I have to admit almost personal culpability. When I not only drafted the extraordinary challenge procedure but convinced a reluctant Prime Minister that it was necessary to avoid frivolous constitutional challenges, I never expected, even in my worst nightmares, that the Americans would, first of all, use it every time as a routine appeal in the hope that eventually they'd win a lottery by having two crazy American judges in the process; nor, since that hasn't happened yet, that when they lost those cases, they would then refuse to abide by them, despite the fact that under U.S. law those are final and binding decisions.
Yet I would remind you that when you are putting it against Elliot's conjuring about this wonderful, glowing future--winning the next ECC--that we have already won the extraordinary challenge. We won it last year on the injury case, and that's the end of it. Legally, we won.
Eventually, we had to go before the United States Court of International Trade to try to get them to force the administration to obey their own laws. I guarantee that if, as I hope, a decision were to have gone in our favour, it would have been appealed and appealed. Further, if we were to have won all those appeals, and if the Americans finally decided they would actually obey their own highest court, then the following day the U.S. coalition would introduce another lumber case, this time with renewed determination and very possibly with further congressional action to make their own law even less favourable.
So consider the source on that sort of an observation.