 Yn fy nghymru, yn ystod gyda'r Ffacol Llywodraeth i'n dweud i'n gwybod i'ch cynnyrch ar y cwmparol. Rwy'n drwy'n ei wneud y cwmparol, wrth gwrs, mae'r cwmparol wedi'u'n eithaf o'ch gweithio, ac dywedad ym eich bod yn gyfodol i'ch gweithio'r cyffordd. Ond yw, mae'n gwneud, yn gwneud hynny'n gwneud, ystafell oedd ythafell ar gyfer bod ni yn gweithio'r cyffordd sydd â'r gweithio'r cyffordd, mae'n ddod o'r gweithio'r cyffordd yma sy'n cyffordd a'r cyffordd, rwy'n cyfnod. Dwi'n rhaid i chi'n gweld fan hynod. I did that, like Bill Cornish, with the help of Felicity, and I was quite impressed by the amount that we seemed to have been able to do. I was certainly most grateful for her help because I didn't, there were quite a number of things that I'd forgotten about. So I'm going to run through that background paper just to give an idea of the range of activities during the period of my directorship of cells, and then go on to make the connection between cells' activities and developments in the European Union and in EU law. Starting then with the details on my background paper, as Bill has told you already, I started as director in the Michael Masterm of 1994, which was before I took up my chair fully in January 1995. I had been the member of the council's legal service with responsibility for the legal side of the enlargement that was taking place on 1 January 1994, bringing in Austria, Sweden and Finland as member states, and I had to stay on in Brussels to see that through. But I did have an opportunity during the summer of that year to begin planning a programme of cells, which I largely did actually on a fishing holiday in Scotland, which became the seminar series reviewing Maastricht, the main activity of cells during 1995. I should just mention the members of the cell staff with whom I was privileged to work. There were four assistant or deputy directors. At some point I decided it was that we ought to change the title to deputy director because I didn't want the impression to be given that the person holding that post was my assistant. It was a proper deputy's post. The first holder of it during my time was Natalie Prouvet, who had been appointed by Bill. She was succeeded by Chifra O'Leary in 1995 to 1996. Perhaps not a very good commentary on my directorship that I should have lost two assistant directors in the space of two years. But fortunately then Angela Ward arrived and she stayed until it was almost time for me to move on when she was succeeded in 2000 by Christophe Illion. I'm really fortunate in being assisted by all of those colleagues and I'm immensely grateful to them. As I am to the administrative assistants Veronica Kendall who held that post from 1994 to 1999 and Diane Abraham who took it over in that year. Cells was rather well provided at that time with resources at least in the sense of human resources but also financially because thanks to Bill's efforts I'm sure he was too modest to mention. The cells had a substantial endowment from foreign and colonial management limited and a personal gift from Oliver Dawson and that enabled us to undertake quite an ambitious programme of conferences and seminars. I can't claim that I arrived in cells with a five year plan but I did have some broad ends. First to use cells in order to raise the profile of EU law within the university and indeed within the faculty. The profile of the subject was certainly rising at the time and Bill has mentioned the support that the subject and the centre was receiving from the faculty but it still had a way to go. So that was my first objective. A second was to establish cells as an internationally recognised centre for central excellence for the academic study of EU law. We were late in the field that there were well established centres at Edinburgh, at Exeter and at King's College London so I felt we needed to make an effort to establish ourselves in the front rank. And thirdly to use the modern buzzword which I wouldn't have used at the time I wanted the work of cells to have impact. I wanted it to have a real influence on those making or applying EU law as legislators, judges, practitioners or administrators. Party by shoving our work under their noses by sending our publications to them but also by involving them in it by getting them to come here and participate. So anyway those were the broadly my ends and you'll have noticed that there was a strong focus on EU law. Now cells remit as Bill pointed out was much broader to promote teaching research in the laws of European states, comparative legal studies relating to Europe, the law of the European communities and the law of other European institutions and organisations. Now I felt that that was too wide a remit to fulfil satisfactorily and I got into a bit of trouble with the faculty board for making that decision. But I was thankful to have the support of the then chairman of the board Professor Spencer and so during my tenure of the directorship the main focus was on EU law. That doesn't mean that we neglected comparative law. We were always open, always willing and able to collaborate with colleagues in the faculty on activities in that field or in other fields where there are specialisms over luck with EU law. Now if I may just take you very briefly through my little, my background paper you'll see on pages one to three the rather busy programme of conferences, seminars and roundtables. That we were able to put on. Different categories of event, conferences on broad themes such as for instance the reviewing Maastricht seminar series which consisted of five one day seminars held between January and July 1995. We never did anything quite as ambitious as that again, partly because it takes quite a lot of finance and we were given 20,000 pounds by Sweden Maxwell because they were going to make a publication out of it and it turned out to be quite a nice publication. Then there were what we call roundtables on particular cases, like for example the working time judgement that you mentioned at the bottom of page one. Later on in 1997 there was the workshop on order and flexibility in the European