Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Thursday, 18 August 2016

Knock knock. Who's there? Brexit. *dead pan voice*.




There's some amusing Brexit memes and some funny Brexit jokes. But the jokes that are reported from the various comedy circuits I've heard don't seem very funny, in my opinion, and secondly don't seem very accurate either. Generally I find jokes can be funny of themselves as an interesting sentiment without being accurate, but more rewarding when they're both funny and accurate in some insightful way.

In fact most of the jokes seem to be closer to the "Knock knock" formula: They're not really providing anything close to original or spontaneous and hence insightful. "Contrived" might be best word to describe them?

And so it is with the majority of the Legacy News-Media's reporting of the UK's EU Referendum and the Brexit Leave result as demonstrated by the report and research from Will It Kill Us Or Make Us Stronger? How Europe’s Media Covered Brexit.

The first paragraph provides a useful summary of what I think is the established doctrine of those who predominantly control power aka "Political Orthodoxy" (in the UK known as "The Establishment"):-
"Europe’s newspapers were overwhelmingly negative towards Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, according to a review of the press in 13 countries in the week after the referendum. Most articles presented the view that Brexit was bad for the EU, would damage their own nation’s interests and would also be bad for Britain. Of the articles that discussed the possibility of following Britain out of the EU, the majority concluded it would not be in their country’s interest to do so."
The other interesting prevailing view in response to this:-
"However the majority view, across all political opinions, was that it should be reformed rather than be allowed to fail."
Back to "EU Reform" territory again, and yet The Great Deception goes into great detail as to the essential form this takes or to be clearer it's such a generalism as to be a form of falsehood much more than a form of concrete solution.

However, all of this is secondary. What's of real interest:-
"In the UK analysis, of the three newspapers studied (The Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail) two had backed the leave campaign, yet coverage after the vote was mostly anti-Brexit (39%), 27% pro-Brexit and 34% neutral."
I think what's useful is that what is only apparent is the value-score of the papers cumulatively:-
  • Emotionally Good (positive)
  • Emotionally Bad (negative)
  • Either Good and/or Bad or Neither
In effect, the legacy news-media is most likely not very useful for increasing understanding of people beyond emotional means and using the stock tools (pro vs con, authority vs opinion, fancy presentation, consensus of orthodoxy etc). Hence most people relying on this form of communication are most likely to only be emotionally engaged in the Referendum.

I think I'm on the right tracks here and I can perhaps give some examples:-

Before the Referendum the Environmental Groups and Universities for example were very clear that Brexit would be bad for Britain. But given the chancellors' recent recommendations their fears appear to be allayed to a major degree. By comparison, the promises of leaving for "leave voters" such that "control of our borders" was clearly going to massively improve the "immigration problem", I suspect this is the area of politics that is being worked very hard on in it's presentation and delivery to people to reassure them that it too has been handled or will be. The problem is however that these voters only hear what they want to hear (like most voters who require persuading) and so the solutions must be packaged into a form of emotion that makes it acceptable or palatable: Namely stoking up the very grave dangers of Brexit and reigning in expectations a bit like angling and tiring out a fish before pulling it out of the water.


If you look at the reporting in other nations, very very few are in the "grey bar" category. But I wonder what the actual feelings of people is? The danger for the EU is the idea of "contagion": It seems a strong motivation to impress upon people and institutions that "Brexit is foolhardy" such as the FT.com and Guardian are doing such a wonderful post-Brexit job of catering towards, along with the equally charlatan The Economist. The Express on the other hand demonstrates the bias-supporting of "Immigration-ultras" who are so invested in stopping Migration they've given up with solutions and shout slogans with redoubled energetic displays of zeal towards this cause. The opposite but equals of the "catastrophizing" voices in the FT.com and Guardian and elsewhere. All they're doing is adding to the emotional aggregation in the Legacy News-Media.

If there is a conclusion, then I think these banal jokes, only indicate the "joke is on the people" and the dance macabre of emotion that is the beat of the legacy news-media (the so-called life (free press) but closer to death of democracy) and the level of actual democratic engagement achieved in the UK. The 78% or so of turn-out may be "the highest since whenever..." but like the legacy news-media, all it merely records is the attempt to stimulate enough people to feel emotional about a subject to record "democracy in good health" when in fact all it's doing is suggesting democracy in it's present form is merely an exercise according to two simple parameters:-
  1. Stimulate enough of the population to take a few hours out to officially record a vote for the statistics of the exercise to increase it's "validity".
  2. Given democracy at such scale of millions, to provide so many ignorant and emotional people with a format of participation which mostly can be counted as "satisfactory": Their numbers may be great, but their actual input into the relevance of the arguments is significantly tiny.
In my opinion, the beginning and end of democracy for people is within the contraints of the legacy news-media: Good or Bad or Both (more or less or equal) or Neither. That's about as good as it gets. For consolation, the Think Thanks are little better... for example the complete nonsense that springs up, dominated by the same Orthodoxy mentality (irrespective of the people or their professed positions):-
However another consideration that is worth looking at form this research on the European Journalists reporting of Brexit:-
"Despite the anti-Brexit views in western Europe’s quality newspapers"
There's the implicit assumption that these newspapers actually are adequate let alone not inadequate! In fact they're more: They're superior quality (see below by contrast to the tabloids!). This is in my opinion a fatal flaw of this study indicating yet again the "Orthodoxy" at work. 
"In general coverage in tabloid and popular newspapers was more superficial and often focussed on issues such as immigration, racism and migrant workers in the UK."
Yes, as above, a question of "by degree" and "relative to what?". Overall the service of newspapers is EMOTION (see below again). 
"Most of Russia’s domestic coverage consisted of “short news about Brexit-related events without providing interpretation or authorial comments,” said Andrejs Berdnikovs, editor of EJO Russia. Berdnikovs said that while overt political statements were avoided, the media coverage was selective."
The problem about accusing Russia of doing this is again comparing Russia to more sober and impartial press in the West. However, the experience I have of the British Press in particular is that they're a closed shop commentating in their own little bubble amongst themselves, excluding and actively building "walls" to communication expansion. When they do include it's as a prop to then reinforce future exlclusion via direct "dismissal": See EUReferendum.com: Brexit: Newsnight.
"Often seen as a model of how to exist outside the EU, Switzerland"
No, no, no! Often "presented deeply deeply erroneously...". And I have tons and tons of evidence: The Columbo Method: Norway


"The negative tone is also reflected in headlines that included words such as fear, anger, frustration, chaos, panic, turmoil, populist revolt, confusion."
The FT.com and Economist may not be as explicit but they've tended this way also. I suspect tabloids boost "political participation" and serve a useful role to the Orthodoxy at the same time as our betters "crying oh the shame of the daily mail, mirror, express and sun!". Nothing is worse than being ignored, not even those tabloids' headlines! One of the interesting things however: Scared To Death.
"The negative way Europe’s news media reported and presented the outcome of the UK’s referendum indicates how the issue might be discussed in national public arenas in the future, according to Dr Raluca Radu, of the University of Bucharest and Director of EJO Romania."
No, Brexit: a surfeit of negativity I think it only leads to "limiting democracy" and controlling via the excessive usage of "fear" or FUD as discussed a couple of years ago in FLEXCIT.

