[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Huehuecoyotl]

Scotland has no waters. Nor does England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Only the UK. Understand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil

Note the "reality of the claim" section.

Did you even read the section you are linking people to? The very first part of it says:

Given that Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries

If Scotland were to leave the UK, it would become a sovereign state; ergo it would. It then follows after with:

and any claims Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom

This second part is only valid while Scotland is part of the UK. The implication is that once it becomes a sovereign state, those claims would no longer be "subsumed". Hell, most of the rest of the text of that section backs up the position of Scotland as having de facto ownership of those sea areas.

If you think that link helped your case, I'd advise you to think again.

[Twdft]

Yes, but that's generally for countries that already exist and might be trying to hash out who gets what. This is a case of a single country splitting into two, so it's by no means obvious that the UK would have to give up the parts of the North Sea closer to Scotland.


/sigh

1. The UK has jurisdiction over all UK waters (duh).
2. Parliament has decided that some of its waters will be run according to the Scottish legal system. Legally, there is nothing stopping Parliament from re-designating said waters as being under normal UK law, or Chinese law for that matter.
3. Does this mean that, if Scotland becomes independent, those waters automatically leave the UK & become Scottish waters?
4. No. There will have to be negotiations. The UK government could be generous or not, depending on how it thinks it could best serve the interests of the UK. If that means screwing an independent Scotland out of North Sea oil etc, I guess it sucks to be Scottish.

As mental gymnastics go I rate this a solid 10/10

[Teleros]

Correct while Scotland is not an independent country, but that isn't what we're talking about here.
International law is very clear in this.

Any evidence for this though?

If Scotland were to leave the UK, it would become a sovereign state; ergo it would.

And where does it say that the fact that Scotland would be able to make various claims means that the UK must automatically give up its own claims to the North Sea waters Parliament has for the present moment designated as being managed under Scottish law?

[Huehuecoyotl]

And where does it say that the fact that Scotland would be able to make various claims means that the UK must automatically give up its own claims to the North Sea waters Parliament has for the present moment designated as being managed under Scottish law?

Once Scotland leaves the UK, the seas surrounding Scotland would no longer be the seas surrounding the UK. Because Scotland wouldn't be part of the UK any more.

By this logic, would you expect the UK to have to give up the waters around the country because they used to belong to the EU?

Feel free to have a read here to see a bit more about the detail of how the law will work. Particularly relevant may well be the part about "exclusive economic zones up to 200 miles offshore".

[Teleros]

Once Scotland leaves the UK, the seas surrounding Scotland would no longer be the seas surrounding the UK. Because Scotland wouldn't be part of the UK any more.

Scotland might get up to the 12 mile limit or w/e it is without issue, but the North Sea oil fields are another matter. Those oil fields are right now the property of the UK as a whole, not Scotland, so Scottish independence would not automatically give the Scottish government that oil. Just because you CAN claim waters up to 200 miles away doesn't mean you automatically do so, or can claim and automatically win against another country. Just look at a map of all the North Sea EEZs as they exist ATM.

By this logic, would you expect the UK to have to give up the waters around the country because they used to belong to the EU?

No, because the UK was a sovereign country, at least legally, whilst in the EU. Apples to oranges.

Particularly relevant may well be the part about "exclusive economic zones up to 200 miles offshore".

Draw a line NNW from Berwick-upon-Tweed for 200 miles. It reaches up to the Orkey Islands. Now imagine everything east of that line as remaining under UK jurisdiction whilst the legally-brand-new country of Scotland gets the rest. Now compare this division of the North Sea to this map of oil deposits, and you begin to see how the 200 mile limit can be used by the UK to royally screw over an independent Scotland vis-a-vis North Sea oil.

Scottish Lawyer: We want our EEZ.
UK Lawyer: Sure, there's lots of Arctic Ocean you can claim.
SL: We mean in the North Sea.
UKL: Hmm. Well, how about we give up some of our EEZ for you. *Draws map to exclude 90%+ of all the oil fields*
SL: *Cries foul*
UKL: Sorry old bean, but my job is to protect the UK's rights, and you're not part of the UK any more. Still, I guess we can give you a bit more. We want to keep our nuclear subs in Scotland for starters, and then...