Union. This also illustrates the fact that we like to collaborate with other colleagues. That round table was actually organised by Geoffrey Edwards and Eric Filippach, political scientists. But with administrative support from cells and we contributed to the discussion. That was on the topic of flexibility within the context of the Treaty of Amsterdam. We were also fortunate and I'm delighted to see Bill Allen in the audience. We were fortunate to have the support of linklators for a biennial series of conferences on competition law. The first of them in December 1997 on page two on transnational enforcement competition law, a very topical subject at the time when the commission was beginning to flex its muscles particularly in the direction of the United States. Again two years later in December 1999 on the modernisation of European competition law. We were very grateful for the support of linklators. It meant that we could invite a galaxy of international superstars to take part in the conference. And there were also various other collaborative activities. For example within the context of the Grosius project, a workshop that was organised by Richard Fincher. So that just gives you a taste I think of the range of the conference and seminar and round table programme that we were able to put on. Moving on to just mention the self-publications. These were normally spin-offs from conferences. As you can see on the list there on page four there were four edited volumes, the revealing mothmastic volume and a volume on the principle of equal treatment in EC law. A volume on the general law of EC external relations which I edited with Christophe Idion after I had given up directship but it was largely based on papers which had been given at a conference as far back as December 1995. And the future of the judicial system of the European Union which I edited with Angus Johnston it actually came out in 2001 that the conference to which it was related took place in 1999. We also started an occasional paper series which was really for the purpose of providing an outlet for papers that were given at our round table meetings on specific, usually on specific judgements or specific of the Court of Justice or specific developers. And finally of course the foundation of the year book which began to consume quite a lot of the material that previously had gone into occasional papers which I think is why the occasional paper series began to sputter out round about that time. Just to mention other activities which you see on pages four to five, we established the lunchtime seminars which were being held three times a term on a weekly basis during the Miclmas and Lent terms. The Mackenzie Stewart Lecture, the first of those was given in 1997, the training programme for Polish judges which I shall come back to and perhaps the most important outreach that's the right word activity of cells during that period. And finally the visiting fellows with whom we established a standing relationship and they came along and gave talks and generally made themselves useful. So anyway that's a bit of a review of activities during the five years plus one, the term of a cells directory is five years but the faculty was good enough to extend my term further during the six years of my directorship. I want to move on, I'm not going to be talked by the way, I'm not going to talk for an hour and a half as the programme might have led you to fear. I hope we're going to be hearing from Angela and I hope that there may be questions or discussion at some point. But anyway, I wanted to say a little bit about the developments in EU law that were in the European Union and in EU law that were taking place at the same time and self-response to these developments. Now at what you might call the macro level, there were two great developments during the 1990s. There was also a micro level and by micro I don't mean unimportant, I just mean specific. The developments at the macro level were the reformation or you might say the reimagination of the European communities as the European Union and the other great issue was enlargement, the incorporation of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Which was a huge challenge. Now I'm going to talk a bit about each of those. I probably won't say anything much about the developments at micro level because as I said I don't want to go on too long but we can perhaps deal with those in questions. I'll see how the time goes. Starting off with what I'm calling the reformation of the European communities. And this I think will explain the title of my talk, the end of the golden age. Golden age is a nostalgic concept. What I meant by it was that it was the end of the original project of the EEC. This reached its consummation in the internal market programme, the success of which exceeded everybody's expectations. For instance, as a direct result they're not an intended result of the internal market programme. The council that I was working for at the time began functioning in the way that it was intended to by qualified majority. When I first joined the council's legal service, voting by the council was so rare that the member of the legal service attending a council meeting was under instructions to note any occasion when voting took place. So that we would be in a position to answer the questions that were regularly put to us every six months by certain British members of the European Parliament. By the end of this period, round about 1990-91, voting in the council had become so commonplace that the questions stopped coming and we stopped making a note of it. So it was a, of course we know that the internal market isn't complete but the extent of the success was very great. And it created a kind of euphoria in Brussels. When I was there, it was a happy time, from 8086 to 74, a sort of period, to 94. Because we really felt that the union was making progress. But sadly we found once the Treaty of the European Union had been negotiated that it was a bureaucratic euphoria which hadn't spread to the level of the European Union. But anyway, to come back to the