Thomas Byrne
Meath East · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“We are very proud of the work they do in what are often very dangerous circumstances. Let us be 100% clear: our troops will only ever do peacekeeping, peace enforcement or conflict prevention in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and, of course, as with every action of this Government, in accordance with the Constitution.”
“To be clear on what our troops will be doing, they will be doing peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. That is what the law says; not what the Deputy imagines it to be. We are bound by our Constitution and international law. The legislation changes nothing in that regard.”
“We are bound by international law. We are bound by international law since our Constitution came into force and we continue to be bound by international law and always will be, no matter what happens to this legislation. International law governs what we do as a Government.”
“I propose to take Questions Nos. 125, 140, 157 and 185 together. I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister. A commitment to reform what is known as the triple lock was set out in the programme for Government.”
“-----in accordance with UN principles and, of course, in accordance with our own Constitution, which commits us to peace and friendly relations among nations. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism.”
“Switzerland, the classical neutral country that is not even a member of the European Union and will never join the European Union, it is so neutral and independent, accepts UN, EU and OSCE mandates. I understand the situation is similar in Austria, which is another neutral country. By the way, it is also similar in Germany.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,013 lines we hold for Thomas Byrne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 21.
“We will continue to support Ukraine, particularly on the mobilisation of the European Peace Facility support. We are going to continue to engage the Department of Defence. The Defence Forces have provided bilateral support to Ukraine, fully in accordance with our military neutrality and our commitment to providing non-lethal support. That support will continue. We are also contributing to the EU loan that is going to Ukraine, which will partly be used for defence purposes as well.”
“That certainly was mentioned at the meeting of defence ministers, but the meeting was mainly focused on the defence response at the moment. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, at the Foreign Affairs Council and the Taoiseach at the European Council will be discussing that matter in considerable depth this month. There is certainly a lot of discussion about it, but what is important is that we continue to support Ukraine in the meantime. There needs to be peace, but it needs to be a just peace. It needs to be fair to Ukraine. We need to continue to support them in the meantime. For my part, solidarity will be very much in evidence at the General Affairs Council, where the whole issue of enlargement of the European Union will be very high up on the agenda during the Presidency.”
“Discussion on the ongoing situation in the Middle East at the Council was also very welcome. The Irish Government remains deeply concerned about the conflict in the Gulf and the wider Middle East, and the implications for Lebanon, in particular. The Government remains deeply conscious and appreciative of Irish Defence Forces personnel, and all peacekeepers, currently serving under the UNIFIL mandate in south Lebanon. I again commend those members of Óglaigh na hÉireann, past and present, on their service in the work of international peace and security, as I am sure all Members do. In addition, yesterday I attended the informal meeting of EU defence ministers in Nicosia in Cyprus. I can certainly discuss the meeting, but I do not have a full written report of the meeting yet because I only got home last night.”
“In the session on EU support to Ukraine, which was attended by video in part by Ukraine's newly appointed Minister of Defence, Mykhailo Fedorov, discussion was focused on the latest developments in EU-Ukraine defence industrial co-operation, including progress on implementing the Ukraine support loan, the European Peace Facility and other EU instruments, such as Security Action for Europe, SAFE. Ireland has been resolute in our support for Ukraine in response to Russia's illegal, unjustifiable and morally reprehensible war against it. The Irish Government remains committed to working with our European and Ukrainian counterparts to maintain solidarity with Ukraine and to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to defend itself against brutal Russian aggression.”
“I attended that meeting on behalf of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in Brussels recently. There was also an informal meeting recently, but the meeting in Brussels was a formal one. It took place against the backdrop of an evolving and increasingly complex security environment. It was a key moment for EU member states to reaffirm their steadfast solidarity with, and support for, Ukraine. There were two main topics on the agenda: EU support to Ukraine and the repercussions of the situation in the Middle East on European defence and security, along with an update on the state of play of defence readiness, among other matters.”
“We are governed by the Constitution. We are governed by this Parliament. That is all we are trying to do here. Operation Irini continues. That goes on, but our people came home. That is the reality of the triple lock, and it is a reality that is wrong for this country. It is a reality that is wrong for a sovereign country. If there are discussions with the Lebanese Government about future peacekeeping missions there, it is wrong that we would not be involved in them because of the triple lock.”
