That's a valid point, regarding the analogy. I respect their decision to offer modifications, I just don't agree with it myself because I don't think the modifi

That's a valid point, regarding the analogy. I respect their decision to offer modifications, I just don't agree with it myself because I don't think the modifications were anything substantial. To expand upon this further: in the House of Commons, the Government cannot keep coming back and asking the same question. They may only ask the House to vote on an issue once. If they come back with something "substantially similar", then the rules dictate it is treated as though it were the same and cannot be asked again. I like this approach. It prevents people from giving in and being "bullied" into accepting something they clearly didn't want the first time. In respect of the approach to the referendum re-runs, I viewed it as using the "Ask for 100%, and then settle for 90%" approach. Voters aren't stupid — they rejected the original constitution for a reason... and I suppose I'm tired of the perception (rightly or wrongly!) that the Commission and Council know better than their citizens. Whether they intended it or not (and I'm sure they didn't), that's the sense I get from them now – that they know better and we ought to just accept whatever they suggest. :-( It's a shame, because I like the founding principles of the Union.