 Ddod eich ffordd i Abertynau i'n trefynu fynd i fynd i ddod yma a'r oedbeddio'r ddiweddol. Yn oed yn ddifud i'r wych, dwi'n dechrau i ni i'n mynd. Dyna'r llefydd i chi'n bwysig â'r wlad i chi'n mynd i'r Athan hwn. Mae'r hyn oedd ymgyrch yn ei wneud. felly Anyway for many of us and I think we feel this very personally what is happening to the UK and we are trying to work our own ways through where we all feel about it and where we will all end up. I'm still doing the job of being Director of Cells, I'm about to start the fifth of my five year mandate. I want to say very bluntly to Catherine that I think that you're wrong. When you say you feel you've failed I would not have been able to do the job that I have done in the four years that I've been director of sales without all the hard work that you, and every other director who's spoken today has done to make sales the enormous success that it is. And I think it is because of that success yw Brexётся bydd nifer, mae nifer 就是彼a hwyl Sometimes is a challenge that, as you say rightlyny, we need to meet and address. On the other hand, I think that there's a wonderful wisdom calling in the centre the centre for European legal studies. That notion of European legal study is what we need to hold on to. Maen eich hwn wedi'u ei gael a-fawr, y gallwn ynghymru sy'n gallu'n gwasanaeth iawn yards i'ch gael eu cyfrif yma. Mae ein gallu cwrwp llunio gyda'i, ac mae o'r unrhyw gweithlu gwroeddol o'r ein cwrwp llunio. Mae'r unrhyw yna'r gofyniaid ar gyfer y cyfleu rhaid mewn gwahodol, y Llyfrgell Eide 라는 o'r bydd i ymhwypor i weith. Y Llyfrgell Iel-Panol sefydliad mewn gweith, ..y gallwn y llyfr yma'n gwirio'r gwlad yn sefyllfa ar y UK. Mae'r ffordd â'r llyfr, mae'r llyfr o llwyddiad, ysgrifennu, ysgrifennu, ysgrifennu... ..y'r problemau a'r llyfr yn cael ei cyfrifu'r wahanol. I think and I hope and I believe that sales is in a good place to be part of that. Understanding of where the UK is going to fit into that rather European level landscape. And you are absolutely right. That is the challenge for cells. For me enogwne gyda Ciaran, for whoever takes over after me. That is our challenge. But I say again very clearly that we wouldn't be in a position to meet that challenge. We are not for your hard work, and the work for all the centre directors that came before me. And I am very humbled by today's presentations by all of those directors. a'r hollwch yn y syniadol sydd yn gwahanol panfalu y Llywodraeth Ardgol gyda'r Cymru. Yna, wrth gwrs, mae'n dweud eich bod eich bod odi gwneud ei chael o'r parwysau. Mae'n rhai o'r parwysau, ond mae eich parwysau. mae'n troi gyda, yn wych o fynd i bryds ar ddweud o seld a'r mysgach i gael ymddangos. Ond yn cyllidau i'r newydd o'r moddu o'r ffnogau'r grannu bobl, ond mae'r seld yn ganwethaf, yn ganwethaf o'r felch dda, oherwydd mae'r resloedd a ni'n meddwl i ddweud â ddweud o'r pram, oherwydd mae'r llüffydd hefyd, a'r mysgach. Rwy'n iguala'i mewn ei Alfan ar gyrthau i Gweith-Lawr Sgol a mae'r Eurpoedd yma yn Blynedd. Ychydig y bydd ymlaen nhw'n mynd i gyd yn gwneud y cyn Pelodg, gref y cynllun y colon Llywodraeth, nes yw gweithio y teithio y Gweitharatd Gweithnol i gweithio yr Ysgrifennu Llywodraeth i gael. Felly bod wedi'u gweithio yng Nghyrch yn ni'n mynd i ei wneud Roedd gymryd, mae wedi ymlaen i'r Llyfrgell Llegoedd Ysbytyf yn Llyfrgell Llegoedd Ysbytyf yn Llyfrgell. Ond mae i'n�ir o'r fwyllt i ddweud yn etsydd ymddangos i'n olyfrgell, byddwn i'n cyffredinon y merthyn i'r llynnog a'r llเรll o'r law yn cael licain cyllidfa oeth i gael mwyllteidwyr. I would I do want to think though specifically about how dominant European Union Law on particularly the autonomy of European Union Law is in our thinking about Brexit. And I want to think about three dimensions of study. The first is provocatively to what extent is a cause of Brexit? To what extent is this thing that we have all been engaging in and thinking about actually one of the causes? Simply with the demands of the EU legal order too high. Then I want to turn to the process of Brexit and its interaction with the autonomy principle. And finally to say something about future enforcement dispute resolution and where the shadow of autonomy might cast a shadow over the institutional design for the future. So let me say something about the study of European law and its application to Brexit, a kind of sociology if you like of the study of European law. As Catherine highlighted Brexit is generating an enormous demand, almost an unprecedented demand for legal knowledge and legal expertise and particularly about the European Union and its workings. And although some of that knowledge is about how the EU and its legal order works, the core of what we do, it has also forced us to shed a light on legal issues outside of this core. And if we're being very, very honest about it, it is exposed gaps in our knowledge. Not just because the corpus of European Union law is now so big and expansive that none of us have that comprehensive knowledge. But because, and I think as Catherine hinted as well, because the gaps in our knowledge are also about where we've invested our energies and our scholarship. And I agree with her too often that has been too internal. So part of the task is to get better acquainted with EU external law and governance. But it's also an issue about seeing EU law as within this wider framework of international law and