Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Monday, 14 December 2015

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:
 And it extends to "friends in journalism":-
A different angle compromising so-called Think Tanks was covered previously with the IEA Brexit Prize:-
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:-
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:-

Saturday, 12 December 2015

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Restore Britain's Fish (A New Hope)

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish is the famous line and book from British sci-fi writer, Douglas Adams, a comedy of sorts. Unfortunately the story of Britain's Fisheries is a tragedy. The original campaign Save Britain's Fish to remove the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) failed to save Britain's fish and indeed it's industry and hence the new campaign is now to "RESTORE" (Restore Britain's Fish) it from this politically inflicted disaster both on the industry and the natural resource that make up both sides of the Fisheries of Britain.

 Map: Fisheries is a visibly significant British Resource; Norway and Iceland remained outside the CFP outside the EU; as EFTA/EEA members

To understand this, we must look at "White  Paper, The  United  Kingdom  and  the  European  Communities" as per The Great Deception: The Great Fisheries Scandal, p.179:-
"There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty; what is proposed is a sharing and an enlargement of individual national sovereignties in the economic interest."
Under "Fisheries":-
"The  Government  is  determined  to  secure  proper  safeguards  for  the  British fishing  industry. The  Community  has  recognised  the  need  to  change  its fisheries  policy  for  an  enlarged Community  of  Ten,  particularly  in  regard  to access to fishing grounds."
 Britain's Fisheries: An expendable political chip

We compare the above communication to the people with the politicians negotiations on 30th June, 1970:-
"Furthermore,  there  was  already  international  pressure  for  a  major  revision  of the  international  law  of  the  sea,  to  extend  national  control  of  fisheries  to  200 miles (or the ‘median line’ between two  nations). When  this  took  place,  the waters  of  the  four  applicants  would  contain  well  over  90  percent  of  western Europe’s fish, some 80 percent of the total in seas controlled by Britain."
These were the conditions for Britain. The condition for the EEC (as the EU was called then).

 "Britain's Got Talent Fish!"

To quote  John Ashworth at Campaign For An Independent Britain (Who is lead campaigner of both Save Britain's Fish in the 1990's and now again in the new campaign in conjunction with persons from the fishing industry and ancillary industries from all coastal areas from Cornwall to Shetland and Northern Ireland.):-
"Coming back to Britain’s Accession, the original six members, hours before the signed application for membership from the four was handed in, created Fisheries regulation 2140/70, which contained:"

The above shows Article 2 of the regulation as well as quote from Judgment of the Court, Cornelis Kramer and Others, Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 (14 July 1976) with interpretation of the description of this Regulation within contention between "High Seas" vs "Sovereign Coastal Waters". It suggests that under the EEC/EU nations held 12-mile rights but under Article 2 gave up the full 200-miles rights to the community (number of members with equal rights to these British Sovereign Waters).

Sovereign Coastal Waters: 12-miles (EEC) vs 200-miles (UN)



Breadth of the exclusive economic zone

"The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured."

HM Government: Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Fisheries Report (Summer 2014)

Coming back to The Great Deception, it is recorded how various different approaches to finding a legal basis to the Treaty to enact "equal access to all members" was sought via numerous convoluted and tenuous possibilities within the existing Treaties, going back so as to The Treaty of Rome. Effectively the "fingerprints of such actions recorded" gave away the intention/motive of this regulation at it's inception:-

"On  the  basis  of  this  evaluation,  it  was  evident  that  the  Treaty  offered  no justification   for   what   was   clearly   being   considered,   and   therefore   any regulation  enacting it  would  a  legal  base. Nevertheless,  a  regulation  was drafted to define the ‘equal access’ principle, with the intention of placing it in the acquis before  the  four  would-be  entrants  lodged  their  applications. It would  then have to  be  accepted  by  them,  without  argument. By  any  measure or description, this was a trap, aimed at appropriating the applicants’ property in order to share it between the Community members." ~ The Great Deception, Christopher Booker and Richard North, p.180
The next question to ask is: What is/was the effect of this on Britain's Fisheries; quoting FLEXCIT: Stage 4 - Restoring independent policies ~ 14.0 Fisheries, p.267:-
"The  figures  themselves  told  the  story. In 1972,  a  total  of  939,800  tons  was landed  by  British  vessels,  compared  with  145,850  tons  landed  by  foreign vessels. Vessel numbers were then not accurately recorded (and nor indeed was the  entire  UK  catch).  But  in 1995, we  know  that 9,200  fishing  vessels  landed 912,000 tonnes of  fish– not a great difference, but then the CFP was only just beginning to bite."

