Putting Theories To The Test: The EU As Symbol of "Good"?

A Real Test Of Conviction: "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is."

I've previously considered one of the successes of the future will be along the lines of High Street Shops closing down and eventually High Streets changing to meet more specific needs of people and communities: A more social experience and service provided, perhaps, in the face of Internet competition; an eventual adaptation and opportunity for new business and social enterprise? Likewise a success I look forward to is the "closing down of some of the current major news sources" such as:-

• The Guardian
• The Economist
• The Financial Times

In their support of the EU, they exhibit "Special Pleading":-

"Is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception."

Foreseeing a gloomy post-Brexit future for my family

Please convert all your cash and assets into EUROs now asshole and send a postcard from your new address in 2018, too.

 Divided We Fall

The Economist: Masquerading as knowledgeable and hence authorative and impartial in an economically rational voice - yet exhibiting exaggerated special pleading.

There's numerous such articles as these. Instead of repeating the same old tired Remain arguments and disputing them one by one, I'll summarize the sympathetic magical thinking:-

"The EU has a mystical property which means that no matter what is being talked about: Grasshoppers, Deodorant, History, Music, because the EU was founded with the intention to prevent wars, it is imbued with "Sacrosanct Good" and hence anything connected with it, must also symbolize this "Good". Thus the opposite becomes true, removing the EU also removes "Good" and thus the tenor of terror alluded to in these pieces above on all the tenuous connects to the negative consequences of Brexit."

• Boris Johnson as PM (as bad as Major, Blair and Brown? As deceitful as Cameron?).
• Families will suffer
• Western Civilization will suffer

Alternatively,

In FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: Introduction p.8-.9 it's acknowledged very candidly that a Withdrawal Process DOES NEED THE UTMOST CARE:-

"Leaving the EU is a big step and there can be no serious dispute that a botched process could have dire results... Any major disruption could do serious harm to our economy, well beyond just our trade with EU Member States. It could drive us into recession. There is no margin for error. We cannot afford to get it wrong."

"And we start with a basic premise. After nine treaties and 40 years of political and economic integration, there can be no clean break. Unravelling in a single step is not going to happen, and certainly not without compromises."

"The next point is that negotiations will not take place in a political vacuum... This means that our negotiators will not have a free hand... Another point is that these will be negotiations - i.e., a process which involves exchanges of views... Compromise will be essential."

Now this practical approach to the realities of the situation, I think is sensibly worth putting to the test! If only the EU had been put to the test more frequently for more people (ie democratically), it may have all been a quite different story to the "Special Pleading" now being paraded by the journalists in The Economist and Financial Times.

"Taking all that into account, we propose six stages to our plan. Its very essence is that it is split into stages. We arrived where we are by a series of graduated steps. It makes absolute sense that we should leave in the same way."

 

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ~ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Samuel R. Delany's sci-fi novel Babel-17 tells the story of a humanity encountering an alien language in the far future galaxy. This language "appears" to threaten invasion, but in order to counter the threat, the messages must first be understood. Not only the above consideration from Wittgenstein is implicit in this contention, but also:

"...my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."

Here we have two considerations: The limitation of language and the limitations of what we select in order to use language to communicate. In fact Wittgenstein manages to get to the heart of the story in Babel-17 without giving away the underlying plot of the story.

Now imagine these 2 core elements of the language used in the our politics of EU Referendum and Brexit in the Legacy News-Media broadcasting the ideas from the Top Tiers of the Political Food Web:-

• (1): Without the core concepts of understanding - one cannot speak without being able to think first.
• (2): What is said necessarily omits a vast range of potential communication.
• (1) + (2) = (3): Combining both: If the language itself omits the words and hence ideas, then these in reverse prevent the necessary thinking!!!

By now I hope you are reading this, thinking I knew this blogger was cracked; a little too quirky and now banging on about sci-fi and Wittgenstein and language... !

 A "low drone" dominates and is broadcast incessantly

Now, instead of travelling far into the future and facing the seemingly inscrutable dangers of an alien language, let us take a journey back into the recent past that already looks so far away: PANORAMA The Great Euro Debate TX. 27/1/97.

