Some of them need parliamentary approval because they are being added to section 1(2), because they affect domestic law rights. Some of them need parliamentary approval for both reasons, so if one looks, for example, at core authorities volume 1, tab 3, the court will see the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.
This is the one that addressed the treaty of Lisbon and if the court goes -- sorry, it is MS 117, MS 117, core authorities 1, tab 3. If the court, please, would turn to MS 118, at the top of the page, section 2, it is not set out in detail, but the court can see what it does, is it amends the 1972 Act by adding a new section 1 (Inaudible) and if the court then looks on the next page and looks at section 4, this Act does another job. What it does is it approves the treaty of Lisbon for the purposes of the 2002 Act, that is parliamentary approval, as it says, of treaties increasing the European Parliament's powers.
So each of the two different functions is addressed separately by Parliament, and there are some treaties for which parliamentary approval was not required under the post 1972 legislation, but it was still necessary to add the treaty to section 1(2) of the 1972 Act. If the court would please look at volume 19 of the materials and look, please, at tab 221, which is MS page 6463.
The court will see that that treaty, which was the treaty for accession of Spain and Portugal, that was added to section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, but there was no need for approval under the post 1972 legislation as it then existed, so Parliament is very careful to treat separately the two distinct areas that we are here concerned with.
So that is the 1972 Act. There are, of course, many other relevant statutes in many areas of life, competition law, communications law, equality law, environmental law, and many others, at least some of the terms of which would be frustrated if the appellant terminates the UK's membership of the EU, notifies of the termination that is to take effect in two years' time unless there is an extension. We have given the example in our written case of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, and we have given extensive analysis of this in the written argument. It is in our written case, in particular, paragraph 17.3 a), which is MS 12394. But it is only an example.
It is no answer for the appellant to say, as he does, that of course these rights lapse when we leave the club -- that is their answer -- but that begs the question, and the question is whether the appellant can lawfully use prerogative powers in such a way as to nullify these statutory provisions.
But there are many other examples. Can I give the court one other example of our concern. It is volume 13 at tab 130, which is MS 4481, volume 13, tab 130, the Communications Act 2003, MS 4481. I am inviting the court's attention to section 4 of the Communications Act 2003 -- 13130 -- section 4 of the Communications Act is headed "Duties for the purpose of fulfilling EU obligations":
"This section applies to the following functions of Ofcom ... (a) their functions under chapter 1 of part 2 ..."
That is electronic communications --