“If there are peace missions out there that are going to take place, perhaps at the invitation of countries affected, maybe Lebanon, we would like to be able to make a decision properly here in the Dáil, maybe involving an Oireachtas committee to examine every aspect of it. We want to make the decision here. We cannot allow countries that some of the Members opposite castigate to have a veto over our foreign policy decisions.”
“The Deputy has not quoted the Constitution, which governs everything we do. The Constitution states at Article 29: 1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality. 2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination. That is what governs this Government, it governs the Dáil and it governs our military. That is what we do. We do peace, we do friendly co-operation and we accord with the principles of international law. That is what we will do.”
“The statements by Deputy Tóibín about fighting wars are outrageous and without any basis in fact. It is the timeworn theme from those in the opposition to the European Union, completely forgetting about and actually insulting those countries that, after the most devastating war, came together to make peace. This idea that big countries in Europe are going to be making war and we are going to join them-----”
“The Deputy mentioned Russia, and he became very agitated because this is about Russia. It is about Russia and other countries vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council. Because of that veto power, it was not possible to get a mandate renewed for Operation Irini. In any event, all of the other countries that were enforcing international law and peace and security did not need this mandate. The decision of the Security Council stands.”
“The people put that in the Constitution, and it cannot happen. It is very wrong to mix those things up. We cannot become part of a European common defence. There are no proposals for a European common defence. Our decision on the triple lock is simply about making our own decisions here in Ireland, in the Dáil, as to where our troops go. We make these decisions in the best interests of peace, the best interests of international law and the best interests of our military and its members. That is what this is about. The Members opposite seek to ascribe a conspiracy to the Government about wars. We have heard it all. In relation to Deputy Paul Murphy’s comments, briseann an dúchas trí shúile an chait. Once Russia is mentioned, he gets all agitated.”
“It is very clear to anybody who examines the reality of this situation that the triple lock is simply about maintaining our role as peacekeepers. The issue of neutrality is completely different. We are not taking sides with anybody. We enforce the shadow fleet ourselves, by the way, with other countries. Operation Irini continues to do excellent work in accordance with international law. It is enforcing international law in the Mediterranean and doing really important humanitarian work. The circumstances have changed dramatically. The mandate that I feel I have is the Fianna Fáil election manifesto. We had an election on that because things changed - all of this changed. There is no European Union defence union. There is no defence alliance at the European Union level. We cannot enter that.”
“Ireland's continued commitment is to multilateralism, peacekeeping and the principles of the UN Charter, which are seen in the work UNIFIL will continue to do until the end of the mandate and the very work Operation Irini continues to do, although we can no longer take part. Our people came out that day. Nobody else was affected. The proposals to reform the triple lock are consistent with our policy of military neutrality. There are neutral countries participating in Operation Irini today. We are focused on ensuring that Ireland has the capacity to act responsibly and effectively in the service of international peace.”
“It brought together a wide range of stakeholders including civilian and military experts, academics, current and former members of the Defence Forces, representatives of international institutions and members of the public. It was held over four days in Cork, Galway and Dublin. Approximately 1,000 people attended in person and 10,000 people watched online. Some 850 written submissions were received. When reforming the triple lock, we will do so in a manner that remains fully consistent with our legal principles and moral values as a nation. In fact, our Constitution specifies that. We will act in accordance with our obligations under international law.”
“The Lebanese Government may well invite countries to participate in a peacekeeping mission there. That may well happen. I do not know whether it will. There may well be discussions about that. However, under the triple lock, we cannot be there. We cannot be there under the current legislation. All we are trying to do is to reform this so that we can continue to be involved in peacekeeping. That is really important. We have had extensive public consultation in this area. The Consultative Forum on International Security Policy was convened. It was open to the public. The forum facilitated a broad national conversation on Ireland's foreign, defence and security policy.”
“-----to enforce a UN arms embargo in relation to Libya. By the way, it is also doing very important humanitarian work. That is really important but our people had to leave. We are losing the experience they were gaining on these missions with all of their European colleagues. Their European colleagues are all still out there doing that work today. We are not and that is all the triple lock is about. There is no other country, in the EU or otherwise, that requires the same triple lock we have. This weekend, Dermot Ahern, who was the Minister when this was a big issue, said that was then and this is now and that times have changed. We believe the triple lock is no longer fit for purpose and that it must change. That is the reality because UNIFIL is ending this year.”