 Panorama: The Great Euro Debate - 27.01.97

• "The words used in the argument are a foreign language."
• "Strong passions"
• "Most of us aren't well informed"

Our next witness is John Monks, the 
General Secretary of the Trades Union 
Congress, a man who fears for Britain’s 
workforce, that if they are outside a 
single currency life will be a cold and 
uncomfortable place, and Peter Sutherland 
questions him first. I should just point 
out that friendly witnesses are questioned 
for a rather shorter period than hostile 
witnesses, which is why Ruth Lea had 
rather more time than you did.  The 
opposite will happen when the other 
witnesses come in.  Peter Sutherland.

 Peter Sutherland 
 Well let me take up the invitation from 
that introduction.  What is your view as a 
union leader of the effect on jobs of 
staying out of a single currency when it 
is created? What will the effect be?


 
 John Monks 
 Well on balance I think it would be 
Caption: damaging. Immediately I think we would 
JOHN MONKS pay a premium in interest rates. I think 
GENERAL SECRETARY, TUC our interest rates would go higher than 
that for the Euro area and I think that 
would be a damaging consequence.

Peter Sutherland 
 So that would cost business and investors 
money?

 John Monks 
 Well it would cost everybody - mortgage, 
people who have got mortgages and so on.  
Because we’ve got a record of devaluation 
and the Germans haven’t, which will be the 
core of the system, we would pay I think 
greater, a premium on our interest rates. 
I think too that we would lose some of the 
inward investment  which has been very 
important to Britain. Something like forty 
per cent of our exports at the moment come 
from foreign-owned firms and that’s been a 
tremendous boost at a time when a lot of 
British industries of the traditional kind 
have been struggling. And the third reason 
I would say it’s damaging is that our 
influence in this thing called Europe, the 
European Union, would be so much less. We 
would be peripheral to what was going on. 


 We would be in a small minority of 
countries and I think for Great Britain 
that’s a pretty hopeless future. We want 
to be at the centre of things, not on the 
edge. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Do you think it would be possible to 
Caption:  sustain membership over the medium to long 
PETER SUTHERLAND term by remaining outside a single 
CHAIRMAN, GOLDMAN SACHS currency with virtually everybody else in 
INTERNATIONAL the European Union inside a single 
currency? 

John Monks 
 You see I think it would be difficult to 
stay in the European Union indefinitely if 
we were floating our currencies against 
the Euro. If, as some people would argue, 
we actually pegged the level of the pound 
to the Euro then we get all the 
disadvantages of being in the Euro without 
 any of the influence and the advantages 
and probably still pay a premium on 
interest rates but I think, if we float 
against it, then it’s a matter of time 
before there’s tremendous tensions between 
us and the Euro area about devaluations or 
revaluation, probably devaluations on the 
long-term given our recent economic 
history, and that could blow us out of the 


 European Union which would be tremendously 
damaging. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Thank you, Mr Monks.

 David Dimbleby 
 Norman Lamont. 

What is absolutely fascinating is that the time is different, yet the pattern of the subject is almost identical to the present prevalent "LOW DRONE" we find drowning us in the Legacy News-Media in the newspapers, webpages, radio and television mediums.

You can read the above or watch the video link.

I was just watching the latest BBC Question Time and the deception over the Norway Option was manifest once again:-

Summary from White Wednesday refining Paul Reynolds "Norway Scorecard"

Unfortunately this scorecard won't be broadcast far and wide by the BBC so instead we have:-

• Shabana Mahmood - Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
• Sal Brinton - House of Lords Peer and President of the Liberal Democrats

Emitting their "low drone" and suffusing the British electorate with it. Do they know what they speak of? If not they cannot speak of it. 

 Here's a most illuminating consequence of our "Babel-17" language on the EU Referendum: Pawel Swidlicki now TALKS FOR PEOPLE!!! because he knows what they want - OR, because people like him exploit the "low drone" language that people use to speak about the subject.... [Details: Norwegian model or Norway Option a lot like EU / Europe; Flexit or FLEXCIT]

There are 2 very hard results to discuss here:-

1. The language of the EURO matches the language today of the EU immaculately in it's shape, it's pattern, it's tendencies: Above all: It's severe limitations.
2. This language allows our "betters" to think for us and hence speak instead of us.

 It's probably for the best if you don't give Martin Durkin any money

Yet more Babel-17; coming to cinemas near you in 2016!!!