Treaty of the European Union, because this is the turning point, this is what I mean by the end of the Golden Age. The common market is more or less complete, more or less real, is what to do next. Now everybody was united on the common market, about the common market project. They had, as you know, been an important treaty amendment in the form of the SIGL European Act of 1986. A negotiating process that was led by the Commission with the enthusiastic support of the member states. Because everybody wanted, wanted the SIGL market to begin to work in the way that it was intended to. Maastricht was completely different. The question what next never got the same answer from all the member states. And they still don't really agree on what the shape of the union should be. At the time of the Maastricht Treaty, you probably know, there were two negotiating conferences. One was the Conference on Economic and Monetary Union, the SIGL currency. The other had the rather grandiose title of the Conference on Political Union. But there was no clear view of what shape the future union should take. And it very soon became clear that there was a split between those who wanted to confer additional competences on the European community, particularly in the fields of justice and health affairs, and what became the common foreign security policy, the political aspects of external relations. There was a gap between those who wanted to integrate these, to communitarise these new policies, and those who were willing to accept that there was scope for collective action in these areas and even institutionalised collective action, but without accepting the community method, commission proposal, qualified majority voting, involvement of the European Parliament. And that's why we ended up with the very oddly shaped European Union. It certainly was not, nobody went into that conference, and I can tell you this because I sat through most of it. Nobody went into that conference with a blueprint that would eventually become the European Union. Now, I think it was a bright idea of the Luxembourg presidency in the first half of 1991. And then it was almost derailed by the Dutch presidency, which wants to go back to the commuter to rise process, but some very good footwork and a bit of, well, a bit of strong arming from the Dutch permanent representative, managed to get the Dutch government back on board towards something like the Luxembourg model, which became the European Union as a kind of overarching structure incorporating the three communities, but including as separately organised areas of collective action, just as in Home Affairs and the Commonwealth's Curator policy. It was a nightmare to try to teach this concept to students. But anyway, that was what happened. And there was a great sense of dissatisfaction at the end of the conference. So great that they set a rendezvous for 1996. They said we would all come back and try to do better. Though by the time that negotiation conference assembled, it had become clear that elite opinion, those who wanted some kind of genuine political union, or even something as modest as the European Union that emerged from Maastricht was running well ahead of public opinion. There were serious problems in securing the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, the TEU in its Maastricht form. It squeaked through in a French referendum by a very small, by a very small majority. It squeaked through in the British parliament, I think, by one foot. And it was rejected by a referendum in Denmark. And then after a very cleverly managed European Council in Edinburgh, where John Major played a blinder, John Major and Jean-Claude Pirries together, they managed to get the Danes back on board with a decision and various declarations that were believed, would satisfy, David's public opinion in the second referendum, and indeed it did. That was a big shock. And so one of the objectives from then on was to try to make the European Union more user-friendly. I don't think it's been entirely successful, but certainly that was certainly what was hoped for. But of course also at that time, that was when the Union came to the realisation that enlargement was going to be needed, and that the new treaty would have to start preparing the way for this, particularly by making the institutions, helping the institutions to function more flexibly. So the objective of what became the Treaty of Amsterdam was to respond to Member States' dissatisfaction with the Master Treaty, to respond to the evident alienation of much of public opinion from the European project, and to respond to the challenge of the forthcoming enlargement. Now that was just about the time when I was fortunate enough to be elected to my chair in Cambridge and to be appointed as director of cells. And on my fishing holiday, I worked out a plan for the reviewing Maastricht seminar, which took place in the first half of 1995. And we managed to bring together politicians, judges, Lord McKenzie-Stewart presided over some of the meetings. Cylindrwch part, there were officials from the institutions, UK civil servants, and of course leading academics, and quite a large number of members of the Cambridge law faculty. I invited everyone and I was pleased that a good number accepted the invitation. We produced quite a ninth book, I think, which we then, perhaps rather presumptuously, we sent a copy of it to the permanent representatives of each of the Member States in Brussels. Not nice thank you letters, but I have to wonder how many of them actually read the book. I guess they handed it over to the second secretary and said, have a quick look at this and see whether there are any decent ideas in it. Well, maybe that did have influence, because at least some of the ideas were reflected, though how directly, I wouldn't like to say, in the final form of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which turned out to be more interesting and more far-reaching than many critics had expected. It did effectively three important things. It introduced fully-fledged co-decision, as it wasn't yet described