The Brexit choice seems to be coming down to three things, at least in England.
We can save the dysfunctional Conservative Party.
Or we can save the dysfunctional Labour Party.
Or we can save the country from becoming dysfunctional.
It may be the first two are just one option in reality.
My fear is we will save dysfunctional politics.
Which is not a call for some new centre party. Or indication of a desire for a fudge. My radical edge remains well and truly intact. I have no desire for some centre ground coalition to perpetuate managerial austerity. That's not at all where I am.
But nor do I wish to see parties so removed from the interests of the people of this country, and in one case from its membership, running it.
But they are.
And that's the crisis we are in.
And which looks like the crisis in which we will remain.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Couldn’t agree more.
The UK needs a PR system, that requires consensus and parties working together.
Holyrood in Scotland has it.
If the UK chooses to retain this dysfunctional setup, Scotland i think will be off, and rightly so
Good point Henry. Its good to see that someone has a practical suggestion.
PR has been rejected by the public because of the likelihood of constant hung parliaments. Perhaps a more radical change is needed. e.g. the local electorate elect the local council, the local councils elect a county representative, and the county councils elect a parliamentary representative. Contentious issues like brexit could be debated at local level and results passed up the chain. Less elections, less government and power at local level.
Just a suggestion! Right now we need to think outside the box.
‘PR has been rejected’?
Pray tell me Brian – when were we given the choice?
Oh – yes I remember now – that very bad tempered and equally ill informed event in 2011 (similar to 2016 in fact) that actually took place at the same time as the local elections as well – just to show how seriously we took the issue.
Hmmmm……Oh yes Brian – a very decisive vote – executed to perfection (sarcasm intended).
I agree entirely except there is a fourth choice.
Abdicate governments responsibility to a dysfunctional Europe.
Half of the country believe democracy is upheld by honouring the referendum
Half of the country believe that democracy is upheld by not honouring the referendum and having another one.
So to suggest that politicians are not in tune with their people is clear. They cant be.
I disagree
I was asking for a functional approach to Brexit, come what may
To pretend that this has anything very much at all to do with upholding a referendum is to entirely miss the point
Again
If we are to leave, then it should be as long a goodbye as possible to enable business and ordinary people to adjust/adapt.
But overall I stick to my guns that a National Unity Government would/should put a stop to this.
There are people who think that this should not have happened at all and this has grown as we have learnt more about the apparent ‘victory’ of Leave.
Check out Fintan O’Toole’s take on it in the Guardian
Superb piece by Fintan O’Toole: “It was never about Europe. Brexit is Britain’s reckoning with itself ”
Compelling reading. Here’s the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/18/europe-brexit-britain-state-politics-fit-for-purpose
I completely agree with you
@anrigaut
Indeed Finlan O’Toole and the EU is right Brexit is a continuously playing loop of denial by the many of the various classes in the UK that what the country really needs to do is get down to deciding on a new arrangement, a new social contract, that allows the country to operate for the benefit of all.
Indeed…
O’Tooles’ piece is reminiscent of the 1960’s observation that the Vietnam War was really America at war with itself. There are probably some parallels there.
Yes, his paper just nails it. It’s just perfect. In tone, in analysis, in insight. A must read.
I have done Maggie, and O’Toole takes up many of the points Hugo Young introduces to us in his book ‘This Blessed Plot’ from 1998.
I find the Lib Dems grab for a stake in the power politics at play pretty shitty this morning. Self aggrandisement from a crisis? Not supporting another VoC? Way to go Vince – way to go.
Personally I find Gary Younge rather compelling this morning and his view that it is all about stopping Labour at any cost.
I think Richard is right to be worried that dysfunctional politics will win.
But there is more to this than dysfunctionality I feel. What I am seeing from May is contempt for honour and for Parliament – the same from her party too.
It reminds that any system – political or otherwise – is only as good as the quality of the people at work in it.
