Campaign for a public vote on the Brexit Deal

[antony1969]

Funny aint it ... Those who claim to now care so much over the Irish border never gave a stuff before

[Tracker]

antony1969 - 2018-04-14 8:15 PM

Funny aint it ... Those who claim to now care so much over the Irish border never gave a stuff before

 

I don't think that is true, we just never thought about it, why would we, it does not affect us in mainland Britain and nobody in Ireland thought to make an issue of it pre referendum which is odd seeing as it affects them?.

[antony1969]

Tracker - 2018-04-14 8:25 PM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-14 8:15 PM

Funny aint it ... Those who claim to now care so much over the Irish border never gave a stuff before

 

I don't think that is true, we just never thought about it, why would we, it does not affect us in mainland Britain and nobody in Ireland thought to make an issue of it pre referendum which is odd seeing as it affects them?.

 

"never thought about it" because it never served a purpose ... Now it suits the moaners to be so Irish border concerned

[Bulletguy]

Tracker - 2018-04-14 8:08 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-14 7:22 PM

I disagree. It is us, the UK, who are proposing to change the status quo. It is incumbent on us to resolve the problems we are creating. Just as were it the EU, or the Irish Republic, who were initiating the change, it would be incumbent on them to resolve with the problems they might create. I think it profoundly unrealistic for us to say "Hey chaps, we've just decided to render your border unworkable, hop off and fix it for us, to our satisfaction, will you?"

 

I disagree. For years the Irish were not in the EU and the land border with NI applied just as it does on mainland Europe between EU and non EU countries.

Leaving aside the violence that enabled villains from both sides to cross beteen jurisdictions that border worked as well as any other in Europe and having no physical border will allow all manner of wrong doings that involve differeant values to be easily re-established.

As a sovereign nation the UK has the right to self determination and self rule and that includes maintaining our own borders which includes Ireland just as much as it does France and if the Irish do not like it then it is up to them to find a solution that works for them and if the EU can do that for Switzerland they can do it for Ireland.

Ireland has been an EU member since 1st January 1973 when it was EEU and also adopted the euro in 2002, something which timewarp Little Englanders doggedly resisted.

 

Also part of those treasured 'rights' include the Good Friday Agreement of which the EU had no responsibility for at all. That was a matter thrashed out between UK and Ireland. Are you proposing to rip that up for the sake of a hard border because i doubt either Irish or mainland British have the desire to be dragged back for more bombing and fighting?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-good-friday-agreement-northern-ireland-troubles-violence-ira-border-a8297406.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/irish-border-brexiters-good-friday-agreement

 

As a non-EU country Switzerland has always had borders and been solely responsible for them themselves so i'm not sure what your point is in relating them to the EU. If you mean fast 'drive-thru' then yes they are because often they are unmanned but then Swiss have always been practical and sensible. They don't waste time stopping and searching every damn vehicle but Swiss registered are more likely to be stopped than foreign registered. However their border control points are only on major roads and it's possible to cross from Switzerland into any of the five countries using country roads if you know where you're going.

[antony1969]

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty ... These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified" ... Prime Minister Ted Heath before we joined that club ... If that wasn't a great big fat lie I don't know what is

[Barryd999]

The only way to solve the Irish border issue which is down to us to resolve is to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market or just not leave at all.

 

That seems to be one step closer or will be next week.

 

Looks like the Government will face defeat in Parliament this week forcing Theresa May to rethink us leaving the Customs Union

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-house-of-lords-customs-union-theresa-may-a8304791.html

 

Maybe we should also remind the Brexiteers what their Brexit Leaders said all that time ago before the referendum about the Single Market as well and how we could be just like Norway. Doesnt seem to be what they are clambering for now though does it?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

 

 

 

The new "Peoples Vote" Campaign starts today following cross country rallies yesterday and one in London today. Sign up to this website today, share on Facebook and Twitter and tick the boxes to be informed of progress and updates.

