Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Sunday, 21 February 2016

FLEXCIT Application: 2. Fisheries Solutions

 Understanding the Solutions means understanding their context too: Under Supranationalism or Under Intergovernmentalism

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

  1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
  2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
  3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
  4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
  5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
  6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
  7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
  8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
  9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

1. The Solution Defined:-

Before looking at the potential Solutions if we agree that there are indeed problems:
"The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform.  It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea
than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated
fishing communities."

"Fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale; they need local control." ~
Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January, 2005

Then we must establish the exact nature of those Problems, to which John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 provides the exact description of the rules of the EU, how it works:-

"When a Regulation is created, at the top it states the articles within the Treaty the regulation takes its authority from, and as soon as a Regulation comes into force, it in turn becomes what is known as the acquis communautaire:-
  • "The Court of Justice has ruled that the EU acquis takes precedence over national law if there is a conflict, and that the acquis may have direct effect in the Member States."

In understanding the workings of the then EEC, now European Union, the above paragraph is probably one of the most important aspects to have to learn.
Firstly – what is this acquis communautaire. -. It is all EEC/EU treaties, EU legislation -(regulation), international agreements, standards, court verdicts, fundamental rights provisions and horizontal principles in the treaties such as equality and non-discrimination. In short, all EU-law.

When Britain joined in January 1973, the acquis communautaire amounted to around 5,000 pages; today it is estimated to be 170,000 pages and growing. When a nation joins, what is now the EU, it has to accept, and comply, with the acquis communautaire in full, without exception, other than with transitional derogations. In addition the existing members have to all agree, to the applying Nation joining under those terms, which in effect the existing members, by Treaty, are endorsing their allegiance/compliance to the acquis communautaire."
 The UK joined the EEC in 1972 and has been a member of the EU for 44 years and a part of the acquis system above. Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.0 Regulatory issues provides a summary of the full weight of membership to this system for the UK:-
"In  this  event, the UK will be obliged to keep all Single Market  regulation in place. This  is an extensive body of law. From May 1992,  when the EEA Agreement encompassed 1,849  legal acts, by  December 2013 it had grown  o 5,758  legislative  acts, out  of  the 20,868  EU  acts  currently  in  orce (Table 3). By the end of October 2015, there were 4,957 acts remaining in force, with EU laws in  force recorded at  23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis stood at 22 percent."

2. The Two-Step Solution Applied (I):-

"Since there would be no obligation to retain the remainder of the acquis, theoretically, leaving  the EU could  give relief from around 15,000 acts (although  by no  means all are  applicable to the UK). Amongst  others,  high profile policies such as the CFP and the CAP, would be amendable to abolition if there was the political will to do so, and the nation was prepared to accept the consequences."
 Of which, Table 3: European Union Legislation in force Fisheries Acts = 1,170.

Solution = transition or "bridge" between Problem and Outcome

If we look at our FLEXCIT model we remind ourselves what is the "problem" we are trying to actually solve. Is it economics? No It's political. We saw in FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems of Supranational membership. This is why "keeping all the Single Market regulations" in place is undertaken on withdrawing from Political Union.

The solution is as per Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT:-
"To  allow time  to revise  our  law  books,  a  holding  process  will  be  needed.  The best option is to repatriate the entire body of EU law, converting it en bloc into British law (by a device similar to the ECA)"
 Hence the solution is to again quote John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.:-

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."

"The first priority, therefore, is that control/competence is returned back to Britain."
Here we have the solution, repatriation of the acquis does mean full "control/competence is returned back to Britain."

3. The Two-Step Solution Applied (II):-

This comes back to the quote above concerning removing Supranationalism to quote Owen Paterson Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters:-
"Since its inception, it has been dominated by political considerations that have had little to do with good fisheries management, so the decline and impending collapse of British fisheries has to be laid squarely at the door of the CFP."

"There is now increasing evidence that the reason for the failure is that the core regime applied by the CFP is irredeemably flawed, not least in terms of its appreciation of fish biology, the quality and interpretation of data, as well as the treatment of fishermen"
To come back to John Ashworth:-
"However, as far as fisheries are concerned, it is no good scrapping one régime in order to establish another equally bad system. Withdrawal presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to show what can be achieved in an area that contains one of the finest marine resources in the world."
John Ashworth: The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
"But the distinction has been made, once we regain Sovereignty of a national resource, the full British Fisheries Industry scope is set according to International Law that allows Sovereignty to be clearly defined and not obfuscated under Supranationalism (which we see persistent examples of):-
An inshore industry could be built around the 0 -12 mile limit, which would have a beneficial effect on coastal communities through tourism, recreational fishing, employment and other ancillary industries. All could be administered locally."