Communication: Shadows On The Wall (2)

Shadows on the wall

In Plato's well-known Allegory of the Cave, he describes:-

"A gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality."

This is really so very applicable to the Legacy News-Media reporting that suffuses and smothers the knowledge and understanding of people concerning the twin-subjects of: The EU and Brexit (British Exit). What is reported is like the shadow above. It is derived, it matches what is visually, but it is not the same, and it reduces the potential increase in understanding that voters require to express their opinions freely in the Referendum on EU membership, which is likely in 2017, the first time since 1975: 45 years: Almost half a century of time. There's your "fire" that casts this shadow.

In the previous blog,  Communication: Learning To Speak Dog (1), the Brexit article in Money Week was considered in the context of the type of communication we experience as part of the EU. I've tried to assert one core proposition concerning Brexit of the EU deals with the quality and type of communication we have a record of as members for 43yrs as almost as important as the assessment of the condition of our membership status vs Brexit status. In this blog this article in Money Week "Why we're backing Brexit" [subscription] (it could be Pro-EU or Pro-Brexit it does not matter) is the template, or "shadow on the wall" and I hope I am successful in showing in tandem the fire/flame simultaneously:-

 "Our membership of the European Union (EU) is a subject that divides Britain."

 The article references a recent poll, but the above is far more significant suggesting imo amnesia and lack of increase in public understanding (namely: temperamental ephemeral politics in action)

The EU suffers a "democratic deficit"... it is reactive rather than proactive... many question the future of the European project and the EU's drive for "ever closer union"."

Here's some essential concepts to appreciate:-

Robert Oulds in his book Everything You Wanted To Know About The EU - But were afraid to ask, mentions that the "democratic deficit" is no such thing: "trading democracy for dictatorship on the false prospectus that they would deliver prosperity" it was effectively a design to REDUCE democracy (mainly via Qualified Majority Voting QMV) and hence was intentional (eg x7 Major Treaties without a public Referendum in 45yrs!).

The reactionary consideration also requires a conceptual understanding of the above "how" the EU works as well as "Beneficial Crisis" of "Engrenage" requiring... you guessed yet more/another major new Treaty called by the politicians!

Finally the nature of the EU is not a question of how much more "Ever Closer Union" or reverting back to more of an Economic EU: As per The Great Deception history which is never referenced (!) the plan by Jean Monnet was always to avoid the mistakes of the League of Nations and have power over the nations ie Supranationalism which requires competencies of national policies ever closer to political union for example Monetary Union requiring Fiscal Union and centralized budget setting for the EU.

 What do you think: Arrears of public voting on all those Treaties of "Ever Closer Union"

"The key difference is that the Ins believe we should try to reform the EU from within, rather than take the risk of leaving... the Outs see reform as impossible, and the risks of leaving as overstated."

 The journalists favourite approach to Brexit is "biff-bam" categorization of the beliefs of two large equal but opposite groups/tribal colours. This is very very artificial: Defining what Brexit is properly clears up almost all the fun to be had here for the journalists:-

• Brexit (British Exit) = "Withdrawal from the EU Treaties and membership via representation in the EU Institutions via triggering Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty - ONLY."

The White Line that ONLY divides, it does NOT define!!

From this definition it is clear that the UK can use the 2 year period to renegotiate access to the Single Market devoid of the above political/legal status as a member SUB-/under EU Treaties compared with relationship EXTRA-/outside EU Treaties. Various routes to accessing The Single Market are described in Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT document at EUReferendum.com under "The Market Solution". This changes the so-called polling groups above like "alchemy" into voting for 

• Single Market relationship with the EU vs Political Ever Closer Union + Single Market relationship with the EU.

 Which is in which: Light and Darkness?

One of the core arguments against this are simply exercises in "bad relationship" which all people can understand: Coercion, Dominance-Submission, FUD for example. This is very important feature of the upcoming Referendum which empowers people "to speak to each, each according to their own understanding."

"In short, the status quo won't do - we need to reach a new deal that gives us more autonomy and a greater say in our own future."

