Hey guys Shea bear here. We've got an issue. Look at all this water. This is the back door. Look at all this Now it's dry back here. There's the main water line Right there that comes in It's dry and then it starts getting wet here and it's soaking wet here And it's dry over here. I know there's no water lines underneath here. I suspect this is being the culprit Okay, it seems to be draining there like it should Now I'm not sure what What caused this I'm guessing splatter water splatter Okay Let's go in here, and I'll show you what's going on now. I've I started looking at this Back in here. It's wet. It's wet back in there And it's wet in here So I am suspecting that our issue Is going to be this air condition Because if you look at this That's water and this just all of a sudden started. Look at that. We got mold now This just all of a sudden sudden started started Coming off there now You know We need yeah, we need a new sink and all that but we're waiting to get it because we're going to do the whole Kitchen we're gonna do the cabinets and everything But I'm suspecting This thing is leaking For a reason um, but see there's a back inside here There's a drain the drains and it's supposed to drain out the back and for some reason it's not so we're gonna take this thing out of here and Tear it apart. We've got a screw here. We've got a screw here. I mean it's pretty well You know these things just pretty much sit in here They'd be careful because somebody I don't know what they've done here on this window, but that's not the way I would have fixed it All right, so let's shit Look what I'm looking at right there. Baby black widow spider All right, let me get that taken care of I'll set you on the stand I'll get those two screws out because there's one on this side. I'm guessing I'm gonna pull it this way So hopefully everything goes all right. I want to do it from out here, so I don't get all that water Inside any worse than what it already is, but I can't seem to get the window to go up a high enough We'll have to go in and see what's going on All right, looks like I'm gonna have to do it from in here Damage is done once we pull this out before we put the new one in I'm probably gonna have to put new drywall there Looks like maybe something's going on here. I don't know so here shouldn't be doing that I have to pull the cup pull the this off of it We're gonna pull the back off out of our way, but looks like they've got them screwed on the sides Real concerned about it. Let me see if I can get it out here and get it set down here I'm gonna get it set here, and I'm gonna move you out of the way because I gotta carry I'm gonna carry it outside and clean it up. So carry it outside now So go take this thing apart. I'll give credit where credit is due Ford Does double for something more than just a boat anchor It makes a good workbench All right guys I've got to go in couple screws on the sides here. There's one there one there I'm not sure what's on the bottom And I've got some screws along the the the sides down here on the bottom And then around the back to get that case off so we can find a clog So let me get my screwdriver, and we'll start taking some of this apart Okay guys, I got the screws out for this. There's only one here and one on the other side Now I should just be able to Push this up Yeah, and it'll pop out. There's a little I'll show this to you Yeah, I know it's it's nasty. I know but it is what it is, right? See there's that piece down there and hooks in right there So we've got to unhook that That's how you open and close the vent so I'm not sure Exactly how that pops out. I think it just flips up. I'm gonna try to do this holding you guys Just like that see Got ridges on there That's what I was talking about So the water once it gets down in there. It has nowhere to go So once that dries, I'm gonna have to get that all cleaned off and it's not very efficient like that so Let me uh, let's see. We got a couple screws up here And they're loose We're gonna take these screws out We're gonna try to get this thing off of here. I'm not sure how it goes in. I think it just pops in there They usually They usually have a couple screws here, but Anyway, I got to pop them off and then we're gonna get this We're gonna get the cage off of it Which I've got some screws down here. I've got to take out along the bottom Sorry limping a little and Some screws there on the back To try to get this cage off so let me go ahead and get them screws out and Get these off and then we'll move on to the next step Okay guys There's four screws along the bottom of each side. There's one in here, but you don't have to take that one out There's a Course you've already got this one out or that or that one. Okay, so we got one two three four screws This one has one up here. It helps hold that now We should be able to lift this right up off of here No, wait, we got one in the back. I lied to you Yes, there's one on this back corner right here We've got to get it out and it should come right up out of there Yeah, okay Now you should be able to lift the cage off. Let's see what we're looking at in here. Try not to break this This is just styrofoam okay, so I'm seeing some rust Some Crap, I'll just show you what I'm seeing down here. It's not good. I mean Their condition is still working, but See look down in here I've got to clean all that stuff out because that water has to run back that way to come out a hole That's in the bottom of it. See all that junk there We've got to get all this stuff out of there So that water can drain back to the back So I'm gonna spare you of cleaning that see there's a drain hole Right back in there that the water goes down and drains supposed to drain out the bottom of it now It can't do that if it's clogged up. So I'm going to see this is all styrofoam here. This is all styrofoam. So be very careful with this So I'm going to get this all cleaned out And I'll be back with you and show you see you can see where the water's been hitting the fan Because it's built up back there and then this had no way to drain back to the back So hopefully I don't have to pull this out, but I'll get out my air and we'll see You know We'll go from there. Let me get this cleaned out guys Okay, guys the drain hole. I was talking about is Right there see that hole. Whoops So that hole that's a drain hole there and what it does all this stuff Like from this condensing unit. We've got it all cleaned off It runs down in behind here down in And drains out that hole there and then comes out. There's a little trough down here. Can you see this trough for my fingers are? Right in there. Let me get a pointer right in there. There's a trough there That runs and then it runs down there and out that hole. Okay? Well, it was all clogged up and all the water was coming out This side out the front not all of it, but 95% of it was so we got this cleaned off as you can see I took this cage off. It's all laying over there got it washed off. That's a little rusty but there's nothing I can do about it because You know when reality gets you and you don't have any white paint There's not much you can do with it, but these two pieces here. I won't take in I'm gonna clean them up These I just hose off. I'm gonna put them back on. It's no big deal. Oh Set you up on the tripod when I do that see they're just taped on with this With this kind of stuff right here Just a couple pieces of tape here and there's all that holds that together I might use a little bit of hot glue just a dab of it. I had to put a hole down there and one Right down in there I don't know if you can see it but to drain this out because I hose did out. I'm gonna go ahead and block him off I'm gonna plug it in and let it run for a little bit though and make sure see this is the hole I put in I don't know if you guys can remember that video or not It was filling up with water right there From the rain and stuff and it wouldn't come it couldn't come back up this way because you gotta have these at a Little angle don't don't leave them hanging way down. You know like you see some people do But barely barely noticeable at a little angle and so it couldn't get back up there as you can see it's draining It's doing its job pretty well there So I'm going to plug it in and let it run a little bit dry itself out While I go wash them up and then I'll bring you back when I put that piece there on it'll get too hot Or it'll melt that styrofoam. So I've got it on low Well, not this one I plugged it in Now I'll never be able to get this part without cutting it, but that's all right Because if this comes apart again, it'll be for scrap But anyway, this one don't have a look what I did was I plugged it in And I waited till it just got hot enough just to squeeze it out to where it's not smoking yet And there it is so I'll show you one more time Down in here Got it pretty much cleaned out See this is why I was talking about these stupid things here. Let me back out a little bit These things I'll just put a little hot glue on them But we got it pretty well cleaned out now back in there I don't know if you can see it down there by that fan. There's another little hole There's an indentation there And it was filling up with water So I went ahead and drilled me another little hole there about the same size as the other one Then we got this one On the back right there So there's that I'm going to try to get this cleaned up a little bit more Uh, I think it's all clear Um, I'm going to go get a toothbrush and try to get them out of there Whatever you do try not to bend them. So let me go get a toothbrush. I want to try to clean them out a little bit And Then I'm going to put the cage on I need to wash this up first Now I'll take that in house and do that and then I'll be back with you. I also got to wash these so I'll do that in house Now let's get this back on here get these tight. I know why they're loose Someone has stripped them Nice, huh? All right now things on And they just get slid Down in here pain to get them started sometimes It's like that but first let's get these screws in here All right Now Get this on here like that Get the other side on it's like Just like that Now we've got to put our side pieces on Which they had them on like this But was it like this? Yeah I Here see that hole It's not supposed to be there. They've put that in there supposed to go in this hole And Down here and I'll see it says it's even got them labeled left and right See the L on there, but they've got it on the right But since that's the way they put it in I'm going to have to put it back in that way so I hate that but you know, what else you know, what else can I do? I got I got a Because if I do it the other way, I'm just I'm going to have to redo How everything was It was done There's just slides in the slot down at the bottom It was in there and these just get pushed In there just like that There you go. There's that one. Well, I wish I could tighten them up somehow Okay, so let's do this one bottom started Push them in there. There's that I'm going to take this in the house and clean it up.  