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…

Yes, I will answer that.

I have no difficulty in answering the Senator's queries but I have repeated myself many times - though not, I acknowledge, on this next point. Comments have been made on the provisions regarding fair and equitable treatment in CETA. It is important to stress the standard drafted under the investor court system is quite different from the old system. The fair and equitable treatment provisions under the ISDS system - the old system that is not in this treaty - were opaque and based on customary international law. Th…

I will clarify the question. Is the Senator asking if a future trade agreement that we have not envisaged-----

It is important that we give a precise answer. I want to get the precise question. The question is that the Senator is envisaging an agreement that is not yet agreed, but that could potentially be subject to ministerial order under the Act.

No, that is not going to be the case.

It will not be the case.

It will not be the case because these old-style dispute resolution mechanisms are not part of the framework of any modern trade agreement.

It is not going to be the case.

All the modern trade agreements have this new system of investor courts, not the old system. That is what this legislation will apply to. Certainly, any of the ones that we have mentioned today, the ones that are in the Bill, are ones that may well become part of the Bill, that I am aware of now-----

They contain this system. It is also the case that they are examples of mixed agreements, and I am right in saying that. For example, the recent Mercosur agreement would not be part of this because it does not have those provisions at all. Again, we are moving even beyond that.

There is another point that is very important. I stand over what I said, which is correct. It is also the case that for every agreement that will become subject to the provisions in the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill, the order that the Minister would make in relation to this would be laid before this House and the Dáil, so there would be an opportunity for this House and separately for the Dáil to reject that. There is belt and braces in relation to the concerns that the Senator raises. I think that what I am hearin…

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanad as ucht an gcuireadh chun labhairt libh inniu. Is mór an onóir dom, mar Aire Stáit agus mar iarSheanadóir, labhairt anseo le Seanadóirí ar ócáid Lá na hEorpa. I am grateful to the Seanad for the opportunity to mark Europe Day in the House. I thank the Members who have ensured that the occasion is observed here, as it will be in Dáil Éireann later today. Tugann sé deis dom machnamh a dhéanamh agus labhairt leis na Seanadóirí go díreach ar an mbomaite trína bhfuil muid ag maireachtáil …

As set out by the Minister earlier in this session, the purpose of the defence (amendment) Bill is to consolidate the existing provisions of the Defence Acts concerning the despatch of members of the Defence Forces for service outside the State. In effect, the requirement for a UN mandate will be removed. It will modify the existing requirement regarding the so-called triple lock mechanism in relation to the despatch of the Defence Forces for service outside the State as part of an international United Nations forc…