I'm sorry I wasn't here a moment or two ago, but if this is the amendment that the colleague opposite has re-presented, which you ruled inadmissible, it was just withdrawn before we suspended. Who's playing games? This is nonsensical in the extreme. It's exactly the same wording.
I know some of my colleagues have already made up their mind on this, and that's fine. Everybody is free to do that. But to then take us to a position where we're going to withdraw something and present it all over again...I'm not sure whether the appropriate term is respectful of the process or not, but it certainly is a devious way of trying to deal with an issue that obviously wasn't going anywhere.
Am I to understand now, Mr. Chairman, that we begin the debate entirely all over again, and that all of those words that appeared to some colleagues to be repetitive have now been washed off the beach?