RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I really don't think there is 'a will they won't trigger article 50' question. Preliminary negotiations can begin prior to it being triggered, anyway. It's worth delaying it as emotions are high - as we saw from Juncker storming off stage - and it's very nearly the summer recess.

I'm about to lose two big contracts absent of some clarity as to what happens next, and I doubt I/we'd be the only business that has some nervous overseas investors/clients. All very well saying lets work our way through it, but there will be some costs the more this drags out, and from my point of view we should have been told going into the vote what was actually going to be negotiated, okay they couldn't have possibly told us the outcome, but they could have said these are the areas we want change, and these areas we're not going to touch, well they could have done were they organised and understanding of what they wanted to achieve rather than an amalgam of people who have various issues with Europe, the EU and the political status quo with no actual idea of what they want next and no chance of agreeing on it.

And speed is important, emotions will be running high in a few months too if we're making people redundant as a consequence of this.

It's 4 weeks out of 104, and as I've said informal negotiations can begin whenever. Once article 50 is triggered you've got 2 years and if you get to the end of those two years and negotiations are not quite finished then tough, the divorce happens. That would lead to chaos.

Speed isn't nearly as important as getting it right. Botch the negotiations and people will suffer for years. Trade deals take years to negotiate, how anyone thinks we can 'consciously uncouple' (hat tip to Gwyneth) speedily is beyond me. Though, I have to admit, why trade deals take so long is also beyond me.

4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:The negotiations commence once Article 50 has been triggered. If the UK goes through the entire 2 year process and then decides to have another referendum, in which they decide to stay - its already too late. They can't just "decide" to stay, it would require every member EU state, who they have in effect just told to f*ck off and spent 2 years negotiating against, to vote to bring them back in.

Would they?

Negotiations could be on anything really, given we don't know what the BRExit campaign want to actually negotiate, nor what they want to have replace it. And now we'll likely have to wait for a few months whilst the Conservatives appoint a new leader to even commence the process, luckily markets and investors always respond positively to months of uncertainty.

I sort of understand why the BRexit people have never said what they actually want to negotiate as it's very likely they don't remotely agree with each other. But it'll be oddly interesting to see what they want to do (eventually) and how they think the mandate of a 35% vote made of largely of left wing racists gives authority to some right wing politicians, no easy consensus to be had there.

I wouldn't worry about the majority of those who voted for brexit. They've had their one brush with politics and will be back to their apathy by now. It's one of the plus points going forward.

This actually just reads like an Onion article...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 02516.html

Electoral services workers have reported calls from people asking if they could change their decision after Friday’s result became clear, while some publicly admitted they intended to use a “protest vote” in the belief the UK was certain to remain in the European Union.

The anxiety – dubbed “Bregret” – emerged as the value of the pound tumbled and markets crashed, while somefelt betrayed by Nigel Farage’s admission that a Vote Leave poster pledging to spend millions of pounds supposedly given to the EU on the NHS was a “mistake”.

Mandy Suthi, a student who voted to leave, told ITV News she would tick the Remain box if she had a second chance and said her parents and siblings also regretted their choice.

“I would go back to the polling station and vote to stay, simply because this morning the reality is kicking in,” she said.

“I wish we had the opportunity to vote again,” she added, saying she was “very disappointed”.

Khembe Gibbons, a lifeguard from Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, also said she had regrets about her decision after Mr Farage said he could not guarantee NHS funding.

"We've left the EU, David Cameron's resigned, we're left with Boris, and Nigel has just basically given away that the NHS claim was a lie,” she wrote.

"I personally voted leave believing these lies, and I regret it more than anything, I feel genuinely robbed of my vote."

A woman calling into an LBC radio show echoed the sentiment, saying she felt “conned” by the claim and felt “a bit sick”.

A voter who gave his name as Adam told the BBC he would have changed his pro-Brexit vote if he knew the short-term consequences it would have for the UK economy.

"The David Cameron resignation has blown me away to be honest and the period of uncertainty that we’re going to be magnified now so yeah, I’m quite worried,” he said.

"I'm shocked that we voted for Leave, I didn't think that was going to happen. I didn't think my vote was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to remain."

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm about to lose two big contracts absent of some clarity as to what happens next, and I doubt I/we'd be the only business that has some nervous overseas investors/clients. All very well saying lets work our way through it, but there will be some costs the more this drags out, and from my point of view we should have been told going into the vote what was actually going to be negotiated, okay they couldn't have possibly told us the outcome, but they could have said these are the areas we want change, and these areas we're not going to touch, well they could have done were they organised and understanding of what they wanted to achieve rather than an amalgam of people who have various issues with Europe, the EU and the political status quo with no actual idea of what they want next and no chance of agreeing on it.