So because that way It shuts it off and turns it on by pulling it out the Vent thing in there. Look, I just got that old dirty again Well, it can be cleaned up This part of it can be cleaned up after it's put in there. Now we've got Two more screws here and I have to be super tight because it's just screwing in plastic now Man, I wish I could do something about that There ain't much I can do other than drill Drill a couple holes. I may do that I forgot to I forgot to hit record, but what I did was I took a couple short self-tappers. I put one in there one in there Now she's tight because there's nothing down underneath her that I have to worry about so now I need to get this inside get a So I can get it put back in I'm going to have to clean these vents out some more because They're not Not very good. There's your little vent thing Open and close Right there Um Then I got to clean them out those didn't get very clean But that's no big deal. So let me get this thing in the house And get it up in the window. I'm not going to film it this time But uh You'll get the idea. Let me get it in there. Let's uh, let's plug it in I don't know if you noticed my hose that there was using my hose Hose just all out look how nice it is now And by the way that hose that is the one That I reviewed here a while back still going strong Next and let it run for a little bit got something clicking in there. I think it's a piece of tape I put down on the bottom, but uh, I want to say thanks again for watching. I appreciate it Don't forget to comment rate and subscribe Say better than myth a man a legend. I'm gone for now. Bye. Bye guys. Take care. Thanks again


Thank you. Good to see you. Hello. How are you? Good to see you. Well, come in. Sit down. Why don't you... We understand that. One of two things to do this morning. Thank you. Yes. I was just saying, the record is complete. It never fails. Any time I have a meeting with the congressman, I'm behind schedule for the rest of the day. To say nothing of the national agenda, and it meets with Congress. Thank you. We'll be able to put some fires out on the area. Very concerned about the Central American. Well, this was a pretty supportive group. This included the people that have been down there, and have just returned. And we've got to do a better job of making the American people realize what is it state for, and what's going on. I think you're getting comfortable. I must say that U.S. news cartoon. I don't know if you saw it this week. It's got this little mouse named C.I.A. And Connor's standing up on a chair. And terrified behind the chair. And under is this great big ferocious beast named Red Aid for Central American rebels. I mean, governments. It's a good cartoon. We had mentioned the only thing we wanted to ask you about high tech was the fact. It was Jim Cook's piece on the enforce about the fact that the whole economy, the recession wasn't just a recession. It was a shift in the nature of the economy. Yes. Too high tech. And there's been a lot of talk about whether or not the government should play a part in having a national plan as to our efforts, how are the Japanese. And I was wondering if you were being influenced or have been approached on that kind of approach? Well, no. And I don't think that the Japanese success is particularly due. I know there's been a great deal of talk about it to government relationship with Japan. I think very simply one of their greatest advantages is the much higher personal savings rate of the Japanese people over ours and the pool of capital that's available there can be used for investment in a lot of high tech and improvements in general business. And I think our industrial plan is one that's across the board to stop government from being, as it was for so long, an adversary of the private sector, view, for example, of our tax program to make it easier. I want an extension of the 25% tax credit for research and development for business and industry so that they can plan ahead and know what they can do. There are things government can do in this, but they're aimed at all of industry because not only do we want and know that high tech is going to, well, our own labor department says probably be the biggest provider of new jobs in the future, but technological improvements in the regular industry, basic industry in this country to help them. So some of the things we've done, we've, well, we're asking for a 17% increase in our own federal spending for research and development. I am proposing a plan and incentives to see if we can't lure bright young PhDs into teaching science and engineering instead of going up and down there into the high tech world themselves. We, as I say, want an extension of that tax credit that was in our program, but all of the program was to make it more possible for business to develop and expand. And then, of course, because high technology is where we can be the most competitive in the world market and then everything that we're trying to open up trade and reduce protectionism and so forth, we're continuing on that. So our industrial policy is one of, across the board, helping business and industry have the climate they need in which to go forward. On another matter, Mr. President, I hope some of the people that we've read in the paper are giving you economic advice about the necessity of slowing down the money rate and increasing interest rates so that the recovery doesn't get out of hand. I hope they're not saying the same things to you. No, that's just my attention that's going on and no, that's not my view at all. I don't think we need to worry about the rate of recovery, about snuffing it out because it's getting out of hand. It's a healthy one and it's going to progress. But it's alarming to read that these people around you think that the recovery is out of hand already. Well, those are those usual unnamed sources, white house sources. I don't know whether they even exist. I certainly don't know who they are or they wouldn't be white house sources anymore. But you're not in favor of returning our interest rates. No, and I'm not in favor of the things they're talking in the Hill of wanting additional tax revenues. Right now we've got a recovery going and I can't wait to veto any effort with regard to taxes and will. No, I think you're on the right side of that. Both soundly and also happens to be politically sound, I think, too, which is a happy coincidence. There's noise that way, but I think this one is speaking politics instead of Mr. President. I hope while we all hope and some of us believe you'll run again I hope you won't make any announcement about it until you have to because I think it might have a lot of practical effects that wouldn't all be good. Keep us on tender votes as long as the decision is positive. I'm very much aware of that. Either way, to become a lame duck by saying no would perish the thought. That's right. Would paralyze everything we're trying to do. To say yes would then render everything that I try to do viewed as politically the other side would mobilize against it. So no, besides campaigns are too long.  I think this is why fewer and fewer people are voting all the time. I think we've satiated them. They're never free of political campaigns going on. I must say, I think in terms of the Democratic Party, the fact that so many are running so hard so soon will create a certain amount of boredom as it relates to them while the curiosity continues as to when you publicly make the statement we all hope and expect and would be disappointed and didn't. But all I'm saying is I hope you don't get pushed into any early time and the early announcements. I'm in no hurry. Good. As long as the answer's positive, isn't it? Incidentally, I heard from earlier what we were talking about too and about this that part of our trouble is recession but a large part of it also is we're in a transition. In the decade of the 70s, the Labor Department statistics show that out of the new jobs created, 8 out of 10 were in service industries. Do you have plans to propose legislation or take moves to make it easier for the services to compete in export markets or to ease their expansion here?  You're going to have the depreciation and so on. The services. Yeah, the services that a heavy manufacturing company has. So that in a sense the investor is skewed in that direction. Well, if I understand you correctly what you're asking about is anything that we're doing with regard to export markets. Well, one thing was of course that a bill that we created for export trading companies so that smaller companies could come together without being any violation of the law and take advantage of export trade where previously they've never done it before. We're doing everything we can to reduce a large part of the talk at Williamsburg. And I must say, all of the heads of state there all agreed that we're all guilty of too much protectionism now and we've got to work further and harder to rid ourselves of it. You certainly came out of that smelling like the Roscoe. I think it was neat that everybody predicted it was going to be either a waste of time or blow up and so forth because when you came out of it there were certainly rational findings and widespread supporters. It was wonderful, I think. Well, you know, the previous things and the two that I had attended before it virtually was that someone had written the communique in advance of the meetings and the meetings therefore had to like a script, match the script. And so people made presentations but there was never any really free-wheeling discussion. So this went just from the very first moment. There was no communique in the first moment. We had into a trade or a subject-like trade and then free-for-all around the