Permissible Predictions: President Cameron Agrees To EUROZONE Treaty 2017

COMPRESSION TIME: Emotional hysteria will peak towards the EU Referendum vote then (AT)TENSION will return to the EUROZONE and the time pressure it is under.

There's some pure gold in the legacy-news media pulling out the "big-guns" in manipulating voters according to preferred criteria on how to vote Remain; in particular: Nobel prize-winning economists warn of long-term damage after Brexit and Reddit once again provides a convenient summary of tailored messages:-

 Compression exerted on voters not according to THEIR criteria but according to other criteria and indeed so many "buy it".

With regard to the economic uncetainty, there's inevitable flux as a mandate from people via democracy is a power signal with concentric waves of influence rippling out and affecting myriads of subjective realities (stock markets and currencies ( eg blog: Putting Theories To The Test: The EU As Symbol of "Good"?
confidence or uncertainty?) and the odd objective ones too. However all along the people are being deceived: To vote Remain is I predict to vote for Cameron as PM and President of the EU in 2017 where upon the UK will "Lead" the soft outer ring and pave the way for the EUROZONE Treaty post-2020 all according to schedule of the political classes, having managed the people out of the way and they will feel back in control once again. Massaging appearances back into their preferred form, again.

The Price Of "Pure Gold": FUD & Nobel Prize-Winning "Economic Uncertainty"

It will be interesting to see the results of the Referendum and the data on who voted. Then there will be calculations to infer WHY people voted the way they did. I infer however, that those who vote REMAIN will tend to be women and tend to be well-educated and tend towards following more obediently and understand things with respect to what sounds most sensible - namely the swing voters will I think still vote for REMAIN after all the ammunition that VOTE LEAVE have provided with David Cameron to then lean on the above economists and the like.

 Habit-Forming: Independent Thinking or Arranged Learning? What does teacher say?

In fact a vote to Leave won't change much apart from sending out those signals and hence flux and this is because:-

Safe harbour: why the Norway option could take the risk out of Brexit

Anthony Scolefield of Futurus makes one of the most sensible observations regarding the Leave Vote concerning how it will be an exercise in "Political Permissibility" as the UK is already a full EEA member, the perogative of removing that would fall on the EU's decision-making shoulders and that is something it cannot and won't do for practical reasons apart from political permissibility reasons also.

"Inside the corridors of pro-remain Whitehall, and among many of the most informed Brexit advocates, there is a belief that the UK could find a much safer way to pull out of the EU. Proponents of a so-called “Flexcit” suggest that the UK might use a safe harbour that already exists to remove much of the risk from an EU divorce.

Backing out of the EU after a vote to leave, and re-entering the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) group of countries could pave a way out while doing minimal damage."

 And getting to the heart of the matter concerning "Permissibility":-

"The larger risk to the Flexcit plan comes in the form of potential international opposition. Britain’s re-entry into EFTA would require the unanimous approval of its existing members. Having secured that blessing, the UK would then need all 27 of the EU’s remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA.
Smith concedes that France could put up a fight. “There are a number of people in the French political establishment, who would try to dig in and just not do anything,” he says, admitting that Paris could attempt to block a deal outright.
However, he believes that the pressure applied by other European countries, including fellow trading nations such as Germany, would be enough to get EEA entry on the table for the UK.
This may require a concession to France, “a pound of flesh”, Smith suggests, perhaps in the way of higher payments to the EU than other EFTA countries face."

Indeed this ties in with the thoughts of Anthony Scolefield of Futurus on "Permissibility":-

However underneath this particular and seemingly final Russian doll is in fact the final and last "one": The Voter, as Dr. RAE North explores and clarifies:-

"The purpose of Flexcit is to give reassurance to undecided voters, by showing that leaving the EU can be a safe, measured process. It need not have any economic fall-out.

As such, this exit plan does not seek to instruct government. It does not pretend to be actionable policy. It simply conveys a structured argument that says that, if it so desired, the Government can make leaving the EU relatively painless and ultimately very profitable. There is no "leap in the dark".