And speed is important, emotions will be running high in a few months too if we're making people redundant as a consequence of this.

It's 4 weeks out of 104, and as I've said informal negotiations can begin whenever. Once article 50 is triggered you've got 2 years and if you get to the end of those two years and negotiations are not quite finished then tough, the divorce happens. That would lead to chaos.

Speed isn't nearly as important as getting it right. Botch the negotiations and people will suffer for years. Trade deals take years to negotiate, how anyone thinks we can 'consciously uncouple' (hat tip to Gwyneth) speedily is beyond me. Though, I have to admit, why trade deals take so long is also beyond me.

4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too

I don't think anybody thinks there won't be costs regardless of which course we take. I'd much rather short term pain than a long term cock-up. Though, I'll admit my income isn't at risk.

From a poll of 12,000 people on referendum day

jared_7 wrote:From a poll of 12,000 people on referendum day

I'm about ready to go home anyway mate. Fuck this place. What about you?

Len wrote:
I'm about ready to go home anyway mate. Fuck this place.

Hahaha its sort of a bit funny stirring the pot. And besides, it ain't much better back home anyway. Other than the scenery and beaches and weather, of course.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It's 4 weeks out of 104, and as I've said informal negotiations can begin whenever. Once article 50 is triggered you've got 2 years and if you get to the end of those two years and negotiations are not quite finished then tough, the divorce happens. That would lead to chaos.

Speed isn't nearly as important as getting it right. Botch the negotiations and people will suffer for years. Trade deals take years to negotiate, how anyone thinks we can 'consciously uncouple' (hat tip to Gwyneth) speedily is beyond me. Though, I have to admit, why trade deals take so long is also beyond me.

4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too

I don't think anybody thinks there won't be costs regardless of which course we take. I'd much rather short term pain than a long term cock-up. Though, I'll admit my income isn't at risk.

We've had a crap last 12 months with this hanging around, of which I've mostly expected such outcome, though I was oddly optimistic on Thursday (that'll learn me)

Some of the concerns of clients are nonsense, some are in fairness quite reasonable and as yet we've no idea what we can do about that, if anything. And I do think by now, actually long before now, we should have known exactly what BRexit wanted to negotiate, it's far too unclear a picture and far too important to know they want to change something without knowing specifically what. They may not have been able to deliver change in the areas they wanted, just as the government may fail on its manifesto, but they're not coming close to saying what they want to do. We want to get rid of EU redtape is a nonsense line for instance, I need to know which bits, and what if anything will replace it or at least what the aims allied to principles will be of what comes next.

I suspect had the BRexit campaign had to cite which areas of the various treaties they actually wanted to change, and let's be honest we could be looking at 90%+ no change other than EU law being replaced by damn near identical UK law, it'd have made it harder for them to win as they'd have had something to be held accountable against. As of yesterday and today I feel physically sick about likely having to tell a good number their well paid jobs are gone, even more so that with the uncertainty it's nigh on impossible to know what if anything can be done. Well I suppose I know I could plough a lot more money into the business and just take the hit if it doesn't work out, but that'd mean giving the bank something, and that's a big step given again I don't know what the possible change(s) might be - and this could easily cost me my house should I try to ride it out.

I thought a similar thing about the Scottish Independence vote, that the leave side had almost no actual delivery in telling people what would change, and what would actually replace it. I also think the EU might be now like to know what it is the UK actually wants, instead we're going to have to step back and wait for a new PM, and then they'll likely start a consultation/review process

jared_7 wrote:

Len wrote:
I'm about ready to go home anyway mate. Fuck this place.

Hahaha its sort of a bit funny stirring the pot. And besides, it ain't much better back home anyway. Other than the scenery and beaches and weather, of course.

And what if it gets nasty?

Len wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Len wrote:
I'm about ready to go home anyway mate. Fuck this place.

Hahaha its sort of a bit funny stirring the pot. And besides, it ain't much better back home anyway. Other than the scenery and beaches and weather, of course.

And what if it gets nasty?

My next move is to the States and I'm thinking whats happening here will be a walk in the park compared to whats on the horizon over there.

The whole world is f*cked, bro. And thats before you even think about the environment. Think we're past the point of fixing it.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too

I don't think anybody thinks there won't be costs regardless of which course we take. I'd much rather short term pain than a long term cock-up. Though, I'll admit my income isn't at risk.

