I know, this is completely unrelated to music - but can anyone help educate me on Sarkozy's policies in France? I know he is right-wing obviously, and opposed to immigration. I know he's hoping for a closer relationship with the USA, and I seem to recall someone on here a while ago telling me that he wished to restrict the teaching of history - teaching school children that colonisation was good for the colonies or similar?

The thing is we are doing politics in my french class now, and I feel woefully ignorant, and it's one of the topics that really does interest me.

Hope someone can help, as I'm thinking of doing something related to politics for a module of my A-levels.
Thanks.

have you asked Kerioboe or Aquarelle who both live in France
and I think Freda Bloogs is in France too

Basically he is the French equivalent of Thatcher. His major thing at the moment is public sector workers, just now he's targeting the transport side. The nature of a lot of their benefits, retirement at an early age, high pensions etc, were set up a few centuries ago when the tasks were far more physically demanding and very few of them would actually live long enough to reach it. Now of course its a massive burden on the state so he's trying to cut back on it, increase retirement age, trying to create a better balance between what they're paying in and what the government gives them in return. The real departure in politics terms is that the French people aren't supporting the strikers as they once did. I can't quite remember the figures but a significant proportion of the public are on the governments side for once which is why the unions will in all likelihood be defeated, although it may take longer than in Britain given how entrenched it is.

The opposition to immigration is actually justified if you look at the current the situation. The problem in that ethic minorities have moved to France, particularly from former colonies etc, but they have never really been fully integrated into the culture. They've ended up with ghettos where you have a very high concentration of poor immigrants a lot of whom feel disenfranchised resulting in riots once every few years. The French of course have their own poor people and they dislike the perception that immigrants are being put ahead of them in the cue for housing benefits etc. Its the age old situation, Sarkozy seems to have decided that before they need to deal with the current situation before they allow it to get any worse. They also don't particularly want Le Pen playing a major role in politics, by confronting the issue head on they may neutralise his influence.

I think what he actually said was that it was now up to the historians to decide what the realities of colonisation was. From a British perspective we've avoided talking about it since the end of the Empire, everyone seemed to decide that it wasn't worth talking about, just accepting everything was bad about it. You can argue about the rights and wrongs of it, but there were benefits on both sides. The fact is that civilisation, as we perceive it, probably wouldn't have spread as rapidly or as widely as it had if the Imperial powers didn't have the incentive of resources/manpower/position and the native peoples probably wouldn't have developed to the kind of democracies we have in most places today, remaining fairly trivial warring factions. One of the most recent announcements from Sarkozy was that the French government would provide support for those who fought on their side in one of the colonial conflicts, both in France and the native country.

The U.S. side is quite interesting, but i think a lot of it will depend on who wins the next election. In the E.U. the French have pledged to veto Turkey joining, partly as a result of the immigration side. It would probably be worth doing a search on BBC News to check up on some of his background, he was the Interior Minister under Chirac. The other thing just now is the internal politiking. You're probably better looking on BBC for that though as its quite confusing enough without me trying to interpret it. The other recent scandal was with one of his female ministers, she made a false claim on one an job application. There was also another problem in one of the slums recently, two youths riding on a motorbike were involved in a crash with a pursuing police car, they were either killed or seriously injured, this prompted rioting and allegations of the police officers involved breaking the law. Another policeman was attacked by a gang during the riots, i believe Sarkozy visited him in the hospital.

Not a few centuries ago - retirement benefits are not that old!

This is not really true either. Each profession has their own "caisse" and in fact the "caisse" for MPs is far more in debt than the one for railway workers.


This is also debatable, I use public transport and passengers seem to be resigned rather than angry and media reporting is very biased (Sarkozy is friends with those who own the media). The structure of unions is not the same in both countries, although you are right that this is a symbolic battle.


They are literally disenfranchised as they don't have the right to vote.


Lucky was referring to a previous law which did say that children were to be taught that colonialism had a beneficial effect. He has just given a very controversial speech in Dakar about Africa having no history which you might like to read/listen to.

Thanks for all the info - immigrants don't have the right to vote? Very interesting...

I had heard about that speech in Dakar as well, but not too much about it - I think I'll find it and listen. Interesting about the idea of censorship too.

If he's the French equivalent of Thatcher I'm bound not to like him I think.

