“Willy-nilly” probably was the wrong choice of words. I think I was making the point more generally that one shouldn't think that rules by themselves are a good thing. It's the nature of the rules that you bring in and the way that changes the way the game is played that is important.
Again, I would stress the fact that the human rights methodology gives you a particular perspective and a way of assessing those rules. I was heartened by the original proposal of the standing committee that an ex ante assessment of the trade agreement would take place because I thought that would have been a useful mechanism for assessing the rules of the game, and mitigating those rules where necessary in order to take account of potential negative impacts.
I am still positive about the fact that even if it's not an ex ante assessment, an ex post evaluation of those rules will take place. But as I said at a number of points, I think there are ways in which that assessment must take place to be meaningful.