BS: Brexit & other UK political topics

Subject: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:10 AM

As there has been none of the regular infighting, circular arguments or abuse on the UK Labour party thread for weeks now and I have had no objection from the moderation team about starting new political threads I think it is safe to assume the issues have been resolved.

I have copied DMcG's post to kick this one off. Hope that's OK, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Important issues re UK Labour Party
From: DMcG - PM
Date: 20 Aug 20 - 01:08 PM

Nothing to do with Labour again: another Brexit consequence.

"EU negotiators have rejected a British request for a migration pact that would allow the government to return asylum seekers to other European countries.

When the Brexit transition period expires on 31 December, the government will lose the right to transfer refugees and migrants to the EU country in which they arrived, a cornerstone of the European asylum system known as the Dublin regulation."

Bit of a shame for those concerned about "all these illegal immigrants", I suspect.

I agree. Brexit is nearly on us and while it is just one of the many failings of the Tory government, it does deserve a thread of its own. I may start another on the other disasters.

---

Nope. This one can run because it has been quieter lately, but several others intended to cause chaos are being thinned out. Mudcat is a music site and the amount of political fighting in the BS threads from the general direction of the UK and environs is too disruptive to much of the membership who come here for music. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 03:14 AM

why?other disasters, covid 19?
Iwas cycling along yesterday, and stopped to say hello to a walker who used to play trad music, he got on the subject of covid as soon as he could, quote
the trouble began when they restricted congregations of churches t less than 50, it is the house of god, god is all powerful, you are safe inthe house of god unless you are an atheist or communist.
the alternative round here is to talk to sheep, the conversation is equally perplexing

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 03:32 AM

I think there is already a thread on the virus, Dick. It is a worldwide issue after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 03:36 AM

Goggle Ads posted "the 10 best Casinos on line" at the top of this thread. Goggle knows everything about us, so what are they telling us this time?

I posit they are whispering Brinkmanship - the kind that doesn't have a contingency plan in case of rare but inevitable far reaching serious interventions.

And that intervention happened like shit does, when you leave things to the last minute.

Did they "beware what you wish for"? we have less than 6 months to find out what they** wished for. The bet is we will get just that. Then we will habituate to the new normal, and we will blame Brexshit and they will blame COVID and everyone will think they are correct.

**we should be obvious but who are they ? Fakebook & St Petersberg come into that equation IMNSHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 05:30 AM

Mr Red:
You're probably right about 'brinkmanship', but you wording suggest that you seem to think it is only being practised by the UK side of the negotiations.

Dave the Gnome:
Interesting to see that the original quote (whatever its unstated origin) mentions refugees and migrants . It seems someone at least accepts that not all those arriving are actually 'refugees'.

Maybe this time around we will see a discussion based more on facts than on suppositions. We can but hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 05:43 AM

As a partial answer to the usual question of why families are risking crossing the English Channel, this quote:

Though it is hard to grasp at first sight why any family would sleep in a wood rather than apply for asylum in France, the families and the charities who support them say the official accommodation centres are dirty, frightening and inappropriate for vulnerable families.
Armed police try to get families on to buses, tearing up tents. After a certain number of days families must apply to stay in France, and many do not want to do that.
One father told Fallowfield: “If the French would give us even basic support, I would go to the accommodation centre for my children’s sake. But they treat us like animals.”
Like other families here, he sees trying to reach the UK as his only option. “I have destroyed my life for my children to have a better future. I don’t want my kids to grow up where someone can brainwash them and make them kill for a living. Islamic State came to our country and that’s why I have come to this shit place. It’s the hardest job in the world being a parent.”
From The Guardian

So maybe they are still refugees, fleeing an oppressive regime. Do we really want to remain part of a Union with such a regime?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 06:06 AM

Firstly, of course I have no objection to copying my post as an introduction to this thread.