Here the misconception is that the Status Quo is implicitly in stasis. The Status Quo of the EU is the inherent instability of the Treaties and this consequential political uncertainty. This word "Uncertainty" has been used as one of the key descriptions of the Prestigious VIP's who have advocated EU Membership since before Macmillan used it in the 1960's to state EEC "was causing uncertainty"! So too today, with a New Treaty being described as per A Fundamental Law Of The European Union. 

"...and this appears structural (a product of the eurozone's design) rather than cyclical (due to temporary unfavourable economic conditions)."

This is where the article is on firm ground and seems confident of itself. It would be a useful addition to paraphrase Dr. RAE North and point out that these "structural flaws" are not so much a bug in the design of the Eurozone but a "feature" as per Beneficial Crisis for the completion of Sovereign policy powers to the ECB to include Fiscal with Monetary.

 The lack of memory or consolidation of information in EU/Brexit articles: This graph is immensely useful visual aid of the Eurozone and the description of "Political Project" > Economic Project of the EU/EZ itself.

"It's worth noting on this point that we're far from alone in questioning our relationship with the EU. Finland's parliament will debate its membership of the euro next year."

"David Cameron - best described as a right-wing In vote - wrote to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council with four demands."

The article is wasting space here: It has no bearing on Cameron, and by labelling him as "right-wing in vote" shows how poorly the EU is understood, let alone the empty Breadcrumbing of the above Theatre: The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. we've discussed previously. Talking about Finland only reinforces the lack of historic context here and is anohter case of Politicians: No Taste, No Style, So Derivative! ie superficial indications being taken seriously; namely the article is in full "describing shadows" mode, at this point.

"The Ins both left and right-wing, see Britain as the bridge between Europe and the English-speaking world. The EU would be weaker without us, and the risks to us of leaving are too high, so why rock the boat? ... The Outs, on the other hand, come at the issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The Outs on the right cite right cite  greater global trade, less regulation, and improved control over immigration... but they want to keep the free movement of capital goods and labour. The Outs on the left... they want to nationalize or subsidize industries... both... want our laws to be written in Britain, not Brussels."

Random Items Selection: "Macy has 7 apples, Brad has 5 pears and Emma has 11 oranges... How can they share them equally if..."

Apart from the perverse use of Out/In instead of Leave/Remain... the above is very interesting because having defined Brexit as a subjective of groups' disparate and effectively random desires/inclinations, a summary of the above is then used to define Brexit or EU Membership as per the groups. Interestingly such groups are labelled as very lacking in knowledge about the EU here Brits know less about the EU than anyone else ! Very likely the sort of stuff written as per this Money Week article to reshape that poor understanding and nudge it as per the polls graph since the 70's along with "cyclical events" such as the economy. Effectively the authors here are basing their arguments on shifting sands.

What do other non-EU European PEOPLE think of the EU?

"As for Norway - the nation held a referendum on joining the European Economic Community in 1972 and 53.5% of voters said "no". The Norwegian government dragged them into the European Economic Area regardless in 1994. That gives them 100% of the regulations and 0% of the say - hardly an enviable position."

I intend to go over the influence subject in this blog despite it already being covered numerously, particularly in FLEXCIT: 5.0 The Market versus the Swiss option p.88 and again in this blog:  The Columbo Method: Norway

"Business for Britain (a right-wing Out group) has put together a detailed analysis of how a new trade deal with the EU could be pre-negotiated before any Brexit. The rest would quickly fall into place. Steve Baker, MP, head of Conservatives for Britain, notes that Britain is already a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under these rules, Europe must offer us "most favoured nation" trading status. As a result, says Baker, "our membership of WTO defrays even the worst-case scenario of trade  barriers being erected under WTO rules if we left."

Oh dear, there's a lot by Dr. RAE North on this subject if they bothered to research as per google "eu referendum" coming in at No.1 Result then adding "+WTO":- EU exit: death of the WTO option? and Pete North Whose rules are they anyway? and again EU referendum: we the invisibles ; showing that the shadows are what are presented to the people, not the actual "flame". And more from Ruth Lea who is Globalisation: a conspiracy of silence?

"Ruth Lea – member of the advisory board for Business for Britain"

"More broadly speaking, global trade tariffs have been falling under globalization. Free trade benefits all involved, so it is in no one's interests to reverse that."

