Paul Murphy on CETA: Calls for Referendum Over Investor Courts
Paul Murphy spoke in the Dáil about the Supreme Court judgment on CETA, opposing the investor court system and urging the issue be put to a referendum. He argued the investor-state dispute mechanism creates a parallel justice system open to corporations and cited ongoing litigation by Canadian companies.
Supreme Court ruling and CETA
Paul Murphy described the Supreme Court judgment as extremely significant, saying it places Ireland at the centre of a wider debate in Europe and Canada and has mobilised many ordinary people against what he called a charter for corporations.
Investor court system concerns
He objected specifically to the establishment of the investor court system - a parallel system of justice that can be accessed by corporations to take states to court for direct or indirect expropriation, which he said is often interpreted as anything that interferes with corporate profit maximisation.
Examples of litigation cited
Murphy told the Dáil there are over 1,000 Canadian companies and about 1,000 cases involving Canadian companies suing states. He cited examples, saying a Canadian mining corporation is suing Romania and another Canadian company is suing Croatia.
Call for referendum and legal amendment
Murphy asked the Taoiseach to agree that the matter should be put to the people in a referendum. In reply the Taoiseach said the Supreme Court was clear that changes can be made via the Appertuation Act and suggested the clarity offered by the Court could be addressed by amending the Arbitration Act.
Government defence of free trade and arbitration
The Taoiseach defended free trade as important for jobs and said investor courts are now standard in trade agreements. He asserted that investors cannot force a state to act against its own legislation, constitution or the European treaty, and framed arbitration as a mechanism to resolve breaches of trade agreements.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Thanks again, Carla. Teachta, the Supreme Court judgment about CETA is extremely significant. It puts Ireland at the centre of a debate that is taking place across Europe and in Canada, with lots of ordinary people mobilising against what is a charter for corporations. Teachta earlier wanted to speak in generalities about free trade and free trade being a good thing. You didn't address either the substance of the Supreme Court decision or what the Supreme Court decision was. those of us objecting to CETA are objecting to, namely the establishment of the investor court system, a parallel system of justice that can only be accessed by corporations taking states to court for either direct or indirect expropriation, which can be interpreted and is interpreted regularly as anything interferes with the right of corporations to take to maximise their own profit. Does the Taoiseach know that there are over 1,000 Canadian companies right now, 1,000 cases right now involving Canadian companies suing different states? Does he know that they include European states? Contrary to what he said earlier, there is a mining corporation based in Canada currently suing Romania, another Canadian company suing Croatia. And will the Taoiseach agree that this should be put to the people in a referendum to decide whether they want to decide? Thank you very much, Deputy Batchick. Deputy Murphy raised the issue of CETA and we discussed this earlier. Again, the Supreme Court is clear that this can be amended via the Appertuation Act. And again, I did raise the issue of free trade because it is central, not necessarily judgment, but it's a central issue. No, it's not a vote for or against free trade. But no, sorry, the point is, if one is in favour of free trade, as I am, and unapologetically in favour of free trade, because I think it means jobs in this country. I want people working in this country. You're supposed to be for the workers, but everything you're doing is against the workers, as far as I can see. If your writ was allowed to run here, we would destroy jobs in this country. Deputy Murphy, Deputy Prime Minister, no question about it, we would destroy jobs. So my view is, I think we should take the clarity that has been offered by the Supreme Court, that's my view, and amend the Arbitration Act, which would cover tradies. And in terms of investor courts, it's standard now in all trade agreements, and the European Court has ruled on this. And you can't, no country can be forced to accept, like, there can be breaches of trade agreements, okay? Natural breaches of trade agreements, which have to be arbitrated, hence you need an arbitration court, right? But you can't, and that makes far more effective and efficient. But people cannot sue. They can't sue a state and ask a state to take policies that are contrary to its own legislation and policies, or indeed its constitution. It can't. And nor can it force states to go against the European treaty either. A. Yes. How often 길 is just about it either. The government doesn't know is a bronzemets of trade agreements, rather. And the government doesn't want to say either. A. ugu disagree is the dist camp society. maybe or simply not of an organization. By the. The government doesn't know it, but still A. The government doesn't know it. What the government wants to do for it. The government should do for it. In the past years, weapons do fire their right to face molecule. If you don't have one landing to speak, then a unit becomes theGroup and the South Cause Fitness mouth dangerous.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
