no, it was really interesting I think it's like a big shift from the case that I'm working on where like basically the government hate each other and like that's why nothing is able to get forward and I think it's just um it's interesting to see how long the timeline is even if the governments don't hate each other. Yeah I was thinking a lot of that a lot about that after listening to Hussein's case last week and And like the two, they kind of arrived, the US and Canada kind of arrived at the negotiating people with this idea of mutual gains in mind. And the treaty emerged from that. And it wasn't the, it's not that the treaty is enabling an effective diplomatic relationship. The treaty is the result of an effective diplomatic relationship. So how that kind of differs and how that might be leveraged for a sort of more comprehensive and forward looking document going going forward. So yeah, that's great. Thank you so much. Yeah, no, I'm just trying to see. Okay, so the last thing that I had was, I mean, you mentioned this as one of your open questions, but like, it's really interesting what the consequences for the different stakeholders would be if the treaty was terminated. I think like it seems like everyone's on the same page that like treaty's working, it's good, but then it's really weird that like they're unable to extend the treaty. It seems like mainly just because people are dragging their feet. But yeah, it seems like in most cases if the treaty went away, stakeholders would have some kind of loss. But I don't know. I don't know. Yeah