“Everything that we do has to be in accordance with international law, the United Nations principles and our Constitution, which sets our very clearly that this is a peaceful country and that we want friendly relations with people. We are a country that does this. The truth is that if the triple lock continues, there will be no more peacekeeping. That is the reality because the UN has not mandated any new missions. The Minister has already given the example of Operation Irini. That is a really important mission. Irish troops left that mission on Monday of last week. That mission continues in accordance with UN law, international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our people had to come home, however. The impact is not just on the mission. They had to come home. They did.”
“I am going to answer this question on behalf of the Minister. I propose to take Questions Nos. 120 and 122 together. As the Minister has already outlined, this legislation is a key priority for the Government. The commitment to undertake this necessary reform of the triple lock is set out in the programme for Government. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism. It is established under statute and is not a constitutional mechanism. Any change does not require a referendum. The Deputy has criticised NATO leadership of missions. He completely ignores the fact that our troops have been under NATO command in Kosovo for the last 25 years where they are on a NATO-led mission that has a UN mandate. The Deputy says that we are going to participate in missions in breach of international law. The exact opposite is the case.”
“This is completely contradicted by the reputation that the Government has in terms of its activities in this area in world questions on that and around the EU table. We are actively working to implement the New York declaration, which was the outcome of that high-level conference. Our position on the Middle East has been and remains firmly rooted in respect for human rights and international law in word and deed. Our record attests to that. Our commitment is clear. We are proactive and a vocal proponent at EU and international level of taking action in response to the egregious breaches by Israel. As we mark two years today since our formal recognition of the State of Palestine, we will with renewed resolve continue to work towards the realisation of the two-state solution.”
“We shared our experience of the peace process on this island with states from the region and like-minded partners who support a peaceful settlement. At the UN last year, Ireland was part of the core group that worked to prepare the UN high level conference on the question of Palestine and the two-state Solution, serving as co-chair of a working group together with Turkiye. We are actively committed to working to implement the New York declaration, which was the outcome of that conference. While the discourse today in the Seanad has been perfectly reasonable from all Members, some of the discourse on this issue around the country at the moment goes way too far. The question of accusing the Government of being somehow involved was suggested by perhaps one person.”
“The decision was taken against the backdrop of the intolerable humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, the shrinking space for Palestinian life in the West Bank, and the need to inject fresh impetus towards a just and lasting peace. That decision was taken together with Spain and Norway and was followed closely by Slovenia. The decision had a real effect. Many of our EU partners, our friends and neighbours, followed Ireland in the intervening period in recognising the State of Palestine and we hope that others will follow suit. We remain convinced that the implementation of the two-state solution is the only way to establish lasting peace and security for Israel and Palestine and the people in the wider region. In January this year, Ireland hosted a meeting of the global alliance for the implementation of the two-state solution.”
“We must be careful to remember that and to leave space for the people-to-people contacts that have always been the most valuable part of the relationship between Ireland and Israel. Our own history on this island means that we understand the politics of division, which stand in the way of a peaceful outcome. In the meantime, we continue to press for meaningful action in response to the actions of the current Israeli Government that undermine the viability of that two-state solution. Today, which is 28 May 2026, marks exactly two years since the Government of Ireland's announcement that we recognise the State of Palestine. In doing so, we showed leadership at a time when many of our partners did not think it would be of consequence.”
“The Minister, Deputy McEntee, has stated that the Government intends to enact the Bill before the summer recess. A number of EU member states have taken steps, or are in the course of taking steps, to enact similar measures to Ireland, including Spain, which has been mentioned, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Belgium but it is the Government's preference that collective action would be taken at EU level as it would have more impact. I want to be clear to the House that the Government distinguishes between the policies of the current Israeli Government and the Israeli people. Our goal is to see both Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and security, and the two-state solution means that.”
“This week, at the General Affairs Council, the EU Ministers were preparing that meeting for the member state leaders and I restated what the Taoiseach had called for. Momentum is growing in this regard, with an increasing number of member states either joining this call for action or expressing a readiness to consider such a proposal but we do await a proposal from the Commission. I want to update the Seanad on the progress of the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (prohibition of importation of goods) Bill 2026. On 26 May, the Government approved the text of the Bill. The Bill was drafted in cognisance of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion, which held that states should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation, created by Israel in occupied Palestine.”
