To write perfect law arguments, one need to first master the art of legal writing;

which is the ability to write only what is necessary in as few words as possible and
omitting anything that is not relevant. The Fundamentals of Legal Writing book
written by roberto Abad and Blessilda Abad-Gamo is helpful for law students. The
Fundamentals of Legal Writing is about things that lawyers write to win others
over to their point of view.

After all, there's has been issues always, and when it matter to legal aspects, identifying the concourse of law
and all the ethics that governed it also makes for a rational point to argue about, of things as it can be read,
and witnessed in and around us today.

There are some nice touches about how Benson survived prison, and the
devastating courtroom cross-examination is the stuff of an advocate’s dreams. The
forensic science technicalities are interesting and well-handled. The issue of
whether Benson should be allowed to be rehabilitated at all and the tensions
between the leading characters make the book a fast-paced, courtroom page-
turner with plenty of twists and surprises. The premise of a murderer becoming a
barrister is original, if slightly far-fetched, but having said that it is an enjoyable
read.

Perry Anderson’s The New Old World is a welcome addition to the many books
published in recent years on the European Union (EU). Standing outside of the
academic debates, whilst issuing withering critiques of leading academic figures,
Anderson’s book is perhaps the most erudite and readable book on the EU to have
been published in recent years. More engaged with the theoretical debates than
Geert Mak’s magisterial In Europe: Travels through the twentieth century, Anderson
retains some of Mak’s fondness for esoteric details and telling anecdotes.

Anderson endorses the commonly held view of the EU as a confusing, obtuse

entity, difficult to define and falling outside of most categories of political
science. His account aims at providing some explanation of why the EU
appears to us in this way. The bottom line for Anderson is the neoliberal turn in the
European economy, which has given rise to the minimalistic regime of continental
market regulations that makes up the EU. In this respect, the contemporary EU is
quite different from its earlier incarnation in the 1950s as a conduit and prop for the
development of national welfare states.
Politically, the meaning of the EU is far less clear. Anderson observes that the EU
lacks any clear political purpose or identity, because it is a product of consensus
rather than antagonism. Political institutions derive their identities from the
social contradictions upon which they are based: the nation state in its gaudy
nationalist late-19th-century incarnation was a result of the need to overcome
the class divisions of capitalist society. The EU, built on the steady
dismemberment of the labour movement, rests on no such contradiction. The
EU in this respect is not an overcoming of the nation-state, but the slow disintegration
of some of its key forms, most notably that of the nation itself. Anderson’s analysis is
pertinent to the UK of today: those who believe that out of a newfound preference for
compromise, British politics is entering into an era of ‘new politics’, should think
again. Compromise alone is generative of little other than an agreement on the
lowest common denominator. Novelty and political creativity are the cousins of
political division and antagonism.

Anderson’s account of the EU is at its strongest when he shows how it

excludes the possibility of any of kind of politics at all. He remarks that though
the EU appears in many respects to function as a forum for managing the
relations between independent sovereign states, even here we are witnessing
something different from traditional diplomacy. After all, diplomacy—with its
backroom bargains and Kissingerian grand strategies—was no stranger to conflict.
The EU, in contrast, operates in a manner in which even diplomacy itself has been
painted with a consensual brush. As a French foreign minister remarked in a speech
to Polish ambassadors in 2008, European integration is about ‘the necessary
compromise’: a revealing phrase that accurately describes the manner in which the
EU’s consensus-based politics operates against a political horizon of necessary
agreement. Something the Irish people were introduced to when their renegade
decision on the Lisbon Treaty was calmly re-presented to them with the message
that on this issue, there was no alternative to consensus.

Where Anderson’s book disappoints is in its disjointed presentation of its material:

chapters are self-contained analyses without a sense that the whole is more than a
sum of its parts. The reviews of the literature are valuable as insightful criticisms of
individual writings on the EU—his critique of the work of Andrew Moravcsik,
Giandomenico Majone, and Neil Fligstein are superb and full of wit—but taken
altogether, leave the reader without a clear sense of what Anderson’s own theory or
account of European integration might be. Beyond his moderated Marxism, where
class conflict lurks in the shadows but fails to ignite his analysis in any determinate
way, Anderson’s own views have to be gleaned from his multiple critiques of other
writers. His chapters on Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, and Cyprus are essential for
anyone interested in the development of national politics in Europe; his chapters on
theories of European integration a much-needed corrective to the attempts at
revising democratic theory to make it compatible with the EU’s anti-democratic
practices; and his account of the origins of the EU a useful integration of the
competing historical interpretations. But as a whole, we are left wondering whether a
theory of the European Union is at all possible.
forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.