comments made on the first day, enquiring as to what exactly the difference would be between the intent of the prime minister when he chose to prorogued parliament and the effect, inviting those submissions and i think this is what has been picked up on today. the effect that parliament cannot scrutinise the brexit process, that's the argument. ultimately, parliament would be able to hold parliament would be able to hold parliament to account for all sorts of things, like statutory instruments and in the final insta nce instruments and in the final instance parliament couldn't hold a motion of no confidence. massive amount of difference to the usual parliamentary procedures. chris, from cambridge university, do you buy those arguments that we've been hearing from aidan o'neill this afternoon? no, i don't think! buy any of the arguments. it's been a colourful presentation. a lot of romance and colour in what he had to say. but not that much prurience, if