“At the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 11 May and again at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on Trade, held on 22 May, Minister McEntee requested that the European Commission bring forward a proposal to prohibit EU trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory on the basis of the EU's common commercial policy, for decision at the June EU Foreign Affairs Council. We have always been clear - and others have suggested this is the correct approach as well - that action at EU level is preferable because it will have a greater impact. In his recent letter to European Council President Costa on 20 May, the Taoiseach also reiterated Ireland's position on EU trade with Israel and requested an urgent discussion of these issues among EU leaders at the next meeting of the European Council on 18 and 19 June.”
“The House will recall that on 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice delivered an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory, a case in which Ireland and more than 50 other states made written and oral submissions. In parallel, Ireland continues to work towards action at EU level, in light of the ICJ advisory opinion, including calling for the EU to prohibit the importation of goods from Israeli settlements.”
“To be clear, the suspension of the entire agreement requires unanimity but the suspension of the trade elements of it can be decided by qualified majority vote. That has a certain relevance. We continue to engage with other member states to at the very least reach the threshold for a qualified majority vote. Senator O'Loughlin mentioned that the member states were able to reach agreement which required unanimity to sanction extremist Israeli settlers. Hungary was blocking that for quite some time. It withdrew its veto and that has moved forward. This is an overdue step and there was sustained action by the Government in relation to that. We agree that further action is required.”
“We raise it with colleagues in meetings at the European Union and we will continue to do so. I reject the message coming from some in the Opposition that we are not doing that. This needs to continue to be done. I would encourage the Senators, when they meet counterparts from other European member states, to make this point to them as well. At the May 2026 EU Foreign Affairs Council, 12 months on from the decision to review Israel’s human rights obligations, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, once again called on the EU to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement or at a minimum to suspend the trade elements of it, which was previously proposed by the President of the European Commission.”
“In May 2025, the EU Foreign Affairs Council agreed to a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The resulting report, prepared by the Office of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, was clear that Israel is in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the association agreement. In September 2025, and following commitments made by the President of the European Commission in her state of the Union address, the European Commission presented proposals to suspend certain trade-related provisions of the EU-Israel Association Agreement in response to continued Israeli actions that breached human rights obligations and democratic principles. Agreement was not reached at that time but the proposals remain on the table and the Government continues to actively pursue support for these measures, through diplomacy.”
“Ireland is strongly opposed to the use of the death penalty in every circumstance. We are conscious of the discriminatory nature of the Bill as it relates to Palestinians. Recent decisions by the Israeli Government contravene international law and are part of an established pattern to create a new status quo in Palestine. I want to state clearly to this House that the Government is committed to taking meaningful measures in response to Israeli breaches. Therefore, the Government does not oppose the motion as put forward by Fianna Fáil. The motion calls for the suspension of the EU-lsrael Association Agreement. The House will recall that in February 2024, together with Spain, Ireland wrote to the EU High Representative requesting a review of Israel’s human rights obligations under the association agreement.”
“The current situation in the West Bank is sharply deteriorating, in particular with the massive expansion of settlements and the rampant and escalating settler violence, which continues in an atmosphere of impunity. The scale, speed and severity of displacement and demolitions is unprecedented. In recent weeks, the Israeli security cabinet has approved 34 new West Bank settlements, which the largest approval by any government, at once. The E1 settlement, which has been mentioned already, calls into question the viability of a contiguous Palestinian state. On 30 March, the Israeli Parliament passed a Bill mandating death by hanging as the default punishment for West Bank residents convicted of terrorist acts by military court. Ireland condemns this law. The right to life is a fundamental human right.”
“The Taoiseach wrote to the President of the European Council to express his grave concern, about the shocking treatment of EU citizens. All our impacted citizens arrived in Istanbul last Thursday, where they were met by a consular team from the Embassy of Ireland to Türkiye and offered all appropriate consular assistance and support. Their safety and well-being was the top priority and I thank our ambassador, Clare Brosnan, and other Irish diplomats for their steadfast work in this regard. What we saw was appalling but we will not look away. The persistent and ongoing human rights abuses the Palestinian people are enduring under occupation are, rightly, a matter of deep concern to us.”
“The international community must remain laser-focused on ensuring that humanitarian aid is delivered into and throughout Gaza at scale. Israel must immediately remove its restrictions on aid access and facilitate essential supplies and services into and throughout Gaza, notwithstanding the current security situation in the wider region. What we are witnessing in Gaza continues to horrify the Irish people, including here in the Houses of the Oireachtas and it continues to horrify people across Europe, and beyond. Last week, the world watched in outrage as participants of the flotilla, including Irish citizens, were illegally detained. Israel's disregard for the rule of law is a pattern that we have, regrettably, seen for some time.”
