Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

yagan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'll do so once you provide some evidence for your assertions about Unionists. Otherwise, there's no point in continuing this.

Fact. Religion is a defining feature of the DUP and ergo those who vote for them.

Do you assert that there's no connection between religion and the DUP?

Fact. The DUP never signed the Belfast Agreement and following direct publically advertised talks with British Nationalist paramilitaries those forces are now aligned against the peace process.

Do you contest this?

Fionn1952

yagan wrote: »

I think you're not reading what I haven't written.

Point out where I was only talking about Westminster elections?

The largest unionist party in both the STV PR Stormont assembly, and the FPTP Westminster poll is the DUP.

Dismissing their voter base and what they say and do is disingenuous to discussing Northern Ireland.

I don't dismiss that there is a drift to the Alliance, but there's also a hardening with a drift to the TUV.

You did state that the majority of Unionists did not support the Good Friday Agreement on the basis that they vote for the DUP, somehow managing to discount the fact that the majority of Unionists did in fact vote for the GFA.

You've also stated that people will vote for Unification to get away from sectarianism, while accusing the Tanaiste of sectarianism in the very same sentence.

I've no issue criticising political Unionism, and no problem disagreeing with Unionists on the matter of NI's constitutional future...but your caricatured picture of Unionists and confused logic certainly aren't going to help convince anyone. It reads almost like someone who has never actually met anyone from the Unionist community and only read about them in a book.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you calling out each and every death in Yemen? If not, why are you defending the Saudis?

How disingenuous is that post?

We are discussing Ireland in Ireland and the actions or non actions of Irish politicians with responsibilities.

Typical look over there deflection in fairness.

rock22

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you calling out each and every death in Yemen? If not, why are you defending the Saudis?

Best not to drag the thread off topic.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How disingenuous is that post?

We are discussing Ireland in Ireland and the actions or non actions of Irish politicians with responsibilities.

Typical look over there deflection in fairness.

So silence equating to defence only applies to Unionists. Seems unfair to hold one demographic to a higher standard than others. That's what's disingenuous.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So silence equating to defence only applies to Unionists. Seems unfair to hold one demographic to a higher standard than others. That's what's disingenuous.

What do you mean?

The governments here have always held the actions of nationalists in NI to account. Our Tanaiste even engaged in sectarianism yesterday in another attempt to do that.
They are largely silent with regard to Unionism, they will applaud the DUP at party conferences and turn a blind eye or remain silent to their blatant bigotry and stoking of tensions.

That is the point, there is no need to deflect to Yemen.

10000maniacs

The DUP campaigned bitterly for a hard Brexit without a customs union or single market.
So therefore they campaigned for either a border on the island of Ireland or a border in the Irish Sea.
So now they are whinging about there being a border down the Irish Sea.
Obviously they would much prefer for the border to be on the island of Ireland.
But everything they are whinging about now is as a consequence of their successful campaign for a hard Brexit.

yagan

Fionn1952 wrote: »

You did state that the majority of Unionists did not support the Good Friday Agreement on the basis that they vote for the DUP, somehow managing to discount the fact that the majority of Unionists did in fact vote for the GFA.

You've also stated that people will vote for Unification to get away from sectarianism, while accusing the Tanaiste of sectarianism in the very same sentence.

I've no issue criticising political Unionism, and no problem disagreeing with Unionists on the matter of NI's constitutional future...but your caricatured picture of Unionists and confused logic certainly aren't going to help convince anyone. It reads almost like someone who has never actually met anyone from the Unionist community and only read about them in a book.

When the Belfast Agreement was signed the UUP were the biggest party.

Now the largest Unionist party is the DUP, who opposed that agreement, and last week after consulting with the DUP the paramilitaries are now aligned with the DUP, and other republican dissident groups in rejecting that agreement that was ratified by referendum.

This is all fact.

political analyst

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/jewish-community-and-cricketers-latest-to-be-hit-by-ni-protocol-rules-3158723?r=9537

The post-Brexit trade arrangements have also disrupted supplies of specialist cricket soil known as loam from Great Britain.