The best joke I heard on Brexit is in this article, and it's not really a joke... but it 'sort of/kinda' is:-
"Berdnikovs said that while overt political statements were avoided, the media coverage was selective. “The decision of which quotes to use was dependent on portals’ ideological stance. Thus, conservative REGNUM tended to present an atmosphere of confusion among ruling European politicians, normally trying to make Pro-Europeanists sound na├»ve and trivial (“Moldova should strengthen efforts towards European integration, because it can bring Moldovan citizens welfare, social solidarity, good laws and respect”), but eurosceptics – witty and wise (“The EU is a project with a past but without a future”),” Berdnikovs said."
I'm not seeing any difference (apart from role reversals) in the Russian Press than the European and British Press! I guess those in the Orthodoxy of politics are much more similar to each other than they care to admit?!

The Spectator is taking enjoyment from the confusion: Luvvie anger over Brexit is palpable at Edinburgh – and it’s exposing their true colours; and I think makes at least one valid point, the question of money dictating a lot of peoples' reactions to politics.

This is valid, but the solution is not so much the short-term flux over money ("They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"), it's the politics of power as per The Harrogate Agenda:-


5. No taxation or spending without consent:


"No tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures; "

Irresponsible it was by Vote Leave to bang on about £350 million figure because it's a lie. But the underlying message of "Who the hell gets to have a say on how our money is taken from us and used by who for whom," probably was an attractive underlying idea to people? Well The Harrogate Agenda attempts to promote this question further and more honestly than Vote Leave or the Luvvies. 

In the previous article I argued concerning the importance of data especially on the health of our Sovereign concept of Britain/UK. This flows "upwards" to inform our policy (compare freely spending billions on foreign policy wars). In this blog I've ended with a suggestion that Brexit was probably driven by a keen sense that money which should flow "downwards" from first setting good policy, is sensed by people not to be doing so, but to being abused and wasted and indulged by those who are in power and share the same "Orthodoxy" supported by the major institutions predominantly: Legacy News-Media, Universities, Entertainers etc all siphoning off their share of money while it slowly becomes clearer and clearer the policies made are "bad" while "economic recovery is just around the corner" (good?).

"What do 'The Youth' think?" Adapted from Dr. RAE North, FLEXCIT: http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf from which referencing: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/cyri/our_research/esrc_festival_of_social.Maincontent.0008.file.tmp/eu1%20copy.pdf

Monday, 15 August 2016

The Word For World Is Data: Agriculture, Fisheries & Environment





There's a useful summary of views of the talking heads representing some of the areas of the UK in relation to Brexit in this article (picture ref/source above): What rural organisations are saying about Brexit
  • Agriculture
  • Environment
  • Wildlife (Conservation/Biodiversity)
  • Rural Businesses & Policy
Fisheries is not mentioned in the above article but it's popped up in the legacy news-media regarding: 

Summaries of opinions:-

- Meurig Raymond, NFU president thinks the news will lead to a period of “uncertainty” in vital areas of farming.
 NFU launches post-Brexit options paper and member survey

- David Caffall, Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) chief executive thinks that Vote Leave poses huge questions for Britain’s agricultural supply industry

BREXIT – Meeting with The Secretary of State, and the AIC Board’s Preliminary Thoughts

- Martin Baxter, IEMA’s, an international membership organisation, committed to global sustainability, chief policy advisor thinks the vote to leave raises questions for business businesses, professionals and the wider public on environmental protection policy.

 Environment & Sustainability Professionals Reveal Top 10 Views on “Brexit”

- Simon Gooderham, director of rural surveyor and estate agent, Cheffins, says predicting the long-term impact is difficult, but that the result could impact on farmland lettings and sales markets

- Ross Murry, president of membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales, CLA believes farmers and rural business will create opportunities outside of the EU.

- Sean Wensley, president of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), thinks the UK’s decision to leave the EU will have a “significant impact” on veterinary regulation, education and animal welfare.

- David Nussbaum CEO of WWF-UK thinks the vote to leave the EU brings “risks and uncertainties” for Britain’s wildlife and wild places.

WWF responds to EU referendum result


- Dr Mike Clarke, RSPB's chief executive thinks that the UK must continue to "act internationally, and look to forge comprehensive international agreements for nature conservation and the environment".

Brexit implications for wildlife friendly farming: long-term opportunity, short-term jeopardy

- The Wildlife Trusts said that following the result, the challenges faced by the UK’s wildlife are as "great as they have ever been". 

An initial response to the EU Referendum result

I've included some extra links expanding on the summaries provided for Environment, Wildlife and Agriculture. Of additional note, the Rural Policy (Joint-Up Policy) and Veterinary (Regulations specifically).

Instead of rehashing all the above information to tentatively consider:-

  • It's short-hand to put all the above policy areas into a simple question: "How much money do they get in the EU and how much, more or less, do they get out of the EU (Brexit)? Very convenient.
  • Distinguish: The data on the arguments themselves for or against Brexit and how this supports or detracts from this new position. Compared to the opinions of the people who work in these areas and deal with both: Data and Money.
  • To consider again distinctions: Each policy has it's own priority (here they merge as they're related) but each fits within the total policy vision: The democratic Brexit vote to Leave. On both counts sub and super have to fit with each other.
  • Information gaps and biases will likely have to be identified inter-distinguishing the policies above as well as their intra-distinctions. Good policy will do this and move on. Politics will temper good policy possible of course.
  • Complexity is highly apparent in these areas.
  • Ignorance in most of the public is highly apparent for these areas. This also applies to the Legacy News-Media and our professional politicians too.

There's some really good information in all the above. But as you can see in the summary considerations there's a huge tangle to contend with. It's highly confusing and complex. However applying our ever trusty context:-

If you read FLEXCIT and these chapters on these policies, you'll notice that the research considers both the policy itself as well as the surrounding politics. A major part of the policy is regulations from our EEA "members of" (as opposed to "access to" (FTA)). Secondly the common theme within FLEXCIT the work itself is the second tier of origin of this at global level of regulations and interactions between tiers (including domestic), which is mentioned in Dr. RAE North's most recent monograph series:

LEAVE ALLIANCE: Brexit Monograph 6 - Post-Brexit regulation ~ Dr. RAE North:-
"As to whether the UK would gain any relief from leaving the EU – even supposing the Government could be prevailed up on to repeal the CCA - one can compare its situation to that of a victim in a horror movie, trapped alive in a coffin. Having broken through the lid in a bid to escape, he finds to his consternation that there is another lid. This "double lid" is, on the one hand, the EU treaty obligations and, on the other, the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol. Breaking through the EU legislative layer simply reveals the second "lid"of the Kyoto Protocol."
Indeed, the Mongraph on Trade Barriers was tentatively discussed in one of the Treasury Committee Oral evidence: The UK's future economic relationship with the European Union, HC 483
"There is a distinction and, quite rightly, the point raised about agriculture is a very serious one and one that has not been properly addressed.  When it comes to the Doha Round etc.  on the negotiation of quotas and also subsidies, and subsidy caps, these are held not by individual member states but by the Commission.  Therefore, theoretically, when we leave we will not be able to subsidise our farmers unless we negotiate a settlement with the EU as to an apportionment of the subsidy cap.