I hope you didn't mind my putting your name there, Kerioboe ?

I thought that, if you didn't mind, you are someone who could be a real help .....

thanks, I find your answers interesting too.

Almost all of this comes from what i've heard on the BBC or read in the media, so any inaccuracies and i'll blame them .

I seem to remember that the few centuries came from somewhere in the benefits row. I've just had a quick look at the BBC where it says

"Benefits 1.6m workers, including 1.1m retirees
Applies in 16 sectors, of which rail and utilities employees make up 360,000 people
Account for 6% of total state pension payments
Shortfall costs state 5bn euros (£3.5bn; $6.9bn) a year
Some workers can retire on full pensions aged 50
Awarded to Paris Opera House workers in 1698 by Louis XIV"

It was from memory so perhaps i misinterpreted the article initially, there's no direct clarification on whether it also applies to the transport workers. Possibly the same/similar provisions were extended to transport workers when trains went into use?

MPs everywhere have a unique ability to overlook their own largess in terms of pensions while drawing attention to those of every other sector. Having said that with politicians you have a far higher turnover than other industries so its not overly uncommon for shortfalls. If you look at it numerically the rail workers and utilities, with 360,000, are likely to be far more expensive in the long run than MPs who presumably have fewer people on the pension plan.

Most media organisations use external sources for surveys, its possible that it is entirely coincidental but on the basis that it was something like 70-30 against the strikers and that they didn't seem to have any problem finding people to talk about how irritating the strikers were on BBC it seems fairly accurate. Obviously all such polls can be inaccurate, but the fact remains that the government appears to have won this round.

Well as i pointed out colonialism did have benefits of a sort, it seems to be bringing a more accurate way of looking at history to hear both sides, positive and negative rather than a whitewashing. I'm presuming obviously that he didn't say they would only be taught about the positive aspects of it.

I'll look up the speech tomorrow its getting a bit late. Although it does seem very dependent on what you consider history. African history prior to colonial expansion was very much oral, you didn't really have the massive monuments/written history that Europe had, except in those areas closest to Europe itself. Since that time the colonies have been so entwined with their rulers that it is far more of a shared history than one which can be claimed for Africa or Europe of itself.



Immigrants not having voting rights isn't overly uncommon. I think it dates back to Rome actually. Isn't there some sort of citizenship process in France you need to undergo to get the vote etc?

Probably, having said that it may explain why the rest of your class like him.

This is true but incomplete and of course to interpret it correctly you need to know something about the French retirement system. To be able to retire you have to have reached a certain age and to get a full pension you have to have worked a certain number of years. In the regime general, you have to be 60 and to have worked for 40 years. The regimes speciaux (which is what is referred to above) have different rules. The idea is that each "regime" has its own "caisse", the people working in the sector pay part of their salary into this caisse and this money is used to pay pensions. Each caisse manages its money independently. For various reasons the rail workers are symbolic of these regimes speciaux but their caisse is not the one with the biggest shortfall. To give you a few other examples of regimes speciaux: primary school teachers can retire at 55, (secondary school techers have to wait until they're 60), gendarmes can retire at 45, MPs just have to have been MPs for a few years (and it is their caisse which has the biggest shortfall however you look at it), any woman who has had 3 children can retire after working for 15 years (although they don't get a very big pension). The Opera House workers' benefits do date back to Louis XIV but they weren't called pensions then as workers in other professions just worked until they dropped (unless their family could look after them).

What the current debate tends to forget is that the high unemployment rate is also partly responsible for the current budget problems - if more people were working the caisses would be paying less unemployment benefit and more people would be paying into the caisses.


Again you are looking at things from a British perspective and unfortunately you are wrong and the law did say they would only be taught about the positive aspects of colonialism. History teaching in French schools dates back to the end of the 19th century and the separation of church and state. History was called the "catechisme republicain" and it is (still) based on how France was founded as a nation. In primary school they do no social history and history is just a series of dates and battles. Even at university level there is no real confrontation of different points of view. In fact earlier this week there was a programme on the radio station "France Culture" saying that while in England there is an Oxford history of the British Empire which includes articles written by historians from the former colonies, France has no equivalent and everything is seen from the French point of view. France has a very troubled relationship with its colonial past. People will tell you, for example, that Tunisia was a colony but Algeria was not because Algeria was a French departement. In the same way New Caledonia, la Martinique etc. are not the remains of French colonies but part of France.