Extra paperwork has caused a series of bureaucratic obstacles since the end of the post-Brexit transition period.

Northern Ireland has a small Jewish community centred around north Belfast and a central part of the Passover meal is lamb.

Meanwhile, UUP MLA and keen weekend cricketer John Stewart has said confirmation that bringing in specialist cricket pitch soil – “loam” – from England is banned because of the protocol is farcical.

He added: “Here we have another example of the EU using a sledgehammer to crack a non-existent nut.

“There is no threat to the European single market or EU plant health standards by continuing the age-old tradition of bringing in ‘loam’ to create, build and maintain cricket pitches throughout Northern Ireland, and the Republic for that matter.

“Groundsmen across the country have been told that it is currently prohibited and it is not an exaggeration to say that this prohibition could threaten the future of cricket here.”

If the lamb and the soil in Britain were OK by EU standards before Brexit then why does Brexit make those products unsuitable for a place in which the EU's single-market rules for goods apply?

Does the European Commission (EC) really think that safety standards in Britain were watered down overnight when the application of EU rules in Britain ceased?

Fionn1952

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/jewish-community-and-cricketers-latest-to-be-hit-by-ni-protocol-rules-3158723?r=9537





If the lamb and the soil in Britain were OK by EU standards before Brexit then why does Brexit make those products unsuitable for a place in which the EU's single-market rules for goods apply?

Does the European Commission (EC) really think that safety standards in Britain were watered down overnight when the application of EU rules in Britain ceased?

Because as the UK are no longer members of the EU, the UK can choose to diverge from EU standards. Whether they do or not, they COULD. To protect ourselves, this means either the UK need to agree to maintain the same standards as the EU (an option the UK have rejected), or we have to check things entering our market to ensure they don't carry a risk.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

political analyst

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Because as the UK are no longer members of the EU, the UK can choose to diverge from EU standards. Whether they do or not, they COULD. To protect ourselves, this means either the UK need to agree to maintain the same standards as the EU (an option the UK have rejected), or we have to check things entering our market to ensure they don't carry a risk.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Indeed. But why are businesses in Britain and in NI getting hung-up over a few pages of documentation that they have to fill in?

Presumably, the owners of these businesses can read and write and are computer-literate, aren't they?

yagan

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Because as the UK are no longer members of the EU, the UK can choose to diverge from EU standards. Whether they do or not, they COULD. To protect ourselves, this means either the UK need to agree to maintain the same standards as the EU (an option the UK have rejected), or we have to check things entering our market to ensure they don't carry a risk.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

Even within the EU there's been restrictions on meat produce trade, like the ban on pork exports from Sardinia because of an African Swine Flu outbreak.

yagan

political analyst wrote: »

Indeed. But why are businesses in Britain and in NI getting hung-up over a few pages of documentation that they have to fill in?

Presumably, the owners of these businesses can read and write and are computer-literate, aren't they?

Of course they can. The DUP actually campaigned for Irish Sea checks on livestock after the last foot and mouth outbreak two decades ago. They didn't want NI beef lumped in with the international bans on British beef.

Or maybe it was earlier with the BSE crisis.

Fionn1952

political analyst wrote: »

Indeed. But why are businesses in Britain and in NI getting hung-up over a few pages of documentation that they have to fill in?

Presumably, the owners of these businesses can read and write and are computer-literate, aren't they?

That would probably be better addressed to those complaining about it. One obvious reason would be the cost of implementing new processes and documentation, both financial and time cost.

Seth Brundle

political analyst wrote: »

If the lamb and the soil in Britain were OK by EU standards before Brexit then why does Brexit make those products unsuitable for a place in which the EU's single-market rules for goods apply?

Does the European Commission (EC) really think that safety standards in Britain were watered down overnight when the application of EU rules in Britain ceased?

If the rules were ok before Brexit, what was the point in Brexit? Why leave if you have no intention of diverging from those rules?

