Brexit matters

[brad465]

I'm not sure I'd characterise what went on during 2018/19 leading up to December 2019 election as being a period "without a huge amount of opposition". It may not have been effective in the end at preventing a hard Brexit but it certainly was there and to pretend otherwise would be re-writing history.

It should also be noted, of course, that that large majority was only in terms of seats in Parliament not votes. A narrow majority of votes cast were for parties who were somewhere on a spectrum of Second Referendum or closer alignment than was on offer with Boris. I perfectly accept that by virtue of our electoral system Boris had all the mandate required to implement a hard Brexit but lets not kid ourselves that he was giving voice to the "Will Of The People" and had a large majority of popular support. The hard Brexit that has been delivered has always been a minority pursuit though it is of course convenient to try and pretend otherwise.

Yes a 52/48 margin is not a mandate for the most radical option whatsover. If the shoe was on the other foot, I think leave voters would have every right to be angry if a 52/48 result in favour of Remain resulted in us trying to join Schengen and/or the Eurozone.

 

[najaB]

I doubt many people are opposed to equal pay - I suspect you've made that one up.

There was massive opposition to the equal pay for agency workers regulations. I know this because I worked in the call-centre industry at the time and our agency staff were paid something like 20% less for doing the same work, and received none of the benefits and protections of direct employees.

I'm immediately distrustful of something that uses emotive language like 'disaster capitalist'

It's not emotive, it's a well-known and well used term in academia.

 

[class ep-09]

Why should that be a surprise? It makes perfect sense that someone who believes in the free market as the way to economic prosperity,

Prosperity of few , believing in “free market “ or prosperity of the entire country ?

and believes we are over-regulated, would consider the EU - with its mass or regulation - to be a hindrance to growth and prosperity and therefore be inclined to support Brexit. You don't need to invent underhand or corrupt motives to see that connection

If we were over regulated being in the EU , how would you call current level of additional and costly red tape ?
Is it helping to achieve the “prosperity” you write about ?

.



You seem to be making the usual mistake that so many on the 'progressive'/'remain' side make of assuming that people on the other side of the argument must have some foul motives, instead of accepting that *gasp* *shock* *horror* there are actually people who see the World in a different way from how you see it.

Are you trying to tell us that Farage’s motives were for the benefit of the country ?
Or Boris Johnson’s , who wrote 2 articles one for staying and other for leaving and only choose leaving one to please right wingers in his party to advance his careers.

As for the video you posted - I'm immediately distrustful of something that uses emotive language like 'disaster capitalist' and looks rather like propaganda, so I'm somewhat disinclined to watch the whole thing (I did flick through a few moments). If that video does actually provide some hard evidence that most prominent Brexit supporters were motivated by something corrupt or underhand, then perhaps you could point it out?

Just read that summary , it may help , what disaster capitalism is and how a handful of brexit prominent supporters made tons of cash :

Deregulation and standards after Brexit – what Naomi Klein’s ‘disaster capitalism’ can tell us | City, University of London

By Daniel Fisher, PhD Research Candidate, Cass Business School.

www.city.ac.uk

 

[SynthD]

Negotiation was attempted but, with the 'european project' goals and majority voting systems in place this was simply not going to run. It was either 'put up' or leave

Article 50 was added by request. Some countries voted no in referendums on adopting treaties (three on Lisbon alone), prompting changes. Cameron asked for more before the Brexit vote and was given all he asked for.

 

[RT4038]

In 2019, when polls showed enough people had changed their minds to swing the balance of opinion against Brexit, trying to stop it led to vilification as an "enemy of the people".

It was hardly going to be 'Queensberry Rules' and Remain needed to give as good as they got. Which they rather fell down upon, I feel. As to why the Brexiteers were fighting so hard .....

You haven't defined what the "strings" are that you refer to, and others might give a different answer when asked the same question.

There will always be some extreme fringe people (on both left and right) hanging on to for their own reasons, but most likely it will be to do with money and wealth, both with opportunities in making it, and existing being threatened. Make of that what you will, but I would discount the more fanciful conspiracy theories - the answer will be somewhere around creeping EU regulation and enforcement (both real, proposed and imagined), with reducing UK influence due to majority voting, accession countries and perhaps shifting hegemony in undesirable directions. Cut the strings and the UK can go its own path, even if that is likely to be close to Europe but without quite the threat, undertones or the compulsion.

