The Miller versus the Crown case confirmed that the Sewel convention isn't worth the paper that it's written on. In fact, on at least seven occasions, Westminster has forced legislation on Wales without its consent. Under the Labour-Tory agreement on the withdrawal Bill, there is a new definition of 'consent'. Semantic arguments are being used by Ministers to argue that this revision to the Bill equates to a requirement of consent for Westminster to legislate in devolved areas. In fact, the amendment explicitly says if a motion refusing consent is passed in this Assembly, Parliament may continue to impose its legislation. Can the Counsel General give me another example in legislation where 'no' means 'yes'?