~ 1. ~
Question: "How Should I Vote: Remain or Leave (In or Out)?"
ANSWER: "The shortest answer is to vote for which choice you think gives you more choice in the future."
~ 2. ~
Question: "But isn't the referendum a mistake by David Cameron?"
Response: "No, even before we joined the EEC there were deep problems with our membership which became obvious with the EURO." This Referendum is effectively 25 years late and secondly the only direct vote people have been given in over 40 years since 1975, proving the first answer (above).
~ 3. ~
Question: "Surely it is safer to vote Remain?"
Response: "Remain did not stop the Eurozone Crisis or the Ukraine War or Mass Immigration Crisis or The Financial Crisis or Referendums in France, Holland, Ireland, Denmark which were rejected or ignored by the EU or "made to vote again to get the right answer". The UK has had over 40 years of EU membership; voting to Leave I'm sure will be able to bank on the good will we've expressed to the EU all those years in return for democratically withdrawing from EU Treaties."
~ 4. ~
Question: But there is no way to withdraw without the markets or pound or economy suffering? It would be a "leap into the dark" as David Cameron says?"
Response: "Defining Brexit (British Exit) carefull as "Withdrawal from EU Treaties - only" then makes it a Political Question with a Political Answer. Article 50 Lisbon Treaty allows us to withdraw politically via negotiated settlement."
Response: "True. leaving the EU could be compared to "the falling of the Berlin Wall" in political significance. However, the principles of leaving the Political, the Judicial and never joining the Monetary Unions of the EU are the core of the question for Britain/UK to ask itself what poltical future does it see for itself?"
~ 6. ~
Question: "I'm still very concerned about the Economic fall-out of such a transition, despite the merits you point out concerning choosing our political future more clearly and transparently."
Response: "Again, agreed. Brexit must be handled very carefully. The aspect of our present membership which we and we suspect all parties wish to sustain is access and membership to the Single Market, so that effectively Economic transition is at worst mild flux and best neutral. Mishandled it would be a disaster."
~ 7. ~
Question: "But we've been told that our present relationship with the EU is "the best of both worlds"?
Response: "Since we joined in 1975, we've had something like Nine New EU Treaties: Namely the EU Treaties themselves are politically unstable and directed politically to creating a New Supranational Government of the EU/EZ. Hence while we remain a member we are subject to these unstable political problems which given the various voting systems and EU Treaty rules cannot be resolved individually in favour of one member."
~ 8. ~
Question: Secondly it's not practical to have access to The Single Market and not be a member of the EU where we need our influence on how the laws are made that affect us if we remain members of the Single Market anyway?"
ANSWER: "If our membership of the EU has done anything, it's to retard level discussion of the EU with accurate reporting of facts. The above assertion so widely distributed and repeated is perhaps the most exemplary of examples of this decay of democracy in the UK concerning the EU Subject: This itself is a good guide as to where correct solutions might be? I can point out multiple resources that answer these concerns factually and correct them: The Market Solution: Bite-Sized Chunks."
~ 9. ~
Question: So, it is conceivable that the UK could remain a member of the Single Market, but isn't it better to wait for David Cameron's Deal to take effect when the EU starts the next New Treaty process and we can be offered a better deal, then? Surely that's so much more diplomatic and would remove a lot of the risk, uncertainty by Reforming the EU together?
Response1: "The first thing to note is that this type of "language" has been used so many times by UK and EU politicians over the past decades from Edward Heath through to John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and now David Cameron: To delay providing the people with a direct democracy choice over which future path to take. In effect, the concept of "EU Reform" is a deception."
Response2: "The second thing to note is the EU Treaty Rules themselves limit what can be done politically underneath those Treaty Rules. Outside the EU Treaty Rules the "scope" for change or reform is beyond comparison. That difference is more than enough weight I would contend for voting to Leave."
~ 10. ~
Question: "I don't know, that sounds almost philosophical. Most Leave campaigners want hard returns such as to "control borders", "reduce red tape", "save money that is sent to the EU to spend on hospitals and schools etc". If leaving is economically neutral, then it does not seem follow that those things will be achieved; the very reasons given by Leave campaigners to leave? Why take the chance?"
Response: "I agree with that line of reasoning. Those reasons are as much over-promising as the opposite reasons provided for the remaining in the EU are untrue or untrustworthy. Again they're made by the same groups of people: Politicians and Journalists. These select groups of sets of people who disproportionately shape and influence our nations' decision-making don't seem to me to be very reliable. This I would argue is yet another supporting reason for more Direct Democracy input by more people and more interest groups beyond these dominating but flawed arguments all over our mass media."