I find it a bit of a stretch to imagine many people voting to leave because they were dismayed of what was happening to refugees and migrants in France and thought we should be treating them here and better. So that seems to be rather beside the original issue, which was the loss of the right to send such people who get to the UK back to the EU countries. Even last night on Newsnight one of the Conservative MPs for an area in Kent - I forget which - was stressing the importance of the Dublin Agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 06:43 AM

I am happy to have facts quoted and sources credited, Nigel. Let us hope semantics do not enter into the argument when meanings are obvious either. I'm not sure how your quote from the Guardian answers anything though. After the end of this year we will have no right to send anyone entering this country illegally back to their country of EU entry. I think DMcG's point about this ruling being against what some leavers voted for is still valid.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 10:11 AM

So,if we can no longer return failed asylum seekers to France from 1 January, we will need to repatriate them to their homes, which is also an option. BBC: Failed asylum seekers
While this is more difficult than just returning them to France, it does stop them immediately re-joining the camps at Calais and trying again.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Mr Red
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 10:27 AM

but you wording suggest that you seem to think it is only being practised by the UK side of the negotiations.

Where in the UK might St Petersberg be?

they was deliberately vague but there is no doubt it refers to the politically oriented even if there is no nationality stated or (& I can be the authority on that point) ............ implied.
It has been inferred though. And other than my words, I am not in control of that.

There is no doubt that Europe has something to lose by not securing a deal. But the UK has more to lose. So playing my "life ain't binary" card, I am of the opinion that the brinkmanship is more irresponsible when the loss is the greater.

Change costs money, and this change will cost, and payback is ill-defined. Making deals at the last minute means dependent systems/infrastructure will be formulated in a hurry, and mistakes will be made. Which is why change costs more money. Which is why the UK has more to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 01:28 PM

Absolutely, Mr Red. I have nothing against change. Some of my best results in life have come though drastic change. But change for changes sake or, even worse, change when you have no idea what you are changing to is a nightmare.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:07 PM

we can repatriate failed asylum seekers. Which means after their case has been reviewed. This is unlike the Dublin Agreement under which we could send them to France immediately, I believe. We cannot return a successful asylum seeker who is recognised as a refugee, but again a number would have been returned to France and the decision taken there, leaving France to host the refugee.

So while we can indeed send failed asylum seekers home, the number remaining in the UK is likely to be higher if we do not get agreement in place. Which is of course why the UK government sought to have something similar to the Dublin Agreement accepted by the EU.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:51 PM

Which is of course why the UK government sought to have something similar to the Dublin Agreement accepted by the EU.
And which is why, while negotiations are ongoing, we do not know what will be needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 02:56 PM

Mr Red:
Where in the UK might St Petersberg be?

they was deliberately vague but there is no doubt it refers to the politically oriented even if there is no nationality stated or (& I can be the authority on that point) ............ implied.
It has been inferred though. And other than my words, I am not in control of that.

At the time you mentioned 'brinkmanship' St Petersburg (sp) hadn't been mentioned. Only those involved in the negotiations, UK & EU, can employ brinkmanship. St Petersburg is a non sequitur

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 04:47 PM

"So maybe they are still refugees, fleeing an oppressive regime. Do we really want to remain part of a Union with such a regime?"

I need to learn bow to do the italics.....

SO maybe if the racist little ****s in the UK were to make a serious and equal commitment to helping with refugee resettlement, countries that are doing far more than us like France and Germany would be under far less economic pressure.

also it is well documented that English is more widley spoken around the tight fisted to pay for French/German/Greek etc tuition for every person who may need to seek asylum in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 05:01 PM

also it is well documented that English is more widley spoken around the tight fisted to pay for French/German/Greek etc tuition for every person who may need to seek asylum in the future?
Any chance we can have that comment in English?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 06:54 PM

also it is well documented that English is more widely spoken around (the world than other European languages. I hope you are not too) tight fisted to pay for French/German/Greek etc tuition for every person who may need to seek asylum in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: The Sandman
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 03:16 AM

Why? round and round in circles yet another discussion that gets nowhere, entrenched opinions, what a waste of time, bring back Jim, his style of insult was not as imaginative as MGM, but it provided a relief from the ennui of the fellow with his fishing rod .

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 03:23 AM

It seems to me, Nigel, that you are trying too hard to dismiss this issue. There is only one reason why the UK tried to negotiate such a deal and that is that they see it as better than any of the alternatives. And that applies while the negotiations are ongoing.

You have been prepared in the past to accept their may be short term damage to the UK because of Brexit but that in the long term that is an acceptable cost to get the benefits*. I don't see why you can't say the same here: it is less than we wanted but in the long term we can absorb any disadvantages. Instead you seem to be suggesting it is not significant.