"The offshore Industry would be based on the 12 to 200 mile/median line, and then you have the straddling stocks and reciprocal arrangements, which brings genuine friendship between fishermen of different nations. When other nation’s vessels fish in our waters they would do so under our rules."
What we see is that there is no "leap in the dark" there is a orderly two-step withdrawal that regains Sovereignty and removes Supranationalism. Remember that the Solution is not the Outcome, it's a bridge FROM Supranationalism TO Intergovernmentalism:-

 This simple distinction is not made by so much of the political commentary on this subject not just say on Fisheries but on Immigration or any other "Policy Outcome Aspirations". The process of transition itself.

What this solutions does not provide (Outcome) it does provide in terms of relief as per Owen Paterson above, relief from Bad Politics interfering with good fisheries management. It also will help provide a stronger scientific and technical basis for Fisheries Conservation, Sustainability and Recovery and hence a thriving industry administered locally by people who have a vested interest in it's welfare and their own. For example John Ashworth again summarizes:-

Two essential features are needed for a viable fisheries policy:-
  1. The first is the ability to be able rapidly to close areas down where juvenile fish are abundant. This has to be done within hours, even if the closure period may only last for a day or two. This ability to react quickly will never happen while our waters are under the control of Brussels control.
  2. The other important feature of any contemporary fisheries management is the use of selective gear, As a fishing gear designer I need to emphasise that the gear you design for one area is not the same for another area. Even if you are catching the same species, you need to make slight alterations to the gear. This level of adaption is impossible under the policy imposed by Brussels where one set of rules must fit the whole of a large area.
"You must have fishermen on side to make this work, but again, under the North/Paterson proposals, this is far more likely than under the current EU- controlled regime. The attitude it has engendered is that if I don’t catch it, some other foreigner, even though it is another EU citizen, will get it, so I will get in first."

"Personally, I am strongly in favour of the model used by the Faeroe Islanders which operates in a diametrically opposite way to the EU system of setting for each species a total allowable catch on an annual basis, often based on dubious research. In my view it is no good working from the top of the pyramid downwards. Research should be directed at the base of the pyramid upwards; starting with the food source. Once you know the availability here, you can calculate what can be sustained at the top. If for example you have a collapse of the base, you have to fish the top hard, the very opposite to what would happen now."

And on the problems in-built into the "DNA" of the Political "Ever Closer Union" Supranational EU:

"Ranged against us are those who don’t want the Nation State, and those reformists who either don’t understand the workings of the EU, or else who have a hidden agenda. If they really believed in reform, they would want to get rid of the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination. However, such reform is impossible because of the thinking behind the EU Common fisheries policy, which is incapable of beneficial reform along the lines suggested here as it violates the very principles of integration enshrined in the EU treaties which it was designed to promote. Unfortunately, so-called reformists never acknowledge this harsh reality."

"Leaving the EU per se is no solution in itself. It is only the beginning." ~ John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.

Abstraction of Solutions:-

  1. Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
  2. With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
  3. As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
  4. In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
  5. This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
  6. This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
  7. It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
  8. This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
  9. Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
  10. We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

Thursday, 18 February 2016

FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems

Identifying The Problem: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): Save RESTORE Britain's Fish!

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

  1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
  2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
  3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
  4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
  5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
  6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
  7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
  8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
  9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

Fisheries: 1. Problem

1.1 Original Problems:-

The challenge here is to summarize a history stretching from 1970 and even beyond the present past 2020. However that's plenty of time with which to build a very strong evidence basis concerning a problem with Fisheries Policy, to quote FLEXCIT: 14.0 Fisheries:-
"While there are aspects of the CAP which may be tolerable, at least in the short to medium-term, there are no redeeming aspects of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)."
To quote and paraphrase John Ashworth's Fisheries work above: At the end of June 1970, just before the UK was in the process of joining the EEC, the original six members "created the Fisheries regulation 2140/70".
"In laymen’s language, that is, on becoming a member of the then EEC, now EU, the fishery limits bestowed on a Nation by International Law, are handed to the EU, to become Community waters, shared equally and without discrimination, with every other Member Nation."