 

http://www.peoples-vote.uk/

[Tracker]

antony1969 - 2018-04-15 7:17 AM

 

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty ... These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified" ... Prime Minister Ted Heath before we joined that club ... If that wasn't a great big fat lie I don't know what is

 

That is an unfair comment because at the time and to the best of his knowledge Edward Heath was quite correct and it is only the subsequant actions of the Brussels beaurocracy and MEPs years later that want change the rules to reduce national integrity and make one size fit all.

 

I for one am glad we joined the EEC as at the time in the world of that era it seemed the right thing to do but I will be happy to leave a club that has changed so much and looks like changing even more from the one we joined in 1973.

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2018-04-14 8:04 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-14 7:22 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-14 7:05 PM....................The logical place is the old border but as the Irish and the EU don't want that the onus should be on them to come up with a workable alternative acceptable to the UK.

I disagree. It is us, the UK, who are proposing to change the status quo. It is incumbent on us to resolve the problems we are creating. Just as were it the EU, or the Irish Republic, who were initiating the change, it would be incumbent on them to resolve with the problems they might create. I think it profoundly unrealistic for us to say "Hey chaps, we've just decided to render your border unworkable, hop off and fix it for us, to our satisfaction, will you?"

 

Who is the injured party, and who is inflicting the injury? So, who has the obligation to make good the mess they create?

 

It may have escaped your notice, but so far we have had Barnier constantly saying "we can't reach agreement" and then at the deadlines miraculously we reach agreements, i'm not at all sure how it can be made to work, but one thing you can be assured of, both parties know it has to work and therefore it will.

I spent around 10 years of my working life negotiating between management and unions, despite plenty of histrionics never once had a strike.

No, it hasn't escaped my notice Colin, as that is, in any case, as you point out, the inevitable consequence of negotiation. However, what I think I'm seeing is that this Brexit is, in the process, moving toward a kind of EU-lite relationship, in which we lose the ability to influence EU direction and policy yet remain largely bound to comply its rules and regulations. That, to me, represents the worst of all the possible outcomes.

 

So, while it may rate as Norway ++ or Canada ++, it will be a far cry from what we presently have - and anyone who thinks that we shall gain those concessions at zero cost is, IMO, living in fairyland! The questions that then arise, for me, is what shall we have gained, and is that gain likely to be worth the cost? My impression, to date, is that the answer is becoming, more and more clearly as the negotiations progress, no.

[Tracker]

When every country has an equal vote regardless of it's economic value to the EU or the state of it's economy or political aspirations or it's populations size or wishes one has to wonder how much real influence we did have anyway - 1/28th or 3.57% comes to mind, much less than two Eastern European countries combined?

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-04-14 8:12 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-14 7:25 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-14 7:03 PM.................Dontcha mean the despicable way you Remoaners are trying to open old wounds to achieve their aims? *-) .........

 

No shame no gain huh? >:-( .......

So, what is your proposal to solve the obvious problems you are creating? Another 24 years of IRA bombing? Good call!

 

I ain't creating a problem ;-) ........

 

The EU & You Remoaners are creating the problem *-) ........

 

Besides what's a few IRA nut jobs gonna do that our resident Islamist nut jobs aren't? :-| .......

Wrong again, I'm afraid, Dave. We create no problem, the problem is created by change, we are arguing to maintain the status quo.

 

Your final paragraph defies understanding. I can only suggest you do a little research into what the IRA did in both Northern Ireland and on the British mainland, and then have a little think.

 

It is clear you want Brexit. Use sensible arguments to support your case, because your last comment is complete and utter rubbish that completely ignores fact. With that one statement you completely destroy any credibility that remains. Sorry.

[Tracker]

I think we are confusing two differemt issues here - a new Irish border has nothing to do with past terrorist activities and although it may well be relevant with regard to new activities I suspect these will be more related to fraud and financial than physical abuse, but I may be wrong?.