* With no estimate of the likelihood of that 'may' or hint of what 'short term' might be in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 04:57 AM

At the time you mentioned 'brinkmanship' St Petersburg (sp) hadn't been mentioned

We can all nitpick when we favour parts not the whole. Which, let's face it, is why we have Brexshit.

And external parties pushing propaganda via social media.
Who has the most to gain from a divided Europe?
Who has the effrontery to poison people in other countries?
Manipulating Fakebook barely registers on the poison scale.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 05:57 AM

St Petersburg is a non sequitur

Have you not seen the report on Russian involvement in British politics, including the Brexit debacle, Nigel? Your illustrious leader hushed it up before the election but it is out now.

Dick, up to now no one is insulting anyone. Apart from you. It is not necessary, it is counter productive and it gets threads closed. We can now, hopefully, have a serious discussion where people disagree but respect each other's views and have threads without the rancour that has plagued earlier attempts.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 06:40 AM

Good post, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 07:05 AM

I agree. I will not push the Dublin Agreement issues furthwr unless something changes. Those who wish have set out their views and that ahiykd be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 10:44 AM

Wow, what was that word supposed to be? 'should', believe it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Jos
Date: 23 Aug 20 - 04:18 PM

I'm getting the hang of these typos now - just look at the letters to the right or left on the keyboard. It gets confusing though when the 'words' include some correct letters. You just need to guess which ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 02:54 AM

I spotted it, Dave :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 03:17 AM

I'd being staying at a Premier Inn after visiting my children. My wife called out out that we need to leave for breakfast now to get to them, so "I'll just finish this post before we dash off"...


I do make far fewer typos when I use my laptop, but the phone is a bit of a disaster for them, I am afraid. And I rarely think my posts have enough merit to justify the sort of attention a thesis, job or application or report would get.


Meanwhile, back to Brexit. This comment from the EU that the negotiations are going backwards seems to have stirred some Brexiteers I read elsewhere into action.   They interpret it as saying what the EU wanted is not being achieved but the UK is holding firm and the EU is gradually realising it. Seems unlikely to me: the 'going backwards' phrase to me would be saying that things that had been agreed were not longer being agreed to. To what extent that is talking about things in the WA that the UK is trying to get out of, as opposed to things agreed in principle at the start of this batch of negotiations but no longer accepted is hard to tell. Certainly, there is plenty of the former.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 06:39 AM

Interesting remark in "The New European" from Alistair Campbell - I know, ad hominem away! - but I think it it true. It has been a long time since I heard this myself:


As for Brexit, even its high priests have given up singing its praises. I cannot for the life of me remember the last time I heard anyone saying how great it was going to be for the country. It has taken on the feel of a trip to the dentist, or filling in your tax form.

Just got to be done.


Your experiences may differ, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 07:09 AM

DMcG:
It seems to me, Nigel, that you are trying too hard to dismiss this issue. There is only one reason why the UK tried to negotiate such a deal and that is that they see it as better than any of the alternatives. And that applies while the negotiations are ongoing.
I am not dismissing the issue. But it is not as yet something which is 'set in stone'. Despite the initial post with an uncredited quote:
EU negotiators have rejected a British request for a migration pact that would allow the government to return asylum seekers to other European countries.
When the Brexit transition period expires on 31 December, the government will lose the right to transfer refugees and migrants to the EU country in which they arrived, a cornerstone of the European asylum system known as the Dublin regulation."

"The EU negotiators have dismissed". Yes, they've also dismissed the UK keeping its own (internationally agreed) fishing rights, and the UK have dismissed EU claims to UK fishing rights. This is all still under negotiation. To choose one particular 'dismissal' by EU as final is a poor starting point for any discussion.

And yes, I still accept that there will be costs to the UK of leaving the EU, but there would also be costs in remaining. I still believe the vote on leaving had the correct result.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 07:15 AM

Dave the Gnome
Have you not seen the report on Russian involvement in British politics, including the Brexit debacle, Nigel? Your illustrious leader hushed it up before the election but it is out now.

