Because the other matter is that at the time when the case was brought, Parliament had already approved that which was to be done at the international level. So if your Lordship looks at page 562, which is MS page number 434, the court will find set out just under letter C the text of section 1 of the 1993 Act, section 1 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, which received royal assent, so it had already received royal assent on 20 July, and the case was brought on 26 July. It provides:
"In section 1(2) of the 1972 Act, in the definition of the treaties and the Community treaties, after paragraph F, there shall be inserted the words ... and ... titles 2, 3 and 4 of the treaty on European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, together with the other provisions of the treaty so far as they relate to those titles and the protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date and annexed to the treaty establishing the European Community with the exception of the protocol on social policy ..."
So there are two points by way of background, essential background, to understanding what it was the divisional court was deciding in the paragraph on which Mr Eadie relies. The first is that there is no effect on domestic law rights and duties by reason of the protocol on social policy, but secondly, Parliament had approved the treaty, including the protocols.
Now, in that context, one goes to the passage to which Mr Eadie invites attention and what the divisional court are rejecting at 567 G to H is an argument, an ambitious argument, as the divisional court concluded --