Further Developments in Discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Monday 11th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—lots of soldiers have done so successfully.

Since there are no new facts in this debate, we have to deal with the fantasies of the weekend. Mr Johnson told us that the EU has treated the Attorney-General with contempt. The Attorney-General’s argument that the Irish protocol, which we negotiated, might itself be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights seems to be an argument that might be treated with polite disdain. I do not think that the EU reacted with contempt when Mr Barnier reminded us that its original preferred offer of an all-Ireland customs union was still on the table.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, said that the EU is intransigent; it is worth remembering that it was to suit us and Dublin that the EU came forward with the Irish protocol, breaching two of its guiding principles—the indivisibility of the four freedoms and the impossibility of extending single market status to a non-EU member, Northern Ireland. We may now not like the backstop, but our Government asked for it, our Government signed up to it in principle in December 2017, to Mr Johnson’s loud applause, and our Government signed up to it in detail in November 2018, to Mr Johnson’s loud disgust. It was Mr Barnier who persuaded some reluctant EU member states to allow us to have it, so it is no wonder that they are a bit baffled about the position now taken by the Attorney-General.

Mr Johnson today tells us that it would be preposterous to take the option of no deal off the table as it is vital that we do nothing further to weaken our negotiating position. Here I strongly agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that a threat to shoot ourselves in both feet continues to surprise the EU but provides us with no negotiating leverage whatever. Mr Johnson’s preferred solution today seems to be a slight misreading of the Malthouse proposal. Mr Johnson would like us to leave on 29 March but with a longer transition period which he describes as,

“a mutually agreed standstill in the existing arrangements, so that we can use the period to the end of 2021 … to do a proper free-trade deal”.

That is a fantasy. The fact is that we cannot have our cake and eat it—that has been established over the past three years. When we leave, we lose control. We have no voice, no vote and no veto. We are obliged to follow EU rules with no say in their making. That is what Mr Johnson used to call a “vassal state”.

There are also fantasies around even in the austere columns of the Financial Times. Mr Münchau says that it would be easier to reconcile the Norway option with the Irish backstop and that the Norway option offers a smooth transition. That is a fantasy. The fact is that the Norway option would create a customs frontier across Ireland. I do not see how that is easier to reconcile with the Irish backstop. The frontier across Ireland would be just like the Sweden/Norway frontier, but with many more crossing points and much more difficult to man. It in no way solves the backstop problem. Nor is the Norway option immediately available. It would require amendments to the EFTA treaty, with five ratifications required, and then the EEA treaty, with 31 ratifications required.

I hope and believe that tomorrow the other place will again vote against the draft treaty and the political declaration because I believe it is a humiliatingly bad deal. I know it is in no way determinant of the future UK/EU relationship and I think it is a recipe for years and years of rancorous negotiations stretching far into the future.

Like the noble Duke, I hope and believe that the other place will, again, firmly reject the grossly irresponsible idea of leaving with no agreed divorce terms, no understandings, however sketchy, about the future relationship, and no transition period. Only Mr Johnson, with his well-known respect for business views, could recommend such a course. However, if the other place rejects the deal and rejects no deal, it will be five to midnight and the only third option will be an Article 50 extension. Two and two make four; you cannot reject both the deal and no deal and not want an extension.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked what the extension would be used for. It might allow us to rethink our red lines; in fact, we have already fudged two of them a bit. The backstop gives the ECJ a role in dispute settlement, and of course it leaves us stuck—in my view, probably for a very long time—in a partial, unequal, unsatisfactory form of customs union. A real customs union, which this House voted for on Wednesday, would be much better. We have always known that if we changed our view on the red lines, the EU 27 would change their mandate. They have always said so and they would go on saying so. An extension would also allow us to check that all this really is what the country wants. I suspect that the Government know it is not, and that this is what the Prime Minister meant when she said in Grimsby on Friday:

“If we go down that road”—


the road of a second referendum—

“we might never leave the EU at all”.

Quite. It is called democracy.

I suspect that somebody may have shown the Prime Minister the latest YouGov poll—in only two out of 632 constituencies is there now a majority in favour of leaving—or maybe she has been shown the BMG poll, in which over 75% of the more than 2 million voters who have joined the electoral roll since 2016 would vote to remain.