 

[DC1989]

The issue remains that everything we were promised hasn't happened. That's the long and short of it and therefore Brexit can only be seen as a complete and utter failure.

Has it made a huge difference to our economy? Probably not much seeing as pretty much all of europe is stagnant. (See the cheering articles yesterday about 0.2% growth! Meanwhile USA 3.2%)

But you can't promise the moon on a stick and be upset when that doesn't happen

 

[edwin_m]

It was hardly going to be 'Queensberry Rules' and Remain needed to give as good as they got. Which they rather fell down upon, I feel. As to why the Brexiteers were fighting so hard .....

Certainly the Remain campaign was feeble, which is one reason Cameron and Osborne bears a big slice of the responsibility for this situation even though they didn't want it. But they feared spliting the Tory party by being more forceful. That turned out well didn't it...

But there's a difference between making your

There will always be some extreme fringe people (on both left and right) hanging on to for their own reasons, but most likely it will be to do with money and wealth, both with opportunities in making it, and existing being threatened. Make of that what you will, but I would discount the more fanciful conspiracy theories - the answer will be somewhere around creeping EU regulation and enforcement (both real, proposed and imagined), with reducing UK influence due to majority voting, accession countries and perhaps shifting hegemony in undesirable directions. Cut the strings and the UK can go its own path, even if that is likely to be close to Europe but without quite the threat, undertones or the compulsion.

Clearly this hasn't been an opportunity for the country as a whole, given the economic downsides which some Brexiters now suggest was the price of "taking back control", though they kept quiet about it at the time. We still have to follow most of the EU rules to trade in their market. We have gone from a position of having at least as much influence as any other member to having no formal influence informal influence needing repair after the damage caused to relationships in the Johnson years. All this was pretty foreseeable at the time of the referendum, with the possible exception of the damage caused by UK government behaviour over the NI protocol and general anti-EU rhetoric.

So if there was no prospect of general economic benefit to the UK, the foreseen benefit must have been to the narrow interests of the individuals who were pushing the idea.

 

[SynthD]

the UK can go its own path

How? The only answer I've heard from brexiteers is trade deals. That has failed to produce a better deal, it's often failed to produce a deal at all. The magic solution once was to transform the country away from trading with the EU countries, which was stopped by Tory donors. Meanwhile, market forces do require us to follow EU regulations. The free market doesn't respect wishes to be different without pain. The idea that we can was promoted by people who ran off when the media feebly grovelled for how this would happen. Gove may be the only one left from that period, and he was probably saved by being backstabbed by Johnson.

Remain needed to give as good as they got.

Remain was rightly concerned with fighting illegal with legal, and even then suffered well promoted false claims of impropriety.

 

[SteveM70]

There will always be some extreme fringe people (on both left and right) hanging on to for their own reasons, but most likely it will be to do with money and wealth, both with opportunities in making it, and existing being threatened. Make of that what you will, but I would discount the more fanciful conspiracy theories - the answer will be somewhere around creeping EU regulation and enforcement (both real, proposed and imagined), with reducing UK influence due to majority voting, accession countries and perhaps shifting hegemony in undesirable directions. Cut the strings and the UK can go its own path, even if that is likely to be close to Europe but without quite the threat, undertones or the compulsion

Now, I'm not saying that the sudden surge in the proportion of the population saying the EU is one of the biggest issues facing the country was because all those people would have been directly affected but it would certainly explain why certain small groups of people began agitating and campaigning

 

[DynamicSpirit]

View attachment 154213

Now, I'm not saying that the sudden surge in the proportion of the population saying the EU is one of the biggest issues facing the country was because all those people would have been directly affected but it would certainly explain why certain small groups of people began agitating and campaigning

Eh? That makes no sense. The graph shows concern about the EU amongst the population dramatically rising from the beginning of 2016 (coinciding with the referendum) and we know that the referendum was in part the result of Brexiters having already been campaigning for one for many years. Yet you're apparently claiming that's all because of an EU tax reform that - according to the graph - wasn't even announced until 2019! Seriously???? Do you imagine the prominent Brexiters had a time machine or something?

