Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Victorian]

"... win two world wars... ".

 

A sane version is of course "... on the winning side in two world wars... ".

 

Big difference.     

[Mikey1874]

There is some interesting research that has just been done focusing on low income voters suggesting Election might NOT be decided on Brexit. 

 

Could be bad news for Boris' strategy. 

 

 

[Footballfirst]

I can see Boris dropping any pretence of trying to get a deal over the next two or three days.

 

That would then invoke the problem for him of the Benn act.

 

Could he argue after the next EU summit that he does have an agreed position with the EU that the UK will leave on 31 October with a promise to engage in detailed discussions about the future relationship thereafter. Effectively a "No deal - Deal", that does not require him to request an extension, perhaps?  

Edited October 8, 2019 by Footballfirst

[N Lincs Jambo]

On 02/10/2019 at 08:30, Brighton Jambo said:

Don’t ask me a question then answer it.  No that’s not my definition at all.  Anti semitism is a prejudice against Jewish people, it is language and views that discriminate against them and perpetuates long held stereotypes of them and their role in the world.  

 

Amazing how how many people are willing to defend and deny something so disgusting.

 

The bit in bold. When I went to uni IN 1981, one of my first friends was a young Arab guy called Salim. He was Palestinian but travelled on a Jordanian Passport due to Palestine no longer existing. He was actually Christian not that that matters much. I asked him as we had become good friends if he was "anti-semitic". He replied, " How can I be anti-semitic? The Palestinians are a Semitic people!" I can assure you he was Semitic and not Jewish.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

The bit in bold. When I went to uni IN 1981, one of my first friends was a young Arab guy called Salim. He was Palestinian but travelled on a Jordanian Passport due to Palestine no longer existing. He was actually Christian not that that matters much. I asked him as we had become good friends if he was "anti-semitic". He replied, " How can I be anti-semitic? The Palestinians are a Semitic people!" I can assure you he was Semitic and not Jewish.

You're being pedantic. Most people use the word Semite to refer to Jews. I know it's not technically the correct usage but its what people mean.

[N Lincs Jambo]

12 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

You're being pedantic. Most people use the word Semite to refer to Jews. I know it's not technically the correct usage but its what people mean.

 

Sorry, I'm not being pedantic at all. I'm referring to the correct usage of the term. It has become a lazy habit just to accept the term as being anti-Jewish. If that's what "most people use the word" to refer to then they need to be educated as to its real meaning, not just accept at face value an utterly false definition of the term.

[ri Alban]

21 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Sorry, I'm not being pedantic at all. I'm referring to the correct usage of the term. It has become a lazy habit just to accept the term as being anti-Jewish. If that's what "most people use the word" to refer to then they need to be educated as to its real meaning, not just accept at face value an utterly false definition of the term.

Well said!

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Sorry, I'm not being pedantic at all. I'm referring to the correct usage of the term. It has become a lazy habit just to accept the term as being anti-Jewish. If that's what "most people use the word" to refer to then they need to be educated as to its real meaning, not just accept at face value an utterly false definition of the term.

 

 I'm not saying you are wrong on this specific case but it's not always as simple as that. Words and their meanings evolve, that's language. It's not always a case that the original meaning trumps all. You could easily argue the ultimate decider of what is or isn't the right definition comes down to what people believe it means, not it's original meaning.

 

You'd be pissing against the wind for example trying to convince people you meant you're simply happy rather than attracted to the same sex if you said you were feeling gay.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 I'm not saying you are wrong on this specific case but it's not always as simple as that. Words and their meanings evolve, that's language. It's not always a case that the original meaning trumps all. You could easily argue the ultimate decider of what is or isn't the right definition comes down to what people believe it means, not it's original meaning.

 

You'd be pissing against the wind for example trying to convince people you meant you're simply happy rather than attracted to the same sex if you said you were feeling gay.

Lack of knowledge, isn't the same as a word with multiple meanings.

[coconut doug]

7 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

 I'm not saying you are wrong on this specific case but it's not always as simple as that. Words and their meanings evolve, that's language. It's not always a case that the original meaning trumps all. You could easily argue the ultimate decider of what is or isn't the right definition comes down to what people believe it means, not it's original meaning.

 

You'd be pissing against the wind for example trying to convince people you meant you're simply happy rather than attracted to the same sex if you said you were feeling gay.

 

N Lincs is absolutely correct.. Most Palestinians are Semitic whilst most of the Jews living in Israel or elsewhere are not. You cannot be anti-Semitic just because you support the Palestinian cause, if anything you are more likely to be prosemitic. I do understand and agree with you point re the meaning of words but you might think that those discriminated against in this way i.e. Jews might want clarity since they have gone to great lengths to define antisemitism in the widest sense. The fact they haven't done thisAfaik makes me think they have a reason for persisting with the current term. Anti Jewish is surely a better term.