Mr Baker of the ERG—this is one more fantasy—told us this weekend that any delay beyond 29 March would mean that democracy in this country was effectively dead. I am not sure. No one in June 2016 voted for the date of 29 March 2019. Some may have voted on the basis that the Irish frontier would in no way be affected, because that is what the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told them during the referendum campaign. Some may have voted on the basis that Turkey was about to join the EU, because that is what a number of senior members of the campaign—some still in the Government—told them. Some may have voted on the basis of what was said on the side of the bus about the NHS. Some may have believed that the deal with the EU would be the easiest in history, and that all these trade agreements would be lined up ready to sign, pre-negotiated and ready to go, and that “they need us more than we need them”.

If the Prime Minister cannot get her deal through the House of Commons, the honourable course will be to take her case to the country, but I do not think that she will. I believe she knows that the country, now knowing the real exit terms, would not vote to leave. I believe the Prime Minister is, to use the words of a greater Prime Minister, frit.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I was waiting for the noble Lord to finish his peroration. His experience of matters in Brussels is probably unparalleled in your Lordships’ Chamber. Does he think that Brussels would allow us to continue in our existing free trade with the European Union, but under the WTO and not the Luxembourg court, and, if not, why not?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am not sure I caught all of the noble Lord’s question. If he is asking whether the EU wishes to have free trade agreements with the UK, the answer is yes, it does; tariff-free trade has always been part of the EU’s mandate. If the noble Lord’s question is whether in the event of a no-deal crash out we would secure tariff-free trade with the EU, the answer is no; the EU would on 30 March impose the common external tariff against our goods.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, that was not quite my question—

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Okay, I shall skip over why the single market is a bad thing, I shall skip over the strength of our hand—because they have so many more jobs selling things to us than we do to them—and I shall skip over the fact that noble remainers who support this amendment still think that somehow EU money exists, when it does not. After every penny that the European Union gives us, we are still left with £10 billion a year net, which is—I will give noble Lords a new statistic—the salary of 1,000 nurses every day, at £27,500 a year. Whatever happens, we will go on trading with our friends in Europe, because they need it more than we do.

I end with a word of advice for the Liberal Democrats. I fancy that they are considering supporting this amendment. Their very own policy from the election before last—I do not know what it is now because it is difficult to follow Liberal Democrat policy—was that membership of this House should grow to represent and reflect the votes in the previous general election. In the last election, the Liberal Democrats got 5% of the vote. That should give them 43 seats in this House. Instead, they have 102. I will pass over in silence the fact that we got 8% of the vote, which should give us 69 seats, and we have precisely three. More seriously, however, if the Liberal Democrats use this dishonest advantage—by their own standards and manifesto—to vote down the will of the British people and the House of Commons, they will reveal their contempt for democracy and do your Lordships’ House no good at all.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I disagree with the amendment because I see two defects in it, one of which was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, a moment ago. It purports to tie the hands of Parliament—which it should not do—unlike Amendment 3, which we will debate later today, which gives Parliament the certainty of having more options. The second defect is that the amendment does not address the increasing possibility that there will be no settlement, no agreement, and that we fall out.

What I do not like in this debate—I did not like it at Second Reading or in Committee—is the suggestion that in some way it would be illegitimate for the country to think again. There is a frog chorus behind the Minister. Every time he says, “It was decided”, the chorus behind him chants, “Koàx-koáx, decided, decided”. This is the lemming position. No matter how awful the deal turns out to be, no matter how unlike the promises of the leavers the eventual deal turns out to be, no matter how steep the cliff and stormy the sea, we must go over. There is no time to think again; there is no chance of turning back on any decision.