We've had a crap last 12 months with this hanging around, of which I've mostly expected such outcome, though I was oddly optimistic on Thursday (that'll learn me)

Some of the concerns of clients are nonsense, some are in fairness quite reasonable and as yet we've no idea what we can do about that, if anything. And I do think by now, actually long before now, we should have known exactly what BRexit wanted to negotiate, it's far too unclear a picture and far too important to know they want to change something without knowing specifically what. They may not have been able to deliver change in the areas they wanted, just as the government may fail on its manifesto, but they're not coming close to saying what they want to do. We want to get rid of EU redtape is a nonsense line for instance, I need to know which bits, and what if anything will replace it or at least what the aims allied to principles will be of what comes next.

I suspect had the BRexit campaign had to cite which areas of the various treaties they actually wanted to change, and let's be honest we could be looking at 90%+ no change other than EU law being replaced by damn near identical UK law, it'd have made it harder for them to win as they'd have had something to be held accountable against. As of yesterday and today I feel physically sick about likely having to tell a good number their well paid jobs are gone, even more so that with the uncertainty it's nigh on impossible to know what if anything can be done. Well I suppose I know I could plough a lot more money into the business and just take the hit if it doesn't work out, but that'd mean giving the bank something, and that's a big step given again I don't know what the possible change(s) might be - and this could easily cost me my house should I try to ride it out.

I thought a similar thing about the Scottish Independence vote, that the leave side had almost no actual delivery in telling people what would change, and what would actually replace it. I also think the EU might be now like to know what it is the UK actually wants, instead we're going to have to step back and wait for a new PM, and then they'll likely start a consultation/review process

Blimey they wouldn't even tell whole truths about net contributions or the Treasury predictions. A cogent plan of what Brexit hoped the future looked like is pie in the sky!! The problem was that Bexit knew that to win over those they needed or indeed could win over then a cogent plan wasn't required. I wholly agree with you, though. If I were a 'Bregreter' I'd be looking at mounting a legal challenge due to being mis-sold a product.

jared_7 wrote:

Len wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Hahaha its sort of a bit funny stirring the pot. And besides, it ain't much better back home anyway. Other than the scenery and beaches and weather, of course.

And what if it gets nasty?

My next move is to the States and I'm thinking whats happening here will be a walk in the park compared to whats on the horizon over there.

The whole world is f*cked, bro. And thats before you even think about the environment. Think we're past the point of fixing it.

Nek minit

At least the All Blacks are world champions.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

4 weeks which may cost me a fair whack of money, and 12-15 people their jobs. Or I may just sell up in which case everyone will likely be out of work. By all means take the time, but it'll come with costs too

I don't think anybody thinks there won't be costs regardless of which course we take. I'd much rather short term pain than a long term cock-up. Though, I'll admit my income isn't at risk.

We've had a crap last 12 months with this hanging around, of which I've mostly expected such outcome, though I was oddly optimistic on Thursday (that'll learn me)

Some of the concerns of clients are nonsense, some are in fairness quite reasonable and as yet we've no idea what we can do about that, if anything. And I do think by now, actually long before now, we should have known exactly what BRexit wanted to negotiate, it's far too unclear a picture and far too important to know they want to change something without knowing specifically what. They may not have been able to deliver change in the areas they wanted, just as the government may fail on its manifesto, but they're not coming close to saying what they want to do. We want to get rid of EU redtape is a nonsense line for instance, I need to know which bits, and what if anything will replace it or at least what the aims allied to principles will be of what comes next.

I suspect had the BRexit campaign had to cite which areas of the various treaties they actually wanted to change, and let's be honest we could be looking at 90%+ no change other than EU law being replaced by damn near identical UK law, it'd have made it harder for them to win as they'd have had something to be held accountable against. As of yesterday and today I feel physically sick about likely having to tell a good number their well paid jobs are gone, even more so that with the uncertainty it's nigh on impossible to know what if anything can be done. Well I suppose I know I could plough a lot more money into the business and just take the hit if it doesn't work out, but that'd mean giving the bank something, and that's a big step given again I don't know what the possible change(s) might be - and this could easily cost me my house should I try to ride it out.

