Absolutely, and this case is nothing to do with legitimate expectation, and any such argument would be exceptionally difficult to sustain.
That is the first additional point. The second point is I promised to answer my Lord, Lord Mance's question about the debate in the 1970s. My Lord said, what was I talking about, this debate in the 1970s on whether Parliament could reverse the 1972 Act. What I had in mind is the Blackburn case, and if your Lordships and your Ladyship look -- I don't ask the court to turn it up -- at core authorities 2, tab 11, it is MS 302, Lord Denning at page 305 H adverts to what was then a contemporary debate: could Parliament itself go back on what it had enacted?
All I was saying to the court is, it is not my understanding that that is nowadays a point that causes concern, nor could it in the light of section 18 of the 2011 Act, if it was otherwise a point of concern.
The third point I promised to -- I need to come back to is my Lady, the Deputy President, asked about the acts of Parliament which have amended section 1(2) of the 1972 Act to add the new treaties. The court will find what I hope is a helpful annex to our written case. It is MS 12438, and there we set out the relevant acts which have amended section 1, subsection 2 to take account of the new treaties, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and all the others.
What the annex shows is that all of these acts amending section 1(2) were in fact enacted before Parliament ratified the relevant treaty and that is because as the court already heard --