table. And we never left a subject until we had a consensus. We'd take a vote and say, well, three descending and four in favor of anything and we worked it out. We already agreed on the things that we could do and I must say all the rest of them were very generous in their labor. People were very impressed that you were not dogmatic about anything. We did all that you valued their thinking. I mean, you've got a consensus which nobody predicted. Speaking of that, Mr. President, do you see any value I propose the script all being written out ahead of time at some point in the months ahead of meeting with Mr. Andrew? I don't see it in this year unless something arises that we can't foresee. Certainly, we're supportive of the idea if there is an agenda where something can be accomplished. The one thing that I think would be very bad and yet some people haven't talked about it is to go ahead and have one just to get acquainted because people's hopes get too high in meeting with that kind and then to walk away with nothing has too much bullet down. Now if in the months ahead, the early part of the year if we can come to some meeting of the minds on practical things to discuss and that offer some possibility of improving the situation, fine. Do you see any inklings as to whether or not anything's going to come out of Afghanistan in a way of withdrawal? President Xi, I certainly seem to be trying hard and effectively he's a good friend to us. He's a good friend in Pakistan as a mediator. Right now there is no indication of any weakening if there's anything, the series of strength in their forces there and that is something that clouds that arise. Now do you sit down and start talking about other issues? Well, this total violation of everything that every nation is pledged to in the charter of the United Nations is being violated and what's going on there and it can't be ignored. Speaking of withdrawals, do you have any indication that Syria's again, these of the Russia's aid is going to even make token evacuations in Lebanon? Well, we're going to work for more than that and we're going to continue to work on that. This country, Syria, they were one of those at the very first that said when everyone withdraws, we'll withdraw, we'll all withdraw and now they're violating that promise on what pretext I don't know but we're not going to give in. We're going to continue working with our friends among the Arab nations who are all on our side on this and opposed to Syria's taking the stand. I feel it's principally because of the Russian aid and the closeness of Syria. I think Russia is pushing hard in there and this is sort of our back door entry to the table. And this is a situation we have to look at as to what the answer is. Since Mr. Andropov took over, the Russians have been stirring up trouble everywhere. They're sweeter subs, Syria, Vietnam, Central America. They're going to be stoking it up in there. When you mention Central America again, you of the media, there is such a story that isn't being told. For example, after my April 27th speech, the polls indicated that a great many Americans did see El Salvador and Central America in a different light. But the constant drumbeat of the opponents to that is such that the polls have gone back practically to where they were. Now, this congressmen that have come back have some fascinating stories to tell. They talked to 16-year-old boys, and listies in the El Salvador army. Why? Why are you doing this? And these kids said to fight for our country. This isn't the thing in which there's a lack of daisical feeling in the part of the people. They feel as strong as they felt when they voted a year ago last March, but they have other stories because they talk to others on the other side. And they had high-ranking leaders of the forces that are backed by the Soviets and the Cuba in this tell them that this revolution is for real and that this revolution is aimed at all of Central America. They stated that. As a matter of fact, one of these men said to some of these congressmen, one of these high-ranking officers said to the congressman, make no mistake about it. We'll be at the Arizona-New Mexico-Mexican border sooner than you think. What do you think it'll take to arouse them? I think more. I think that it is winnable on our side, but not with the grudging penance or pittance that we're getting from Congress, which is just sort of helping them bleed to death down there. What we need is to give them the weapons, the training. There's no question, but the battalions that we trained were the most successful that they had. And we need more of that kind of training. And the bad American people have got to know that this is, to our national interest, if for no other reason, if they don't want to consider hostels being at their border, but look at it one other way, we're talking about if those people succeed, those Cuban and Soviet-backed people can succeed in getting their kind of dictatorships there. You can look for anywhere from 7 to 10 million refugees here in the United States. Do you see signs that the Mexicans are beginning to wake up to the nature of what's happening down there? Yes, I think they are. And I'm hopeful that they can move faster. They can be effective, and they're going to have their own problems. They have them now, economic. Do you get any indications that... Well, the Contradora is trying to get, as they're called, those four countries that are banded together. I will be meeting for too long with some of those people, but we support them in what they're trying to accomplish. But the thing we must recognize is that these are not just some peasants with muskets and battled farmers out there in the hills. These are professionals. These are, as a matter of fact, some of our people down there have met high-ranking officers. They met in other countries under other circumstances who are there now in the so-called Sandinista government, which is nothing more than... I think its mask is dropping more and more. Yes, it's a surrogate problem. The facade is, for the whole time, more and more exposed. The polls may be down, but I think the more and more you see pictures, I mean, four living planes full of arms, the idea that this is a peasant rebellion, you know, it's just, it doesn't work. More Soviet ships, actual Soviet ships have unloaded cargo in Nicaragua so far this year than did in the entire year, in an entire year past, just these few months. I think the public opinion, as before World War II, it's slow to turn after the Vietnam. The analogy doesn't hold, and the proximity creates a whole different matter. But I think that your own steadfastness in regard to it is going to, the public's going to follow behind. And so is media, basically, because it's becoming just more and more apparent. This is not Mr. Big trying to snuff out poor starving peasants who want to be done with dictators. I mean, that scenario is washing less and less as the Cubans and the Russians become more and more open in their support of the scientists. Yes, and we're not talking about us, they keep harping on, we're not talking about American military forces. As a matter of fact, President Magani said he would not ask for them. They can do it, but if we give them the practical help that they need, economic help as well as military, and economic help because they have a negative growth in gross national product because of the assaults of these rebel forces destroying their industries, their power plants and their infrastructure, creating additional unemployment to where they've got people that have to be cared for because their jobs have disappeared. The farmer that can't work is soil, workers' farm because of the gorillas.  There are some members of the Congress with this thing trying to make it that... They're on the wrong end of the stick, as far as the basic public opinion, as it becomes aware that it isn't a power ploy, it isn't a Vietnam, it's a real confrontation by the Soviets and the Cubans on our facts, and I think that's becoming more and more apparent thanks to the efforts of the administration. As long as you don't let the opposition in Congress make the administration gun-shy and making the points that have to be made, I don't think this fellow gets gun-shy too quickly. My trouble is I go out there and I make a speech to somebody and then I see in the evening news 20 seconds of the speech and nothing of importance in that 20 seconds. Listen, we'd like to be of some help to you by not taking any more of your time as the President, except to tell you that it's a very high-biting average for us that, you know, in the magazine ourselves we couldn't be more supportive. I would say 90% plus. And the minus sides are minute compared to the plus sides of Mr. President. We look forward to your second term and we look forward to your not announcing it until the... So I won't even respond to those words. Right. I hope we covered everything that you wanted. You haven't been. And thank you for your time, Mr. President, and what we can do to be helpful is we intend to because we so thoroughly agree with your thrust and your thinking, your philosophy. It's a very refreshing thing. I think it must be refreshing to you to find out how many more people are. And I think economic recovery that is underway with any blips is, we've said many months ago, is going to be stronger than people anticipated and the fact that it is proving stronger, it shouldn't alarm the people that underpredicted. I'm glad that being tweeted here, I think you're going to be one of your advisers for having underestimated, but they shouldn't get alarmed that it's out of hand. Recovery is not out of hand. No. No. But it's a healthy state, right? Incidentally, with all that unemployment, you know what no one has mentioned? The other day I heard one of the people up on the hill, one of the candidates, I think it was, and sounding off about, well, there's probably 20 million unemployed if we only knew of the people that have gotten discouraged so I wish they'd look, take a look, and see if it's really 10 million because how many of the so-called unemployed are in the underground economy that is avoiding taxes and they are hurting at all. That's a good case for another tax cut rather than what the Democrats want to do. Every possible good wish there, and we, as I say, look forward to equally great progress in the second level. I appreciate all this.