I thought a similar thing about the Scottish Independence vote, that the leave side had almost no actual delivery in telling people what would change, and what would actually replace it. I also think the EU might be now like to know what it is the UK actually wants, instead we're going to have to step back and wait for a new PM, and then they'll likely start a consultation/review process

Genuinely sorry to hear about yr problems Digby. Its the thing that upsets me the most about these last couple of referenda is exactly what you've highlighted - the utter absence of any meaning or detail. It literally just comes down to who is willing to tell the biggest lie with the straightest face in the most public arena, and anyone who dares speak up is just shouted down, ostracised and ignored. And then people like you are left swinging in the breeze thru no fault of your own.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Mellsblue wrote: Blimey they wouldn't even tell whole truths about net contributions or the Treasury predictions. A cogent plan of what Brexit hoped the future looked like is pie in the sky!! The problem was that Bexit knew that to win over those they needed or indeed could win over then a cogent plan wasn't required. I wholly agree with you, though. If I were a 'Bregreter' I'd be looking at mounting a legal challenge due to being mis-sold a product.

I'd live without them saying what they hoped the future will look like, and settle for what do they actually want to change. What the future looks like depends on not just them but the EU, TTIP and all the rest of it. It's reasonable they don't know what others will concede/agree to, it's not acceptable they haven't detailed which aspects of current agreements they want to put a red line through or seek some amendment on, and what they'd not seek to change.

I wouldn't be looking at mounting a legal challenge based on some sort of fraud, if the electorate have been had that's their fault, and too both sides were spouting dribble.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Blimey they wouldn't even tell whole truths about net contributions or the Treasury predictions. A cogent plan of what Brexit hoped the future looked like is pie in the sky!! The problem was that Bexit knew that to win over those they needed or indeed could win over then a cogent plan wasn't required. I wholly agree with you, though. If I were a 'Bregreter' I'd be looking at mounting a legal challenge due to being mis-sold a product.

I'd live without them saying what they hoped the future will look like, and settle for what do they actually want to change. What the future looks like depends on not just them but the EU, TTIP and all the rest of it. It's reasonable they don't know what others will concede/agree to, it's not acceptable they haven't detailed which aspects of current agreements they want to put a red line through or seek some amendment on, and what they'd not seek to change.

I wouldn't be looking at mounting a legal challenge based on some sort of fraud, if the electorate have been had that's their fault, and too both sides were spouting dribble.

And I think therein lies a massive part of the problem. No one believed politicians because hey lie almost constantly and for many people they assumed the remain side were lying as much as the leavers (and in many ways they were). So this was as much a vote against the establishment as it was for any new way.

Sorry to hear about your business issues, the uncertainty is a lousy place to be. With a two year divorce to endure, I do t see much certainty during that period either, unless politicians on all sides put egos aside and do what's best for everyone. Uncertainty will hurt the EU as much as us and the likes of Germany will be in much the same boat given the amount of trade between us.

Sadly I think politics will over rule economics.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Blimey they wouldn't even tell whole truths about net contributions or the Treasury predictions. A cogent plan of what Brexit hoped the future looked like is pie in the sky!! The problem was that Bexit knew that to win over those they needed or indeed could win over then a cogent plan wasn't required. I wholly agree with you, though. If I were a 'Bregreter' I'd be looking at mounting a legal challenge due to being mis-sold a product.

I'd live without them saying what they hoped the future will look like, and settle for what do they actually want to change. What the future looks like depends on not just them but the EU, TTIP and all the rest of it. It's reasonable they don't know what others will concede/agree to, it's not acceptable they haven't detailed which aspects of current agreements they want to put a red line through or seek some amendment on, and what they'd not seek to change.

I wouldn't be looking at mounting a legal challenge based on some sort of fraud, if the electorate have been had that's their fault, and too both sides were spouting dribble.

And I think therein lies a massive part of the problem. No one believed politicians because hey lie almost constantly and for many people they assumed the remain side were lying as much as the leavers (and in many ways they were). So this was as much a vote against the establishment as it was for any new way.

Sorry to hear about your business issues, the uncertainty is a lousy place to be. With a two year divorce to endure, I do t see much certainty during that period either, unless politicians on all sides put egos aside and do what's best for everyone. Uncertainty will hurt the EU as much as us and the likes of Germany will be in much the same boat given the amount of trade between us.

Sadly I think politics will over rule economics.

Juncker might be given his marching orders. That'll remove one huge political ego from the equation.

Mellsblue wrote: Juncker might be given his marching orders. That'll remove one huge political ego from the equation.

Fingers crossed, and the rest of Europe will thank us. If there is one thing we can all agree on its him being a right little c*nt.

jared_7 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Juncker might be given his marching orders. That'll remove one huge political ego from the equation.

