European Union (Amendment) Bill

On the question of the role of the European Court of Justice and any Cabinet's interpretation of what it says, presumably the Cabinet would be at the European Court of Justice fighting our corner, not just waiting passively for a judgment. I am honest about this. I believe that our team went to challenge ““shall”” and get ““may””, because they knew that that would win praise from anyone who was being critical. We were perhaps seen as being critical when we were not trying to be; we were just trying to be honest. I think that our team won ““shall”” and then tried for ““may”” and did not get it—in other words, those with whom they were negotiating would not give them two victories, saying, ““You've got one; we're not going to give up on the other, so you have to take this.”” I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been there at the sort of negotiations that do not get one everything. I think that Ministers came back thinking, ““We've got enough to satisfy Parliament”” and perhaps to satisfy the European Scrutiny Committee, if that was what they were worried about, but at the end of the day they still felt that they could have come back with ““may””. However, we accept that they probably thought that they got as much as they could from the negotiation process. Now this Government and all future Governments will have to fight to make the interpretation that is beneficial to this Parliament apply in every case, because there is no doubt that others will try to win back a more compulsive interpretation of ““contribute””.