[Footballfirst]

Latest from the Court of Session

 

Severin Carrell, Esq@severincarrell

Carloway says the court will resume hearing on Monday 21 October to issue urgent ruling vs @BorisJohnson  if needed - court holding a loaded pen at Johnson’s head

[AlphonseCapone]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Lack of knowledge, isn't the same as a word with multiple meanings.

 

Also isn't what I said.

 

Do yourself a favour and have a wee read;

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/61876/11-words-meanings-have-changed-drastically-over-time

[AlphonseCapone]

50 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

N Lincs is absolutely correct.. Most Palestinians are Semitic whilst most of the Jews living in Israel or elsewhere are not. You cannot be anti-Semitic just because you support the Palestinian cause, if anything you are more likely to be prosemitic. I do understand and agree with you point re the meaning of words but you might think that those discriminated against in this way i.e. Jews might want clarity since they have gone to great lengths to define antisemitism in the widest sense. The fact they haven't done thisAfaik makes me think they have a reason for persisting with the current term. Anti Jewish is surely a better term.

 

I'm not disputing any of that. My point wasn't about the anti-Semitic/Palestinian point specifically, more the general point made about the original use of language.

[dobmisterdobster]

11 hours ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Sorry, I'm not being pedantic at all. I'm referring to the correct usage of the term. It has become a lazy habit just to accept the term as being anti-Jewish. If that's what "most people use the word" to refer to then they need to be educated as to its real meaning, not just accept at face value an utterly false definition of the term.

It's like saying "I can't be racist against Muslims because they aren't a race."

 

Technically true but it's a dog whistle in practice.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I'm not disputing any of that. My point wasn't about the anti-Semitic/Palestinian point specifically, more the general point made about the original use of language.

 

In the 80s a billion was a million million, but we've changed to match the American definition of a thousand million. Private schools were the ones the state provided and public schools were the ones you had to pay for, that's swapped over now. 

 

Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say anti-semitism because that's what the term's come to mean, arguing semantics isn't helpful at all.

[N Lincs Jambo]

35 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

It's like saying "I can't be racist against Muslims because they aren't a race."

 

Technically true but it's a dog whistle in practice.

 

Sorry but it's nothing like that at all. Semites are a race. They include people from the states of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon etc. Some but not all Jews are semites. Some but not all Muslims are semites. the same for Christians. There are even some semites who follow no religion.

 

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc are all religions. A religion is a belief system not a race. Personally I am not racist against any race. As someone who equates ALL religions as being akin to the tooth fairy, by definition I could be described as being against ALL religions. Does that make me racist against any particular race just because a good proportion of that race may accept and follow a particular belief system? I don't think so.

 

The reason why it is important to explain why Palestinians are actually a Semitic people should be obvious. The MSM in particular like to equate any support for the Palestinian cause as being anti-semitic (which  by definition it can't be). They can then make the leap from there to a position where so and so is anti Jewish, therefore against the state of Israel. From there it doesn't take a huge leap to equate someone with the Nazis. This is why it is dangerous and this is why it needs to be explained and exposed for what it is.

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Sorry but it's nothing like that at all. Semites are a race. They include people from the states of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon etc. Some but not all Jews are semites. Some but not all Muslims are semites. the same for Christians. There are even some semites who follow no religion.

 

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc are all religions. A religion is a belief system not a race. Personally I am not racist against any race. As someone who equates ALL religions as being akin to the tooth fairy, by definition I could be described as being against ALL religions. Does that make me racist against any particular race just because a good proportion of that race may accept and follow a particular belief system? I don't think so.

 

The reason why it is important to explain why Palestinians are actually a Semitic people should be obvious. The MSM in particular like to equate any support for the Palestinian cause as being anti-semitic (which  by definition it can't be). They can then make the leap from there to a position where so and so is anti Jewish, therefore against the state of Israel. From there it doesn't take a huge leap to equate someone with the Nazis. This is why it is dangerous and this is why it needs to be explained and exposed for what it is.

 

If we're going to be all technically correct on this the semites aren't a race mate, they're the various peoples that speak the semitic languages as classified in the 18th century. 

[coconut doug]

7 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Sorry but it's nothing like that at all. Semites are a race. They include people from the states of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon etc. Some but not all Jews are semites. Some but not all Muslims are semites. the same for Christians. There are even some semites who follow no religion.