Bear in mind the UK can simultaneously be giving up all that Arctic sea north and west of Scotland without any fuss, and in addition can make the very reasonable claim that this situation is without precedent - when was the last time a single country with an extensive EEZ was divided in two? Sudan doesn't count given South Sudan has no coastline at all, so... time to set a precedent, and in a manner that countries concerned with secession will just love to back. Most, if not all, of the permanent Security Council members will like the idea for example. Finally, the UK can throw up all sorts of annoyances to win the argument - think NATO for example - and if it really wanted to be underhanded, could offer the Orkey & Shetland Islanders benefits if they remained in the UK instead of Scotland. Do that and you can entirely cut Scotland off from the North Sea beyond its own narrow strip of coastal waters. Point is, there's lots of possibilities for using access to the North Sea oil fields for Scotland as a great bargaining tool.

[LeGin Tufnel]

No, because the UK was a sovereign country

UK of GB & NI is a unitary sovereign state. It is comprised of four countries.

The UK of GB & NI is not and never has been a "sovereign country”, legally or otherwise.

Scotland is not a "region".

Your words, above, "Finally, the UK can throw up all sorts of annoyances to win the argument - think NATO for example - and if it really wanted to be underhanded, could offer the Orkey & Shetland Islanders benefits if they remained in the UK instead of Scotland." are a perfect illustration of the morally bankrupt Brexiteer mentality.

As a direct result of your vote, the UK of GB & NI will cease to exist. Own it. Wave your St George’s flag from the top of your mock Tudor house in Reigate / Boston / Stoke-on-Trent / insert shitty racist hellhole here.

Agreed. I strongly oppose the modern trend of neo-liberalism, that dying ideology, but at least under the EU there was a strong protection of freedom and civil rights. There were countless occasions during which British citizens could sue their local government before the EU court and the EU court more than often sided with the common man. Most likely this is part of why some of the Tories are so anti-EU, they can abuse the british people unopposedly now without having to worry about the EU court slapping them on their fingers for it..

Yes.

The Brexiteers claim on “sovereignty” is a red herring. It was used falsely as an excuse to exploit those who the EU protected from the worst excesses of the Tory, free-marketeer, right. But still, Teleros / Dribbles etc. continue to claim otherwise.

[Teleros]

UK of GB & NI is a unitary sovereign state. It is comprised of four countries.

The UK of GB & NI is not and never has been a "sovereign country”, legally or otherwise.

Scotland is not a "region".

Stop splitting hairs.

Your words, above, "Finally, the UK can throw up all sorts of annoyances to win the argument - think NATO for example - and if it really wanted to be underhanded, could offer the Orkey & Shetland Islanders benefits if they remained in the UK instead of Scotland." are a perfect illustration of the morally bankrupt Brexiteer mentality.

Uhm, what? The EU can - and if it's in it's interests, should, make the post-Brexit negotiations difficult for the UK. The EU's leaders have a moral duty to do so, in point of fact - above and beyond whatever humdrum, tawdry realpolitik is involved. Similarly, the leaders of an independent Scotland would be morally obliged to get the best possible deal for Scotland, and the leaders of the UK would be morally obliged to get the best possible deal for the UK. What you call "morally bankrupt" I call "moral duty to your country/constituents/etc".

Now, obviously, opinions vary as to what "best possible deal" would mean, particularly when comparing short to medium to long term interests, or economic to diplomatic ones, and so on. I'm not even attempting to say what best possible deal is, I'm only showing how the UK could screw Scotland over if it decided to do so.

If it makes you feel any better, I'd be quite happy to speculate on how the EU could try to do the same to the UK. Taxing non-EU financial services operating in the EU, anyone? Suspiciously specific tariffs on goods that just so happen to hurt the UK much more than anyone else? Screwing around with or even just threatening via press "leaks" the pensions & welfare etc of UK citizens living in the EU? The status of Gibraltar and/or the Falklands etc? All perfectly valid options as far as I'm concerned.

As a direct result of your vote, the UK of GB & NI will cease to exist. Own it.

I doubt it, but if so, okay.

The Brexiteers claim on “sovereignty” is a red herring. It was used falsely as an excuse to exploit those who the EU protected from the worst excesses of the Tory, free-marketeer, right. But still, Teleros / Dribbles etc. continue to claim otherwise.