And indeed the real problem is communicating this to the voter so that their Selection Choice either for Remain or Leave feels both valid (Referendum) and viable (either choice depends on the voter's conception of the EU Membership vs a realistic alternative):-

"The point here, of course, is that Flexcit, very specifically, is NOT the Norway option. Phase One of our plan gives three choices, of which Norway is only one. There are two fallbacks, each devised to allow for the eventuality that Britain might fail to rejoin Efta – a prerequisite of the Norway option – or that it might be blocked from continued participation in the EEA.

With no reference to the fallbacks, the Telegraph mistakenly asserts that there is a "larger risk to the Flexcit plan", coming in the form of potential international opposition. Britain's re-entry into EFTA. This we are told "would require the unanimous approval of its existing members". And then, having secured that membership, the UK would "need all 27 of the EU's remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA".

Our concern here is that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid our plan being dismissed on these grounds. Failure to join either Efta or the EEA may be a risk to the Norway option, but it is not a problem for Flexcit. If the worst happens, we simply move on to one of the fallbacks – their availability being an absolutely integral part of the plan.

Dwelling on the issue of "entering the EEA", it should be said that the argument has progressed, and in leaps and bounds. Here, the specific point is that the UK is already in the EEA. Thus, it is not a question of "entering the EEA" but of whether we can continue as part of it, having transitioned from the EU to Efta. This issue is discussed at length in Flexcit."

Anthony Scolefield is one of the few to argue in a mature and responsible way about the Permissibility question gifted to UK Voters in this EU Referendum. If someone gives you two options but does not give you permission concerning one of them due to other 3rd parties who cannot be relied upon... you have to ask: What sort of choice is that, exactly? Secondly, if all that is holding up Europe is some words on a piece of paper and not the common goodwill of all the current members and future members, just what signal does that send out about how people are governed?

At the bottom of this even below the level of the voter, is the fear of those in charge who made illegitimate decisions in the past that are now leading them to attempt to control and manage the voters consequentially and avoid those voters deciding that the EU or the EUROZONE is really not what they ever wanted (see the objective results) because they fear the "chain reaction" that will trigger on a fragile and failing system of their own doing. And the reasoning:-

1. Real EU Reform Concessions were never ever on the cards: "I suspect that if Europe had been more willing to agree genuine reform when the Prime Minister went to Brussels for his renegotiation, the polls would be looking far better for Remain than they do today."
2. A Fair Referendum was never ever on the cards either: Managing to educate voters and lead to a Leave verdict is not how the politicians conduct their plans if they can help it!!
3. The EUROZONE has to be secured not just in practice but also in the event of uncertainty and fragility and the subjective reality that it is so prey to; before any real conviction will be seen towards Brexit and communicated as such.
4. With President Cameron leading the way of the narrowly voted Remain UK in 2017...
5. Indeed this whole Referendum as per the previous blog Referendum Result 2016: A Systemic Failure of Governance of People has been an enormous indictment against the governance of the UK by it's criminally deceptive and self-serving politicians.

So, we will have a serial liar in David Cameron in 2017 giving permission to the EUROZONE Treaty, I expect as a consequence of a Remain vote.

Whatever happened to people giving their politicians their permission? I think this Referendum will confirm this inversion.

The Lost 20 Years (Ushinawareta Nijūnen)

I remember seeing this book when it first came out and was very interested

The Lost Decade or the Lost 10 Years (失われた10年 Ushinawareta Jūnen) is the time after the Japanese asset price bubble's collapse within the Japanese economy. The term originally referred to the years from 1991 to 2000, but recently the decade from 2001 to 2010 is often included, so that the whole period is referred to as the Lost Two Decades or the Lost 20 Years (失われた20年, Ushinawareta Nijūnen). Over the period of 1995 to 2007, GDP fell from $5.33 to $4.36 trillion in nominal terms, real wages fell around 5%^, while the country experienced a stagnant price level. While there is some debate on the extent and measurement of Japan's setbacks, the economic effect of the Lost Decade is well established and Japanese policy makers continue to grapple with its consequences.

