If you don't want a referendum, then it's probably best that you look away now and avoid direct eye contact with the All Wales Convention's report.
The gist of it? Go for it, though we don't guarantee you'll win it.
It cost £1.3million, is 132 pages long in each language and is not the "fuzzy" piece of work Sir Emyr Jones Parry thought you and I expected of him. The All Wales Convention comes to the unequivocal conclusion that, based on what ordinary people and institutions have said in their evidence, based on "impartial and carefully prepared scrutiny of what we heard", adopting a system where the National Assembly can make its own laws without having to refer to Westminster would be more efficient and clearer than the current system. More importantly, the evidence says that is what people want.
Ideally the Convention says a vote on holding a referendum would be held before June 2010 so that the referendum itself can be held - and won or lost - before the next Assembly Election.
And here comes the 1.3 million pound question. Does the Convention think that referendum would be won? I'll quote the crucial passage from the report: "Our judgement is that a "yes" vote in a referendum is obtainable, but the evidence we have collected underlines that there can be no certainty about this".
I'm not bound by diplomatic language so let me sum it up like this: the current system is pretty messed up if not entirely broken. You do want to fix it but we can't guarantee that if you were asked to vote on it, enough of you would turn out and enough of you would say 'yes.'
The sum of its parts
At the embargoed briefing, a brisk Sir Emyr and his team kept suspense to a minimum. The All Wales Convention makes "an unequivocal recommendation for the merits of Part 4". Stay with me. I'll explain. This - every 'part' in all its glory - is important.
The current system where the Assembly must first get the nod from Westminster before it gets extra powers came about thanks to the Government of Wales Act. If there's a referendum held and won, then technically we would be moving on to Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act.
There would be "substantial advantages" to doing that according to the Convention.
An interesting point to kick off: as things are now more powers are devolved to the Assembly via framework powers - in other words hitching a lift with a passing piece of UK-wide legislation - than via the infamous LCOs. That route of devolving power isn't open to scrutiny by the Assembly. Powers are devolved based on the say-so and the whim of ministers based in London and are exposed to next to no public debate.
Contrast that with the LCO system where pretty limited powers are devolved only after a great deal of scrutiny and debate.
Sir Emyr had our attention. On he went.
If full law-making powers were devolved then it would be much easier to legislate strategically. With the LCO system, that's not possible. On big things like climate change that affect half a dozen policy areas, you can think strategically if you start with the powers you need and a blank piece of paper. If you start with a long and complex list of bids for power from another institution that you're not even sure you're going to get, you can't.
Laws, in the end, must be accessible and capable of being implemented. Granting full law-making powers comes closer to achieving that than the current system.
The system by which laws are made should be transparent and understood by the ordinary people of Wales. Mrs Edwards from Pontypridd and Mrs Jones from Bonymaen were invoked. Conclusion? They don't understand how their Assembly gets its powers and therefore, makes laws. In a democracy, it's vital they do understand. Granting full law-making powers comes closer to achieving that than the current system.
Do the ordinary people of the UK I asked - I was thinking Mrs Wilson from Portsmouth - really understand the system of law-making in Westminster, an argument put forward regularly by the Secretary of State for Wales. Maybe not came the response but do you draw much comfort from that? The glint in the eyes turned steely.
There should be one place where the law of Wales is available and under the current system, there is not.
"A great fog"
There was, he said, "a great fog out there, a lack of understanding." In a democracy, that was no good at all.
Could the current number of Assembly Members - 60 - handle the enhanced powers? Yes, though adding to that number in future isn't ruled out.
So on what had the Convention based the 'yes vote obtainable' conclusion? On the evidence heard and on the polling evidence too. Their own poll suggested 47% would vote yes, 37% would vote no. That leaves 16% undecided or saying they wouldn't vote.
And there you have it: the 'winnable but no guarantee of winning' formula we've come to know so well over the past few months.
Then came the equivalent of the Big If. Many factors would impact on the result of a referendum - perceptions of nationhood, how the Welsh Assembly Government has performed, attitudes to Scotland and so on. Popularity of the campaign leader seemed fairly near the top of the list. The clear implication? Use Rhodri Morgan.
As expected then, no guarantees that a referendum, if held, would be won.
How much would holding a vote cost? "The closest comparator would be the recent European elections - the costs in Wales for holding this election in June 2009 (counting officer fees) came to approximately £4.9m. Campaigning costs? £100,000 per campaign -Yes and No.
There is a lot more in the 132 pages that deserves scrutiny. Turn to p.26 for a stab at how much the current system costs, p.100 for a clear marker that says governing by restrictions and exceptions - you can have this bit of power but not that - is not a reasonable way forward. If there's a 'yes' vote, any changes to the list of the areas where power is devolved "should reflect the legitimacy which the National Assembly for Wales would have been given in that referendum".
Will the report change the minds of those who believe a referendum would be lost?
Will Peter Hain continue to believe that holding a referendum soon would be a show of "bad faith to Parliament" and that Parliament wouldn't agree "to trigger a referendum before of during 2011" anyway?
Will the report put considerable pressure on Rhodri Morgan's successor?