~ 11. ~
Question: "I'm glad we agree on something! However as you said, many various interest groups should be included in this Referendum. And it does appear that which ever group you care to name: Farmers, Scientists, Scottish or Northern Irish, Manufacturers, Banks, IT Sector, Foreign Dignatories such as the USA President Barack Obama, Environmental Groups in particular, Nurses... the list goes on and on, all these groups indicate that leaving the EU would be disastrous for them and their particular concerns? Looking broadly, as opposed to a few loud groups such as UKIP, it seems far more sensible and reasonable to vote Remain?"
Response: This is in fact many questions within one question so complex to unpack, in any great detail. Some general observations however:-
- Most of these groups are falling into FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) to base their decisions from.
- This is as we've already discussed due to their sources of information in the Legacy News-Media being highly compromised.
- Most of these people may be professionals and experts in their own fields or areas of expertise but when it comes to the Politics of the EU, are significantly not, even and often in their own areas.
- Firstly regarding economic concerns: It works both ways: Neutral means no benefits but no major losses either.
- Secondly, access to Single Market would not affect Freedom of Movement of Labour or Migration greatly anyway. So job markets would be unaffected.
- Thirdly, areas of influence over Single Market acquis/legislation, >90% of this is now made at global bodies where UK direct representation would ultimately be more influential and positive for the UK than in the EU. This process of globalization is only going to increase.
- Fourthly, given the nature of such legislation, most of these "rules" won't change on Brexit. Additionally Brexit would repatriate all of the current acquis so again neutral change.
- Fifthly, many of the heads of other states or indeed some of these organizations would do better to express their interests neutrally as to aid the debate for people to base their voting on.
- Sixthly this is because the major question is on "Self-Governing People" which means people are given more choice for their political future which is functionally intended to improve decision-making. Check: The EUROZONE Crisis.
- Seventhly, the concept of Globalization has not percolated sufficiently, and hence these groups frame their arguments in a narrow and limited sense with respect to an EU-Centric world view. That view is redundant and outdated. There's a big wide world above it. This picture may help:-
a glimpse of globalization ABOVE the EU and hence above EU member states
~ 12. ~
Question: "Ok, I accept the hypothetical of what you say. Is there anywhere where I can actually fact-check later on in my own time on some of your assertions or explanations?"
ANSWER: "Yes, there truly is. I've read most of the Brexit plans and most of them don't work. The singular exception that is a paradigm shift in thinking on this subject is":-
- FLEXCIT: The Market Solution (Full Treatment, 421 pages)
- FLEXCIT: The Market Solution (Pamplet, ~40 pages)
- FLEXCIT: The Market Solution (Presentation, 30 minutes)
- FLEXCIT: Mind Map (Visual Image with reference articles)
- The Market Solution: Bite Sized Chunks (Summary Blogs in article form)
~ 13. ~
Question: "Thank you. That's a lot of information to take in. I'm a bit surprised that firstly, I've not even heard of this Brexit plan before. Secondly, that none of the Leave Campaign groups support it; in fact I'm not even sure what or which Brexit plan they support (Wow, that's a bit odd, now I realize it...). So what is the credentials of this plan? How is it relevant? If it's not being promoted by the Leave Groups, it then cannot be the basis for future settlements between the EU and the UK, irrespective of it's potential merits? This is really confusing."
Response: "As pointed out, FLEXCIT has been available for over two years. It's been systematically rejected, ignored, betrayed, omitted and attacked by the likes of politicians and journalists. This means that we've not had an intellectually honest debate about "HOW TO LEAVE?" The debate has been corrupted for so long by vested interest groups with rent-seeking (Vote Leave are full of Tories) and ego-driven motives (Nigel Farage's influence on ruling UKIP). There is a group that does support the only fully worked out Brexit plan, called The Leave Alliance. As coincidence would have it: The Leave campaigns are giving David Cameron an open goal."
~ 14. ~
Question: "Well that's a bit of a dampener to end on. I was almost coming around to the "LEAVE" consideration, but if the question is run by some of these other groups, I'm not sure I can bring myself to support them?"
Response: "It is what it is. The consistent theme I've tried to imbue this Q&R session with is not an authorative or shouty answer, but a constructive sharing of understanding to improve the quality of arguments. In almost all "air-time" examples of our Referendum debate involving journalists and politicians (though Andrew Neil seems to have been a positive exception on BBC Daily Politics), the situation is akin to "The Tail Wagging The Dog" or indeed The Dog Chasing It's Own Tail;
...where the desired result dictates the arguments which dictates the low quality communication which dictates the quality of our politics. This Q&R has been I hope in the spirit of fun of learning and sharing information. It's this important trend the stale politics of Remaining in the EU vs the vibrant vision of Leaving the EU according to the intelligence and research driven work of FLEXCIT which The Leave Alliance asserts as the primary foundation from which to base decision-making and promoting Real Democracy beyond politicians, Whitehall, SW1 and Brussels.
~ 15. ~
Question: This style of Q&R agrees with me at least, are there any other such types of communication that I can follow in this format, it's proven really thought-inducing?
ANSWER: A couple I can recall immediately that I've found very succinct:-