Once again Wikipedia is quite useful (donations welcome). I found Japan very fascinating growing up: It was a dynamic economy, a very distinct culture and it seemed to be a paragon of the spread of progress and prosperity around the world, with Japan leading the way. All very "80's" thinking back now! But it still is a fascinating culture and the one trip I managed to make so far there was to a very civilized and well-run nation, and stoic, given they were then suffering from the Tsunami that had only just hit them. An example of the difference of Japan:-

Guide on "how to read manga": Japanese books are read from Right-Left

There's a useful summary review of Brian Reading's book here by Kirkus. There's an interesting passage here:-

Applying cyclical theory to Japanese history, Reading reckons the country is approaching a period of convulsive change after nearly five decades of recovery/expansion.

Some years later, at school, I read from front to back "A History of Japan". It's a fascinating account and seemed parallel to the multiple invasions of the British Isles and then again the interesting factional warfares therein. What seemed to stand out with Japan were a couple of notable events:-

• Convention of Kanagawa: Signed under threat of force, it effectively meant the end of Japan’s 220-year-old policy of national seclusion (sakoku), by opening the ports of Shimoda and Hakodate to American vessels.
• 1923 Great Kantō earthquake: This earthquake devastated Tokyo, the port city of Yokohama, and the surrounding prefectures of Chiba, Kanagawa, and Shizuoka, and caused widespread damage throughout the Kantō region.
• Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in history.

 Broadly two different appreciations of time

And of course to add to the above, the "Lost Decade", now "Lost Two Decades". People are familiar with the cycles of "Boom and Bust" and within certain parts of the world there seems to be a cyclic force around various events. Spain has gone through fracturing and unifying phases, and Europe has too via various "Empires" or powers. Seeking Alpha looks at Japan, The U.S., And the Lost Decades:-

 Cyclical and Linear Time

After the meeting EU Referendum: Leave Alliance launch I managed to pick up a number of Pamphlets from FUTURUS and Anthony Scolefield. It was very interesting to look at decision-making through an historic frame of reference for the UK. This has been covered with respect to the EU in The Great Deception, but events even further back on how we have been governed, by whom and how they have made their decisions and how successful those decisions were in showing understanding and hence right course of action to take or otherwise, if as often as not, people were merely "caught up in the larger events of their time". I think the EUROZONE CRISIS is predicted to be a similar "Lost Decades" for various nations:-

I notice Pete North is of similar mood concerning the UK and reflecting on it's own time-line trajectory concerning Peter Hitchens own musings to add to the party(!): The buyers regret of Peter Hitchens. There's an interesting game of "Top Trumps" being played by Chris Bryant Labour MP, who appears to me to be teh equivalent of a "Chinese replica" of Tony Blair; sharing a similar gleaming smile and "rabid eyes" combination: 18 people Brexit campaigners think they're smarter than over the EU. What's interesting is the entirely self-referential bubble of Top Trumps being conducted in the mirror article. I'm impressed with the breadth of topics selected for such a source in the Legacy News-Media; but that's about all.

Top Trumps: Only Politicians allowed to play...

There's two considerations I thought of here:-

• Our decision-makers work within their own cycles of General Elections
• Their own bubble itself seems to put people off politics: EU Referendum: I don't give a damn

UK Unleashed has a very interesting blog on Polling Predictions, which is well worth a read: The Shy Goodbye. Whatever the case may be, I think there's a tendency for the Remain vote as per the telephone polls to be ahead: Reluctant Remainders: Submission to Power and also given the fact we have had a "Blitzkrieg" Referendum by David Cameron to win:

"blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for it to respond to the continuously changing front and defeating it in a decisive Vernichtungsschlacht ("battle of annihilation")"

The longer the time available, 2 things:-

• The more people's confidence in the question will grow to question it, to challenge it, to not be afraid of it.
• The more people will be exposed to higher quality arguments: The Market Solution: Bite-Sized Chunks in forms that are more accessible to them.