"In  2002, however,  after  Commission  effects  to  reduce  the  fishing  effort, there were only 7,578 vessels, which landed 686,000 tonnes – a 25 percent reduction in  catches  over  eight  years."

"By  2012,  the  UK  fleet  had  dropped  to  6,406 vessels, comprising 5,032 ten-metre and under vessels and 1,374 over ten-metre vessels. Landings dropped to 627,000 tonnes, with a value of £770 million. But the real contrast came with the imports. In the same year, these reached 638,410 tonnes,  valued  at  £2.6bn.  Of  that,  £797  million  came  from  the  EU-27,  a significant proportion of which were caught in UK waters."

"This  provided  a  graphic  illustration  of  the  way  the  CFP  worked.  Access  to fishing grounds had been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of "equal  access" to  what  was defined  as  a "common  resource"."
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Interpreting "Dolphin" for "Good-bye!"

This has been a tragic story; much like the self-inflicted EURO. But the story continues from John Ashworth is writing a weekly blog on this subject starting with The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 and continuing each Monday over the next few weeks at Campaign For An Independent Britain. If I've made any factual errors, please let me know: It's a very interesting area of the EU debate, which is hopefully conveyed in the above introductory (background) summary above.

The promises to people by the politicians motioning to join the EEC/EURO/EU or whatever next, have been proven to be great deceptions based on super-political logic that have damaged people's lives, damaged resources and damaged industries, we could end by saying, with respect to Fisheries:-
"It's The Same Kettle Of Fish."

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Slip of the Tongue: Influence

Below the level of volitional, conscious control

A Slip Of The Tongue I noticed on BBC's Newsnight, a number of times, comes up during the subject of "Europe". People can't help slipping into:-
"When I Go To Europe..." or "On the Continent."
Both Pro-EU and Pro-Brexit speakers make these slips of the tongue before being corrected by David Dimblebee: "We are in Europe." And there's nothing exceptional about this common mental model of our place in the world: Britain is a geographical island in the North Atlantic, off the coast of "mainland Europe".

Once again there was clear rejection of The Norway Option,


Especially vigorously so from Caroline Flint MP (Labour), which was considered in a scorecard style of communication previously:-

One of the core concepts I've promulgated from the very start of this blog is "quality of argument" in particular arguing the central point where it can be established. Another approach is engaging the arguments of the "other side" and a strong way of showing this engagement is to "Speak Their Language" as well as offer the suggestion of alternative conceptual models of understanding.

A cursory inspection of the above scorecards suggests "tally the ticks vs crosses": EFTA/EEA aka Norway Option:-
  • Global Council: 6 v 4
  • British Influence: 5 v 3
Which is higher than all the other options, assuming equal weighting. So questioning the validity of those x's is perhaps a rational next check on which Brexit to choose:-
  • Influence over EU Regulations retained
  • Able to adopt own approach to regulation
  • Freedom to pursue trade deals independently (FTAs)
  • No Contribution to EU budget
  • Freedom to impose immigration controls 
We looked at a small sample of VIP politicians in The Columbo Method: Norway previously. But the Legacy News-Media:-

EFTA/EEA Influence on Regulations

In general this can be boiled down to at the most forceful negatives:-

  • 100% of the EU Rules with 0% say in how they are made
  • All the EU Rules with No Say in how they are made
Quoting Dr. RAE North who references EFTA official sources on the quantity of rules applied:-

"By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the three-quarters that is claimed." 
This is hard evidence. As such in any popular debate there's no opinion: It's factual and quantitatively asserted. Onto the actual regulations: Making and Shaping again this was somewhat covered previously.