Here you have hit the nail on the head. You naturally consider "oral" history to be history, most French people listening to Sarkozy still consider only written sources to be valid.


I know immigrants not having voting rights is common; what I was objecting to was your wording that they "feel disenfranchised" when they "are" disenfranchised. You can vote in local elections (but not for national ones) if you are a European citizen, you can't vote for anything if you come from another country and the only way of getting voting rights is to be naturalised as a French citizen.

to what extent is it true, when I read that Sarkozy is trying to bring France forward to the 21st century?
'modernising' and making change is never easy, there is always some resistance.

Of course he is. After what I believe has been a number of stagnant years in French politics, anyone is going to want to take some sort of action pretty quickly. As for whether there is resistance, it depends who you talk to. If you speak to the "racailles" in the banlieues, then they're not going to be happy, but to be honest, the reason for this is that he's not exactly taking a softly-softly approach to the state of the suburbs. Maybe that's the only way to get things done...?

In general, the French weren't happy about Chirac being elected president for his final term, they just didn't want Le Pen. Now Sarkozy has arrived with all guns blazing and it's a bit of a shock.

As to whether the french support the transport strikers or not, some do some don't. I know here everyone found different means of transport or worked from home. It was a pain in the backside but people got on with it, knowing that as it was Sarkozy's first political act he's not likely to back down.

Sorry it's a bit of a ramble, had a "lourd" night last night

c'est pas grave...
tres interessant.. merci

It seems not quite so different from the British system as you think, although i'm a bit young to have a tremendous interest in the pensions system. My understanding of it is that they are targeting the railway workers because of the extent of the deficit, but also because their jobs are far less physically strenuous than it was when the conditions were set. With the other cases you highlight teachers still have a fairly stressful career, gendarmes are still taking the same kind of risks and MPs still don't want to cut their own benefits and have the fairly difficult task of running the country. The other thing is once the railway workers have lost their special status the benefits of other areas aren't the 'sacred cow' they once were so it makes it easier for the MPs to take/reduce their benefits once it is deemed expedient/in the national interest.

Yes but if more people were working the eventual deficit would become higher as those people retire and join the rest in seeking pension benefits. You would need to sustain a higher level of employment for each caisse with each successive generation, or increase contributions to take account of it and then you need to add in increased life expectancy etc. The problem isn't specific to France though.

I've just done a quick search coming up with this and this. The latter of which states "Last year, a strong row took place against the 2005 law in which MP nostalgics of the colonial rule wanted French teachers and French history textbooks to teach mainly "the positive role of the French presence in its overseas colonies, especially in North Africa” Using mainly implies that there would be a particular emphasis on it. The first appears to back this up by suggesting the change was to ensure the colonists views of the time were represented along with those of the native population which were in receiving what some deemed a disproportionate influence. There is also the fact that it was a government of which Sarkozy was a part, as such the policies don't necessarily represent his views or any future policies he may introduce. If i were you i'd be thankful about the state of history teaching in France i doubt many people in Britain could tell you dates or the difference in status between territories, dominions etc.

Thats really a matter for the historians though, the problem they would need to look at is how reliable the history is. Even in Egypt where they did have written records they almost managed to erase all trace of various Pharaohs or Kings, then we have the victor writes the history side.

Technically they would only be disenfranchised if they prevented from exercising rights they had been given. If the French state has decided only to give the vote to naturalised citizens then that is their decision, the immigrants have no automatic right to vote under French law hence they are not being disenfranchised. It seems quite a logical policy from an integration perspective to have them naturalised as citizens before they receive the right to vote, otherwise they can unduly influence the policy making of the country. It may not square with what we see as human rights but it is a decision for the existing electorate to make as it was in Britain after WWI etc.

I can't really add any more to the facts other posters have given - or to the viewpoints relating to those facts. However, my day to day experience has led me to sypathise with De Gaulle who once said something to the effect thet it was ridiculous to imagine you could govern a country that made 300 different varieties of cheese!

The French are a wonderful people with all sorts of qualities and I find myself priviledged to be able to live here. However, like many nations they suffer from the faults of their qualities.