I find that strangely reminiscent of the Moscow I worked in in 1968, when Soviet foreign policy ran on the Brezhnev doctrine. The House will remember the Brezhnev doctrine, which said that once you have voted Communists in, you cannot vote Communists out. It was a very good doctrine for running central and eastern Europe. That seems to be the position of most of the government Back-Benches today.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, will consult his new right honourable friend Mr David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and will come to the conclusion that Mr Davis was right when he said that if a democracy cannot think again, cannot change its mind, it is no longer a democracy. I rather agree.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

There are probably greater experts on Article 50 than me; but, as the noble Lord undoubtedly knows, paragraph 3 makes it clear that the two years is extendable, if all parties agree. I believe that, if we were in an Article 50 negotiation, it would almost certainly be necessary to extend it. I beg to move.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, do I understand Mr Redwood’s position to be that, if we repeal the 1972 Act, all the other treaties that come after that Act—the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon—are all amendments to the original 1972 Act? If we repeal the 1972 Act, the other 27 member states may start getting difficult with us, but it is unlikely. We should be in the driving seat, not least because of the amount of money we give them, which of course we need not decide to axe overnight. We could say that if they behave themselves, we will taper the £20 billion a year we give them nice and slowly. Likewise, it is in their interests to go along with us and our free trade with them, the single market and all the rest of it, because we are their largest clients—as I said earlier. We have a certain amount of pressure with the non-EU free trade agreements, some of which have been organised entirely by the Commission and some by the European Commission and us in our sovereign right, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. It is a boggy area, but surely it depends on the political will of the Government of this country, and the political will of the Prime Minister.

Therefore I put it to the noble Lord that he is seeking to gaze into a crystal ball that is somewhat clouded. If the Prime Minister has negotiated a reform and comes back from Brussels with a piece of white paper saying “Reform in our time”, but the British people do not like it—if the British Prime Minister wants to stay in the European Union on those terms but the British people throw it out and vote against him—surely it is unlikely that he would survive as Prime Minister. Therefore, we would be dealing with a new Conservative Prime Minister, presumably somewhat less Europhile than the present one, and the whole ball game would change in the negotiations over Article 50, if we decided to go down the Article 50 route. Surely, though, we are in a position to say that we are not going to do that. Our position is so strong that we require our own free trade agreement. I do not want to follow the Norwegian/European Economic Area red herring anymore, because none of us has ever wanted to do that. How does the noble Lord react to that position, with a Prime Minister who has gone, a new Conservative leader who wants to get on with it, and a European Union that perhaps will not be as recalcitrant as the noble Lord hopes?

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, my party would like to spend as much money on this campaign as it can. I was looking at the suggestion that we should have 12.6%’s worth, that being our share of the votes cast in the last election. Personally, I am in favour of that, of course.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I want to lower the temperature with a deeply nerdy amendment, Amendment 55, which concerns purdah. I apologise for not following the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—

[Noble Lords]

Wrong group!

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Richard, and in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Armstrong. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is stern and unbending and I support his Gladstonian position. I will also speak to the amendment that stands in my name and those in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell.

When Committee stage started—it seems a very long time ago—I attempted a feeble Shakespearian flourish, but I now realise that it was completely wrong. I had the wrong play; we are in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, or rather nightmare. We are a long way remote from the real world, but there is still perhaps in our debate a role for the rude mechanicals of the Cross Bench, who have a little experience in what actually happens in Brussels.

When we were last in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, quoted from the then head of the Council Legal Service, Jean-Claude Piris. He did so in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who had said that the Bill,

“will be seen by our partners on the continent of Europe and in Ireland as an example of terrible British negativity about the European Union”.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, replied:

“We have clear indications that there are no difficulties. Jean-Claude Piris, the former head of the Council's legal service in Brussels, has commented that he sees no difficulties with … the thrust of the Bill. We have checked with people around the European Union and we are not getting the picture that the noble Lord talks about”.—[Official Report, 23/5/11; col. 1647.]

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, quoting Vernon Bogdanor, spoke of Alice in Wonderland. This is what Jean-Claude Piris said in the letter of evidence that he sent to the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee, writing in a personal capacity as he was about to retire at the time. He said that if the other member states,

“were to consider that the national legal constraints of the UK were to lead to the practical impossibility of taking certain steps within the Union which would be perceived as necessary or desirable by many or all other Member States, it could not be ruled out that the compatibility of the referendum requirements with international and EU law might become an issue. Furthermore, if, in a specific case, the requirement to hold a referendum were to result in an impasse in the future, this might lead to the UK being sidelined on certain issues. This is because it could trigger a tendency among other Member States to circumvent this situation, either by engaging in enhanced cooperation among themselves without the participation of the UK, or by concluding intergovernmental agreements outside the framework of the European Union.”

