I am being a bit long-winded, but I'm doing it for a reason. It is to make the point that ultimately, when we're trying to decide whether or not to pursue debate or push something through, our default state is allowing more debate. That's what's going on here. Rather than rushing something through without having a chance to figure out whether it makes sense, we want to take the time to sit down and look at it.
That was the reason I asked the question to the other parties. I'd like to find out where they were going. I was trying to figure out if they were going to ram this thing through. Is that the real purpose? Do we get to find out after it's too late to do anything about it, or are they actually willing to look at the amendment? That makes me decide whether or not I'm going to talk out the time.
Is their goal is to go out there and say that we want what we want? We made a deal that we would discuss this internally and work out what might be a compromise arrangement, and now we've decided to go back on our word on something we decided elsewhere to show that what we thought were honourable proceedings are in fact out the window. We will drop something on you with no notice whatsoever and ram it through with no debate and no possibility of amendment--without even the possibility, if I might be so bold, of allowing me to confirm whether or not--