Referendum Result 2016: A Systemic Failure of Governance of People

A Failure of Governance: Power flows down and dilutes knowledge of political decision-making at each "tier". Knowledge must flow upwards and control decision-making at the highest executive level of concentrated political power eg Wargames, Referendum Campaigns, Spending and Taxation of Peoples' Money etc...

Huge attention is reserved for the top tiers of our governance and this is primarily due to the inward and self-regarding effect of these "decision-workers" who must reserve "the wind-borne apples and milk" for themselves:-

Newsnight has already done it's "self-regarding self-importance" show a few days ago on the death of one of its MPs. But this tragic event if abstracted only confirms the prevalence of which way the cameras are eternally pointing in this Top-Down driven government.

The results are already in for this Referendum, the real results not the "stoicastic" elements and that is confusion and people talking in confabulation loops over and over with each other, a useful illustration of this is Reddit once again due to the high visibility of the commentating structure:-

Illustrative of all the newspapers, think tanks, "experts" and tiers of governance and otherwise that contribute to this "universal" Babel-17 confabulation or "nonsense" or indeed as George Orwell called it: "Duckspeak".

Pete North has somewhat heroically blogged on the current "Media-o-drama" concerning the tragic and senseless killing of a human being (Female, Mother, Daughter, Sister, Charity & Community Worker etc ie diverse and positive identities irrespective of her views on politics Labour Pro-EU Minister of Parliament). I'm not sure even so how effective his articulated views can possibly be in the face of the media storm of emotional self-importance and egotism with all the powers of state and media behind such self-involved displays:-

"An abject, self-imposed humiliation awaits if this proud, important country walks away" ~ David Cameron

The expectation that I hold from these displays of hyper-emotional peer pressure and conformity shaming?

More reactionary "stunts" by people who pick up this "energy" and believe it's the way to act whichever side of the good people vs the bad people you are on:-

"Brussels isn’t the bad guy. Tory cuts cause Britain’s troubles" ~ Phillip Inman

See Pete North's blog for more of this: An Atmosphere of Contempt. It's interesting that terrorist attacks from Jihadist Adherents have occurred against UK citizens whereas a terrorist attack from citizens has occurred against the Establishment identity and it was primarily the Establishment that triggered the Middle Eastern wars... as well as the EU Membership without the Mandate of the UK Citizens (people) on both subjects:-

The 1975 Referendum ~ Butler & Kitzinger p.10

There will be no self-criticism of the UK Establishment and Legacy News-Media over this issue: What will happen is that they will revert to type as they always do:-

• Dominance: The Westminster Politicians will exert their dominance in displays of Social "Solidarity" dictated by themselves when "one of them" is struck down senselessly.
• Hyper-Emotionality: The Legacy News-Media will whip up a frenzy of outpouring of sentiment and assume a sensible veneer but the cameras will be focusing inwards self-regardingly.

I don't mean to come across in lacking in pity or heartless. This is another news-story in which someone or some people lost their lives. In fact so many news stories are of this sort, I avoid watching the news given it's not productive or positive to do so: Every day in every life there are the small and personal trials and tribulations we all have to contend with personally, that is more than enough in my opinion to shoulder. But I dilike immensely the modern societal condoning of this collective displays with 1 minute silencing popping up everywhere as "a mark of respect".

The problem with this I find is that it sanctifies a very narrow picture of what to respect:- [Source: http://bigemf5.deviantart.com/art/Burning-the-Midnight-Oil-25847669]

 Carrying on carrying on... there is real work being done for people, by people but not for intention to be recognized and lauded by other people that seems to be the primary perogative of those people and politicians who cleave to centralized power above everyone else.

Vote Leave Give Control

All the visible notions of the above campaign group it seems to me are intended towards, a continuation of the main political narrative of the UK Government and Establishment battling 'the big EU' over "the way the British do things with plucky spirit and much vim," in Britain but reluctantly accepting 'the coolly, rational case' for conceding some powers to a Supranational EU.

This has been a constant of the British Government since the early 1960's and Vote Leave it seems to me continue this two-faced role of the UK Government looking both to Brussels at the same time as talking a "different game" to the UK Electorate: Controlling THEM.

Brexit The Movie: More "plucky crap."

Some brief examples:-

• Fake figures around the NHS
• Johnson's appeal to Nazis/Hitler
• Bonfire of Regulations
• Sheer Confidence alone will conquer negotiations 
• Waving the Immigration Stick for agitation effect

All the work of Vote Leave and also the perfect demonstration of "inferiors" in both:-

• Authority
• Competence
• Comparison of sources of prestige 

And of course if you do agree with this minor jottings of the descriptions of Vote Leave and the effects they naturally lead to, just consider how much this is multiplied in error by both Remain (with puffed out chests) and by Leave (with little actual intelligence but tribal mores as bad as they claim Remain to suffer from).