Brexit is a vicious loop that will result in a severely damaged economy if not broken. The loop is driven by May not wanting a Labour government because it will increase taxes on rich people including herself, the Libertarian/Fascist wing of the Tory park, wanting to go back to 19th century suppression of the working classes and Corbyn ideally wanting an apocalyptic No-Deal crash of the economy which would bring him to power. The only way to remove these “disfunctional wants” is for the Labour Party to replace Corbyn with a leader who’ll encourage all MP’s to recognise the “vicious Brexit loop situation” and cooperate to push through a vote for a Second referendum.
Schofield
Why must Corbyn go when it is clear that May must? Why is that the only way?
Everyone of May’s decisions and actions has brought us to this place.
If dysfunctional politics wins, it will be because Parliament fucks it up. Not just Corbyn.
In 2011, the Tories put in place a piece of legislation that prevents the Queen from dissolving a badly functioning Parliament – the equivalent of an emergency brake on incompetence. They did this because they know that they are actually quite weak and that their polices could very well back-fire on them (but I do not think they thought of BREXIT at the time). Corbyn was not even the leader then of the Labour party. Some of the folk others here prefer were.
I go back to one of my earliest political insights/concepts ‘ The Cunning of Unreason’. The Tories are unreasonable extremists to the point where they are even fascistic in their determination to keep Labour out at any cost. The have debased Parliament. They banked the Single Parliament Act for later – believe you me.
Richard says that Labour lacks talent. This could be true – but who could deal with a bunch of rich, nothing to lose extremists who have bent every rule in the book and fought this dirty? If they lost, they’d all walk back into gilt-edged lives anyway. This is fun to them. It’s power. And they get a bit of spending money out of it as well.
I do not know what is going to happen Schofield.
The only way to leave is to leave very slowly indeed. A parliament that could work together might work together on that and I think that the EU would understand it too. Parliament should make that part of the deal – a steady, orderly withdrawal from Europe.
When we have a large building development complete, we bring in to use in phases – a certain number at a time to prevent empties, manage the site, make it manageable.
Why can we not have a phased withdrawal from Europe if we have to go, with phased dis-entangling? That would be a good deal to me if we left on that basis.
But I still go back to my original position: Parliament – not Theresa May – is sovereign. Parliament had to ratify the referendumb before May said ‘BREXIT means BREXIT’. Parliament has to make the decision. And a people’s vote is a joke given that none of the concerns raised over the circumstance of the first ref’ have been addressed.
Which leads me once again to my usual conclusion.
The Leave win was based on lies and unfair advantage; it was based on funny, opaque money and overwhelmingly negative campaigning that whipped up fear.
It cannot be allowed to stand given the decisions it will set in motion If it does, it is going to be one of the biggest stains on the idea of democracy in the modern era of human history.
I kid you not.
Parliament has to stop it. If it does not, then it might as well not exist as far as I am concerned.
@ Pilgrim
To my regret, I so agree with your post…
@Pilgrim Slight Return
“Why must Corbyn go when it is clear that May must? Why is that the only way?”
It is blindingly obvious surely? It’s not that both shouldn’t go in my opinion it’s that May was re-appointed to her position of power through the No-Confidence vote (which Corbyn should never have adopted strategically). The vicious loop has to be broken somehow and the weakest link in terms of changing to a “loop breaker” (a deployer of power to break the loop) is Corbyn.
Underlying my argument is a more philosophical argument. Caring has to be balanced between being “self-contained” (for self only) and “networked” for others. From a materialist Marxist perspective an underlying motive for wars has between to obtain resources for one’s tribe or nation. The EU, after a long history of such wars was set up to make trading between nations a peaceful or “balanced” activity. Today as a trading bloc it also provides a bulwark against unfair global trading. The world doesn’t as yet have an effective policing agency to prevent this cheating (low-level “war”) not least because the Neoliberal version of free market capitalism is unbalanced in regard to “inclusive” caring (self-contained and net-worked).
Someone who enjoyed the Fintan O’ Toole piece recommended this.
More Broadsword than Stiletto.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html
@ZiggyM
Thanks for the link. It’s a good article. Underlying it is a message. The British, especially its ruling class elite and its supporters, have never managed to work out that as far as human beings and the planet are concerned “inclusive” caring means “care-fully” balancing out “self-contained” (for self only) caring with “net-worked” (for other living entities as well) caring.