as the ordinary legislative procedure, it was thought, in fact, limited to certain topics such as internal market legislation, but nevertheless, for the first time, the European Parliament was given the status of co-legislator with the council, which it hadn't got under the master sentiment. It had a right of veto, but it didn't have to approve positively in the same way that the council had to do for any proposal to become law. That was one important achievement. A second was the incorporation of justice and home affairs into the EC Treaty. They took it out of its special cubbyhole in the TEU and brought it into what was then Title IV of the EC Treaty. That led, in part at least, to the third interesting, perhaps less happy development, a significant increase in what I call primary and secondary flexibility. By that, I mean arrangements under which legislative decision-making need not apply to all of the member states. There were already examples of primary flexibility, that is to say, flexibility arrangements at treaty level, in respect of economic money for you, because the UK and Denmark weren't willing to go along with that. But this was significantly increased in the case of the Treaty of Amsterdam because of the incorporation of justice and home affairs and also of the Schengenarchy. The UK and Denmark weren't willing to agree to that, and Ireland, because of the common travel area, had to go along with the position of the UK. That was a significant extension of primary flexibility, but the treaty also introduced what I call secondary flexibility, the new concept of closer co-operation, which is now known as the enhanced co-operation, under which the legislative machinery of the union can be used to adopt measures that will apply only to certain of the member states. Those were three really significant consequences of the Treaty of Amsterdam and disinfluenced cells' activities because we had a conference, the one that I mentioned already that was organised, it was a round table, organised by Geoffrey Edwards and Philippa on the topic of flexibility. That was in June 1997 and in July 1997, we had a kind of reprise, we called it Maastricht reviewed, where we invited back everyone who had participated in the 1995 seminars and most of them came. We had a very interesting review. In fact, I think the paper that we produced as a result of that was the first kind of publicly available commentary on the Treaty of Amsterdam. That was the reformation, the reimagination activity that was taking place in the later 1990s, which sells engagement with it. I should perhaps also mention that we undertook what we called the Cells Treaty Project, which was, that was in 1997 too, which was to produce a keen version of the EC Treaty without actually amending any of the substance, incorporating important principles that had been developed in the case law, like privacy and direct effect, so not changing the primary law anywhere, but tidying it up, getting rid of treaty provisions that were effectively redundant and making the whole thing more readable. That was published in the October 1997 version of European law review as the whole review, and I have to say, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that although it was actually rather a nice little text, I think it's no exaggeration to say that it had zero influence. Anyway, that's the one big, big topic, and of course the other one was enlargement. Bill has already referred to this. It was the challenge and the opportunity presented by the collapse of the Soviet Empire. It was the second occasion when the European Communities Strike Union provided the answer to a geopolitical problem. Now, the great arms, the first one was the post-Second World War situation where, as I've described on previous occasions, the European Communities provided a framework linking the constitutional framework, linking the warrior nations of Europe with their habitual victims in a way that would ensure that the success of this has been so complete that it's difficult at this time of day to appreciate it fully, but it would mean that they would never go to war again. That was its first great challenge to which it responded magnificently. The second was the challenge of what to do about the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, most of which had no recent experience of democracy or of the rule of law, and whose sovietised economies were very far behind those of Western Europe. The willingness of the Union to admit these countries as a member state, it was a risk. It's still creating problems and it's going to go on creating problems, but I'm convinced that it was absolutely the right thing to do. You can imagine what hay prison imputed would be making in the Baltic states at this time if they weren't members of the EU and of NATO. I'm also very proud of the part that the UK played in this. It was always one of the main proponents of enlargement and of course it's a great sadness that we're now no longer in the position to defend that open welcoming ethic within the European Union. Now, cells contribution to this was to this really great attainment to the Union was to what was the Polish judges training program. If I can take you back to page five of the, I'm in danger of going on for an hour and a half but I'm nearly finished actually. It's on page five. I think it was the very first time that Andrew and I did together was we trotted down to London to be interviewed by the British Council. I had Andrew with me. I doubt that I've got it on my own. Anyway, we got the contract from the British Council to provide legal training to members of the Polish judiciary. The program ran during 1997 and 1998. It was very well received to both by the British Council and by the Polish Ministry of Justice. They wanted them to continue in 1999. But unfortunately, the know-how funding was switched off by the new Labour government that wanted to redirect public money to other in other ways, which of course was the perfect right to do. But I think the achievement during that period was substantial. It involved the training. There