Likewise, on quotas, the quota is  held by the Commission, and therefore there will be a negotiation.   One can imagine a trade-off where some of the member states will be quite anxious to offload as much quota, say beef quota, as they can on the UK as a condition for our exit.   We would find ourselves unwillingly forced to take that as a  quid pro quo for other concessions.  This is  an area that is quite possibly going to be time-consuming."
 
This itself is another level above the actual policy itself, the negotations framework adding complexity itself concerning Agriculture and Brexit at this level.

Familiarity built over time helps create an intellectual architecture or context without which it's likely these regulations feel horrendously alien and unfathomable. Some comparisons to graphics of data can maybe help visualize what these regulations are supposedly designed to achieve, I hope. We can use the excellent European Environment Agency website's resources:-


Here's the Interactive Data Viewer page from which the above snap-shots are merely an indication of. You can see there's vast amounts of data information gathering that in turn fuel our activities: Agricultural policy (natural variations in production and trends); social policy connection education research for people on these issues and so forth such as Biodiversity indicators or chemical pollutants in the EEA groups.

It's worth looking at Europe as a map of people additionally; from wikipedia:-



Population Density Map of Europe


The statistic given at the European Environment Agency on Agriculture (land use and budget):-
"Farming has a big influence on Europe's landscapes and the quality of its environment. With farmers managing almost half of the EU's land area, the agricultural sector is a major source of pressure on Europe's environment.

Over the past five decades, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - accounting for around half of the EU budget.

Farmers represent only 4.7% of the European Union's (EU's) working population, yet manage nearly half of the EU's land area. Farming has a big influence on Europe's landscapes and the quality of its environment."
So there can be little mistake that Agriculture is a huge policy area that also interacts across a wide range of other related policy areas (Environment). Europe itself is a highly populated and high density continent which therefore requires high food security and high environmental impact. All of this is ripe for regulations and the use of data to construct policy. To quote FLEXCIT Chapter 12.0 Agriculture:-

Agriculture in the UK (EU/EEA)
"The second policy we look at, in this fourth phase, is agriculture. The food and farming sector is important to the UK economy, with the whole food chain contributing £85 billion per year to the economy and 3.5 million jobs. In policy terms, it is dominated by the European Union and its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Financially, this is the most important policy in the EU. It is also the most complex, made more so by the need to ensure conformity with WTO agreements." 
Agriculture In Norway & Iceland (EFTA/EEA)
"However, while the EU average total subsidy is about 18 percent of farming income, Norwegian farmers gain just short of 60 percent, only just ahead of Switzerland, while Iceland farmers are paid just short of 50 percent. In other words, those European farmers who are outside the EU benefit from much higher subsidies than those within the European Union."
Agriculture In New Zealand (neither or "global trade/WTO meme")
The "poster child "for advocates of subsidy-free farming is New Zealand, the government of which in 1984 abruptly terminated farm payments, ostensibly driven by a commitment to the free-flow of global market forces. Expected outcomes were improved economic efficiency and more effective use of land. But the changes occurred outside the framework of a coherent national policy for rural development, resulting in diverse and unexpected outcomes.
The reason to quote these comparative "pictures" directly from FLEXCIT (once again with huge gratitude) is to come back to that question of "Money" mentioned at the beginning. It seems to me whichever way the UK chooses for the Agriculture Policy, it's a policy that is particularly sensitive to subsidy or social consideration not only capitalist consideration: Namely it's multi-dimensional where money is one dimension only and not even the bottom-line: The Environment I suspect is?

For example, to briefly look at FLEXCIT: 13.0 Fisheries:-
"The starting point of the Paterson review was the recognition that, prior to UK entry to the EEC,  the British fishing industry had been a model of sustainability.  Yet, after decades of the CFP, areas of the most fertile and productive fishing grounds in the world were being threatened with closure. Others were producing yields well short of their potential capacity, whilst ever-increasing restrictions were being imposed on British fishermen."

"Therein lies the essence of the post-exit settlement.  Leaving the EU, per se, is no solution in itself.  EU policies require individual replacement, each with something better.  And fisheries provided a useful example.  Largely self-contained in policy terms, it is a test bed for policy development, and as an example of the complexity of the repatriation process."  
"One of those wider issues was the protection of the environment.  It was argued this was not incompatible with safeguarding the fishing industry.  Over-fishing and other abuses damage the marine environment and also damage the long-term economic value of a fishery.  Therefore environmental protection was regarded not as an adjunct to a fisheries policy but as an inherent part of it."
"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK EEZ are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments. Fishermen have no inherent rights to the fish and other aquatic creatures in these waters and no inherent rights to the property so gained. There is, however, a distinction between inherent rights and acquired rights."


 More discussion on monitoring and collection of data: FLEXCIT 13.7 Enforcement, monitoring and sanctions

If we look at the last paragraph and look at the map of Europe above, we notice that nations are different from each other, they're also "non-uniform distribution" in people, resources and of course cultural developments. In effect they have different needs from each other as well as holding some things in common, given we're all people of a common species to be scientifically accurate. Equally concerning dealing with this historic situation of nation states, the reality of the environment or part of the world we share must be managed to everyone's benefit. It probably serves policy in a more superior way when:-
  • We use good data to understand our impact on the world
  • We take responsibility locally on our place in the world
  • We collaborate with our neighbours to meet mutually beneficial outcomes on the above.
It's interesting, given the post-Referendum reaction. Before, the various stake-holders in these policy areas, apart from Fisheries, would likely be resistant to the idea of change and reconsideration. Given the result, there's a shift in tone from these groups: They want to seize the positive opportunities and avoid the negative dangers and emphasise this combination of "vector and velocity".

The points I tentatively consider above, I think we now reach the question of information/misinformation, confusion/ignorance:-

1. On the one hand we have the groups such as Friends of the Earth below
How can we make Brexit work for the environment? ~ Craig Bennett


2. And on the other hand we have other opposite groups such as ex-leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage:-

My heart F*! bleeds for these groups (on Immigration read Scribblings From Seaham: Integration): It all fits within the idea of layers of different communication described in the previous blog as if it were a rainbow:What People Don't Want Is Not To Be Not Confused. I can't be bothered to describe the sentiments and hyper-emotionality. There's so much in FLEXCIT I would like to include and discuss in this blog but for the sake of brevity and communicating a few basic ideas (the bullet points at the beginning) and then trying to provide the research and reasoning behind those tentative considerations; it's time to finish this blog and before long move this post's content to a new website and focus even more specifically on this area, usefully in connection to Brexit.