also domestic constitutional law. And as I said at the beginning, if European legal study stands for anything, it is a view of a European legal universe where law is generated in multiple sites. It is a plural concept that is highly suitable for thinking about Brexit. So let me then turn to the phenomenon and particularly causes. There is no single cause. It was Dominic Cummings who said that when you have a big event, there's a temptation to find a big cause. And of course there are multiple causes. There's no particular focal point, for example like a failure to ratify a new treaty which might have called membership into question. This was as we all know an optional political referendum. It was a choice made at a particular point in time. The main themes of the successful campaign are of course well known and it was primarily to take back control. And that had a number of different features. Control over borders, control over money, control over trade, control over democracy. But yes, control over law. And I want to think a bit about what that meant. What did it mean to want control over law? I think the anxiety about control over law manifests itself in different ways. There's an instrumental dimension which relates to the density of EU law. There's an institutional dimension, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. And there's a constitutional dimension, the conflict with or accommodation of the claims of an autonomous EU legal order. Let me say something about the instrumental dimension. As many of you will recall during the campaign there were repeated and disputed statements about how much of UK law was now derived from EU law. There was a particularly obnoxious encounter between Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg in the Treasury Select Committee round about that. But this was all part and parcel of complaints about Brussels's red tape and regulation. Of course, one aspect of this is really a different sort of concern. It's a concern about democratic control over lawmaking and the rise of the regulatory state. The sense that the technocrats and the experts are making the rules. But another is linked, I think, to the autonomy of EU law in the sense of an anxiety about a shift in the centre of gravity away from the nation state towards a new centre of law. But in a sense I'm not so sure this is really to do with the autonomy of EU law itself and simply more an anxiety about the declining relevance or sense of the declining relevance of the domestic political and legal arena. Now listening to John Spence this morning I was reminded then of course that the UK had sought to manage some of this quantum and scope issue through various opt outs. And a sense Brexit is what happens when all the opt outs run out, when that as a strategy just no longer seems to cut it. The institutional dimension I'll come back to in a little bit more detail later on. But clearly ending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice has been a key mantra of the leave campaign and of the government since the referendum. Now insofar as this is connected to the autonomy of EU law it is a concern about the autonomy of courts to place limits on politics and political choices. But again this seems to return us back more to an issue about democratic control and democratic issues. Importantly however the complaint is often in error and misdirected. Too often the complaint, the institutional complaint is really about the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights then it is about EU courts. And indeed throughout the campaign you'd be hard pushed to find any example of a single court case to do with the European Court of Justice with which the leave campaigners were taking issue. Where I think though the connection to the autonomy of EU law is clearer perhaps is the constitutional dimension and particularly the issue of the supremacy of EU law. Now when we think about the autonomy of EU law we think not just of the existence of a new legal order but also its claims. Its claims to confer validity on legal norms, autonomy in testing the legality of exercises of political authority and in the event of conflict to give priority to EU law. Now of course in other jurisdictions there has been clear contestation and challenge to these features. Claims not to treat as valid norms outside of EU competence. Conflicts between the use of domestic standards of legality and EU between the fundamental rights domain. And also on the scope of primacy. And what is in fact remarkable is how absent these have been from UK debates. The very flexibility of the UK constitution has accommodated the constitutional demands of membership and the demands of the autonomous legal order. So what's going on? I think there's a paradox and it's the paradoxical success of Euro-ledalism. Thinking about the autonomy of EU law and conflict, constitutional conflict is perhaps the wrong way of seeing the issue. Indeed the paradox may be that it is the very success of the EU legal order and the willingness of litigants, lawyers and quotes to use the resources of EU law that helps explain Brexit. It's part of the story of elites, the sense that some get to play the system to their own advantage. The antipathy towards Gina Miller was not just about gender and race although there's a good heap of that. But also about a sense that a community of self-interested litigants