As for why the EU/EC insist on its rules: it is to protect its borders, something the Brexiteers would be familiar with no doubt :rolleyes:

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you calling out each and every death in Yemen? If not, why are you defending the Saudis?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a strawman. The DUP get elected by an unrepresentative voting system so that, in Westminster they end up as the main NI party.

This is maddening.

I understand that provenance and history can play a part in people's viewpoints and perceptions about almost anything and Lord knows Ireland is pockmarked because of these viewpoints and sins of the father, but the basic point that Yagan was making, stands and did not deserve the dismissive pile on to which they have been subjected to.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So silence equating to defence only applies to Unionists. Seems unfair to hold one demographic to a higher standard than others. That's what's disingenuous.

What does this even mean?

We are constantly reminded that SF voters are voting for terrorists. Just yesterday the Tánaiste made ridiculous assertions about their political cohort, for no other reason than to score cheap political points amongst the SF-haters and Partitonists out there. It was a bizarre interjection and completely backfired.

DUP-voters absolutely deserve to be held accountable for their actions. They put the party in a position to be the arch-spokespersons for unionism.

It's all well and good that you might say to yourself, that you vote for the DUP to keep out a Shinner but you have to reconcile that with the fact that almost in 100% of cases when you give your vote to a DUP politician to keep out a Shinner you are likely to be voting for a homophobic, sexist, sectarian race-baiter. That to me is fair game and worthy of pointing out.

Choices are being made by Unionists to put them in that position. There are other options available.

I have often posted across a certain NI thread elsewhere on boards about how in the event of a Border Poll, the Southern Partitionists will have to reconcile the fact that they will be standing side-by-side with the very same people. That's an individual's right of course, but when that's pointed out they of course take umbrage at the thought of it.

It's not for Nationalism to be softly softly about the pickle Unionists might feel they're in while voting for Sammy Wilson or Gregory Campbell.

BonnieSituation

yagan wrote: »

Of course they can. The DUP actually campaigned for Irish Sea checks on livestock after the last foot and mouth outbreak two decades ago. They didn't want NI beef lumped in with the international bans on British beef.

Or maybe it was earlier with the BSE crisis.

It was that request that spawned the famous quote in 2001 from Senior that, "Our people may be British, but our cows are Irish".

yagan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Just yesterday the Tánaiste made ridiculous assertions about their political cohort, for no other reason than to score cheap political points amongst the SF-haters and Partitonists out there.

It's absolutely galling that the Tánaiste would bring sectarianism into the politics of our secular democracy while not calling out the DUP for their opposition to the peace process.

I'm sure there's some law in our constitution against TDs stoking sectarian politics in the Dail.

The Tánaiste's binary world view would have us believe that Irish protestants only vote for British unionist parties, which is a diminution of the protestant contribution our nation and especially to the spirit of 1798.

Edit to add that it has become undeniable that the Tánaiste's understanding of his nation is superficial and his politics more style than substance.

eire4

yagan wrote: »

It's absolutely galling that the Tánaiste would bring sectarianism into the politics of our secular democracy while not calling out the DUP for their opposition to the peace process.

I'm sure there's some law in our constitution against TDs stoking sectarian politics in the Dail.

The Tánaiste's binary world view would have us believe that Irish protestants only vote for British unionist parties, which is a diminution of the protestant contribution our nation and especially to the spirit of 1798.

Edit to add that it has become undeniable that the Tánaiste's understanding of his nation is superficial and his politics more style than substance.

It was cheap political point scoring no question about it. Sad really as it demeans his integrity.
As for not calling out the DUP well those of a revisionist bent many of whom reside or have resided in Fine Gael have long been turning a blind eye to the behaviour of unionists and loyalist while at the same time lambasting Republicans.

yagan

eire4 wrote: »

It was cheap political point scoring no question about it. Sad really as it demeans his integrity.
As for not calling out the DUP well those of a revisionist bent many of whom reside or have resided in Fine Gael have long been turning a blind eye to the behaviour of unionists and loyalist while at the same time lambasting Republicans.

I remember hearing Gareth Fitzgerald relating how he only heard about Ireland becoming a republic on the doorstep of a house he was canvassing. He said one minute he was canvassing for Fine Gael as the "commonwealth party" only to be hear secondhand that we were out of it!

