Dominic Grieve’s dodgy French

It’s Groundhog Day again, as I watch yet more debate on the EU (Amendment) Bill. Early this afternoon the debate was about climate change and the environment, and was blissfully light on Europaranoia.

But this evening Dominic Grieve, shadow Attorney General, whose French is very good, nonetheless is making a fool of himself. He’s quoting the French text and on the basis of that, arguing that the provision in the Lisbon Treaty that would insert into the Treaty on European Union as article 8c,

National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union

could impose an unique legal obligation on the UK Parliament in European law, thereby infringing its independence and privileges.

Honestly.

The provision started off saying National Parliaments shall contribute, which is what started off this totally misconceived idea. Unfortunately the European Scrutiny Committee picked up on it, the government achieved a pacifying change, and yet still we end up with this sort of time-wasting debate.

The original shall was never any kind of imperative – any more than, for instance, section 1 of the Scotland Act, which says there shall be a Scottish Parliament, imposes an enforceable obligation on anyone. You could say the Lisbon text confers a function on Parliament in EU law – the new, innovative function that the Conservatives want, of policing subsidiarity. You could, like the Liberal Democrat David Howarth, call the text “performative”: i.e. describing Parliament’s role or, more accurately, wishing it into existence.

But to think in some way that this text – which no longer includes the word shall, remember – impose an obligation on Parliament which it could be taken to the European Court for having breached… I have to agree with Patricia Hewitt: it’s a bizarre fantasy.