and lawyers were getting something that the people were not. And I think this also ties into the complaints about the EHR and also the Human Rights Act. Pesci prisoners and their skillful lawyers are using the system to get something that the ordinary people are not. So if there is a sense in which the autonomy of the legal order is the cause of Brexit, I think in a complicated way it is to do with the success of what Dan Kellerman refers to as Euro-legalism. What then about the process of withdrawal itself and the autonomy of EU law? We know there were a number of discussions round about whether Article 50 is the sole means of effecting withdrawal. There are issues about Article 50 sufficiently comprehensive to provide exhaustive legal answers to the issues posed by withdrawal. And of course there will be questions about the status of the withdrawal agreement and review of compatibility of that agreement with the EU legal order, possibly by the Court of Justice. But I want to pause at this point to just say something about Article 50. Of course the wording of Article 50 we are now becoming increasingly familiar with sadly. But there was a text. It was a text that was put to the Convention that was drafting the Treaty Establishing of the Constitution for Europe Treaty. And it was submitted by one of the UK government representatives Peter Hayne, I think. And it was the Cambridge text. It was the text that emerged from the activity that Alan Dashwood organised to provide some draft language for this constitutional treaty, including a draft withdrawal clause. It was a very simple clause actually. It was fairly unambitious in its attempt to simply put in place a recognition of a right and international law for a state to withdraw from the treaties. That text, however, didn't survive in that form. It changed through the negotiating process and what became Article 50 now after the Lisbon Treaty is somewhat different. In one sense it did do what Alan and others intended it to do, which was to recognise a right and international law to withdraw from the treaty. On the other hand, once the process was triggered, once the right was exercised, it was a right that was exercised and a decision made in accordance with national constitutional laws. We're engaging national constitutional law in the process. But once the decision is made, it becomes a process governed by EU demands, EU institutional procedural demands. And here again, I think I want to pay tribute to Christoph Hillion, the former deputy director of sales, who's written really elegantly about this point, that at this point the constitutionalisation process, the institutionalisation process, seeks to take over and run how a state can withdraw from the EU. So we have autonomisation, constitutionalisation, institutionalisation. Now of course some argued that the UK was not actually bound to follow this process. It could simply divert back into international law. It was said that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaty has provided additional resources or that the UK could simply repeal the European Communities Act and that would be it. So these alternative legal resources, domestic and international, were discussed. What is remarkable however, and perhaps rightly though, is that the government has never contested this. It was taken the view that Article 50 is the process that governs a withdrawal and that is how things will be run. And it is perhaps one of the ironies is that there is this sort of fidelity to European law, even at the very moment of the UK's departure. And that the whole negotiating process revolves around what became a very Europeanised process. There are of course silences in Article 50. So the difficulty might be what happens when EU law is exercising this very strong normative pool to govern the process but then just doesn't answer all the questions you might ask as to what should happen. The candidates for this are obvious. What happens if you want to revoke the notification? No answer. What is the material scope of the Article 50 agreement? Are there any limits on that and could it be a mixed agreement? Would notification automatically apply to your atom? And would triggering Article 50 be sufficient to take the UK outside of the EEA agreement or does Article 127 of the agreement have to be triggered? It becomes difficult then when you have a provision that is exercising such a strong attempt of normative control but then is leaving unanswered some of the central and important questions which then asks us to think about what other resources we might have. The status of the withdrawal agreement itself. On the one hand it is an agreement negotiated with an existing member state so in that sense fuels internal to the EU system. On the other hand the entire process is based on it being an agreement with as if it was a non-member state in the external dimension. And indeed in principle the compatibility of the agreement with the normative demands of the autonomous EU League order could be referred to the court for an opinion which leaves me then to the court and its future role. And I think this Catherine and others have highlighted one of the successes of cells has been its capacity to engage with members of the court. One of the first tasks I had when I took over as director was the year that the court made its annual visits to the UK and we had very many