1. This is an appeal from a refusal of the Divisional Court to permit the continuation of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Government from ratifying the Single European Act and seeking to continue that interlocutory injunction until the final hearing of the case. The first issue is whether the plaintiff has established a fair issue to be tried as to the effect of ratification within the provisions of Article 29, s. 4, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution. My view is that it is so established, but I express no view on the weight of the arguments.

2. As to the second question, whether the balance of convenience justifies the granting of an interlocutory injunction, the balance ;of convenience in the context of the Constitution is exceptional and considerations different to those of the ordinary injunction apply. If the interlocutory injunction sought by the plaintiff were not granted, then the Government's act of ratification would deprive this Court of its jurisdiction or power to grant to the plaintiff the remedies necessary to protect his constitutional rights. If that submission is correct, a fair argument has been made out and it constitutes what, in my view, would justify making an exception, given a reluctance to interfere with the Executive. I am satisfied that in order to do justice to the parties the injunction should continue. .