. States still have the right to amend policy on environmental matters, consumer protection, public health and labour laws. Threats will happen and there is always the risk of a chilling effect but the EU is starting to take on the IT companies and it is through the EU we shout down these threats. However, I am concerned about the lack of proper Oireachtas scrutiny on Committee and Report Stages. We had the confidence motion on Tuesday where the anger of ordinary people was expressed in a robust way by Deputies on this side of the House. The Government was accused of being out of touch and not listening to the people. A day later, after having a good Second Stage debate on CETA, we scheduled statements on football. I am a football fan and it was a great debate, which I welcomed, but it could have been deferred for another week. We could have had several more hours of discussion and proper amendments debated. The Government has the numbers anyway and, like I said, there is a trade-off here, but I will not be voting for this as is because it has not been given the proper scrutiny it deserves by this House.

Sentiment score: 0.07

The nub of the issue is that the Bill is before the House because of a Supreme Court decision and the Costello judgment. We are going to have differences of opinion on it. There was a 4:3 split in the judgment but a 6:1 majority said that while it is unconstitutional, it does not require a referendum because the State can change Irish law to put in place strict safeguards to make sure Irish sovereignty and EU sovereignty are protected in the context of the Bill. This is why we have the arbitration amendment in section 25. The fundamental point, as I said earlier, is that it is a trade-off. On balance, following Mark Carney's speech a few months ago, and I reiterated it when the Canadian ambassador was here when we gave our commiserations for the tragedy that had recently happened there, we have to collectively get together in this new type of world where alliances are what will help small- and medium-sized countries. Ireland is only strong as part of its EU membership. Canada and the EU collectively are only strong by working together in a world where we cannot rely on historic partners. In this context, maybe five years ago the risk might have been judged to have been greater but now there is a trade-off. There is a certain level of risk. The Minister of State is doing his best to go through why these risks are overstated by members of the Opposition and civic groups, and maybe they are. I agree with the Minister of State on a lot of aspects but I want a response tonight as to why, given that the Supreme Court put it in the Minister of State's hands to go through this legislation with a fine-tooth comb so the concerns of the courts were reflected through the legislation, the legislation is not being allowed to have as long as is possible. We have had much longer debates on other legislation. As an Independent I will not say I have specific expertise because I cover a wide range of areas, but there are spokespersons here who are particularly focused on tabling amendments and want to have those amendments discussed. I wanted to see them discussed because I was listening to debate all night before I came down here. It is totally unfair to the people of Ireland not to be seen to have this scrutiny. It might be laborious for the Minister of State's advisers and for him but we should go through everything step by step and amendment by amendment over a period of hours and then come to the vote. At least we could say the House went through it the way it should have. I do not believe that it has gone through it the way it should have.

Sentiment score: 0.18