For Friends of the Earth (money and their prebuilt political constituencies), for The Guardian likewise and for Farage/UKIP once again. But are they actually communicating anything of actual value?

By contrast the conclusion I have is that it's a positive step from the Government to signal they are carrying on with the present subsidies of money to Science and to Agriculture:-
Chancellor Philip Hammond guarantees EU funding beyond date UK leaves the EU

Finally, to look at a more specific area within "Agriculure/Environment" (DEFRA):

On the Environment, likewise a more proactive approach than whinging:
"The forestry sector contributes some £1.7 billion a year to the economy and indirectly supports 43,000 jobs. Woods and forests, particularly ancient forests, provide many environmental benefits including enhancing biodiversity and supporting a range of ecosystem services such as water management and climate control.
In addition, forests provide recreational and amenity value to society."
Even within the above policy areas and then within a sub-policy of those: Forestries we see whether or not we're asking the right question and in the right order and concerning the specifics of the policy and it's complexity (and groups' own political colours). Interestingly, if you read FLEXCIT and on 12.0 Agriculture, Forestries is a component that demonstrates the flexible and continuous properties of FLEXCIT as a plan very well:
"This did not stop the agriculture council discussing the EU's (then) new forest strategy,  which  aimed  "to  cut  through  the  mass  of  rules  governing  the protection of forests".  That strategy was announced on 20 September the day after the ECA's report, with a 17-page report calling for a new forestry "framework".  The document conceded that, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, there was no reference to specific provisions for an EU forest policy. 

Thus, on technical, financial and legal grounds, the UK could disengage, without prejudice to other programmes, and without any significant political implications. "

It's time to stop whinging uselessly or indeed reading the click-bait Legacy News-Media but if one considers themselves several things:-
  • A Voter
  • A Voter with an especial interest in a specific area
  • A Voter who has a set of skills, or even the time and energy alone
To then as our Prime Minister Theresa May said, "Make A Success Of It" [Brexit]:-

For example on Forestries already:-
This is far more useful if people take this upon themselves (millions who can do so than) relying on the voices of "experts" (check: Are they experts or authorities? Are they secondly the applicable experts to the problem?!) who are still bumbling around concerning the merits or perils of "Brexit Options" as perhaps more adeptly handled but still stumbling around in this discussion concerning "Least-Worst Fashionable Opinions". This has been mentioned recently over at EUReferendum.com a number of times recently... .

Monday, 1 August 2016

What People Don't Want Is Not To Be Not Confused

After the storm-clouds: A Rainbow

It becomes onerous to bang on about the "bubble effect" of politics. But it seems to work: On one side I have friends who give their primary or first reason for "Leave" because the UK is too small to fit any more foreigners and on the other side friends who give their primary or first reason for "Remain" because without those same foreigners our NHS would fall apart! What is interesting is that these reasons don't actually belong to either set of friends: They're parroting what they've heard in accordance with their baseline sentiments, most likely. And so evidently the drumming of various bespoke "memes" or messages along "sales pitch lines" seems effective for sheer scale of message distribution. So much for lies and campaigning.

So instead of a destructive picture, a  rainbow feels like the kind of picture full of hope and a positive outcome to all these dark clouds of confusion in the political conversation around the entire UK's chatting people. If you look at the rainbow it consists of layers of colour:-


Interestingly Wikipedia points out the origin of the colour number/order:-
"Newton, who admitted his eyes were not very critical in distinguishing colours, originally (1672) divided the spectrum into five main colours: red, yellow, green, blue and violet. Later he included orange and indigo, giving seven main colours by analogy to the number of notes in a musical scale. Newton chose to divide the visible spectrum into seven colours out of a belief derived from the beliefs of the ancient Greek sophists, who thought there was a connection between the colours, the musical notes, the known objects in the Solar System, and the days of the week."
 If only nature was so neat and tidy.

Anyway, the idea of layers is in this case very intriguing as per yet another example as per EUReferendum.com:exit: hard or soft … in the head?.

It does not warrant much discussion as illustrated:-

Layer 1 (primary sources below this = Layer .0):-

Article 50 And Withdrawal: An explainer


Layer 2: Bernard Jenkin MP "SAYS":-




Layer 3: Reported by/in the Prestigious Financial Times (Legacy News-Media):-



Layer 4 Reaction and inflation of "noise" by the respondents reacting to it:-


















In this case the noise production by this article can be observed in part by reading the FT comments, presumably written by well-meaning observers in the public (there's always astroturfing and bots and seeding). Here it does seem that Jenkins attitude is being called out. No doubt in other similar media, such as SpikedOnline! or The Daily Express, his comments will be championed. It's interesting that this time the FT ran the article, which usually along with it's stable mate of bs The Economist runs Economic FUD as it's main narrative against political change. Perhaps the obviousness of Jenkin is too good an opportunity to miss?

But this is still a problem: Nowhere does the FT investigate or build the knowledge base from the primary sources: It along with the rest of the accursed Legacy News-Media is merely "reporting" and selecting hot air from Jenkin. One of the major functions of newspapers is to confirm the biases of audiences: The "eurosceptic industry press" on "bonfire of red-tape" has been accused by Remainers of decades of indoctrination of voters that partly "explained" the Referendum result by the "old, left-behind, low income, uneducated, rural" blockheads in the UK!!!

Delusional:-
  1. The systems of informing the public/voting base, especially the Legacy news-media.
  2. The representatives in professional politics working between these layers to sell "memes" into peoples' heads effectively at scale.
  3. The "white noice" amplifying this confusion.
If taking a step back and considering politics in the UK: The above are the prevailing conditions. It seems to me it's much easier to communicate what people DON'T WANT than to suggest what the NATION NEEDS according to the parameters of the actual arguments in politics; and hence the lure of incredible stupidity that "people are too stupid to be given a referendum on this issue!" that tempts some commentators. But there is an underlying reason why that is tempting: It's that in general people prefer confusion and this itself is the bread and butter of the successful politician in our society: It seems to me this explains why are loathsome politicians are so extraordinary slippery and able to aggrandize their positions in our society so successfully: Pay rises, expenses, rubbing shoulders with the prestigious, able to say what they like on the podiums and platforms devoid of the actual arguments:-
  1. It's more effective to tell people what they don't want than to present the rigourous research on what the nation needs: Few will make the effort to understand and fewer the effort to promote this as evidenced by this Referendum.
  2. They know people need to be confused and enjoy being cajoled in shaping their own preconceived biases; hence why politicians are so fashionable so long as their lies are clever or charming and appear to align with their followers' values. Equally the repulsion of those that do the same thing on the other side, is perhaps doubled! Those "filthy remainers/leavers!"
Alternatively, I noticed Dr. RAE North is producing a series of monographs Brexit: change of tactics:-


Monograph 1: Single Market participation and free movement of persons;
Monograph 2: The WTO Option and its application to Brexit; and 
Monograph 3: Financial contributions after Brexit.