were training sessions in Cambridge for small groups of judges and different venues in Poland for much larger groups. The philosophy was to train trainers to establish a kind of a core of Polish judges who would then be able to go on and provide teaching to their colleagues. We were able to put on this program and it was very hard work, mainly for Angela. She was always zipping back and forth to Poland, which is not actually a place you would go on holiday, although there are lots of nice things to do there. She went there for very serious reasons, but we had a huge support from members of the faculty, Catherine Barnard and many others, and from friends of the faculty like David Vaughan who participated in the teaching at this end. But I have to say that the success of the program was largely due to the careful planning and the hard work of a person who I've described I see in my hand out as Angel Ward, and in this context that is well said. It wasn't a typo, was it not? That too has had an immensely important educated effect for the Polish legal profession. I think I'm going to not talk about any of the sort of micro, because rather important micro developments in EU law at the time, because I have gone on quite a long time. It was a busy and enjoyable time as a sales director and I am very grateful for the support of the colleagues that I have from colleagues, many of them here today. I can't quite end without saying something about Brexit, it's almost impossible to hold a conversation. I find it anywhere about people, I must be becoming a bore probably, but I hardly. We mustn't be too depressed. Many of us are working hard at the moment. I don't think that Brexit can be avoided, I wish it could. Perhaps it may, but I think it's very unlikely. I can't see how the political conjuncture would allow it. If the Labour Party had a halfway decent leader, it might. But I'm afraid I can't see how that would happen. So I think Brexit, I think there will be a Brexit, but what we have to try to ensure is that the kind of future relationship, the best hope I think is for a decent interameration, which will give time to work out a longer term relationship of a kind that is sufficiently close to be able to develop into a new kind of partnership with the European Union, if the union itself develops, as I believe it will, a two-tier structure. The sad thing, of course, is that the United Kingdom could and should have been the leading state at the outer level of this structure. And I'd like to make sure that at some point in the future, perhaps not in my lifetime, but perhaps it will be. Thank you for your attention. If I may say, both of which illustrated beautifully the importance of the work that Sandra's done over the last 25 years, last in Cambridge, but in the course of the development of the European Union. Without starting to me to lay some strain for discussion, because of my contractual commitments, and not just because I work for the Minister's favourite court, I'm about to say that everything that I'm saying today is in a place of incapacity. But what I grew from the two presentations was something that triggered my memory, because it reminded me that everything that we did during that period, and the period that I worked with, was in an atmosphere where I would call the scrivers constructive engagement. Now, Alan and I did this around the office and have a discussion about what we thought might be a winner or a loser, in terms of the sorts of projects that we were going to pursue. Rather, we would sort of come up with ideas and see if they ran, and we would try to build a relationship with colleagues so that colleagues would always feel as if they could come to us if they had an idea about how to develop the European aspects of their individual field. And it was a wonderful atmosphere. Everything that we did was received positively. So it wasn't just the efforts of people who were running themselves that led to that. It was a general atmosphere of Britainers in the heart of the European Union. The legal system was being Europeanised in a positive way. Britain was influencing Europe through the work of people like Bill. So it was a wonderful environment to work in. As they say, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. It was something that I took very much for granted. But what we were doing was possibly received, and it was done within a general environment of the European Union being a positive element of the British legal system. So, first thing I wanted to pose is sort of a sub-question to Bill. I was very interested to hear of how your move to Cambridge was influential, was essential to your move towards intellectual property, but I wasn't aware of that myself. And I would be interested to hear to what extent your time as director was the kernel for the important work that you went on to do in Central Europe. Would you ever have thought of moving towards working in Central Europe if you hadn't been the sales director and hadn't been a beneficiary on this same atmosphere of positive engagement? So that was the first question. Before I put the next question on the table, I did want to say something about the College Justice Training Programme in particular. That had a huge impact in terms of the skill set, if you like, or the talent with which the polls were able to approach their integrating EU law into their own legal system. A couple of years ago, I had an almost teary reunion with Matt Jack Spoonar, who is the Polish Advocate General at the EU Court, and he came here within the roof of that program as part of his training to become an EU lawyer. He's now the Polish Advocate General at the Court, and he hasn't forgotten that part of his learning trajectory group was done here at Cambridge, and through the programs that we were doing at Cells. So I'll now put my second question on the table to both former directors. If you were appointed director of Cells today, how have you approached the job? Let me contribute something about the teaching programme for Polish students that we developed, in fact simultaneously or a bit before