Why not just accept that lots of people were in principle opposed to the EU because of various sincerely held beliefs (for example being against over-regulation, or being strongly in favour of laws being decided at nation-state level, etc.). Why the constant need to keep trying to invent underhand motives by Brexiters? This kind of thing is really starting to get boring

 

[edwin_m]

View attachment 154213

Now, I'm not saying that the sudden surge in the proportion of the population saying the EU is one of the biggest issues facing the country was because all those people would have been directly affected but it would certainly explain why certain small groups of people began agitating and campaigning

Not sure what you're saying here, but I'd point out:
- The annotation on the graph appears to have been added later. Visual search shows it with and without. The search doesn't find it on the Economist website but I'm assuming the annotation doesn't come from the Economist.
- It's pretty obvious a lot of Britons would see the EU as important in the years after 2016, far more than might be influenced positively or negatively by a tax avoidance reform. It was literally dominating our political discourse.

I suggest you provide a link to your source and let us know what point you are actually trying to make.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There was massive opposition to the equal pay for agency workers regulations. I know this because I worked in the call-centre industry at the time and our agency staff were paid something like 20% less for doing the same work, and received none of the benefits and protections of direct employees.

Ah sorry, I assumed by 'equal pay' you meant, equal pay for men and women (which is what in my experience the term usually means). Although having said that, I did a bit of Googling and I can't find any references to the EU trying to regulate equal pay for direct employees vs agency staff. All the EU equal pay stuff I can find refers to equal pay between genders. I can imagine that, unfair though situations like you describe in your office would seem, trying to enforce agency vs direct equal pay would be a bureaucratic nightmare - I can imagine why, if the EU was proposing to do that, many businesses would be strongly opposed.

 

[najaB]

Although having said that, I did a bit of Googling and I can't find any references to the EU trying to regulate equal pay for direct employees vs agency staff.

All I can say is that your Google skills need some work. This took less than 30 seconds to find: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/equal-treatment-of-temporary-agency-workers.html

I can imagine that, unfair though situations like you describe in your office would seem, trying to enforce agency vs direct equal pay would be a bureaucratic nightmare - I can imagine why, if the EU was proposing to do that, many businesses would be strongly opposed.

It actually turned out to be incredibly easy once it was incorporated into UK law. Agency workers are entitled to the same pay as directly-employed staff after 12 weeks.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

All I can say is that your Google skills need some work. This took less than 30 seconds to find: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/equal-treatment-of-temporary-agency-workers.html

Thanks

It actually turned out to be incredibly easy once it was incorporated into UK law. Agency workers are entitled to the same pay as directly-employed staff after 12 weeks.

Yes, passing it was probably easy, but I can imagine the long term impact being questionable, to say the least. Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons why a company might consider an agency worker to be worth a lower salary than a direct employee: Firstly, the agency worker is likely to be temporary, which means they are less likely to build up company loyalty and a good understanding of company procedures etc. (somewhat mitigated by equal pay only being required after 12 weeks), and secondly, the agency worker is going to be more expensive if the company also has to pay the agency a proportion of the salary as a fee. If they are forced to pay an equal salary to someone who - in purely business terms - is not worth the equal salary, that's an additional expense/inefficiency/bureaucratic hurdle for the business to worry about and you can expect that's not exactly going to help the business, or its customers. I would say this is a typical case of, well intentioned over-regulation that in the long run will probably do more harm than good.

 

[RT4038]

Thanks



Yes, passing it was probably easy, but I can imagine the long term impact being questionable, to say the least. Off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons why a company might consider an agency worker to be worth a lower salary than a direct employee: Firstly, the agency worker is likely to be temporary, which means they are less likely to build up company loyalty and a good understanding of company procedures etc. (somewhat mitigated by equal pay only being required after 12 weeks), and secondly, the agency worker is going to be more expensive if the company also has to pay the agency a proportion of the salary as a fee. If they are forced to pay an equal salary to someone who - in purely business terms - is not worth the equal salary, that's an additional expense/inefficiency/bureaucratic hurdle for the business to worry about and you can expect that's not exactly going to help the business, or its consumers. I would say this is a typical case of, well intentioned over-regulation that in the long run will probably do more harm than good.

