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…

That is well covered. This legislation is about the enforcement of any awards at international level and that is what the constitutional problem was in the Costello case. The judge in the Costello case has said that if the Government wishes to ratify CETA, it will have to change the Arbitration Act and here is a way, the judge suggested, the Government could do it. We have considered that carefully. We have read the judgments as a whole and we have taken the Attorney General's advice. In that context, we drafted th…

He did not say that we have to do it.

That is a fundamental point.

The Senator has accused me of being in a fantasy here. The reverse could be argued to be true as well. She talked about stratospheric awards. That is the vista in front of us if we are to pass this legislation. She has moved on the debate now because she has lost the question on the right to regulate. She is saying that the State can regulate-----

That is changing the foundations of the argument. The Senator is not saying what some Senators said, namely, that we would not be able to regulate these things. What she is saying is that if we do, we will get fined. I have outlined at length-----

Not everybody has said that.

I have not said that.

The Government has not said that. The CETA agreement says the opposite, as does the CETA joint interpretative instrument. The European Court of Justice said the opposite. All the legal advice said the opposite. On the companies the Senator mentioned, it is very unfortunate that we have started to bring individual companies into the debate as if they are some threat to the State. I do not know those companies or who they are, but it is not fair to mention them in the Seanad as some kind of threat to the State. The l…

Yes, but the Irish law would apply for them too.

The terms under which people invest in this country are the laws of the land, trade agreements that are relevant to their particular operations or maybe their place of operation. They are the terms. The trade agreement in this case and the other cases that would come in under this legislation specifically point to the fact that the State can continue to regulate. I can say with 100% confidence that no Government decision has ever considered whether there is a regulatory chill on the Government because of the Canada…

There is a risk analysis.

The risk is that we would collapse the agreement if we do not ratify it.

On the Energy Charter Treaty, again, what is happening here in this House is a conflation of two different systems. The system we are debating under CETA has been specifically designed with the experience under the Energy Charter Treaty and other agreements fully in mind. The Government has a regulatory impact assessment and it is publicly available to anybody. There are no costs to the State arising from CETA. In a case where it is determined that there has been a material breach, the ICS could require a state to …