"As Britain had the largest living marine resource within the EU. We had, by our Accession Treaty obligation share it with every other member – end result – our vessels had to go."

"The British people were not told these facts, in fact the very opposite."
What is significant is the timing of this new regulation which became adopted into the acquis communautaire before the UK Prime Minister Heath had completed his formal application for membership to the EEC. And therefore the PM lied about the Fisheries in order to successfully gain membership by adopting the entire acquis as part of the requirement of the EU Treaties rules themselves.

1.2 Continuity of Problems:-

On "EU Reform" applied to Fisheries:-
"This so-called reform is not the CFP, but a political management tool that is a derogation from the CFP, and this “reform” that our British politicians claim to be a wonderful achievement to obtain, is actually part of the political process to full integration – community waters – community fleet – based on non-discrimination, as stated in the Treaties."
Further problems are highlighted by the fact that Norway did not join nor did Iceland and then Greenland left - Because of Fisheries to a large degree. Coupled to this:-

"Spain, whose application was filed in 1977, would join. Indeed, along with Portugal it did join in 1986, bringing a massive fishing capacity with little resource, tipping the capacity to resource ratio the wrong way.Things were further complicated by Greenland leaving the then EEC in 1985, another loss of resource and again, because of fishing."

"Britain tried to secure a 50 mile exclusive fishing zone, and later attempted to seek a higher percentage share of the quota, but the other Member States said, “no, go and read the Treaties” – something the British are not good at."

"The Accession of Spain and Portugal sailed through our Parliament during 1985, without hardly any questions being asked."

"Genuine reform can only be implemented by unanimous agreement. Meanwhile, the integration process rolls onwards and the obliteration of the British fishing fleet continues, in a most devious manner."

The deviousness all came from the British side"
What happened with the "skewed fishing capacity to resource ratio" was that the British politicians had to find a way to decimate the British fishing vessels to make space for the Spanish:-

"These same people had a problem:- knowing full well that the execution of British fishermen had to take place, but having to do it without the British people knowing.

In the second half of the 1980s, and into the 1990s two situations were happening: large amounts of juvenile fish were being dumped dead back into the sea, and the sand eel stocks, which play a crucial role in the food chain, were being hammered.

The industry highlighted these problems, and through some brilliant research by the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, groundbreaking information was provided on how, by changes ot the gear design, the small fish would not be caught.

Our own Ministry firstly denied either of the events were taking place then secondly went into silent mode, appearing to want to take no action. At that time we did not appreciate why.

One area where the EU excels is if they have a problem, sometimes a crisis ensues which they can use to solve the problem and  at the same time further the integration process. This is called a beneficial crisis."

1.3 Present Problems:-

"Even now the present Westminster Fisheries Minister George Eustice MP states he is a “strong eurosceptic”, who is pleased with his Ministry’s so called “CFP reform”.
"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."
  • Equal access: All waters of the member states, up to the shore (base) line is shared equally with every other member state. Apart from during the early 1970s, you never heard the equal access principle mentioned, even though it was created at the very start of the Common Fisheries project – as far back as 1970.
  • To a common resource: All living marine life is a common resource.
  • Without discrimination: One of the main principles of the EU membership which our Prime Minister does not want to understand.
  • Without increasing fishing effort: So if a new member has large capacity and little resource, that capacity has to be absorbed with no increase in catching more which means someone has to go.
"Meanwhile the only “British waters” are so limited that the fishing of those waters thas now been relegated to a cottage industry which only exists thanks to a derogation within the 6 and partial 6 to 12 mile limits, which the other EU member states are under no obligation to renew."
FLEXCIT: Stage 4 - Restoring independent policies ~ 14.0 Fisheries
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"."