Many of my French friends despair because France desperately needs to be modernised. It has in many ways fallen way behind other European countries. But the minute governments decide to bring in reforms large pressure groups are out in the streets saying that they don't want THOSE reforms. For example, the universities are crying out for money and students are crying out for courses which lead to qualifications the captains of industry will value and who will therefore employ graduates. The present government is tring to introduce a law which will give universities a degree of autonomy in their their organisation and allow a degree of funding by commercial organisations. So the university and lycée students have been out in the street protesting against what they call "the privatisation of universities".It is all a bit topsy turvey.

Up until now governments have always back pedalled fast in the face of these pressure groups. Nicolas Sarkozy went to the country as presidential candidate declaring that he would put through certain reforms. He claims to have been elected on that ticket and says he is not going to back pedal. He hasn't got a lot of room for manoeuvre but I suspect that as far as is possible he will stick to his philosophy.

Never too young to think about pensions!

Oh dear, I'm turning into my dad...

Oh, and when Sarkozy was Interior Minister at the time of the October/November 2005 riots in the Paris banlieues, he called the rioters 'racaille', which is basically 'scum'.

Really?!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't say "racaille" is quite as harsh as "scum". However I think this shows Sarkozy's attitude well - he doesn't mind tackling people head on, not just on a podium behind a load of microphones.

There was a news report on during the first transport strikes showing him meeting on the streets with the strikers. He stood his ground on all the points thrown at him and he was not allowing anybody to shout him down. I thought that was quite formidable by politicians' standards. You can find the video on YouTube somewhere. He tackles things head on, basically, and isn't afraid to say it.

I doubt I'll ever consider calling a whole group of people scum admirable personally, but then, I made this thread knowing nothing about him. Still, if that shows his attitude well I suppose that says a lot.

Fair enough, I'm just using my French teacher's translation!




Yep! Have spent this term doing a piece of coursework about the film 'La Haine' and la banlieue, so have more info/links to stuff about the 2005 riots if you want.

I think you'd find that such generalisations are common on both sides. There was an article in the Times saying that one union member had branded a group 'collabos' for supporting the repeal of legislation which prevents shops to open on a Sunday, the term was previously used for collaborators with the Nazis. In this kind of confrontation there is a tendency to use strong language, just look at the way the miners treated anyone who crossed the picket and i think you can be fairly certain that the cabinet used rather stronger adjectives for the unions than scum.

Sometimes you do need leaders to just see black and white e.g. Churchill wouldn't have been nearly as successful as our wartime prime minister if he'd been indecisive and hadn't stuck to his views.

I wasn't referring to his use of the word "racaille," I was talking about him taking to the streets and talking to his constituents.



Ah, trust them then They'll be far more qualified than me! Hehe

I've seen La Haine in french as well... it was the beginning of the year though, and I'd put it out of my mind.

Generalisations on both sides, perhaps... I think in wartime a different sort of leader is necessary. Diplomacy IS necessary in a leader out of wartime. Additionally, the president or prime minister of a country, supports the views of that country, and must certainly be fairer than someone expressing only their own views.

Are you inferring that Sarkozy isn't diplomatic?

Deleted, bloomin' thing posted twice.

Yep, he's the last person to use strong language, so it really is that bad!



That's true.......I'm not really sure what I think about Sarkozy.


Oh, Lucky, another thing you might find interesting is that, at least during his election campaign (don't know if he's actually done anything about it), he supported calls for questions about ethnic origin/religion to be included in surveys/census, something which is controversial (and maybe still illegal) because it goes against the principle of 'liberté, egalité, fraternité' (once someone is French, they're French and all French people are equal, is the attitude). Nationality is determined by the Jacobin principle (birth), rather than blood (as is the case in Germany)

Well... I must reiterate that I know nothing of this but what I've heard here, but calling protesters scum? Hardly diplomatic. It's not exactly wartime in France is it? Isn't the argument that the rioters are so poor, and that immigrants are so discriminated against (de facto discrimination perhaps, but it's there) that they feel demoralised, and not a part of France, and thus they riot? I'm not sure I think calling them "racailles" helps that.



That is interesting. I'd heard of his "nationalist/racist attitudes" (don't attack me please, that's just what I've heard) but never heard anything to back it up. That does seem to, to me.

Actually, a lot of ethnic minority groups are in favour of it, because they think that having accurate statistics about theethnic make-up of the population will help tackle the problem of covert racism and discrimination - there's been a lot of stories about people with names that don't sound French being rejected from jobs etc.




