"When in Rome" is a delightful romantic comedy film starring Kristen Bell
and Josh Duhamel. It is, via implicature, set in Rome; but, again, via
disimplicature, filming took place in Trafford, Penna.
Thanks for the clarification. I shall have another reading of the link,
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0177-judgment.pdf
thanks.
That is: Hilary Term [2011] UKSC 11 -- On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 621
-- JUDGMENT
Patmalniece (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Respondent)
before
Lord Hope, Deputy President
Lord Rodger
Lord Walker
Lady Hale
Lord Brown
JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 16 March 2011
Quite a stretch from Hadrian's Roman Wall in Northumberland but there's
something appealing to the header, since it may all boil down to
'consideration' 'independent' of 'nationality'
Granting of course, to quote from McEvoy, that
"the old Romans had not signed up to
anything so that their view of citizenry was now
subject to a supra-Roman court, unlike the
British Supreme Court which is now subject
to the European Court at Brussels."
and further granting McEvoy's further mention of a "Union citizen".
I liked McEvoy's post:
In a message dated 3/2/2016 10:18:33 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
In favour of allowing a policy against "welfare tourism" would be analysis
that the over-riding purpose of the European Union is to give effect to
"union" where this has economic or political advantages - but there is no
economic or political advantage from "welfare tourism".
Must say I LOVED the way he pronounces 'analysis', since this is, in
McEvoy's terms, a supposed contrast or opposition between, to use his favourite
acronyms, PS (problem-solving) vs. CA (conceptual ANALYSIS -- emphasis
Speranza's).
I also LOVED his reference to the European Court involved in a sort of
'Griceian dilemma' (my words) or Wason Test, almost, involving "considerations
"independent of nationality".
McEvoy sums up this excellently:
[T]he problem [with Ms Patmalniece -- my emphasis -- Speranza] in legal
terms in how to reason so that such a policy is lawful: for plainly it is
discriminatory. Moreover, as the dissenting judgment makes clear, there is a
further problem created by a ruling of the EC itself - the European Court has
said any such policy cannot be lawful unless it is based on considerations
"independent of nationality", yet the whole point of such a policy is to
differentiate between domestic and other nationals which on the face of it
cannot be a policy "independent of nationality"."
Finally, I loved McEvoy's indirect reference to Grice. One of Grice's
conversational categories (there are four of them when Grice joked on Kant) is
'perspicuity', or MODUS. Expressed as a maxim,
'be perspicuous [sic]'
Grice has the 'sic' because he thinks
i. "Perspicuous" ain't perspicuous.
and he loved to break his own maxims.
Under (i) comes 'avoid obscurity of expression' (In earlier lectures at
Oxford, he had simplified all the above by introducing under conditions of
helpfulness -- but cfr. cross-examination, where all is 'faked' -- a
desideratum of 'clarity'). And I take that obscurity to stand for what McEvoy
calls
'opaque':
McEvoy writes:
"The EC themselves may have been deliberately opaque because this is one of
those occasions where fudged reasons are the best that can be given to
ensure the 'correct' or desired outcome."
I don't think Grice gives a good example of a breach of this maxim, but if
the EC is DELIBERATELY flouting a maxim, and intending its addressee to
REALISE that this is so, we have a classical example of an 'invited' (if not
triggered) implicature, since McEvoy was axing [sic] 'baht them!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