the great influx of Polish judges which you directed. It began as an inspiration from Judge George Dobry, and some of you may have met. He's now 98, and he's still trying to direct the film. His perception was that with Central Europe coming into completely new sorts of relations, there must be an effort on the British side to train up the next generation, in particular in their use of the English language. That was to be a major part of it, so we were to go with higher teachers to try and influence that, and more generally to start teaching some of these universities we were coming in contact with about typically British methods of teaching law. After 25 years, I'm delighted to report to you that the University of... You see, I've got theatre, I should get named. I'm already there. Good, I know. It's wanting to have us go and monitor their attempts to have interchange classes all the time and to pick up whatever they can. It's that city in the west of Poland, which... No, no, no, that's East. Right on the border with Germany. And you don't know how pronounce it unless you've read a book on how to pronounce Polish. Won't come. So, I didn't decide, I decided not to mention all this program because it takes a lot of description and goes in various directions for this meeting. That was a deliberate decision. I'd be happy to talk about it in the gaps with anybody who's sufficiently interested because there are problems. There was a specific Brexit problem. We have run that program on finance that we have raised in the course of teaching by charging fees to students in a country like Poland. But they never heard of a fee. Consequence has been that suddenly we can't attract enough students to run the program on a basis that will keep us going by the foundation that we do. And if we're not careful, this may have to come to an end to take a really good review. So, I don't think I want to say more about it now. Let me hear your other questions. What would I do with it? What would you do if you were well? What would you do if you were direct or made for the point of direct sales today in an current environment? How would your strategy differ from the strategy you had called in 1991, 1992? Would you move the world to power, which would make it? Oh, yes. That's obviously right. We would have to devise some way, since I don't think the University of Warsaw or any other Polish university has spare money around it to start paying for programs. We might be lucky. Then we'd have to raise it. The University of Warsaw has six foreign language programs to which their students can go at any one time. And that certainly makes a problem. I'm not sure I still have the energy. We should be able to free them. The problem is... I'm sorry, I'm preaching to you. I'm sure you've had it already. The problem that I have at UK ADL, which I'm president of, the UK Association of European Law, nobody is interested in anything except Brexit. There's no point in trying to have a seminar on intellectual property unless it's about the UK's participation in a patent court. You can do it on that sort of space. So I suspect I would be racking my brains to think of different... The main activity. I suppose what we want to run an activity to which one would invite as many of the same members of the government as possible would be a small issue. It's a round table. I guess I would try to do a review on what sort of future relationship with the European Union. You should try to get to it. I'm doing that all the time. I think I'll probably do that. The floor is open. I'll make a comment. As you were speaking on it, I remember being here on October 6, 1992 listening to Lord Slid. I do remember being present in your five seminars in the Master's Street. You have concentrated on what Salis has done to talk about the faculty. But at that time, we didn't have blocks every time you opened your computer on what was going on. We probably had one official European lawyer for each law school in the country. And we had very few people, I would have been lucky one, who had any experience of actually working in a European institution. Because, in fact, in the 80s, the academics moved from academia, many of them, to go and take nice, interesting jobs in the European Commission. So one of the things you did do, and I'll talk about this period, was actually to go wider than Cambridge. My links, personal links with Cambridge are very limited. But you invited young academics to come from other universities to attain the seminars at Master's Street. And I still remember, in these seminars, Alan invited people who were actually present in those discussions. And it was all openly discussed. And I remember, as a reasonably young dilemma, it would be actually shocked that the treaty amendment on Master's Street was done finally at 4am when everybody was tired. And that was the reason why it didn't make sense. Because there was nobody, because I thought that treaties would have been given to a committee of experts to check the wording, to come up with consistency. So that kind of opportunity to find out how the real thing works was not so easily available at that time, and was not a long way up. So I think there is an aspect about sales, it's out of reach, not just the judges, et cetera. But particularly the young academics of the time, which I'm very grateful for. Well, thank you. Very nice to be told. There must be more. But to pick up on some of the things which Andrew has been saying, do you think, looking back in the way of where we are now, we didn't get, there wasn't enough attention given to the democratic differences on the phraseology, but the gap between popular understandings, which I don't know of the internet we see every morning clearing the comments underneath lots of videos, and quite vitulic, their very extreme antagonism. I realise that's more of a political science issue. In some sense it does have a strong legal aspect. Do you think in retrospect there wasn't enough attention over the decades, including itself, in the two months? I'm not sure that the problem laid the democratic deficit. I think