 From the streets of Istanbul to the waves of the English Channel, refugees play a definitive role in European life and politics, as they have been for thousands of years. The surface of today's political discourse is divided between extremes. On the one hand, we have the Europeans who love to brag about their heroism in receiving refugees and our devotion to human rights, and on the other hand, we see the steady rise of xenophobia in mainstream politics. The reception of Ukrainian refugees was very political, and actually, when it comes to the reception, this was a blessing. But my fear and the fear of many migration scholars is that it can turn into a curse. We pretend that we can respond with migration management, how it is often called, that we manage migration, but this is already far too late. When people need to leave their countries, then it's already too late. The EU didn't just run out of the gates and say, welcome all Ukrainian refugees. There was immense pressure, international pressure, and internal pressure to declare these rights. The bar was so low compared to other asylum seekers. In 2014-2022, the migration regime applied to Ukrainians was very different. It was a strict labor migration regime, whereas afterwards it was this humanitarian migration regime, so to say. The treatment was very different, allowing people to leave and then come back again actually made them leave because the stakes were lower for them. They thought that if something happens, if the situation gets worse, I can still get out. I want to make this all or nothing choice right here right now, which would of course make people stay because you don't know what's coming. Can we put it in a wider context, like our current understanding on refugees and our moral understanding of obligations towards refugees are rooted, let's say, most closely in the aftermath of the Second World War. It often seems that whatever guarantees, protocols, progress was made, we keep dialing back from those. You are completely right. I mean, many want to question the Geneva Refugee Convention in one way or the other. They say, is it still timely or not? But just imagine 74 years, how many refugee situations it already helped us to come through. We always have this like a mantra, we distinguish between flight and legal migration as if these are two completely different things, but who wants just to flee? Everybody wants to also have a sustainable life afterwards, so you need to also sync it together. Our labour markets scream actually for people, so I think we have to be much more creative. Being a refugee has been in a state of limbo. You put your life on hold and you wait either for it to return or you're seeking for new opportunities. The Ukrainians are under temporary protection and the word temporary is very key here. We still have to acknowledge that climate change will be a huge topic in the future. We try to put the horse from the wrong side, we try to address migration management or address migration but not thinking more smartly how to do other things. And this is then also how the compositions are with doing this, what you mentioned, these migration deals, who goes there, which part of ministries go there. You mentioned that you approached the horse from the wrong side in Hungary and I would use the expression that says that we have to tailor the trousers to the backside and then the other way around. I like to close with this round a completely imaginary sort of megalomaniacal round. If we have like one wish, one immediate wish, what would that be? Would we politicize migration? No wars would help quite a lot and you know we have other than wars that are forced people to leave their countries. I think we don't need additional ones. Thank you for coming along and Mary whatever each of us will celebrate.