That's a pretty succint summary (although there are other factors at work)

Yeah, I've heard that - but then surely all this'll mean is that those with foreign sounding surnames who ARE native french will get jobs, and those with French sounding surnames who AREN'T French natives won't - it seems to make covert or de facto discrimination even easier - everyone will know exactly who to discriminate against.

This article talks about the use of the word "racaille." I'd originally thought "rascal" but this says "rabble." Either way, there's another way of looking at it.

You're right, it's not too diplomatic, but he was voted in - an act of diplomacy (although don't get me started on George Bush's Florida elections ) However, I think it's more diplomatic when translated that way. Remember he's got to appeal to his bourgeois electorate, so calling these heathen youths "rabble" would win him votes.

Spin?



In France, if you're going to get discriminated against when applying for a job, it will happen. You must include a photo on CVs.

Yeah, you could get a job as his publicist




I suppose it all depends how you look at it.........

Why thank you

Cordialement,

The Devil's Advocate.

Contemptible populace or rabble. Well rabble isn't so bad then. You could make an argument for "contemptible populace" being yet worse, but I won't go there.

I could also make a case about le front national coming second in a diplomatic election too... but the main problem is that I was using the word diplomatic to mean tactful really.

That photo thing on CVs doesn't sound good - I don't have a CV... do you have to have a photo on your CV in England?

You could, but that's really been put down to the fact that les Français wanted to make a stand in order to show that they want change. However, you will notice that the overwhelming majority with which Chirac's government won the 2nd round means that they don't fancy Jean-Marie as their leader.


Personally, no and I think it is frowned upon but it is common place here. In fact, I had to get dressed up in my suit just to sit infront of the camera Lovely. The french also like to have hand written cover letters - although that's diminishing with the advent of email and word processing - so that they can "judge the character of the writer."

And they wonder why there's 10% unemployment?!

Is it not also because a lot of left-wing people voted for minor left-wing candidates (eg Elizabeth Taubira?), thus splitting the vote. Although that does count as 'showing they want change, I suppose.

Hmm, yeah, my french teacher told me that as well, about Le Pen. With an air of embarrassment that it got that far, however. She says she felt so guilty about not voting (she was in England and couldn't get back). She also said she understands voting as a "lesser of two evils" thing - that although she doesn't like Sarkozy and didn't like chirac, she felt obliged to vote for them in case the outcome was even worse.
Yeah... well I'm writing about this, and am left-wing, so... but then it needs to be balanced, so it's good that I'm getting information from different viewpoints.

Lucky, just out of interest, what are you doing for your coursework? My class is doing La Haine and Bonjour Tristesse.

Just noticed, someone else up here in Yorkshire!

It's funny that you'd say that, as my A Level teacher was also French and said the same thing.

Yeah what are you lucky people doing for coursework? I had blooming literature last year.

What did you read?

Yup Well our school lets us choose our coursework - I'm doing umm... Is Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's view of innocence in "Le Petit Prince" realistic. I'm thinking of doing Sarkozy for my oral exam though.

A couple of people are doing the riots in France, someone's doing les médecins sans frontiers. (not sure of spelling of that one). Umm, José Bové, and nuclear energy, and obesity in France. That's all I can remember. We did watch La Haine though. "C'est l'histoire d'un mec, qui tombe..." etc etc I still remember the whole quote.

I like literature!! Oh no, editing has messed up my accents I bet!

La Place - Annie Ernaux. No doubt I'll have to do some more of Ernaux in 2nd year too, we have a major feminist on the staff list.
L'étranger - Albert Camus. I'd like to re-read that again now that I can actually speak a bit of French. It was a good book.

I just moan because I'm completely against the study of literature in the typical way. I hate having to find things that aren't there and disecting sentences until there's nothing left. However doing it for translation purposes is far more interesting, I think you can learn more about social contexts etc. that way, although I'm sure someone will disagree!

I really want to read 'Le Petit Prince', brought a copy back from France with me but haven't had time to read it.

I can't believe you got to choose a topic, everyone is doing the same topic in my class (but with different questions)



I've read that!




I'm the opposite, I can't stand translation!

Are you guys planning to study French at Uni?

