"Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren..."

If you were to read this, even from someone described as a veteren DUP councillor and a "staunch Christian", you’d be surprised:

Mr. Johnston is highly critical of Roman Catholicism: "It doesn’t matter what my church comes round to accept it’s what’s in the Bible and it tells you that God will give them up for their evil imaginations. I think Roman Catholicism is terrible, it’s wrong and it’s not me that condemns it, it’s the Bible. I would be disappointed if my children were like that, I wouldn’t turn my back on them but I wouldn’t tell them it was right because it’s not. I would rebuke them for that, I would tell them to move away from their evil ways. I hope I never have that to do. Roman Catholicism is obnoxious to our holy God and mixed marriages are very sad,"

Alright then, probably not that surprised there are those within the political Unionist Establishment who hold those views, more surprised that he’s come out of the closest, as it were, with them. In the Northern Ireland of 2010, it wouldn’t be acceptable to a large majority of the population and he or she would get hammered for expressing them, both in the MSM and online and rightly so.

But Bert Johnston did use those exact words about another minority- replace "Roman Catholicism" with "homosexuality", "mixed" with "gay" and you have verbatim what he said to Rodney Edwards of The Impartial Reporter this week. OK,you might argue those views are an integral part of his version of "Christianity" and that even bigotted oul culchie councillors are entitled to "freedom of speech". If so, have a read of this from Andrew Sullivan, probably the best blogger presently operating in the US and someone who happily describes himself a gay Christian:

I don't believe in hate crimes laws, but I passionately believe in prosecuting these kinds of attacks to the fullest extent of the law. I also want to ask, plead, and beg those who have sincere and principled arguments against, say, marriage equality or openly gay military service, to be mindful of the impact of their words.

I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those on the other side of the debate are as horrified by these events as I am. I am not in any way saying otherwise, or in any way suggesting indirect responsibility for horrors such as these.

What I am saying is that in making these arguments, people need to take care to ensure that they also insist that gay people are always described as human beings, as worthy of respect and dignity as anyone else, that the case for keeping us out of core civil institutions must be made without inflammatory generalizations about gay people, generalizations that have an impact, especially on those only waiting for an excuse from authority to act, or those deeply confused and afraid of who they find themselves to be in adolescence.

For too long, gay people have been described by too many on the right as a threat to the family, society and decency. Those words have consequences. This is especially true of religious leaders. When even the Pope describes us as "intrinsically disordered" and directed to an "objective moral evil", when Republicans call us a threat to family life, when NOM runs ads of a "storm coming", I hope they understand what these words do to the psyches and souls of the young and impressionable, and to those who need a mere signal to take up arms and attack us.

And, as if to emphasise that last point, this from Belgrade, this very afternoon:

Serbian police have clashed with protesters trying to disrupt a Gay Pride parade in the capital, Belgrade.

Police used tear gas against the rioters, who threw petrol bombs and stones at armed officers and tried to break through a security cordon.

A garage attached to the headquarters of the ruling Democratic Party was briefly set on fire, and at least one shot was fired at the building.

At least 50 people were injured, most reported to be police officers.

A number of people were arrested.
This was the first Gay Pride parade in Serbia since a march in 2001 was broken up in violent clashes provoked by far-right extremists.

While the Gay Pride parade was moving though the city, several hundred protesters began chanting at those taking part as they tried to get close to the march.

"The hunt has begun," the AFP news agency reported them as saying. "Death to homosexuals."

Now, there is an enormous gulf between the likes of Bert Johnston and the kind of people who tortured those homosexuals in the Bronx and the fascist thugs petrol-bombing the Gay Pride parade today in Belgrade but what Sullivan said is also so true that it’s worth repeating a second time:

For too long, gay people have been described by too many on the right as a threat to the family, society and decency. Those words have consequences.

Quote of the day

William Hague:

"A sovereignty clause on EU law will place on the statute book this eternal truth: what a sovereign parliament can do, a sovereign parliament can also undo."

Even Lisbon?

Thatcher to lead Euro-Conservatives in "New Direction"

From an "influential centre-right figure in Brussels":

"The European Conservatives and Reformists are like the Addams Family of the European Parliament and it appears that Baroness Thatcher wants to be Morticia."