Hey everybody. Anyone who's followed my content knows that one of my often said phrases is, trust but verify. I say this because grifters will lie to you, and often. The more they profess their honesty, the bigger the lie. And grifters are everywhere, especially with the economy going sideways. With that in mind, this video is not made for any purpose beyond that of a public service announcement. And if any grifter gets their feelings hurt or feels bullied by this video, that is not my intent. And further, I encourage you to send me a note if this is the case, and I will be happy to Amazon you some vagisil. Never let it be said, I never cared for the disabled. With that out of the way, I know there's an issue in the manosphere PUA dating coach circles. It's mainly between two groups of individuals. Those who support Rolo Tomasi, a.k.a. George Miller, and those who support Anthony Johnson. The primary reason for the fallout of these groups is that Mr. Miller got caught doxing event-goers of Mr. Johnson's 21 convention to a feminist journalist. Specifically, he doxed the location and identities of attendees of a 21 convention after hours get together. The feminist journalist then ambushed the attendees and speakers at this event, hoping to trigger them into embarrassing themselves and, for the most part, she failed. However, in true loyal female fashion, when pressed, she admitted that it was Mr. Miller who doxed the location of the 21 convention after hours party. This is confirmed by multiple witnesses at the event and the group of individuals Mr. Johnson used to investigate this incident in its aftermath. While normally this would be a drama-only issue, given that Intifa and BLM fanatics are prone to use similar tactics to harass and assault their detractors, Mr. Johnson was deeply concerned that he or his attendees might be assaulted by someone who may attempt to murder them. There are many well-documented incidences of this around the country, so this was a credible concern, and even more so for Mr. Johnson, who makes his primary living as a MAGA-styled event promoter. Now there were a lot of accusations flowing back and forth between these two groups, but those are the facts I can personally verify, because I personally saw evidence of it. Anthony showed me emails and I personally interviewed others involved behind the scenes, because I do my due diligence to verify what people tell me, rather than just take them at face value. After I personally investigated, I made two videos as entertaining public service announcements to warn others about this new style of doxing. With that said, I have to ask you, the viewer, tell me, if you attended a conference promoting positive masculinity, and a mass shooter arrived, like what happened at Boulder, Colorado recently, or an armed gunman arrived, like what happened recently in Atlanta, or someone tried to run you down with a vehicle of peace, like what recently happened at the Capitol, and you knew those perpetrators were either persons of color, radical leftists, or those who hated American values. Would you want your information to be doxxed? To that point, let's say some leftist journalist from the New York Times, the employer of the journalist I just mentioned, decided to dox you, and they contacted your employer. Could you survive being fired from your job for your American patriotism? Again, this is a very valid concern, as we saw from the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 MAGA protests. Many of the attendees were doxed, fired from their jobs, and blacklisted in their career industries. While they didn't lose their lives, their lives and the lives of their families were definitely destroyed anyway. All because they supported constitutional civil rights, civil rights I might add, that the left used to staunchly defend. In fact, most of the best case law regarding civil rights on the books today is because of left-wing lawfare. Kind of ironic how things change, isn't it? While these issues aren't the subject of this video, it's important to know the verifiable history to ensure you, the viewer, have all the relevant facts at your disposal before passing judgment. And that brings me to Edwin Hopkins, affectionately known to his undercover brother-boyfriends as Special Ed. Full disclosure, I really don't have any clue if the pet name his boyfriends call him is Special Ed. I just wanted to put that out there. But Special Ed is a perfect example of a purple-pilled power bottom, a term I coined a few years ago. A purple-pilled power bottom is a guy who cosplays as an Alpha Chad, but he's not. And as you will see, not only has Mr. Hopkins verifiably lied about his Alpha status, but he's also not even a genetic Alpha. He's admitted this in the past on videos. He's so not Alpha that he has to take testosterone shots to enhance his masculinity. Now I don't know if these shots are organic, or if they're applied orally or annually like most men in the gay community, but he has admitted in the past on camera that he does take them. But even this is not the reason this public service announcement video is being made. You see, Special Ed masquerades as a prominent self-made dating coach in the PUA community. The only problem is, if you're looking for a dating coach, you're never going to hear the name Edwin Hopkins. This is because he goes by a false identity online and pretends it's his real name. It's not like me. My online moniker is DDJ, but I'm never going to pretend it's the name on my driver's license. In fact, since I've doxed myself to file my lawsuit against Google and YouTube in 2019, I've never denied that my name is Bob Lewis. No, Edwin Hopkins uses a different online name, whose first name starts with a D and his last name starts with an S. Now if you guessed dipshit, you're wrong, but not by much. You see, Special Ed has made multiple videos critical of the MGTOW community. And while this is nothing new for dating coaches and other drama marketers, the irony is at the core of Special Ed's teachings that you can purchase on his website, DonovanSharp.com, focus on MGTOW wisdom that is freely obtained from a plethora of MGTOW and other red-pilled content creators. A prominent one is the old school blog called No Ma'am, which contains what may be the Bible of red-pilled wisdom that nearly all PUA's, dating coaches, and other frauds like Special Edge plagiarize their content from. Now if that was the only disagreement I had with Special Ed, I still wouldn't be making this public service announcement. No, the reason I'm making this PSA is because Special Ed appears to be a verifiable con man, according to arrest.org, mugshots online, and bustedbugshots.com. Now, I don't want you to take my word for it. Go to those websites yourself, look for yourself, verify for yourself. Special Ed, aka Edwin Hopkins, has been arrested for financial identity theft multiple times and passing bad checks. For those in the back, those are crimes that are the bread and butter of any career con man. Now with that in mind, let's go take a look at those websites. All right, so this website is mugshots online, and this is Special Ed right here from 2011. He was booked for writing what's called a worthless check or a bad check. Okay, now this one here is another one. And now I want to make sure that's not the same date. Uh, 222, 1220. Okay, it's the same mugshot, or I should say it's the same date, mugshot. But it's from a different website called bustedmugshots.com. Now there are other photos there, we'll kind of get to that in a minute. Like this one right here, for example, this one's from mugshots online. And looks like it's from 2010. And I can tell from that photo that Special Ed probably had giant abs. And then this one here, don't get me wrong, like I've had weight issues in the past as well. You know, we all have our challenges, you know, and mine were from injuries, I don't know what his were from, but whatever. But the thing is, is that, like you look at this one at arrest.org, and this is really the one that takes the case. So if we come right here, we click that open, we scroll down here. There's Special Ed in his suit and tie, or slacks and tie. Financial Identity Theft, okay, right there. And this is from 2010. Now there's another one down here. Again, same thing from 2008, Financial Identity Theft. Now, today, Special Ed has evolved his grift.  Now, my concern here isn't that he's holding a special needs convention. I congratulate all special needs individuals that can put an event together like this, complete with wheelchair access. Now, my main concern here is his convention terms of service. Okay, let's take a look at that. This is the Conference of Masculine Excellence terms of service. Now, if you look here, and I'll show you in just a second, there are no business entities listed. There is no business address listed. It's like he went to LegalTemplates.com and printed out something then modified it. Well, on the surface, it appears to be a standard adhesion contract. It has no jurisdictional entity clause or any credible way to challenge it if Special Ed doesn't keep up his end of the contract. So we scroll through it again. There's no refund policy here, by the way. And I encourage everybody to look at this. This is MasculineExcellence.com forward slash WP dash content forward slash uploads forward slash 2021 forward slash 03 terms dot PDF. He might change this as a result of this video and that's okay because I have a copy of it. But that said, you scroll through it. It talks about the terms of the agreement. Now, usually in the beginning, you have the parties to the agreement on any official legal contract. You'll have you and us type of thing. So if you look at this one, you have the user is you and then you have the event organizer, but it never identifies who the event organizer is. Now, we know it's Special Ed because he kind of identifies himself later on. I think there's like an email. It's a very professional Gmail account or something along those lines. And then there's a table of contents, apparently, because, you know, those contracts need tables of contents. And then he skipped a few spaces here. I think that might have been a formatting issue. And of course, you know, who are you buying from the event organizer doesn't say who doesn't say the identity. It just says sharp assist. Okay, nobody's identified here. And the pricing and availability, it's like it's like a thousand dollars for a standard event pass. And it's 2004 for the VIP, which includes hotel room, which by the way, in Orlando, hotels are a little bit more expensive than they are in Las Vegas, especially with COVID, where everybody is desperate to get out in Las Vegas, has cut its prices massively. And that's that's where this event supposed to be held held, sorry, supposed to be held in Las Vegas. Now, that said, price is subject to change, order confirmation and processing. Again, pending confirmed number of ticket ticket limits, COVID-19.  If the events are canceled, no ticket refunds or returns will be provided. But they're going to credit you for a similar ticket at a future date. Now, if I remember correctly, somebody else tried this, but there was no future date.  We're not giving you anything. I want you to read this contract for yourself because it looks like a scam. More to the point, it's so unconscionably one sided that it appears to be unenforceable in any court of law. Now, I'm not an attorney, but I have worked in the legal field for 25 years. I would be deeply concerned about it because, again, who's the event organizer? Oh, it's special ed. You see, he can't even put his real information on there. There's nothing in this contract that has his information, that has the business entity or anything that is official at all in any way. At least Mr. Johnson, when he does the 21 convention, has the business entity and those types of things listed in his contract. Now, with that said, the contract plainly states that if special ed cancels it, and this is important, you know, if he cancels the wheelchair race after he takes your money, you do not get any refund. Now, I know that the disagreement between Mr. Miller and his flunkies like special ed versus Mr. Johnson and the 21 brand go far beyond these things. However, in the manisphere, the truth still has value, which is the entire basis of red-pilled wisdom. It's uncomfortable, verifiable truths. You can either live with the comfortable lie or you can deal with the uncomfortable truth, whatever that truth may be.  We're talking about objective facts. Now, while many in the special ed versus Anthony Johnson controversy have taken sides, I have not. I have limited this video to the verifiable facts with but one difference. I want you, the viewer, not to take my word for it.  He goes by Edwin Hopkins. And don't be like many content creators such as Fresh and Fit or Terrence Pop, who made knee-jerk judgments without verifying the facts first. Because when you're wrong about something like this, you lose all credibility. Now, so we're clear. I'm not saying that Mr. Johnson is the most honest or forthright person out there, especially as a PUA whose community lionized his dark triad traits. But regarding the issues I've raised, these aren't just quote unquote my truth. They are the truth, verifiably so. Also, my goal here isn't to disparage special ed or anyone else for that matter. In fact, the information I've presented here isn't mine. I found it elsewhere. My goal is to warn others about what I perceive as another con artist in the Manisphere community. So in closing, if you want to do business with or support a man who's been arrested for trying to pass bad checks George Floyd's style or stolen others' identities for financial gain in violation of North Carolina criminal law, you be my guest. But remember, when you get burned or you end up with egg white or anything else on your face because you went all in to support what appears to be a career con man, never forget, I warned you. I'm DDJ and this special ed public service announcement is your dose of Miss Andrew today.