Abstraction of Problems:-

  1. Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
  2. Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
  3. Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
  4. So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
  5. British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
  6. Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
  7. Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
  8. Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.
LeaveHQ: Restore Britain's Fish

FLEXCIT Application: 0. A Framework for Fisheries

 Restore Britain's Fish: A Model Example of FLEXCIT Applied

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

  1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
  2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
  3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
  4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
  5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
  6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
  7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
  8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
  9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty
Correct Framing, Logical Reasoning, Comprehensive Organizing, Balance of Evidence = Brexit Solution Selection within FLEXCIT Paradigm Shift framework

In the previous blog, FLEXCIT: Back From The Future I think I managed successfully to finally encapsulate FLEXCIT in a visible and accessible form for people who have zero knowledge of the subject of the EU Referendum and Brexit. FLEXCIT: The Market Solution can be thought of as the "DNA": It is a compacted store of extraordinarily organized and complex information. Most people will not read this "genetic code". Hence for this "DNA" to be useful, it requires people to transcribe it into different "USE-ABLE FORMS". In this case we're going to do just that starting with The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as example of applying our method to harvest data/evidence to feed into the question of Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism. The references above provide all the data. What people need is not mountains of data, they need organization of it:-

Evidence of a Problem: UK Fisheries under Supranationalism = Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

To provide an example the form mentioned above would be suitable for a 10-20 page pamphlet as a visual guide to the referendum and how people can structure their choice to vote to Remain or to vote to Leave. The challenge of the EU is to show to people that our Policy Control is best served when it is by self-governance of the people by the people as well as the positive alternative vision that replaces Supranationalism with Intergovernmentalism. So using our method on this data/evidence set of Fisheries let's begin:-
Inheritance: Method to Organize the Evidence for Fisheries - "Use-ably"

The reason we use this structured method is that it feeds into the upper levels which are most relevant to our Referendum Question itself and in a form that is easy for people to appreciate when they (millions) make their choice.

Each of the above:
  • Problem
  • Solution
  • Outcome
Will be summarized from the primary research and references, then at the end abstraction of the "common messages". In turn these common messages will themselves become the form for a new form for people to use to easily understand the EU Referendum question inheriting the positive qualities that originate in the works above (the DNA) and ensuring a direct link to a common source of origin and expertise.

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

FLEXCIT: Back From The Future

  • Tier 1 = "............................"

  • Tier 2 = Conceptual Framework

  • Tier 3 = Problem-Solving Process

  • Tier 4 = Application

  • Tier 5 = The (complete) Market Solution

In the previous blog FLEXCIT: A Paradigm Shift the key point was made that, to use a metaphor, "Brexit is a bridge - only". It is merely the evidence that it is legitimate (valid) and possible (viable) to withdraw from the EU. To quote Dr. RAE North in EU Referendum: suffering in silence:-
"By way of background, we are engaged in the political battle of the century, and to win it we need to do three things. Firstly, we need to convince enough voters that we need to leave the EU. Secondly, we need to offer them an alternative vision – one which is better than anything the EU has to offer. Thirdly, we have to be able to reassure people that moving from the EU to our alternative is practicable and safe. That is our so-called exit plan.

These three things I have previously described as the "three-legged stool". In my view, they are not optional. Together, they comprise the essential elements of the campaign. Without them, I am convinced that we cannot win this referendum.

What we don't need, therefore, is people of status and some prestige coming out of the woodwork, promoting ridiculous and totally unworkable ideas for an exit plan, and then undermining the work of those people (such as myself and all the other contributors to Flexcit) who have come up with a workable plan."
Effectively FLEXCIT/The Market Solution is the full context within which the solution (Brexit) is held between Problem and Outcome; and only one (but central) element of the full picture:

Incorrect/Zero Framing of the Problem:

Brexit: A small but pivotal part of the full story: NOT the full story!

What we see when the context/framing is not applied correctly is a list of declarative battles over what is the problem and what is the solution? Nobody apparently knows and both "sides of the argument" are apparently equivalent: They're not - they descend into low quality arguments as per Argument Abstraction:-

The Political Dark Ages Today: Exemplified by these "prestigious groups" AND The Economist

In Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule it was pointed out that most of the EU Referendum discussion and Brexit by implication is wasteful communication, "mountains of madness" in the legacy news-media and "piles of garbage" produced by Westminster politicians. The assertion was made that the Positive Vision as per Dr. RAE North,above, is predominantly the future creation of a genuine single market in which Britain plays a leading role amongst equals, due to initiating this change, not by default of dominating.

However there is another positive outcome preceding this one: "Which is which when all is said and done?" And that is the very process of holding a referendum is an opportunity to increase the quality of arguments and increase the positive engagement of people into the political decision making process itself.