And likewise, this will be the final "general blog" here: I plan to change tactics and start learning and blogging more specifically on FLEXCIT:-
  • 12.0 Agricultre
  • 13.0 Fisheries
  • 14.0 Environment Policy

UPDATE1!: Monograph #4 : "Article 50 and Brexit negotiations" ("Layer 0").

(02/08/2016) Within this mongraph is the direct reference to the government's "White Paper" 'on' Article 50. The monograph itself covers a lot of the framework of thinking around this subject that's needed to contextualize as much as searching for "definitive content" on the reasons why Article 50 is the actual Withdrawal process for the UK from the EU.

Finally, there's so much nonsense concerning " "Brexit means Brexit" (Theresa May) - What does that mean?"

Brexit (British Exit) = "WITHDRAWAL from EU TREATIES by ARTICLE 50 only."

The concept of definitions using parsimony does not include excessive ASSUMPTIONS beyond the core meaning. When this happens, an original meaning loses it's accuracy or "ambiguity in communication" (confusion reactions) is likely effected.

This leaves enormous scope for 'speculation' concerning the practical details ofEEA outside of the above conditional change of status. Anything excessive of EEA (via/by EFTA) namely EEA MINUS is distracting away from the core objective above. In fact... Hosuk Lee-Makiyama at 23 minutes... Namely an EEA PLUS (actually: EFTA/EEA + UK/EU residual negotiation settlement).

In fact, coming back to this process which should be initiated already: Go back to Monograph 1 !!

Update2! : On the confusion and commentary "layer" some recent articles today: 04/08/2016

Guardian: Britain should be offered tough Brexit deal, say voters in EU
FT.com: From gloomy to glad, Europeans respond to Brexit vote

Or to summarize what the legacy news-media of the FT and Guardian are offering their readerships here:-

"Those Filthy Remainers/Leavers! And I hate myself too, in case that's not enough alone!"

So not only do we have the legacy news-media creating crap upwards, it forces downwards crap from the confusion around people too. Evidently this is stimulating to people; particularly the peculiar sentiment above I've tried to capture. Fortunately the odd comment recognizes this and injects some common sense:-



Meanwhile right at Layer 0: Some technical trade discussion is provided in the latest monograph clearly splitting the confusion of "Treaty Politics or Relationship Expectations" from "Trade Technicalities or Practical Progression". Brexit: Monograph 5 

This is more applicable to Leavers to appreciate: The Relationship argument was right to reframe but the technical details and Trade arguments come later, don't mix the two foolishly or you'll heap on confusion (apparently preferred by most people....)

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Explanations, Reactions, Decisions and Chain-Reactions

A mere snap-shot attempting to illustrate a merest modicum of complexity, but at least fun to watch!

I think one of the biggest single explanations that captures a lot of, if not all of, the reasons that we finally see arguments made now that could or should have been made during the Referendum Campaign, is the way and worry of how politics really works. Any clearly stated course of action to be motioned for decision-making upon, creates a reaction and hence a chain of reactions forms and counter-reacts then reforms and so on.

What is left? A shadow-play of words; a calculation on intended but veiled effect; most particularly on manipulating relationships and groups of relationships: What is generally taken for granted as "Politics". Thus because we have finally had a decision, that has the weight of finality about it (despite the whinging), suddenly a lot of talking heads are coming onto the issues that were SO CLEARLY LAID OUT in FLEXCIT a few years ago. This itself is worth observing: The information may be available and highly accessible, but the emotional state of people seems to predominate in their behaviour, effectively blinding them to it. If ever there's a need for a mass anthropolitical (hehe!) study... Indeed if you believe in following those that govern the people because "they know best" and act "in everyone's best interests" just read this: Brexit: the darkest of games.

And so, to point out in EUReferendum.com 's recent postings:-

The WTO Option:-
It is complex! In fact to save you attempting to master the details, just think of it in terms of a chain-reaction of complexity as the above video at least indicates though not on a scale or degree of dimensional complexity that is needed. The point is made, one false move and the whole bloody thing:-
  1. Sets off in an uncontrolled manner.
  2. Grinds to a halt in a manner unintended.
  3. Loss of the stored potential to leverage the present working state. 
The other issue that seems to be burning away still apparently unresolvable but actually operating in the above description of "chain-reactions" and managing these things is "Freedom of Movement"; again using EUReferendum 's research to summarize:-
As has been noted, the "hollowing out" of the UK's national decision-making organs or institutions for the running of the UK, means that the politicians in Westminster serve only one useful function, these days: Enacting their role of "shadow play words" over everything for public and media consumption: Namely to use the chain-reaction motif, managing reactions, not it seems actually using information to make decisions: Perhaps Whitehall is doing that... using the one Brexit plan that actually defines the parameters then applies those conditions to any solution.

If you want an explanation for what "goes as argument" in 99% of the Legacy News-Media, then I would posit "this is as good as it gets!" Hence to be clear: The false narrative that thrives at present between The Single Market continued membership vs Freedom of Movement is merely a management of factions and their own infernal recursion of meanings: Complete gibberish fuelling the emotional reactions and managing them.

What's this all about then? There's an interesting discussion on the BBC iPlayer at the moment, you may care to watch and it contains some useful information: Britain's Vote In The EU Referendum
 
I took some notes while watching it and again using the idea of a chain-reaction to contain the relevant information and interpret it:-

Geoff Evans made some very interesting comments on the legacy of New Labour and Tony Blair and the interaction of this on Old Labour, The Working Class Vote, Immigration and Referendums/Referenda. It's worth watching.

However his information may be quite applicable and probably quite accurate, it did occur to me that his explanation was a bit like looking at the end of a chain reaction and saying "Here's the really important bit!" I think again to reference, a fuller understanding is the reward for reading The Great Deception history and reference and research on the EU, itself! Some of his language is good: "Liberal Intelligensia" or "UKIP Curious".

Next up Jane Green, it seemed to me was waffling off her feet and I could not understand her speech, only see her mouth moving. I think it was all pointed to saying "Remain was against the Status Quo of British people who were fairly pessimistic about the "so-called good" of the EU as described by the "Liberal Intelligensia". Again common sense vs a dangerously deluded over-thinking it bunch of pricks telling other people what to think.

Vernon Bogdanor, was of course very interesting on the so-called UK Constitution using an array of quotes on the subject that were both entertaining and insightful and hence useful for interpreting events against. In particular the "delegation of power" from people to Parliament and the limits that such power could or should be further bartered onwards away from and indeed how Referendums consequentially at least in the upper-echelons of the political elite became a crisis of their own identity and making.