it lay more with the political class in all countries that would never come clean that there are lectures about what was happening. One of the reasons I was told, I was told why there was a substantial negative vote in France on the European constitution was because the government made the mistake of sending a copy of the treaty of the constitution, the draft constitution to every household in France, and people realised for the first time that actually there was a treatment movement that you weren't allowed to discriminate in favour of goods produced by your own country. That may be a problem, but my view is that none of the United States, certainly not in this one, but I don't think in any of the United States, except possibly those where people don't have a lot of confidence in their own government, such of Belgium and Italy, I don't think governments have come clean with their electorates about what the union was really about. I think that's part of the loss, it's an aspect of the general loss of confidence in political representatives in Western Europe. As far as the democratic deficit is concerned, I don't think there is a deficit anymore. We have a directly elected European parliament which legislates with the council that has co-legislative power. No piece of legislation can become law, except for implementing stuff which the Commission does, can become law without the agreement with the European Parliament. The trouble is that the Parliament doesn't have a proper normal political relationship with its electorate. November of the European Parliament, I'm pretty sure, owes his or her prospect of being elected to anything that he or she has done in the European Parliament. That's not a democratic deficit that we as lawyers can bear because actually we've done that already. There's quite a well articulated system of democratic accountability at two levels at the level of the council. It's the failure of the politicians who are taking their electorates, explaining what's going on, and presenting, particularly when members of the European Parliament present themselves as members of the Parliament, and not supposible party who happens to be working in Sussex or the Sports Preserve. We have to be relaxed if we work in Sussex, but there's much more to be done. I think that's it, and it's not an easy question. That's why the French economy was perfectly absolutely candid at the time of our referendum, the recent referendum. They've never been so stupid as to ask that question of their election because they might easily have got the wrong answer themselves. So, let's stop there before I start and take the camera. Yes, as an EU citizen who has been living in this country for more than 15 years, I must admit, I've always run into people in pubs and elsewhere who thought I wanted to pick a fight when I said I'm an academic EU lawyer. So, I'm actually not at all surprised about the narrow victory. If anything, my wife said, oh, look, Marcus, 48%, 10 years ago, it would have been 22% in favour of the European Union. So, 48% is probably good innings. I had a question on the courts. The court seems to be in political circles, the sort of lightning rod, and I think now that we see the attention shifting from the Luxembourg court to the UK Supreme Court, I fear for the judges in the UK because I think the same wrath of political unhappiness that the court in Luxembourg has faced for decades will now descend on the UK Supreme Court because there will be judgements that are not finding in favour of the political class. So, do you see a role for cells to communicate what role law-judging judges play in society going forward? I do have a regret going back to your question, but it's related to this question as well. I do regret not suggesting a seminar on the role of the press and truthful reporting in the maintenance of contemporary democracy. One thing that I remember about working here is that I would start my tutorials under you all with the remarkable role of the polling lines. When I teach anything all around the world, I always say to the students, look out for current developments in this particular field while we're studying material. Here I would start with, don't repeat anything that you read in a newspaper and your exam is might not be right. The way that it was dealt with in those days was sort of a treat as a good joke. I really can't look up what the family mail says, and it tells it doesn't matter, it's never going to have any impact. It's an experience that we had when I was working with Africa-General Nilo Giasginen. He was Africa-General in a case called FOA or Caltoff, and it was the first time that the EU court had to deal with the question of whether or not discrimination on the basis of obesity is discrimination on the basis of disability. Now, this is an issue that's gone around the Supreme Courts around the world. It's something that's been repeated in a number of different jurisdictions. He wrote the opinion in the Caltoff case, and I'll get to where the EU committee comes in. I happen to be at that hearing. I was there, and I've also read the very carefully put together press release that was done by our press information centre. What was interesting about the Caltoff case was that no one was alleging that he couldn't do his job. That was not part of the case. He would have had to have been deaf, dumb, blind, completely disconnected with what went on in that courtroom and what was put in the press release not to understand that. That's what was interesting about the case. This was a job he was a child might as it was a job traditionally done by women, a panel of three women decided he was the person that had to go, he was the different person, he was the big guy. That's what was interesting about the case. Today in the mail reports Mr Gaston writes his opinion with fetching photograph of Mr Gaston. The judges haven't been previously exposed to that level of exposure. With photograph, top European court adviser threatens UK jobs, obese people who can't do their jobs. I'm now able to sue. If you put it on the internet, you ask it in a