EU Referendum: the tyranny of non-tariff barriers

"In Short, the problem is that while the EU may have been built on free-market ideals, it is a long way from achieving those ideals. The regulatory burden and the European parliament's supremacy over national parliaments is unwelcome... that attitude is holding back the rest of Europe, particularly those countries locked into the the EURO. That's a great pity. But we don't have to remain a part of that... it is better than remaining in an unreformed EU."

 It's difficult to tell whether the weasel is in the words or the wood is lost in the forest...

There's little to no conception of Globalization of Regulations! There's a lot of incomprehension as to the nature and definition of the EU and there's False Friend tone of voice about "Reform" and being moderate and sensible about Brexit if the EU does not reform. It makes no sense: These are the patterns on the wall for the public:-

 Plato's Cave: What do people know? What they are shown.

 

Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (1)

Lakshmi: Goddess of Wealth, Fortune and Prosperity

I remember during my undergraduate studies at university one of my best friends had a statue of the Hindu goddess Lakshmi in their room and explained to me what her name was, who she was and what she represented. Lakshmi to give her, her full title is: "The goddess of wealth, fortune, and prosperity (both material and spiritual). She is the wife and active energy of Vishnu." 

My reaction at the time was, "That's a nice bit of Kitsch. My room could do with something a bit leftfield like that." Admittedly I had my eyes more on Ganesha for those reasons.  I suspect for some people and in the general way of these things, the above merely becomes all part of a nice backstory to embellish what amounts to the popularity of Lakshmi specifically holding the office of "wealth dispenser good luck" charm and soon she takes on more and more the role of "psychological piggybank".

The above website, debtbombshell.com provides a very quick summary of the relationship between our UK Government Spending, the Deficit and the UK Debt: Arising from the difference in Spending and Income (Budget):-

Every year the UK runs a large budget deficit. The Government spends more money than it can tax, so we plug the gap by selling bonds to investors at home and abroad. These bonds - known as gilts - have to be repaid in full, with interest. Added together, our unpaid loans make up the UK's national debt.

Right now, that debt is growing violently. The Government forecasts it will soar to an eye-watering £1.1 trillion by 2011. To put that in perspective, the UK went bust in 1976 running a budget deficit of 6% of GDP. In 2010 that deficit is going to top 11%.

Historically, our debt burden was heavier after World War II. But like any loan, if the money isn't invested wisely we end up borrowing even more. When the Government runs up huge debts and produces nothing to show for it, we're the ones that shoulder the burden. This year that burden will grow by £167.9 billion.

This website (a little out of date) paints the picture quite bleakly and it's no wonder that Economics is often referred to as "The Dismal Science" in affiliation with Finance and Accounting (also in derogatory language: "Bean-counting"). Also provided is a fascinating graph of National Debt; and further calculations and representations of calculations can be found at ukpublicspending.co.uk .

Here's a couple of different graphs representing historic debt. They're 'a little off each other', but the take-home is that in general managing debt is more challenging when:-

• Economic conditions are adverse and/or deteriorating (eg wars)
• Government spending/deficit increases (eg wars)
• Government income decreases (eg lowering taxes)
• Public personal debt levels increase and bank lending exposure to high risk

Some crude summary points but the take-home is that the management of money and wealth-creation is very important to the good governance and prudent public and private sectors of our economies. Perhaps the above all need an image make-over such as wonderfully illustrated in Lakshmi iconographic representation above? Perhaps more people and our government could do with their own stash of statuettes of Lakshmi in their homes and offices?

Lakshmi Statues: Art and Iconography

There's a very strong component of the management of a Nation's wealth, it's economy and it's "fortunes". Looking the history of The Central Bank of England aka The Bank Of England :-

In the Kingdom of England in the 1690s, public funds were in short supply and were needed to finance the ongoing Nine Years' War with France. The credit of William III's government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8 percent) that the government wanted. In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue banknotes.The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2M was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.

 There's a quick summary here connecting debt and currency and their relevance for example Quantitative Easing": The Consequences Of National Debt. A really applicable quote worth applying and remembering is from

Chapter 24 — Liberal Leader Mackenzie King Said in 1935:-

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.

“The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.”