The next speaker was Sarah Hageman, and here we really reach the business of this blog: She described "Contagion" or what I've then called "Chain-Reaction" in general application. Here specifically:-

  1. Brexit Result from UK Referendum=>
  2. N/Fr/D/Sw-EXIT Referendums in other EU nations? =>
  3. Maybe not, but domestic political repercussions =>
  4. Rate of Change aka uncertainty triggering ITA/SPA Banks in the Eurozone! =>
  5. The effects of all this looping back onto "what kind of deal will the EU give the UK"?
Here we return to the drivel about Freedom of Movement vs The Single Market!! Hello!

But there is a really important principle here: The complexity is REAL: From both perspectives of the Remain EU'ers or the Brexiteers and hence absolutely Brexit must be a very measured and controlled plan: Indeed FLEXCIT's staged or iterative withdrawal principle is exactly what this means given the complexity at stake (just think of those dominoes). It hence suggests the EU cannot "give in" on Freedom of Movement if the UK is sustain Single Market access, which would go a long way to calming market flux; ie the EFTA/EEA option purely for political reasons is very rational. Indeed looking at the EU, they really need to resolve the 4th issue above and speed on with their new Eurozone Treaty. Finally as per the blogs by Dr. RAE North above on Freedom of Movement, it's iteratively improving in the EFTA/EEA set-up secondly in any case - as planned.

The opposite of this? Shit communication, the likes of which are in torrents in the Legacy News-Media and politicians of Westminster. In fact, as per the previous blog a negative spiral against correct and healthy democratic processes.

Interestingly the final speaker, Cathyrn Costello, backs this up with her talk of "Regulated Labour Markets" and circular flows and the inadequacy of regulatory measures on these economically driven flows. She even usefully makes the point that it only took One Day before all the talk of "control" or "sovereignty" was discarded and EEA becomes the main candidate. Remember after all those years and years of lies on aka "The Norway Option": The Columbo Method: Norway.

As to the meeting and "experts" the observation I made was that these people apart from Geoff Evans and Vernon Bogdanor looked like they had "panic stricken faces" on. Namely they failed to communicate as experts or in their role as experts. For example, Cathyrn Costello showed her shallow understanding or deep ignorance chirping about "No say on internal market regulation" and a somewhat righteous tone of "betrayal of polish friends" mixed with "the EU has done everything to accommodate the peculiarities of the UK". These value-laden judgements are what was discussed previously: The emotional soup washing over people.

This is the work of the politician. The work of the expert is more neutral in tone and much more measured in stating what is known or at least thought to be known compared to what most certainly is not known, for example describing the complexity of these potential chain-reactions is I think very very useful for helping people make sense of where we are at and hence how we perhaps might prefer to proceed concerning Brexit and as Mrs. May our new Prime Minister says: "Making a Success of It!"

I think it is easy to see politics feels so alien to so many people. Does it have to be this way? Probably: With change comes winners and losers. My view is however, that the change has been in motion since the history of the EU and today globalization is accelerating this rate of change which also as a subject is seeing this emotionally hot battle of winners and losers (the narrative that Brexiteers are losers is amusing! in this regard if it were perhaps not so serious at the same time).




However, I think if the UK is able to take a bigger picture, or macroscope of things, it may help: In fact FLEXCIT starts off with the "least worst option" but confronts the challenges in order that in the future overall most dividends will it is hoped lead to maximizing "winners" and minimizing "losers": There is always going to be people who feel politics has afflicted them as opposed to served them: But how we manage our reactions to that and how we inform ourselves will help our reactions: And who knows, perhaps that itself will finally change politics, positively?

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

Before Decision-Making: Explosive Cocktails of Emotion









In one of the previous blog posts I noted how the news-stories wash over us incessantly bathing people in the emotional-narrative driven soup of the major broadcasters and tabloids. Evidently this serves a function which people feel a need for: The connection to the community and world within which they coexist and share and shape their expectations for life.

Legacy News-Media: No responsibility for sensationalism vs accuracy and training people to accept an unreality as the "norm".

For the concept of democracy to work, it hinges on the assumption that each voting adult who has made the successful transition from childhood as an independent decision-maker with a single vote to represent that, that such people are emotionally mature and rational. But if we compare the diet or environment within which voters exist, the above sensationalist news-media and the preference for people to seek pleasurable emotional stimulation even if it's "angry"; we can already see where this is going to lead to communication being impaired and reducing to people emotionally "venting": Sometimes nastily but invariably distracting away from building foundations of decision-making ie informing first.

Not only are people going to be less rational in their political discourse, they're equally reducing the complexity of understanding they are able to tolerate without feeling deprived of hyper-emotional presentation. The capacity to tolerate complex information itself is reduced. Just try reading some of the reports and papers that are primary source...

This may sound overly theoretical at the moment, but one look across "the pond" towards the United States of America and with the benefit of "outsiders' eyes" I think it seems very obvious how degraded their processes of democracy must be if we consider the communication of information to voters to aid their decision-making, even delusional on a mass scale, might appear by comparison to our standards? Now envision how the Chinese looking at the United Kingdom and wondering how poorly and chaotically do they run their political planning and policy to be able to effectively "run an entire nation"?! It may give pause for reconsideration of how we actually as opposed to apparently make decisions at a national level? There's so much grandstanding on "self-expression" (from Mill) and a "free press" and such little thought to extending BEYOND this beginning of democratic processes!! As if the beginning IS the process alone.

To bring the subject towards the focus of this blog: Brexit: Since we have had the decision, what is obvious is the ongoing attempt to emotionally digest it; from all corners and speakers

And I think this is perhaps of observation at a mass scale, in the confusion of the leadership or lack of it, in fact, of our political leaders concerning the permanent set of crisis operating across Europe concerning the EU, the EURO, Migration and Terrorism and how to politically deal with these things without a chain reaction due to the uncertainty vs confidence of our market economies.

Such explosive cocktails of emotion were deemed too dangerous at a national level by the original thinkers of the EU Supranational solution (Jean Monnet) almost one hundred years ago towards the ending of World War One. I notice our present analysts of the Referendum such as Matthew Goodwin has taken time to use the voting data to describe the obvious: "Britain is divided" along his preferential measures of Education, Age, Income Bracket, Metropolitican vs Rural for example.

From such studies many commentators come out with rationalizations: "People voted for Brexit because...".

Of fascination however, is this quote from Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com:-





"The thing is, when we are dealing with something as important as a complete revolution in the way we are governed, with the health and wealth of the entire nation dependent on it, that is the sort of detail we should be looking at. To have a amateurs casually interviewing a few high prestige witnesses, simply to confirm the prejudices of the questioners, is a complete waste of time and effort.

Of course, we are so good at having prolonged inquiries after the event – the BSE inquiry, the Bloody Sunday inquiry, Leveson and, more recently, the Chilcot inquiry. At a cost of hundreds of millions, it seems no expense is spared in our attempts to find out why things went wrong. Why then should we not invest a little of that money up-front, in attempt to make sure that we do things right?