Fy fawr, amser, a fawr gweithio i'r Llyfrgell MacKenzie. Felly mae'r Llyfrgell MacKenzie yn ymddiol â'r ysgol Llyfrgell MacKenzie, y cyfnodd cyfnodd y Llyfrgell Scotiaeth, sy'n cyd-ddof yn ysgrifennu yw'r ysgrifennu yn ysgrifennu a ddim y blynyddau ar gyfer y lluniau mewn Ysgrifiad, a Ysgrifiad a'r Ysgrifiad yn yn ôl i'r Llyfrgell ar y Llyfrgell Dynol. Rydym yn gweld yn fflaenio'r adnodd yma yma am Ymwneud Ymwneud Fryd. I should mention that this lecture, as the previous ones, was sponsored by German and Sterling, most generously to whom we are grateful. It is particularly appropriate that this year's lecture is going to be given by Alan Dashwood because the creation of these lectures was actually a Dashwood initiative, one of many when he was Professor. I'm now going to welcome Alan Dashwood, whom you know probably rather better than I do, although I have known him for rather longer, I imagine than any of you have, pretty well. He really has been around and he is a European. He's worked, as some of you will know, in Brussels for years. He's been a professor in Leicester, a professor here, and I come across him at the law court, where he appears on behalf of the British government and others, and endeavours to persuade me, which of course he always succeeds in doing, and my colleagues, which he occasionally persuades in doing of the virtues of whoever happens to be his client at the time. But when he appears, he is always greeted in that traditional friendly fashion, which we have at the court, with visiting advocates by saying, by inviting them to meet the judges beforehand, and you think, well, this is rather nice of them, and you turn up, and the one thing they say to you is, you're not going to be more than 20 minutes. On this particular occasion, you'll be delighted to hear that that particular rule is not in play, and Alan is allowed to talk for more than 20 minutes, which will delight us all. Alan Dashwood. Thank you, Conrad, for the very kind introduction. It's an enormous privilege to have been invited to contribute to this lecture series, which honours Lord MacKenzie Stewart, and a great pleasure that I echo John Spencer in this, that Amadrid Dudi MacKenzie Stewart, his daughters, and Marianna, his granddaughter, are in the audience this evening. I got to know Jack in the late 1970s when I went to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg as the legal secretary of his colleague Jean-Pierre Warner. He was advocate general. Then, as always, Jack was generous with his time, his knowledge, and his friendship. He was one of those men of immense distinction who not only don't assert their superiority over others, but are simply unaware of it. On the bench, he had the robust judicial manners that counsel from this country expect. Off it, he was the soul of courtesy. He was that relative rarity, a practical lawyer, and a practicing intellectual. When I came to Cambridge, I had a special cause to be grateful to him, because as a graduate and honorary fellow of Sydney Sussex, he persuaded the master to offer me a fellowship at a time when professorial fellows coming from outside Cambridge were not a highly sought-after commodity. As long as he remained well enough, he'd loyally supported my activities as the then director of cells and the activities of other colleagues in EU law. This is also an occasion to remember Anne, Lady MacKenzie Stewart, a formidable EU lawyer in her own right, who was in every sense a partner to Jack in his public and private life and who carried on his work after his death. This lecture, as you can see, has two different titles. The title that I originally proposed was 40 Years an EU Lawyer, Apologia Pro Vita Syrra. However, I was persuaded to give it something more demotic. So, until last week when I received the notice advertising this event, I had thought that I was writing a lecture on the topic EU law, a 40-year journey and still motoring. So, from the blessed Cardinal Newman to Jeremy Clarkson, though I prefer the former association, I'm happy with either title because they both convey the essence of what I'm proposing to do this evening. This is not going to be an account of my picker-esque career in EU law. I offer it rather as an apologia, a justification of a career choice made in relative ignorance, but with great good fortune. My first year of teaching EU law at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, was the academic year 1970-71, hence my 40-year perspective. I'm going to address a series of themes, which I shall announce as I reach them. They are themes that I hope will bring out the challenge and the fascination that I found in EU law. My first theme is the ideological perspective within which EU law functions. Most of the substance of EU law is black-letter law of the deepest hue, and it's applied with all the rigour of the municipal legal system, which in a sense it is. But at the same time the legal order has a wider perspective of political aims and values, which are clear and persistent. The combination of hard law and political aspiration is what first engaged me and has held me ever since. The first of the European Community is the European Code and Steel Community, or ECSC, had a limited scope but breathtaking ambition. In the words of the final recital of the preamble to the Treaty of Paris, on which the community was founded, this was to create by establishing an economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts, and to lay the foundations for institutions which will give direction to a destiny hence forward shared. As I've often said, it was a wonderfully intelligent idea to bring together the warrior nations of Europe and their habitual victims. Under a set of constitution-like arrangements that would make it unthinkable for them ever to go to war with each other again. The project has been so comprehensively successful that at this time of day it's hard to appreciate the enormity of the achievement and the imagination and generosity of the politicians who brought it about. Men like Jack Mackenzie Stewart, who was soldiers in the Second World War, needed no reminding. In the speech that he made when accepting the Charlemagne Prize, he spoke movingly of having been inspired in his career as an EU lawyer by his memory as a young engineering officer of the ruins to which the roar had been reduced by Allied bombing. My inspiration they were to further remove was similar. I was still a small child when the Second World War ended, but I grew up under a shadow. And although this was in South Africa, my father's family had been closely touched by European wars, as were many others in far-flung places. The eldest son was killed in the First World War, and the youngest, who was my father, was killed in the Second. If the EU was part of the solution to geopolitical challenge in the earlier 20th century, so it again proved to be at the end of the century when the Soviet Union collapsed. Events in former Yugoslavia showed what a threat this radical change in the security situation might pose to stability in Europe. I was in no doubt that the countries of Central and Eastern Europe had to be welcomed into the Union with any minimal preparation in spite of the problems that was bound to cause. I was and remain confident that membership at the Union will strengthen the commitment to democratic institutions and the rule of law in those countries, as it did in member states that had earlier acceded to the Union. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that peer group pressures within the EU institutions has tended to promote best practice in social policy and in the protection of human rights, which has brought improvements even in old established democracies like the United Kingdom. I doubt whether anti-discrimination legislation and employment legislation in this country would be anywhere near as advanced if it weren't for measures like the directive on equal treatment of men and women in employment or the working time directive. All of this is not to suggest that I'm a starry-eyed urophile, though I can test that back in 1975 I was. A Belgian MEP, who is a strong euro-federalist, once called me injurist illustre mé perfide. Being taught illustrious but perfidious is perhaps the best compliment that's ever been paid me. What I like so much about the EU is how well it is designed to cater for a political reality which my MEP critic would wish to deny. That is, the inescapable fact that the member states have refused to accept the dictates of euro-federalism as they did those of Marxism and quietly wither away. If anything, with the possible exception of Belgium, they are more self-conscious and more self-assertive than they were in 1971. The genius of the legal order of the union is that it preserves the national identities of the member states and their essential state functions while enabling them to pursue more effectively objectives that they have in common by accepting the discipline of acting together through common institutions on the basis of binding rules and under the control of the court of justice. As many of you know, my answer to the question what kind of political animal is the European Union is that it's a new species which I describe as a constitutional order of states or in moments when I feel bold enough to use the F word, a federation of sovereign states. Though I'm on record as being critical of some aspects of the Lisbon Treaty and of the recent case law, my admiration for this most ingeniously paradoxical of legal orders remains undimmed. And I intend to go on studying it and trying in the small ways an individual can to make it work better as long as I'm able. Moving on from ideology to the treaty and union structure. Back in 1971 there were three European communities but no European Union. The ECSC had been established in 1952 while the European Economic Community or EEC and European Atomic Energy Community or URATM followed in 1958. As their names imply, the ECSC and URATM had a specifically sectoral remit respectively production and marketing of carbon steel and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The EEC was given the much wider objective of the creation of a general common market based on a customs union and the pre-movement of goods, persons, services and capital between the member states. As you know, the EEC would provide the framework for the great bulk of community activity extending well beyond the economic sphere which led to its change of name in 1993 to the European Community or EC. Each of the three communities was based on its own treaty, the ECSC on the Treaty of Paris and the EC, as I shall call it from now on, and URATM on the two treaties of Rome which were freestanding international agreements and each had its own legal personality. So in principle they were legally distinct entities but they were served by a common set of institutions, one European Parliament or Assembly as it was then called, one council, one commission and one court to do the business of all three communities. The structure of today's European union looks very different. The ECSC no longer exists. It died from natural causes in 2002. The Treaty of Paris had been concluded for a fixed period of 50 years and by 2002 there was a consensus that carbon steel matters could be managed conveniently within the EC framework. More dramatic is the disappearance in a formal sense of the EC which has been replaced and succeeded by the union. URATM continues as itself in a puzzling relationship of semi-detachment from the union. The intermediate step between then and now was the creation of the European Union by the Treaty on the European Union or TEU which came into force in November 1993. For many of the time the union was, to borrow from WV8, a rough beast that slouched