MS 307. It is at page 367 of the MS, MS 367. This is Lord Denning, and what Lord Denning explains between E and F is that the action of the Government had been the subject of approval in both Houses of Parliament. E to F. At G, Lord Denning says:
"... mark you, this approval even by both Houses was not the equivalent of an act of Parliament. It could not override the law of the land ... see Hoffmann-La Roche."
That is the point and I can take the court, if the court wants to see the passages in Hoffmann-La Roche, I won't do so because of time, but it is volume 21, tab 257, MS 7183. So a motion in Parliament simply cannot rectify what is otherwise the legal deficiency in the appellant's case.
If, as we submit, the appellant cannot act on the international plane by the exercise of the prerogative because it will nullify statutory rights, then an act of Parliament is necessary to change the law of the land.
One other authority that your Lordships and your Ladyship may wish to be reminded of, it is the ex parte Federation of Self-Employed case. Volume 8 of the authorities and it is tab 68.