Ah so you're one of those internet mind-readers. Good to know.

[dribbles]

The Brexiteers claim on “sovereignty” is a red herring. It was used falsely as an excuse to exploit those who the EU protected from the worst excesses of the Tory, free-marketeer, right. But still, Teleros / Dribbles etc. continue to claim otherwise.

This Scotland nonsense is a red herring and moot point even if the Scottish Nazi Party would have you believe otherwise. They are not getting another vote for 20 years, London won't allow it, remember that once in a generation restriction all sides agreed to?

As for connecting Tory exploitation and sovereignty via Brexit nice try, that's a bit of a desperate stretch but does reflect the awful position lefty remainers now find themselves in. You really have to hope, in a way akin to self harm and wish that Brexit messes the UK up so badly we crash and burn and are forced to go begging to the EU to be let back in. Who would seek to inflict such pain on one's self and their countrymen? Certainly no party or sane person who wants to be electable.

Doom and disaster a la project fear really is not going to happen Nigel, you can't point to one sign in evidence that it will and we are all set to mirror the same deal Australia uses very successfully to trade with the EU come December as the UK is truly unleashed, an unfettered global powerhouse shining as a beacon of light at the multiples of other EU wannabe free nations quietly considering their own exit.

You'll thank me and the other 17.4 million brexiteers soon for showing the way.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Draw a line NNW from Berwick-upon-Tweed for 200 miles. It reaches up to the Orkey Islands. Now imagine everything east of that line as remaining under UK jurisdiction whilst the legally-brand-new country of Scotland gets the rest. Now compare this division of the North Sea to this map of oil deposits, and you begin to see how the 200 mile limit can be used by the UK to royally screw over an independent Scotland vis-a-vis North Sea oil.

Scottish Lawyer: We want our EEZ.
UK Lawyer: Sure, there's lots of Arctic Ocean you can claim.
SL: We mean in the North Sea.
UKL: Hmm. Well, how about we give up some of our EEZ for you. *Draws map to exclude 90%+ of all the oil fields*
SL: *Cries foul*
UKL: Sorry old bean, but my job is to protect the UK's rights, and you're not part of the UK any more. Still, I guess we can give you a bit more. We want to keep our nuclear subs in Scotland for starters, and then...

Bear in mind the UK can simultaneously be giving up all that Arctic sea north and west of Scotland without any fuss, and in addition can make the very reasonable claim that this situation is without precedent - when was the last time a single country with an extensive EEZ was divided in two? Sudan doesn't count given South Sudan has no coastline at all, so... time to set a precedent, and in a manner that countries concerned with secession will just love to back. Most, if not all, of the permanent Security Council members will like the idea for example. Finally, the UK can throw up all sorts of annoyances to win the argument - think NATO for example - and if it really wanted to be underhanded, could offer the Orkey & Shetland Islanders benefits if they remained in the UK instead of Scotland. Do that and you can entirely cut Scotland off from the North Sea beyond its own narrow strip of coastal waters. Point is, there's lots of possibilities for using access to the North Sea oil fields for Scotland as a great bargaining tool.

Hmm. It almost sounds like you are saying that the stronger party in those sorts of negotiations is going to have the upper hand to get the best deal. Interesting.

Now, we were supposed to be discussing Brexit in this thread, weren't we? What's the next stage of that going to be? Oh yes, we're going to negotiate with a stronger party and get a really good deal.

So tell me again; do you believe it's better to be the stronger party in a negotiation, or the weaker one? Or do you just think it's best to be the UK regardless, and that things just magically work out from there?

- - - Updated - - -

wish that Brexit messes the UK up so badly we crash and burn and are forced to go begging to the EU to be let back in.

It isn't wishing dribbles. It's just an examination of the facts and coming to inevitable conclusions. We get to see how your wonderful Brexit works out in practice, and we get front row seats to the gigantic fuck-up it's going to be. Nowhere to hide now, you've got what you demanded and you can't hide from the repercussions. In a way this is the best outcome, because otherwise people like you would have carried on spitting bile and hatred from the sidelines while you moaned that your wonderful Brexit got denied. This way you own the results. What comes next is on you, and you can't say you weren't warned.