Likewise on the Remain side we've had an endless parade of prestige:-

• Barack Obama (President of the USA)
• Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader)
• Mark Carney (Bank of England Governor)
•  Christine Lagarde (Managing Director of the IMF)
• David Cameron, Gordon Brown, John Major (past and present PMs)

I think taken TOGETHER, we see that Vote Leave is PLAYING TO THE PRESTIGE of the above perfectly, showing inferior behaviour in indirect methods. Whether or not it's intentional or not it is irrelevant, it's systemic both ways.

What I find remarkable is that for many people who don't feel confident about voting due to their information and knowledge levels, then they will tend towards resisting notions of:-

• Take Then Give in preference to Give Then Take ("Give & Take") 

My suggestion is this, Vote Leave is systemically designed to fail the Leave case for voting to leave the EU Referendum. They focus on taking not on leaving and in this taking world, firstly (1) they invite fantasy then (2) they ensure people feel as if "taking" (without feeling comfortable on the balance of the relationship) is perhaps a "rash" decision of violation against neighbours that may lead to wrongs and hence it feels safer to "keep the peace"...

What's been neglected is the case to build up that the EU is doing the TAKING:-

Boris Johnson generates more bubble politics/Babel-17 from citing Hitler instead of holding up this paper concerning the EU's future plans or indeed it's key proponents preferences for it's members.

From such a position, we should see that the UK has been a generous and benefactor nation to the EU since we joined in the early 1970's and has GIVEN a lot to the EU. But it's time for the UK to take a commanding role on the Single Market outside the Political Union and thereby give the world a boost to trade and positive global influence. Given the EU has chosen to take more powers, it's time for it to GIVE goodwill back to the UK if the UK chooses democratically to leave: Quoting Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com:-

EU Referendum: challenging the collective delusion 

"The oddest thing of all is that, in devising our original scenario, we adopted the line taken by the British negotiating team in its successful attempt to enter the European Community in 1972.

In his report on the negotiations, Con O'Neill wrote a very telling piece on how he came to define his strategy. "First", he said:

…almost every conceivable Community policy or rule or enactment is the resultant of a conflict of interests between the members, and has embedded in it features representing a compromise between these interests. Open it up at any point, and the whole laborious compromise will fall apart …

Second, as in all negotiations, exceptions are dangerous, for they create precedents. Admit a change in this or that case, just because British arguments are strong and you will find it hard to resist changes in other cases where the matter is vital. So the two facets of the Community's principle became embodied in one precept: "Swallow the lot, and swallow it now".

On this basis, the character of the negotiations became one of leaving "relatively minor" matters to be settled after the UK had joined the Community while, in order to expedite the negotiations, the governing precept became, "Swallow the lot …".

Given the two-year time limit and "sudden death" character of the Article 50 negotiations, which would determine the exit settlement for the UK, it seemed to me that the precept which had facilitated our entry could do equal services in assisting us to leave the EU.

My reasoning in this respect was entirely straightforward. It would be far better to gain an exit settlement which was less than optimal than to end up with the catastrophic outcome of leaving without an agreement.

Furthermore, and crucially, I took that view that, unless we were able to show that compromise was possible, we would never secure the confidence of the electorate, and their support in the referendum. In effect, we either convinced the electorate that we were prepared to compromise on our exit expectations, or we would lose the referendum.

Such insight, of course, stems to a very great part from the intensive labour, with Christopher Booker, in researching and writing The Great Deception. And you might have thought that this might afford us some authority when it came to defining the referendum strategy."

I think Dr. North's logic is sound. But as important I'd extend, the attitude is cooperative and the communication is simplified and hence: The problem of LEAVING the EU is above all else:

IDENTIFIED:-

FLEXCIT: The Movie

The Heavens Opened: A Thunderous Voice Spoke!

David Miliband descends from the heavens in the wake of fire and wind and all the people cow and huddle down in terror and awe!

The above picture could have been Lord Mandelson, David Cameron, Boris Johnson or Nigel Lawson or any other of dozens of such individuals.

What they have to say may be low quality, it may be proven to be inferior arguments, it may further be shown to be exposed as numerous fallacious argument techniques and finally just like Tony Blair, and now today David Cameron, it might be shown to be a Big Lie.

But repeatedly these individuals invade the political life of millions of people and hold disproportionate influence built through the media news with their privileged positions and access to these channels. This is based on their positions of prestige and not on the merit or quality of the arguments they are promoting.

"Leaving the EU would be an act of political arson that risks the destruction of international order, the former foreign secretary David Miliband has said.

In one of the starkest warnings of the referendum debate so far, Miliband argued that the impact of Brexit could extend far beyond the UK and that it could have a disastrous effect on the rest of the world.
Writing for the Guardian before delivering a key speech in Westminster on Tuesday, he said it would amount to “giving up on our alliances” with the rest of the world.
“It means forsaking our position at the negotiating table and abandoning our international responsibilities – unilateral political disarmament. No nation in human peacetime history has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June.”

