Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Sunday, 17 January 2016

Pro-Brexit Arguments: Beyond the Mirage

The promised political oasis awaits you... oh reader; read on and learn nothing!

I think I can say with some small satisfaction, I'm on the same wave-length as Dr. RAE North at in the latest blog: EU Referendum: fighting through the chaff. It's worth quoting a significant chunk:-
"In campaigning terms relative to this referendum, "chaff" does an analogous job – spurious arguments coming from all directions which confuse the issues and make it almost impossible to conduct a proper debate.

For instance, given the argument over the source of regulation, and the impact of leaving the EU on the food industry, it should be fairly simple to establish the facts. Legislation in the food sector, perhaps more than any other industry, is internationalised, which means that the overall impact should be slight.

After all, in the field, we have Codex Alimentarius, the OIE, the IPPC, UNECE and the OECD, amongst others all contributing to the body of international standards which filter down under the aegis of the WTO phytosanitary agreement and the agreement on technical barriers to trade, to determine much of the content of the EU's Single Market acquis.

Thus, when we explored this issue, we found a Norwegian official who did not feel that his country was in any way disadvantaged by not having voting rights in the EU. As far as he was concerned, the international bodies, not the EU – were the "top table"."
Effectively the Guardian piece Brexit a 'nightmare scenario' for UK food and drink business is "chaff". They could have chosen numerous different policy areas and the legacy news-media continues to do so - to the same effect: Producing more chaff: In effect the cumulative outcome is a Mirage Argument that involves pointless battles between confused people on both sides of the debate and a decline in argument quality. This time it's Food Regulations; I'm sure there will be a next time with yet another Policy area inducing FUD from the Guardian and the like:-

Legacy News-Media: "The Rat In The Room"

 Leave HQ already warned that Pro-Brexit arguments are not about reducing Regulations (they'll be harmonized, consolidated, rationalized via the Globalization process now) in The big four Brexit Nos.

1. Don't talk about how much money Brexit will save [edit:(or lose!)]

 Open Europe, IEA, CER love the "Angels Dancing on Pins" Arguments

2. Don't talk about leaving the single market

 Legacy News-Media FUD: "Emotional Anxiety-Loop Indecision/Freeze response inducement"

3. Don't talk about cutting regulations 

25 Years Out of Date Argument: Little EU loss of perspective arguments

Here's The Economist huffing and puffing as usual: A background guide to “Brexit” from the European Union about very little to do with Brexit other than their "sophisticated presentation on mirages": A background guide to “Brexit” from the European Union:-
"British trade with other EU countries has risen rapidly since 1973, though as the European economy has slowed, its share of the total is declining (the EU now takes over 51% of British exports of goods, and close to 45% if services are added in). Yet whether Britain is in or out, the EU will be a key partner. For non-members such as Norway or Switzerland, trade with the EU makes up a bigger share of the total than it does for Britain. The effects of EU membership on trade patterns are difficult to measure, but John Springford of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think-tank, and colleagues have carried out a modelling exercise which concluded that Britain’s trade with the rest of the EU was 55% greater than it would have been if outside."

4. Don't talk about controlling immigration

 Cameron will Trump Farage's demands: "Just enough to win a referendum"

Political (mirage) Success = Measures that can be done and will be offered by the EU

With Cameron hopes for EU concessions in 'second-tier membership' for UK and applying a sort of Emergency Break and multiple other small print additions, this is dealing with a derivative argument of The Great Deception - only an worse only politically - not Democratically nor Pragmatically across full scope of Migration Policy control (decision-making) and execution (management).

And here we need to cut through the chaff and look at what the Main Argument looks like:-
Most Of Our Politics is ABOVE our own system (electorate disconnection) and concerns our own politicians far more than we the electorate do.

There's two fundamental problems here:
  1. The super-machinery of the EU is designed for forging a Political Entity above the National Member state.
  2. Our own National "super-machinery" has been hijacked to serve this purpose and this is named The Great Deception
Most of the arguments we've seen above and that shape the conceptual understanding of so many people is as Dr. RAE North points out is "Chaff". Here we can compare the other side of the EU Argument:-

  1. Political Structure = Little EU (above) = Remain
  2. Regulatory Structure = Globalization! (below) = Leave

Quoting Dr. RAE North again:-
"Think then how much more advanced the "remain" campaign could be if two years or more ago, when Flexcit started to take the shape that we now see, journalists and activists had recognised the work for what it is. But, with elements on both sides studiously ignoring Flexcit, we have the bizarre position where they are falling over each other to complain that there is nothing."

Namely we see the Mirages in the Legacy News-Media from both sides of the argument. Eg Dominic Cummings is one of the worst culprits as per Mr. Brexit:
Dominic Cummings, his naked lies and supposed legal alternatives to Article 50

 "Any member state may decide, in accordance with its constitutional rules, to withdraw from the union."

It's really worth understanding Article 50 Lisbon Treaty as per Leave HQ once again: Article 50 And Withdrawal: An explainer. And why if there's one thing in the entire EU Referendum / Brexit argument we all should get right on all sides of the argument, it is Article 50:-

Here's why: REAL POWER:-