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-04-14 8:08 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-14 7:22 PM

I disagree. It is us, the UK, who are proposing to change the status quo. It is incumbent on us to resolve the problems we are creating. Just as were it the EU, or the Irish Republic, who were initiating the change, it would be incumbent on them to resolve with the problems they might create. I think it profoundly unrealistic for us to say "Hey chaps, we've just decided to render your border unworkable, hop off and fix it for us, to our satisfaction, will you?"

 

1 I disagree. For years the Irish were not in the EU and the land border with NI applied just as it does on mainland Europe between EU and non EU countries.

2 Leaving aside the violence that enabled villains from both sides to cross beteen jurisdictions that border worked as well as any other in Europe and having no physical border will allow all manner of wrong doings that involve differeant values to be easily re-established.

3 As a sovereign nation the UK has the right to self determination and self rule and that includes maintaining our own borders which includes Ireland just as much as it does France and if the Irish do not like it then it is up to them to find a solution that works for them and if the EU can do that for Switzerland they can do it for Ireland.

1 Ireland joined the EU at the same time as Britain. There were up to then, in effect, two borders. The one between the two Irelands, and the one between Ireland and Great Britain, which we managed in agreement with the Irish government. There was never a time when the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland, was a border with the EU. It is only now that this situation is being created.

2 That was after the United Kingdom and Ireland had both joined the EEC. The United Kingdom now proposes to leave the EU. That creates a border with the EU that has never before existed in that place. That border was a perpetual flashpoint during the troubles. If we are outside the Customs Union and the Single Market, there will need to be border controls. No-one has yet envisaged a viable form of border controls that is agreed to solve the EU border requirements without some physical presence on the border. It is widely feared that any such physical presence will give the IRA the reason they need to resurrect their campaign to re-unify Ireland, which raises the probability of a return to the gun and the bomb.

3 Of coures we are free to do so, and Brexit is one way in which we are exercising that freedom. But, in so doing we, and no-one else, are creating cross-border problems. You may wish that Ireland would clean up after us, but if they chose (as is their right as a sovereign nation) not to do so, where will that leave us? Switzerland's border relationships to not equate to those that will exist between the United Kingdom and the UK. Switzerland is, bit by bit, moving toward the EU, and is a signatory to Schengen, among other treaties. As above, the UK is presently a member state of the EU and is proposing to leave while retaining as much of its membership as the EU will permit, at as low a cost as the EU will tolerate. I don't see that the two (the UK vs Switzerland) equate in any sense.

[Barryd999]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 12:24 PM

 

colin - 2018-04-14 8:04 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-14 7:22 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-14 7:05 PM....................The logical place is the old border but as the Irish and the EU don't want that the onus should be on them to come up with a workable alternative acceptable to the UK.

I disagree. It is us, the UK, who are proposing to change the status quo. It is incumbent on us to resolve the problems we are creating. Just as were it the EU, or the Irish Republic, who were initiating the change, it would be incumbent on them to resolve with the problems they might create. I think it profoundly unrealistic for us to say "Hey chaps, we've just decided to render your border unworkable, hop off and fix it for us, to our satisfaction, will you?"

 

Who is the injured party, and who is inflicting the injury? So, who has the obligation to make good the mess they create?

 

It may have escaped your notice, but so far we have had Barnier constantly saying "we can't reach agreement" and then at the deadlines miraculously we reach agreements, i'm not at all sure how it can be made to work, but one thing you can be assured of, both parties know it has to work and therefore it will.

I spent around 10 years of my working life negotiating between management and unions, despite plenty of histrionics never once had a strike.

No, it hasn't escaped my notice Colin, as that is, in any case, as you point out, the inevitable consequence of negotiation. However, what I think I'm seeing is that this Brexit is, in the process, moving toward a kind of EU-lite relationship, in which we lose the ability to influence EU direction and policy yet remain largely bound to comply its rules and regulations. That, to me, represents the worst of all the possible outcomes.

