 OK, right. Thank you very much. Now, to carry on lots of the things that were just saying, you said, well, differently, less. Insightfully, the start of this, the reason that there are these two logos up there is on the conversation I had, maybe it was at EAA last year. It was a suggestion that the people that German archaeologists think they should talk to, to then-influenced politicians, are other archaeologists. Are the archaeologists working for government at the regional landed level? I thought, to me, thinking from a UK perspective, no, no. That would not happen in the UK. British archaeologists would not speak to the local government archaeologists. The local government archaeologists are scanning the room just in case there's any of sneaking. They work for the municipal authority. They work for the city or the county. They are really quite low-level local government inquiries, and their job is to advise the planners. And then the planners who are also local government employees speak to the elected representative to make a decision. They do not have any kind of position in influencing or subtracting the democratic process. So I'm then thinking about, so the paper is the idea of thinking about who is and who can be influential archaeologists. Yeah, we should stop talking to archaeologists. I think this is exactly what we should stop talking amongst ourselves. So half of my paper is, it was already presented with the one or two snippets of what I had just said, but the. So it's thinking about the idea that there are different ways to do things. There are different contexts, and that I think a lot of these are very culturally specific. What might be right and appropriate in Germany is not necessarily appropriate in UK or anywhere else. This is thinking about approaches to changing minds. It's thinking about lobbying, and it's thinking about advocacy. And the idea that any efforts to change minds, there are two routes. There is either you're taking an active route of essentially getting into a place where you can actively form and shape policy before it's put into place, or reactively. And lying down in front of people, those are as Arthur Dent and rescue Richard Pottsville Trust would do in an attempt too late to change something that's already been decided. I think that there is headline grabbing value in reactive behavior, but I really don't think it is actually very useful when it comes to changing policies, when it comes to changing what will happen. So then moving on from thinking just in the simplest way about activeness and reactiveness, to think about lobbying and advocacy as two different strands to the way of doing things and the way that I see lobbying and advocacy as being different. Now they don't just fit neatly into those active and reactive patterns, but they do become quite opposed to it. It also made me think a little bit about the nature of the words. So there's a quick digression into cultural studies, but there's been semiotics. The words lobbying and advocacy in French, lobbying is the pressure. And advocacy is a way to plead. It is much more, it tries to come across as being a much softer way to do things. As you see from that photograph on the spot, advocacy doesn't always have to be soft. It's advocacy does have value when it is grassroots, when it is continuous, when it is authentic. It does help to convince, change people's minds. But lobbying is more technical, lobbying requires a different kind of investment in order for it to be effective. And actually, I'm much more interested in lobbying. And so that's what the rest of the paper is going to be thinking about. So I'm thinking of three different models for lobbying. And first, I'm going to be technocratic. This is about how one can influence the European institutions. I spoke about this a couple of years ago. I think you're talking about that there is a route to approach the European Commission. It is formal, it is only formal lobbyists, only people who have signed the European Transparency Register of Organisations that have signed that have the opportunity to have access to European Parliament and Council and the European Commission to try to guide, to advise the Commission on what should we put into material. Now, of course, I'm certainly not in a position to say that the European Commission is some sort of un-democratic mechanism. These materials will ultimately be subject to democratic process. But this is the only way to influence things at the European level. But it is the model that works there. It works in theory works. It does work at the European level. But then there are different models of ways to try to change minds. Now, this one, I'm calling accountability. This is thinking about the wonderful and well-intentioned EU, the EAA European Benchmarking Exocitement, which we've been talking about in recent days, and possibly maybe later in this session too. It is lovely, the idea of presenting benchmarks to the politicians to say, this, you, what are you going to do about this, this, and this, and we'll record what we said, and we'll come back in five years' time and we'll hold you to account. And this is good and transparent and wonderful and utterly culturally specific and utterly inappropriate in many contexts. It is good and German, and the German parliament is beautifully transparent. But I don't think it will work in every cultural situation. And when Harold Macmillan was asked to report what he feared as a politician, the great quote is, events, dear boy, events, things change for politicians. They change every day, every week. They certainly change in five years' time. And what if they were having to be confronted by every single interest group coming out to me, presenting them with their shopping list of things that they wanted, what the beekeepers want, what the bicyclists want, what the bee hunters want, what the archaeologists want. And especially when you think about individual elected members of the European Parliament or elsewhere, they just don't have the resources to accommodate this. So I do think it's lovely. I fear that it might not be very practical. And then the last model that I've seen and would like to talk about, at the Society for American Archaeology's annual meeting this year, 2018, it was in Washington, D.C. in the spring. And what SAA set up was a mechanism in the route for individual members of the Society who were at conference to then have access to their elected members, their elected representatives at the Capitol Hill. And to SAA with their governments, forget what David Lindsey's job title is, but SAA has a member of staff who's responsible for political engagement and supporting the society, was able to provide people with a briefing, with handouts, with suggestions of what to speak to your representatives about. And I went to Washington, this briefing was great, I didn't have a representative to go and speak to, but the briefing was fantastic. The important thing, David was quite excited that SAA thinks, yes, of course, it is good to go and talk to the politicians. What the politicians want to hear is they want to hear nice things. They want to be flattered, they want to be told, they want to be reminded about something they had done that we think is good. Oh, yeah, yeah, we appreciate that, we appreciate we've done that. And the politicians like that and they like having their people flattered. And this is the way to get in and convince them out. And now, of course, this is only at an individual rather than last level, but individual votes are all the only votes that they have. And so I think that the SAA's model, again, it was very culturally specific and it was very appropriate for this year when the membership were right there and they could get on the metro and go and meet their representatives. But I thought it was an impressive and effective model. So that's the third of the three groups that I want to think about. So final thoughts and another miserable point to finish this off with. The, as I was discussing at lunch with a couple of friends who are not in the room, so I'll just do a quote from my presentation, we talked about archeology as political influencers. And the position is, there you go, archeologist. The, and we may be few, but we are weak. So we, when the views were trying to change, they may be many and they may be strong, that we, there are no actual mass movements within archeology that can be motivated to be out on the streets. They, we don't have the political and financial capital to change minds, because let's be cynical. A person standing in the back of the room taught me in one of his presentations, in one of his articles, that there are no political issues that no people overturn without spending sufficient money, spend enough money and any political decision can be overturned. And the, sometimes the forces that we are campaigning, we're campaigning against, they have those resources. The thing that is most important to politicians, and these are the decision makers that we're talking about, the most important thing to them is being reelected. And that's what matters to every politician with the exception of members of the British House of Lords and British members of the European Parliament. Everyone else will have to be reelected at some point. And so they, they care about getting reelected and they cannot, they cannot focus on a single, single narrow political issue. They need to be doing things that are going to please as many people as possible, as much of the time as possible. So we have to be aware of this. Now, this doesn't mean that what we're doing is actually pointless. What we are able to do is get it and put thoughts in people's minds, make people aware and remember that, oh yeah, archaeology, I was talking about that, I was hearing about that cultural heritage. Yeah, this is a good thing. Yeah, that seems like a pretty easy way and I can take that off. But we are not going to, I think that we're just talking about is actually going to, it was a sweeping change. What we can do is be careful and think hard about what we're doing and how we do it. And we can change some minds and this is how the world ends. But we can change some minds and we can have some influence for the better for archaeology as a thing that doesn't practice. Thank you very much.