I'm going to enjoy linking your endless stream of posts detailing the various unicorns Brexit was going to bring over the next couple of years. While the country steadily gets just a little bit worse because we let a group of racists and idiots that made up barely 25% of the country decide our future. Maybe you will hold your hands up at some point and admit you were wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Crispin]

Geesh I'm glad that the shitshow that is UK politics, has left the EU, so we won't have do pay attention to it from now on.

I just hope they'll respect Scotlands wish for freedom and independence as much as they argued for their own, obviously I do not expect the brexiteers to have the decency to do so. It's obvious that the Scottish referendum with it's "Leave the UK and you'll leave the EU!!!" argument to stay in the UK, has been turned upside down.

- - - Updated - - -

come December as the UK is truly unleashed, an unfettered global powerhouse shining as a beacon of light at the multiples of other EU wannabe free nations quietly considering their own exit.

lol, reality is gonna hit you like a truck. Powerhouses are the US, the EU and China. The UK is like a toothless Russia.

[Fuiking]

Geesh I'm glad that the shitshow that is UK politics, has left the EU, so we won't have do pay attention to it from now on.

I just hope they'll respect Scotlands wish for freedom and independence as much as they argued for their own, obviously I do not expect the brexiteers to have the decency to do so. It's obvious that the Scottish referendum with it's "Leave the UK and you'll leave the EU!!!" argument to stay in the UK, has been turned upside down.

- - - Updated - - -



lol, reality is gonna hit you like a truck. Powerhouses are the US, the EU and China. The UK is like a toothless Russia.

Correction.. UK is like the Netherlands, same arrogance with no real power to speak off. They both think they still got there colonial empires.

[Gorsameth]

Correction.. UK is like the Netherlands, same arrogance with no real power to speak off. They both think they still got there colonial empires.

Really, the Netherlands eh, I'd love for you to back that one up.

[Tharasplat]

Ah so you're one of those internet mind-readers. Good to know.

There isn't much to read frankly. I know enough about you-you people threw the homeless, the disabled and the sick under a bus for some tabloid editor's fantasy of national self-determination. I really just want you to get cancer and die like the rest of you union jack waving little turds.

[Teleros]

Hmm. It almost sounds like you are saying that the stronger party in those sorts of negotiations is going to have the upper hand to get the best deal. Interesting.

Now, we were supposed to be discussing Brexit in this thread, weren't we? What's the next stage of that going to be? Oh yes, we're going to negotiate with a stronger party and get a really good deal.

What makes you think that the UK is that much weaker than the EU? Oh sure, if you just look at the raw numbers, eg population or GDP, yes the EU is clearly the stronger side. But it's not nearly that simple. The UK has an excellent defence industry, is growing well whereas the EU is more or less reliant on a tottering German economy, and wants a lot of stuff (eg financial services, fishing rights, tech sector stuff, access to our markets for German cars etc) from the UK. Remember, the EU-UK trade imbalance is in the UK's favour when it comes to negotiations: we cut off their access to our markets and they lose more than we do.

Still, putting all the details aside, what is the worst case scenario? A WTO deal? Oh no - the sky is falling ! Seriously, it wouldn't be that bad. Maybe not ideal - both sides would lose out on trade in such a scenario after all - but the fact that this would be the worst case scenario means that if the EU tries to put the screws on we can walk away & do much, much better than if we signed up to a bad deal.

I just hope they'll respect Scotlands wish for freedom and independence as much as they argued for their own

We did & they voted to stick around .

[Mayhem]

Remember, the EU-UK trade imbalance is in the UK's favour when it comes to negotiations: we cut off their access to our markets and they lose more than we do.

45% of your exports go to the EU.

I can't believe that you think you're having the upper hand in negotiations where you are the one who is about to lose half its customers.

Still, putting all the details aside, what is the worst case scenario? A WTO deal? Oh no - the sky is falling ! Seriously, it wouldn't be that bad. Maybe not ideal - both sides would lose out on trade in such a scenario after all - but the fact that this would be the worst case scenario means that if the EU tries to put the screws on we can walk away & do much, much better than if we signed up to a bad deal.

You don't know what a WTO deal is, explained by the fact that you call it a WTO deal.

We did & they voted to stick around .

They voted to stick around if the UK stays in the EU. Remember?