 

Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc are all religions. A religion is a belief system not a race. Personally I am not racist against any race. As someone who equates ALL religions as being akin to the tooth fairy, by definition I could be described as being against ALL religions. Does that make me racist against any particular race just because a good proportion of that race may accept and follow a particular belief system? I don't think so.

 

The reason why it is important to explain why Palestinians are actually a Semitic people should be obvious. The MSM in particular like to equate any support for the Palestinian cause as being anti-semitic (which  by definition it can't be). They can then make the leap from there to a position where so and so is anti Jewish, therefore against the state of Israel. From there it doesn't take a huge leap to equate someone with the Nazis. This is why it is dangerous and this is why it needs to be explained and exposed for what it is.

 

I totally agree but is it not the case that Jews are not only adherents to judaism but also part of the Jewish race whilst also being semitic. Suggestions to the contrary are anti - semitic according to some definitions i believe. Quite a complicated area to get involved in and the last thing you want to be accused of is anti-semitism. Better not to get involved if you don't want to be labeled a Nazi.

[N Lincs Jambo]

25 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

If we're going to be all technically correct on this the semites aren't a race mate, they're the various peoples that speak the semitic languages as classified in the 18th century. 

 

Also first classified as a race in the 18th century by scholars at the Goettingen School of History at Goettingen University. I accept your point about them also being peoples who spoke the various semitic languages.

[N Lincs Jambo]

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I totally agree but is it not the case that Jews are not only adherents to judaism but also part of the Jewish race whilst also being semitic. Suggestions to the contrary are anti - semitic according to some definitions i believe. Quite a complicated area to get involved in and the last thing you want to be accused of is anti-semitism. Better not to get involved if you don't want to be labeled a Nazi.

 

I'm quite sure I won't end up getting labelled a Nazi Doug. My point was and remains (and this goes back quite a bit in the thread) that showing support for anything to do with the Palestinian cause (which I don't btw) can't be anti-semitic. 

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Also first classified as a race in the 18th century by scholars at the Goettingen School of History at Goettingen University. I accept your point about them also being peoples who spoke the various semitic languages.

 

It's messy, racially the same institute later decided these peoples were all simply caucasian, but it's never stopped meaning the peoples who speak the semitic languages.

When you look up semitic race, one of the first words in the description is "was" - its not a current understanding if the word. 

 

But this all highlights what a confused and vague picture we're debating, and how pointless it is because there's so much grey that can be read different ways. 

The fact is, when people say anti- semitic it's clear what they're talking about, to the extent that the dictionary definition now specifically says it's aimed at Jews.

[BigCGilmour]

Is this still the brexit thread

[RobboM]

56 minutes ago, BigCGilmour said:

Is this still the brexit thread

Isn't it all sorted yet? 😂

For anyone interested in an absorbing, authoritative and in depth look at the Brexit process/debacle (at least up the rejection of the May Withdrawal Agreement) I came across these blog posts. If at the end of it you're not in depair at the ignorance, indecision and incompetence of our glorious leaders then I have some magic beans you may be interested investing in .....

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/18/brexit-part-one/content.html
 

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/18/brexit-part-2/content.html

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/19/brexit-day-part-3/content.html

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/19/brexit-part-4/content.html

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/25/brexit-part-5/content.html

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/25/brexit-part-6/content.html

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2019/05/26/brexit-part-7/content.html

 

[Cade]

Courts delay decisions on whether to force Boris to ask for an extension delayed until after the EU summit.

Waiting to see if he actually breaks the law before forcing him to obey it.

 

#10 has been forced to make statements saying that he will obey the letter of the law.

 

Boris has also publicly said that any coming General Election will not be fought on a No Deal ticket (after a meeting with grass roots One Nation tories).

[Boof]

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Private schools were the ones the state provided and public schools were the ones you had to pay for, that's swapped over now. 

 

 

Without the slightest intention of being arsey...is it? I never knew - I've still been using the Eton etc = public school since...forever.

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

Without the slightest intention of being arsey...is it? I never knew - I've still been using the Eton etc = public school since...forever.

 

In my experience anyway, I've noticed it a few times in the year and a half since I came back. Maybe it's not as widespread as I thought though, happy to withdraw the example if that's the case. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Hearding an ethnic group into a small area, depriving them of water, fuel and food at times, marginalising them  , and deliberate policies and legislation to dehumanise  of a people....Sounds familiar ? It should its happening every day in Gaza and Palestine.  And lets not get on to the almost daily murders of Palestinians....

[Cade]

Eton and other "public schools" were originally charities that let anybody attend, regardless of religion, occupation of the parents or home town.