It's worth reading the full context in the link above. Now considering the above, then looking once again into the History of the European Union in The Great Deception, Chapter Twelve - In A Minority of One: 1986-1988 p.273

"The  British  economy  has  been  transformed  in  the  past  twelve  years. In the 1960s and 1970s we were the sick man of Europe, at the bottom of the league tables  for  growth,  investment  and productivity. In  the  1980s  we  were  at  the top." ~ Conservative Campaign Guide, 1991.

One cannot understand  the  second half of Thatcher’s eleven-year reign as Britain’s longest serving prime minister of the twentieth century without appreciating just how significant was the part played in it by ‘Europe’. In the years after Milan she found herself increasingly at odds,  not just with her Community ‘partners’ but with her most senior  Cabinet  colleagues, until  they worked to bring about her downfall.The first signs of this division came from an unexpected direction, when, early in  1985,  her  Chancellor  Nigel  Lawson,  known  as  a  robust  ‘Thatcherite’, became  persuaded that the key to imposing monetary discipline on Britain’s economy  was to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism. He was soon supported by Howe, but  their  motives were quite different. Lawson regarded himself as something of a ‘sceptic’ on European issues.

He saw linking the pound  to the Deutschmark-dominated  ERM  simply  as  an  economic  tool,  on  the  grounds that Germany had become a byword for maintaining price stability and that the move  would  signal  to  the  markets  that  the  UK  had  no  intention  of  devaluing her currency. Lawson genuinely believed the ERM was a means by which members  of  the  Community  could  co-operate  to serve  a  common  economic purpose. Howe on the other hand was well aware that the ERM’s real purpose  was  not  economic but  political:  a  mechanism  designed  to  promote greater integration. 

This echoes with the concept of "engrenage" as per Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? and we also come back (or forwards) to Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes" and Sir James Goldsmith's The Referendum Party's subsequent influence on triggering a Referendum Pledge from John Major's Conservative government and therefore raising and hence matching Tony Blair's "New Labour" government of 1997 and all the way through the Referendum Promises as per Pattern Recognition.

We're beginning to join the dots on a very important part of "the once and future Sovereignty" of the United Kingdom. From Of Democracy and Time Dilation know that our Government has been an abject failure in it's lack of honest, accountability and representative attempts to re-associate democracy with governance and hence input into solving these problems and the damage they "wreak to a nation", could have done further and will continue to do both to the UK and beyond in the Eurozone Debt Crisis:-

"Beneficial Crisis" via "engrenage" of the eurozone members

Coming back to the key points:-

1. Governments should know the importance of the Money Supply
2. This was in action during the ERM exit of the UK.
3. Despite this Referendums and debates have continued over the validity of joining the EURO up to the early 2000's.
4. This continues to the present in 2015 concerning EU membership.
5. The underlying problems are not addressed by our government and nor are the arguments clarified on EU membership.

There are signs that some people are looking for real changes such as Positive Money:

 As well as being reflected in 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;

Coming back to Lakshmi and the iconography:-

Her four hands represent the four goals of human life considered important to the Hindu way of life – dharma (alignment with the "order of things" or "cosmos" as the Greeks would call it, or for example the pursuit of an ethical, moral life), kāma (the aesthetic satisfaction "in the realm of the senses" such as love, desire and emotional fulfillment), artha (leading a purposeful and meaningful, goal-directed life and attaining the means to do so, pursuit of wealth or such similar goals for example), and moksha (liberation or emancipation through self-knowledge or self-actualization; in the Hindu tradition termed release from saṃsāra). The Lotus, Elephant(s) and other details all hold their own symbolisms without going into further details.

It seems to me that a lot of the discussion on our economy and on our government's privileged position in running our economy on our behalf or managing it, forgets the reasons for money and wealth to serve the people, not the people in charge and their interests first; to merely make them wealthy. Much like how the tendency for people to see Lakshmi merely as the "goddess of prosperity" instead of appreciating some of the underlying components that all contribute to "Prosperity"; it itself is a product of underlying and related elements. Looking at money as per Mackenzie King (see above):-

“Money consists only in figures engraved on metal, printed on paper, or inscribed in bank ledgers.” 

or as per Positive Money:-

"Most of the money in the economy is actually just numbers in a computer system... the question is where does that money come from?"