towards Maastricht to be born. So dissatisfied with the authors of the TEU with their handiwork that they fixed to rendezvous in 1997 to try and do better. The union was the child of necessity. The Member States were agreed that two policy areas, those relating to foreign and security policy and to justice and home affairs, which had previously been a subject of quite intensive intergovernmental cooperation, should be brought within the single institutional framework. Most Member States, however, weren't willing that the decision making procedures of the EC Treaty should apply to those policy areas in the normal way, and neither should the constitutional principles of the community legal order, which had been elaborated by the Court of Justice, in its case rule. Indeed, so strong was the suspicion that the Court would find a way of communitarising these new areas of common action that it was decided to exclude its jurisdiction completely. How was this to be achieved in treaty terms? One possible solution would have been for the common foreign security policy, or CFSP, and cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs of JHA, I'm sorry about all these acronyms, for those to be incorporated into the EC Treaty, subject to special institutional and procedural arrangements, which would be spelt out in the amending provisions. The Dutch government, which oversaw the final phase of the negotiations when it took over the rotating presidency in the second half of 1991, made a last ditch effort to salvage that approach, but in vain. Other Member States wanted the exclusion of the new areas of competence from the community legal order. They wanted that to be given formal expression in the treaty structure. The alternative solution, which I believe was dreamed up by advisors of the Luxembourg presidency in the first half of 1991, involved conferring competence with CFSP and JHA upon a new entity, the European Union, which would have direct responsibility for action in these areas, organised on the basis of provisions contained respectively in Titles 5 and Titles 6 of the TEU. The union's relationship with the European communities was less clearly defined. The communities retained their distinct legal identities, but were linked more firmly to each other and at the same time to the union, not only by the single institutional framework, but also by common procedures for the amendment of their founding treaties and for the accession of new Member States. And by an express commitment in the then article 6 of the TEU to a common set of basic values under the protection of fundamental rights. There were broadly two approaches to understanding that relationship, both of which may be illustrated by an architectural image. One approach was to regard the union simply as a mechanism to enable institutions belonging to the communities to be borrowed for the purpose of pursuing the limited objectives of Titles 5 and Titles 6 of the TEU. Taking that approach, it wouldn't have been correct to refer to EU institutions or to use the term EU law as a general description of the whole range of legal provisions contained in or derived from the treaties. The image to illustrate that understanding of the relationship would be of the union as a kind of lean to propped up by the solid structure of the community, which had been constructed in order to accommodate the CFSP and JHA on a temporary basis. The other approach was to regard the union as an overarching, if lightly structured legal order, incorporating the communities together with the CFSP and JHA as sub-orders. The image to illustrate this approach is the familiar one of a Greek portico with three pillars linked by a pediment, though I've always thought a truer image would be a Byzantine portico with pillars of different sizes, a solid thick one in the middle representing the communities as the first pillar, and thin wiggly ones on either side representing the CFSP and JHA as respectively the second and third pillars. I'm in no doubt that the latter understanding of the pre-Lispan union structure was the right one. This seems to me to follow ineluctably from the fact that community objectives such as the creation of an area without internal frontiers, the strengthening of economic and social cohesion, and the establishment of economic and monetary union were mentioned in article 2 of the TEU as being objectives of the union. And also from the statement in article 3, first paragraph, that the union shall be served by a single institutional framework. I'm sure that was the correct way of looking at the union, though I suspect the commission always had a hankering for the former conception of the union as a ramshackle lean too. They have certainly risen to the bait in legal proceedings when I've teased them by referring to the union in its community persona. Future generations of law teachers will be thankful that they no longer have to explain the difference between the union and the community to their students, though the treaty and union structure in the post-Lispan era have their complexities. I should just mention the abortive treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. In drafting the treaty, the Convention on the Future of Europe opted for the model of a single foundational instrument incorporating all of the union's primary law, both institutional and substantive. The TEU and the EC Treaty would have been repealed along with all amending and accession treaties. This was one of the fundamental errors made by the Convention because it meant the great bock of the substantive law contained in the EC Treaty, including on the internal market, would have to be re-ratified. The other error was to call the text they were drafting a constitution, making it easy for those of a urophobic disposition to present the union as an entity with statehood in its DNA. Such political foolishness can only be explained by the frenzy of enthusiasm that sometimes grips the European elite when they gather inside their bubble. I've been gripped by it myself. I remember how shocked we were in Brussels by the problems encountered in securing the ratification of the TEU. The treaty negotiations had been carried along by the euphoria of the successful implementation of the single market programme. We failed to notice that this was a purely bureaucratic euphoria. Back to Lisbon. Under the new dispensation, the TEU and the EC Treaty, renamed Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or TFEU, remain as separate legal instruments, though the relationship between them and hence the union structure has been radically altered. The European Union is explicitly recognised by Article 1 3 paragraph of the TEU as being founded on the present treaty and on the TFEU, which are stated to have the same legal value. And there's a parallel provision in Article 1 paragraph 2 of the TFEU. It's further provided by Article 1 3 paragraph of the TFEU that the union shall replace and succeed the community, and all references to the community throughout the TFEU have been replaced by references to the union. While the various indications of the TEU as to the primacy of the first pillar have similarly been eliminated. So unlike the former EC Treaty, the TFEU will no longer in itself amount to the constitutional charter of a legally distinct entity. That charter is now to be found in the two treaties redesigned as complementary instruments of equal status, fulfilling different functions in setting forth the primary law of the union. The evident intention is to bring together in the TEU the core constitutional principles that define the essential nature of the EU. While consigning to the TFEU the legal basis for concrete policies as well as more detailed institutional procedural and financial provisions. And at this end there has been an extensive reallocation of subject matter between treaties. However, the symmetry of a new treaty design is somewhat compromised by the retention in the TEU of a Title 5 containing in its Chapter 1 general provisions on the union's external action and in its Chapter 2 specific provisions relating to the CFSP, including a section on the common security defence policy. The explanation for keeping the CFSP within the TEU isolated from the legal basis for action by the union in other areas of substantive policy lies presumably in the desire to emphasise that the competence of the union in this domain is different in kind from the competences defined by Title 1 of the TFEU. The continuing specificity of the CFSP is given expression moreover in institutional and procedural arrangements that will remain strongly differentiated from those applicable under the treaties generally. On the other hand, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters which would be left in the third pillar when other matters were transferred to the first pillar by the Treaty of Amsterdam were incorporated into the title of the TFEU relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. How should we characterise this new structure? A case could be made for the view that the three pillars have become two. That used to be my view but I'm now convinced that we should abandon pillar talk. The language of the Lisbon Treaty indicates that its authors intended to establish an integral union but one within which the particularity of the CFSP would be preserved. The question that's interesting legally rather than architecturally is to what extent the constitutional principles that were developed by the Court of Justice in cases arising under the community treaties now apply across the board including to the CFSP. That's a question on which I could give a whole lecture and maybe a series. Surprise it to say that I'm very clear that there's no room for any principle that isn't fully consistent with the particular character of the CFSP and more especially with the sole responsibility of each member state for its national security, which is now explicitly acknowledged by article 4 paragraph 2 of the TFEU. That would apply for instance to the rules that give rise to exclusive union competence in certain circumstances. I agree with Paul Craig where he writes in his book on the Lisbon Treaty that the substance of the CFSP simply does not accord with exclusive EU competence. I could go on but I mustn't because there are other important matters I'd like to address. The next one is the enlargement of the union's membership. In 1971 there was still the original six member states. Spain and Portugal were in the grip of slurotic dictatorships. Greece had recently succumbed to the colonels coup. Half of continental Europe were still client states of the Soviet Union. The story of how and why the six became nine, then 10, then 12, then 15, then 25 and finally 27 is for another occasion. As I indicated earlier the enlargement process seemed to me the inevitable and right reaction to a series of global economic and political challenges. And it isn't complete. I once described the EU as an antidote to European history. There's history still being made in the Balkans and the antidote will be needed there. I felt I had to refer to enlargement because it's such an enormous change since 1971, though its legal relevance may not seem obvious. Of course enlargement has vastly increased the range of legal traditions that interact with EU law. But the new arrivals seem to me to have had little discernible impact on the development of the legal order. I suspect that it's because the growth of the legal order in its early years was so prodigious. French and German public law had a great influence in those formative years. In particular they provided the source for the principles that shaped the system of legal accountability of the European institutions, including many of the most familiar general principles