1. Norway does not have a seat in the EU Institutions with representation to vote on legislative process. However the UK only has:-

  • 29/352 votes 8% in the Council of Ministers (requiring q.maj: 252, ~74%)
  • Of 73 MEPs in EU Parlliament (9.7%) they do not vote as a block to reach 376/751 for a majority
  • According to Dr. North: x30 more legislation by-passes the above normal legislation process in any case "delegated legislation".
  • More and more legislation has it's origins at "Global Level" via "international standards bodies"
As for the Acquis Communautaire itself, again as per Dr. RAE North EU law: definitive stupidity and it's origins:-

"A very substantial amount of that law originates with higher bodies, from UNECE to Codex and points south. Of the 6,000 or so laws in the Single Market acquis, potentially 80 percent are of international origin. The rest of the acquis also has international input, which means that a substantial proportion of the so-called "EU laws" would remain in force even if we left the EU."
  •  Indirect means of influence applicable to EFTA/EEA: Veto, contest of "EU acts marked as EEA relevant" by EFTA in various commitees (holding-pens as I conceptualize it), case studies include: Oil & Gas, Postal Services, Iceland disputing Bank Charges and Lichtenstein uses EEA provisions on Migration.
 Quoting FLEXCIT: 5.5 Influence in Perspective, p.100 in full now,
"Alongside Norway and other EFTA/EEA members, Britain resumes its place on global and regional "top-tables", and would be able to argue its own positions."

"When it comes to a vote, if the UK objects to a measure, it can either  veto proposed standards or opt out of them. A 27-member EU, once the UK left, would cast as many votes on international councils (see above diagram!), but would have only one veto - giving the UK an exact equivalence with the EU."

"[...] Only if proposals get past this filter, and then have a mutually accepted Single Market relevance, would Britain - as an EEA member - have to  consider adopting them. Even then, the States can also refuse to adopt EU law that they consider against their national interests."
Robert Oulds: Chapter 3: A Question Of Influence, p.60

The above also avoids the referal to the ECJ for resolution. Again another side of the coin is EU influence according to it's objectives of Ever Closer Union and increasing members requiring diluting of total percentage per member nation, and her Robert Oulds book helps when we consider that the British Government and in particular MEP's are often Pro-Integration measures and Pro-EU over National Self-Interest, a particular exemplar being the British Commissoner role's oaths to the EU.

I would argue that citizens influence is very low input too in the EU limited to EU Elections and rejected in Major New Treaties!

EFTA/EEA: Free Trade Deals

If we look at British Influence's score-card above it destroys 2 of the x's leaving only FTA's: Can Britain seal decent trade deals if it leaves the EU?

Norway has a  half-in, half-out relationship that gives it free trade with Europe but keeps it out of the EU‘s political institutions. Jonathan Lindsell in a Civitas report New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option looks at The Norway Option and EFTA/EEA rules on Trade Policy:-

Again the argument would seem to fall down if the UK joined the EFTA/EEA group this would as per FLEXCIT create the 4th largest trade group in the world which would seem to indicate that any talk of requiring to be in a "large club" apart from being highly contentious as per Lindsell's report highly likely to be a redundant argument!
FLEXCIT: 4.3 The "off-the-shelf" Market Solution ~ Dr. RAE North

What should be most satisfactory about the above status and relationship of the UK is that this is what was offered in 1975 as per the wording of the Referendum specifying "Common Market" membership in the EEC.

This has not only the virtue of delivering that which was requested, but also denying the opportunity for further Great Deception by politicians with the stipulation of "ZERO" Political Representation in the EU Political Institutions amounting to 100% TRUST in our Trade dealings with the EU and other equal partners.

Dr. North reveals the tortured history of the EU "what could have been..." discussing an alternative vision for the EU + EEA members in FLEXCIT: Background to the EEA, p.76 once again:-

"The President's vision, at the time, was a of a European village", in which he saw a house called the "European Community." [...] What is so relevant to the current debate is that, at this point, the Community (now EU) was seen by Delors as one "house" in a village, alongside the EFTA "house", with which decision-making could be shared."

EFTA/EEA Cost To Single Market

FLEXCIT: EEA cost and contributions p.82-84:-

"On the other hand, in 2014, the UK gross contributions to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net contribution was £9.8 bn. 

"With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution (without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223 per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments"
Quoting FLEXCIT for the equivalent cost of Single Market for the UK in the EFTA/EEA arrangement:-

"Budgetary costs attributed to EFTA run to 22,360,000 Swiss Francs (about £16 million),  of which 55 percent is borne by Norway. This includes categories defined as EEA related activities, EFTA/EU   statistical co-operation and EU/EFTA cooperation programmes. That, strictly, is the cost of Single Market.