 

So, while it may rate as Norway ++ or Canada ++, it will be a far cry from what we presently have - and anyone who thinks that we shall gain those concessions at zero cost is, IMO, living in fairyland! The questions that then arise, for me, is what shall we have gained, and is that gain likely to be worth the cost? My impression, to date, is that the answer is becoming, more and more clearly as the negotiations progress, no.

 

Everyone will be totally surprised to hear that I agree with the above. (lol)

 

We voted to leave the EU but the large majority has no stomach for a true Brexit, a hard Brexit where we walk away. Now it seems we are leaving but doing our best to get back in and leave in name only. Whats the point? This is why I think its important that the public revisit this and are given an opportunity to think again. If there is only a small minority prepared to flick the V's and leave with no deal and our Brexit is as Brian describes then what is the point of leaving at all? The public need to re-engage though as most of them have switched off and if that continues we will indeed end up with what Brian describes which is the worst of both worlds. Less damaging perhaps but whats the point?

[Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 1:00 PM

I don't see that the two (the UK vs Switzerland) equate in any sense.

 

Neither do I, the Irish issue is quite different to Switzerland and I just used the Swiss example to show that a border can exist between an EU and a non EU nation.

 

We only went through Switzerland a few times but on every occasion armed border guards and cameras were present both going in and coming out athough we were only ever stopped and spoken to a couple of times.

 

There did not seem to be any inconvenient lengthy waiting times to enter or leave but the Swiss must have their reasons and it is their country we respected their right to check who enters and leaves, but not everyone sees it that way.

[thebishbus]

Similar to us skiing in Andora the other week . Our coach drove straight through what seemed to be an unattended border crossing going in , and only slowed down and stopped briefly to allow the barrier to open at the crossing coming out ,no queues at all.

Brian B.

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-04-15 10:40 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-15 7:17 AM

 

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty ... These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified" ... Prime Minister Ted Heath before we joined that club ... If that wasn't a great big fat lie I don't know what is

 

A) That is an unfair comment because at the time and to the best of his knowledge Edward Heath was quite correct B) and it is only the subsequant actions of the Brussels beaurocracy and MEPs years later that want change the rules to reduce national integrity and make one size fit all.

 

I for one am glad we joined the EEC as at the time in the world of that era it seemed the right thing to do but I will be happy to leave a club that has changed so much and looks like changing even more from the one we joined in 1973.

On A) above I agree. There was, of course, some pooling of sovereignty, as is evident in the Treaty of Rome. But, it is unreasonable call anyone a liar for having expounded a political view 45 years ago, based on what was then a very different world. Nevertheless, there waw not, and is not, an intention on the part of the EU that its member states will be required "to sacrifice independence and sovereignty" to maintain membership. Were that to come about, I think there would be a long queue for the door!

 

On B above, although this is often stated it is not true. The "Brussels bureaucracy" (the Commission) does not get to make the rules. The rules are made by them in conjunction with the Council and the Parliament. However, the Commissioners are appointed, one per country, by their respective governments, each having a designated competence. The Parliament is made of MEPs, who are elected by the electorates of the 28 member states. The Council has a variable membership, depending on the issue under consideration, but will be either the prime ministers or heads of state of each member state, or the ministers from each member state with responsibility for the measure under consideration.

 

EU agreement on policy requires the support of two, of those three, institutions. Any of the three can propose measures, but they must gain the support of at least one of the others before the measure gains assent. In the case of the parliament, assent is signified by a vote in favour. So, at every level, either through the choice of the UK Commissioner (by our own government), the government minister attending Council, or those we choose to elect as MEPs, the UK has influence over what measures are adopted.

 

The process is, ultimately, no less democratic than is the process within the UK for deciding the route of a new road. Some win, some lose, but everyone gets the right to argue their case.

[antony1969]

Tracker - 2018-04-15 10:40 AM

 

antony1969 - 2018-04-15 7:17 AM

 

"there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty ... These fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified" ... Prime Minister Ted Heath before we joined that club ... If that wasn't a great big fat lie I don't know what is

 

That is an unfair comment because at the time and to the best of his knowledge Edward Heath was quite correct and it is only the subsequant actions of the Brussels beaurocracy and MEPs years later that want change the rules to reduce national integrity and make one size fit all.