I've recently been contacting various family and friends and sharing this link with them:-

The Liberal Case for 'Leave' ~ Roland Smith

This article needs high circulation or "oxygen"

As UK Unleashed observes, it's tricky to answer the question in the right way "for leave". It requires a story, I think and the above I also think manages that via the framework of cycles in the history of the UK joining the EU, for example only yet another pattern to consider:-

 Remain = More EU Political Integration

I think the problem could be alikened to:-

Fuel = EU problems; Heat = Higher Quality Arguments; Oxygen = Starved!

A very good example of the Oxygen starvation is this argument here:-

This comes from a source that is fairly well written: Brexit campaign failing to address how EU relations will be recast ~ Denis Staunton.

1. First the Leave Campaigners are either Tory or UKIP Political self-referential blood-suckers as per Chris Bryant's pattern above in the mirror. Who are these people, do they represent all arguments and all Brexit supporters? No. So immediately there is conflation of mischaracterization according to Prestige.
2. In the second case, the conflation is between Single Market and EU Rules which we have already looked at concerning Norway's 1:5 Rules as a fair comparison between Single Market acquis and EU Political acquis.
3. Next concerning "Integrated" it's not clear that Norway is a member of the EEA Single Market but not the Political Union.
4. We know this is incorrect that Norway does not pay directly into the EU Budget.
5. Next we see that Norway adopts Single Market rules which have 90% of their source in Global Bodies.
6. We also know that Norway can influence those rules both upstream of the EU and via various 
7. Finally Freedom of Movement is acceptable part of EEA transitional arrangement.
8. Discussion on Switzerland's Bi-Lateral Agreements and Canada's FTA are excessive distractions as per Article 50.

Looking at Roland Smith's article:-

"The crux of the matter is that we in Britain want trade and cooperation; our EU partners want merger and a leashed hinterland. Are we prepared to spend another generation or more dancing around this basic fact while the rest of the world moves on?

No, it is time to leave and embrace the world."

You can see, that the arguments have been suffocated oxygen and public exposure to light a political campaign that "take alight" in the imagination of the British people by our own politicians: These people who are responsible in the EU and Europe for a lost couple of decades and generation of young people and for the UK/British, a lost couple of decades concerning our EU Membership since Maastricht Treaty (Single European Currency Treaty).

Roland Smith's advice to voters: Vote Leave now and save ourselves the next 10 years / decade, with the same starvation of oxygen to arguments via our politicians and their mistakes replicated and multiplied in the Legacy News-Media, until we are back here again in the next Referendum on Remain or Leave of whatever the EU becomes by then post-2020 pre-2025!

 Norway also has a cyclic argument... concerning the "Pro-EU Deception"

"In the debate about alternatives to the EEA Agreement, claims are being put forward that Norway needs the agreement in order to sell its products to the EU. These claims are suspiciously similar to the warnings issued by the pro-EU side before the referendums on EU membership in 1972 and 1994. This scaremongering was proven wrong on both occasions.

Leading business figures, pro-EU politicians and the media, all with ready access to public platforms, continue to hammer away at the same message as in 1992: we must keep the EEA Agreement in order to have access to the EU market. The arguments put forward by the pro-EU side proved to be totally misleading in 1992 – and they are just as misleading today."

An intelligence-driven choice that learns from history and utilizes the high quality information that is available in this "internet age"; is I believe the solution at everybody's fingertips, to breaking these cyclical disasters driven predominantly by people in power making poor decision-making affecting generations henceforth.

Building Arguments: From Hot Cross Buns to Bolero

Hot Cross Buns! Hot Cross Buns!