"Access  which, on a pro-rata basis, would cost the UK less than £200 million per annum."

 EFTA/EEA Migration (Immigration)

Again quoting Dr. RAE North: EU Referendum: the tedium of it all
"Funnily enough, this would be very similar to Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement, the so-called "Safeguard Measures" which permit EFTA states unilaterally to take "appropriate measures" if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral or regional nature arise and are liable to persist."

 Further Reading:-

White Wednesday: Norway - Some Bookmarks

In the areas where apparently The Norway Option scores a "cross" it actually does BETTER than the EU! It might be time to create our own Brexit Score-Card?

 EFTA+ UK might start to become: EFTA++


Listening to the Sounds of a Referendum

"Sounds Of Silence" by Astranat (Deviantart)

Most people have heard of The Butterfly Effect?
"In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state."
Some interesting observations concerning the so-called national discussion of Britain's Referendum on EU Membership in the legacy news-media from Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: the tedium of it all and from Lost Leonardo The Mainstream Debate ; an excellent summary at The Sceptic Isle The media’s analysis of the EU referendum is lamentable:-
"Prepare yourself for the long haul; there will be no early referendum. The timetable was set out last June in the Five Presidents’ Report. The process of treaty change will begin in 2017 and will look to create a two-tier EU, it is on the basis of that treaty that David Cameron will present Britain with it’s “reformed Europe” and “British model” of membership."

"Despite this reality having been apparent for quite some time the media are still making up rubbish about an early referendum, demands being made, rebuffed and backtracked on and generally muddying the waters."
The Brexit Door Presenting The 'Open Goal' along with many such refrains from White Wednesday (We Need To Talk About Immigration) laments the degradation of quality of argument (see Argument Abstraction) that is not only demeaning but also detracting from winning the argument (the irony of bigotry)

Brexit simplified = Arguing the Central Point: "What is Brexit?"

What all the above are really illustrating in total combination is this point (pun intended): The Central Argument not being argued means the quality of argument suffers; which Pete North points out in direct relation to both Leave Campaigns in Fun While It Lasted. It does mean more waffle to fill columns, more "controversy generation" for the legacy news-media. An example of a news-story that caught my eye in particular illustrating this:-

Glamour, Controversy, Accusations, Counter-Accusations: Purr-fect!

I can't see too many downsides to this story: The BBC gets splash coverage of Strictly Come Dancing (which is quite an enjoyable musical-dance show imo), Ola Jordan gets some publicity perhaps for her subsequent act and the news-media are delivered a news-story with all the elements of interest, in particular Ola Jordan herself, a consummately, professional dancer and alluring screen presence rolled into one.

Sometimes I don't really mind these sorts of stories, I think I "get" what is going on and I remember when the above lady won Strictly Come Dancing with Chris Hollins, demonstrating a huge degree of professional pride when they both won demonstrating two really wonderful emotions we all enjoy seeing on our screens (Reference: Raph Koster, A Theory of Fun):-
  • Fiero = The expression of triumph when you have achieved a significant task (pumping your fist, for example). 
  • Naches = The feeling you get when someone you mentor succeeds (professional pride)
In particular, Strictly Come Dancing demonstrates the second emotion very well in my opinion and it's great to see.

However such Sound And The Fury when it comes to Politics, an area where perhaps less pleasure should be mixed with business, we end up with:-

It's barely entertaining, in fact as per above it's "tedious and boring" which are deadly to democracy.

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." ~ William Shakespeare, Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28
As we can see, most people are attracted to controversy, as per Robert Cialdini,  strong social relations pressures drive us to act in ways that influence us far more than we're really ready to admit and the result is the battle between people climbing the social ladder to dominate and those falling down the ladder into submission, for every Naches there's Schadenfreude at seeing our competitors or rivals fall off the ladder (!). If you notice a lot of those google news stories have "David Cameron" at the top: He must be very very important to our societies very survival and well-being to hold such media exposure and talk around him?