What do May and Corbyn have in common (especially despite Corbyn’s rhetoric) they want a break in the net-working with Europe they have miserably been unable to philosophically provide a reason for yet alone a workable plan that will likely reduce the level of “caring” the UK economy can provide for all its citizens.
If the existing parties fall apart and are replaced or somehow radically reorganize themselves I think the immediate results will be a centrist, neoliberal, managerial type party.
That’s not what I want but I think it’s what is likely to happen and I think it’s a necessary step on the way to something different and hopefully better. Essentially it will be the final death throes of neoliberalism in the UK rather than a resurgence of the status quo ante 2016 (or 2008).
In my view it is largely the radical wings of both Labour and Conservative parties that are keeping them afloat in the opinion polls. The libdems are continuing to trail miserably exactly because they are centrist and non-radical. I believe there may be a need for a lurch back to solidly centrist government for a few years before the majority of the voting public can fully accept the status quo is defunct, bereft of ideas and incapable of improving our situation.
Only then will the old “centre” (i.e. neoliberalism) collapse fully and die properly. The centrist MPs will be voted out, their replacements will be more radical and the electorate will finally be presented with a choice between at least two fresh visions for the future.
A lot of people are crying out for real change, a lot of people don’t yet fully realise they need it. The time is coming when most of us will at least agree some major change is required and then a real debate can begin about exactly how we get out of this mess.
Unfortunately the turkeys won’t vote for christmas, so we will have the curse of more hung parliaments. At the moment the radical nationalists in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are driving things, while the weak centrists in England continue to fail to produce any leadership. The tail is wagging the dog leading to a more nationalist attitude by the English public. I hope that things change in English political leadership before the more undesirable factions move to take control.
Nationalists are factions?
Come on….
The LP is a Democratic Socialist Party with Keir Starmer as Brexit Secretary and this is his speech today to the Fabian Society. I would very much like to hear comments on it from contributors to Richards blog.
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-fabians-conference-speech-brexit-beyond/
That’s interesting. Its simple enough, concise, articulate and it seems OK to me. It also seems as if there are three critical parts to it”
1. “As Michel Barnier said just this week: “we have always said that if the UK chooses to shift its red lines in the future….then the EU will be immediately ready to go hand in hand…..and to give a favourable response.”
But at no point in the last two years has the Prime Minister sought to bring Parliament into the process and to shape the deal it will be asked to approve.”
So what he is saying there is that the PM, the Tories and their “red lines” are (still) responsible for the failure of the deal – not the parliament and not the EU.
3. “Securing a general election is — and always will be —our priority as it’s the only way to deliver the radical change this country needs”
Yes well that’s a case of going through the motions. They don’t have the numbers to force a GE and there is a Fixed-Term Parliament Act as well so they ain’t gonna get one.
3. “Our conference motion states that: “If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”
That is a very important commitment. It’s a commitment to you, our members and our movement. And it is one we will keep.”
Yep. I reckon they will, most Remainers and Labour members support it, the EU would be fine with it and they could get the numbers in parliament to back that as well. So it would appear that the die is cast and I would imagine that preparations have already begun.
The opinion polls before the referendum showed overwhelming support for remain! These opinion polls only show small margins of support for remain. Does that show a shift to remain or a shift to leave?
If the opinion polls were accurate it still would not be a decisive result and therefore nothing would be settled. Except that the current batch of politicians have no respect for the electorate. And lied both when they voted to accept the result of the referendum and when they stood for reelection under their party banner saying they would respect the referendum result. What therefore is the point of voting.
Well that would be a really good point Brian if there was one shred of truth to it.
The main poll that you are referring states that: “56 percent said they would choose to remain in the bloc if there was a new referendum, while 44 percent would choose to leave – a margin of 12 percentage points.”
12% is not a small margin.
As for ‘the opinion polls before the referendum’. Most of the major polls predicted a Remain win but virtually none of them predicted an ‘overwhelming’ win.
You Gov predicted: Remain 51/Leave 49, Ipsos Mori predicted: Remain 52/Leave 48,
Survation predicted: Remain 50/Leave 50.