[Fardringham]

Still, putting all the details aside, what is the worst case scenario? A WTO deal? Oh no - the sky is falling ! Seriously, it wouldn't be that bad. Maybe not ideal - both sides would lose out on trade in such a scenario after all - but the fact that this would be the worst case scenario means that if the EU tries to put the screws on we can walk away & do much, much better than if we signed up to a bad deal.

OK genius perhaps you can explain us to how:

1. Tearing up 700 pages of legislation is a good thing.
2. How massively increasing the amount of paperwork for every import or export is a good thing.
3. How having no leverage in any negotiation with any one other than that of the UK is a good thing.
4. The massive depreciation in the value of our currency is a good thing.
5. How putting in charge a group of idiot public schoolboys who have never done anything other than burn £50 notes in the faces of the homeless, is a good thing.

I do not think you understand any of these things. I think you will continue to use vague language to describe a brexit magic land that is less plausible than my little pony world, like the tabloid newspapers who are clearly controlling your brain.

[Huehuecoyotl]

What makes you think that the UK is that much weaker than the EU? Oh sure, if you just look at the raw numbers, eg population or GDP, yes the EU is clearly the stronger side. But it's not nearly that simple. The UK has an excellent defence industry, is growing well whereas the EU is more or less reliant on a tottering German economy, and wants a lot of stuff (eg financial services, fishing rights, tech sector stuff, access to our markets for German cars etc) from the UK. Remember, the EU-UK trade imbalance is in the UK's favour when it comes to negotiations: we cut off their access to our markets and they lose more than we do.

Still, putting all the details aside, what is the worst case scenario? A WTO deal? Oh no - the sky is falling ! Seriously, it wouldn't be that bad. Maybe not ideal - both sides would lose out on trade in such a scenario after all - but the fact that this would be the worst case scenario means that if the EU tries to put the screws on we can walk away & do much, much better than if we signed up to a bad deal.

Over 3 years later and Brexit supporters are still sticking with the "but who will buy their Mercedes?" argument. Also packed into two paragraphs of questionable arguments are; a lack of understanding of WTO. A lack of understanding of how trade works (have you been listening to Trump on this matter?) and some pretty poor maths.

The EU represents 45% of our exports at the moment. We represent 8% of the EU exports. Which side will be better placed to cope with a complete and total cut-off of trade between those two entities? Especially bearing in mind that if we did actually do that, all our JIT industry would relocate quicker than you can say "oh look, another dead fucking unicorn".

But please, keep going. You are single-handedly confirming pretty much everything that has been said about Brexit supporters on this thread and beyond.

[Crispin]

We did & they voted to stick around .

With the “leave the UK and you’ll leave the EU” argument. Not valid anymore and Scotlands desire to self-determine if they want to be part of the EU, is more relevant than ever.

The WTO “deal” you speak of, is what 3rd world countries trade through, it’s the worst scenario. Also the idea that the loss of the UK will hurt the EU the most is laughable.

This week, Boris Johnson gets yelled at by Trump and Japan makes it clear that they want better terms in a trade deal with the UK than they got with the EU.

Desperation is not a position of power.

[Teleros]

45% of your exports go to the EU.

Yes, but the balance of trade is in our favour.

I can't believe that you think you're having the upper hand in negotiations where you are the one who is about to lose half its customers.

Never gonna happen. No deal = WTO rules take over.

They voted to stick around if the UK stays in the EU. Remember?

There was literally nothing about the EU in the referendum question. Or are you trying to imply Scots are too stupid not to see that they could vote to remain in the UK & then the UK could vote to leave?

= = =

1. Tearing up 700 pages of legislation is a good thing.

If it's EU legislation I can't see how it'd be a BAD thing to dump it .

2. How massively increasing the amount of paperwork for every import or export is a good thing.

Oh come on, you can do better than that. It could be an infinitely large increase in paperwork if there was none beforehand!

Seriously, we manage just fine with imports from outside the EU. I'm sure we'll cope with EU stuff too.

3. How having no leverage in any negotiation with any one other than that of the UK is a good thing.

Just not true?

4. The massive depreciation in the value of our currency is a good thing.

Helps exports, and probably only temporary anyway.

5. How putting in charge a group of idiot public schoolboys who have never done anything other than burn £50 notes in the faces of the homeless, is a good thing.

