Monumentum Requiris...

In 1666, the Great Fire of London started because of a fire at a baker's in Pudding Lane. Apparently Alfred the Great was on duty.

Just nine years earlier, the Great Fire of Edo began when a priest attempted to cremate a haunted kimono. It had belonged to several girls in turn, all of whom died before being able to wear it. As the kimono burned, wind caught the flames and set fire to the city.

From the ashes of London rose the dome of St Paul's. From the ashes of Edo rose Tsukiji Market, foaming like Aphrodite - for the land had to be reclaimed from the sea, and sea and land have held joint custody ever since.

My keenest regret about my trip to Japan in April was that I didn't visit Tsukiji and try the world's best sushi, especially as I knew the market was due to move to a new site this autumn. That's now been put on hold, however, so perhaps I'll get to see it in its classic location after all...

Monumentum Requiris...

In 1666, the Great Fire of London started because of a fire at a baker's in Pudding Lane. Apparently Alfred the Great was on duty.

Just nine years earlier, the Great Fire of Edo began when a priest attempted to cremate a haunted kimono. It had belonged to several girls in turn, all of whom died before being able to wear it. As the kimono burned, wind caught the flames and set fire to the city.

From the ashes of London rose the dome of St Paul's. From the ashes of Edo rose Tsukiji Market, foaming like Aphrodite - for the land had to be reclaimed from the sea, and sea and land have held joint custody ever since.

My keenest regret about my trip to Japan in April was that I didn't visit Tsukiji and try the world's best sushi, especially as I knew the market was due to move to a new site this autumn. That's now been put on hold, however, so perhaps I'll get to see it in its classic location after all...

Referendum and Referendumber

I have a question about the proposal for a second Brexit referendum - as backed by many, including I think the LibDems and well-known Brocialist Owen Smith.

The question isn't about the principle. As I've mentioned here before, personally I'm against it on democratic grounds. (Yes, the Leave campaign lied, but then so did the Remain campaign - remember George Osborne's emergency budget? Nick Clegg lied about tuition fees, David Cameron lied about being green and not mucking around with the school system, Tony Blair lied about - well, take your pick. That didn't make their governments unconstitutional.)

No, my question is about procedure. As I understand it, the idea is that the British people should be given a vote on whether they accept the terms that have been negotiated for Brexit by the Government. But substantive negotiations won't even begin until after Article 50 has been triggered, and once that has happened there's no way (as I understand it) to untrigger it. The clock is ticking inexorably down an exit two years later.

Of course, it might be that the rest of the EU would be willing to have the UK back and to waive Article 50, but it would be under no obligation to do so on the same terms, surely, with the whole panoply of opt-outs and rebates that the UK has enjoyed until now? Would a UK that changed its mind be allowed to stay out of the Euro, for example? Or wouldn't it more resemble that moment in The Merchant of Venice, when Shylock realises he's not going to get away with taking his pound of flesh:

SHYLOCK: Give me my principal, and let me go.
...
PORTIA: He hath refused it in the open court:
He shall have merely justice and his bond.

In short, aren't people calling for a post-negotiation second referendum misunderstanding the legal position entirely? Or is that me?

Referendum and Referendumber

I have a question about the proposal for a second Brexit referendum - as backed by many, including I think the LibDems and well-known Brocialist Owen Smith.

The question isn't about the principle. As I've mentioned here before, personally I'm against it on democratic grounds. (Yes, the Leave campaign lied, but then so did the Remain campaign - remember George Osborne's emergency budget? Nick Clegg lied about tuition fees, David Cameron lied about being green and not mucking around with the school system, Tony Blair lied about - well, take your pick. That didn't make their governments unconstitutional.)

No, my question is about procedure. As I understand it, the idea is that the British people should be given a vote on whether they accept the terms that have been negotiated for Brexit by the Government. But substantive negotiations won't even begin until after Article 50 has been triggered, and once that has happened there's no way (as I understand it) to untrigger it. The clock is ticking inexorably down an exit two years later.

Of course, it might be that the rest of the EU would be willing to have the UK back and to waive Article 50, but it would be under no obligation to do so on the same terms, surely, with the whole panoply of opt-outs and rebates that the UK has enjoyed until now? Would a UK that changed its mind be allowed to stay out of the Euro, for example? Or wouldn't it more resemble that moment in The Merchant of Venice, when Shylock realises he's not going to get away with taking his pound of flesh:

SHYLOCK: Give me my principal, and let me go.
...
PORTIA: He hath refused it in the open court:
He shall have merely justice and his bond.

In short, aren't people calling for a post-negotiation second referendum misunderstanding the legal position entirely? Or is that me?

Buzzfeed, 1662

Perhaps, like me, you've often seen memes mocking fundamentalist Christians who condemn homosexuality or crossdressing because they're banned in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, while blithely ignoring other practices outlawed in the same places, such as eating shellfish, mixing linen and wool, wearing tattoos, etc.

Where did this meme begin? I don't know, but I give you a contender for the earliest example: Sir Richard Baker, Theatrum Redivivum, or, the Theatre Vindicated (1662):

Indeed, he cites a text of scripture for it, Deut. xxii. 5: 'The women shall not wear that which pertaineth to the man, neither shall a man put on a woman's raiment.' A pregnant place indeed, but where finds he this precept? Even in the same place where he finds also that we must not wear clothes of linsey-woolsey; and seeing we lawfully now wear clothes of linsey-woolsey, why may it not be as lawful for men to put on women's garments? But if he will have this precept to stand in force, though it be no part of the moral law, yet because it may have a moral construction; how will he then defend his own eating of black-puddings against the precept for the eating of blood? For this precept against eating of blood hath a stronger tie than that for wearing of garments.

There is nothing new under the sun, sayeth the Preacher.

Buzzfeed, 1662

Perhaps, like me, you've often seen memes mocking fundamentalist Christians who condemn homosexuality or crossdressing because they're banned in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, while blithely ignoring other practices outlawed in the same places, such as eating shellfish, mixing linen and wool, wearing tattoos, etc.

Where did this meme begin? I don't know, but I give you a contender for the earliest example: Sir Richard Baker, Theatrum Redivivum, or, the Theatre Vindicated (1662):

Indeed, he cites a text of scripture for it, Deut. xxii. 5: 'The women shall not wear that which pertaineth to the man, neither shall a man put on a woman's raiment.' A pregnant place indeed, but where finds he this precept? Even in the same place where he finds also that we must not wear clothes of linsey-woolsey; and seeing we lawfully now wear clothes of linsey-woolsey, why may it not be as lawful for men to put on women's garments? But if he will have this precept to stand in force, though it be no part of the moral law, yet because it may have a moral construction; how will he then defend his own eating of black-puddings against the precept for the eating of blood? For this precept against eating of blood hath a stronger tie than that for wearing of garments.

There is nothing new under the sun, sayeth the Preacher.