Remember this is off the back of Nigel Lawson's own grand speech:-

The Brexit Door: Why Lord Lawson is wrong

Here Lawson has trashed the work done on building up arguments concerning the Irish Border and The Single Market. He's reported as the head of the Vote Leave group of Tory Politicians and thus symbolically the source and quality of their arguments or it's figurehead. He's only the latest in that rotation from Boris Johnson and David Cameron and Peter Mandelson:-

As The Brexit Door point out again Cameron’s “Bazaar” deal:-

"The most striking piece of the interview is when he is asked whether if the European Union was to change the deal, whether Britain should interpret that as a failure to honour what was promised.

"Who counts as the “the European Union” here? Member state leaders have met within the framework of the European Council, but their agreement is in no way a document of the European Union, but a text of hybrid character, which is unspecified and not legally binding.

At the moment, the whole thing is nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar. The European Union, however, is a community of law, in which there are regulated responsibilities. If the British are going to put all their eggs in one basket, in a promise made like this, which has not yet complied with our clean process of law, then, for me, this process of law is more important and preferable."

This finally puts to bed any doubt that the deal struck by David Cameron is not binding. Here the Vice President of the EU Parliament spells it out in totally transparent language – the EU hasn’t agreed to anything, it cannot be held to a promise it never made.

I'm sure David Milliband has learnt from the likes of Peter Mandelson, the ideology of these people that they rightfully are in power and must dictate how people behave, as if they are gods amongst mere mortals:-

Their important weapons:-

• Fear
• Prestige
• Idolatry of the People themselves
• Control over The Speaker's Position (They speak, people listen obediently and silently)

FLEXCIT: Talking The Talk 2

FLEXCIT: 2.2 The Europhile counter-attack , p.26

"With the possibility of a referendum very much on the political agenda, supporters of continued membership of the European Union have been quick to present their arguments. Basically, these have fallen into two broad categories."

"Firstly, there are those, such as Open Europe, who argue that reform is a better proposition than withdrawal. Secondly, they and others have sought to demonstrate that the consequences of withdrawal would be seriously damaging to the UK."

• Fallacy of the Middle Way argument has significant advantages for political manipulations: It is a common thought process in the West that not too extreme on the one hand leaving but on the other hand the current state is "not good enough". Secondly it potentially gains borderline adherents from either side. Next it sounds plausible which is a part of sense-making where plausible > accuracy applies in the news media due to imperfect information and media manipulation in a multi-polar viewpoint society.

"Primarily, the counter-attack highlighting the adverse consequences of withdrawal has been based on economic arguments, but with a strong reliance on fear, uncertainty and doubt (known as FUD)."

• FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is the magician's trick of attempting to deflect attention onto Economic grounds for not leaving which are in essence uncertain which fuels myriad forms of doubt and can then be exaggerated as those doubts all manifest as acceptable fear-mongering.

"This FUD has been a characteristic of pro-EU campaigns for some decades. The fear exploits the status quo effect which is a significant phenomenon in all referendums, where the innate conservatism of the electorate can weigh heavily against change, allowing the pro-EU side to enjoy as much as an inbuilt 20-point advantage. Focusing on the economy sidesteps the sovereignty and independence arguments, and exploits the practical concerns about withdrawal."

• Status Quo Effect is leveraged by FUD as well as ensuring attention is drawn away from Sovereignty to Economic questions - this ensures insufficient interest can grow on the core questions of Sovereignty to which the evidence is very unequivocal and hence ensures delay of decision-making in people concerning their independence. The more FUD is fuelled the more effective is the lack of decision-making that the status quo effect manifests from.

"Thus in his 2012 New Year's address, we saw John Cridland, the CBI Director-General, declaring: "The debate about our future in Europe … must be based on an informed, hard-headed analysis of where our long-term economic and financial interests lie and business will need to make its voice heard"

• Controlling The Agenda All it takes is for the bigwigs in the CBI to pronounce their "profits of doom" economic sermons to summon FUD and ensure attention is diverted onto Economic matters and a lack of interest in Sovereignty information dominates the debate on Brexit. The full arsenal of economic weapons are deployed: Cars, Finance, Tariffs, FDI would all suffer catastrophically. The fact the CBI endorsed the EURO and predicted doom for not joining it is always swept under the carpet or the fact they are always wheeled out as Pro-EU economic weapon.

"The Economist asserted that, while a complete exit from "Europe" was certainly possible, few British Eurosceptics wanted it. They preferred "halfway options": a Norwegian one and a Swiss one. If Britain were to join the Norwegian club, though, "it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future".

• Prestige Owns All Arguments Establishment Set:{The Economist, The Financial Times, Open Europe, CER, CBI, Whitehall, Westminster} They are all part of the same set and hence argue both for and against the EU arguments even if politically they are all in the same Pro-EU camp. Without an independent Out Camp that assumes authority for the Anti-EU Camp all attention will be held by Prestige of the Establishment Set. They can even produce their own flawed Brexit options and set them up for failure as the Economist provides an example of above.

"The Economist asserted that, while a complete exit from "Europe" was certainly possible, few British Eurosceptics wanted it. They preferred "halfway options": a Norwegian one and a Swiss one. If Britain were to join the Norwegian club, though, "it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future".

