Sir, – Your editorial on Friday 12th, concerning the Canada-EU trade agreement (Ceta) trade and investment protection deal, demanded that critics of the proposed investor court system (ICS) must now explain how they would structure a mechanism for interpretation of the agreement in the absence of the ICS ("The Irish Times view on Ceta: a battle already won", February 11th).
As such a critic, I suggest aggrieved investors seek interpretation in the Irish courts and the European Court of Justice, both of which have a good track record of protecting investors and democratic rights, simultaneously. Indeed, this is the contemporary global trend.
The Brexit trade deal between the EU and the UK forces aggrieved investors to seek remedy and interpretation in UK or EU courts. The EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment agreed last December also requires investors to go to Chinese or EU courts if they feel their “legitimate expectation” to profit is impinged by state laws, regulations and licensing. Also last year, Canada chose to be not subject to ICS in the renegotiated Nafta trade agreement. The largest-ever free trade agreement, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), agreed by its 15 countries in November last also has no ICS.
What are us ICS critics missing? – Yours, etc,
BARRY FINNEGAN,
Senior Lecturer,
Faculty of Journalism
& Media Communications,
Griffith College, Dublin 8.
Sir, – Your editorial on Ceta falls short in a few areas.
It’s strange to quote Green Senator Pauline O’Reilly on the supposed improvements to the ICS mechanisms, but neglect to mention that even Ms O’Reilly herself admits that the improvements aren’t enough, since she confirmed in her Irish Examiner article that the Green Party would vote against it if weren’t in Coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
Second, it’s odd that the editorial puts it up to activists to come up with an alternative enforcement mechanism for the trade deal, when any quick research in this area would confirm that we’ve signed up to plenty of such trade deals (including the recent UK-EU deal) that have no ICS mechanisms at all.
Finally, you refer to CETA legislation on ICS “requiring ratification in every member-state parliament” in the EU, but neglect to show any evidence that we have been put under any pressure or urgency to pass such legislation.
The trade elements, without ICS, already apply provisionally, and 11 other EU states, including France and Germany, have not yet ratified the deal.
I think the better questions to ask would be why the leadership of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were so keen to try and push through ratification without proper scrutiny to begin with. – Yours, etc,
TOMÁS M CREAMER,
Ballinamore,
Co Leitrim.
Sir, – Your editorial concerning the Canada EU Trade Agreement (Ceta) demanded that critics must now explain how they would structure a mechanism for interpretation of the agreement in the absence of the proposed investor court system (ICS). Article 26 of the agreement itself assigns responsibility for interpretation to the Ceta joint committee aided by a number of specialised committees. The purpose of ICS, on the other hand, is to provide a mechanism, totally outside of national and EU law, for an investor to pursue a claim where that investor claims to have suffered loss or damage as a result of an alleged breach of the agreement.
National and EU law already provide a system for dealing with commercial grievances and, so there is no necessity for the State to leave itself exposed to the uncertainties of an ICS judgment. – Is mise,
TOM O’CONNOR,
Trade Justice,
Comhlámh,
Dublin 2.