Lady Thatcher is now the president of the political foundation of the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament, called, not that originally, "New Direction"

Its aims also aren't exactly mould-breaking:

"We want the EU to focus on helping our economies achieve growth and competitiveness and get away from its obsession with political integration - the prosperity and security of the citizens of our countries should be the priority."

Right.

Auntie Stella threatened with divorce

What beer has joined together, let no separatist put asunder:

Unlike its politicians, Belgium's beer makers and sellers share a common goal. Most take the view that splitting the country into "Walloon" and "Flemish" sectors would be a disaster for sales in a globalised beer market.

Read about their fightback here.

The UK's man in Europe, Richard Lochhead.

The latest development in the "Mackerel Wars":

"The Prime Minister gave the green light to Richard Lochhead, the SNP Fisheries Minister, leading the UK delegation in EU talks to resolve an international row dubbed the "mackerel wars".

He rejected the decision by Caroline Spelman, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for a junior farming minister with no responsibility for fisheries to make Britain’s case."

I'm tempted to say (minus the puns) that Alex Salmond's long-standing demand has been finally met. But as his representative, via a rather circuitous route, admits...:

This is the first time a Scottish Fisheries Minister has travelled to an EU Council with the green light to speak on behalf of the UK, which reflects the vital importance of the mackerel fishery to Scotland.

... a nationalist minister has been negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom, not only Scotland.

Probably not the scenario Salmond expected (or was hoping for?) when he made the original demand, all that time ago.

Why Lisbon may be the Euro-sceptics' Trojan Horse

David Lidington, the Europe Minister, speaking about proposals to amend the 1972 European Communities Act:

This Bill will make sure that never again will powers be transferred in a new treaty from Britain to Brussels without the British people having a say in a referendum."

And he added, "Our intention is that the British people will have the final say as to whether a new treaty is agreed or not. All of our European partners accept that it is the policy of the British Government. We see no reason to apologies for insisting on a bit more democracy than we've seen until now."

The Bill would increase democratic and Parliamentary control, scrutiny and accountability over EU decision making. No Government will be able to pass more powers to the European Union unless the British people have agreed that they can.

Bolting horses and unlocked stable doors immediately come to mind and, coincidence or not, his statement was made only several days after this YouGov Poll which disclosed that in Britain as a whole, if a referendum on membership were to be held tomorrow, only 33% would be prepared to vote for remaining within the European Union.

In the breakdown of regions and countries, only London voted to stay in the EU; Scotland voted 44-38% for leaving, West Midlands/Wales a whopping 49-34. Northern Ireland wasn't included in the sampling, but bearing in mind only the SDLP of the four major parties can in any way be described as Euro-enthusiasts (the DUP are downright hostile; the UUP sceptic; Sinn Fein fought tooth and nail against the Republic signing the Lisbon Treaty), I think we'd also be looking at a small majority voting to leave there too.

Liddington's promise and the opinion poll's results become a bit more noteworthy when they are considered together with Article 50 of Lisbon.

Prior to last year, the European Union could have been described as a bit like the Hotel California in that you could checkout any time you like, but you could never actually leave... or, at least, there was no solid legal provision to do so. Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty now offers that possibility.

Any referendum on future powers being transferred to the EU from Westminster would certainly deliver a big fat "No" and such a referendum result would inevitably, I believe, set the wheels in motion for a final withdrawal. I'm also convinced that it was for this very reason we were not given the opportunity by Labour government to vote on the Lisbon Treaty in the first place. If Liddington's bill does become law, then no future government will be able to deny us our democratic right in a similar fashion.

A Prophet hath no honour in (the talking shop) of his own country...

My 2,000th post.

I don't think I'm breaking any rules relating to data protection or internet etiquette, if I welcome my new reader from the US House of Representatives.

He/she joins my two regulars in the House of Commons and one a piece in Holyrood, the European Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Curiously enough, bearing in mind all the praise I've heaped upon the place and its denizens, none yet (as far as I know)from Stormont.

Belgian ethno-nat to address Plaid Conference

Flanders has been disturbing international watchdog bodies for some time with its developing problems with linguistic discrimination:

The United Nations and the European Commission have pinned down the Flanders region for linguistic 'discrimination'. In several reports published this week, both institutions express concern for the Flemish government's adoption of a 'wooncode', a housing code that reserves access to social housing for tenants who either speak Dutch, or commit to learning the language. For Martine Vandemeulebroucke, "the existence of linguistic discrimination and the emergence of racism between the country's two communities are taboo. And yet it exists. The long crisis ... has radicalised public opinion. The Mrax [Movement against racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia] more accustomed to having to defend illegal immigrants or Moroccan and Turkish minorities, is beginning to receive complaints of racism between the Flemish and French speaking communities."

The original can be read here in French.

The leading party in not only Flanders, but now also Belgium as a whole, after the recent elections is Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (New Flemish Alliance) which, amongst other measures, advocates within Flanders:

1. Preferential choice in schooling being given to Belgian families who have at least one Dutch-speaking parent.
2. Libraries being forced to stock at least 75% "Flemish" language books.
3. Having to prove "ties" to Flanders if you wish to buy a house or move into low-rent housing.
4. Blood donation sessions being only conducted amongst people who were mono-lingually Dutch (because, of course, Dutch-speaking blood is different to the French-speaking sort).

Whilst they can in no way be compared to the out and out racist headbangers of Vlaams Blok, their own self-description as being "centre-right civic nationalists" is seriously stretching it.

Which makes this invitation surprising (or maybe not):

A ROW has erupted after Plaid Cymru invited a senior politician from the controversial Flemish Nationalist party to speak at its annual conference.

Tomorrow MEP Frieda Brepoels will address Plaid delegates in Aberystwyth.

Her party Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliante (sic) (New Flemish Alliance), which became the biggest party in Belgium after a general election earlier this year, has been accused of promoting discriminatory policies in favour of Flemish speakers.

The defence offered by the Plaid spokesman is, well, not the most watertight I've heard; ie Labour votes with them in the European Parliament and:

"It is ludicrous to suggest that the fact that an N-VA representative is attending Plaid’s conference means that we will be adopting their policies."

Not really the point though is it?
You could invite Nick Griffin you have a word with the faithful without promising to adopt the BNP's policies- the fact he was invited in the first place is what would disturb people.

But OK, *if* Plaid Cymru are not in favour of the linguistic policies being adopted by the N-V A, a simple statement to that effect would help to kill off the controversy.

And today's proposed referendum is...

...not to hard to guess what, if Dan's the man doing the proposing:

A Tory Euro MP has called for a referendum on whether the UK should stay in the European Union, describing it as a "major" constitutional issue.

Daniel Hannan said this had been "repeatedly promised" by several prime ministers but never delivered.

The decision by MPs on Monday to hold a referendum on UK electoral reform strengthened his case, he added.

The coalition government has promised "no further transfer of sovereignty" to the EU during this parliament.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have also agreed that any proposed future treaty to increase Brussels' powers would be subject to a referendum and that ministers would bring in a Sovereignty Bill to ensure that "ultimate authority remains with Parliament".

But Mr Hannan, an MEP for South East England, said incremental changes since the UK joined the Common Market in 1972 had been so thorough that a repeat of the previous "in or out" referendum, held in 1975, was necessary.

'More demand'

He said: "The EU doesn't just bound forward in great treaties. It's confidently moving forward every day.

"I think there's an awful lot more demand for a referendum on EU membership than there is for a referendum on the voting system."

But public demand, principle or pure and simple logic do not appear to be deciding factors at the minute when considering which topics our politicians will permit us to have referendums on.

Update

The petition and more information about the campaign can be accessed here.
Tim Montgomerie's take is here.
The quibble I'd have is over the bold and unsubstantiated statement that it is "the referendum Britain really wants"- how do they know?

Europe. Sigh. Once again.

I thought about clipping this onto an earlier EU-related post, but on reflection, it deserves its own space.

I’m not sure if technically John Redmond was one of Major’s original “bastards”, but if not, he was sure certainly rowing in the same direction. Which makes this post all the more thought provovoking at this particular juncture.

Hague and Cameron, in contrast, are more Europhile, albeit of the Basil Fawlty variety:

May I say how pleased we are to have some Europeans here now that we are on the continent? ... I didn't vote for it myself, quite honestly, but now that we're in, I'm determined to make it work….

This is where the present government’s fault-line lies, not between the Conservatives and the "Gosh, look, we’re in power, don’t rock the boat" Liberal Democrats. A substantial part of the Conservative Party and quite possibly a majority of the UK’s population would vote tomorrow to leave the EU. The leadership, whilst no fans of the "Euro-project", know exactly where such a move would leave the UK diplomatically and so much more importantly, economically.

The EUcracy never goes on holiday.

Must admit I had a chuckle when I first read this; nice timing though, right in the middle of the "cucumber season", when every self-respecting Euro-sceptic is probably sunning himself on the beaches of er... Europe:

The European Commission wants EU member states to consider allowing it to levy direct taxes - a move that could ease the burden on national budgets.

The EU's Budget Commissioner, Janusz Lewandowski, said he would present some options next month for direct EU taxes.

Taxes on aviation, financial transactions and CO2 emission permits are all possibilities, he told the daily Financial Times Deutschland.

So, that "burden" would get directly transferred from the national "budget" to the individual citizen/company? What, apart from another significant loss of national sovereignty to Brussels, would be in it for us, the mere citizens of the EU?

The kind of euro-scepticism the Eurocrats love!

Kind of defeats the purpose of setting up the ECR in the first place:

William Hague's instructions to the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament, in which the British Tories sit, were decisive in securing a crucial positive vote on the European External Action Service (EEAS), EurActiv has learned.

Without a decisive call by UK Foreign Minister William Hague to his fellow party members in the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR), whose members were elected on an anti-federalist ticket, the EEAS would probably not have got off the ground. (see roll call by Vote Watch)

The Parliament voted last Thursday (8 July) on a decision to establish the European External Action Service, a new EU diplomatic corps that will be led by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

To the surprise of many observers – including some ECR group members – the EEAS proposal was approved, in part thanks to the support of MEPs from the European Conservatives and Reformists group.

Was it really worth all this hassle, then leaving the EPP in the first place?
The Conservatives' grassroots is spitting feathers.

Quote of the day

Walter Oppenheimer, a Catalan journalist with the Spanish daily El Pais:

Some Catalans hate the Spanish team, but most of them don't. Equally, some Catalans want independence but most of them don't. They might be ready to support it one day if necessary, but not yet, because they don't feel they need to be outside of Spain.

Most Catalans are Catalanists, which is something rather different from pro-independence: they love Catalonia more than they love Spain, but they don't hate Spain. The same happens with the Spanish team: they support the squad, but they are not prepared to put the Spanish team before Barca, for example. It has always been like that.

The last bit, about putting club before country, is something which is not confined to the devolved regions of Europe.

Joy on the streets of Madrid...

and also Barcelona, it would appear!

But the march could not have been worse timed, according to Josep-Lluis Carod-Rovira, deputy leader of the Catalan regional government and a leader of the separatist Catalan Republican Left party. "This is ridiculous," he complained. "We will end up with more Spanish flags being waved for the Spain-Holland match on Sunday than Catalan flags on the Saturday demonstration."

Barcelona did not experience the same wild celebrations that provoked gridlock in parts of Madrid after the semi-final win against Germany on Wednesday, but Carod-Rovira is right that growing support for La Roja overshadows attempts to assert Catalonia's "different" identity.

Viewing figures showed three-quarters of Catalan television sets were tuned into one of the channels showing the Germany game. As horn-tooting cars and motorbikes flying Spanish flags drove around the city afterwards, flag-waving, chanting fans gathered on Barcelona's Ramblas boulevard in a previously unseen, and unimaginable, celebration of Spanishness.

The red and gold Spanish flag that is so viscerally disliked by local nationalists has even begun to appear on Barcelona balconies. Something, undoubtedly, is changing. "You will now find people out on the streets in La Roja shirts, or with the Spanish flags that are normally considered taboo here," said Marcelino Sánchez, who was among those celebrating in Las Ramblas.

"See me, hear me...but still you try to box me in"

What has developed into a bit of a theme on the blog here this week in both posts and comments is that it is not possible to put parties, much less individuals, into tightly defined and labelled boxes merely on their stance on the constitutional future of the United Kingdom.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, inadvertently proves my point here by attempting to argue that Plaid Cymru are not a “serious” nationalist party.

His reasoning:

1. They are now a genuinely "leftist" party, a stance which "forced" them to become minor partners into a coalition with the "British unionist Labour led Welsh government" rather than a more meaningful role combining with Conservatives.

If you’re nationalist, then going into coalition with either of the 2 main UK parties (and aren’t the Conservatives very much also "British unionists"?) wouldn’t be your preferred choice. If you think obtaining at least some power can advance your cause and you’re "leftist", then your principles and conscience should point you towards the more "leftist" of those 2 "British unionist" parties. Doesn’t diminish your nationalism surely?


2.Rather than campaigning against the Barnett Formula, they are looking for even more funding for Wales.

Hmmm...that last scenario becoming reality could/should/would create more resentment in England, so not at all sure where he’s going on that one.


3.They are unwilling to agree to a referendum which would "decide democratically whether the people of Monmouthshire are Welsh or English".

Perhaps an example of cowardice but, even so, a party unwilling to take the risk of losing part of its nation I still think can justifiably describe itself as a "serious" nationalist one.


4."In England, we find an almost startling absence of activity by Plaid Cymru to promote their cause. While Alex Salmond and the SNP often make controversial remarks helpfully stirring up English nationalism, do we ever hear Plaid Cymru’s voice? To my knowledge, not once."

Ah, so Alex Salmond, in his role as Provocateur-in-Chief is welcomed with open arms by English nationalism... in contrast, Plaid Cymru are limiting the debate on the constitutional future of Wales to Wales rather than getting the English to do their dirty work for them; once again I think an honourable route for a nationalist party to take.


5. During the 2010 General Election, Plaid Cymru rather than supporting their fellow nationalists in England instead plumped for "the internationalist, socialist and Europhile, Green Party".

Other than their nationalism and distaste for "British Unionism", the English Democrats and Plaid Cymru don’t appear to have that much in common and it is quite comforting (bearing in mind the xenophobic stance held by many of the nationalist parties on mainland Europe) to see a nationalist party comfortable with an "internationalist", "Europhile" outlook.

Likewise, as a Unionist, other than a shared belief in the continuance of that Union, I would have very little in common politically with the typical member of Scottish Labour, the UKIP or the DUP; for that same reason, despite them both wishing to see their own part of the UK separate from the greater whole, the SNP have been very careful to keep a distance from Sinn Fein.

Unionism/nationalism does form an important part of many peoples’ political beliefs in the United Kingdom but why should it limit their freedom on other policies and the freedom to choose their allies?

Implications of the Yusuf Salduz Case are rattling cages...

An intriguing report on a number of levels:

The doors to Scotland’s jails could be flung open by a Supreme Court human rights ruling, Tory leader Annabel Goldie has warned MSPs.

She clashed with Alex Salmond at First Minister’s Questions over the implications of a looming human rights ruling in London on the Scots practice of denying suspects legal representation in the six hours during which they can be held before formal arrest.

"Allowing" suspects immediate legal representation "may throw the doors of Scotland’s jails open", a whiff of Daily Mail populist scare-mongering there; my understanding is that even in the worst case scenario, those presently imprisoned may be able to press for retrials, not immediate and/or automatic release.

The more interesting implication however from Goldie is the fear of a UK Supreme Court ruling taking precedence over those of the fiercely independent Scottish legal system. The fact is that it does do so in civil but not criminal cases but even so, it's a curious argument for a Unionist to take in that she’s basically arguing for a consolidation of Scottish separatism here.

“Salmond insisted that because a full bench of seven Scottish appeal judges had ruled that our system was compliant under the European Convention on Human Rights it would be wrong to jump the gun on the issue. He said: "I think it would be unwise to plan wholesale changes which would be necessary to the Scottish legal system when judges unanimously supported the position that our legal system is compliant with convention."

"And equally it’s sensible to have contingencies in place for all eventualities, such as the operational guidance and advice that was issued by the Lord Advocate last week."

In other words, “We should be OK... I think”. The fact that there is even an element of doubt (as there must be when there are "contingencies in place for all eventualities") is disturbing. With so much at stake, there should be a 0% element of doubt. Also, it’s worth mentioning that someone who would define himself as a social liberal is not arguing with Goldie on the fundamental human rights issue at stake here (ie the right of any suspect to have legal representation) but on whether the SNP administration is "prepared for all eventualities".

The other final point is that the title UK Supreme Court is a misnomer; in such cases as we are dealing with here, it is quite evidently the European Court of Human Rights which has the final ruling.

What a nice day for a Serbian sunrise !

What with yesterday's events and Lee and Norman very kindly helping me out with my YouTubes, I thought it's just about the right time for this:



The Boban Marković Orchestra is a Roma Brass Band from Vladičin Han, Southern Serbia that I first heard of when they performed part of the soundtrack to the Emir Kusturica film "Underground". I've since seen them live twice in festivals and I can only say that if you ever get the chance do go and see them.

According to Auntie Beeb: Flemish "separation", Scottish and Welsh "independence"

From the BBC:

Belgium's Flemish separatists make big election gains

Belgium's Flemish separatist party, the New Flemish Alliance (NVA), has emerged as the largest force in parliament, with coalition talks set to start.

The NVA, whose ultimate aim is independence for Flanders, Belgium's northern half, took 27 of 150 seats.

Plaid Cymru and the SNP are partners of the NVA in the European Free Alliance, along with a whole host of other civic and ethno-nationalist parties in the European Union.

Both Plaid Cymru and Scotland, like the NVA, also desire splitting away from a larger, united nation.

Why then, with such similiarities, does the BBC, never, ever refer to Plaid Cymru or the SNP as "separatist" parties? What's the difference between their goals and methods and those of the NVA?

Ethno-Nats take a hit in Slovakia but doing well in Belgium

A quick follow-up to this post:

A coalition of centre-right opposition parties in Slovakia has won enough seats to unseat the current government.

With almost all votes counted, Prime Minister Robert Fico's leftist Smer party has just over 35%, enough to gain 63 seats in the 150-seat parliament.

But three conservative parties and an ethnic Hungarian party are set to win 78 seats.

The other good news is that two xenophobic nationalist parties, the Slovak National Party and the HZDS (party of former Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar) have done badly. Also interesting to note that "ethnic" Hungarian party "Most-Hid" (translated as "bridge" in both Hungarian and Slovak) is much less stridently "Magyar" than the Hungarian government's preferred choice, the MKP, which has failed to enter parliament this time. In what may prove to be counterintuitively long-term good news for relationships in the region, two representatives of the Hungarian government put the economy almost into freefall with comments made, ironically enough, on Trianon Commemorance Day. The government has now been forced to turn away from winding up the neighbours and concentrate on the real financial crisis faced by the country.

Not such good news on the horizon from the other end of the continent:

Belgium is holding parliamentary elections which could bring the country closer to a constitutional split.

The Flemish separatist party the New Flemish Alliance (NVA) is expected to do well in the vote.

Its leader Bart De Wever supports dividing the country in two, Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia.

However, a split bringing an end to Belgium would not happen immediately.

Belgian governments are required to be made up of a bi-lingual coalition, but this is the first federal election from which a party advocating the end of Belgium could emerge the outright winner

Once the full results are known, I'll do a longer post on this.

Cameron to get oranje support?!

The party which has gained the most seats in the Dutch elections, the VVD, has this to says about the EU on its website:

The VVD doesn’t want a "European superstate". We want a Europe that functions. Therefore, we don’t need a Constitution, but an EU which limits itself to its core tasks and offers solutions for the 21st century. The solutions of the former century were about agriculture and regional subsidies. In this century it is about climate and energy, asylum and migration flows and fighting terrorism. Therefore we need to go back to what we have: the current Treaties (the Treaty of Nice).

In other words, they are up for abolishing the Lisbon Treaty!

Mark Rutte has also said:

"Europe is not a kind of idealistic project. I'm not awake every morning with 27 stars and a European flag over my head. ..."

As Open Europe points out, their stance on the EU is important as Mark Rutte is odds on favourite to become the country's new PM and if he succeeds, he should prove to be a welcome mainstream ally for the British Conservatives in the inevitable battles ahead.