European Union (Amendment) Bill

The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) says, ““C'est exactement la même chose””, but I am afraid that what I quoted is ““exactement pas la même chose””, and I shall explain why. First, the Minister must explain how, when the original text of the treaty was brought out in both English and French, the French text was as I read it out—that is, without the use of the words ““peut”” and ““doit””, which we render in English as ““may”” and ““must””. The French text adopted the neutral form that I have just described, whereas the English text used the expression ““shall””. The Minister cannot simply gloss over the fact that the two versions are very different. He must explain to the Committee why the translators of the text used those two different forms. Next we have to ask whether the removal of the word ““shall”” makes any difference. I have read the French text again with care, and I do not think that it does. The Minister will know that French is a more elastic language than English, but that it has a more restricted vocabulary. I believe that, in their French form, the text of articles 8C and 61B conveys the force of the word ““shall”” even though the French equivalent—““doit””—does not appear in them. On any reading, the treaty text is a very odd document, in both French and English. Indeed, it does not read like a treaty text at all: rather, it reads like a constitutional document that sets out the respective roles of national parliaments and EU institutions. The requirements that it lays down appear entirely mandatory. We are considering an important issue because legislation is about words. The structure of our consideration of the treaty, with general debates and short periods to consider amendments, means that we have not had the opportunity to conduct some proper textual criticism, which several hon. Members, including me, have frequently applied to domestic legislation. We are in an odd position in that we started with two texts in French and English that were supposed to be identical, we changed the English text, but not the French text, and the Minister now tells us that the English text expresses voluntary activity by national Parliaments, whereas my reading of the French text is that it could be interpreted as mandatory. I also see a mandatory element in the English text.