• Social Ostracizing Meme aka "Seat at The Top Table" Meme or "Big-Player" on "The World Stage" in the "Influential Member's Club" are all marketing ploys to produce the idea that the EU provides "influence" which would somehow hurt the UK or leave it isolated and hence the people wanting that are "Little Englanders" or "Dwelling in the past" who want to "Pull-Up The Draw-Bridge" and are "Isolationist" and can't "The UK can'tSurvive alone in a Globalized World" and anyone who thinks so is "Dreaming of the Empire". NOTE: The same tactics were used in Norway in 1994 for reference.

"For domestic reasons, the magazine thus asserted, the Norwegian option could well fail. As soon as British MPs learned that Norway "has to swallow almost every regulation that comes out of Brussels, despite having virtually no power to shape them", they would waver. When they also learned that Norway had to pay for the privilege, "they may reject it outright".

• Poor-Man's EU is how Norway is branded by the Pro-EU and is dimissed as swiftly as possible as "telling the Anti-EU'ers" "It's not what they want anyway" or it is "Democracy By Fax" ie all the disadvantages and now none the advantages.

"In the view of the Economist, even the country's closest friends, who would rather keep Britain in to bolster liberal voices inside the EU, would be unlikely to be generous to a country that had chosen to leave. The most likely outcome, it suggested, would be that Britain would find itself as a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends. And, it declared, there would be one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again."

• Swiss Anomoly The Swiss option is always painted as exactly what the UK would want except for the tiny detail that it was a one-off and the EU would likely wish to punish the rash, short-sighted greed of the UK for attempting to Brexit and break the Clubs' rules. No "Privileged Partnership" or "Pic-n-Mix" or "Rugby in the Football Club" etc.

"On the other hand, we assume that the "out" campaign will have succeededbecause it will have offered a positive vision of a post-EU nation, emphasising high ideals such as self-determination and the restoration of democracy. But we also assume that success would have been unlikely without neutralising the torrent of FUD, of which examples we have seen here. To do so, assurances on continued membership of the Single Market will have been needed. Irrespective of the actual merits of membership, we do not see that a campaign could have succeeded without unbreakable assurances of this nature, to "kill stone dead" the business and foreign investment case against withdrawal."

"Such assurances as would have been given would have to be honoured, thus shaping the exit negotiations. They add further, insurmountable obstacles to the adoption of any tailor-made bilateral option (and, for that matter, the WTO option, discussed in Chapter 3). If those options were not already untenable, the need to keep the Single Market intact would make them so."

• Totemic Status of access to The Single Market and FDI for the UK and The City and sustaining Trade and neutralizing Economic perturbation have to factor into a successful Referendum and hence Brexit Plan to vote for during:-

1. The Referendum Political Event.
2. The Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty Formal Secession (2-years)
3. The Full Brexit Operational Process spanning days, years, decades.

FLEXCIT: 2.3 Timing complications , p.33

"Following the "in-out" referendum, however, we also believe there will be a strong demand for the earliest possible exit from the EU. We thus anticipate that the two years initially set by the Treaty for Article 50 negotiations will be treated as a maximum. Although the period can be extended by unanimous agreement, there will be little tolerance for prolonged talks and certainly not for a process that drags on for many years."

"Expectations will undoubtedly create a political momentum that will be difficult to ignore, especially if a general election intervenes. Dominating the talks, therefore, will be an over-riding need to bring them to a speedy conclusion. Furthermore, speed is no bad thing. To avoid unnecessary market uncertainty and political instability, leaving the EU is best done quickly – advice which was tendered to nations proposing to leave the euro. Delay in reaching a settlement could be highly damaging."

• Economy Of Time is critical to be controlled. Any Brexit plan that attempts to increase SCOPE will increase the forces acting on the negotiations and the referendum campaign itself, leading to increase in loss of control, which leads to increase in loss of confidence which leads to higher chance of lack of success both in support (before) and in resolution of negotiations (during).

"Advocates for bilateral options, though, rarely discuss the time needed to conclude negotiations. Economist Roger Bootle, for instance, posits that many British people imagine that the UK would not be able to negotiate free trade agreements because it is small and insignificant, then asserting that "this is not true". The UK is still about the sixth-biggest economy in the world, larger than Russia, Brazil or India, he says, then asking, "Why shouldn't it be able to negotiate satisfactory trading arrangements?"

"This, of course, completely misses the point. Undoubtedly, given unlimited time, the UK would be able to negotiate a different deal than when having to negotiate under time constraints. In the Article 50 scenario, however, the presumption must be that time is limited."

• Brexit is Political not Economic: The politics needs to be POSITIVE and the economics needs to be NEUTRAL to remove it from the Referendum Question. Is part of the winning strategy of the referendum; it neutralizes the FUD of the Pro-EU's, it maximizes the arguments of the Anti-EU/Pro-Brexit. Too many Anti-EU'ers misconceptualize Brexit as the time to maximize the economy. WRONG! It's the time to maximize the politics of Democracy, Sovereignty, Self-Determination, Global Destiny. The Referendum Question must be positive political and that means economically neutral, because any economic arguments positive or negative come with uncertainty and uncertainy is NEGATIVE to confidence which is to support which is to success of decision-making.