Some of the lesser polls messed up badly ORB: (54/46), Populus: (55/45) Although one of them pretty much got it right. Opinium predicted Remain 49/Leave 51
The average of 2016 polls predicted Remain 52/Leave 48 which does mean that between them they got it precisely backwards but this average was not by any means ‘overwhelming’.
So, that corrects the record on your opening statement. As for your question, I don’t really get it to be honest.
https://theconversation.com/eu-referendum-how-the-polls-got-it-wrong-again-61639
(see results table).
You are right Marco the polls did not show an overwhelming remain win. I was wrong I assure you it not intentional!
That’s OK Brian,
A lot of people had probably got the same impression in retrospect. An unwitting exaggeration of past memory.
Re. my previous reply there are these, of course which will further encourage a 2nd vote:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-uk-poll-support-for-staying-in-eu-at-highest-level-since-referendum/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum—poll.html
This one suggests otherwise but, all things considered, I’m not buying it. See what you think:
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-a-uk-general-election-is-more-likely-than-you-think/
Schofield
I remain unconvinced about your logic (such that it is).
What we are seeing is an undemocratic retention of power in the face of the bleedin’ obvious.
It’s not what I would traditionally call ‘politics’.
@ Pilgrim Slight Return
I think what you fail to see is that there is an impasse, a deadlock, and the only way to resolve this is an act of “cooperation” which is a Second Vote, a Final Say. The one person who has the less power (governmental) of the two who are refusing to cooperate to resolve Brexit is Corbyn. May can just sit tight as prime-minister and make all manner of excuses at least for nearly a year before she faces an internal party challenge for her job as Andrew Rawnsley points out in his Observer article today. Accordingly if the UK is going to get any movement towards “cooperation” the weakest link is Corbyn, the obstinate individual obsessed with power to the point of being blinkered to the damage his obsession will do to the country, logically he therefore needs removing if he will not agree now to push for the second stage Final Say policy his party approved. (Letting Corbyn continue to sit on the fence, as he’s done for nearly two and half years, till March 29th whilst he makes up his mind isn’t a sane option.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/20/its-compass-smashed-the-ghost-ship-brexit-sails-into-ever-darker-waters
What is your counter-logic to this particular use of “cooperation”? What form of cooperation do you propose that would put a rudder on the good ship HMS “Old Blighty” as Rawnsley might say or is it the case you’re a closet No-Dealer? I can’t believe you’re the latter!
Schofield,
This Corbyn thing with you is beyond the pale. This whole idea that everyone in Labour is pro-Remain (well, actually, it looks at last 70% of them are) and there’s just this one crazy old Lexit guy that’s standing against them like a stick in the mud ruining everything. This reveals a shallow, comic book interpretation of events albeit a common one.
What you are missing is that there is about 30% of Labour voters that are/were Leave supporters, that the UK doesn’t don’t have proportional representation or preferential voting and that a lot of that Labour/Leave minority are inconveniently spread around important marginal constituencies.
If you took a good, hard look (good as well as hard) at what is actually happening you would see that Labour is on track toward the 2nd referendum you so desire. But in playing to the constituencies, vulnerable MP’s and certain cabinet members they are going through the motions, of exhausting ‘available options’, a series of political theatrics that would have it appear that they did not seek a 2nd vote but had nowhere else to go.
BTW if you want to know what’s going on with Labour and Brexit. Don’t look at Corbyn. Look at Keir Starmer.
Case in point – have a look at this from Saturday and see what the positions are, consider what is feasible, realise that they know full well what is and isn’t feasible, and think about where things might be headed. One has to read between the lines a bit sometimes. Things aren’t always as they initially appear to be.
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-fabians-conference-speech-brexit-beyond/
This might help as well:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/20/corbyn-to-back-no-deal-brexit-block
@ Pilgrim Slight Return
The best comment on Andrew Rawnsley’s article by the way is on the first page when someone with the tag nonanon1 states:-
“There are 17.4 million shades of Brexit. There is no majority for any form of it. Only remain commands majority support.”
This is the nub of the need for a Final Say argument!
🙂
Now the Telegraph online are advising leave to prepare for the Final Say.