Well I plan to take English at uni - so no comment on the literature thing. Suffice it to say, I do believe the symbolism was intended in most novels, at least subconsciously. I want to keep french up though.

I like translation too, however, and I love "Le Petit Prince". I know it's a kids book, but I don't think I'd have managed Camus on my own, and we weren't going to do it in class, so...

And there's enough to talk about with "Le Petit Prince". What's "L'étranger" about?

I'm sure people have been awarded Ph.Ds on this question! It's too late for me to attempt that one so...
This is quite a good explanation.

Yes, French and Spanish




Basically, how this man comes to realise the absurdness of life and how the universe is completely irrational.........it's better than it sounds and I don't want to give too much of the plot away.

L'étranger's pretty manageable (or maybe that's because I read it when I was away in France on the French exchange and so I was completely immersed in French at the time). La Chute (another book by Camus) is a bit harder, though.

Check out the open day here. But this is very off topic. Back to Sarko, please!

Ah right... well yeah, sounds interesting, but I think I'd be so immersed in the translation I wouldn't be able to concentrate on any deeper meaning. Le Petit Prince is easy enough that you can do both (even though I was sitting there with Word Reference at the time... just to help...)

Hmm Sarko - one question I had - is it true he planned to control what children were taught in any way shape or form? I know I was wrong about the colonisation thing. If so, doesn't that rather contradict his ideas about getting closer to America - the country which considers itself the policeman of the world in matters such as free speech and censorship? I won't even get into the contradictions inherent in the USA itself.

That sounds very cool, but I want to study Spanish as well, because I love the language (if not some of the stupid pointless stuff I'm forced to do for Spanish A level).

Oh, and I sent my UCAS form off over 2 months ago.

The year abroad programme looks cool.



There are several English translations (called either 'The Stranger' or 'The Outsider').




A bit random, but about 6 weeks or so ago (when I was in France), there was talk about all French schoolchildren being made to read the letters of Guy Moquet, a French Resistance fighter. My correspondent's dad wasn't too impressed, as he thought it was indoctrination and the state being too interfering.

I'm not exactly sure how prescribed the French curriculum is...it's certainly very rigorous!

Oh yeah, that's what I've been told... Well... not to sound mercenary or anything, but I can certainly talk about that.

All this is a typical over simplification.There is in France, as in England, a tendancy to get hold of half an idea and to comment on it as if it were the absolute truth. M. Sarkozy did not say all school children should read Guy Moquet's letters. He quite simply aasked that the last letter Guy Moquet wrote to his family before he was shot by the Nazis should be read in every LYCEE (ie by 16 to 19 year olds). Guy Moquet was one of a group of Lycéens who resisted the Nazis while still in their teens, and who were shot as a result. M. Sarkozy asked that this letter be read on Armistice Day as part of our "devoir de mémoire". He felt young people of the present generation should know something about what they owed to young people of a past generation.
If your correspondant's father considered this to be political indoctrination I can only suggest that he should, as they say here "revoir sa copie."

It is exceptionally difficult for the English, who have not been occupied by an invading army since 1066 to understand the residue of difficulties such an invasion leaves on a population. How would you feel if you found yourself in the same class at school as the grand child of the man who had shopped your grandfather to the Nazis? How would you feel if your grandmother had had her head shaved by her neigbours because she fell in love with a German soldier? Yes, the English also bear scars, but they are different and in a sense,
have a less intimate effect on their daily lives. Time heals, but the process is can be slow. Guy Moquet's letter did not express any bitterness against his executioners. It expressed his love for his family and his belief in the ideals for which, as a teenager, he was about to die.


To come back to the "rigorous" curriculum in French schools. Nicolas Sarkozy has no direct control over this.
The Minister of Education does. The curriculum is centralised - far more than in England - and is based on a philosophy of education rather different from that of the English system. When I trained as a teacher the overriding philosophical idea was that all children were to be regarded as equal and were to have equal opportunities. That meant that each child should be taken as far as he/she could go. Hence remedial teachers and different compensatory programmes to enable equality.

The French philosophy is that all children are to be regarded as equal and are to have equal opportunities. Therefore there are no compensatory programmes for either the very quick or the extremely slow learner. That would be to differenciate and would not enable equality of opportunity. It is a philosophy based on republican and egalitarian ideas.

This, of course opens up a whole field of discussion.