"When it comes to establishing trade agreements with more complex economies, the contrast is extreme. For instance, the current round of EU-Swiss talks -which provide the basis for many of the exit models proposed for the UK -started in 1994 and took 16 years to conclude. 73 And if that is to be an example, no negotiation scenario can realistically ignore the political and practical implications of negotiations taking a prolonged period."

• Council of Despair of the Pro-EU's depends on uncertainty of negotiations and on doubt of economic predictions which is inherent in economic arguments aka "The Dismal Science". This is to be avoided with a Positive Political campaign and a comparison of Influence in vs out of the EU and that is Sovereignty and Democracy questions not Economic.

"On this basis, it is highly improbable that British and EU negotiators could conclude a de novo bilateral agreement in less than five years. Whatever their attractions in theory, the bilateral options are not viable within the context of Article 50 negotiations, purely on the grounds of the time needed to negotiate them."

• Playing By The Rules of Brexit will ensure Pro-Brexit/Brexiteers'ers are not harshly dealt with by the biased media, the biased civil service, the biased government, the biased big business. The more they are forced to bend and break the rules the more the people will see the deception and corruption operating within the Pro-EU Project.

~~Fin.~~

It's very interesting to note so little of this advice has been taken by Vote Leave or Leave.EU/GO campaigns:-

The Leave campaign is failing. We need your help. 

 

The Political Food Web of Prestige

The Food Web of Political Prestige

Before explaining the above, a wire frame version in text:-

Wire Frame: Layers (red arrows) & Levels (Groups) of Political Prestige

 Vital Statistic of this Vision of Politics of our EU Referendum:-

(1) Top of the Food Chain: David Cameron = PM Office of Power

At the top of the food web is David Cameron, The Great White Shark, with a huge huge huge Prestige Base flowing downwards far larger in magnitude than anything else both absolutely and in proportional ratio of dispersal of prestige further down the food chain.

Dr. RAE North has being making this effect explicit for sustained number of blogs, in particular: EU Referendum: the role of prestige. The ability to recommend via Government and via Statesmanship with the EU and other major institutions and other European leaders  and through various meetings shape the conditions of the vote is without equal.

(2) Legacy News-Media has a vast number of connections

What is noticeable, is that the channels of communication (their tentacles in the top diagram) of this Referendum are pivotal to the outcome of the vote. Groups can only influence other groups to influence yet further groups via the channels of communication available to them, their exposure.

A strong example of this is the spread coverage that the prestige of David Cameron entitles him and the folly of the legacy news-media reporting as per Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: a humiliating retreat from journalism this seems to explain a major component of the level of ignorance over the EU and Brexit of the British public for >40yrs... and again blogged about by LeaveHQ in The media has lost the plot  and again via The Sceptic Isle: The media’s analysis of the EU referendum is lamentable.

(3) The Electorate/Public are many LAYERS down the Prestige Food Web

Looking at Polls, the randomness of them in conjunction to general public sentiment, the obsession of the politicians with Big Data Mining of people's information, the rarity of Referendums in the UK and indeed voting on Major Treaties to do with the EU, the public are treated as political problem to be avoided as much as possible. Given the failure of the Legacy News-Media to educate at the same time as the opportunity of the public to set up their own blogs for other people and organize the information from other groups such as Think Tanks, papers published by the HM Government, by the EU or indeed the vast range of Global Bodies (UNECE, EFTA, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, G20, etc etc) as well as Political Parties, there exists an opportunity to directly communicate structured information via the internet to voters for this Popular Referendum.

The Referendum is when the politicians have failed to resolve a question of politics which continues to damage their legitimacy and hence must pose the question directly to the public. More information on Referendums as per Direct/Real Democracy: How They Do It In Switzerland by Campaign For An Independent Britain.

(4) The LEVELS of Prestige at which each group functions prohibits public education

It seems to me that blogs are exposing this, along with Twitter; leading to Technological Disruption to the old order. Some clear examples of these clashes:-

Lost Leonardo blogs about such an exchange at F For Fail. Another example is from the Pro-EU Think Tank British Influence which published Ten questions that Eurosceptics must answer about Brexit ; but when challenged by a blog "below the line" (get used to the meaning of this phrase!!) such as, Brexit: Ten answers to ten questions and then the "Think Tank" British Influence avoids communication as per the follow-up: British Influence haven't the guts to take us on. What is fascinating is that the video linked:-

FLEXCIT Presentation by Dr. RAE North

Is highly accessible. If I was from a Journalist post or a Think Tank, doing my research in this area, I would have found this video and compared it to many else besides for example these "Brexit" presentations list: Alternatives to EU Membership Conference 2015 - 16 videos and even the Brexit IEA shortlist from another "Think Tank" and developed a full picture of the state of the art of Brexit. But the Fallacy of Omission is employed via the tools of Prestige.

(5) The Higher The LEVEL of Prestige operating the more compromised the communication

A very good example of this is our Prime Minister, David Cameron or indeed the many eminent high status personages we met in The Columbo Method: Norway. Dr. RAE North records David Cameron's words here EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe" which is increasing beginning to hark back to one Tony Blair and the national sense of betrayal over The Iraq War. But then this is decades old as we've also discovered written in the history of the EU in The Great Deception, which continues to be largely ignored, apart from the very rare gleam of light, "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM" - Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP through the self-made miasma of confusion created by the interrelation and interactions of the different layers of prestige per group per level. This insistence not to form a researched basis or common ground for argument over the perceived problem of EU Membership continues to add more layers of deception over the original ones, decades ago by such as Edward Heath.

(6) Party Politics & Think Tanks, News-Media & Campaigns tend to be compromised by each other

The curiosity this food web of prestige is made clear in a number of blogs by The Boiling Frog:

• EU Referendum: WESS Digital, Guido And Matthew Elliott
• EU Referendum: Enriching Matthew Elliott and Friends...?
• Business For Elliott's Friends 
• EU Referendum, Data Mining And Hong Kong
• Guido Fawkes: Vote Leave, Take Control?
• EU Referendum: Elliott Was Director Of Britain in Europe Campaign Ltd 

 And it extends to "friends in journalism":-

• EU Referendum: a particularly stupid idea
• EU Referendum: designation - the war of words  

A different angle compromising so-called Think Tanks was covered previously with the IEA Brexit Prize:-

• Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) 

When we do get Think Tanks that hover nearer to a more "impartial" picture of Brexit as per The Adam Smith Institute "What exactly is the case for Brexit?" they seem too partial to their own filters and could simply refer for a much clearer and "on the pulse" picture from a "mere blogger" as Lost Leonardo provides: The Story So Far... 

Perhaps for a Referendum one of the worst forms of negative bias is the "tribal identity politics" such as discussed by both White Wednesday and The Brexit Door respectively, dragging everyone else down to their low quality argument zones as per Argument Abstraction, respectively:-

• We need to talk about immigration 
• Presenting The 'Open Goal'

This problem is easily magnified when for example a Twitter a/c with a handle that contains all the costume of "eurosceptic" retweets sources that are compromised by this food web that confuse, deceive and play according to the rules of prestige not real information quality and no wonder Pete North blogs Fun while it lasted concerning the "damaged goods" that is all three of the present Referendum Campaigns (Vote Leave, Leave.EU and BSE):-

LeaveEU is evidently passionate about leaving but I've yet to come across an Economist EU/Brexit article that was not deeply compromised... and the "decoy" starts drawing other "birds of a feather" in.

(7) The Structure of the Polical "Food Web" suggests a Top-Down Political Reality...

For me I can't do better than suggest despite the slight tendentious diagram construction, that better communication will lead to better relationships which requires systematic reformation of our politics closer towards people:-

• Brexit - A Catalyst For Political Reform
• Grand Strategy: "Promotion"

The Columbo Method: Norway

"Oh Sir/Madame/Dr., just one more thing... ."

I'm sure most people are familiar with Lieutenant Columbo detective series on television and his famous/infamous method of uncovering the criminals or to be more accurate, his method in provoking them into uncovering themselves? Apart from his combination of initially appearing to be unassuming and bumbling to gain their mutual rapport and underestimation, he then uses that base to keep plugging a few questions before getting into their heads with suggestions and seeing if they change their story and then again repeating more questions from unexpected places. What's relied on in general is the lack of consistency of the villain's story when the Motive is clear. Columbo usually has to work out the Opportunity and Means from the villain themselves alongside his own detective work and evidence gathering.

Unassuming: Weakness or Strength?

Coming back to The Norway Option which has recently been highlighted in both Brexit For Beginners and  considered under the constructive filter of A Science Of Simplicity as per fulfilling those conditions for example reducing the "Brexit Choices Pie Piece" which then like dominoes knocks on removing and reduces other Pie Pieces which is exactly what we want for The Referendum Day Present Simple People's Choice. After all, blame the politicians for pushing >40yrs of membership into x1 day with poor explanation and development of the subject to the people all this time. And this is what Columbo is dealing with in the villains the audience is presented with: How to disentangle their deception.

Honesty and pragmatism will win the referendum

We almost certainly will not "win" 2017, but if we hold to the above we cannot "lose", either

 In Dr. RAE North's Strategy ten: communication: at EUReferendum.com (see sidebar):-

"But there was something more to it – a lot more. What we were also seeing were the effects of "prestige". On the one side there were the three main party leaders, Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Jeremy Thorpe, most of the business community and almost every newspaper – plus the BBC. On the other, as Kellner points out, there was "half the Labour party, most trade unions, Enoch Powell and the Scottish National party".

In truth, the issues hardly mattered. Not one in a thousand had any real idea of the political ambitions of the EEC. The majority were prepared to have their opinions handed down to them by people who were endowed with that magical property, "prestige". They were not going to argue with the prevailing wisdom.