Yes, I saw reports on "Russian involvement in British politics". I did not see that it included (even in the Guardian) involvement in Brexit. In fact there were complaints that involvement in Brexit was excluded from the remit of the reports.
Perhaps you saw different reports.

Guardian:Russian intervention didn't sway the Brexit referendum – our rightwing press did

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 07:48 AM

And yes, I still accept that there will be costs to the UK

Last time we discussed this, Nigel, you objected to a use of 'will' and insisted on a 'may'. Has that changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 09:48 AM

It may be that I was responding to something more specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 10:02 AM

I could dig out the exact quotation, which was much longer ago than I thought (Jan 19!) but I am more interested whether you now think, whoever is responsible, that costs to the UK are (almost) inevitable. The Jan 19 post said you thought they may arise but would be worth it to achieve Brexit.

Also in the news: The EU and US have signed a trade deal (without needing to accept thes2 pesky chlorinated chickens!)

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Rain Dog
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 11:07 AM

Well I would think that most people would agree that there will be extra cost involved in the immediate future. Of course we will have to wait and see if the cost of leaving works out cheaper down the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 24 Aug 20 - 11:29 AM

Yes, Rain Dog, they do now. That doesn't mean they did before.

Of course, as soon as you admit costs, it is reasonable to expect some sort of cost benefit analysis, preferably with more depth than 'perhaps it will work out in the end.'

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 05:52 AM

DMcG
I could dig out the exact quotation, which was much longer ago than I thought (Jan 19!) but I am more interested whether you now think, whoever is responsible, that costs to the UK are (almost) inevitable. The Jan 19 post said you thought they may arise but would be worth it to achieve Brexit.
I hate to suggest that you haven't actually quoted me because I didn't insist, as claimed: that costs only 'may' occur. If I've found the same quote as you (27 Jan 2019) it says: "And I don't think I said "There will be some short term hardship". I think I accepted that there 'may' be, but that it was worth it to get out."   The 'possibility' of 'hardships' is different to the 'need' for 'costs'.

Also in the news: The EU and US have signed a trade deal (without needing to accept thes2 pesky chlorinated chickens!)
So much for the numerous arguments, made many times on these threads (by remainers) that such a deal would never be accepted by the US.

My full quote, in context, is here: Here

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:07 AM

We are trying to avoid arguments on this generation of the many threads, so I will simply say that if a cost is not a hardship, you are in a very fortunate position.

Let's move on!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:15 AM

A cost is certainly not the same thing as a hardship, and to try to conflate the two in order to get away with a misquote is misleading. Everyone has 'costs' every day, that does not mean that they are suffering from 'hardships'.
However, as you say, Let's move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 09:01 AM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 22 Aug 20 - 06:43 AM

I am happy to have facts quoted and sources credited, Nigel. Let us hope semantics do not enter into the argument when meanings are obvious either.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 04:53 PM

A very interesting piece by Brendan Donnelly Here. I wonder how the Leave-Brigade will dress up the impending shit-show to make it appear as a resounding success?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Aug 20 - 06:11 PM

For those who have not heard about it, worst case planning document was leaked to The Sun. Although other news sources have reported on this, it seems appropriate to link to The Sun's article.

Yes, it is a worst case planning document. But some.of the key risks- no trade deal and a second wave, for example - are not unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 02:34 AM

I wonder why these worse cases were not explained in 2016.

Well, not really.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:46 AM

Nigel. Going back to a point you made earlier. The report on Russian intervention did not include the Brexit referendum because it was told not to investigate that. So it doesn't mention Russian involvement in that not because there was none but because the government was embarrassed by it.

Howver, something else about the headline you reerence, "Russian intervention didn't sway the Brexit referendum – our rightwing press did", has been bothering me.

Are you really saying that the right wing press swaying the referendum is any better than the Russians doing it? The right wing press who are owned, in the main, by a dysfunctional Australian billionaire, a tax-exile Lord and a Russian family with close links to the KGB. These people have their own agenda and you can be sure that the welfare of the British people is not on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:58 AM

I think many of them were, but were dismissed as 'Project Fear'. The main difference this time is that it is the current government considering them, which is of course very much a "Leave" government.