“However, since coming into effect, 834 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and over 2,300 injured in Israeli military operations. Moreover, since the outbreak of the conflict with Iran, the humanitarian situation has further deteriorated. Today, the people of Gaza continue to endure, what is for all of us, unimaginable suffering. Intolerable conditions persist, as mass displacement and poor shelter conditions expose civilians to rising public health risks linked to pests and rodents, alongside ongoing strikes, shelling and gunfire. The food security situation remains precarious, while essential services are at risk of collapse. The Irish Government is allocating €42 million in assistance to the people of Palestine in 2026. This includes urgently needed funding for UNRWA and for the Palestinian Authority.”
“We are committed to achieving a just and lasting peace where Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in two states — Israel and Palestine - in peace, security and dignity based on the 1967 borders. This has been consistent Irish Government policy, particularly since 1980, when the late Brian Lenihan Snr. enunciated the two-state solution. In fact, I think he was the first Minister for Foreign Affairs from the Western world to advocate for this. It is in this spirit that Ireland stands ready to play its part in working towards a sustainable peace, through the realisation of the two-state solution. Though fragile, the ceasefire agreement reached in October 2025 provided a moment of relief and hope for Palestinians in Gaza, and the people of Israel.”
“This is the consistent position of the Taoiseach in the European Council the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in the EU Foreign Affairs Council and me in the EU General Affairs Council. It has been and will continue to be, a priority area for this Government. I would like to take this opportunity to restate the Irish Government’s core positions. We remain committed to working with key partners to end the conflict in Gaza and to advancing a sustainable peace plan, as well as addressing the huge challenges facing Palestinians in Gaza, which have implications for regional security, and stability. We are committed to supporting a Palestinian state, consisting of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and to the right of Palestinians to self-determination.”
“In recognising that gaps remain between the sides, we hope the ceasefire will be preserved. The opening of the Strait of Hormuz should be a priority. The Irish Government is deeply concerned at the Israeli announcement of its intention to intensify attacks in Lebanon. The destruction of civilian infrastructure and the deaths of civilians must be avoided. All parties should observe fully the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. On the subject of Lebanon, I am deeply conscious of Irish Defence Forces personnel and all peacekeepers serving under the UNIFIL mandate. I want to commend them on their service in the work of peace as that UN mandate comes to an end. Notwithstanding dramatic developments in the wider region, the Government is clear, as always, that Palestine must not be overlooked.”
“I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to this important debate. I am grateful to my colleagues in Fianna Fáil for tabling the motion. I want to state clearly that the Government welcomes the debate and does not oppose the Fianna Fáil motion. As I will outline in my statement, in its call for action at EU level the motion aligns with the Government's consistent policy approach over the last few years - which to be fair, has been acknowledged by the Opposition - in response to Israeli breaches of international law, international humanitarian law and human rights. Today’s debate comes at a time of significant challenge in the Middle East and Gulf region, where events rightly command our focus and attention. We welcome news of progress in Iran and US negotiations to reach an agreement to end the war.”
“We have taken that option, as suggested by the Supreme Court, because it is strongly our policy view that we wish to ratify this agreement. If any state party does not ratify the agreement, the whole thing collapses. That is established. Our view is that this Bill has been drafted to ensure compliance with both the Constitution and the international obligations, including EU law, which Ireland assumes.”
“On those points, we go back time and again to the quotation from Ms Justice Dunne, namely that it is inconceivable that there would be a case under CETA that would not also be a case under Irish law. That is the practical reality. The cases that might arise uniquely because of the circumstances that Senator McDowell has outlined are highly unlikely because of the way we operate our system. He favours the judgment of Mr. Justice Charleton. It is not possible for the Government to say it prefers to dissent in a case. We have to look at what the law of the land is. The Supreme Court established that ratifying the CETA agreement would be unconstitutional and stated this legislation was potentially a way to make its ratification constitutional.”
“I have to be honest, I had not considered the occupied territories Bill was relevant to CETA, but I can tell the Senator this - the rules of general international law are binding on all states. Our Constitution makes that clear as well. We bind ourselves to international law. It is absolutely inconceivable that a CETA tribunal would make an award that breaches general international law. Therefore, this is unnecessary. To put it mildly, and to be generous, some of the examples are getting more stark now in terms of what the CETA will be. I have not heard previously the terrible situation in Gaza being brought into the CETA debate. That is certainly a new moment in this debate.”