If you've noticed our politicians for decades and in great volume have talked about "uncertainty" in our politics: They're the biggest source of this so-called "political disease" as per The Root Of All Uncertainty, both the above two sides represented/hand-picked in The Economist above are full of The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich.

In fact what we're already doing is starting to describe the problem of our EU Membership indirectly. But there is much much more to do to build up the argument to it's full completion:-

FLEXCIT: The sum of it's parts and more than the sum of it's parts

Sunday, 14 February 2016

FLEXCIT: A Paradigm Shift

What is Brexit? A Bridge. What is Flexcit? A Paradigm Shift.

Brexit is misconceptualized in almost all communication and particularly by the majority of "Leave" supporters.
  • Brexit = A Bridge or "A Process". It is not the same as "The Outcome".


Flexcit - The Market Solution to leaving the EU

Dr Richard A E North with Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group and the assistance of readers of

Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule

This is now the 81st blog post, so it seems appropriate to try to change the nature of Brexit Discussion to the essential "Positive Vision" component. Looking at the above graph, this is an illustration of a Power Law, in the above case the form of the 20:80 Rule aka The Pareto Principle that people are more familiar with:-
"The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas."
Namely and only in this case to illustrate as opposed to measure accurately: What we talk about when we talk about Brexit and our Referendum on the EU is prodigiously, prodigiously distorted. It's a reflection on the extremely low quality communication that is passed off as national decision-making in the UK/Britain today by our "leaders".

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

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

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

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

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

EU Political Union of "Concentric Circles"

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

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

"Even within ther EU, there are different levels of commitment, with the inner core defined as the eighteen eurozone members iniwhat is often described as a Europe of concentric circles. The non-eurozone Schengen and then non-Schengen members are described as the outer core zone, while accesssion countries and EEA members are part of the "periphery". Neighbours are known as the "outer periphery".
"This image of concentric circles conveys the reality of an EU-centric Europe, where those furthest from the centre have least power."
 What we can clearly summarize:-
  • Communication of the EU Political Project is horribly skewed in UK Politics.
  • Members are unequal economically within it.
  • Members are unequal politically within it.
  • Members are in all likihood moving in different directions due to the preceding variability.
 And yet we have EU Treaties that tie all these nations together. The next step is:-

  • The Monetary/Fiscal Union of the EUROZONE
  • Aligning with the globalization process to boost prosperity
Effectively the UK in it's own decisions should be considering that the former is not a realistic nor desirable outcome. So the question remains why have we not had more discussion on the creation of a genuine single market and focus on what this really means?

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

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

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

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

Looking at the existing alternative:-

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

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

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

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

Friday, 12 February 2016

The Root Of All Uncertainty

The Uncertainty Precept: Start with the right question(s).

Quoting Wikipedia once again on the "Uncertainty Principle" (must donate!):-
In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.
So "uncertainty" is in-built it seems into the very nature of the realistic universe! Or to adapt it for a more "relate-able" misuse:-

And this is indeed a hilarious transposition of "uncertainty" when we also find the same "joke"as noted by Mr. Brexit:-

CEP: "You Just Made That Up."

Interestingly enough we can actually take what Dilbert says above and apply it to the CEP "analysis" above:

"If you understand a project you won't know it's cost, and vica versa." ~ Dilbert

Effectively to para-phrase: "because we don't understand the project (Brexit)" we therefore DO understand it's costs: They're "ginormous"!! The Project Uncertainty Principle, in action.

This is attributed to "uncertainty". So how do we reduce/remove uncertainty?

What does "uncertainty" look like = Bad Decision-Making ; What is at the root of uncertainty = Not asking the right questions aka 1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Once we use such a framework it should be noted, CEP above launches into Stage 3. [See Above: "What are the UK's options outside the European Union?"] suggesting there is uncertainty over 3 million jobs and The Single Market and the EU are all blurred into one amorphous and undefined entity to which all manner of uncertainty properties can be attributed.

But the dual fallacies are both launching into Stage 4. AND not starting at Stage 1.

I think this simple process explains probably 95% of all the work we see published by various think tanks on the EU Referendum and on Brexit as per Dr. RAE North at  It's staggered that our National Decision-Making apparatus and institutions is so primitive in it's observable out-put.