And, if Parliament can't hack it, it should move over and cede the ground to people who can do the job. We used quite frequently to have Royal Commissions to examine issues of substance, and their weighty reports used to fuel debates for years thereafter. If ever there was an example of a need for such a Commission, the post-exit reconstruction of Britain is one.

As it is, one cannot escape the impression that officials are flying blind and, outrageously to mix metaphors, are totally out of their depth." 
The former in red is symptom of the investment in distractions due to the failure of using knowledge to promote decision-making capacity in place of "forceful personality" (see Blair-mania and the promotion of celebrity of our leaders: "The first lady or coloured candidate emotional-pleading narratives) and hence subsequently the loss of capacity in decision-making in light of new or alternative evidence.

Is it little wonder that Parliament emulates this "explosive cocktail of emotions" within the population when they bray like donkeys at each other? It's a show, a distraction which itself feeds most of the legacy news-media which in turn feeds itself based off the emotional needs of the population. The "house of workshop" (where decision-making is deliberated via structured and organized activity and rules for such (Parliament)) itself has become a fossil not fit for the work of policy and intelligence driven decision-making at a national and democratic level.

The latter in blue suggests that investment in decision-making behaviours themselves that demonstrate an encapsulation of "intelligence" will likely help the UK avoid the excesses (in red): But it takes a very conscious and very committed and finally very community-driven initiative to set such higher expectations for the entire UK. Pete North makes this point:  The revolution that never was:-
"Much of what is said by European leaders is for the time being merely political signals to their own electorates now that Hollande and Merkel are facing re-election. There is always a gulf between what politicians say and what is technically feasible.

[...]
In that regard, I will not be watching PMQs or even paying that much attention to the words of the EU commission. It will be in the back rooms and select committees where Britain’s fate is decided. That is where I will be watching. What I have seen thus far is not encouraging."

 After a failure of decision-making we end up with the euphemisms of failure: "Mistakes Were Made". In fact no real communication produces such analysis of results as Matthew Goodwin above desperately attempts, like a blind man in the dark, to grasp the meaning of but never quite getting there: Only rearranging the data into interesting patterns. He's not alone, I listened recently to almost the entire Lords Debate on the Referendum on the BBC Parliament channel and not once did I hear the authority of attempting to first understand the EU, via using a history of it "The Great Deception" before attempting to use such a common ground to then promote discussion of Brexit from. You could hear a thousand different reasons, all as plausible and personal as the next and never come away with a deeper understanding. Not beginning correctly, and hence attempting to begin at the end and ending up with more emotional cocktails exploding... entropy of politics and the fear of the ruling order of "too much democracy" such as "Referendums are a scourge on democracy"!

But if we look at this argument, then I think it supports the idea for Brexit to ensure as much political decision-making concerning Article 50 is "automated" or "off-the-shelf" as is possible to MOVE BEYOND THIS EMOTIONAL BEGINNING and get away from it as successfully as possible via FLEXCIT: Stage 1. Failure to do so is very obvious presently in the discussions:-




People like Nicola Sturgeon and Lord Lawson, it may be rationale to understand what role they are play-acting in their absurd demands and declarations from Brexit, but if you take the "model" of "emotion" before decision-making: This is indeed what they are playing at: They are playing and captivating and conditioning peoples' emotions to shape-decision-making political power. They are "beneath contempt" as per Dr. RAE North:-
"Handled properly, the benefits of Brexit for the UK could be huge, but there should be no illusions about the effects of a botched exit, based on this sort of insanity. We thus need people to stop playing fantasy Brexit and to focus on reality. We really cannot afford these games."
 It's much less that democracy is a danger, for good democracy promotes good communication and hence good argument and hence good decision-making practice and indeed the experience of improving at this with more practice. It's our leaders who are the cause of and consequence of failure "we cannot afford these games" quite numerically and literally!






Thursday, 21 July 2016

Brexit: Devout Congregations In Conflict!

Dutch woodcut: Congregations rely on leadership, a sense of family, a house of worship to produce a coherent set of shared expectations

I remember having to sit through sermons and the like in church or other variations of christian assembly and feeling interminably bored. I think the biggest problem I had was that the source of shared story-telling sounded like insensible news from about 2,000 years ago. I find large assemblies of people to this day "hard-work" and feel queasy at them, the exception being when everyone is seated and listening attentively then the size matters not, so long as the "business of the day" or subject matter is interesting and intelligible. Of course I realize the "coming together" of similar people (similar shared interests and expectations and social norms) is valid even if the actual literal business is nonsense.

Recently I've been keeping tabs on the developments of various committee meetings and reported news of various different spokespeople on the subject of Brexit.

I have to point out a couple of common descriptions:-
  • The size of the congregation gives the designated speaker the platform to speak
  • The designated speaker replaces the congregation's voices the more the forum (or house of worship) becomes esoteric to the ordinary understanding of the congregation rather than representing them directly. Or indeed the forum itself purports to represent such a quantity of people of variable norms as to be unrepresentative of more than less.
  • The consensus between designated speakers allows them to build "barriers to entry" to other potential speakers, perhaps from the ranks of the congregation? Perhaps the formation of dynasties, bubble effects and various other forms of upper echelon nepotism forms: Namely the relationships between (across) this tier is represented more than below?
  • The designated speakers whether priests or politicians develop their own liturgical language as a component of such "barriers to entry".
  • The interests of these "priests" who "lead" congregations are vested within the fact they hold a platform built on top of their congregations and hence their core interest is in preserving such power over these people for their own eminence.
  • Likewise, other such "priests" both in the shared motivation and the shared language of coordinating congregations spend more and more time and focus on this activity effectively the "bartering" of assumed expectations between different congregations and within congregations, to summarize this:-
  1. Within Frame Shared Expectations
  2. Between Frame Shared Expectations
  • Because of this process, it appears to me that politicians, priests become less and less leaders based on a particular expertise in a particular domain of knowledge or indeed less and less representative of their congregations (one of them) but become more and more actors who possess the trappings of leadership, the pretence of symbolizing family connectedness to the congregations and hence shared communal forums to promote the functions of democratic decision-making between individuals and collectives in various spheres of activity - this is displaced: The framing of expectations either within (see Labour atm) or Between (see Remain vs Leave for example) becomes far more encompassing a motivation of this class of people.
  • Modern culture itself takes on these trappings of breakdown in democracy and in fact we could potentially extrapolate this further: The decay of civilization's progression: Celebrity promotion, Excessive investment in distractions of a cultural and mass appeal, an inability to reformulate decision-making when alternative evidence is submitted to the leadership etc.
Ok, that penultimate bullet point is the assertion being promoted in this blog and now it's time to back it up and see just how much the assertion is applicable and perhaps I hope, helpful from moving from description to explanation: Namely explanation allows connection of seemingly disparate elements...