“I cannot put the matter any further. The Bill has been drafted to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the international obligations we would assume upon ratification of various international agreements. The inclusion of broad discretion as provided for in this amendment would not be in compliance with the obligations, and I am unable to agree to it.”
“It is important to stress that the standard of fair and equitable treatment that is drafted under the new investor court system is quite different from the old approach and the fair and equitable treatment provision under the old approach was opaque and based on customary international law, which I have said already, with no description of content. The agreement clearly lists the aspects of fair and equitable treatment. They are denial of justice, manifest arbitrariness, targeted discrimination and manifestly wrongful grounds such as gender, race or religious belief. The Irish State does not do that.”
“Irish domestic law also has many similar provisions that are in the CETA agreement. In fact, it is not just me saying that these cases might be remote, Ms Justice Dunne also said: It is difficult to imagine a provision or measure of Irish law which would amount to a breach of CETA, giving rise to a claim which would not, of itself, give rise to a claim before the Irish courts, arising out of the same circumstances. The Senator has spoken again and with a lot of repetition on this and I feel that at times I am obliged to repeat things that I said already. The Senator has spoken at length on fair and equitable treatment.”
“Ratification of such agreements helps to align Ireland with global investment standards and brings Ireland in line with EU and international frameworks. It reinforces us as modern, rules-based investment destination. Overall, it improves Ireland's competitiveness for FDI through a clear and transparent process which is available to investors in the countries with which we compete for FDI. This can serve to make Ireland more attractive when competing for foreign direct investment. Where Ireland is the global or regional headquarters for companies that operate here, it can offer them an additional layer of confidence when managing their global operations and footprint. The question about why we are exposing the State to a new financial risk is asked time and again. I reject that we are doing that.”
“In terms of inducements for investors into the country, one of the biggest inducements is the fact of a free trade agreement. One of the biggest reasons companies invest in this country is because we have free trade agreements and stability. Far from negatively affecting Ireland's competitive advantages, there are quite a number of advantages to ratifying CETA from the perspective of attracting FDI. Ratification of agreements that include investment dispute resolution provisions, reduces investment risk through access to neutral binding dispute resolution and lowers the legal and political risk while enhancing our foreign direct investment offering. The Bill will enable the ratification of major trade and investment agreements, thereby opening access to new markets and encouraging cross-border investment flows into Ireland.”
“In such cases where a violation has been found and an award has been granted, the tribunal cannot order a change to the measure giving rise to the award, but the respondent party could choose to make a change. If such a measure is repealed or modified – this is in a case where a violation has been found, and that violation will not be found based on the right to regulate – it is appropriate that the award would be reduced to reflect this change. A number of things have been conflated here in the argument of the proposers. For that reason, I am unable to agree to this amendment.”
“These provisions mean that the mere facts that interests of an investor are adversely affected by measures taken to regulate in the public interest will not amount to a breach of the agreement. That will not happen. However, if there is an added element, for example, abusive treatment, manifest arbitrariness, targeted discrimination or some equivalent behaviour on the part of a party, it is that added element that would bring a claim within the scope of the agreement’s protections and thus potentially result in liability for the party concerned. I have given some extreme examples of where that might happen that Irish companies would have protection for in Canada as well, which is an added part.”
“In the calculation of monetary damages the tribunal shall also reduce the damages to take into account any restitution of property or appeal or modification of the measure. This provision is in keeping with the trend of limiting available remedies for investors and, contrary to the Senator’s assertions, is in line with the goal of preserving the regulatory space of states. I completely reject the proposition argued here that the provisions in CETA restrict the protections and the right to regulate and increase the risk of regulatory chill. In fact, arguments relating to the right to regulate would have to be considered by the tribunal before an award is made. As noted, the right to regulate in the public interest is protected in these agreements.”
“The amendment proposes to assign a broad and ill-defined discretion to the High Court regarding the enforcement of relevant awards. I again repeat that we are designing this following the Supreme Court decision on the Costello judgment, in particular the comments of Mr. Justice Hogan. In CETA, there are specifications regarding final awards. Article 8.39 sets out the specifications regarding final awards in relation to the measure or measures challenged in the claim. The tribunal may only award monetary damages or restitution of property, with the right of the State to pay monetary damages instead. The article specifies that monetary damages shall not be greater than the loss suffered by the investor or, as applicable, the locally established enterprise, reduced by any prior damages or compensation already provided.”