There has to be a line drawn between exigency and exploitation. We can argue whether 12 weeks is exactly the right place or not, but it seems reasonable to be deciding whether to take on or not? If a company really needs to get around the rules, they can presumably get a different agency with different staff after that time......

 

[najaB]

Firstly, the agency worker is likely to be temporary, which means they are less likely to build up company loyalty and a good understanding of company procedures etc.

Many of our agency workers had been in their jobs for five plus years.

secondly, the agency worker is going to be more expensive if the company also has to pay the agency a proportion of the salary as a fee.

Which points to the whole reason why they used agency workers - simply because they could pay them less. Once it became as expensive (or more) to have them as agency, a whole lot of permanent contracts suddenly became available.

 

[GusB]

Firstly, the agency worker is likely to be temporary, which means they are less likely to build up company loyalty and a good understanding of company procedures etc.

Not in my experience. During my time at BT I was actually employed by an agency, as were many of my colleagues who had been there far longer than me. The training was the same and we were expected to be up to standard in the same timescale as internal staff who were being paid significantly more for doing the same job. In some ways we had to perform better, because it was very easy to get rid of us.

 

[najaB]

In some ways we had to perform better, because it was very easy to get rid of us.

Indeed. A permanent staff member had to go through a consultation process, and be given the opportunity to move to a new role, and got severance pay in case of redundancy, etc. A Manpower person could just be told on Friday not to show up on Monday.

 

[edwin_m]

It's understandable that a company might be willing to pay an agency* more than they would pay an employee if it's a short term need. Getting staff via an agency is likely to be quicker than recruiting, and when the worker is no longer needed there will be no redundancy, the agency is responsible for finding them work elsewhere. But when it's long term it's difficult to see why an employer would go through an agency, unless they can cut costs because the agency is paying a lower salary.

*Like previous posts I assume, this one refers to the type of agency that employs people and "lends" them out to different companies, not recruitment agencies who will find a company potential employees in return for a commission.

 

[najaB]

But when it's long term it's difficult to see why an employer would go through an agency, unless they can cut costs because the agency is paying a lower salary.

That was exactly why the contact centre industry used agency staff - Search being the one that I was employed by before I got a permanent contract, and Manpower being the one that was used by my previous employer. Back then they typically paid barely over minimum wage. The bump in pay when/if you were lucky enough to get a permanent contract was probably about 30%.

Getting staff via an agency is likely to be quicker than recruiting, and when the worker is no longer needed there will be no redundancy, the agency is responsible for finding them work elsewhere.

Actually, we were specifically not on "pay between assignment" contracts, which meant that if the client didn't want us then the agency had zero obligation to pay us anything or find us another placement.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's understandable that a company might be willing to pay an agency* more than they would pay an employee if it's a short term need. Getting staff via an agency is likely to be quicker than recruiting, and when the worker is no longer needed there will be no redundancy, the agency is responsible for finding them work elsewhere. But when it's long term it's difficult to see why an employer would go through an agency, unless they can cut costs because the agency is paying a lower salary.

I also find that somewhat puzzling - particularly in the light that pretty much every office-based company I've ever worked for negotiated pay for each employee individually, which means people rarely knew what anyone else (other than their own subordinates) were earning. That would seem to imply no incentive to cut corners on wages by going to an agency.

This is the kind of thing that really should be resolved by the market: If agencies are not paying people enough, then you'd expect anyone who can would look for a higher paying direct job instead - which would then force agencies to pay more in order to recruit the people they need. If that's not happening and agencies are somehow getting away with paying people less in the absence of a market-rational reason to pay them less (for example, lower skills or something) then that would imply that the market isn't working properly, and the correct solution would be to find out why and then fix the underlying problem, not to just impede the market even more by imposing blanket wage regulations.

 

[najaB]

I also find that somewhat puzzling - particularly in the light that pretty much every office-based company I've ever worked for negotiated pay for each employee individually, which means people rarely knew what anyone else (other than their own subordinates) were earning. That would seem to imply no incentive to cut corners on wages by going to an agency.

We're not talking about high-skilled office jobs. We're talking about contact centre operatives, hospitality workers, social care jobs and the likes.

If that's not happening and agencies are somehow getting away with paying people less in the absence of a market-rational reason to pay them less (for example, lower skills or something) then that would imply that the market isn't working properly, and the correct solution would be to find out why and then fix the underlying problem, not to just impede the market even more by imposing blanket wage regulations.