Progress? Nope. Uncertainty? Yup.

The enormous disregard for The History of the European Union as described and defined in The Great Deception has been a key contributor to failure of progression of the argument.

If anyone is interested in Brexit, they must know what the defined problem is as per Lost Leonardo: For The Avoidance of Doubt. But this also allows an insight into the workings of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" who are taking over the Leave Campaign forming their own "Policy Ponzi" scheme as per Leave HQ: What's Wrong With the WTO Option?. Why? Why do they do this? What we see by the process of obscuring the definition of the problem ie ignoring The Great Deception is that it means the "Consideration Set" is kept broad and undefined. Here is the space with which the politicians can peddle their "Policy Ponzis" as per The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich to a bewildered public. By going through the entire cycle of Decision-Making we can connect the original problem itself to a form that is "fitted" to democratic decision-making on a mass scale for voters to be an executive part of the full decision-making cycle. But it relies on HIGH QUALITY!

It's funny you don't need the likes of LSE or CER who are paid so much by such powerful entities with such jealously guarded vested interests, a simple tabulation tells the story as effectively and more clearly. And as pointed out they deliberately go about:-

Finding The Right Answer(s) to The Wrong Questions.

There seems to be a lot of money and prestige sloshing around in those think tanks as per The Political Food Web of Prestige and possibly far too much geopolitical power projection invested in the EU to allow us plebs to decision on the right question: EU Reform: Asking The Wrong Question.

Is economics in the core defined problem? No. So remove it.

We can see that CER and Open Europe are determined to also ask the wrong questions and get the right questions on economic projections. This is why FLEXCIT removes this area from the original question and from the practical implementation of Brexit too. No other Brexit plan do we see this simple high quality thinking.

And this itself can be used to reinforce our Problem Definition:-

Just look at all these useless reports that fail to Define The Problem and Ask The Right Questions.

Our Membership of the Supranational EU is itself a deterioration of democratic decision-making processes as a nation!!

"If it sounds too good to be true": Elliott, Lea, Campbell-Bannerman, Redwood, Cash, Hannan, Carswell, Cummings,

Why don't the above avowed "Leave Campaigners" seek to solve this problem via higher quality decision-making and hence avoid uncertainty? It's their trade as "eurosceptic aristocrats" in SW1 as part of the political class: Farage on that front is certainly right!

It's up to voters to force such people either out of the way as part of the problem preventing problem definition or make them part of the solution:-

Importance of sovereignty

"Many voters had sovereignty at the top of their list for their reasons to say ‘no’, both in 1972 and 1994.

Norway gained independence from 90 years of Swedish rule in 1905, and was prior to that a part of the Danish Kingdom for more than four centuries. Skinner writes that this history of foreign rule has made Norwegians reluctant to give up independence to a supranational union such as the EU.

“For many Norwegians, the distance to Oslo is long,” says the researcher. “But the distance to Brussels is even longer.”

She says Norwegians are content with their political system, characterised by a short socioeconomic distance between the government and the governed, and are put off by the decision-making process in the EU.
Marianne Sundlisæter Skinner.

This attitude was found both in the seventies and nineties."
I guess the Norwegians had their heads screwed on tightly both:-
  • Defining the Problem.
  • Defining the Challenge: Not trusting or being led by THEIR lying politicians who did want to join! 
However one important difference to sharp-eyed observers, this was about Sovereignty to them in the 70's and 90's.

Today, in the 10's the problem is still Supranationalism but the challenge is Intergovernmentalism. The problem with Supranationalism?

Bad Decision-Making = ... (you guessed it!).

Thursday, 11 February 2016

The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich

It's got everyone salivating - !

This is just yet another example of the Referendum Miasma Phase as discussed briefly in The Market Solution: A Growing Solution. Stage 0: It's not even progression yet, but it is a matter of selection as per Sticky Ideas: Progression via Selection.

On the one side you have EU Referendum: the "better deal" fallacy; quoting Dr. RAE North:-
"In my piece on barking cats to which I constantly refer, I call in aid a commentary written by Milton Friedman on the behaviour of government bodies. The way an agency behaves, Friedman argues, is not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat."
What this means is that the argument itself has it's own objective reality irrespective of the subjective political calculation of persuasion via promises of Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain! which I don't like the sounds of at all for example Ponzi Schemes:-

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

 "Suckers": Sooner or later original lies are going to need more lies to sustain them which in turn require yet more and more lies to service subsequent lies... Numbers don't lie if you look after them very carefully

I personally cannot tell or know if this is some master-stroke strategy to gain the attention of swing-voters into believing that it's time for the UK to "get a better deal!" from the EU: Afterall we're supposedly partners in "political union": What kind of partnership is this?