In the 1868 Public Schools Act, the "big seven" of these (Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Charterhouse, Shrewsbury, Westminster and Winchester) were given the right to govern themselves instead of begin run by the Church, the Crown or the Government.

Being independent, they needed to support themselves.

The term "public" is now defined as "open to anybody from anywhere in the nation to attend as long as they can afford it".

They kept their charitable status, despite being profit led organisations.

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

On 03/10/2019 at 16:24, XB52 said:

For me, I lived beside a Palestinian family, who's parents  were thrown out of their homes at gunpoint by Zionist invaders and forced to live the rest of their lives in a concentration camp. I have a burning hatred for the apartheid regime of Israel, like I had for the apartheid regime of South Africa. 

Same here mate 

[Cade]

You know who really IS anti-semitic?

The Neo-Nazi in Germany who just killed two Jewish people, wounded many more and attempted to break into a Synagogue armed with petrol bombs, stun grenades, a shotgun and a rifle.

[XB52]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

You know who really IS anti-semitic?

The Neo-Nazi in Germany who just killed two Jewish people, wounded many more and attempted to break into a Synagogue armed with petrol bombs, stun grenades, a shotgun and a rifle.

Totally agree.  How many Semites have been killed by the Zionists in the last 70 years though??

[RobboM]

As iteresting as the Semite semantics and public/private school debate is ....

BREXIT (thread) MEANS BREXIT!

Back on topic 😉

Boris Johnson in Ireland for talks and "cautiously optimistic" about a deal No 10 said was "essentially impossible" just 2 days ago.

[I P Knightley]

On 09/10/2019 at 12:22, Smithee said:

 

In the 80s a billion was a million million, but we've changed to match the American definition of a thousand million. Private schools were the ones the state provided and public schools were the ones you had to pay for, that's swapped over now. 

 

Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say anti-semitism because that's what the term's come to mean, arguing semantics isn't helpful at all.

Anti-semantic post, imo.

[Brighton Jambo]

Just seen an article online that shows that an extensive poll of polls has remain well ahead and that it has been for some time 47-41 with the rest don’t know.

 

if no deal is avoided a general election will almost certainly lead to a hung parliament which should pave the way for a second referendum.  Vote looks like it will be remain so brexit cancelled.  Uk remains, this hugely undermines SNP calls for second referendum as then they would be campaigning to take Scotland out of EU having spent last three years wanting to remain.  

 

Everything stays as is we all breath a huge sigh of relief and go about our normal lives again.  

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

16 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Just seen an article online that shows that an extensive poll of polls has remain well ahead and that it has been for some time 47-41 with the rest don’t know.

 

if no deal is avoided a general election will almost certainly lead to a hung parliament which should pave the way for a second referendum.  Vote looks like it will be remain so brexit cancelled.  Uk remains, this hugely undermines SNP calls for second referendum as then they would be campaigning to take Scotland out of EU having spent last three years wanting to remain.  

 

Everything stays as is we all breath a huge sigh of relief and go about our normal lives again.  

 

 

One small fly in that ointment...

 

Boris!

 

Also, I think Brexit is just another piece of shit sticking to the whole Westmister shit stained blanket that folk in Scotland are sick of.

 

The tide has turned and staying in the EU after Boris kicks us round the place wont make that much of a difference to Independence.

 

Just my opinion of course.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Don Dan]

16 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Everything stays as is we all breath a huge sigh of relief and go about our normal lives again.  

 

That’s what I want. This nonsense has to stop as there’s no solution to this mess. 

[jamboy1982]

Just allow England and Wales to leave. Build a massive wall on the English/Scottish border. Any Scottish person that doesn’t want independence can move to England. Likewise any English folk that want to live in a beautiful forward thinking country can come live in Scotland. Job done. 

[Cade]

20 minutes ago, jamboy1982 said:

Just allow England and Wales to leave. Build a massive wall on the English/Scottish border. Any Scottish person that doesn’t want independence can move to England. Likewise any English folk that want to live in a beautiful forward thinking country can come live in Scotland. Job done. 

England&Wales ceding from the UK and leaving Scotland and NI as the remainder of the UK would solve everything.

Scotland and NI stay in the EU.

NI border ceases to be an issue.

England gets to take control of itself.

Wales continues to do whatever big brother tells it to do.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Just seen an article online that shows that an extensive poll of polls has remain well ahead and that it has been for some time 47-41 with the rest don’t know.

 

if no deal is avoided a general election will almost certainly lead to a hung parliament which should pave the way for a second referendum.  Vote looks like it will be remain so brexit cancelled.  Uk remains, this hugely undermines SNP calls for second referendum as then they would be campaigning to take Scotland out of EU having spent last three years wanting to remain.  