How likely they are will vary. A shortage of some foodstuffs in December seems very likely to me, as we all remember the Great Pasta Shortage at the start of the virus outbreak. I can see that being repeated with a much wider set of foods fairly easily. Power cuts seem less likely to me.

===

I have been thinking a little about the fabled cliff edge, which has not been mentioned for some time. As with so much to do with Brexit, it is remarkably ill defined, so let me tell you how I think of it.

Let's start with the concept of a 'transition'. In the ideal world, we start with a known situation (for example set of rules and regulations) and a destination (with its spelled out set of rules and regulations.) During the transition, firms have, say, two years to implement the IT systems, carry out staff training and whatever so that at the end of the transition period they are ready to go under the new system.   The less time they have to do this - one year rather than two, say - the more difficult it is.   We are currently in the position that with four months to go, very little is known about the final state. Consequently, it is extremely difficult for anyone to have the appropriate IT, training and other preparation.

It turns out that whatever we have called it, we have not had a 'transition period', as few if any firms has had a chance to transition. We have simply had an extended negotiation period and called it a 'transition period'.

This to me is 'the cliff edge': it is not primarily economic. It is the need for firms to adapt to a substantially different way of working with little or no notice. An announcement on 31 December of the new rules that people have to follow from 1st Jan, or even with three months holiday from one side but not the other or whatever, is a cliff edge.

Trying to cope with such changes will almost certainly have significant economic effects, but they are consequences of the regulatory cliff edge.

Given we are still trying to negotiate a trade agreement, the regularity cliff edge is looking inevitable to me. Others may, of course, disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:33 AM

”Given we are still trying to negotiate a trade agreement, the regularity cliff edge is looking inevitable to me. Others may, of course, disagree.”

And, without doubt, they will disagree - having voted for Christmas, the turkeys are very unlikely to want to face the fact that, in the near future, their silly, easily-led heads will be separated from their Union-Flag-bedecked bodies (metaphorically speaking, of course!).

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:45 AM

From DMcG:
For those who have not heard about it, worst case planning document was leaked to The Sun. Although other news sources have reported on this, it seems appropriate to link to The Sun's article.
Yes, it is a worst case planning document. But some of the key risks- no trade deal and a second wave, for example - are not unlikely.

Immediately followed by Dave the Gnome:
I wonder why these worse cases were not explained in 2016.

Possibly because they weren't understood at the time, particularly the risk of a second wave of Coronavirus when we hadn't had a first wave. To what extent may that second wave exacerbate any possible problems at borders, how could that have been foretold?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 04:53 AM

Dave the Gnome:
Nigel. Going back to a point you made earlier. The report on Russian intervention did not include the Brexit referendum because it was told not to investigate that. So it doesn't mention Russian involvement in that not because there was none but because the government was embarrassed by it.
My post was a direct response to your claim that the report had detailed involement in Brexit.
"Have you not seen the report on Russian involvement in British politics, including the Brexit debacle, Nigel? Your illustrious leader hushed it up before the election but it is out now". Which you now appear to accept that it didn't.

However, something else about the headline you reference, "Russian intervention didn't sway the Brexit referendum – our rightwing press did", has been bothering me.

Are you really saying that the right wing press swaying the referendum is any better than the Russians doing it?
No, I am not making that claim, I was just emphasising that the left wing press had already accepted that the report did not include Brexit.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 05:51 AM

Nigel, accepted that the report did not include Brexit does not mean that there was no Russian involvement. The government hushed it up so, going back to my original point, it does seem that there was Russian involvement in the Brexit debacle. Your attempt at derailing the issue is blatant and will not work.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:10 PM

I agree the risks due to the near simultaneous end of transition and the virus could not have been foretold specifically in 2016. There was, of course, a more generalised concern about a pandemic, but obviously at a much lower probability.

On the other hand the presentation is dated June and it was the 13th of July that Gove formally announced the transition would end in January 2021. So this government consciously accepted all the risks that have been outlined. A risk is not a certainty, of course, but the increased risk is a deliberate choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Aug 20 - 03:42 PM

Scrap that, sorry. The document is labelled July, not June. So we cannot be certain whether the government saw the document and then announced the end of transition, or the other way around.   If it is the other way round, though, it would seem rather lackadaisical to make an announcement and then only get a presentation on the consequences sometime over the next two weeks.