I don't know. But what I do know is that the our politics is predominantly Top-Down and THIS dictates the type of communication from those in power to those under power ie the people:-

 Most of our politics is conveyed by the BBC FROM our politicians. Very little of the voters is shared in this medium of communication. Alternatively via google people can find alternative sources of information from other people to share and communicate on a vastly larger scale and scope.

Interestingly, google is taking a lot of "flak" for it's taxes at the moment. But I've found google immensely useful; I use it most days multiple times and in particular for helping to find useful information on "EU Referendum" and "Brexit". The problem as I see it is that the the major Legacy News-Media delivery of information is very Top-Down so we end up with the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman regressing progression of ideas of Brexit once again back to the "Better Deal Fallacy" territory again: EU Referendum: in spite of these people …

Unfortunatately google works both ways, there's a lot of information about "Control Our Borders" that also does not hold up no matter how passionately it is believed; particularly by UKIP supporters. It's another "Policy Ponzi" it probably needs to be conceded: Driven by how many people it can "sucker" in.

In FLEXCIT aka The Market Solution, Chapter 7.0 Freedom of Movement & Immigration and 7.8 A Comprehensive immigration Policy p.143:-
"Putting the arguments in the chapter together, two separate themes emerge. Firstly, there is the issue of intra-EU "freedom of movement", mandated by EU treaties and then either a condition of the Market Solution, whetehr through the EFTA/EEA route ("Norway Option"), via the unilateral "shadow EEA" approach or Australian process.

We retain the view that the interim stratagem facilitates our expeditious withdrawal from the EU. The Market Solution with the short-term continuation of freedom of movement provisions, is an acceptable price to pay, especially if the alternative is continued membership of the EU, which would also require the implementation of freedom of movement provisions.

This notwithstanding, we have also argued that leaving the EU, per se, will not solve our immigration problems.


It has failed in this context to realise that "controlling our borders" is not a policy per se, but an aspiration - and a wholly unrealistic one at that."

In effect a "Policy Ponzi". Let's make this clear as per The Market Solution:-

 Brexit will allow greater Policy Control over Migration (not the same thing as "Control Our Borders" outcome) - but not over Freedom of Movement, immediately. Secondly it will not resolve Pull-Push Factors by itself which are systemic and regional-global, not only national (ie control our borders). But it will help and above all make our politicians MORE DIRECTLY accountable to this policy.

What we can see is that this is a very variable number of interacting issues:-

Any effective policy, though must be properly coordinated with other policy areas, as in "joined up policy".

  • Brexit (British Exit) = "Withdrawal -- from -- EU Treaties -- via -- Article 50 Libson Treaty -- Only."
  • The Market Solution (FLEXCIT) = The context of "joined-up Policy" around Brexit => "a continuous, flexible (on-going) process -- over a decade."
What we're currently doing is failing the progression of the argument, mainly due to the 650 MP's and the Legacy News-Media combination in poor communication and exclusive omission of ideas from the 32,000,000 people who own "British Sovereignty". The result is The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich that is used to persuade and sell to people a lot of different "Policy Ponzis".

The result of this:-

Failure of progression via failure to implement a fair system of selection = Status Quo Result

The confusion in the argument perpetrated by the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman and The cancer in the Tory establishment means our arguments are prevented from progressing in quality. On the otherside of the BS sandwich we get UKIP putting x1 Policy Migration in front of Withdrawal because they've built up a following of "suckers for lies" aka a "Policy Ponzi Scheme"... let's see where that leads to in the future for all the followers who have invested their goodwill and emotional attachment to these promises shall we?

 Or we can all start using google and talking with each other and generating more honest and accurate ideas to discuss their merits in our national decision making as per Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight, for a start:-

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain!

Moses The Raven: "Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest forever from our labours!"

In George Orwell's Animal Farm the character Moses The Raven is described as such:-
"The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr. Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. It was situated somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses said. In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place."