I have little doubt that the end of partition via ballot or a USSR style dissolution of the UK will be as challenging for FG as will be for northern Ireland unionists.

10000maniacs

yagan wrote: »

It's absolutely galling that the Tánaiste would bring sectarianism into the politics of our secular democracy while not calling out the DUP for their opposition to the peace process.

I'm sure there's some law in our constitution against TDs stoking sectarian politics in the Dail.

The Tánaiste's binary world view would have us believe that Irish protestants only vote for British unionist parties, which is a diminution of the protestant contribution our nation and especially to the spirit of 1798.

Edit to add that it has become undeniable that the Tánaiste's understanding of his nation is superficial and his politics more style than substance.

There are nearly always exceptions to every scenario, apart from the fact that that I cannot recall a single Catholic ever having been a member of the DUP.
I personally think Sinn Fein are a much more progressive and outward looking party than the DUP.
Sure, I am well aware I am comparing apples to oranges here. But it's just my gut feeling.

Professor Moriarty

10000maniacs wrote: »

There are nearly always exceptions to every scenario, apart from the fact that that I cannot recall a single Catholic ever having been a member of the DUP.
I personally think Sinn Fein are a much more progressive and outward looking party than the DUP.
Sure, I am well aware I am comparing apples to oranges here. But it's just my gut feeling.

Ceann amháin.

10000maniacs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ceann amháin.

Touché. There are always exceptions to every rule.

Professor Moriarty

10000maniacs wrote: »

Touché. There are always exceptions to every rule.

Interestingly, he's a gaeilgeoir who has voted left-wing and republican in the past. The common ground is anti-gay and anti-abortion stances.

View

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/jewish-community-and-cricketers-latest-to-be-hit-by-ni-protocol-rules-3158723?r=9537





If the lamb and the soil in Britain were OK by EU standards before Brexit then why does Brexit make those products unsuitable for a place in which the EU's single-market rules for goods apply?

Does the European Commission (EC) really think that safety standards in Britain were watered down overnight when the application of EU rules in Britain ceased?

Before Brexit, the “lamb and soil in Britain” were subject to EU laws and under the jurisdiction of the CJEU.

Now, after Brexit, they are not. That means they are not subject to EU laws and not under the jurisdiction of the CJEU (which is critical in the interpretation of any ambiguities or breaches of the laws).

The U.K. opted to be treated the same as every other non-EU country, as, let’s say, Ukraine or Morocco are. They have no grounds for complaint or any reasonable grounds for any special treatment.

Seth Brundle

This should make the UK government sit up straight...

US poised to unveil resolution backing Belfast Agreement

10000maniacs

Seth Brundle wrote: »

This should make the UK government sit up straight...

US poised to unveil resolution backing Belfast Agreement

Absolutely love Biden. Can't wait for the UK tabloid fallout. LOL.

10000maniacs

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/jewish-community-and-cricketers-latest-to-be-hit-by-ni-protocol-rules-3158723?r=9537





If the lamb and the soil in Britain were OK by EU standards before Brexit then why does Brexit make those products unsuitable for a place in which the EU's single-market rules for goods apply?

Does the European Commission (EC) really think that safety standards in Britain were watered down overnight when the application of EU rules in Britain ceased?

The lack of kosher meat products available to the Jewish community in NI is the latest in a long line of tenuous excuses for the DUP's faux hysterics regarding Article 16. And whipping up faux loyalist paramilitary unrest was yet another despicable and reckless action recently.

FrancieBrady

It was a disgrace Foster got away with stating everyone in NI had a problem with the Protocol.
With Britain obviously and pointedly ignoring the other voices it is imperative Dublin be heard contradicting her.

But of course...we can't be offending Unionists.

Ffff221

This thread was originally in after hours people were having a good discussion but after 2 days and 11 pages one of the mods came to the conclusion that it doesn't belong in after hours.

I seen on sky news last night how the current UK PM has been breaking a long standing policy of claiming there is no strategic interest in Northern Ireland but this PM has made it clear that that couldn't be further from the truth.

