Grand Strategy: "Promotion"

The Lewis Chessmen at The British Museum

The Lewis Chessman can be viewed at The British Museum apart from many other stupendous wonders. A brief description of them:-

"The Lewis Chessmen form a remarkable group of iconic objects within the world collection of the British Museum. They were probably made in Norway, about AD 1150- 1200. At this period, the Western Isles, where the chess pieces were buried, were part of the Kingdom of Norway, not Scotland. It seems likely they were buried for safe keeping on route to be traded in Ireland."

"The chess pieces testify to the strong cultural and political connections between Britain and Scandinavia in the Middle Ages, and to the growing popularity within Europe of the game of chess, the origins of which lie in ancient India."

These beautiful chess pieces are a nice segue from The Columbo Method: Norway. where we looked at the disparity between the strategy of the prestigious "King/Queen" pieces vs what the people aka the "Pawns" felt about The Norway Option. In fact as per these above chess pieces, people are more than happy with trade relations; so long as we remember the value of understanding our politics in a wider context and don't fall into the trap of narrowing the argument down via increasing the emotional pitch and pressure/compression as per Can we have our cake and eat it too? and How about a nice game of chess?

The Queen & King: The Yin & Yang of Power protecting Prestige

Dr. RAE North has blogged a series on politics categorized as "Strategy Ten" at EUReferendum.com. This is summarized in Strategy ten: summary and conclusion or indeed you can use the search or archive feature of that website or else google: [eureferendum.com: "....."]. For many people it's possibly too high-level considerations, the domain of the "Kings and Queens" of politics. And yet this is the real thing, what is reported as "strategy or negotiation" in the news-media is the equivalent of "Fool's Gold":-

• a ​mineral that is ​found in ​rocks and ​looks like ​gold but is not ​worth anything
• something that you ​think will be very ​pleasant or ​successful but is not or as per the Urban Dictionary: Someone who is in love with someone who is only using them, or taking advantage of them, but the person being used is still in love with the other person.

An example would be David Cameron's so-called renegotiation which seems to have chopped and changed, from memory:-

Fool's Gold (Pyrite) Reporting in the Media:-

1. 24 renegotiation/reform pts
2. 11 renegotiation/reform pts
3. 10 renegotiation/reform pts
4. 7 renegotiation/reform pts
5. 4 "principles"
6. 0 progress before December "afterall"... !

At each stage the News-Media has faithfully reported the "latest news" only for the "news" to magically change. In fact all that is happening is as per the strategy of Breadcrumbing the people along via the News reports. This strategy is all part of the theatre and projection of power to protect the prestige of the offices of Prime Minister and the offices of the other heads of government and the Institutional credibility of the EU as to it's legitimacy to authority and governance as per Legitimacy & Listening.

Opening Gambit: Pawns are placed into strategic formation: They're... "political pawns"!

As everyone knows who's played chess: The "early game" has all sorts of openings usually with an emphasis on pawns and ensuring they are moved with economy of movement into formation. Their power is in their "cannon-fodder" quality (trading pieces for tractical positions) and their "numbers". In the EU Referendum the people are pawns and the current news-media reports are effectively placing the people into formation. One of the key early lessons I was told in chess was that commanding the "Middle Ground" was vitally important for maximizing position and movement options all around; influencing the rest of the board compared to the edges. For this reason, the rise of polling to try to coordinate these pawns into strategic positions has of course grown. Leave.EU: The Science Behind Our Strategy (Goddard & Gunster) has employed such methods via Cambridge Analytica as well as Stronger In Europe on both sides of the chess board (Black (pro-intergovernmentalism pawns) vs White (pro-supranationalism pawns) (goes 1st!)) to ensure they get the most out of their "pawns":-

Application of the tools of data science to polling data

As we've seen with the control of the message from the media in I've been expecting you... ;  Fatal Car Crash: Two Dead After Car Accident and Understanding The Mountains of Madness ; polling seems the most appropriate way to influence voters in their millions through the filter of the News-Media, the Knights of the Legacy-Media with their ability to confuse and jump around deceptively and camouflage the next move:-

The Knight or Rook (Legacy-News Media) is a most especially deceptive and supportive piece

And of course to finally complete the Chess Analogy the power of the Castles of Big Business & Banks, the CBI and the big banks. Perhaps too little attention has been given to these pieces in this blog so far, apart from Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (1) and Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) and most of the politicians themselves, the Sweet-Tongued Bishops with their ability to come at you "sideways".