Dr. RAE North writing in Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan:-

"Anything as complex and challenging as leaving the European Union will present significant problems. Therefore, you do not need a focus group to tell you that, when confronting the prospect of an EU referendum, voters will need to be reassured that a choice to leave is not a leap in the dark.

That much has been obvious to anyone who has even begun to look at the issue. More specifically, I have long argued that we would need to produce a credible exit plan. Without that – as I was writing in May 2008, over seven years ago – our opposition would rely on the status quo to support their case and, in particular, the assertion that there is no alternative (TINA) to our membership of the European Union.

It actually took five years, until June 2013, for the IEA to trigger the process of producing an exit plan, with its Brexit Prize. But so badly managed was the competition – and then ultimately rigged – that the winning entries added nothing to the debate and have disappeared into the obscurity they rightly deserve."
 Sugarcandy Mountain!

There is no such thing as "Sugarcandy Mountain" but there is such as thing as people who make a good living for themselves selling it:-

"In Mr Hannan's world, however, time has stood still. The idea of a staged exit is rigorously excluded while he rehearses the same issues he was writing about ten years ago, in terms that have scarcely changed. Laboriously, he goes on a hunt for the ideal "model", with a tedious and somewhat flawed review of the Norway-EEA and Swiss arrangements.

This leads him then to conclude that Norway "gets a better deal than Britain currently does", and – quite wrongly – that Switzerland gets "a better deal than Norway". And upon this flawed assumption, he then drops into an exposition of the better deal fallacy as he assert that "a post-EU Britain, with 65 million people to Switzerland's eight million and Norway's five, should expect something better yet"."

"One of the converts to this idea is Ruth Lea. She was formerly an advocate of the so-called "Swiss option" (page 27), so she now stands – without explanation - completely at odds with her earlier position. But we have also seen an intervention from Global Britain." 

There is a telling difference between us lesser mortals and men such as John Redwood. We believe that we need the 419 pages of Flexcit, and something like three years of study, to define how we leave the EU. Redwood believes he can do it in a mere 417 words, contradicting the bulk of what we have to say in the process.

Both writers take exception to Mr Redwood's many assertions, including the most egregious of them which have him declaring that "the Leave campaign does not want the UK to seek a Norway style deal", that in order to leave "the UK could simply amend the 1972 European Communities Act" and that, after leaving, we could "simply rely on World Trade Organisation membership to stop tariffs and other barriers being imposed"."

"Amazingly, the Eurosceptic "aristocracy" simply can't get their soggy little brains round the idea that it would be extremely unwise to attempt a "big bang" separation from the EU. They also have difficulty with the idea that the two year period allowed for the initial Article 50 exit negotiations isn't long enough to broker a bespoke free trade agreement – which can take 5-15 years to conclude."

"Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!"

"My answer on what the alternative plan should be called is "WTO Plus". All other benefits - democratic control, border control, economic control - flow from it. It is a simple and genuine alternative plan. So, you may ask, what on earth is it? 

My plan for the UK outside of the EU combines a guaranteed basic trade deal based on current World Trade Organisation arrangements with a better free trade deal on top.

The basic deal is guaranteed whatever happens, as the UK and EU are both World Trade Organisation members in their own right and must follow its rules or be hauled into an international court.

This worst case scenario would mean tariffs on some goods. But I think we can do better than that. There are already indications that German car manufacturers would ensure their government does not impose tariffs on UK cars – why penalise BMW-owned Minis and Rolls Royces? There would be such demand from all sides for a better deal"
He then rattles off a list of Pro-Brexit Arguments: Beyond the Mirage:-

 Back to Moses The Raven:-

"In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still did no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy Mountain. He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by the hour to anyone who would listen. "Up there, comrades," he would say solemnly, pointing to the sky with his large beak– "up there, just on the other side of that dark cloud that you can see– there it lies, Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!" He even claimed to have been there on one of his higher flights, and to have seen the everlasting fields of clover and the linseed cake and lump sugar growing on the hedges. Many of the animals believed him. Their lives now, they reasoned, were hungry and laborious; was it not right and just that a better world should exist somewhere else? A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, and yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a day."

So you see it's quite useful having a clever talker persuading people that Paradise is just around the corner if they continue "working harder for a better Britain!" supporting their betters on such matters...