Previously I blogged about the stages in attempting to learn a lot of information in a given subject  The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge; in this case on the EU, Brexit and hence Referendum. Part of the problem is a systemic defect in our National Lack of Conversation Competencies (or "Scaled Communication Dehabilitation" to be correct or give it a name) or what substitutes for it: Dêmos + Kratos = A Community That Communicates Productively. The stages if I remember correctly, and this seems to apply to learning a lot of different subjects, are:-

1. Logistical (input)
2. Semantic (processing)
3. Ordering (output)
4. Memory (information)
5. Application (knowledge)

Ravel's Bolero

Above, I've included one of my favourite classical music pieces, Ravel's Bolero. It helps remind me of those above 1-5 stages when I become bogged down in any of 1-4 and feel lost! I don't know enough about music to comment technically but I do know that from the smallest units put together according to an intended design and applied you create this growing pattern of music that is enjoyable to listen to: A growing pattern in the Bolero above which reinforces the idea for me. The same can be said in comparison with other areas, possibly?:-

• Music: Notes are the units
• Writing: Words are the units
• Programming: Code are the units
• Film-making: Frames are the units 
• Art: Colours are the units??

Hot-Cross Buns: "2 a penny, 3 a penny... hot - cross - buns!"

If you look at the above, it has to have the right notes to go with the words to make the right sound or music. It feels right when we get it right. Likewise, when we perhaps don't then it feels harsh or dischordant. I think this a bit like when we hear or know a lie has been spoken according to our own pattern of meaning that we are sure is true?

EU Referendum: them laws 

 Oh JHC: Not ANOTHER angels dancing on pins law percentages to the nearest decimal place debacle? FFS - !!! Pills, gun, rope - check, check, CHECK!

Surely the laws might be the fundamental "units" that describe our political Sovereignty? So these arcane discussions are actually very applicable?

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 3.2 Public Information, p.36

"The reality, of course, is that regulation is a mechanism by which integration is achieved, employing what is known as the Monnet method. This, Jean  Monnet  devised  after  the  near  failure  of  the  project on  30  August  1954, when the French Parliament rejected the European Political Community and the first European Constitution.

It  was  then that  Monnet  realised  that  his  United  States  of  Europe could  not  be created   openly,   whence   he   came   up   with   the   idea   of   using   progressive economic integration as a Trojan horse. The resultant drip-drip process became known as engrenage – loosely translated as "salami slicing", using harmonising regulations  to  bring   the  economic  activities  of  the  member  states  closer together." 

This was covered in Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? and even visualized in comparison to Antikythera Mechanism. We don't need to get bogged down in competing camps out-bidding each other in their attempts to tell the biggest lies: Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money.

Nick Clegg the five big fat lies being perpetuated by brexit's Project Fib

 "The Pied Politiciars": Liars lied lies, lying about liars, calling liars liars.

I've been wondering about the current campaign. There's too much senseless data. Not only that but the input of the data becomes the argument: It becomes questionable and questioned endlessly: Because often it's Bullshit behaviour by the people pushing it. To me this seems a bit like people talking about the musical note somewhere in Ravel's Bolero and saying how there's more notes in some other music, "Gungs And Roses" (?) and not the total experience they derive from listening to it's repeating pattern actually played and hence referred to as a complete and full work. What is the point of holding an exam if the students are allowed to cheat while taking it? What is the point of allowing people to sit on TV or write their newspaper pieces or go on the radio or internet and communicate garbage data and become embroiled in it? What use is that to people listening and watching?

My opinion is this:-

"There's enormous complexity in creating something like the Bolero. But to enjoy and listen to it is a very very simple thing."

I tend to think this whole subject is a bit like this. People will vote according to "gut-feeling" despite the "Babel-17" that's emitted endlessly and so stupidly in such prodigious volume. If you compare Bolero to "Babel-17" as I am nicknaming it from the sci-fi book, the former allows an ordering of thoughts, the latter an unravelling (no pun intended!) of thoughts.

