Diana (a friend of Judie’s from high school) and here husband Gene have been staying with us. We used to see a lot of them back when we both lived in Brooklyn, a somewhat frighteningly long time ago. They moved off to Seattle years ago and we have rarely seen them since, so it has been fun having them visit.

Brexit Appeal: This week is the argument of the government’s appeal of the High Court decision holding that Parliamentary approval is needed to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, thereby starting the process of leaving the EU. It’s a case of major constitutional importance, so I was anxious to watch the proceedings, both as an interested citizen and as a former appellate lawyer.

Imagine my surprise when it turned out that the appellate proceeding turned out to be a cross between a Cricket Test Match and a particularly endless law school lecture. While the U.S. Supreme Court would have given the parties the usual hour for oral argument (or maybe two since it is such an important case), this proceeding is scheduled for four days. I mean, I know this is a major constitutional issue–but four days!? The lawyers for the government droned on for the entire first day and into the second. It was like one of those especially slow part of a cricket match in which neither side seems to be interested in doing much. But the second day picked, as the judges began to question James Eadie QC (whose is “Treasury Devil”, the term for the main lawyer for the Treasury) and poke holes in the government position. He fumbled about in a rather unimpressive way and the two government lawyers who followed him were worse.

But then Lord Pannick QC took the stage to argue against the government and in favor of parliamentary power. (To continue the cricket analogy, after a desultory first inning, the government declared and a great batsman took the pitch for their opponents.) He is apparently a legal superstar and, over next four or five hours, proceeded to prove it. He has a manner of speaking and explaining matters that makes everything he says seem completely reasonable. (Of course, it is easier when you have won below and have really good arguments.) He had the judges in the palm of his hand and it was a pleasure to watch him work. This is complicated legal matter, tying together the unwritten constitution, the prerogative rights passed down to the ministers from the monarchy, the interpretation of treaties and the laws enacting them and the application of common law and case law. Lord Pannick wove it all together brilliantly.

There were still other issues to be argued as I write this. Since certain Parliamentary powers were supposed to have been devolved to the legislatures of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, don’t they get a say in this? And how about the recent Scottish referendum? And if the whole Brexit thing impacts the Good Friday Accords which settled “the Troubles” in Northern Ireland, how does that factor in? This is just the tip of the iceberg of messy issues that Brexit will engender.

But Brexit appears to be an inexorable thing, something like a lava flow. It almost certainly cannot be stopped, but is there a way to limit the damage that it could easily cause? In the middle of the Court hearing, Labour forced a Parliamentary debate on May’s refusal to reveal anything to them (or anyone else). She reacted by agreeing to provide a “plan” if Parliament agreed that Article 50 would be invoked by the end of March. (I’m betting that the plan won’t contain much.) Since this was just a motion and not an act of Parliament, which Lord Pannick’s argument would require, it doesn’t completely answer the Court case. But is does make it seem pretty irrelevant.

Four plays in Four Days: It all began last Thursday when we went to “Cymbeline”, which wrote about in my prior post. On Friday night, we went to the West End to see “Nice Fish”, a play created by Mark Rylance, based on the poems of Louis Jenkins. It is set on a frozen lake in Minnesota, where Ron (Rylance) and Erik (Jim Lichtscheidl) are ice fishing. The play is sort of about the two guy and about ice fishing, but it really very philosophical and about the nature of life in general. It is directed by Rylance’s wife, Clare Van Kampen. They are a superstar couple and it will be fun to see what they do in the future. (She is writing a screenplay of her amazing play, “Farinelli and the King”, which we saw about a year ago.) “Nice Fish” was originally produced by the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis and the cast, which is largely drawn from members of that company, was great. It is an absolutely lovely little play, with language so enjoyable that we bought a copy of the script on the way out.

On Saturday night, we wen tot the National Theatre with Diana and Gene to see their production of “Peter Pan”. This was the J.M Barrie play, not the musical. One major change that they made from the usual staging was to make Mrs Darling turn in Captain Hook, rather than having the husband morph into the role. And they made no effort to hide the wires and guys working the system that make Peter et al. fly about. (The changed “fairy dust” to “fairy string”.) So it was fascinating to see the guys moving into place as the next flying interval approached. There were lots of mainly upper class looking kids all dressed up with their parents in the audience, which was sort of sweet. (I wonder if working class kids get to go to weekday matinees, perhaps with their schools?) The programme had a special kid-friendly design, which was clever. It was all very nice, without exactly knocking your socks off. The most memorable thing about it, other than the staging, was the performance of Anna Francolini as Mrs. Darling/Hook. She was deliciously evil and the way she was swallowed by the crocodile was great theatre. Finally, an interesting factoid: London has one of the original children’s hospitals, now called the Great Ormond Hospital, which was supported by Barrie (and Dickens and Queen Victoria). Barrie ultimately gave the hospital the copyright to “Peter Pan”in 1929 and Parliament amended the Copyright Act in 1988 to provide that the “Peter Pan”copyright would never expire. So every performance of the play anywhere in the world assists sick children.

On Sunday afternoon, we went with Diane and Gene to see David Bowie’s “Lazarus”. I had seen it a month earlier when Chris was visiting. It’s still good and Michael C. Hall is still wonderful. The music is great, especially if you like Bowie’s sound. I found the theme of death and trying to deal with and find death more overwhelming this time. A nice, Bowie-like way to check out? It is a bit of a strange and violent production and I wonder if it will just end up being an oddity–a sort of footnote or coda on Bowie’s career. Or might it have some staying power as a work of theater? It isn’t really set in any time, so it won’t become dated in the way that “Rent” or “Hair” or countless other things have. I guess time will have to tell.