So must remain, and very quickly. Whilst Parliament is in the process of trying to control business, it must attempt to make sure they have input into formulating the rules and conditions. Input into what question appears on the ballot paper,and that they are number coded. That the rules in place for transport and security of boxes are rigidly observed.
This is essential in the case of postal ballot boxes and their security, with specific limitations on access during the storage period. All movement of boxes to be accompanied in transit at all times by two observer/ guardians. (One from each side) This rule was frequently flouted during the Scots-Inde Ref.
There MUST be an exit poll.
Of course, interference in elections could never happen here….Manually or Digitally
Paranoid moi…. bloody right I am!!!
If people cared about politics (and democracy in particular) in this country, we’d all be outside parliament now demanding that the Tory party leave the premises. To think that they got away with the Fixed Term Parliament Act? What a conniving bunch of scumbags the Tories are.
There are clues as to why they have done this and why May clings to power. Because maybe we are actually in some way at the endgame of neo-liberalism as we know it in this country? As I said before, even the 2010 election needed to have a coalition to prop up the insane Tories. They are at the margins of viability as a political force and it is only money that seems to keep them where they are. I’m sure that many of them know it – that is why their dirty tricks with election expenditure etc., hints at desperation.
It also puts the opposition sharply into focus. The big problem there has been Labour’s inability to work together and with other progressives. This is shameful. It is failure. Other than Corbyn and a one or two others, many of their people I find unattractive as politicians. Making snide remarks about ‘white van men’ will just push voters further away from a party that professes to stand up for working people, into the hands of UKIP and the far right. Labour infighting over Corbyn is no better than Tory infighting about Europe.
And let’s do go back to May 2010. Reading Adonis’ ‘5 Days in May’ I still wonder why Labour did not jump into bed with the king making Lib-Dems for the good of the country? If one of the Clegg’s conditions was that Brown would have to go before such a deal could work then Brown should have gone in order to save us from the Tories. Here, Brown looks as obdurate as May who should also step aside right now.
But it also tells us how political parties seem to be dominated by personalities these days and not collective working around problems and solutions for – well – us really – the voter, the people of this country who are not bad lot really. When Brown speaks these days I am rather dismissive of him. He had his chance but he took his ball home and did not want to play. And many decent people have suffered because of it. Therefore to my mind, he is a political failure (although he did save us from the Euro – top marks for that). But it reminds us that a Leader should remain a Leader even as his or her time draws to a close.
Question: Where does a re-referendumb stop? Until we get the result either party wants? So that means what exactly? Round and around we will we go. It won’t solve anything in the long term. And we need to think clearly about the long term.
As for BREXIT, I’ve nearly finished Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’ – currently reading how Thatcher turned against it and firmly planted the seeds of Euroscepticism. But the headline story is that we – the UK – went into Europe (very reluctantly BTW) because of being focused on the economic benefits. These were always at the head of the argument. However, such was the intent of our gaze, issues with sovereignty were overlooked except by those few who were not happy and whom were pushed to the margins.
The great British public were not bothered about sovereignty either until much, much later – the cost of living – a reasonable concern for those in the micro economy – was their concern.
But now, they have been told that sovereignty is important – billions of times by mendacious algorithms. Which is my cue to say (yet again) that I still believe that Parliament’s job now is to stop BREXIT. It really is.
Project Fear has been and still is, Project Leave. The concerns over sovereignty held by a small elite have been effectively socialised in a way that the Left has failed to socialise outrage at UC, austerity and the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
There seems however to be no room to listen to my advice and even I have to realise that. My position is a very minority one.
So?
My other view then is that we must leave in ‘slo-mo’. The act of leaving should be orderly and in a way that minimises the problems for both parties (the EU countries we currently trade with too). It should be as drawn out as it needs to be to minimise harm to the benefits that the relationship has given us. This is no Gordion Knot exercise. No way.
As we disentangle – slowly and carefully – we may be able to retain the customs union because that will benefit both sides who want – have to – trade to be prosperous or just able to live. Who wants to lose a market or have additional costs ramped up on it? No-one in their right mind. No-one.