I'll use the three broad categories in the final bullet point above:-

(1) Celebrity Promotion




If we first look at the intervention of Nicola Sturgeon, then we can summarize the nonsense of liturgy she spews out using Scribblings From Seaham's blog observations to back this up:  Talking Heads

Strugeon's motivation is I think quite likely to follow the "model" proposed above: Her platform must be asserted and she must appear to be producing value back to it to sustain her elevation. Does it really follow that Brexit will sabotage the Scots' destiny as a people as Sturgeon would have her followers in her congregation believe? Far from it. But the two priests above must appear to be powerfully talking to each other for the benefit of both the media (personality mania) and hence the congregations low-information and even lower information reporting of personalities let alone voices of argument from the two celebrities above.





































Here is a back-up of "Laura Kuenssberg" "media personality" reporting of the priests in action (see the subscript description and her tweets).  Secondly it's interesting to notice the spiked online Article 50 clamour vs May's delay on it.

Edit-Update: Just caught (21:30) Daily Politics21/07/2016 and the surreal squeals of delight concerning the sex of the above leaders... imho it suggests that appearance has superceded substance: They have nothing of value to say (the commentary) - not triggering Article 50 prematurely could be explored far more fruitfully if there was real knowledge operating...

(2) Excessive Investment in Forms of Distraction

I really don't know where to begin with this suggestion? I guess the most effective description would be that this is the product between celebrity obsession (to use a headline tag) over attending to alternative evidence when it becomes available? I suppose it may be a case of "choose your preferred poison as per your own personality preferences:-

Greenpeace Repaints Vote Leave Battlebus To Correct Brexit Campaign ‘Lies’



There's a couple of possible motivations here:-
  • It just FEELS so good doing something like this, a stunt of sorts?
  • Stunts capture the imagination all the better to stoke congregations' emotions with? In fact the appearance of doing something that appears good outmatches in terms of popularity the actual functional work of doing something effective? Who could argue against the lies of Boris' "blunderbus"??
  • If you take this stunt at face value it's hard not to feel sympathy for the sincere attempt to recorrect a sense of unfairness in the campaigns, but this fails to realize that the performance of both campaigns remain and leave is so perversely dislocated from the results which require much deeper and extended research to understand (hint hint: The Great Deception).
  • It may help understand this type of emotional error more via comparison to such a similar error or displacement ie heavy investment in distraction from the other "side of the divide":-


There's nothing uniquely moronic about Greenpeace's particular choice of actions, they are, as indeed are Politeia, "Reverting To Type": In the latter's case you can see that this Think Tank demands prestigious economic "magic" and hence sources them appropriately in the selection of curated authors above. Again it seems that this feels good for these people (perhaps partly because of the money, prestige, authority that this line of argument seems to generate successfully for this Think Tank (as per their own admission/boast/assertion)). Why? It's clearly more successful than Greenpeace's efforts for the people in this Think Tank; though Greenpeace seem also to have been successful with funding and lobbying from the EU, not to be sniffed at either(!). I would guess it comes back to the idea of politicians as priests and requiring "material for sermons" which sway the most people or sway most powerfully most of the time when needed, the various congregations of people? And this, ladies and gentleman means MONEY Time.

What seems very noticeable is that trying to educate all these disparate congregations with "Between Frame of Expectations" is very unlikely to work. The sermons by our modern priests, our politicians therefore must adapt as described in the above bullet points to uphold their positions: The Economy and riches is one strand of thought that seems to provide political power very successfully.

Nevertheless, this bypasses what's so noticeable recently, using various examples:-

Scientists:-





Farmers:-

City:-
This list of "claimants" could get very, very long! Let's stop at three for now.

(3) Inability to reformulate decision-making according to alternative evidence

You can see that politics becomes bogged down with the different congregations run by priests/politicians who then put their own particular priorities in place as a consequence - but at what cost? We shall see now:-

I cannot do better than list EUReferendum.com past number of blogs:-

Brexit: a failure to plan21/07/2016
Brexit: unlimited dishonesty20/07/2016
Brexit: in for the long haul20/07/2016
Brexit: opportunity knocks19/07/2016
Brexit: free movement and the Single Market18/07/2016
Booker: does Brexit mean Brexit?17/07/2016
Brexit: Treasury Committee – oral evidence16/07/2016
Brexit: in the hands of fools and knaves15/07/2016

And secondly, more difficult to follow, Pete North I think I am right in suggesting (up to a point) is sometimes considering a similar "cost" at Global Level in the communication and functioning of furthering Trade in some of his recent blogs (a lot of background that I've not done so hence out of my depth speaking here for sure):-

During General Elections the holy word is "Economy", it seems the post-Referendum holy word in our sermons must be "Trade". This is all well and good sounding, but is it also more than sound and more than appearance alone?

Well a quick look (please look at it's sections in detail in your own leisure) at:-

European Union Committee The process of withdrawing from the European Union 11th Report of Session 2015-16 - published 4 May 2016 - HL Paper 138


Some random excerpts:-

The likelihood of the two-year time limit being extended


42.We asked our witnesses how likely it was that the two-year time limit would be extended. Professor Wyatt thought that an extension would probably happen. The incentive was “£8 billion a year in net contributions, and access to the UK market for workers and for motor cars. All the Member States in the EU believe they benefit from the internal market.”

43.Professor Wyatt warned, however, that “there will be huge national self-interest in moving forward in a very considered way without jumping the gun in directions that could torpedo the negotiations before they start”. He saw “huge risks” to this not being achieved: “If, for example, the UK were to … insist on imposing unilateral restrictions on immigration while negotiations were going on, the climate would disintegrate.”

Two agreements, rather than one


31.Article 50(2) TEU requires that the withdrawal agreement “take[s] account of the framework” of the withdrawing Member State’s “future relationship with the Union”. Sir David said that the German language version of Article 50 made plain that the “structure of future relations will already have been established at the point when withdrawal takes place.” Professor Wyatt agreed. He did not think that the withdrawal agreement would be able to “accommodate all the details of the future trading relationship”,

The scope of the negotiations


37.Neither witness could be certain about the form the UK’s future relationship with the EU would take. Professor Wyatt told us: “My suspicion is that it would actually be an association agreement of some kind, because we would end up with a fairly complex comprehensive agreement that would involve co-operative machinery of some sort.
There is a growing suspicion that the high priests want Brexit in a form that they can successfully sermonize to the disparate congregations. Secondly many many of those congregations are so low information that any attempt to communicate educationally with them may indeed be foolish anyway: Just look at a great deal of UKIP or Minford style expositions of Brexit, more dangerous than the sibilant lure of "Association Membership" of the likes of CER and Mr. Springford and his deceptive ilk.

And finally because of the dishonesty and rent-seeking and indeed self-seeking of so many politicians and the various congregations, there is fertile grounds for a complete lack of "WITHIN Frame Shared Expectations" of Brexit leaving the march more challenging and "problem-producing" "BETWEEN Frame Shared Expectations between dozens and dozens of cosy little and ignorant congregations, all the better for the priests/politicians to sermonize DOWN TO.

Alternative evidence is surely heretical to be burnt at the stake...