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

 Most of what is said, is "bits of data" that may often be erroneous too. In this communication system: The "bigger" the bit of data the "bigger the argument" supposedly = Genesis of Große Lüge which in turn leads to a new language: "Babel-17" spoken by politicians and journalists

This idea of taking this data, and processing it into structured information to then apply to different knowledge sets to complete knowledge domains (legislation in this blog's own subject today) with which to THEN argue productively for people to listen to the patterns thus ordered and made:-

Building Arguments: Arranging according to higher patterns of Knowledge:-

 Too much unproductive attention at the faulty "data" production stage leads to lying politicians. "Information #1" is an illustration of information becoming useful when contextualized correctly. Then itself merely being "x1 byte" of information in our full higher arguments which are accessible to people to follow the sense and meaning of = Real Democracy In Action.

Fortunately there are people who are dependable when it comes down to the Data component. Lawyers tend to look for interpretation in the "units" or legal jargon and tend to therefore get bogged down in the information stage and hence are rarely it seems from my own experience at all helpful! Thanks lawyers but then they would not be lawyers would they?!

So the method of processing is a separate discussion, critical but we can depend I think on Dr. RAE North's method of processing

"As far as I can ascertain, this law is all currently in force (even if some of it no longer applies, which is a different thing). So, with all the usual caveats, it can be set against EU law currently in force. This (as of yesterday) stands at 19,389 entries. That puts EU law as a proportion of UK law at almost exactly 19 percent.

This is very much a "quick and dirty" figure, as it includes EU regulations and decisions which have direct effect, as well as instruments which have been transposed into UK law. The big problem, as we pointed out and which was raised by Booker, is that so much EU law no longer originates in Brussels. Increasingly the law comes from global and regional bodies.

On that basis, the figure (any figure) is of very little importance – even without dealing with the many other variables. But it does put Mr Johnson and the other pundits back in the box. If you want to quote a figure, round it up to "about 20 percent". It don't mean nuffink, but at least it has something of a plausible base."

to provide purely descriptive statistics that we can then fit into the above Legislation Sets per category of the Legislation Domain as it applies to our Referendum Question:-

Summarizing the information allows the context and sense-making to create a meaningful dicussion which voters can follow and appreciate. Linear strings of words in binary biff-bam contexts helps no one besides the shitty over-paid politicians

I started with Dr. RAE North's EU Referendum: them laws and EU law: definitive stupidity most recent (and is it ironic?) figures of information as a very basic baseline: All this information tells us is that we get a good deal of legislation from the EU. It's useful to state that simply.

However, what I've done is contextualize legislation via categories, repeating one "byte" of information in 2 categories for example where it applies to both. Where further context is needed I've used magenta to suggest these "bytes" of information are not equal in weight but highly significant to emphasis. Where the "bytes" are in blue, they're individually not particularly significant, but collectively they all add up to produce significant weight, they all support each other for a Like-Vs-Like comparision between EU/EEA vs EFTA/EEA Legislation Comparison. This is a building block to the bigger arguments of globalization of legislation especially in the UK's areas of interest: The Single Market. Now looking at the area that bothers the UK: The Political Ever Closer Union, this is for me the most signficant result:-

It's the source of breakdown of communication and national-decision making competence. Fundamentally it does not matter where or how the legislation is made if whatever the technical matrix of legislation may or may not be it's effect on our own people who are responsible for the rules is to lead them to wilfully deceptive politics: It is a cancer on our decision-making and knowledge development capabilities as a functional and thriving nation.

This final assertion, I would posit as above "knowledge" and as we explored previously determine it to be "wisdom" (the technical derivation of the word, not the mystical), as per Cicero above. And it's a really simply point to understand: Just as with Ravel's Bolero, I can't read music nor can I play music, but I can listen to Ravel's Bolero and understand it's pattern.

I look at the EU's "pattern" and I don't like it; I don't like the other twin fact to this that is to ostracize and reject counter-arguments of high quality, such as, when I look at the alternative, FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and it is like Ravel's Bolero, intellectually - it's quite addictive if deeply complicated!