of law such as proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations. Community law, as we then thought of it, already had its own well-formed character at the time of the United Kingdom's accession in 1973. I remember that JP Warner was proud of having seized the opportunity in the metric case, which was about commission procedure in competition matters, to feed in the principle or die outer end partain, the right to adhere it, though of course the rights of the defence is also a familiar doctrine across the channel. Perhaps the clearest example of common law influence was the change in the style of European court judgments, from the synergistic style of the French courts to the more discursive common law style. By the time of the latest arrivals the legal order was relatively mature that it was hard for any individual tradition to make a similar impact. Though if anyone in the audience has examples I'd be most interested. Another issue is how judges and practitioners, law teachers and law students in exceeding countries learn to navigate in the new world of EU law. There always has to be a process of education but I think this has become easier over the years because EU law has been more studied and more written about how people are eager to lay on courses and conferences. When I started teaching EU law there were no textbooks in English, no European court reports of course, though we did have the commercial series, the common market law reports and were very grateful for them. And there was the London Lighting Conference which still continues. I remember there was considerable anxiety in 1971 and throughout the pre-accession period as to how courts and legal practitioners and university teachers who'd grown up in the common law tradition would cope with a system which it was said rested upon civil law concepts and principles. In the event we didn't have worried the London bar and London solicitors firms were soon and have remained in the forefront of European legal practice. Even before accession they were specialised courted on community law in several British universities and after accession many of these became compulsory. They would have to be said that the grander the institution the later this development tended to happen. As for the courts, Lord Denning may have used dramatic language to describe the incoming tide of EU law that unlike in France and in Germany there has never been an explicit refusal by one of the higher courts in this country to acknowledge the primacy of EU law and to accept the authority of rulings of the court of justice. There's a variety of reasons for this smooth transition. Not least among them was the educational effort made by Jack McKenzie Stewart and Jean-Pierre Warner and continued by their successes at the ECJ, hosting judicial visits to Luxembourg, attending conferences, lecturing and publishing. But the main reason I believe was an unexpected cultural affinity. Our common law tradition turned out to be more of a help than a hindrance. So much of EU law, especially in the early period before the union began churning out legislation, was judge made. The judges and advocates general in Luxembourg were compelled by the need to create a fully functional legal order to behave very much like common law judges. Like Monsieur Jardin, they spoke prose, or I should prefer to call it poetry, without knowing it. EU law, EU cases may have peculiar names and these are becoming more polysylabic as the union expands, but EU lawyers use them in very much the same way as common lawyers use the decisions of our superior courts. If there's a difference, it would perhaps lie in a tendency to read passages in ECJ judgments as if they were legislative texts rather than as steps in reasoning towards a decision on a particular set of facts. But essentially, those who have mastered the techniques of the common law are likely to flourish as EU lawyers. Next, the scope of EU law. Over the past 40 years, there has been huge expansion of the range of matters governed directly or indirectly by the law derived from the European treaties. When I started, it was still possible to know the whole of EU law, it certainly isn't now. In 1971, the essential task of the then community was the establishment of the common market, comprising a customs union supplemented by liberalisation of the factors of production, hence the classic for freedoms, free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. There was machinery to prevent free competition from being restricted or distorted and there was special provision for the organisation of the agricultural sector where it was believed a free market wasn't practicable. So how did the law of the common market appear in 1971? Great strides had already been made in establishing an effective competition policy. This was the area of substantive EC law that seemed to me the most interesting at the time and it was the subject of my earliest publications in common market law review. Another well-developed field was the common agricultural policy on which I also published. A massive legislation had been adopted during the later 1960s, establishing common organisations of the market in the main agricultural products. There had also been important legislation to facilitate the free movement of workers, including elaborate rules to protect their social security entitlements when they took a job in another member state. However, as to the other freedoms, the picture looked less rosy. In theory, the common market should have been completed by 1970 when the 12 year transitional period provided for by the EC Treaty came to an end. The most direct and blatant obstacles to free movement, customs duties and quotas in trade between member states had indeed been abolished, but there remained a massive indirect obstacles resulting from disparities between member states legislation which had the effect sometimes deliberate of protecting domestic businesses and their workers against competition. The treaty provided a legal basis, now Article 115 of the TFP view, with the harmonisation or approximation, to use the technical term, of member states law regulations or administrative practices affecting the establishment or functioning of the common market. But the legislation could only be adopted by the council acting unanimously. That provided too great an opportunity for member states to resist change, often in the genuine though misguided belief that their national standards were the best and only way of protecting consumers of goods and services. The Court of Justice came to the rescue. Already in the 1960s, there had been cases in which charges having the equivalent effect to customs duties, such as the Belgian Levy on imported diamonds that was used to finance a social fund for workers in the diamond industry, had been held to infringe the directly effective prohibition imposed by the treaty. Through the 1970s and early 1980s, a major focus of interest for EC lawyers was the steady accumulation of case law on the direct effect of the treaty prohibition against national measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions or operating as impediments to the free movement of workers, of the self-employed and of service providers. There isn't time to mention the leading cases individually, but I shall make an exception for Cassie Stedigial, decided in 1979 in which a German requirement that fruit liqueurs have a minimum alcohol content was found to be incompatible with the treaty. The justification the German authorities put forward for this rule amounted to claiming that strong drinks are less dangerous than weak drinks. This met with unsurprising scepticism. Cassie established that member states couldn't insist upon compliance with their own product standards by imported products which had been manufactured and marketed in compliance with the standards of the member state of origin. Not that is unless the member state of importation could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that its domestic standards were necessary and proportional to the objective of protecting certain non-economic public interests. I can't overemphasise the importance of Cassie's and all the rest of the case law on freedom of movement which showed that without solid justification the game was up for national measures having a protectionist object or effect. It's hard to believe that if the court hadn't shown such determined boldness the internal market project which has proved the catalyst for so many other developments could have been launched let alone completed successfully. I attribute the expansion of EU competences from the 1980s onwards to far beyond the central mechanism of the common market mainly to three things. First, the subtleness of the common market concept itself. This was understood as covering not merely free movement and competition but also the so-called flanking policies that were liable to interact with the market such as policies on regional assistance research and the environment as well as social policy. Embryonic developments, often based on subsidiary powers created by the council under the provision that has become Article 352 TFEU, were later consolidated by treaty amendments creating specific legal bases for action by the union in these areas. Second factor is the separation of EU competences, sorry, a second factor in the expansion of EU competences was one I've just mentioned, the detailed legislative programme for the unification of the market which was launched by a commission of white paper in March 1985 under the presidency of Jacques Delors and was piloted until he was sacked as a UK commissioner. By Margaret Thatcher for having gone too thoroughly native in Brussels by Lord Cofield. The programme focused on the removal through harmonising legislation of the remaining barriers to free movement which had survived the course onslaught because they were thought capable of being justified in some way. And it was completed more or less and to pretty general though not universal satisfaction by the deadline of the 31st December 2002 which had been set by the white paper. The influence of the programme has been broadly of two kinds. In the first place it brought about a profound change in the legislative practice of the council which got into the habit of taking decisions by qualified majority vote or QMV. The council had been empowered to act by QMV thanks to a new legal basis for internal market approximation measures now found in article 114 of the TFU. This had been inserted into the EC Treaty by the oddly named single European Act, an amending treaty which came into force in July 1987. The surprise was that the council actually took advantage of this power because up until then its habit had been nearly always to seek consensus even where QMV was permitted by the treaty. When I first joined the legal service the majority decisions were such a novelty that we used to keep a tally. By the time I lept at the end of 1994 we had given up because voting had become routine. This change of practice had an effect across the board and helped to explain the proliferation of legislation in the past couple of decades. Maybe some might think it wasn't such a good thing after all. The other consequence of the internal market programme, no less momentous and more directly related to its subject matter was the revival of the project for economic and monetary union. The mechanism for the introduction of a single currency was inserted into the EC Treaty by the TEU and as everyone knows this led to a surprisingly short time to the introduction of the euro in 12 member states on 1 January 1999. We may now be on the verge of the next phase in this development with the introduction of some form of economic government for the member