1/To argue the 2019 ECJ decision or CETA text guarentee states remain free to direct their own legislation is to fundamentally misunderstand/misrepresent the strategic purpose behind ICS and its chilling effect. Misunderstandings are correctable. Misrepresenting is deeply wrong.

2/For example, Philip Morris lost their suit in against plain packaging in Australia but used the case (and its cost) to bully Namibia and Togo - emerging markets - into lax tobacco laws. The purpose of a an ICS case is not always to win, it can simply be designed to intimidate.

3/ Australia is the world's 6th biggest economy with a history of doing right by its people regardless of the strength of a lobby (eg gun control). The question is, if faced with exorbitantly expensive vexious cases from corporates would Ireland have the capacity/will to fight?

3/I don't believe that Ireland, a country that has supported Apple and Fiat through the courts, would pay inordinate up front costs to fight an ICS case, even if they were protected by ECJ opinion in the long run. Corps with deep pockets will test this.
https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1116376/ 

4/ I feel some of the support for CETA stems from good people failing to understand how ruthless corporations can be. They are not bound by a moral relm. They will use wheverer they can to protect profits. ICS gives them leverage. What would we do that? https://corporateeurope.org/en/2020/05/cashing-pandemic-how-lawyers-are-preparing-sue-states-over-covid-19-response-measures

5/ The easy way to address any misunderstanding is to send CETA to an Oireachtas Committee. We have the time for this.

Ploughing ahead without oversight is a dereliction of the duty on the part of elected representatives.

John Oliver on investor courts: