The challenge with that....
I get where you want to go with this, Mr. Williamson. I think I made my position on this clear. We're dealing, effectively, with the last line. Part of the amendment that we're dealing with is the addition to the preamble over and above what the main motion is.
Do you understand what I'm saying? The amendment that was proposed starts after “a six-month high”. We're dealing with an amendment that has three paragraphs in it and then the addition of Ms. Byrne in the last part of that motion.
The challenge for you in proposing this is that it doesn't accurately reflect what you want to do. That's why my suggestion is that we dispose of the amendment. We can continue to have debate on this and then come back. If it's the will of the members to delete the preamble and just deal with the heart of what this motion is all about and what the amendment potentially is all about, then we can look to add to that amendment, which includes the deletion of the preamble.
You're only dealing with half the issue right now. That's the problem. You're not dealing with the top half, which was moved in the main motion. You're dealing with the second half, which was moved in the amendment. I appreciate where you're going with this.
I don't have any other speakers on the list, so I am going to move to the amendment.
Do we have consensus on the amendment? Do you want votes?