What part of the concept that, before the equal pay for agency workers rules were put in place by the EU, it was perfectly legal for companies to simply recruit through an agency and pay a lower salary, and be able to simply tell the agency "We don't want this person" at a moment's notice, rather than hire people directly and have to give them permanent contracts aren't you getting?

At least you seem to be getting that "the market" isn't the cure to all ills. It was funny how people who had worked for Manpower for ages (one person I know was over a decade!) without getting a permanent contract, suddenly got a BT contract within weeks of the regulations going into effect.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What part of the concept that, before the equal pay for agency workers rules were put in place by the EU, it was perfectly legal for companies to simply recruit through an agency and pay a lower salary, and be able to simply tell the agency "We don't want this person" at a moment's notice, rather than hire people directly and have to give them permanent contracts aren't you getting?

I'm pretty sure I understand that perfectly. But I don't think that's necessarily wrong in the way you are assuming (although I can see why people might feel it's unfair): No-one has a God-given right to be paid £X/hour just because someone else is paid that amount. If I'm unhappy with my salary and I want to be paid more, then it's up to me to persuade my employer that I'm worth more, and/or think about my skill levels and consider how I can improve them so that I become worth more to an employer (and possibly change jobs). Demanding that the Government force someone to pay me more than they want to is not the way to do it. After all, if you think about it, controls on wage levels are no different in principle from price controls - for which I think you'll find there is an overwhelming consensus amongst economists that they usually do more harm than good.

Regarding firing people at a moment's notice. That's presumably possible because the company isn't the person's employer, and to that extent the situation is rather like that if you or I decide we no longer want the services of a tradesperson such as a builder or window cleaner, then we're not obliged to employ them any longer than we wish to. HOWEVER - presumably the agency worker is being employed by the agency, and if their status is for all practical purposes an employee, then they ought to have employment protections to ensure the agency keeps paying them for a reasonable notice period, even if the company they are placed with no longer wants them (And it should also be the responsibility of the agency to deal with holidays, sick pay, etc.). That's where I'd be looking to solve that aspect of the problem.

 

[Annetts key]

I'm pretty sure I understand that perfectly. But I don't think that's necessarily wrong in the way you are assuming (although I can see why people might feel it's unfair): No-one has a God-given right to be paid £X/hour just because someone else is paid that amount. If I'm unhappy with my salary and I want to be paid more, then it's up to me to persuade my employer that I'm worth more, and/or think about my skill levels and consider how I can improve them so that I become worth more to an employer (and possibly change jobs). Demanding that the Government force someone to pay me more than they want to is not the way to do it. After all, if you think about it, controls on wage levels are no different in principle from price controls - for which I think you'll find there is an overwhelming consensus amongst economists that they usually do more harm than good.

Regarding firing people at a moment's notice. That's presumably possible because the company isn't the person's employer, and to that extent the situation is rather like that if you or I decide we no longer want the services of a tradesperson such as a builder or window cleaner, then we're not obliged to employ them any longer than we wish to. HOWEVER - presumably the agency worker is being employed by the agency, and if their status is for all practical purposes an employee, then they ought to have employment protections to ensure the agency keeps paying them for a reasonable notice period, even if the company they are placed with no longer wants them (And it should also be the responsibility of the agency to deal with holidays, sick pay, etc.). That's where I'd be looking to solve that aspect of the problem.

But if you are effectively self employed or on a zero hours contract, you don't have employment protections. The large employers have all the power and work the market and hence distort the market if there are no laws to limit this.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But if you are effectively self employed or on a zero hours contract, you don't have employment protections. The large employers have all the power and work the market and hence distort the market if there are no laws to limit this.

Sure. And I do think we need better protection around zero hours contracts. Fundamentally, I would think the way it ought to work is this: The agency should decide whether it wants the people it uses to be direct employees (in which case it's up to the agency to pay them a regular salary, provide a reasonable notice period, deal with holiday entitlement, etc.) or whether it wants the relationship to be that of self-employed traders (in which case, it must be a genuine customer-trader relationship. So zero hours is fine, but the other side is, the agency can't restrict the person from simultaneously taking on other work, the person can refuse to take on any work they don't like the look of, and also has some rights to sub-contract any work to someone else of their choice rather than showing up at the office themselves. In practice, I rather doubt many agencies would choose that option other than for dealing with temporary surges in demand ) Once again, these are solutions that work to provide protections while staying within the framework of a free market - which is invariably going to be the best way to match people to jobs - rather than just imposing what amount to price controls.