It got me wondering what exactly is the strategic interest in Northern Ireland?

I always believed until the last year or two that the UK had no interest in Northern Ireland and would get rid of it the first chance they got but I was mainly thinking economically and not about the wider picture that there are probably tons of strategic and beneficial reasons to keeping Northern Ireland.

It's mainly propaganda from the troubles to prevent terrorism why a lot of us believe there is no strategic interest in Northern Ireland.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Similar threads merged.

Seth Brundle

The UUP apparently have launched a legal challenge to the NIP...

https://twitter.com/uuponline/status/1371406705645469696

Terry136

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If there is going to be a Referendum on Reunification, then after what happened with Brexit, all of the details will be known beforehand to the voters. Details that would likely include:

• A new Flag
• A new National Anthem
• The cost to Dublin, both financially and in security terms, of taking on the 6 counties

Would enough people in the Republic vote to Reunite? Personally, I would myself but I'm not sure if a majority of the electorate would.

I don't see how anyone could believe it wouldn't especially when it would be backed by all main political parties and there is practically no one in the republic strongly opposed to a United Ireland .

the most opposition you hear to a United Ireland in the republic is "oh well is it the right time... Can we afford it".

Thing is a United Ireland is not relevant to most people North or South so asking someone randomly out of the blue if they would vote for a United Ireland might not be the same answer after months of debate and a concerted campaign supported and backed by every single political party in the republic of Ireland.

Professor Moriarty

Terry136 wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could believe it wouldn't especially when it would be backed by all main political parties and there is practically no one in the republic strongly opposed to a United Ireland .

the most opposition you hear to a United Ireland in the republic is "oh well is it the right time... Can we afford it".

Thing is a United Ireland is not relevant to most people North or South so asking someone randomly out of the blue if they would vote for a United Ireland might not be the same answer after months of debate and a concerted campaign supported and backed by every single political party in the republic of Ireland.

In the context of Brexit, many people in the Republic might see a connection to Europe as increasingly more important than a UI. Regarding your criteria for opposition to a UI, as well as right time and cost, many people in the Republic would also want to know what a million Unionists think about it.

Terry136

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In the context of Brexit, many people in the Republic might see a connection to Europe as increasingly more important than a UI. Regarding your criteria for opposition to a UI, as well as right time and cost, many people in the Republic would also want to know what a million Unionists think about it.

I don't think they would, a United Ireland would likely pass here no matter what.

Professor Moriarty

Terry136 wrote: »

I don't think they would, a United Ireland would likely pass here no matter what.

A poll in 2015 found that people in the Republic had very flighty commitments to a UI. For instance, 73% were in favour of a UI if they paid less tax. If they paid more tax, only 31% were in favour of a UI. I also wonder how people in the Republic would vote if they were told that Unionism was very against a UI.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A poll in 2015 found that people in the Republic had very flighty commitments to a UI. For instance, 73% were in favour of a UI if they paid less tax. If they paid more tax, only 31% were in favour of a UI. I also wonder how people in the Republic would vote if they were told that Unionism was very against a UI.

I've read various reports to this effect over the years. I think the prospects of buoying NI's dysfunctional economy and incorporating Unionists into a unified Ireland is going to be off putting to a lot of people.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've read various reports to this effect over the years. I think the prospects of buoying NI's dysfunctional economy and incorporating Unionists into a unified Ireland is going to be off putting to a lot of people.

Agreed. The idea of a UI is nice but has many potential pitfalls. My only concern now the UK is out of the EU, and it's probably not realistic, is that Unionism begins to dominate again in NI. If it suited the Tories politically to change the system to suit Unionism again, then they would do it in a heartbeat. However, I trust that the EU and US would use economic incentives to twist arms should that arise.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've read various reports to this effect over the years. I think the prospects of buoying NI's dysfunctional economy and incorporating Unionists into a unified Ireland is going to be off putting to a lot of people.

You'll always get a negative answer to a 'do you want to pay more tax' question.