I've always thought how well these two work together projecting power from a distance: Castle (business/banks) and Bishop (politicians)

Despite all these powerful pieces, as any chess-player knows or quickly learns: Looking after your pawns, deploying them skilfully and understanding their strategic role is where the game is often won and lost: The fine margins long before the "end-game". And this is going to be very true of the EU Referendum in 2017. Many people are not interested in politics, our politicians have deliberately obfuscated and confused the subject as per the huge in-tray voters have to contend with from Brexit for Beginners.

In chess the win/loss conditions are "Check-Mate" or "Resignation by toppling the King" ; the assumption is that Leave vs Remain win condition is a >=51% result to either side in the Referendum. But actually there's another game of political chess being played here: Democracy as well as EU Membership. The Referendum is a chance for people/the pawns to win the game where for >40yrs they've been deprived a say and over x7 major treaties as well as removing such a large source of enervating political energy that itself is costly. In Chess there's a special rule for pawns called "Promotion":-

"Promotion is a chess rule that a pawn that reaches its eighth rank is immediately changed into the player's choice of a queen, knight, rook, or bishop of the same color. The new piece replaces the pawn on the same square, as part of the same move. The choice of new piece is not limited to pieces that have already been captured; it is legal for promotion to result in a player controlling, for example, two Queens of the same color despite starting the game with one. Promotion is immediate and mandatory for any pawn that reaches its eighth rank, and the pawn may not remain a pawn. Pawn promotion, or the threat of it, often decides the result of a chess endgame."

"Since the queen is the most powerful piece, the vast majority of promotions are to a queen. Promotion to a queen is often referred to as queening. A promotion to a piece other than a queen is called underpromotion"

To use one more final analogy: The most important game for people/pawns is not the EU Membership status, but the status of our politics of governance: Our democracy and how that is represented in a global world vs an EU construct.

Promotion: From Pawn to Queen

Pete North makes this clear in a this recent blog: Brexit: a time to step up to the plate :-

This year I've gone big on the global regulatory agencies. Not just because I'm an epic nerd but also because knowledge is power and in this game, and it can be a most potent weapon. It's as exciting as it is interesting.
Because regulation is all about making things work better, faster, safer, and cleaner and working in harmony with other systems it means it is at the cutting edge of technology. [...]

While this process isn't inherently corrupt, it can at times be murky and half the reason for that is that virtually nobody is watching this process and it is accountable to no-one. If ever there was something considerately in need of democratisation it is the global regulatory process. Our media tends to focus on the daily biff-bam politics of Westminster which is so far down the chain as to be completely uninteresting to anyone following the real business of government.

Watching MP's debating whether schools should be teaching first aid is like watching my local parish council deciding if Filton roundabout should have new street-lamps. It's actually embarrassing to watch the mother of all parliaments reduced to this. What's depressing is that MPs can't begin to comprehend just how debased and usurped that institution is.

And again from LeaveHQ: Land of the dinosaurs

Time to adapt to new strategies for survival and prosperity at the Global Level

"That is why LeaveHQ takes a different pitch to the old guard. We have talked at length about the way in which regulations are now going global and that the EU is not the top table and is just as much a recipient of law as we are. Examining the consultation process shows that the EU routinely usurps our own influence in initiating reforms and often adopts law we would otherwise veto. 

We are no longer a heavy industry economy, we rely on intellectual innovations as our exports and thus industries can spring up out of nowhere. If we want to create the best trading environment for them then we need to be looking out for their interests at the global level and not waiting on the packed time table of the EU's diplomatic service. Our current relationship is a hindrance to our global agility and it is our view that all of Europe suffers for the lack of competitiveness.

In order to get the best for ourselves and Europe, Britain needs to be at the top tables looking after its own interests. What's good for London and our tech industry is good for all of Europe - and it is myopic of the EU not to recognise this."

EU Referendum: the role of prestige

Political Strategy: "Pawns of Prestige"

Perhaps the "win condition" for the upcoming EU Referendum in 2017 is not what people think it is defined as, perhaps the real win condition will be the success rate of the conversion or to use our analogy Promotion of people from "political pawns" into "political actors" with real knowledge and hence real political power?

"Your Move."

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..."

A Political Mirror: People

Wickher Island: The News-Media's Political Mirror

Both the BBC news reporters, Matthew Elliott and George Osbourne are all viewed through the mirror of Monty Python's Wicker Island. Meanwhile John Longworth like some sort of religious prophet talks about uncertainty that has been talked about since the early 1960's on our EU Membership!