Because Cameron gave us the Brexit referendum .

like the tabloid newspapers who are clearly controlling your brain.

Beats the Grauniad any day ...

= = =

Over 3 years later and Brexit supporters are still sticking with the "but who will buy their Mercedes?" argument.

If it's a valid argument why drop it?

a lack of understanding of WTO

Uhm, the EU can under WTO rules slap a bunch of tariffs etc on us... which is what I've been talking about?

The EU represents 45% of our exports at the moment. We represent 8% of the EU exports. Which side will be better placed to cope with a complete and total cut-off of trade between those two entities?

We're talking about a no-deal scenario, not WW3.

= = =

With the “leave the UK and you’ll leave the EU” argument. Not valid anymore

Valid then though. Salmond made a big song and dance about it, so of course the pro-UK side would respond with "no, he's a lying sack of shit" because, well, he was.

The WTO “deal” you speak of, is what 3rd world countries trade through, it’s the worst scenario.

3rd world countries like the USA you mean? Or Japan, China et al?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/i.../eu-trade-map/

Also the idea that the loss of the UK will hurt the EU the most is laughable.

The balance of trade is in our favour. Therefore in absolute terms the EU will be hurt more. In proportional terms, no, but all the individual firms selling stuff to the UK won't care nearly as much about the big EU-vs-UK picture as about their own bottom line.

[Fuiking]

Really, the Netherlands eh, I'd love for you to back that one up.

Compare the Netherlands attitude/feelings pre ww1 with current one. Pre-ww1 (you might say up until EEC) the habit was to remain neutral, whilst being a voice of reason. They knew there place. Currently, under leadership of Rutte (Even before him), the goverment has been... pointing fingers at other countries (*1) and telling other nations what they should/must do. (lost some great posts due to that (*2)) You could claim this has nothing to do with arrogance and thinking they got a colonial empire still.

You would be right. But I think its more an issue of nationalism. A scared feeling from the goverment against the EU diversity, might have created a type of nationalism, which has found a way to leverage a certain revery towards the Dutch Golden Age. Resulting in a level of misguided arrogance towards others. (pointing fingers and telling others what they should do) It does not help when your PM has been a history teacher, with a certain scepticism towards the EU. The man actually claimed we had to return to our VoC mentality. That. Kind. Of. Attitude. Is. Arrogant. And extremely ignorant towards what the VoC, and its paymasters did. (*3)

Another factor I would say is being a founder of EEC and getting a number of prestigous posts might have made the Dutch Goverment think they had more influence and power then they actually should have. Maybe thinking that because they had a colonial empire once they were super important. Mind you, I strongly think this is more of a recent thing, perhaps from the last decade or so. (*4)

If you have a different viewpoint, or why you think im wrong, let me know. My viewpoints might be wrong, I might think im right, by virtue of sitting near the fire. (ie: Im dutch) But that tends to make one blind for whats near. and having another eye to see and set me straight is great.

By the way, the bracketed things are mostly extra tadbits/my personal opinions and my viewpoints of how I see things. I kept it as neutral as possible, specially point 1, and point 3. I could get banned if I'd go really deep into it. (specially *3). However if you feel im wrong, or want to unleash the beast, feel free to PM me. No reason to derail this thread too much.

[*1. A rather big habit I noticed, and one I find extremely frustrating, part of this ties with *2. They pointed fingers at Poland, Hungary, Eastern Europe, even France. And this Europe alone. Seen them point fingers at Israel. Fucking hypocritical in my eyes. (Remember Staten-Brabant! 300 years of occupied terrority)
*2. See 1. Timmermans was basically poised to become the President of the EU, but many many countries hate the Netherlands and Timmermans due to forementioned finger pointing, and hammering on austerity.
*3. Burn nutmeg trees, murder everyone, occupy Staats-Brabant and try to force to convert (admittely everyone did), tax that region like mad... for 300 years. And yes, im sour about that 300 years thing. And yes its probaly closer to 200 years. From the end of the 80 Years War - War of Dutch Independance, until Napoleon. After that, things did get better. Its not something I'd want to have myself associate with.
*4. I did not notice anything before that time, maybe it was there tho, but 10 years ago I didnt care about politics enough to notice anything.]