Fingers crossed, and the rest of Europe will thank us. If there is one thing we can all agree on its him being a right little c*nt.

Amen.

Hmmm...that Pulizer was for the writing only I guess. No relevance to Brexit, or marginally at best.

Well, another multi award-winning journalist, namely John Pilger, has said much the same:

The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/ ... to-europe/

Bregret. Love it.

If only they'd told the fuckwits they'd lose big brother and X factor if they voted leave they might have pinched it.

rowan wrote:Hmmm...that Pulizer was for the writing only I guess. No relevance to Brexit, or marginally at best.

Well, another multi award-winning journalist, namely John Pilger, has said much the same:

The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/ ... to-europe/

Just not relevant. This has been a problem since the eastern block countries joined the eu. Do your research, local councils were screaming about overstretch back then. Syrian refugee crisis might have been the icing on the cake, but linking in the Arab Israfli conflict is deluded.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'd live without them saying what they hoped the future will look like, and settle for what do they actually want to change. What the future looks like depends on not just them but the EU, TTIP and all the rest of it. It's reasonable they don't know what others will concede/agree to, it's not acceptable they haven't detailed which aspects of current agreements they want to put a red line through or seek some amendment on, and what they'd not seek to change.

I wouldn't be looking at mounting a legal challenge based on some sort of fraud, if the electorate have been had that's their fault, and too both sides were spouting dribble.

And I think therein lies a massive part of the problem. No one believed politicians because hey lie almost constantly and for many people they assumed the remain side were lying as much as the leavers (and in many ways they were). So this was as much a vote against the establishment as it was for any new way.

Sorry to hear about your business issues, the uncertainty is a lousy place to be. With a two year divorce to endure, I do t see much certainty during that period either, unless politicians on all sides put egos aside and do what's best for everyone. Uncertainty will hurt the EU as much as us and the likes of Germany will be in much the same boat given the amount of trade between us.

Sadly I think politics will over rule economics.

Juncker might be given his marching orders. That'll remove one huge political ego from the equation.

Oh hell, yes please. I think merkel will be the key. If German businesses luck up s stink about lost revenue then something will shift. The French might kick off, but if the Germans push for a reasonable deal then it's game on.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Hmmm...that Pulizer was for the writing only I guess. No relevance to Brexit, or marginally at best.

Well, another multi award-winning journalist, namely John Pilger, has said much the same:

The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/ ... to-europe/

Just not relevant. This has been a problem since the eastern block countries joined the eu. Do your research, local councils were screaming about overstretch back then. Syrian refugee crisis might have been the icing on the cake, but linking in the Arab Israfli conflict is deluded.

Fair enough. It's worth reading the whole article though, almost changes my mind about the whole Brexit thing. From my own perspective, all it means is I've lost my right to work legally in Europe - but I haven't exercised that right for over a decade anyway, and right now have no plan to do so (hypothetically-speaking, of course).

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Hmmm...that Pulizer was for the writing only I guess. No relevance to Brexit, or marginally at best.

Well, another multi award-winning journalist, namely John Pilger, has said much the same:

The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/24/ ... to-europe/

Just not relevant. This has been a problem since the eastern block countries joined the eu. Do your research, local councils were screaming about overstretch back then. Syrian refugee crisis might have been the icing on the cake, but linking in the Arab Israfli conflict is deluded.

Fair enough. It's worth reading the whole article though, almost changes my mind about the whole Brexit thing. From my own perspective, all it means is I've lost my right to work legally in Europe - but I haven't exercised that right for over a decade anyway, and right now have no plan to do so (hypothetically-speaking, of course).

Its a good article, albeit covering a much larger scope of the worlds ills than just Brexit. Brexit is fine and could be good in the long run, I just don't think riding on the wave of scapegoating immigrants in behind 3 Eton-educated extreme pro-corporatist Conservatives is the way you want to go about it. More good can be achieved outside the EU, but so can much more bad, in simple terms.

rowan wrote:
Fair enough. It's worth reading the whole article though, almost changes my mind about the whole Brexit thing. From my own perspective, all it means is I've lost my right to work legally in Europe - but I haven't exercised that right for over a decade anyway, and right now have no plan to do so (hypothetically-speaking, of course).

His subjectivity comes across throughout that article, it reads like a bash the EU regardless rather than serious analysis.

I do agree with this bit mind:

The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as “neoliberalism”

There is a Britain outside of London, much to the amazement of some.
On another note, are you a Brit living in turkey? Just curious based on your final comment.