If the proposers of a UI can show how a UI would be an investment then the result would be much different.

You get the same answer to UI questions that are phrased 'Would you vote for a UI tomorrow' etc.
Question the questioners is a good way to look at polls.

Terry136

One little poll taken six years ago probably in some snobby little suburb in South Dublin means absolutely nothing.

Here's another poll that means nothing too but probably far more accurate to the one you posted just an example 88% of people wanting a United Ireland out of 5,000 people who took part in the poll not too long ago

The Partitionists are out with their propaganda today.

Seth Brundle

Terry136 wrote: »

The Partitionists are out with their propaganda today.

mod note: I deleted a post of yours earlier saying the above.
Are you unable to differentiate between someone who might be in favour of partition compared to somone who believes that a UI might not be achieved?
Regardless, stop with what I see is a snide insult by referring to posters as partitionists!

Professor Moriarty

Terry136 wrote: »

One little poll taken six years ago probably in some snobby little suburb in South Dublin means absolutely nothing.

Here's another poll that means nothing too but probably far more accurate to the one you posted just an example 88% of people wanting a United Ireland out of 5,000 people who took part in the poll not too long ago

The Partitionists are out with their propaganda today.

Could you link to that poll? The poll I referenced is a very comprehensive poll taken across the island.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You'll always get a negative answer to a 'do you want to pay more tax' question.

If the proposers of a UI can show how a UI would be an investment then the result would be much different.

You get the same answer to UI questions that are phrased 'Would you vote for a UI tomorrow' etc.
Question the questioners is a good way to look at polls.

That's a colossal "if" considering that decades of being part of one of the wealthiest nations on earth for decades hasn't done NI that many favours. It's not wrong to point out the fiscal risks and burdens in the short to medium term if not the long term.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a colossal "if" considering that decades of being part of one of the wealthiest nations on earth for decades hasn't done NI that many favours. It's not wrong to point out the fiscal risks and burdens in the short to medium term if not the long term.

Ah come on...are you suggesting that 'the wealthiest nation' had the interests of a part of Ireland at heart?
There are risks with anything and benefits.

As part of an island there is no reason why the north cannot contribute and enhance the island in many ways.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah come on...are you suggesting that 'the wealthiest nation' had the interests of a part of Ireland at heart?
There are risks with anything and benefits.

As part of an island there is no reason why the north cannot contribute and enhance the island in many ways.

Such as?

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Such as?

It contributes and enhances as the south. east and west does.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It contributes and enhances as the south. east and west does.

What is this based on? What evidence or even projections are there which show that incorporating the north would benefit the Republic and/or NI?

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What is this based on? What evidence or even projections are there which show that incorporating the north would benefit the Republic and/or NI?

Stands to reason. Invest and reap the rewards.
It now suits the UK,
It now suits Ireland,
It now suits the rest of the EU for a UI to be successful, stands to reason there will be plenty wanting to invest. It would be then in our own interests to make it work.

Plenty of studies out there where you can find the areas for growth and potential. They are constants even if you don't think it would work. I cannot see why they wouldn't. And I am not suggesting it will be some happy ever after nirvana.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Stands to reason. Invest and reap the rewards.
It now suits the UK,
It now suits Ireland,
It now suits the rest of the EU for a UI to be successful, stands to reason there will be plenty wanting to invest. It would be then in our own interests to make it work.

Plenty of studies out there where you can find the areas for growth and potential. They are constants even if you don't think it would work. I cannot see why they wouldn't. And I am not suggesting it will be some happy ever after nirvana.

Not good enough. I have no intention of researching your argument for you. Frankly, this is exactly the sort of insipid nationalism that brought us Brexit.

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not good enough. I have no intention of researching your argument for you. Frankly, this is exactly the sort of insipid nationalism that brought us Brexit.

Nonsense...this isn't a thread on a UI.
As I said, plenty of studies out there with the areas where benefits can occur are listed and gone into. You are free to agree or disagree, those areas remain the same.

I have read them. My research is done and doesn't require scrutiny from you. If it does, I will ask for it.