members of the court of justice with us for a seminar. And I suppose thinking about the court has been one of our many preoccupations but it is clear that taking back control does have a clear institutional dimension in terms of ending the jurisdiction of the court of justice. However preserving the autonomy of the EU League order and the role of the court of justice within it is an important aim of the EU's negotiating position with the UK. And of course it has a particular relevance to the issue of citizens rights which are part of this first phase of negotiations. The autonomy of a League order which is more than an agreement between states but creates rights for individuals which form part of their legal heritage. So in terms of enforcement and dispute resolution in the post Brexit world what I think is interesting about the UK's position is that this statement repeated in EU negotiating position papers about the autonomy of the EU League order and the role of the court of justice within it has been contested by the UK by its reference to the autonomy of the UK's multi-jurisdictional legal system and the role of its courts. So the UK is demanding that the EU respect the role of EU courts in the enforcement of post Brexit rights and duties using the same autonomy principle but this time against the EU. As for dispute resolution insistence on preserving the autonomy of EU law may be an impediment to finding solutions. We know from the court's opinions on the original EA agreement, its opinion on accession to the CHR that the court of justice has problems with creating new courts where those courts may have as part of their function the interpretation of EU law which the court says is its remit. So the irony may be that it will push dispute resolution towards more political solutions but of course much depends on the structure of Brexit. The withdrawal agreement itself may require something more by way of a political mechanism in the form of a joint committee possibly with an option for the ECJ to have a role purely in interpreting what EU law concepts mean. Transitional agreement, it depends what that looks like if it's an F to EA thing then we may have the F to court involved otherwise keeping things the same could mean some role for the court of justice. As for future trade agreement, political mechanisms and arbitration may be what is required. So how do we sum up then, how do we conclude on Brexit and the autonomy of the EU legal order and the nature of European legal studies? I think it should be clear that Brexit has been shaped by law beyond EU law. It's a strong candidate for study from the pluralist perspective of European legal studies bringing together domestic, international and European legal sources. Having said that, the autonomy of the EU legal order has a particular relevance in terms of thinking about the relationship between different sources of normativity and their capacity to exert influence. As a factor in the cause of Brexit, concerns about control over law run in a range of directions and again I think it may be more to do with the success of EU law that is part of the problem. More significant I think is the impact of the autonomous EU legal order on the process for withdrawal and the claim to control the process has been accepted. Most significantly, the autonomy principle I think shapes the future architecture of enforcement and dispute resolution. And therefore even at this moment of departure, the moment where the UK is leaving the EU, EU law is shaping and directing the trajectory of Brexit. Thank you very much. I think that a lot of the reason for Brexit is shocking, shocking ignorance from tracks of the public. One of my students on the Humanities programme, when she returned to real life, sent me an article in French about Piliadur students in Cambridge and talked about Lleucocote, the cocoon. During the cocoon in Cambridge, with other intelligent people moving closer to time and informed people, we just don't realise how little other people know. Since I became old, I have a bus past. I now travel on buses. It's illuminating a whole range of people that you just wouldn't otherwise interact with. In the front room of our retirement cottage in Norfolk, we have a front window where we have our breakfast where we see people returning from the newspaper shop with their paper. I don't think I want to be carrying today your mail as delivered as I can see. We didn't see the Brexit vote come because of the way we all thought and because we knew quite a lot. But one of Rosa's friends said, if you respect her, John, you only have to go to Leeds. It wasn't anything to do with Leeds University, just she had relatives in Leeds and they'd be saying, I don't know about Leeds University, but I think that gave me a camera and that we had to go to Leeds. It's not only the general public who read me about it all, but our politicians desperately. I came to realise that over the protocol 36 of that business camera, and it was plain that he let us into that when he had the clone that was actually involved. And then did we fail in our duty to reform? Well, I just wonder what we could do, given the way he is, if people could listen. One of my friends in England UK, the European Criminal Association UK, is one of the UK former presidents of Eurojust. He wanted to try to get something in the newspapers about what Eurojust was doing to try