 

[SynthD]

then that would imply that the market isn't working properly, and the correct solution would be to find out why and then fix the underlying problem

Money equals power, and powerful people make vast changes to suit them. Brexit (and what the Tory party has become) has shown up several of these, while the EU gets on with working for the common man.

 

[Snow1964]

It's pretty obvious a lot of Britons would see the EU as important in the years after 2016, far more than might be influenced positively or negatively by a tax avoidance reform. It was literally dominating our political discourse.

Nearly 8 years on after the vote, many of the complications are manifesting themselves, or the full consequences deferred few more months (eg full passport checks), so attitudes have changed.

And of course, about 5.5m who were eligible to vote have died, and similar number who were too young to vote have inherited the consequences.

As for tax, the percentage tax take is now much higher than any of the in EU years, Brexit era is higher tax, and unlike some on here who seem to support Brexit, I prefer to pay lowest amount of tax that I can, so still don't like this Brexit era.

 

[RT4038]

As for tax, the percentage tax take is now much higher than any of the in EU years, Brexit era is higher tax, and unlike some on here who seem to support Brexit, I prefer to pay lowest amount of tax that I can, so still don't like this Brexit era.

I think this may well be a bit of coincidence, as there are other factors (paying for Covid/furlough/business relief)+ Ukraine) influencing tax.

 

[Gloster]

Money equals power, and powerful people make vast changes to suit them. Brexit (and what the Tory party has become) has shown up several of these, while the EU gets on with working for the common man.

Much as I am an absolute supporter of the EU, I would not go as far as saying it is working for the common man, whatever may be meant by that. However, as it represents a mixture of interests, these do include those of the common man and it is has done a great deal to improve workers‘ and consumers’ rights over the years.

Those who used their money to get this country out of the EU are solely interested in their own pockets and are quite willing to destroy the rights and protections of everybody else (workers, consumers and the public in general) if it increases their profits. They have got us out of the EU, membership of which protected many of those rights, and now want us out of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects some of our basic freedoms. After that they can rule the country and do what they want as long as they can push 350 MPs about.

 

[Enthusiast]

So if there was no prospect of general economic benefit to the UK, the foreseen benefit must have been to the narrow interests of the individuals who were pushing the idea.

Or, of course, there is always this radical notion to fall back on:

Why not just accept that lots of people were in principle opposed to the EU because of various sincerely held beliefs (for example being against over-regulation, or being strongly in favour of laws being decided at nation-state level, etc.). Why the constant need to keep trying to invent underhand motives by Brexiters? This kind of thing is really starting to get boring

But I think I'm beginning to get to the bottom of it:

What part of the concept that, before the equal pay for agency workers rules were put in place by the EU, it was perfectly legal for companies to simply recruit through an agency and pay a lower salary, and be able to simply tell the agency "We don't want this person" at a moment's notice, rather than hire people directly and have to give them permanent contracts aren't you getting?

I think the concept that many supporters of the EU fail to grasp is that it is not what the EU legislates for that troubles those who are not so enamoured with our friends in Brussels (or Strasbourg, if they happen to be on one of their jaunts). It is the fact that it can legislate at all on such matters. In short, it's not what they do, it's the fact they can do it.

There's lots of things that UK governments have (or have not) done which annoy me intensely. But I despised with a vengeance the idea that unelected bureaucrats based abroad could overrule them. I decided in 1992 that if ever given the chance I would vote to end that absurd situation. I didn't expect any general economic benefit to the UK to follow from it; there's far too many other factors to influence a country's economy. As mentioned, most European economies are struggling and when I last looked none of them had left the EU. I certainly had no personal vested interests in such an outcome. Nothing in the 24 years before the referendum changed my mind and certainly nothing any "here today, gone tomorrow" politician spouted during the campaign had any influence on my decision. I simply did not like the UK being a member of the EU and I'm as pleased as punch that it no longer is.