It seems the greed for wealth runs our economies and hence our governments' popularities, but it also seems that it equally ruins our economies as much and then we have "musical chairs" between the same people pretending to run the economy "for a better Britain". If we know that the EURO is a political tool, why not the Pound in the hands of our own government and as per the history of The Great Deception it's misuse for political means, too? And indeed right back to the founding of the Bank Of England?

Pattern Recognition

Clockwise: Angler fish ovaries (<mm), Ammonite (cm), Cyclone (km), Galaxy (ly)

What has the above got to do with politics? Not a lot. But just look at it. The same pattern found at different scales and strangely illuminating and uplifting to look at, wouldn't you say? And also because politics has a habit of becoming stuck in the bog and mired in detail and verbose arguments. Sometimes remembering to "look up at the stars" "while stuck in the mud" is helpful, to remember where our destination is beyond the horizon.

But if we are trying to improve the quality of our arguments, one of the features that will win people over to higher quality arguments involves establishing factual patterns of results that then give strong predictive explanation to the choices we choose to make; hopefully in improving our performance as a nation, as per How do you become a "eurosceptic"? It's why I have a good deal of time for this video reminding people of which politicians, VIP's made which choices concerning joining the EURO:-

The EURO: "Wrong Then, Wrong Now"

 

In Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes" it was noted how stagnant our arguments and how stale they have remained concerning our EU Membership. Even referencing Dr. RAE North of EUReferendum.com with a reference to Heath Rejecting a form of Assocation Membership (see blogroll Vote To Leave The EU) as far back as 1963. We also noted in Of Democracy and Time Dilation the curious (and essential relationship), too, between Time and Democracy and Participation (and hence Representation value in decision-making governance) at different scales of human organizational endeavour.

The use of the above video is not to vilify the opponent as we observed in I've Been Expecting You... it's to ensure that a feedback-loop is built into our arguments when results whether negative-feedback or positive-feedback are achieved (we'll leave echoes of cosmos as above!):-

Feedback-Loop 

 

What is noticeable with the above, is that they are all high-status "Leaders in our Society". Dr. RAE North has blogged about this:  The power of prestige quoting Gustave Le Bon :-

"Great power is given to ideas propagated by affirmation, repetition, and contagion by the circumstance that they acquire in time that mysterious force known as prestige.

Whatever has been a ruling power in the world, whether it be ideas or men, has in the main enforced its authority by means of that irresistible force expressed by the word “prestige.”

Namely, in the above classification type of arguments (Arguments From Authority) concerning the EURO, the "feedback-loop" has been "short-circuited" by "Prestige". This probably reduces down the core reason for why as we've discussed our arguments appear to be "going nowhere fast" or to visualize this:-

"Snakes and Ladders": A Game Of Chance

 

It's tempting to call the Pro-EURO personages/personalities of prestige above as "the snakes" and the Anti-EURO's the ladders... but we know better than that, unlike the Legacy Media because there's no commercial or political ulterior motive to do so. The snakes and the ladders are products of chance. It's the major reason why I would argue: You know, we're just not reaching that guy. and why "conventional wisdom" as per Dr. RAE North on polling: EU Referendum: asking the wrong questions 

 

 The EU "halo" is slipping off Mr. Cameron's head.

 

...that we see expressed by Politicians, Business, Media and indeed by People (presumably via YouGov) also, is wrong, and a "self-fulfilling prophesy" of increasing ignorance and hence increasing arguments against the spread of Real Democracy: The Harrogate Agenda. One of the properties of this system of democracy is the very fact that it reduces the Top-Down crystallization of arguments that the gravity of Centralism produces and where we see a present example of this exertion in via Lost Leonardo's A Two Track Debate; due to the above and more recently recognized utilizing George Orwell's Animal Farm: One for the Pigs and another for the People/Other Animals who are "not so equal" in these arguments.

In the upcoming Referendum, the peoples' votes are what matters as per Dr. RAE North: EU Referendum: the choice to be made

"The very nature of a referendum, as we have been wont to remind everyone, is a situation where our representatives step aside, to allow us to make a decision on a matter they have failed to resolve. For a time, the politicians are not centre-stage. They are the supplicants, the direction of grand policy dictated not by them but by us, the people."