 

Everything stays as is we all breath a huge sigh of relief and go about our normal lives again.  

 

 

I'd be amazed if anyone in Scotland believed another word the English came out with.

[RobboM]

Leo Varadkar reported saying deal is possible by end of October .... who has folded?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Leo Varadkar reported saying deal is possible by end of October .... who has folded?

 

Talk on the TV that it might be to go for a free trade agreement here & now, that way the withdrawal agreement with the Irish backstop isn't needed.

It would give the negotiators at least another two years to sort it out.

 

Both sides seem quite positive, something does seem to have been agreed at the Johnson/Varadkar meeting today, whether anything substantive comes out of it, we'll just have to wait and see what transpires.

[RobboM]

10 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Talk on the TV that it might be to go for a free trade agreement here & now, that way the withdrawal agreement with the Irish backstop isn't needed.

It would give the negotiators at least another two years to sort it out.

 

Both sides seem quite positive, something does seem to have been agreed at the Johnson/Varadkar meeting today, whether anything substantive comes out of it, we'll just have to wait and see what transpires.

“I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods” – Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, 16th March 2018

[jake]

25 minutes ago, RobboM said:

“I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods” – Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, 16th March 2018

It will be interesting if this outcome is given to parliament to vote for.

Would the lib dems the snp vote against it.

41 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Talk on the TV that it might be to go for a free trade agreement here & now, that way the withdrawal agreement with the Irish backstop isn't needed.

It would give the negotiators at least another two years to sort it out.

 

Both sides seem quite positive, something does seem to have been agreed at the Johnson/Varadkar meeting today, whether anything substantive comes out of it, we'll just have to wait and see what transpires.

From my perspective I'd go for that.

Need to start the next step of leaving.

It's been disheartening as a leave voter .

I'm not getting too hopeful though.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

10 minutes ago, jake said:

It will be interesting if this outcome is given to parliament to vote for.

Would the lib dems the snp vote against it.

From my perspective I'd go for that.

Need to start the next step of leaving.

It's been disheartening as a leave voter .

I'm not getting too hopeful though.

 

 

And here.

It is what should have been getting discussed from day one, but the stupid UK government allowed the EU to set the agenda and discuss the withdrawal agreement first.  Didn't they realise that if a free trade agreement was agreed there would be no need for any Irish backstop, and everything which they have spent the last 2/3 years discussing could have been added into the FTA.

[dobmisterdobster]

16 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And here.

It is what should have been getting discussed from day one, but the stupid UK government allowed the EU to set the agenda and discuss the withdrawal agreement first.  Didn't they realise that if a free trade agreement was agreed there would be no need for any Irish backstop, and everything which they have spent the last 2/3 years discussing could have been added into the FTA.

You can thank Mother Theresa for that.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

You can thank Mother Theresa for that.

 

Indeed.

 

[Mysterion]

39 minutes ago, jake said:

It will be interesting if this outcome is given to parliament to vote for.

Would the lib dems the snp vote against it.

From my perspective I'd go for that.

Need to start the next step of leaving.

It's been disheartening as a leave voter .

I'm not getting too hopeful though.

 

 

Libs don't need to change their approach - would look weak. 

SNP will not change - the next Indie campaign is reliant on hammering home how Scotland was ignored and that the Unionists claimed individuals would lose their membership of the European Union. 

 

I can see a combo of Conservative and Labour voters agreeing to it. 

If a confirmatory referendum is held then I can see it being Revoke Article 50 vs Free Trade Deal (and FTD winning).

[Mysterion]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

“I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods” – Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, 16th March 2018

 

WORTH WATCHING THIS FOR THE BACKGROUND ON FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS...

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-46073360/brexit-basics-free-trade-agreements-explained

[jake]

28 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And here.

It is what should have been getting discussed from day one, but the stupid UK government allowed the EU to set the agenda and discuss the withdrawal agreement first.  Didn't they realise that if a free trade agreement was agreed there would be no need for any Irish backstop, and everything which they have spent the last 2/3 years discussing could have been added into the FTA.

Agree.

 

[RobboM]

Is this such a big step forward?
It's been proposed throughout the process BUT does not address what happens as UK "takes back control" to diverge in the regulations of the Single Market. “the single market is a set of rules and standards and is a shared jurisdiction. Its integrity
is non-negotiable, as is the autonomy of decisions of the 27. Either you’re in or you’re out.” UK's unique position is that, for now at least, there is no divergence. Who oversees that divergence, EU would insist on ECJ.