 

I for one am glad we joined the EEC as at the time in the world of that era it seemed the right thing to do but I will be happy to leave a club that has changed so much and looks like changing even more from the one we joined in 1973.

 

Not unfair at all Richard ... Heath was a total Europhile and even long after he was PM was happy to see sovereignty and independence handed over ... Other politicians at the time told of their fears of what might become of the EEC Heath was not one of them ... If he was alive today he'd be horrified at Brexit and he'd be firmly in the corner of other moaners like Clegg , Adonis , Umunna and Soubry

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-04-15 12:31 PM

 

When every country has an equal vote regardless of it's economic value to the EU or the state of it's economy or political aspirations or it's populations size or wishes one has to wonder how much real influence we did have anyway - 1/28th or 3.57% comes to mind, much less than two Eastern European countries combined?

But they don't, Rich. MEP are apportioned roughly according to the population size of the state, so for exemple Britain has 73 MEPs, while Malta gets just 6.

[Tracker]

My understanding is that most decisions are made not by the European Parliament but by the European Commision where decisions are made by 28 people not democratically elected by their own countries but appointed by MEPs as long as they have a sworn allegiance to the promotion of the EU as an entity rather than their own home nation.

 

Hardly seems very democratic to me?

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2018-04-15 4:13 PM

 

My understanding is that most decisions are made not by the European Parliament but by the European Commision where decisions are made by 28 people not democratically elected by their own countries but appointed by MEPs as long as they have a sworn allegiance to the promotion of the EU as an entity rather than their own home nation.

 

Hardly seems very democratic to me?

Indeed it wouldn't be. I've copied this from the Europa website, so it is their explanation of how it works.

 

"Setting the agenda

 

The European Council sets the EU's overall political direction – but has no powers to pass laws. Led by its President - currently Donald Tusk - and comprising national heads of state or government and the President of the Commission, it meets for a few days at a time at least twice every 6 months.

 

Law-making

 

There are 3 main institutions involved in EU legislation:

 

•the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;

•the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the individual member countries. The Presidency of the Council is shared by the member states on a rotating basis.

•the European Commission, which represents the interests of the Union as a whole.

 

Together, these three institutions produce through the "Ordinary Legislative Procedure" (ex "co-decision") the policies and laws that apply throughout the EU. In principle, the Commission proposes new laws, and the Parliament and Council adopt them. The Commission and the member countries then implement them, and the Commission ensures that the laws are properly applied and implemented."

 

This is represented in this organogram from Wikipedia.

[Tracker]

Nice picture Brian - shows things going around in ever decreasing circles which seems about right !

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 4:49 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-15 4:13 PM

 

My understanding is that most decisions are made not by the European Parliament but by the European Commision where decisions are made by 28 people not democratically elected by their own countries but appointed by MEPs as long as they have a sworn allegiance to the promotion of the EU as an entity rather than their own home nation.

 

Hardly seems very democratic to me?

Indeed it wouldn't be. I've copied this from the Europa website, so it is their explanation of how it works.

 

"Setting the agenda

 

The European Council sets the EU's overall political direction – but has no powers to pass laws. Led by its President - currently Donald Tusk - and comprising national heads of state or government and the President of the Commission, it meets for a few days at a time at least twice every 6 months.

 

Law-making

 

There are 3 main institutions involved in EU legislation:

 

•the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;

•the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the individual member countries. The Presidency of the Council is shared by the member states on a rotating basis.

•the European Commission, which represents the interests of the Union as a whole.

 

Together, these three institutions produce through the "Ordinary Legislative Procedure" (ex "co-decision") the policies and laws that apply throughout the EU. In principle, the Commission proposes new laws, and the Parliament and Council adopt them. The Commission and the member countries then implement them, and the Commission ensures that the laws are properly applied and implemented."

