With a look of solemn indignation, Ryan stares into the camera and declares that Ceta is "wrong". He says the fact that the agreement was written and negotiated by big corporate interests and their lobbyists is "wrong". And finally, he says the lack of certainty on the protection for environmental rights is "wrong".

Well, four years later and it seems three wrongs make a right. Eamon Ryan, now Minister for the Environment, is doggedly trying to conscript his troops into voting for Ceta. 

Prior to Christmas, TDs Neasa Hourigan and Patrick Costello, to their credit, threatened to vote against it, leading the Government to withdraw the bill.

As Hourigan pointed out, it’s long been Green Party policy to actively oppose Ceta and it was deliberately excluded from the programme for government.

Two thirds of Green Party councillors had called for a national convention on the controversial ‘free trade’ deal. As a result, the leadership has been holding online members meetings to drum up support for its ratification. The bill is rumoured to be coming before the Dáil this month.

These meetings were likened to something of a rubber-stamping exercise by now former Green Party councillor Peter Kavanagh. Kavanagh said the final call on Ceta had been effectively ‘taken out of the hands of the membership’ and issued his resignation on January 25. 

He predicted a further wave of resignations and Una Power, cathaoirleach of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council and former adviser to deputy leader Catherine Martin, is said to be considering her position.

The opposition of Green councillors and members isn’t hard to understand; indeed, my own party [Sinn Féin] colleagues were also present that day in 2017. 

Ceta may have been put to the public as a so called ‘free trade’ deal, yet it has little to do with trade. Getting rid of tariffs or quotas is not the central aim.

When we consider the fact that the majority of global trade, around 80% according to the UN, now takes place intrafirm, meaning multinational corporations transacting with different parts of themselves, through their highly co-ordinated value chains, this should become clear.

Ceta is much better understood as an investor rights treaty, one which further empowers corporations at a time when many see them as almost unaccountable private governments in and of themselves. 

It locks in privatisation and undermines sensible regulations. It’s bad for the environment, for small/medium businesses and workers rights, but more than anything it’s bad for democracy.

The ‘ratchet’ and ‘stand still’ clauses in the agreement lock in both parties to a level of market liberalisation, with a view to further privatisation. 

But don’t take my word for it, the European Commission itself states; ‘the parties to a trade agreement commit to maintaining any further openings in their respective markets that they may unilaterally decide upon. Such opening would be "locked in" ie, there can be no step backwards.’ 

More worrying still is the presence of a legal mechanism which allows large corporations to circumvent domestic courts and take lawsuits against sovereign states. 

Corporations can sue national governments for taking actions which negatively impact their profits or future profits. These cases would then be heard in special ‘corporate courts’.

If that sounds fanciful you should know that it’s already happened elsewhere. When Australia implemented plain packaging cigarettes, the tobacco company Philip Morris sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Canada has been sued multiple times: Eli Lilly & Co sued the government for $500m because it refused to grant them a couple of pharmaceutical patents; a large US mining corporation filed a lawsuit because of a moratorium on the environmentally destructive process of fracking.

Such was the initial outcry against Ceta because of this so-called Investor State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS), that the agreement’s architects went back to the drawing board. 

But instead of removing it they just rejigged and rebranded it. The Investor Court System (or ‘ISDS-lite’) is a marginal improvement in that the cases will no longer be held in secret by ad hoc panels of corporate lawyers.

Panel of judges appointed for fixed terms, with more transparency and an appeal mechanism, have been included, but at its core it is the same thing. 

A special court for corporations will act as a major deterrent for governments thinking of passing laws to protect citizens. 

You want a tax on vulture funds? Sorry lads, we might get sued. How about stricter environmental regulations for large carbon emitters? Again apologies, we might lose in court.

It should be clear that this will have a chilling effect on democracy at a time when many see a political establishment that is responsive to the desires of well-heeled corporate interests, but not the needs of ordinary citizens. 

The vote on Ceta will be the litmus test for the Greens. No party that considers itself democratic, let alone concerned for the environment, could possibly support its ratification.

Mairéad Farrell is Sinn Féin Spokesperson for Public Expenditure and Reform.