That was the personal opinion of the then counsel to the Council—the legal adviser to the Council of the European Union—on this Bill.

I do not know whom the noble Lord, Lord Howell, talks to. He says that as he goes around Europe he meets nobody with concerns about this Bill. He should get out more. When the Bill is over, I have no doubt that he will be delighted to get out more.

I do not want to exaggerate my point but very few people across the European Union are aware of the extraordinary process that is taking place here, and the reason for that is that very few people in this country are aware. So far as I know, eight days of Committee on the Bill have not earned an inch of space anywhere in the British press, and therefore there has been nothing for the foreign journalists to pick up. As you go down the Champs-Élysées—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to the Quentin Letts column in the Daily Mail and to copious inches in the Daily Express.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Monday 9th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I should like to start by offering an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for something I misheard on our second day in Committee. I was not here on the third day and this is my first opportunity to correct that which I misheard. After I had spoken, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said:

“Is it not true that none”,

of the judges of the Court of Justice,

“would pass muster as a judge in even the lowest and least distinguished of British courts?”.

I thought that that was an assertion and I did not reply because I did not think that it deserved a reply. But on looking in Hansard I see that it was a question. I apologise for mishearing the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and for not answering his question. Clearly, the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, are better than mine and he spotted that it was a question. He began his subsequent remarks by saying that,

“the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is not going to answer”.—[Official Report, 26/4/11; col. 90.]

As a result of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said and that reply, I feel that it is necessary for me to say that my silence did not in any way imply assent. I feel that it is important to put into the record what I think about the judges of the court, of whom I have known about 12 or 14. In this House, there will be some who remember with respect and affection Lord Mackenzie-Stuart. There will be many of us who would wish that Sir David Edward was here with us. The present judge from the UK, Judge Schiemann, is an immensely distinguished jurist with, behind him, I think, nine years in the High Court, eight years in the Appeal Court and seven in the Court of Justice. And all of us will remember the contributions that Lord Slynn of Hadley used to make from these Benches to our debate. These four men have been British justices in the Court of Justice and to none of them, by any stretch of the imagination, could the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, apply.

I greatly admire the imaginative and irrepressible verve that the noble Lord brings to our debates but it is really important that we should not make absurd allegations about a serious institution and serious people. I thought that it was important to set the record straight and to say what I would have said had I not misheard the noble Lord at the time. I hope that the Government Front Bench will confirm now, as I am sure that it would have done had I not misheard, that it agrees with me and not with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the quality of the judges of the Court of Justice.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not know how many of the legal luminaries to which the noble Lord has just referred are present members of the Luxembourg court. I would merely say that those of us of a Eurosceptic bent do not really regard the Luxembourg court as a court of law at all. We regard it as the engine of the treaties, endlessly pursuing, in its judgment, the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe.

I do not think it was the Luxembourg court, but we owe it to the Daily Express, which recently ran a two-page spread complete with colour photographs, to see a summary of the members of the Strasbourg court. I do not think that they pass muster either. Of course, if there is a judge in the Luxembourg court who would pass the muster which I have suggested he may not, then I am happy to apologise to him, or indeed to several of them. But that does not alter my strictures and the strictures of the Eurosceptic movement in this country regarding the Luxembourg court and its proposals over the years. One thinks again of Article 308 as it then was, and other flexibility clauses in the treaty, which it has used and adapted relentlessly to pursue the project of European integration.

Those are my comments and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his apology.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Unless I misheard again, the noble Lord did not end his remarks with a question, so I am not going to respond except to say that the Strasbourg court is, of course, elected by parliamentarians. I do not think that the Strasbourg court has anything to do with this discussion, which is about the European Court of Justice, but I am grateful for the words of apology from the noble Lord.

