European Union Bill

The right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to illustrate what is wrong with the new clause, which is that there is no definition of ““relevant””. It is therefore entirely unclear whether vast volumes of documentation would be produced were it to form part of the Bill. That is my real objection to the new clause. Does he agree, and is that an aspect of the Connarty conjecture, as I shall call it—or perhaps the Connarty-MacShane law, as it now turns out to be?