My Lord, moving on, the appellant's argument based on the phrase "from time to time" in section 2(1) of the 1972 Act, in our submission, does not detract from parliamentary sovereignty. You have our printed case on that, I will not ask you to turn that up, but it is paragraph 38 of our printed case, at 12470. But I do want to deal with one particular argument which was in fact raised by Lawyers for Britain in its written intervention, and that argument to a certain extent was taken up to a certain extent by Mr Eadie. The argument is that from the passing of the 2008 Act, the rights given by section 2(1) must be read as rights granted from time to time subject to the operation of Article 50.
Now, you have heard from my learned friend, Lord Pannick in relation to that, and the broad point is that Article 50 throws you back to domestic constitutional requirements, but I want to add this, that the introduction of Article 50, specifically in the context of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the 1972 Act, was considered by Parliament. It was considered by the House of Lords select committee on the constitution, during the passage of the bill which eventually became the 2008 Act. The select committee's report is at volume 17 of the authorities at tab 198.