As today is Reformation Day (95 theses nailed to the door of Wittenberg church etc), a good day to recommend a fascinating set of @GreshamCollege lectures on the English Reformation by Alex Ryrie.
Link here to the one on the “Tudor Reformation” (how the Tudor State used the rupture to grab and centralise power*). gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-e…
But also recommend (particularly) the ones on the Unwanted Reformation (how spectacularly unpopular it was), the Catholic Reformation (an intriguing road not taken), and the Anglican Reformation (not till 1660 at the earliest).
*You can work out any analogy with current events.
Anyone interested in the history of ideas or in the history of the English state - well worth a listen.
(It’s also interesting how little influence Luther himself had on the course of the 🏴 Reformation. Not even “moderate” reformers ever seem to have cited him as an authority. And even his great hymns (Ein Feste Burg is one of the most rousing I know) have ever found a place.)
(Try this setting by Bach if you want a rousing start to your Sunday.)
Frost asks the question why the May government - in the 2017 joint report - accepted that alignment with some EU rules would be needed to avoid checks and infrastructure on the Irish border.
There is an obvious answer to that question: that (the famous Trilemma) that the only ways of avoiding checks/infrastructure at the Irish border were (1)to align with EU customs/goods rules in NI, with checks/infrastructure over the Irish Sea or (2) UK alignment with those rules.
1. The key phrase in Castex’ letter wasn’t accurately translated by @alexwickham and nuance was lost. Nuance matters in diplomatic letters (see eg how the Franco Prussian war broke out).
2. The French government (which knows rather a lot about diplomacy and careful drafting) must have known that the phrase (even accurately translated) would wind up the current government and its outriders (and that an inaccurate translation was quite likely).
This is right and important. Though note that even if (which is unlikely) the EU agreed to rewrite the Protocol and to replace adjudication with the “not Swiss”* arbitration model, all disputes on the meaning of these obligations would end up in the ECJ. Just more slowly.
Note 2: what the High Court judge in Allister said about careless and silly use of words like “colonial”: -
(Incidentally, the “respondent” arguing that the effect of the Protocol was limited was the Secretary of State for NI in the current government this spring, before it suddenly decided that there was a serious democratic problem.)
I half agree. I’m a bit reluctant to suggest that lawyers stick to their silos, partly because I don’t stick to mine, and partly because cases don’t respect silos, so any of us might conceivably find ourselves having to argue out of silo at some point.
And there are brilliant legal journalists (some lawyers, some not) who manage to say perceptive things across the range.
But where lawyers do write out of their area of expertise, a certain diffidence is often a good idea: and certainly research and (perhaps) discussing with those who do know the area intimately.