and counter all the things that have been much in the papers about all the traffic problems with the EU and transport of crime. He couldn't get any of our main streampapers to take any interest. He said, one of them actually said to me, we just don't run with these stories about the EU. Sorry. One of the problems is, they are willingness to people to listen. Speed peers who we all know gave evidence to the House of Commerce committee in relation to the protocol 36 of that. Nobody knows more about that than there's in Steve. First question for those who get to deeply. How much money have you been making out in the EU? I mean, plainly, anybody with anything to do with the EU were part of the EU really trade, so they weren't to be disregarded. In the protocol 36 business. Sellers, very kindly, helped us put together a study on what the last two measures were of the detective pulling out, that we tried to launch it. We tried to publicise our launch by three people turned up just about the same day. Dominic Rahm had published his paper with his slum all over the papers. Dominic Rahm felt that I would all be wonderful, all we have to do is to make certain commitments with 97 Member States and so on. David Edwards, who I have various review conversations, talked about the Catholic concept of invincible ignorance. He thought a lot of people involved were just invincibly ignorant. And he thought back part of it to what I read about this morning. Our newspaper, as we heard it, captured what it had been. It became a newspaper from an Italian British correspondent in Madrid at the time of their financial crisis. Somebody, a work for the EU institution, sent me a retrospective view of a Dutch correspondent who'd been in London going back to the Netherlands. He said, my most shocking impression about the UK is the tabloid press. Every day they seem to publish, they seem to be directed to play to the worst of every human of oceans, angry, shard and frauder, voyeurism and sheer hatred. What is it about this public? They seem to want to be extinct every day. And when I go to Europe, I try to look at the popular newspapers in such languages that I can read. And it's true, it just seems to be a terrible standard in our newspapers. Hungarian friends of mine said, we have terrible problems with Christmas repress in Hungary, but I don't read gross distortions about the EU in Hungarian press. But we didn't see it coming, as we should have done. I really wonder what more we could have done to get the message across. And I don't think that we should blame ourselves. Maybe we could just have a little bit of work against such a mountain of ignorance and prejudice that it wasn't practical that we could have done, which could serve us over the years and try to do our best. The future? Well, Deklau, UK is a small organisation that I want to represent in all. One of it, close to the rest, is whether we should just dissolve what we decided. The UK is geographically still only 21 miles or whatever it is away from the continent in Europe. The still data have a large amount of deals in the EU. We're still waiting. It's not going to completely abolish travel to Europe. We're going to be in the future of relationships between the both Brexit, UK and the EU. So there's still a lot to study and a lot to take. Interesting. Maybe in a less optimistic way than across to the future. It's not a whole new one. I just push me and some of you to spread the cultures about the EU a bit more likely. I mean, in terms of what more could we have done prior to referendum? I did a number of town hall events. I think I did 12 of Dini town hall events up and down the country. When we spoke in university towns, it was quite clear there was going to be a remain vote. The moment we spoke outside of Europe University town, the antagonism with which we as non-path sunks, that was part of the ESRC brief, got just extraordinary. Amy very kindly organised one in Spalding and we knew we would be going into the lion's den. The front row was full of UKIP supporters, brand shoe there, UKIP t-shirts. Annand, the director, is British born Asian and he was certainly the only non-white in the room. Although most of it was reasonably good tempered, largely thanks to Amy being the local lass and her dad being the local doctor, so part of perhaps they treated us more kindly than they might otherwise have done, the guy in the front row stood up at the end and said, don't you know God is English? Well this meant that we had nowhere to go to this piece of insight. I had my colleague from UEA who is also non-white British born. We did an event in Alesham Church. Now you might know Alesham Church because it's nowhere you are. It's a massive church of about 500 people in there. And the amount of abuse we got in there, despite the best attempts from the local ladies who'd kind of baked all the cakes in the event, was an indicator just of hostility. So you're right that the BBC were reluctant to take any stories about EU private sector unless they have bendy bananas. And I did smile when I was asked to do 20 minutes on the world service recently about article 218. You can imagine that was a right riveting listen. But the very fact that they even were interested in article 218, which is a procedure for negotiating a trade deal, shows just how partings have come. But the fact is, I mean the problems are deep rooted, that children