I fully understand the point against me, but can we then move to what we say in paragraph 33 of our case, so section 108(6)(c) places a clear and unqualified restriction on the competence of the Welsh Assembly, but it may not legislate contrary to EU or convention rights, we would say. We place emphasis on the fact that there is no equivalent restriction on legislative competence for types of international obligations, other than those found in section 108(6)(a). Other types of international obligation are separately addressed, but only as set out in section 114(1)(d).
That provision does give, as I foreshadowed earlier, the Secretary of State the power to veto an Assembly act which is incompatible with any international obligation.
So if all we are talking about in the 1972 Act are international obligations, why are they being treated differently as far as EU law is concerned and convention rights are concerned? As I say, your Lordship points correctly to the definition of EU law, I fully accept that, but what we do say is that when you get to 109, we do find ourselves in an interesting quandary, if one is trying to say: doesn't it all mean the narrow conduit pipe in section 2, because if you look, and it is in our case at 36 and I don't need to take you to the section --