And this is the problem: This is not entertainment but very serious for millions of people yet here we are with this soap-drama scrutinizing the emotions on David Cameron's face; all that is going on is the Dominance-Submission relationship as per Legitimacy & Listening. But there we learnt that this is built from Authority Influence (see Cialdini: The "expert" in the white coat selling you toothpaste on the television advert (who is in fact an actor picked for his "chemistry appeal" again Cialdini) which itself is derived from The Office of Prime Minister which is based on 3 levels of Legitimacy:-
  • Cognitive
  • Moral
  • Pragmatic
How do we lose the Referendum? By ensuring that authority is perceived in the public debate only through David Cameron. This is presently operating.

The sound of a tiny drop of water dropping into an ocean.

How do we win the Referendum? By questioning that authority against expertise and real knowledge that is communicated from a source of authority based off that cognitive legitimacy that is tranmitted either through or around the legacy news-media. The more it can be shown/revealed that Cameron's legitimacy is deeply compromised by The Great Deception and vica-versa the more cognitive legitimacy is amplified from a source of authority in public, open communication, the greater the public will make their verdict on the EU Referendum on the value of David Cameron to our society vs the damage to our society he is perceived to be causing and continuing via his domination of the Popular Referendum.

Leave Campaign: A source of cognitive legitimacy

We have this referendum because our politicians made a huge mistake they have not admitted to and have after >40yrs admitted they cannot resolve legitimately without the people signing up to "What Next?": How about politicians being forced to listen instead of making so much wasteful noise for once? As per Leave HQ: Why We Must Leave?

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

I Can't Believe It's Not Brexit! Can You?

I can: It's NOT butter!

I am very cynical of advertising; a particularly good area of research on  sales techniques is Robert Cialdini's The Art of Influence, so much so GCHQ as part of it's online influence training/methods referenced this work iirc. Effectively the above is attempting to ensure their brand is remembered by you when you're shopping and swamped by choices of which "butter" to buy, you may have a tendencies to pick the brand on familiarity simply due to a default and low requirement to think about such a trivial choice.

The above I remember because it had a very annoying "Ear Worm Catch-Phrase" but also for me, margerine tastes nothing like butter! Where one tastes "organic" in the way vegetables or meat taste "organic", margerine tastes synthetic. Evidently it sells very well, perhaps due to "low fat" branding and "easily spreadable properties" so it has it's place and I'm not knocking it as a poor quality product, just that it's an imitation butter and I'd personally prefer be labelled as such:-
"is an imitation butter spread used for spreading, baking, and cooking. It was originally created from beef tallow and skimmed milk in 1869 in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès, as a result of a challenge proposed by Emperor Napoleon III to create a substitute for butter for the armed forces and lower classes. It would later be named “margarine”.

Whereas butter is made from the butterfat of milk, modern margarine is made mainly of refined vegetable oil and water, and may also contain milk. In some locales it is colloquially referred to as "oleo", short for oleomargarine.

Margarine, like butter, consists of a water-in-fat emulsion, with tiny droplets of water dispersed uniformly throughout a fat phase which is in a stable crystalline form. In some jurisdictions margarine must have a minimum fat content of 80% to be labelled as such, the same as butter. Colloquially in the US, the term margarine is used to describe "non-dairy spreads" like Country Crock, and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! with varying amounts of fat content."
What I'm trying to say here, is that advertising is the Art of the Plausible. As such there's a great deal of this in politics, where multiple viewpoints and values in modern secular societies are concerned. This may be "Popularity Politics", but it leads to an erosion of clear definitons and hence clear communication as per Communication: Shadows On The Wall (2) .

The stricter definitions of the words are:-

Possible > Plausible > Probable > Likely

But in politics it boils down between Plausible and Popular Sounding to gain "Vote Share" (in whatever context (people/politicians/nations/etc) vs politically possible within the rules of for example Treaty Laws and the wider interrelations such as Market forces and as well within some scope of popular acceptability. As the diagram above attempts to illustrate there's a widening divergence between the the art of selling a political proposition and the actual political "product" itself. Like the above "margerine" it may advertise itself as equivalent to butter but it is not defined as butter technically!