are not taught anything about the EU schools. They have no sense of the civics at all, the citizenship. They have no clear experience and difference between the Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice, and I think this was a fundamental in the civil standard. I think that a lot of people need to think about their role in this. I think that collectively I think we all should have tried harder. The other thing I'd say about my experience, maybe partly from the Scottish referendum as well as this one is that, I mean certainly the constant diet of the hate mail and the express has been corrosive. But the new forms of social media, in particular Twitter, has provided an alternative outlets. That can work in a number of different ways. One, it can do what is done through both referendum campaigns and it's done all too well as you can then get the cybernats or the trolls who then decide to try and beat you up on Twitter. But the other thing is though that there has been a very lively debate through blogs on Twitter that actually is very, very good. It's a very good and open source of information if you want to track it. But of course if you want to have your own echo chamber in these environments you can. And we do run the risk of then we have the same problems. If you're on a particular side of this argument, your Twitter readers just tell you all the things that you want to know from your side of it and not the others. It's hard to know where that is going. But I think the dominance of print media is changing somewhat. But I think that the time that we got into this referendum, the corrosiveness of the debate from print media was very strong. So for us and particularly for cells when we think about the activities we do, part of it is these kind of physical meetings. But part of it is still using social media to try and engage outward. So one of the great things that Amy pioneered was to have short videos of us talking some of the issues round about the referendum campaign and since then. And I guess that tells us something about what modern centres have to do in law factories. We have to find a range of ways of engaging. And that they're not just about getting people physically in the room, but also about communicating outwards, communicating externally. And it's certainly something I'm very conscious of that communicating outwards is as important as the kind of communications that we have in talking to ourselves. I think after a nice, a very significant part of the academic enterprise. My inaugural lecture in Leeds in 1991 was on the European lawyer basically in that period of time. And it was really a tent to try and persuade people that the European rule was actually magic. But in the 1990s war, the European law, the European Union law up in Leeds and the academic faculties, the university administration and the fashion was not seen as terribly relevant. It was a marginal thing that's done on the side. So, as it were, the coping strategy post 75 referendum, very much as it were business as usual in the EU doesn't think of 18. What was explained by a number of people this morning about the expansion of the EU activity and how it became central, much more central, was something which didn't get out or didn't get understood. And this is back even though it took a great extent even the legal profession. So there's a question on what our audience is. To some extent we have privileged relationship with the legal professions and those connected. And to some extent we can influence them and they understand the ball. Getting out more generally, I think in a sense Catherine, is the issue of trust. If Catherine's right that probably not much could have been more done during the referendum campaign, it was a question of did people trust the voices? Over the period of the 1990s and 2000s and did they hear those voices? And I think that's where John's question about willingness to listen and how you get willingness to listen in the pre-internet days. Much more difficult. And the unwillingness to listen continues. I've been doing various bits of things slightly different from Catherine on the Brexit bill with Paul Craig and others. The sheer unwillingness of the UK government to listen to the technical criticism that's being made of the bill and Mark and whatever is an indication that, as it were, if you have a political agenda, never mind the detail to get there. So there's a question about willingness to listen, but there's a question of building trust. And in a sense what you were naming and doing going out is it may not have had immediate effect, but at least they knew when both your voices now appear on the common radio or on television, they recognized they're more likely to trust and that builds it. And it's a building over a generation and I think that's where the thoughts about impact, that academic in the area around that is in danger of misunderstanding how things are done. It's a question of building over the long due way, not the short. And to some extent Catherine's questions are about what's the role of the academic community in building that trust as a centre of understanding of what's going on that isn't provided by me. Yes. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for this great event and particularly Albertina. And I'd like to maybe make a little more of an optimistic comment because I think it would be unfortunate if such a wonderful event ended on a sort of depressing note. And in this respect, I give the perspective of someone who's a friend of cells who doesn't live in the UK, who lives in Brussels, so maybe I have a bit of a different view. And I understand of course the focus here in Brexit and if I were living here I would be very depressed too. But there's something that I think you all need to realize which is the influence that cells has outside of the UK outside of the Brexit context. And Catherine, surely this is something that is valuable too and I will share the chorus of those who understood your comments but would disagree with them because I think you have been a great success and even heroic in what you've been doing. And just to take a very simple example of this, a great resource you have is the weekly seminar series that you put on iTunes that people can listen to all over the world. And there have been a number of occasions when I've been talking to someone in some EU institution in Brussels who said, oh there's this new issue, an EU law or there's some district judgment at the core and I don't understand it. I don't know where to find information and I prefer them. I've given them something that they link to this iTunes and told them you can just listen to it. You can play it on your computer in the background. And I've gotten very good responses for that. And I think, as has been said, this sort of global outreach is crucial maybe also for the future work of cells. And we talk and there's a kind of school of EU scholarship on the global reach of EU law. Maybe we should think of the global reach of cells also as something to build up for the future. Thank you, that's a great question. I mean, I think trying to get off the back foot is going to be really important because it does just feel at the moment that we are constantly just reacting. And I think it does make it hard to get the kind of centre perspective of what we should be about and what we should be doing, particularly when the paradox is that there is such a huge demand for particular forms of input on particular sorts of problems now. But I think it is something that collectively we do need to think about is how do we move on to a more proactive horizon scanning activity. But I think the first point you made, I think there's also a wider point to be made. We are not the only ones in this. This is happening in Los, was up and down this country. We're not the only European law centre in the UK. And the UK has been a huge powerhouse in European legal education and European legal publications. We have our university presses, our relationship with heart publishing. All of these presses have been massive producers of making European law, European legal studies, a defined sphere of influence. And I think what you're saying to us is don't lose sight of that and that that should continue to remain engaged. I think what Catherine's highlighting is a kind of psychological issue that we're all having to face is how we feel about that. What we feel is appropriate. What do we feel we should be doing? You know, one of the editors that became the European legal studies is that I did have this momentary pause of thinking, why are we doing this? Why isn't the UK? But what we do is we engage, we bring other people in, we engage with a wider European audience. And as somebody reminded me from the monitors in Florence this week, the European Union is carrying on. It faces its own challenges. There will be future developments and there will be scope for discussion and commentary on that. And we are every bit as well placed to discuss those now as we were then. The issue is how do we feel about it? What do we feel is our contribution? And I think that is going to take some time for us to simply work through. Three minutes, yes. Final question. Can you make it a snapshot of your comments? Very quick question. How have the media lawyers in this country been going through the same process of self-analysis that EU lawyers? For my part, the problem of full reporting and reporting of untrudes as facts, this has been building up for years and years and years and years. And so I was just wondering if the media lawyers in the UK have been going through the same process of analysis as the EU lawyers. Because for me, rather than the EU lawyers being somewhere thoroughly did not engage more in the ordinary people, it's not a mental problem perhaps of the non-regulation of use in this country. So I was just wondering if the media lawyers have been asking themselves the sorts of questions that Catherine's had asked herself. I'm not aware of any source acting on this. At least hardly it relates to a broader debate about truth in media. There's a lot of discussion here around fake news, actually. And the word Trump has come up before this, but it is actually part of the much wider range of issues. So I think they're certainly more analysis around maybe not specific on the EU, but generally around what goes under fake news, but obviously it's an obstruction. It's often more about the emotions and the values that might be as well. So I think they don't have much discussion specifically on the EU, but definitely fake news and that sort of debate is very likely. So on that side I think we ought to extend our very warm thanks to Catherine and Kenneth for their very thoughtful contribution. Thank you both very much.