Lord Hoffmann and the House of Lords unanimously accepted this interpretation, as it was the correct one given the context in which the treaty was signed. One of the points at issue was Lord Hoffmann`s assumption that the courts would not regard pre-treaty negotiations as an aid to interpretation. Professor G McMeel said, « The best way forward is that the issue is more important than allowed. »  In other words, evidence of negotiation is not necessarily very onerous given the conflicting evidence of a contract itself, but it should not be totally excluded. Subjective statements of intent, prior negotiations and subsequent conduct should not be excluded as irrelevant if they could be a valuable aid to interpretation. . . .