I turn to Amendment 30. Here in Clause 6 we are in a different part of the forest. We have abandoned treaty land and treaty amendment by any form, and now we are into decisions of various kinds and the mandatory referendum requirements for those decisions. By definition we have therefore left coalition agreement territory because we are not talking about treaties any more. We are now dealing with the 56 categories of decision on which a mandatory referendum could overturn an Act of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out at the start of the Committee, that would be unprecedented. These referenda are entirely unnecessary because a Government, if they wished, could always choose to say no in the Council. The law requiring referenda is particularly unnecessary because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out during the third day of debate, not having a reference in the Bill to a particular requirement for a referendum does not mean that a Government could not, on the day, choose to say that they wanted to have one. All this does is tie the Government’s hands, which of course some would want to do.

Why have we got into this curious mess in these extraordinarily detailed thickets—and we have not yet looked at Schedule 1 where mandatory requirements are to be imposed? I can think of only two rationales. The first was the one that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, talked about in a different context during the third Committee day. It might be called the Odysseus rationale. We would have a British Minister, let us say the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, sailing past Brussels and insisting that he be tied to the mast so that he cannot be lured by the siren voices with their seductive song. He wants to be able to say, “Look, guys, I have nothing against what you are saying, but I can’t possibly agree with you. If I did, we would have to have a referendum back home”. It is the wax in the ears and tied to the mast provision—the Odysseus provision. I think that it is very pusillanimous. I would have found it very hard to brief Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, on this point. Mrs Thatcher thought that if you disagreed with something, you disagreed with it. You said no. You did not say, “I am terribly sorry. There is nothing much we can do about this because we would have to have a referendum and we do not want one”.

It is insulting to our negotiating partners to turn up tied to the mast. They expect to do serious business, but the Brits cannot do so because of this Act on the statute book. The Brits therefore cannot take part in negotiations. It will feed the temptation and tendency for people to do things in smaller groups without consulting us because we are such a bore.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The number of judges in the court is defined in the treaty. So changing the number of judges in the court requires an amendment to the treaty. There is no doubt about that. Whether that would require a referendum—which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was debating with me before dinner—is another question. He may well be right: it depends on whether you view an increase in the number of judges as an increase in the power of the court. If you did, then, under this Bill, you would require a referendum; if you did not, then, under this Bill, you would not. However, it is certainly a treaty amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Before the Minister replies, can I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, whether, with his great knowledge of these matters, anything can be done about the quality of these judges? Is it not true that none of them would pass muster as a judge in even the lowest and least distinguished of British courts? Is there anything we can do about that under the treaty? Who decides it?

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and to welcome both him and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, back to the debate. However, I intend to follow neither of their arguments and to set a dangerous and reprehensible precedent by speaking to Clause 3. I wish to speak in support of Amendments 16A and 16B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It might be convenient if I were also to explain why I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 3.

I started our discussion in Committee by asking why we needed Clause 3.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, are we not still on Amendments 16A and 16B? We have not come to the Question whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am open to correction. I thought that it might be convenient if I made now the points which I have on Clause 3. Most of them are in relation to Amendments 16A and 16B, but they are also on the general question of Clause 3. I will do as the Committee wishes.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, perhaps it is time to have the smallest voice against these amendments. I shall do so by commenting on what noble Lords who have spoken so far have said. Can the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, tell us of any treaty changes so far that have not actually conferred power? I do not much like the word “competence” because it implies someone doing something competent, whereas we know that the European use of the word “competence” means power, which is nearly always exercised with great incompetence.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The answer is “legion”. The appointment of judges to the European Court of Justice requires an intergovernmental conference, as does a change in the number in the European Parliament, and a treaty change is required in both cases. The answer is “legion”, I promise the noble Lord.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I do not think that I am the one who is wasting the time of your Lordships’ House. I suggest that the noble Lord reads the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and of our Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, and any other noble Lords who are interested in the subject should do that. I think it lowers the tone and skews the quality of your Lordships’ debates if people who are exposed, however remotely, to losing a very substantial pension do not continue to fulfil the obligations they had when they were Commissioners. In that, I think the EU pension is unique. It is a great shame.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

It was extremely handsome of the noble Lord to start his remarks with such a fulsome apology, but I hope that he might now address the Bill.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Given the chance, that is exactly what I was going to do. We have now wasted five minutes on this.