states participating in the euro. The third factor in the expansion of the European Union competence was events in the wider world. These explain what would have been unimaginable in 1971 and indeed in 1981 namely that the union should acquire competence and become active in the spheres of foreign and security policy and criminal law and police powers. The uncertainties of the post-Soviet era underlined the importance for the union to play a more effective role in international relations, more particularly with the view to creating a new and stable security structure in Europe and with its near neighbors. The member states were also persuaded that they needed to act together to cope more adequately with the growing threats posed by drug trafficking and other serious forms of international crime and with illegal immigration. And the more recent menace from terrorists with access to global finance and failed states as safe havens attest to the wisdom of those decisions. It's very important to stress, however, that thanks to the checks and balances of the legal order, the expansion of union competence and hence of EU law doesn't entail an equal and opposite contraction of national competence and law. This is partly because member states play a central role in decision making through their membership of the council. It's moreover the European council composed of heads of state or government together with their full-time president and the commission president that sets the political agenda for the union. Even if QMV now applies to most matters, so there is ultimately the risk of being outvoted, the practice allows ample opportunity for compromise and the accommodation of serious national issues. A second consideration is that the effect upon member states' competences depends upon the nature of the union competence in question, as defined by the categories now listed in article 2 of the TFEU and further clarified by article 6. Where union competence is exclusive, member states are precluded from acting autonomously, but the categories of a priori exclusivity are limited in number and uncontroversial, covering matters such as the common commercial policy or monetary policy for member states using the euro. Where competence is shared, which is the case with most matters, the member states retain the right of autonomous action except to the extent that the union may itself have acted in respect of a certain matter, and that preemptive effect does not apply at all in some areas, for instance research and development cooperation. In areas where the union is competent merely to support, co-ordinate and complement the action of member states such as health, industry and education, action by the union has no preemptive effect. As I noted earlier, union competence for the CFSP is soigenerous and always subject to member states' responsibility for their national security, which is inalienable. So in my view there is no reason for alarm and despondency. I don't want to end without saying a word about the union's functional constitution, which is the Shea Dervr of the Court of Justice and which initially drew me to the study of EU law. Some of those present will have heard a talk I gave a little while ago, entitled Falling out of Love with the Court of Justice, in which I criticised some recent court decisions. And you may be wondering why I haven't launched a fferocious attack upon the court since I remain critical of those decisions and I could add a couple of new ones to the list. It's not so much my respect for the chairman, great though that is, but rather a sense of proportion that explains my reticence. In a 40-year perspective any appreciation of the court's achievements can only be overwhelmingly positive. I've fit much of my academic career defending the court against misplaced accusations of activism. I don't regard the case law on freedom of movement as activist at all. As Jack McKenzie Stewart used to say, the court was simply reminding the Member States of what they had explicitly undertaken in the treaty. On the other hand the court's invention of the functional constitution, completing and systematising the primary positive law contained in the treaties, strikes me as judicial activism at its most beneficent. What's also remarkable is that the main features that characterise the mature union constitution were already in place in 1971. As early as 1963 in the Ffancantolos case, the community was held to have created a new legal order whose subjects included private individuals as well as the Member States. The principle of direct effect, as it came to be known, meant that rights derived from the EC Treaty could be enforced by individuals in national courts. A year later, in Costa and Enel, the court spelt out the companion principle of the primacy of community law that, in the event of conflict between a national provision and a community provision, the latter must prevail. The great international handles gazelle shaft case was decided in 1970, just as I was beginning to get to grips with community law that I can't pretend to have understood its implications fully at the time. As many of you will know, the case concerned a challenge to the legality of a forfeiture mechanism under the common agricultural policy on the ground that it conflicted with economic rights protected by the German basic law. The Court of Justice held that the validity of measures adopted by the community institutions cannot be determined on the basis of rules or concepts of national law, including fundamental rights that are constitutionally protected. That had to be so, because the unity and efficacy of community law would otherwise be put in jeopardy. So it's from this very early case that we learn that the EU is a self-referential legal order. What counts as a valid rule of EU law depends exclusively on the criteria of that order. That was strong stuff, but the ruling was mitigated by the declaration also of constitutional significance that respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the Court of Justice. This confirmed indications given in earlier cases as to the rationale underpinning the Court's human rights jurisdiction in matters falling within the scope of application of EU law. Those constitutionalising concepts and principles have been refined and developed over the years. The great lesson of international hundreds gazelle shaft about the relationship between national legal orders and the union order has been completed surprisingly not until 1998 by the judgement in the INCOJ case. The Court of Justice was asked whether the primacy principle means that a national provision which is incompatible with an EU provision must be considered a complete nullity. The Court said no, it was sufficient merely that the national court disapply the provision. This confirms that the primacy principle is essentially designed to resolve conflicts of law between legal systems in a co-ordinate relationship. The EU makes no hierarchical claim of the power to disable national legislatures. Other post 1971 developments have been inspired by the principle of ensuring effective judicial protection which underlies the case law on the enforcement of union rights through remedies available in national courts, natively the state liability doctrine. Of course there are a few developments of which I'm critical. However this isn't an occasion for carping but rather for celebration of an intellectual construction, the functional constitution, whose elegant profile caught my attention all those years ago and fired my determination to get to know it better. That brings me to my conclusion which is really just an announcement that I intend to stop speaking. The only thesis I hope I may have established is that the European Union and its legal order is worth a lifetime of serious legal study of teaching and a practice. For my part, vele le voyage and I intend to keep military. Alan thank you very much for sharing with us this overarching view which those of us who've been around for a few years tend to get once one gets to grips with this subject matter. I'm particularly grateful for your a persu about the combination in the courtswork of hard laws, as far as I'm concerned, very hard laws, and political vision, and drawing our attention to the fact that the political vision was put there by the duly elected legislators and by the duly elected ministers. And the court tries to put together those things and you stood on top of the mountains and guided us to all the surrounding countryside in a lovely way. Thank you very much for your enthusiasm. I'm not sure whether you deserve the atification but you certainly deserve our thanks and you have it in abundance. I think Professor Tony Arnold has a bonbon. Good evening everybody. The perceptive and witty lecture which Alan has just delivered helps explain the sense of shock that many of us felt when we heard that he was retiring. It was difficult for his many disciples to believe that he was withdrawing from the field of play. And of course he wasn't. The clearest evidence of this came when he was made a QC the year after he retired and he in fact represented the UK government in a recent case before the ECJ concerning patent litigation which was decided only a few days ago. Be that as it may two independent projects were launched to celebrate Alan's distinction not to mention his perfidy and the great influence he has had over the course of his long career. Now there was much overlap between the two projects and they were merged when those involved found out what each other was up to and the merged project has had two outcomes. The first outcome was a seminar held here in Cambridge in December of 2009 amid heavy snow and ice on the theme of a constitutional order of states. Participants at the seminar described how they had first met Alan. For some he had been their doctoral supervisor. He had offered some their first job, some had had their first article published by him. I fell into all those categories and also an additional one because Alan offered me a place at the University of Sussex while I was still a Calo grammar school boy. And it therefore gives me enormous pleasure to present to Alan the second outcome of the project which is a collection of essays in his honour handsomly published by Richard Hart. Now I have two copies of the volume in question. The first is a copy, a unique copy bound in largely unmarked leather which Alan will be able to read without embarrassment in the company of his friends. The second is the copy which you will soon be seeing at airport bookstores throughout Europe. They will be displayed outside where they can be bought at a very generous discount to anyone who may wish to purchase one. The cover is significant. It's a painting by an artist called Eve Reiser Roberts and it's called Hockney's Cat. Now Alan and Julie I believe are both cat lovers and it depicts a cat sitting in a tree looking out over the countryside that Sir Conrad has just referred to. And you don't have to be a perceptive art critic and indeed I'm no sort of art critic to see as Alan as the cat perched pie up from a vantage point with a weather eye over Europe's legal landscape. So we very much hope Alan that you will enjoy reading this book and of course criticising it. Tony and all of you thank you very much indeed. It's very quite moving. There's a wonderful, I can't remember his name, but one of the Victorian diarists recorded that he'd been through his book of common prayer scratching out the excessive praise of the Almighty on the ground that no gentleman likes to be praised over much. And he was certain that God must be a gentleman. Well I'm afraid it's official, I'm not. So I'm immensely grateful to you and I shall enormously enjoy what you've written. Thank you.