And so it is with Brexit. Which I've defined very clearly and as simply as possible in Brexit For Beginners and elsewhere The Brexit Number and the EU Onion. The result of this lack of clarity is of course confusion as repeated numerous times for example: Understanding The Mountains Of Madness. We looked The Columbo Method: Norway previously and perhaps another detective can help when considering the Plausible vs the Possible:-

Brexit: When defined seems like a much less grand out-come than anticipated. But that's because it's merely the first step into a larger world.

To understand Brexit in terms of the difference between Plausibility and Possibility in Politics, FLEXCIT applies considerable definition of limitations ie demarcation between plausible and possible Brexit events and hence options. This is the grounding for The Market Solution:-
"Negotiators  will  have  to  deal  with  the  political  realities  of  the  day,  and  be forced to respond to the demands and limitations imposed on them."

"Compromise will not so much be possible as inevitable."

"We do not consider that it is possible to resolve all the issues arising from forty years of political and economic integration in one set of talks, or one stage."

"Whilst  we  aver  that  it would  be  impossible  to  win  a  referendum  with  a  plan which  seeks  to  reject  the  EU's  freedom  of  movement  provisions."

"Estimates  cannot  be  any  stronger  than  the  validity  of  the  assumptions on which they are based. Weak assumptions, lacking a sound evidential base or not  rooted  in the  real  world, are  poor  foundations  for  any  plan.  Dazzling predictive    models    and    complex    calculations    cannot    remedy    inherent deficiencies."
"No solutions offered in respect of specifics are of any  value unless  they  fit with others  to make a fully integrated whole.  There  is  no  point defining  any one  policy  area  if  the outcome creates irresolvable problems  elsewhere.  Partial  solutions  are  not  an  answer.  An  exit strategy must  work  as  a  whole,  providing  the  best  fit  over  the  entire  policy domain – even  if  it requires  adopting sub-optimal  policies  in  some specific areas."
Numerous stringent caveats on Brexit production are clearly given from multiple view points in FLEXCIT, by Dr. RAE North. Heed Sherlock Holmes' deductive advice!

And much of the Legacy News-Media and "think tanks" stream of report after report about "What is Brexit?" including "Plausible Brexit Options" not appreciating the narrowing to "Possible Brexit Options", for example: British Influence: What Would Happen if the UK Voted To Leave or indeed another report it's similar to: Global Council Brexit: The Impact on the UK and the EU and there are endless numbers of these reports. The most interesting facet of them comes down to:-

Advertising political propositions: Which is the more plausible product vs MORE importantly which is the most possible product?

No doubt David Cameron's Association Membership "British Model" will be "much better/butter" (sorry about the pun!) than all? Well no not if it's a lateral transition not a vertical transition in redefining our relationship with the EU:-

So we come back to: British Influence: Ten questions that Brexit supporters need to be able to answer which LeaveHQ addresses, which draws from much of the answers to these questions already written in FLEXCIT: The definitive EU exit plan for Britain:-

So feel free to read the more in-depth answers there. However, one of the important tasks of this EU/Referendum/Brexit debate is to organize information and increase understanding. A "war of words" or "wall of text" is an inhibitor to this outcome. So given the above use of conceptual understanding given above, to answer the questions in a way that presents the essence of A Science of Simplicity in which is asserted:-
  • Complexity = EU = Fragile = Deceptive
  • Simplicity = Brexit = Flexible = Trust
Where Brexit defined =
"Brexit (British Exit)" = “Withdrawal from the EU Political Treaties which grant representation of politicians in the EU political institutions and removal of such representation” - only – via triggering Article 50 Lisbon Treaty
Which means Brexit is merely x1 step, a single stage or Present Simple Event of change of Relationship Status of the UK with the EU qualitatively not quantitatively as component of FLEXCIT, the full process, itself. This incidentally is not wishful thinking: It mirrors the "Engrenage" and "negotiations" that are phantom of our Prime Minister David Cameron according to the EU Time-Table on Association Membership status (new relationship quantitatively not qualitatively) stretching from 2013-2017-2020+!

Here's the answer to British Influence. I've even appropriately organized the questions according to their categorization to help with clarity of understanding. What Brexiteers/Pro-Brexit Supporters need to do is understand that Brexit must be politically possible (which is much much smaller range of possibility than "politically plausible"), to then trigger democratic legitimacy and trump The Great Deception once and for all in Britain.

Sunday, 6 December 2015

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 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."

"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.