 

 In Big Ben: The Four-Faced Liar we looked at the likely shape and repeating pattern of arguments concerning the EU. We've looked at this pattern across time and across space. If we are to improve our arguments, we must employ an "intellectual basis" distinct form the "Westminster Bubble" trapped into poor arguments by the power of prestige, we must broaden the debate and "Crowdsource" it, referred to in The Greatest Political Problem of Our Time.

 

 

 Slowly measuring a more accurate picture of the present

 

It is critical to do so because we can point to patterns that repeat in our membership which gives us powerful predictive value with which to remove the corrupting influence of prestige from the arguments being made and hence cripple the production of "Groupthink" as Christopher Booker provides a Media: The BBC’s groupthink is an enemy to free speech.

 

The problem with prestige is that it creates a short-circuit in the arguments that become established that then leads to propagation by the media that then becomes the source of "Groupthink". But we only have to look for patterns that broaden the context of the debate to reconnect the arguments according to a stronger match with the past track-record:-

1. 1970's: "There is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty” ~ Edward Heath 1970
2. 1980's: "No, No, No." (To Parliament, Executive, Legislative at EU level) ~ Margaret Thatcher 1990
3. 1990's: "We can’t go on as we were in terms of Europe: we should be at the centre of Europe if we are going to properly protect our interests”. ~ John Major 1996
4. 2000's: "A clear course for Europe’ ~ Tony Blair 2002
5. "If we needed a referendum we would have one. But I think most people recognise that there is not a fundamental change taking place as a result of this amended treaty." ~ Gordon Brown, 2007
6. 2010's: "That's why I'm going to fight so hard in this renegotiation, so we can get a better deal and the best of both worlds." ~ David Cameron 2015
   

The above establishes a pattern:-

• Prime Ministers inability to resolve the problem or indeed clarify the arguments.
• Tension with the EU that remains insoluble.
• Only Margaret Thatcher's quote has any concrete definition and that led to her ousting by the "powers that be".
• Focus: David Cameron is now our present but he repeats John Major, his argument is stale and stagnant and this blog post presents the pattern to establish that as fact.

The Bruges Group provides a mountain of quotes supporting The Great Deception is genuinely another pattern:-

Patterns In The Dark

 And quoting The Great Deception p.569-570:-

There is no more glaring  instance of  the way the ‘myth’ has rewritten history than its reworking of how the project was first launched on the world in 1950. Again  and  again  this  is  presented as  having  been  essentially  the  vision  of Robert  Schuman,  coupled  with  what  a  long  procession  of  the  project’s sympathisers up  to Tony Blair have followed Acheson  in calling Britain’s ‘worst mistake of the post-war period’, by failing to join it at its inception.
As we have seen, the Schuman Declaration perfectly exemplified the ‘Monnet method’ at work. Using Schuman as little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy, he  seized  the  opportunity  of  a  ‘beneficial  crisis’  to  implement  his  long premeditated stratagem, drawn from the thinking of the 1920s, that the project should  initially  be presented  as  no  more  than aplan to  set  up  a supranational authority  to  control  the industries  crucial  to  waging  war. But  the whole point of this device, as he explained to Spaak in Washington in 1941 and Macmillan in  Algiers  in  1943,  was  that  it  could  then  be  used  as  the  foundation for eventual political union.

In the greater and wider context of history and time, the above quotes which themselves are a wider range of politicians than purely the personal example picked-up from our Prime Ministers. In a way a pattern to reflect this which Dr. RAE North has mentioned before EU politics: life on the outside :-

The pattern emerges: The Supranational EU of Concentric Circles

The drawback of all such ideas, however, is that they are based on a Europe of concentric circles. Brussels is at the centre and, as Prodi remarks today, other groupings are on the periphery, losing power as they get further from the centre. This necessarily means that those in the outer fringes assuming a subordinate or inferior status. By any measure, this is politically unacceptable to proud nations such as the UK.

What is less well known, however, is that this Europe of "concentric circles" cuts across a well-established global hierarchical structure which goes back to 1947, and argued in 1948 when Winston Churchill, with others, spoke for the United Nations to be the "paramount authority".

 It's been a long post, so to end in the customary way:-

Lost Leonardo: The Principle Reason For Our EU Membership
Mr. Brexit: David Cameron: A culture of bullshit and lies

Question: Can you join the dots?