Richard Boyd Barrett: Arbitration bill a corporate sell-out
Richard Boyd Barrett warned that an arbitration bill would hand powers to corporations by creating a parallel investor court system and binding the state for 20 years. He said corporations could sue governments and courts over policies affecting profits and that he opposes the bill "root and branch".
The speech argued the proposed investor court system would create a parallel justice process unavailable to ordinary people and could bind the state for two decades. He contrasted this with other international agreements like the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 50, which allow relatively short exit periods, and warned the investor court would be far harder to leave.
He cited real-world examples to illustrate the risk - Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris and French waste companies have used investor-state mechanisms to sue governments, including actions against the Argentinian government. The speaker said these cases show the threat is not hypothetical.
The speech highlighted potential impacts on housing policy, naming Iris Reit and warning that rent controls, no-fault eviction bans or moves to put land banks into public ownership - as referenced in the Kenyan Report - could be challenged by foreign investors and wealth managers. He argued land bankers and speculators could be protected from democratic reform by investor claims.
He warned investors could also sue over measures to protect workers, the environment or water quality, effectively limiting legislative and judicial sovereignty. The speaker framed the bill as part of a broader pattern of handing power to investors, hedge funds and vulture funds at the expense of ordinary people.
Richard Boyd Barrett stated unequivocal opposition to the arbitration bill, insisting this is not opposition to fair trade but a rejection of giving corporations the power to subvert legal and democratic processes. He described the proposal as an "absolute sell-out" and said he opposes it "root and branch".
Investor court system and 20-year binding period
The speech argued the proposed investor court system would create a parallel justice process unavailable to ordinary people and could bind the state for two decades. He contrasted this with other international agreements like the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 50, which allow relatively short exit periods, and warned the investor court would be far harder to leave.
Examples of corporate litigation cited
He cited real-world examples to illustrate the risk - Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris and French waste companies have used investor-state mechanisms to sue governments, including actions against the Argentinian government. The speaker said these cases show the threat is not hypothetical.
Risk to housing policy and public ownership
The speech highlighted potential impacts on housing policy, naming Iris Reit and warning that rent controls, no-fault eviction bans or moves to put land banks into public ownership - as referenced in the Kenyan Report - could be challenged by foreign investors and wealth managers. He argued land bankers and speculators could be protected from democratic reform by investor claims.
Wider implications for rights and democracy
He warned investors could also sue over measures to protect workers, the environment or water quality, effectively limiting legislative and judicial sovereignty. The speaker framed the bill as part of a broader pattern of handing power to investors, hedge funds and vulture funds at the expense of ordinary people.
Political position and conclusion
Richard Boyd Barrett stated unequivocal opposition to the arbitration bill, insisting this is not opposition to fair trade but a rejection of giving corporations the power to subvert legal and democratic processes. He described the proposal as an "absolute sell-out" and said he opposes it "root and branch".
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.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley presses for action on Port Arlington school delay
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy: Warns Arbitration Bill Sets Up Courts for Corporations
Martin Daly
Martin Daly warns of Christmas spike in alcohol harm
Richard O'Donoghue
Richard O'Donoghue: Demands faster assessment of need for children
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell – Order of Business (09.12.25)
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh on Raising VAT Threshold for Services
Transcript
Yeah, this innocuously named arbitration bill is a sell-out to the corporations. It is the definition of the corporate takeover of Europe, and the government want to sign us up to this. And if we do, it is going to be very, very difficult to get out of it. As Oisin Suttle in the Department of Law, a thing I was reading this morning, outlines in other areas of international law where a state signs up to them, you can get out relatively easy. You give a bit of notice. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example. So we do sign up to international agreements where we sort of give away a bit of sovereignty to some of these international institutions. But you can get out within six months of doing that. In the Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union, which allows member states to leave the EU on two years' notice, but with the investor court system, which we're signing up to, we would be bound under the obligations of the investor court system, a parallel justice system, which subverts our own legal and legislative systems for 20 years. We could be potentially sued by corporations who decide that the actions of the courts here or a government here infringes on their rights and expectations to make profits. I mean, seriously, you couldn't make it up. And we would be tied into those agreements for 20 years. And as has been said, this is not a hypothetical. This stuff is happening. It's happening. Exxon Mobil, one of the biggest oil companies in the world, has done it. Philip Morris, the big cigarette company, has done it. French waste companies have sued the Argentinian government in the world, has done it. Philip Morris, the big cigarette company, has done it. French waste companies have sued the Argentinian government. It's happening. And we will have, on key issues, like housing, as has been mentioned already, Iris Reit, the biggest landlord in the country, based in Canada. Based in Canada. So, potentially, these companies, if we brought in something like rent controls, and as soon as we, if we can succeed in getting Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael out, to bring in meaningful rent controls, to bring in things like no-fault evictions, or, for example, as I believe should happen, that the land that is being held by land bankers and speculators should be taken off them. They shouldn't be allowed to hang on to land and speculate on property prices, which are exacerbating and significantly causing the housing crisis in this country. A government should be free. We know Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael don't want to do it. But a future government should be free to do things like, what the Kenyan Report proposed, to take the land bank into public ownership. But this would be prohibited. We could be sued in a parallel legal system, the investor court system, by property investors, fulcher funds, in other words, and wealth management companies, could sue on the basis that they'd invested in Irish property and the government's actions might infringe on their ability to make profits in the future. It's absolutely shocking that this is being proposed. And as it's been said, once we're in, we're in for 20 years before we can get out. And it undermines our legislative and judicial sovereignty. It's an absolute outrage. And there's so many different areas, potentially, where these investors could sue governments on, yes, bringing in legislation to protect workers' rights, to protect the environment, to protect water quality. You know, there's almost nothing they couldn't potentially sue a government over or sue courts for making decisions where they infringed on their right to make profits. and all of this would be done via a parallel legal system which is only available to the corporations, which is not available to ordinary people. It's really quite shocking and unbelievable, not terribly surprising from a government whose entire policy seems to be to hand things over to investors, hedge funds, vulture funds, big corporations, so that they can make profits, but now limiting the ability of this house or of the legal system to ever in the future do anything about it. It's a sell-out. An absolute sell-out. We absolutely oppose this. None of that means we're against trade, fair trade. Not at all. Not at all. The idea that we have to give the power of corporations the right to subvert our legal processes or our democratic processes in order to have trade between countries is a nonsense. An absolute nonsense. But it reflects the attitude of the political establishment in this country and in Europe about dancing to the tune of corporations and big business at the expense of the needs, the aspirations, the right, and the democratic rights ultimately, of ordinary people. So we oppose it root and branch.