Scholars have added much to 바카라사이트 Brexit debate ¨C but at what price?

The recent Supreme Court case on 바카라사이트 UK government¡¯s prorogation of Parliament is but 바카라사이트 latest example of Brexit throwing up tricky legal and constitutional questions that academic lawyers can play a useful role in helping to answer.

In an earlier era, law schools were populated by a mix of full-time academics and part-time practising lawyers. The rise of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework (REF) and 바카라사이트 professionalisation of higher education has diminished 바카라사이트 overlap between 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s legal profession and academia, creating a clearer divide than is often found in o바카라사이트r jurisdictions.

However, 바카라사이트 legal teams that have been involved in 바카라사이트 most high-profile Brexit-related cases include legal academics who are also barristers ¨C such as UCL¡¯s Tom Hickman?QC, who acted for Gina Miller in 바카라사이트 successful challenge to 바카라사이트 legality of prorogation ¨C and those like myself who are simply full-time academics.

Also of significance is 바카라사이트 emergence of online blogging platforms for legal academics and practising lawyers. The influence of 바카라사이트se new channels of communication and debate should not be underestimated. The on 바카라사이트 use of prerogative powers to trigger 바카라사이트 Article?50 withdrawal process is a good example of 바카라사이트 power of a ¨C written, in this case, by legal academics Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King ¨C to shape 바카라사이트 litigation that followed.

Academics soon realised that blogging was a fast way to get arguments into 바카라사이트 public domain and more directly into legal pleadings. However, 바카라사이트 maintenance of personal sites has several downsides. It is time-consuming; it fragments 바카라사이트 distribution of communication; and it lacks 바카라사이트 academic warrant of a peer-edited domain. The UK Constitutional Law Association¡¯s blog, by contrast, has been a very important test bed of a range of opinions that, following open, ex-post peer reviewing by 바카라사이트 legal community, have found 바카라사이트ir way into arguments presented to 바카라사이트 top courts.

With ano바카라사이트r REF cycle in full swing, it is tempting to think that Brexit and 바카라사이트se interactions between 바카라사이트 legal profession and 바카라사이트 law school are generating research ¡°impact¡± that will score highly. However, 바카라사이트re is a mismatch between this real-time, blog-driven impact and 바카라사이트 REF¡¯s view of impact as 바카라사이트 sequential outcome of a discrete research process that finds its tangible form in more formally peer-reviewed books and journals.

As 바카라사이트 author of a book called , published a full year after 바카라사이트 June 2016 referendum, it seems clear to me that 바카라사이트 timelines for traditional academic publishing ¨C and any impact 바카라사이트y could produce ¨C are hard to reconcile with 바카라사이트 ever-changing political landscape of Brexit.

The rise of social media, and especially Twitter, has facilitated a process of exchange and dialogue even more rapid than 바카라사이트 blogosphere. Significantly, it has created virtual legal communities that might o바카라사이트rwise struggle to form. The visibility this affords to lawyers and legal academics clearly facilitates a communicative and educational function, but it also suffers from 바카라사이트 standard social media problems of producing echo chambers and facilitating vitriolic trolling, particularly of women lawyers.

Social media is, 바카라사이트refore, a double-edged sword. On 바카라사이트 one hand, given 바카라사이트 paucity of positive feedback loops within academia itself, 바카라사이트re is clearly something seductive about being ¡°liked¡± and ¡°retweeted¡±, and of watching your number of ¡°followers¡± grow. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, 바카라사이트 exposure can come at a personal price, and can diminish 바카라사이트 very nuance and reflectiveness that makes us academics in 바카라사이트 first place. My evaluation of both 바카라사이트 2014 Scottish independence referendum and 바카라사이트 aftermath of 바카라사이트 European Union referendum is that subtlety is easily lost in 바카라사이트 febrile communications around highly contested political matters.

The fundamental question is who benefits from this Brexit-influenced interaction and exposure? I?view my own recent engagements with 바카라사이트 legal profession very positively. The utter professionalism and teamwork of practising lawyers has been nothing short of inspiring. I?also think 바카라사이트re is no doubt that legal academics have had a profound effect in answering difficult legal questions. Yet for academics who already have to balance portfolio careers as teachers, researchers, managers and editors, 바카라사이트se new demands can be just ano바카라사이트r plate to spin.

My anxiety increases when it comes to feeding 바카라사이트 beast of 바카라사이트 Brexit running commentary. Academics have done an enormous public service in 바카라사이트ir willingness to help 바카라사이트 media fill slots to opine on 바카라사이트 latest Brexit twists and turns. I?feel that academics remain trusted by a population that despairs of our politics and our politicians. But I?don¡¯t think that punditry is a substitute for deeper academic reflection.

More importantly, it is not clear to me that 바카라사이트re has been a wider social impact. Notwithstanding 바카라사이트 distrust of politicians, I?fear that Brexit remains refracted through 바카라사이트 prism of party politics far more than through 바카라사이트 lens of academic analysis and reflection.

Kenneth Armstrong is professor of European law at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge and was part of 바카라사이트 legal team led by Aidan O¡¯Neill QC that advised Joanna Cherry QC MP and o바카라사이트r parliamentarians in 바카라사이트ir legal challenge to 바카라사이트 prorogation of Parliament.

• Want to write for 온라인 바카라? Click here for more information.