Now when we get politicians and journalists on TV, you're not helping people understand this subject blathering about details of bits of data! If you start unpicking that stuff when you're supposed to get it right then argue the informative arguments towards knowledge systems for people to use, you'll never reach that productive elevation; trapped in arcane bs. Yes they need to be done be experts under a sense-making methodology - so - make use of such experts - not charlatans. The rest is comparatively simple if a mug like me can do...

As above, all those "bytes" of information can be used to form arguments. The arguments from my viewing purely of the legislation tell me that the UK is interested in the Single Market to connect to Globalization (see Appendix of FLEXCIT for the dozens and dozens of Global Bodies) and to remove the Political Union. It does not tell me "HOW" alone, but we already know this from FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

BRITAIN AND EUROPE 1914 and 2014 - A FUTURUS Special by Anthony Scholefield ~ Director, FUTURUS

Futurus: Adding Context, Adding Perspective, Adding Depth of Understanding

CONCLUSIONS:-

 1) Operational Fixes to EU Membership are Deceptive

The key point is the arguments are put to useful service: We do have a problem operationally which The Serial Liar David Cameron  and the whole nations knows but they do not use information beyond superficial and deceptive pretence as resolving such problems.

•  Sod Off Boris
• Boris the Bumbler – a man without a plan
• What Does In Look Like?
• Self-Loathing Politicians
• Give the Brexit bullshit a rest!

 2) Brexit is a Tactical Solution to Change Direction (temporily)

We may need a tactical solution to reorientate.

 3) Our Positive Future Vision is a Strategic Knowledge-driven decision-making

WHY LEAVING THE EU IS NECESSARY AND, IN THE LONG-TERM, INEVITABLE

What then is the outcome of that solution strategically, the destination set? This is where a Referendum is possibly a much more positive and productive process than the flailing politicians stuck at their lower level of priorities and hence continuance of short-termism and hence future failure: Futurus is very helpful here; it helps create a complete pattern from history.

Expectation Setting: The Key To Winning The Referendum

What is the key to opening that D.O.R (Debunk, Offer, Reassure)?

The winning condition for the referendum is a >51% of the vote verdict for either Remain or Leave.

 The most visible argument against firstly holding a referendum as well as against the Leave choice has been determined as "Uncertainty". When this term is employed we should appreciate it's meaning more specifically:-

High Uncertainty = High number of uncontrolled outcomes leads to a decision to avoid increased risks occurring

• Probably = A High Chance of an event happening.
• Improbable = A Low Chance of an event happening.
• Increasing the number of possible outcomes = Increase Uncertainty concerning the specific or intended or desired event
• Decreasing the number of possible outcomes = Decreasing Uncertainty concerning the specific or intended or desired event.

Uncertainty has a lot of derivatives:-

• X "Could" Happen where X is usually considered unplanned and/or unwanted.
• "A Leap Into The Dark"
• The EU has problems but it's not worth the risk.
• No one knows what Brexit/Leave would look like.
• Econometric/economic modelling outputs "Bad for the economy" results
• Lack of focus on the rules of withdrawal (Article 50) lead to multiples of "order of intentionality" involving retribution or moral blackmail

And the list goes on and on.

If we use this simple principle of reducing and minimizing uncertainty and removing economic issues from political issues then any Brexit plan which does not meet this condition is a non-starter from two perspectives:-

1. Ad Hoc: Perception of High Uncertainty = Very low probability = Bad Decision
2. Post Hoc: Practical Proof that such a decision would be highly risky and highly damaging to the economy is a risk not worth taking
3. Together the decision is very clear: Hence all of WTO, FTA, Customs Deal, Bi-Laterals as Brexit categories are unworkable on EU Withdrawal.

Whereas minimizing the number of outcomes towards:-

BREXIT (British Exit) = "Withdrawal from EU Treaties (via Article 50) - only."

Here the definition of LEAVE is a political status transition only which minimizes outcomes from the day before to the day after the Referendum. This is the genesis for the iterative method of withdrawal that The Market Solution adopts:-

The Market Solution is making the actual alternative much clearer. Aligned with reducing uncertainty through the increase in probability of possible implementation by reducing the number of outcomes from withdrawing from EU Treaties in the short-term.

