Conventions exist for a number of reasons, as discussed above. If one adheres to the Jennings/Marshall/Munro arguments, conventions are prescriptive and impose an obligation that they should be followed. If they are not followed, however, the consequences are likely to be political rather than legal. Munro argues that the standard or level of obedience depends on the degree of obligation imposed by any particular convention. For example, the convention that the monarch gives assent to bills passed by Parliament imposes a very large degree of obligation and it is highly unlikely that it would ever be breached. Reference Re Amendment to the Constitution of Canada illustrates these issues well. A breach of a convention can also have quasi-legal consequences; see Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd.