Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule

This is now the 81st blog post, so it seems appropriate to try to change the nature of Brexit Discussion to the essential "Positive Vision" component. Looking at the above graph, this is an illustration of a Power Law, in the above case the form of the 20:80 Rule aka The Pareto Principle that people are more familiar with:-

"The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.^[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas."

Namely and only in this case to illustrate as opposed to measure accurately: What we talk about when we talk about Brexit and our Referendum on the EU is prodigiously, prodigiously distorted. It's a reflection on the extremely low quality communication that is passed off as national decision-making in the UK/Britain today by our "leaders".

The even worse news is that the above 20:80 Rule is merely more memorable for illustration given Brexit discussions. I have not measured and categorized all the Brexit discussions the volume in the legacy news-media and I suspect in our politics conducted in Westminster but the above Power Law type is "too generous" the reality I guess is much closer to 5:95 or even 1:99...

That said, we can use the 20:80 Rule to illustrate a fundamental problem with the EU:-

The QMV voting percentages in the EU Parliament for example follow broadly population. But the effect of comparing GDP of EU Members shows a similarity to the Power Law above. Namely the economic power of a few large members suggests an uneven distribution of economic importance.

Here's the suggested problem: The UK as a member of the Supranational EU gains advantage ONLY from Single Market membership. It actually receives disadvantage from Political Union membership; where different political priorities interfere with the progression of the Single Market and with the growth in World Trade.

Therefore I would say a lot of the Brexit discussions FAIL to properly address: What is our desired outcome when/if we leave the EU? The answer is the reformation of the Single Market to globalization without the complications of Political Union (eg EURO). The problem is Supranationalism prohibits this process for the UK: Instead we have the deceptions of our politicians who are incompetent and liars and do not appear to have any motivation to resolve the problem, in fact they "prolong it".

EU Political Union of "Concentric Circles"

EU-Centric Europe: Illustrative gradations of Core = Centralization of Power to Outer-Periphery removal of political power

As per Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.0 UNECE:-

"Even within ther EU, there are different levels of commitment, with the inner core defined as the eighteen eurozone members iniwhat is often described as a Europe of concentric circles. The non-eurozone Schengen and then non-Schengen members are described as the outer core zone, while accesssion countries and EEA members are part of the "periphery". Neighbours are known as the "outer periphery".

"This image of concentric circles conveys the reality of an EU-centric Europe, where those furthest from the centre have least power."

 What we can clearly summarize:-

• Communication of the EU Political Project is horribly skewed in UK Politics.
• Members are unequal economically within it.
• Members are unequal politically within it.
• Members are in all likihood moving in different directions due to the preceding variability.

 And yet we have EU Treaties that tie all these nations together. The next step is:-

• The Monetary/Fiscal Union of the EUROZONE
• Aligning with the globalization process to boost prosperity

Effectively the UK in it's own decisions should be considering that the former is not a realistic nor desirable outcome. So the question remains why have we not had more discussion on the creation of a genuine single market and focus on what this really means?

Even the former has not been fully explored and discussed in the UK:-

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.1: Breaking away from Brussels:-

"For instance, when a group of European think-tanks in 2013 published a proposed draft treaty to take the EUropean Union on from the Lisbon Treaty, which they called "A Fundamental Law of the European Union", they defined the new status of "Association Member", whereby states could take part in specific policies of the EU - such as the single Market - without committing to the full acquis. This would accord a position of less power and influence to those states which adopted this status."

The biggest (political) "splash" is in the center!

Looking at the existing alternative:-

"A new EFTA-EU relationship, therefore, would still put it's members in a subordinate position, in the outer circle with Brussels still in the central, dominant position, perpetuating the idea of a Europe of concentric circles.

Despite this very obvious handicap, the "No to EU" coalition in Norway would welcome this development. There is considerable antipathy towards the Agreement and an aspiration to replace it with a free trade agreement. Here, British membership of EFTA is seen as increasing the negotiating power of the bloc. That position may be strengthened by other member states which may wish  to leave the EU."

 There's no protestant or catholic when it comes down to trade.

With possibly Denmark as well this would the ~20:80 forging the Single Market while the rest forge on with Political Union.

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.

 

Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game

Specification of a Rugby League field of play (pitch) - not football!

The above Rugby Football League (Rugby League) team sport's field of play dimensions is an integral part of the rules of the game, defining the game space and as you can see, are themselves strictly defined. In such a contest 2 opposing teams obey the same set of rules and within those limitations, attempt to out-play each other. In general the number of players per team game ranges from about ~4-25. Robin Dunbar as per Dunbar's Number points out:-

Robin Dunbar: "The size of almost all inner cabinets around the world is somewhere in the order of 12 to 15. People seem to settle out at these grouping layers quite naturally, according to the task they’re doing." "Without language, Dunbar speculates, humans would have to expend nearly half their time on social grooming, which would have made productive, cooperative effort nearly impossible."

Different group sizes are required for different tasks and the greater the group size the rise in "overhead for group cohesion" as briefly looked at in When To Attend/Hold Meetings. It follows, that areas of the world with a "tribal" composition of human groups need to spend more of their social overhead on group cohesion activities, such as religious practices and observances, and/or bureaucratic organization at a national scale or else they lapse into "Failed Nation State status" such as Sudan: Lords of the Tribes - The Real Roots of the Conflict in South Sudan.

It also is worth suggesting that the EU's drive alongside the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to create and support a "universal human rights set of rules" is firmly rooted in the absolute necessity to service the increasing "group cohesion overhead" of political union of 500m Europeans of diverse and different nationalities. By implication, the dilution of features of cultures that prevent or limit that goal may be observable? If so, then the incoherent results we see in the Regional Migration Policy amongst others across the entire EU follows (see EUReferendum.com references from OMG !!!! Parakeet invasion). Secondly the rulings of The European Court of Justice (ECJ) also tends towards upholding "Ever Closer Union", effectively ruling in favour of EU Stability as opposed to representing the realities of different nation states already have with each other through culture, history and customs.

This trend is so easily observed that it's useful to listen to what Pro-EU VIP's sometimes have to say from their equally welcome point of view; a famous quote from French foreign minister Laurent Fabius:-

'Britain joined a football club. They can't now say in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby. It's one thing or the other.'

 This quote is very useful analogy to the very clear rules of the EU which are discussed and explicitly focused upon in "BRIEFING PAPER Number 07230, 15 June 2015 - "Ever Closer Union" in the EU Treaties and Court of Justice case law By Vaughne Miller" (google cache av. online). However in the paper despite making clear what "sort of game" the EU Political "Ever Closer Union" is, the advice to modify the game rules for different players is absurd if we hold to the concept of "playing by the same rules".

The highlight of The Bruges Group meeting of the speakers, Owen Paterson, made it clear referencing:-

• The Great Deception : A History of the European Union
• A Fundamental Law of the European Union ~ The Spinelli Group, Bertelsmann Stiftung

Namely from my notes of the meeting: The History of the EU founded by Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter from their experiences of the World Wars and the "failure in their eyes" of The League Of Nations to form a Supranational Political Government of Europe to prevent further wars. Hence "Ever Closer Union" is not a "clause that can be simply crossed-out, otherwise you have an entirely different basis of governance. This is backed up by the above "Fundamental Law" applied to members of the EU:-

"This proposal for a Fundamental Law of the European Union is a comprehensive revision of the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Replacing the existing treaties, it takes a major step towards a federal union"

One of the Concept Shifts that can be introduced is as per Robert Oulds book, the idea of a "Democratic Deficit" concerning the EU. However from Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter's experiences of the League Of Nations where the power of national members Veto's reduced it's role from their Supranational vision, they decided to ensure the voting procedure of the EU would be based on

 Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) designed to create a "democratic dilution"

as per trend from Bruges Group with phasing out of National Vetos, and thus far from being a "defect" it was a "vital function" of Supranationalism. Lost Leonardo (see blogroll) explains the gradual removal of Vetos (as per Monnet's plan all along) via "Engrenage": This is How the EU Works! :-

EU "Influence": QMV proportion per EU members

"The proposal was agreed by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in the Council of Ministers. This is the essence of supranational (“above the nation”) treaty governance.

This process of engrenage and the supranational governance it empowers is what grants EU institutions the authority to override the democratic nation-states that consent to become (and remain) EU Member States. It is supranationalism that provides the impetus for ever deeper integration; ever more power for the Commission—and the other EU institutions—and the consequent diminution of power among the governments of the Member States, let alone the Parliaments of the Member States, to say nothing of the people who vote in those countries’ ‘democratic’ elections.

The smaller EU member nations are particularly badly served due to the “weighting” that is applied to the EU system of QMV in the Council of Ministers and the European Council, based, as it is, upon the size of the voting country’s population as a proportion of the Union as a whole."

These are the rules of the game. And another Concept Shift is possible aligning the difference between Rugby's Rules and Football's Rules, as per Owen Paterson, the EU is leaving the UK:-

"They Are Leaving Us!" 

This all demonstrates another Concept Shift, our Referendum on EU Membership:-

Brexit = A Political Event equivalent to The Reformation

And hence some of the Definitions Owen Paterson insisted upon making apply:-

1. European Union (EU) =/= Europe
2. European Union =/= The Single Market
3. Referendum = "A Golden Opportunity" to Renegotiate The Political Rules (as above Supranationalism via QMV) and hence remove 1/28th influence on various global seats.

Owen Paterson went on to speak about how only North Korea and Sudan don't have trade agreements with the Single Market (European Economic Area EEA) and therefore by implication of the above, the arguments of what choice we are deciding on is a choice of Which Rules We Choose for Our Governance, I would conclude? The Single Market is not a matter of concern in making this choice.

For Owen Paterson, 3 major areas needed to be delivered in such a renegotiation:-

1. Trade With the World as an Equal Member of the World Community
2. Cooperation with the EU which allows it to "forge a new country" without us getting in the way, upsetting the rules they choose to adhere by.
3. Ensure our laws are made in our Parliament under our democratic system.

Owen Paterson made some very useful contributions to the debate, in a very confident and positive manner. He made some clear definitons concerning the EU, Single Market and the context of the Referendum being above party-politics; he made clear that the EU effectively wants to "play by a different set of rules" to what Britain does and this is what defines our renegotiation.

Finally from defining what is the EU? as per the history, as per the current chief rule-makers in Brussels, Owen Paterson offered another Concept Shift of our relationship with the EU and with the World:-

The Supranational EU's Concentric Circles Relationship with the European Nations

The above shows the present "Concentric Circles" of power and loss of influence towards the periphery of the Supranational EUropean Union, as per Pattern Recognition to which Mr. Brexit (see blogroll An Independent Britain) provides an example of our loss of influence/sovereignty/power Remember how we keep being told EU member states are sovereign? and again A central reason why the UK should vote to leave the EU However Owen Paterson provided variety of examples of Global Regulatory Bodies where Britain needs to exert our own influence:-

 The Real "Top-Tables" of influence on Global Regulation and Standards "upstream" of the EU

 Coming back to Britain's rejection by France's Charles De Gaulle of our application to membership in 1963:-

"It's not a matter of sentiment but of facts and figures."

It is suggested that De Gaulle's real reasons was to ensure that France had acquired sufficient influence for it's farmers before Britain could then later join. And here is a difficulty with the mixture of the Political ambitions of the EU and the effects this has on "group cohesion" and their role as a regional standards body with all European member nations subordinate to the EU, as a consequence. To quote Bismark in 1886:-

"I have always found the word Europe in the mouths of those politicians who were demanding from other powers something that they did not dare demand  in their own name."

Namely there should be a forum free from sentiment, either hostile or sentimental and based on impartial reporting of facts and figures. The problem with the EU's role is European Court of Justice Biased referee? and time and again it's Group Cohesion is being tested it uses the word "Solidarity" or for "Economic Reform" as cloak to "Political Integration": "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM" - Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

"Nothing more exemplifies the determination to pursue the political project regardless of economics than the manner in which the euro has been supported in breach of treaty provisions. As Christine Lagarde as French Finance Minister said:
 
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.”

Whatever we think we have agreed to, as long as supreme power is exercised by the European Commission and Court, the rules can be changed after the event.

We have now come to the fork in the road.The Eurozone has to become, in effect, a new country to make a full redistributive federal state where there are legitimate means of transferring funds from the wealth creating areas such as Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg or Noord-Brabant to places like Andalucía, the Mezzogiorno and the Peloponnese where it is simply not possible to create wealth at the rate  at  which their countries joined the Euro. In  order  to make  such  a  shift legally  watertight, particularly with reference to German constitutional arrangements, it is most likely that they will eventually needa new treaty"

It's this "internal logic of the EU Treaties" that drives the Rules they really play by. Not the rules of the real world according to the greater context of Globalization and hence the Concept Shift from a Concentric insular looking EU to a Hierarchical though not subordinate vision of the UK:-

 Hierarchical Reconnection with the global world

 In The Bruges Group meeting When To Attend/Hold Meetings there was a lot of "conventional wisdom" that no exit plan must be deployed or else divisions in the group would inevitably arise due to everyone holding a "different reason for leaving". And yet, this circular reasoning is quite similar to our Argumentum Ad Infinitum systemic defect of thinking. What needs to be understood is the concepts that arise from the details of research conducted, to reverse Charles De Gaulle's statement on the EU itself, and avoid sentiment but base our choices on facts and figures which define the set of Rules we are to play by with respect to the greater reference to the world and to the EU - and they are very clearly defined (For Example Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty): Within this "field of play" we can be certain those rules will be consistent and impartial as befits all good "officiation of rule systems" (Interesting to note the furore over Craig Joubert). All Brexiteers have to start doing is "learning the rules of the game" and then start enjoying playing our role in this global team game:-

 Britain has enjoyed great success exporting it's sports rules around the world!