"The period of uncertainty could be very damaging... get the referendum out of the way as quickly as possible and then move on!

 The Tower Of London: Popular poppies - art, history & culture and opinions

Listening to the many opinions of people on whether or not the Ceramic Poppy "installation" should end or continue, at The Tower of London in November 2014, for a few more weeks was very illustrative of the diversity and strength of feeling people have over any given subject, given enough respondents.

Of course these were real people and they expressed themselves with great emotion, with respectable point of view and curiously all had a valid contribution. In effect there was no such thing as "The Answer"; any decision would prove both popular and unpopular; a point which was made at LeaveHQ in The Problem With Politics. What however was refreshing about this was that everyone provided well reasoned answers however and managed to communicate themselves and their point of view with sincerity but also it seemed to me with self-confidence and appreciation that many other opinions existed yet they believed in their own contribution equally.

The Bruges Group: Who Governs Britian? Meeting today

Above The Bruges Group is putting on another meeting and the title quesion is very good to see. I was tempted to go along to this, yet I decided that despite some of the eminent speakers and the opportunity to talk to people attending this event, there was a more constructive and much much larger audience I would prefer to "talk to" and also to attempt to understand their understanding as being the focus of that title question: "Who Governs Britain?" You do or should.

Previously, When to Attend/Hold Meetings, it was noted the function of a meeting is directly related to it's group size. At significantly large group sizes you get singing/chanting/music group cohesion signals and bonding and identification with colours and banners; and very little "content" for members understanding, which is assumed, for example:-

Protest without power: Music, movement, gathering activities may make people feel better, but...

"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value."

 The above from the title page of The Harrogate Agenda, perhaps is the best place to start when considering what "The Many/We The People" generally behave like, understand and coordinate like. It has to be recognized that as group animals we naturally tend to form groups and create a lot of action and noise and move around a lot as our initial approach to solve political problems: Observations invariably confirm this is the first reaction and pattern of behaviour adopted by people. Perhaps we all see ourselves as Potential Lions if only we're given a fair political platform to stand on; aided by our fellows?

 Do you feel an urge to join in?!

It can safely be said that this is the unacknowledged working assumption of all the Referendum Campaign Groups, particularly UKIP and Leave.EU: It shapes their output as per many summaries from Pete North:

• Continuity UKIP
• Leave.EU is working for David Cameron
• Right On Cue

The other campaign group Vote Leave employ a different political strategy as per Pete North again The Leave campaign race to the bottom. They're effectively attempting to ensure that the campaign is framed by the preferences of The Establishment, and ensure the argument is complex and contradictory and hence fertile ground for the politicians to deceive and fuge as per Using A Macroscope on Cameron's Reform. Vote Leave Campaign appear to be an example of The politician's Top-Down Referendum as per How About A Nice Game Of Chess?

As per Dr. RAE North's Strategy Ten: Communication series:-

This may seem bizarre to us now, but it is the case that anyone who wanted to know in 1975 could easily have deduced that he negotiations were a fraud. All they had to do was read Kellner's piece on the front page of the Sunday Times.

At the time, it seems to me, there was a sort of collective delusion. People didn't know that the negotiations were a sham, because they didn't want to know. They didn't know that staying in the EEC meant "ever closer union", because they didn't want to know.

But there was something more to it – a lot more. What we were also seeing were the effects of "prestige".

When we look into the mirror we individually we see a Lion, but when Politicians look at us through the mirror of Polls this is what they see:-

The Few vs The Many: General Elections are a Catch-22

And Polling is in general becoming the type of mirror they see us through, even less as sheep and more and more as mere random numbers as per Politics And The New Machine:-

I asked Doug Rivers what role the measurement of public opinion plays in a democracy. He said, “The cynical answer is ‘Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down.’ ”

This said, there is some use in knowing roughly what other people think, if they are broad sentiments and as reported by Dr. RAE North EU politics: we're on our own (almost) 

EU Referendum 2017: UK (& Cyprus) - The EU anomalies in the data

"Picking up on the Eurobarometer poll again, it is interesting to see the EU-wide question being asked on whether individual countries "could better face the future outside the EU" see chart above - click to enlarge).

With the question being asked in January, it comes as no surprise to see the UK recording 47 percent agreeing with that proposition, as opposed to 41 percent disagreeing. And that is against the EU average of 32 percent agreeing and 58 percent disagreeing. In other words, we are way out ahead of the EU average in believing we'd be better off out.

But what is fascinating here is that, apart from Cyprus, we are on our own. With Cyprus, which has 51 percent preferring out, to 43 in, we comprise just two of the 28 EU member states who can turn in a majority against the EU."

 There's an interesting contemporary interview of the public in London by aljazeera: 'Brexit': Should the UK leave the EU or not? and to summarize:-

• "We live in globalized times."
• "We managed on our own for thousands of years."
• "We must look to history to see why we are united."
• "We are tied together - culturally, economically and socially."
• "We have strength in unity."
• "It's important for us to stay together."

How we like to think of ourselves when we give our political opinions...

In actual fact, the above summary of word/spoken/linguistic form of opinions are no different from the above footage of mass gathering: The instinctive reaction to huddle together as a group to solve political (group) problems/pressures/threats. This probably explains the emphasis on polling data: The whole, the behaviour of groups as a whole: Their random opinions merging into a group "feeling".

It's much easier to observe this via live footage:-

1) Dubliner’s Reactions to Joining the EEC 1972 
2) Scottish Independence Referendum:-

Bashful Opinions: Scottish Independence: "Aye or Naw"

3) Denmark Referendum on EURO membership:-

Old vs Young: People/News-Media/Advertising overestimate "youth" and underestimate "maturity" in Western Industrialized cultures (compared to traditional societies)

4) Young UK Students Political Education of debating:-

Commendable enthusiasm from young students but very very black and white thinking processes; no wonder politicians/advertisers target the young

I think there is a connection between all these clips, and in fact many other clips that could have been presented or perhaps have been aired at one time or another that most people will have watched and listened to other members of the publics' opinions... Invariably when the public are interviewed on any sort of political subject, invariably they respond in a juxtaposition between providing an answer full of conviction at the same as providing an answer that makes them look as they would like to appear or not wish to appear. Usually this leads to a sort of "bashful confidence" which is peculiarly contradictory in such combination!

'Public Opinion': The Holy Grail of Politicians

We've looked at News Presenters and increasingly so our leading politicians. Most people know how the rest of the politicians behave. But less well appreciated is how the most important group, the people tend to speak and behave when we talk about politics. There's enormous industry and expenditure on the data science and analytics of polling data; because understanding how people behave and think about politics is a kind of "Holy Grail" of politics.

And here's the "the greatest trick the politicians ever pulled on the people in referendums":-

And how we really behave when we give our political opinions...

Many people will not know the details of the politics, it will be an unknown and this unknown leads to the natural reaction of caution and even as per the inexperienced kitten above "fear" as we've come across so many times before FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). But because we don't understand something does not mean we have to be fearful of it.

As per Dr. Simon Usherwood, University of Surrey:-

My own view would be that the UK has suffered for a long time from a lack of deep public debate about European integration, just as it has from a lack of debate about the country’s wider position in the world, from which the European question cannot be disentangled. The referendum is probably the best opportunity there will be for a generation to get people interested and engaged enough to talk about, so we should make the most of it.
That debate doesn’t need to be brought to life by politicians or the media, because we enjoy a public space that is more open and accommodating of different voices than ever before. If those people who do care about having the debate can start to build it, then there is an opportunity to create something that is organic, considered and useful, however the referendum turns out. That opportunity is in our hands, not anyone else’s.

What is people's power? In General Elections, there is none. It's a Catch-22 system. But when it comes to a Popular Referendum, there's a reason the Politicians have not given the people a referendum (EEC,EC,EU,EZ...) in >40 years and the first and only in 1975:

 In Referendums, peoples' opinions are the real power and the politicians know this.

If everyone acts fearful we get the results we DO KNOW (as per The Knight 'N Knave method) so well: General Election results of musical chairs where no-one's vote amounts to anything of value! If we drop our fear, then I think we will get something of value from our vote: Making the politicians do what we want them to do for us - for once.

A Science of Simplicity

Brexit = Simplicity (LHS) vs Complexity (RHS) both built above "Pragmatic Legitimacy"

In the very first blog, How do you become a "eurosceptic" Brexiteer? it was noted that the foundation to all our communications and hence political decision making systems; "Representative Democracy": which like The Laughing Cavalier (can be seen at The Wallace Collection) seems neither representative nor Democratic, as per The Harrogate Agenda:-

 Much like representative democracy: The Laughing Cavalier is neither "laughing" nor a "Cavalier"!

is built on Trust. A very simple foundation. But it's presence as per Jared Diamond's The World Until Yesterday - At The Airport - An Airport Scene (Papua New Guinea) p.4

"Still another distinction of the 2006 crowd compared to the 1931 crowds was a feature that we take for granted in the modern world: Most of the people crammed into that airport hall were strangers who had never seen each other before, but there was no fighting going on among them. That would have been unimaginable in 1931, when encounters with strangers were rare, dangerous, and likely to turn violent. Yes, there were those two policemen in the airport hall, supposedly to maintain order, but in fact the crowd maintained order by itself, merely because the passengers knew that none of those other strangers was about to attack them, and that they lived in a society with more policemen and soldiers on call in case a quarrel should get out of hand." 

This passage feels particularly pertinent to consider in light of the Paris terrorist attacks on innocent crowds of people, and we easily forget that the simple, scalable act of individuals all deciding to "Trust" one another allows such large gatherings of groups of people, as per Squaddie TV. Trust is one of the Moral Foundations of legitimacy as discussed in Legitimacy & Listening for our political system to work effectively and ensure the feedback loop of our decision-making is providing both negative and positive feedback of decisions and policies.

What has happened with the loss of Trust is the increase in Apathy of electorates as per Power To The People and the increase in the manipulation of Anxiety of governments on their people because of the widening of the MIND THE (Credibility) GAP! between people, parties and politicians, the Political Class that is the displacement of Trust in politics. Dylan Moran manages to capture this apathy and loss of trust:-

The ineffable Dylan Moran: More 'home truths' than ALL our 650 MP's can manage

What we've seen with the above terrorist attacks is the realization that our politicians cannot be trusted and that is related to their political decisions on multiple policies across Foreign Policy, Migration Policy (Irregular Economic migrants and asylum of refugees) and of course the lack of democracy above all in these processes as mentioned. It's why Migration Immigration is so HIGHLY VISIBLE a policy invested with the increased public political will and demand for change: The loss of that simple assumption in our everyday lives: Trust. Dr. RAE North addresses this topic in detail here in the context of Brexit: Strategy Ten: Immigration.

Looking now at the top diagram, however we must define Brexit as a simple choice based on Trust, not on results nor on promises of results, but on Trust of past actions and past words and re-establishing Credibility into Politics BEFORE EVERYTHING that follows

What we can rely on however is those with vested interests: The Politicians, The Lawyers, The Bankers, to assert their own priorities and their own complexities above the people and we've seen the results of this in Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (1). This is the path towards complexity and towards manipulation and a loss of trust in democracy and hence Black Swans.

 The Politicians increase complexity and Black Swans atst as selling FUD to voters!

This noted in Brexit For Beginners: The Hydra Of Complexity. However using a Macroscope as per My Kingdom For A Macroscope! and The EU Onion and The Brexit Number, we can make a hugely significant distinction as per Pub Signs:-

• Brexit = Present Simple x1 Day out of 14,625 days singular event
• FLEXCIT = Present Continous Many Years Process triggered by Brexit
• British Model EU rebranding = Continued complexity and fragility in the EU with sustained mistrust as per Breadcrumbing.

 So how do we simplify the Brexit choice down to a single number/day and a single word to vote for for people, and one that all the voters can above all TRUST?:-

FLEXCIT Process: Defining Brexit as simply as possible by burning away "hydra heads"

Here's a visualization of the structural organization of FLEXCIT. The objective as needs repeating is Simplification, simplification, simplification of Brexit as the binary option on the Referendum Day to choose that people can Trust (because behind it is a Plan that is superior to Cameron's received complexity and fudge and lies and manipulation from the EU: The EU is susceptible to Black Swans because it's so complex politically it is fragile and the only way it can sustain itself is via Deception using all the political power it has centralized to do so for over 60yrs.

Simplicity is what we're interested in and here's why for two reasons. First:-

• Remove Segments
• Reduce Segments
• = More Simple!!

This means Brexit is more understandable for more people and hence they can TRUST this choice more; because it's an event built into a fuller process FLEXCIT itself. It is made for the people, it is including the people, it is educating the people unlike the politicians who attempt to deceive the people for so many decades over the EU.

The blue headings effectively point out a very simple truth connecting the 4 starting conditions with the eventual future dividends (all in green):-

 Utilizing the smallest of deviations that accumulate into very large end changes over time

The "Starting Conditions" must be accounted for:-

1. Stuffing 45 Years + x7 Major Treaties into x1 Referendum Day = Our Politicians failures against democracy
2. The Membership of the EU has accumulated from 1972 huge complexity; only small changes via the the correct legal route of Article 50 are valid and also viable to the UK's secure withdrawal. 

Looking after these may lead to "Future Dividends" that are not immediate so can be removed (for the time-being). Hence all promises of global trade and real democracy by our politicians should be removed from the debate.

That leaves the Yellow Titles. The largest segment are policies. Hence removing this from debate is essential to slaying that Hydra of complexity. Simply on withdrawing repatriating the entire EU acquis to eventually be modified means there's very little to no immediate change: Hence all fears and criticisms are removed

It also means for "eurosceptics" to start Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game and keeping your eyes on the ball as per Off The Ball Movement. If you get bogged down in the above details you add complexity and that plays to the status quo effect, the real enemy of the Referendum, The Top-Down Referendum tool of the professional poltiicians as per How about a nice game of Chess? and again we looked at how complexity is the friend of the trickster in The Knight 'N Knave and the enemy potentially to political progress away from stagnation and control by those in power.

The next biggest is "Withdrawal Options": Without unity and without unity of understanding, why should people/voters trust us? They will trust prestige, and authority as we already covered Legitimacy & Listening, the Dominance-Submission Relationship exerting it's negative effects. We know that if Brexit is defined as simply as possible then it is the nearest layer out of the EU in the EU Onion and the option that is quickest and easiest to reach The Brexit Number which is The Norway Option as per Brexit For Beginners:-

We know why because it is not only simplest even if not optimal, it also satisfies our starting positions and hence is also the most honest position to take and that is the task we're really talking about: Trust!

If this is accepted, then the next largest slug in the pie is The Single Market and that is covered via the Norway Option through EEA access via EFTA membership. This does mean however that such memes as:-

• Cost-Saving
• Regulation
• Control of Borders

Must be removed also from the argument of Brexit. Remember simplifying is GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE! It also means both sides of the argument must be simplified including our side! Goodbye outdated memes, hello simplicity.

I just say an interesting comment on Immigration, it's own slug in the pie and therefore of course important but it is the smaller of the above! if you choose any guide that as per simplicity is an abstract rule of thumb to use to reassure about this decision:- Comment is found here: Strategy Ten: Immigration

Those who want more immigration control will fall into Cameron's complexity trap...

What needs to be understood by "eurosceptics" who I hope after reading this will convert into "Brexiteers" is the above works like this in visual form:-

How Cameron can quickly reassert credibility and authority on Immigration in the EU

You can go over the vast stats on this, for example covered in OMG !!! Parakeet Invasion which references both Dr. RAE North and also Migration Watch. Two of the sources I've found most useful. The above graph shows how politically all Cameron has to do is as per ScepticSid above implement what he can do already and which the EU will ensure also, and the electorate perception will shift on the immigration issue. The proportion is not proportional to the perception, but for most middle-swing-voters that's the type of reassurance they'll vote for.

So UKIP'ers, LEAVE.EU look at the above and reconsider the ranking of immigration I would suggest in terms of SIMPLICITY to achieve your goals.

If you purport to be "The Peoples' Campaign" you will best serve the people through simplicity else you'll fall into Cameron's complexity trap as well as not convince swing voters and again failing the Pragmatic Legitimacy test

To finish, if we go to the top diagram about TRUST. Having FLEXCIT or Cameron's British Model PROCESSES behind each option is the key to each side of the Referendum question (hence Strategy Ten: the need for an exit plan); which itself is an event. Brexit itself must be defined as an point-in-time-event crossing that Supranational line into Intergovernmental context: It needs to be as simply as who do you trust? The people if they are given a chance or the politicians who we have recorded their lies and their lack of legitimacy and hence illusion of authority. We've also previously visited why conceptually both LEAVE.EU and Vote Leave are failing the people on the side of Leave as much as our own government fails the Remain side of people in the question via complexity as per The EU Onion and The Brexit Number.

The top diagram proves why this organization is intellectually bankrupt for not having a brexit plan; it underpins TRUST by removing Pragmatic Legitimacy as a risk!

For that simplification, we must look at how FLEXCIT as a process reduces, removes and hence simplified can be scaled up democratically to more people and empowers them more - the total opposite of a few people behind closed doors deciding the future decades of millions of people with that terrible weight of responsibility and the corrupting influence of power centralized.

Which would you choose?