But we will not be an EU member because it gets over the recently rabid issue of sovereignty digitally implanted in many an Englishman’s brain but also solves a problem that Hugo Young identifies very early in his book that has bedevilled English politicians and civil servants since 1951. Hence the half-heartedness initially to join. There really has never been a true resolution of the sovereignty issue at Government level in this country. Therefore that fact was always waiting like a booby trap to be set off by an appropriate person (it was nearly Harold Wilson but it ended up being that woman from Grantham).
I would like to see the EU give us more time because they need to realise that a huge injustice has been done to democracy – we have been lied to on an industrial scale recently but we have also overlooked the sovereignty issues somewhat. In negotiations, this is what I would tell them.
I was brought up to believe that this country’s form of parliamentary democracy had been a beacon to the world, and that our Parliament was the ‘mother’ of parliaments everywhere. For an impressionable young boy who was envious of the Americans flying to the moon, I clung to this idea of being an exemplar of democracy to make me feel good about myself and the country I lived in (although sideways glances and experiences with our democracy revealed it to be somewhat imperfect).
Our current tribulations have – as said before – tested those assumptions to destruction. Perversely however, we still are an exemplar – but of how NOT to carry out a referendum or at least woken up the world to the pitfalls and challenges of carrying them out in a digital world that has yet to take checks and balances in it seriously.
I suggest that a major future growth area in the digital economy/polity is one of oversight and accountability for democracy’s sake. Maybe the UK should start to the lead the world in that? The internet is just another offshore place that the rich can use to shape a world that suits them.
So that’s it for me – if we cannot stop BREXIT, then a Slo-Mo BREXIT if we have to go. Nothing less should be demanded from our well paid politicians and negotiated respectively , even pleadingly, with Europe.
I hope that’s not it from you
@ Pilgrim Slight Return
You are absolutely right about the importance of cooperation but a former Imperialistic Britain (which basically said it’s my way of “cooperation” or the highway to other countries) was always going to struggle identifying the form and details of cooperation it could have with other countries after leaving the EU and this has proved so with the historically resounding defeat of May’s plan, two and half years in the making.
The British people have to wake up to the importance and necessity of cooperating with other nationalities and groups or cooperatives of nationalities like the EU. The planet has very urgent problems to resolve like unbalanced Neoliberal free market capitalism, pollution and global warming not to mention the need to work together to get off this planet if it’s going to suffer heat death!
There are also many shades of Remain, but these are not talked about widely.
OK
Like?
I’m not sure that Jeremy Corbyn does complication by which I mean he isn’t that great at analytical thinking. If his “closet” strategy is to follow the example of the Bolsheviks in Russia (exploiting the discontent of workers with the way Russia’s war with Germany was going) by similarly exploiting the discontent of British workers with the economic chaos and GDP decline following a No-Deal crash out from the EU then he has no need of the recognition there are 16.7million shades of Brexit.
This is a dangerous strategy, however, given there is a rise in support for populist parties of the Libertarian/ Fascist persuasion around the world including the UK due to the chronic imbalance inherent in the Neoliberal version of free market capitalism. Perhaps Corbyn’s inability to think things through can be seen in his inability to understand how the modern monetary systems really work:-
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40562“>http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=40562
“I’m not sure that Jeremy Corbyn does complication”
Do you? The person that you’ve presented there is a straw man constructed from hypothetical suppositions that may be entirely wrong.
Schofield says:
“You are absolutely right about the importance of cooperation but a former Imperialistic Britain (which basically said it’s my way of “cooperation” or the highway to other countries) was always going to struggle identifying the form and details of cooperation it could have with other countries after leaving the EU and this has proved so with the historically resounding defeat of May’s plan, two and half years in the making.”
I suggest that the problem is closer to home: the UK has consistently struggled to identify the form and details of cooperation it ought to have with the countries other than England which are constituent parts of the UK. The solution has been (and continues to be) an attitude akin to colonial overlordship. If the UK can’t understand this, and there is no shortage of examples, what is the likelihood that it might enter into even-handed cooperation with the EU and foreign countries? Demonstrate some evenhandedness
at home and the rest of the world might be prepared to invest more trust.
Agreed