 

This is represented in this organogram from Wikipedia.

 

Which kinda explains why we wanted to "leave" donthca think >:-) ........

 

Nice one Brian B-) ........

 

Do you have anymore? ;-) .........

 

Just askin? :-> ........

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2018-04-15 6:55 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 4:49 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-15 4:13 PM

 

My understanding is that most decisions are made not by the European Parliament but by the European Commision where decisions are made by 28 people not democratically elected by their own countries but appointed by MEPs as long as they have a sworn allegiance to the promotion of the EU as an entity rather than their own home nation.

 

Hardly seems very democratic to me?

Indeed it wouldn't be. I've copied this from the Europa website, so it is their explanation of how it works.

 

"Setting the agenda

 

The European Council sets the EU's overall political direction – but has no powers to pass laws. Led by its President - currently Donald Tusk - and comprising national heads of state or government and the President of the Commission, it meets for a few days at a time at least twice every 6 months.

 

Law-making

 

There are 3 main institutions involved in EU legislation:

 

•the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;

•the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the individual member countries. The Presidency of the Council is shared by the member states on a rotating basis.

•the European Commission, which represents the interests of the Union as a whole.

 

Together, these three institutions produce through the "Ordinary Legislative Procedure" (ex "co-decision") the policies and laws that apply throughout the EU. In principle, the Commission proposes new laws, and the Parliament and Council adopt them. The Commission and the member countries then implement them, and the Commission ensures that the laws are properly applied and implemented."

 

This is represented in this organogram from Wikipedia.

 

Which kinda explains why we wanted to "leave" donthca think >:-) ........

 

Nice one Brian B-) ........

 

Do you have anymore? ;-) .........

 

Just askin? :-> ........

It seems to me to represent as reasonably sensible and democratic a form of governance as could be constructed for the collective management of the expectations of 28 countries. It is probably imperfect at certain levels but, where that becomes apparent, the deficiencies can be remedied by mutual consent. It doesn't case me any anxiety.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 7:22 PM

It doesn't cause me any anxiety.

 

Nuff said :-| ......

 

 

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 7:22 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-04-15 6:55 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2018-04-15 4:49 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-04-15 4:13 PM

 

My understanding is that most decisions are made not by the European Parliament but by the European Commision where decisions are made by 28 people not democratically elected by their own countries but appointed by MEPs as long as they have a sworn allegiance to the promotion of the EU as an entity rather than their own home nation.

 

Hardly seems very democratic to me?

Indeed it wouldn't be. I've copied this from the Europa website, so it is their explanation of how it works.

 

"Setting the agenda

 

The European Council sets the EU's overall political direction – but has no powers to pass laws. Led by its President - currently Donald Tusk - and comprising national heads of state or government and the President of the Commission, it meets for a few days at a time at least twice every 6 months.

 

Law-making

 

There are 3 main institutions involved in EU legislation:

 

•the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;

•the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the individual member countries. The Presidency of the Council is shared by the member states on a rotating basis.

•the European Commission, which represents the interests of the Union as a whole.

 

Together, these three institutions produce through the "Ordinary Legislative Procedure" (ex "co-decision") the policies and laws that apply throughout the EU. In principle, the Commission proposes new laws, and the Parliament and Council adopt them. The Commission and the member countries then implement them, and the Commission ensures that the laws are properly applied and implemented."

 

This is represented in this organogram from Wikipedia.

 

Which kinda explains why we wanted to "leave" donthca think >:-) ........

 

Nice one Brian B-) ........

 

Do you have anymore? ;-) .........

 

Just askin? :-> ........

It seems to me to represent as reasonably sensible and democratic a form of governance as could be constructed for the collective management of the expectations of 28 countries. It is probably imperfect at certain levels but, where that becomes apparent, the deficiencies can be remedied by mutual consent. It doesn't case me any anxiety.

Hang on a minute Brian. You're talking logic here and Pelmet doesn't grasp logic at all. His response should be enough to tell you that!