The Sierpinski triangle arranged in descending tiers
A very resourceful quote by Cicero on arguments:-
“The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator.” ~ Cicero: De Oretore
For People: A True Choice depends on a visible and "Complete Picture"
In the above concept diagram, the top of the triangle represents:-
1. Referendum = Direct Choice
A real (direct) democracy choice on a particular subject that qualifies for such real democracy from the people directly as opposed via representation of people in a Parliament.
The EU clearly meets this criteria and if people need to wonder how to vote, this very act of holding a referendum for the first time since 1975 amid many previous promises to do so covering as many as seven major new treaties without having a direct vote, then the question that derives also derives this guiding context to all voters.
Stage 6: It may be the final stage in FLEXCIT... but it's actually inherent in everything preceding: A Choice for Leave is a choice towards more real democracy (working knowledge applied politically)
What is interesting is that the voter themselves is at the top of the decision-making process, which is not the case in our other voters bar of course the General Elections, which themselves politicians admit are degraded due to "safe seats" even as far back as 1975:-
"The reason why I submit this Motion to your Lordships at this time is that, in the first place, I believe the authority of Parliament, and public respect for it, has been dangerously eroded during the past decade. I believe that the economic health of Britain depends on its political health, and the political health, in turn, depends upon the degree to which the great mass of the people, and the groups into which they organise themselves, are prepared to recognise the authority of free institutions such as Parliament. They will do so only if they are persuaded that these institutions fairly represent their cherished values and profound aspirations. I do not think that this is true of Parliament today. I could give plenty of evidence to support this view. The concentration of power in sectional hands has sometimes been able to unhorse Governments in the past. The real danger today is that power, irresponsibly exercised, may destroy Parliament itself, and with it the basic freedoms of a democratic society and, even, the unity of Great Britain." ~ Lord Alport, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 23 April 1975Often in the press the Tory divisions meme has been used as the headline reason for this referendum, but the true reason is rooted in the fundamental failure to represent people on this subject, to deceive upon it or else confidently present it to the people to decide.
2. Choice between 2 Paradigms
Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech")
Here is presented two sides to the argument: Supranationalism vs Intergovernmentalism which frame the arguments for Remaining or Leaving the membership of the European Union. Without this correct framing, the question is devoid of understanding and context to derivative details.
History repeats itself when...
One of the biggest biggest problems that so many have failed the British people concerning the volumes of argument that have been aired, is the neglection of The Great Deception history of the European Union to define one side of the argument, it's concept, it's definition and mode of working, it's philosophy, it's purpose, the origin of it's ideas and the people influential in developing those ideas into the institutions of today.
Globalization and Sovereignty?
If that problem is large, so too is the other problem: The lack of knowledge of the opposite argument for Intergovernmentalism and the drive of globalization to build a picture of a possible position of the UK in such a developing future, so much more challenging to picture than the past!
It may have escaped your notice the specific flow diagram postulated here.
3. Arguments: Structured Data
A complete argument is coherent and consistent. Interesting this point is made very explicitly in the latest of Dr. RAE North's blog posts EU Referendum: countdown to launch:-
"There is no short-term economic benefit from leaving the EU. There are no immediate savings to be made, and any expectations that goods will be cheaper in the shops, or that wages will somehow increase overnight are vastly overblown.
Any financial benefits accruing from leaving the EU will be slow in coming and, in many respects, will be expressed in a negative sense: i.e., "had we not left the EU things would be even worse than they are now". [...]
The big problem is that it is almost impossible to demonstrate a clear case, unequivocally showing that all or any groups would be better off. This is especially so when we are seeking to argue for stability, presenting the case that there would be very little material change to the UK immediately after leaving, or in the short- to medium-term. [...]
To do so, though, would be to sell the lie. We are making promises we can't keep. Furthermore, it exposes us – as we are seeing – to "he says, she says" exchanges with the "remains", where the arguments are getting bogged down in ever-more arcane detail, and even more strident disputes, as each side seeks to establish their positions. [...]
It was for this that The Harrogate Agenda was devised, the implementation of which is incompatible with continuing membership of the EU. A necessary consequence of adopting THA, therefore, would be Brexit.
Given that the benefits of implementing THA would be tangible – and some of them immediate – returning powers to the people and giving them much greater control over all manner of things, including taxation, this could be the missing element which motivates people to leave the EU."
This point has already been made in 1. But without inheriting it downwards into our argument logic that creates patterns out of the data all we're left with is:-
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: The Greatest Trick The Politicians Ever Pulled on the People: With no context "anything COULD happen" and hence no sane solution presents itself.
It's beyond count the volume of words and works that end in the above result and the game turns into who can stack up the biggest and most impressive lies on each side of the confabulists' narrative of the day. We subsequently that because neither side can "win", then the temptation to argue according to the "biggest group" takes precedence resulting in an all too familiar picture:-
Migration Policy: An overloaded argument disproportionate to it's correct contribution to the "full picture"; trying to make it "the picture" itself.
FLEXCIT: An Iterative method of organized the evidence and data to connect them into the service and form of a Direct Democracy choice for PEOPLE/VOTERS:-
4. Research-Driven Policy: Details & Data
The macro within the micro encapsulated: John Ashworth's work perfectly demonstrates the entire synthesis of argument from Tier 1 (choice) to Tier 5 (The Complete Market Solution Work)
Possibly one of the biggest arguments against the EU is that it is a Supranational organization, that it's political agenda leads to less than desirable results so much so because it invalidates the evidence base via forms of bias and prejudice corrupting the process of developing knowledge-based solutions.
We met this via John Ashworth's investigations and experience and his campaign group "Restore Britain's Fish":-
Abstraction of Problems:-
- Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
- Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
- Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
- So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
- British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
- Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
- Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
- Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.
Abstraction of Solutions:-
- Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
- With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
- As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
- In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
- This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
- This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
- It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
- This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
- Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
- We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".
Abstraction of Outcomes:-
- Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
- These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
- This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
- The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
- The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
- When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
- Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
- We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
- This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
- Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
- This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
- Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.
The argument for Fisheries not only includes the relevant facts and details, data and research and evidence basis but it is in a form that is conducive to organization in eventual service to the final form: The Voter's Choice!
When this is not done we end up with a sea of details such as I tried to convey concerning arguments for Scientists: EU: From Common Market To EU Constitution
5. Complete Argument by The Leave Alliance
The Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) was formed in 1969 as a cross party coalition