Here with high certainty interesting repercussions on perception occur:-

• Ad Hoc: People are more confident of what Leave looks like and it tackles the question and problem of Political Union directly focused; reassuring many variable voices of specific interest over their own particular area of outcome interest.
• Post Hoc: It is bona fide do-able because Norway and other EFTA/EEA nations already do it including Lichtenstein and Iceland. There is no argument that it is not possible: It is Possible and Probable.

At EU Referendum: Leave Alliance launch, one of the speakers, the director of the Futurus think tank Anthony Scolefield made a very interesting comment; and background to the subject of this blog at Will It Be A Fudged Referendum? :-

"I have pointed out repeatedly reference the Scottish referendum that even if that referendum had won a majority ,that would not mean that Scotland would become independent and certainly not on the Nationalist prospectus."
 
"We also; Blair nearly had a referendum on the EURO where Robert Worcester of MORI and Ken Clarke advised Blair to go for an enabling referendum as a detailed referendum question would be hard to win."
 
Now Michael Portillo said last week that:-

''by the way a majority for Leave (which is what he expects) does not mean the UK leaves'.

He expects Johnson to come in and say he is 'the most brilliant negotiator and try to renegotiate things.'

In the above link we see that when Switzerland held it's own Referendum on whether or not to join the EEA, the government was very responsible to its people and provided a lot of facts and set out the categorical problems comprehensively allowing the people a free hand in how they chose to vote; which contrasts with the above so demonstrably in quality or lack of it from our own UK Government for decades.

What we can compare between the two is:-

EXPECTATION SETTING:-

If we have a very very clear Brexit plan chosen by the Leave side, effectively The Market Solution, we have a very clear basis for expectation setting for our own government's actions should the result in a fair and informative Referendum declare a Leave result >51% of the vote. It would be clear that with such a well-thought out plan that reduces number of outcomes from a singular Referendum decision as much as possible and focuses on a Political transition of status from:-

• EU/EEA or EZ/EEA = Remain.
• EFTA/EEA = Leave.

Where the EU has been by it's won rules, set our membership expectations of "Ever Closer Union" from the EU to the EZ (see above) compared to our expectations not to follow this route but to build a genuine single market via EFTA, then we give our clear expectation of what we want our government to achieve for us: The People manage their own government instead of the reverse which has become the norm:-

"Managing your manager": The Key To Setting S.M.A.R.T.E.R. Expectations!

The argument to put to the Leave supporters is simple: You support the Brexit plan that sets the most confident Expectation Setting which is The Market Solution (see probability scale diagram above).

The alternatives are also quite simple to define, effectively. For Leave Voters who want to "Control Our Borders" above all else:-

GO/UKIP/Leave.EU: Delayed Gratification: You have one marshmallow now or two if you can wait a few minutes.

Except in this Referendum, The Market Solution: Stage Two - Free movement, immigration and asylum, you won't even get "1" marshmallow if you cannot "delay gratification". I sympathise, but above all I believe that Migration Policy should have a very strong democratic input into it to arbitrate management of this policy closer to the people's choices. It's about democracy for me and that means withdrawing from EU Treaties first! Then implementing the effects of that decision over time.

As for the "EU Reform" position of Vote Leave: We've already seen that unless we set clear expectations, The Market Solution: Stage 1 - Leaving the EU for how we demand our government acts and does not break it's "oaths of office" then we leave room for them to deceive us for them to make election pledges that they never had any intention of keeping, as per:-

 Vote Leave: Same old politicians, same old con-artists

The Key is intellligent and honest EXPECTATION SETTING if we are to demand more democracy and open that DOR (more choice) we must ensure it is SMARTER and then it become a simple choice of trusting the people over the politicians in how we self-govern the UK towards stronger decision-making and indeed such political foundations reduce/remove "uncertainty" most effectively:-