Forty-plus years later, if anyone thinks things are going to be any different, they are being delusional. In the information game, one just has to put a big name newspaper report against a blog post (which may be better written, more accurate and with more detail) and the newspaper will win every time.  Simply compare the reach the idiot Boris Johnson with that of lesser mortals." 

 Putting the key evidence together: Opportunity & Means

LeaveHQ also ran another blog post on The Norway Option in reflection of the latest Pro-EU Membership argument to accuse this option as "beneath Britain" in We'd rather have the Norway Option than Stockholm Syndrome which is a top quality play on words (wish I'd said that) as per Stronger In Europe's leader Lord Stuart Rose:-

"no credible alternative has been articulated. Following the path of Norway and Switzerland — who pay for access to the single market but have no influence over the regulations they must accept — would weaken our control over our economic affairs." ~ British Business must not stay silent in the Brexit debate - FT.com, Lord Stuart Rose

"For all practical purposes, Norway is part of the union, but has no influence. Norwegians must wait in the corridor when decisions are being made that affect them. This violates the entire idea of the enlightenment project and the European integration project. Here, everybody should be equal participants in the exercise of popular sovereignty...  No alternative project is in sight in the age of globalisation. With all its flaws and shortcomings, the EU is here to stay. It is ‘the only game in town’...Norwegian citizens have become second-class European citizens... democratic self-harm since our form of affiliation is based on choices that could have been different, and that would have been less harmful in a democratic perspective."  ~ Norway’s rejection of EU membership has given the country less self-determination, not more - LSE Blog, Erik O. Eriksen

"A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be “run by Brussels”...Without full European Union membership, however, it would have given up on having a say over EU policies: like Norway, it would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made... Norway and Switzerland, heavily integrated as we both are in the EU, have simply chosen between the two currently existing options for staying in the outer circle." ~ We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU - The Guardian Espen Barth Eide

"Some people arguing for Britain to leave the European Union ... have particularly pointed to the position of Norway saying that is a good outcome, Cameron said.

"Norway actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do, they actually take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country but of course they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate."  Cameron admits Norway no model for Britain in Europe ~ Euractiv, David Cameron

 “We [Norway] are fully integrated into the EU single market as members of the EEA, but what we don’t have is the right to vote on those regulations that are incorporated into our law when they are made by the council of ministers.”

“We now have the Norwegian Europe minister himself telling us to get a grip, get real and get involved in shaping Europe. Little England cannot be an option,” Wilding said. ~ Britain will lose influence in the world if it quits the EU, says Norway - The Guardian, Vidar Helgesen

Mr Brende today insisted ‘Britain can have more influence inside the EU than outside’. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘On the directives from the EU, we implement those in Norway. ‘We are one of the countries in Europe that are the fastest ones in doing so because the single market is so important for us. ‘Our arrangement being part of the European Economic Area is that we have to implement all the EU directives. ‘We are not around the table when these are discussed in Brussels.’ He said Britain could be a ‘no nonsense’ voice in Brussels on cutting red tape and regulation. ~ We implement Brussels rules faster than anyone, Norway warns UK Eurosceptics who want to copy Scandinavians outside EU The Daily Mail, Børge Brende

"Of course, we must tell the truth about the 3 million jobs, 25,000 companies, £200bn of annual exports and £​450bn of inward investment linked to Europe; and how the “Britzerland” or Norwegian alternatives (even Norwegians oppose the Norwegian option) leave us subject to EU rules, but denied a vote in shaping them." ~ The truly patriotic British view on Europe? We must lead from within - The Guardian, Gordon Brown

"Excellent... excellent..."

"This works for Norway’s economy, built on plentiful natural resources and with a far smaller population than Britain, but would be no good for an economy as complex as ours.
 
In return, Norway, under prime minister Erna Solberg, is the 10th-highest contributor to the EU budget, but it lacks any clout over EU decision-making because it has no seat at the table: no commissioner, no MEPs and no ministers attending European Council meetings." ~ Five reasons for staying within a reformed EU - John Cridland is CBI director-general The Daily Telegraph, John Cridland

"Norway has seen "extensive Europeanisation" in the past 20 years despite being outside the EU, a government-commissioned report says.
While it sees the economic benefits as largely positive, the report expresses concern at the political consequences as Norway is bound, in practice, to adopt EU policies "without voting rights".
 
Mr Sejersted calls this a "great democratic deficit... but this is a kind of national compromise since Norway decided it did not want to join the EU"
Some British eurosceptics, including Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, have argued that the UK should be like Norway, outside the EU, but according to this report Norway is both "outside and inside" the EU and just "one or two steps behind".

 "Fax-Democracy", 2001: The source of origin itself

"The EEA gives it access to the EU's internal market and its “four freedoms”: freedom of movement for goods, services, people and capital. But this comes at a price. The Norwegians are obliged to accept every single piece of internal-market legislation, and they have no vote on these laws...
 