daily mail, you can read it for yourself. The reporting was antithetical, actively antithetical to what that case was about. If these issues are going to be now completely decided by the UK Supreme Court, is the UK Supreme Court going to be subjected to this sort of misleading reporting? I don't know. The boundaries have all gone down now as far as I'm concerned in terms of lack of truth in reporting. The thing that frustrating me personally during the Brexit campaign was the BBC, and the BBC just being derelict in its public duty and repeating lies. Both myself and colleagues I spoke with couldn't understand what someone is talking about. So does something need to be done in this country about better enforcement of truth in reporting mass media? I should just confess that one gap I think in our program at the time in the past six years was the economic environment community. We didn't actually have a set amount on that. And it's odd. I think we need to think about it. The reason for it, I think it's a ploy of the terrified society, was very difficult to find anybody to come up to form. But unfortunately that is a subject which was already poorly understood, even though the course of the UK has always been opted out. So I think there was a moment in the way that a government went. It might have been possible. In the first way that a government went, it might have been possible. I believe that he was talked out of it by Brian. And I'm about the last person in the way that I think the left-of-the-king was who wishes that we had a good process of it. So I want to make a comment. Just to say how much I agree with what you said about the untruthfulness of our press and the astonishing damage that it does and the bias of what we have done about it. I saw this very much in the context of the EU, the criminal law and the purism of it. One small example that shocked me in a New Year's party in our street, we were talking to a neighbour about the floods, the disastrous floods in the North West, which had happened on Boxing Day. Of course it's all because the EU were the latest stranger of rivers. Are you done? I looked that out. I've forgotten whether it was the sun or the day mail or the express, which it first published that. But the other two were immediately confident. I then looked on the Commission's Uranus website, where of course they picked the story up, they said what the truth was, and they say how many hits have been on each thing on the site. I think it was 2,401 and 2,402 after I looked. Think what the combined circulation or readership of the three tabloid newspapers is. I think that combined sales would have been about 4 million and there would have been online readers and people would read all the one person would read probably 6, 7, 8 million people have read that story for whom a great many leaked it. And the same all the way through. I'll press. If it's meditations about individuals, it's rightly terrified of our legal laws because they forget it properly, even though it's totally offensive to do it. If they publish completely false motivation about institutions, nothing happens. At least the BBC is under a charter that requires it to try to launch it with a signal to try to inspect it. And slightly opposite to that, I think something Mark has said, in 2015 I had to give it the latest legislation in the University of London which said about, like I gave one, on the Britain and European criminal justice, basically. And I looked at that point on what opinion pool, since this country said about public opinion on the individual background of the individual. And if you look at the sensible ones for neutral budgets like New Guards, public opinion was then running at about 60% in favour of staying. Very bad camera with those. Then if you looked at the political complexion of the newspaper as if it was about 80% anti. Of course, things like the Daily Telegraph is saying 98% of the public want anti and so on. I looked through the campaign leading up to the referendum. They went in absolute megaphone mode against the EU, and Cameron and Osborne, to their greatest critic, completely failed to make the case for remaining in. Essentially, Cameron's campaign amounts to, look, we hate this bus as much as you do. But it's going to be expensive to eat. OK, we can have one more minute, so I'm going to be very greedy. Bill, do you have any comments? I'm sorry I didn't reply to you when you were hesitating this call for non-understanders. It's partly because the wonderful world of patents is now beginning to receive remarkably different views, led as far as I can tell by the one judgment of Jordan's Uber in the EDIM case, which was decided some months ago. But that signalled and brought all the other members of the Supreme Court in line with him, for a new approach, which really acclaims the German and Dutch view of a particular point. I won't start to go into it in those circumstances, because they think that they must adapt in ways that they're still exploring. And I imagine we would want that process to go some distance from saying, no, you're not really saying it's good. One thing I would say is that you can be certain that counsel will go on citing judgements in the Court of Justice on aspects of EU law that owe their origin to EU, including, I would expect, on post-exit judges, because, of course, courts want to share what happens there. The Court of Justice will have at least as much persuasive authority as an American or Canadian court. OK, so we're there on time. I would like to close by, first of all, thanking third speakers for wonderful presentations, and perhaps closing with a thought that might be relevant to the discussion this afternoon. Something that I thought was also left out of the Remain campaign was globalism. If you're going to have globalism, you've got to have institutions to manage it of some kind, and how is cells placed to perhaps make a contribution to the development of EU law in that context? Is there a sunny path that we might be able to find in the argument session? So thank you to both speakers, and thank you to the judges.