All this has led many to conclude that Norway would actually be better off joining the EU. At least it would have some say over all the legislation it is forced to adopt. Jens Stoltenberg, leader of Norway's opposition Labour Party, bemoans his country's “fax democracy”, in which officials sit by the fax machine waiting for the latest directive from Brussels to arrive." ~ The Norwegian option: Those strange European countries that have kept out of the European Union The Economist, 2004 - Jens Stoltenberg

  
Nick Clegg: 'Groomed' for the EU

"And heading to the exit would be the surest way to diminish the UK. Because what then? Become the next Norway or Switzerland? Advocates of repatriation point to these nations and say they have the best of both worlds: success to Europe’s markets without an assault on their sovereignty.

But these countries sit and wait for bills and directives from Brussels, duly paying their bit, changing their laws, but with absolutely no say over Europe’s rules. No political representation, no national voting rights, no voice at all.

They work by fax democracy: you find your instructions on the machine in the morning, and you follow them. They have no meaningful sovereignty in the EU. Norway has had to implement three quarters of all EU legislation, including the Working Time Directive.

To go down that route would be a catastrophic loss of sovereignty for this nation. I want better for the UK, and our other allies want better for us too. They pay into the EU Budget: for the specific programmes they participate in and for development grants to new member states." ~ Nick Clegg EU budget speech in full - recorded in Politics.co.uk, Nick Clegg

I tried to read a lot of books, for enjoyment and for education. I've not read a lot of detective fiction genre, but I have got to say, writing up this particular blog post has been exceedingly enjoyable! The thrill of the detective clues and linking up all the bits of evidence, I can see why/how people get hooked on this genre! What's noticeable:-

• Prestige of all the contributors hammering home how aweful Norway is
• Visibility of a free pass in the press and no fact checking done since <2001!
• Motive: This is the key: They're all Pro-EU big-shots who buy into the EU; particularly the last 2: The big cheese in NATO and Nick Clegg the model EU student in British Politics.

In my quick research online I only found x1 article that mentioned The Bruges Group paper The Norway Option above in contention to the prestige of all the above speakers who get a free pass in the legacy news-media; despite google results bringinig it up on the front page along with Jonathan Lindsell's Civitas work on The Norway Option:-

The Norwegian Way: A case study for Britain’s future relationship with the EU

New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option: 13 February 2015 by Jonathan Lindsell

Norway itself actually provides plenty of information:- Norway Government: 6 The EEA and Norway’s room for manoeuvre and EFTA itself via Decision-Making and Decision-Shaping.

The Boiling Frog covers this some more: EU Referendum: EEA Ruled by Fax? Iceland Said No as well as White Wednesday's useful bookmark resources for The Norway Option: Some Bookmarks and of course it comprises merely one part of FLEXCIT:

"And  one point, he  adds, "which  is  almost  always overlooked",  is  that  the  founding  charter  of  the  EEA,  the  Lisbon  Treaty, enshrines  the  EU's  jurisdiction  as  it  stood  on  2  May  1992.  It  provides  no mechanism  to  impose  on  Norway,  Iceland  or  Liechtenstein  the  extensions  of EU power  that  have  happened  in  subsequent  treaties,  notably  in  the  fields  of
employment  law,  social  policy  and  justice  and  home  affairs.  It  is  up  to  these countries to  decide whether  they wish  to alter  their  own law  to keep pace with the EU in these areas."

 FLEXCIT p.94: Two-Pillar System: Multiple EFTA-EU contacts at early stage of legislative process

"In  fact,  this  phenomenon  is  more  commonly  called "fax  democracy" a label coined by Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, in February 2001. He  was  seeking  to  promote  full  EU  membership  to  his  reluctant  countrymen, who  had  already  twice  rejected  membership." p.

We've finally completed our detective work: We've seen how prestige of these hugely important individuals gives them free access to the legacy news-media and then we see a huge component of the Norwegian Pro-EU Political Class and the British Pro-EU Political Class dominating the debate because of their shared motives to prevent both Norwegian people and British people in seeing how disruptive to further EU Integration The Norway Option for Britain would be.

From the various additional areas of research we see this:-

The Authority of the prestigious individuals allows their Pro-EU motive to manipulate public understanding of the Brexit options. What's interesting is this is backed up by polls of Norwegians themselves to add to our previous poll on British people in A Political Mirror: People:-

Despite all the prestige and pomp and power: The people hold the power in Norway over EU representation and they don't see either the dangers of non-membership nor the riches of representation in the EU Political Union promised and threatened by the politicians, equally.

The politicians have exerted vast powers of influence and political persuasion and propaganda to convince people to not vote for The Norway Option, apart from infrequent and perhaps calculated concessions such as Dear Britain, there is life outside the EU. Brexiteers and so-called "eurosceptics" may like to take note of the Pro-EU's efforts and equally anyone else might like to question their received arguments from authority, too.

Combining all the quotes by the Pro-EU on The Norway Option and the people who make them provides an impressive pattern from which to include in our arguments as demonstration of "changing the story" and inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the "story" growing the more the fabricated story is retold and retold to us. Just like Columbo, we can rely on the liar to trip themselves up over their own lies, when we persist in asking:-

"Just One More Thing..."