Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Article 50, Off Swiches & Nigerian Princes

All these electronic devices and appliances have the above common: ON/OFF Switches

When you buy a new modern electronic appliances usually it will come with an instructions manual. One of the most important commands you can input into the device is to turn it on and start using it after it starts using an energy source or else stop using it and turn it off where upon it stops using an energy source.

Let's think about this concept with respect to the European Union. When we entered the EEC we signed up to the EU Treaties and started using them. It seems very reasonable that when or if we decided to want to stop using the EU Treaties, then to turn the ruddy thing off, the off switch would need to be found in the Instructions Manual? Yes!

Reassuringly familiar! That 1 = On and that 0 = Off and the light acts as a secondary signal to inform it's status even more clearly.

It's true, the Off Switch for the European Union for any member is called Article 50 Lisbon Treaty, and more explanation here "Withdrawal Clause", it is:-

 I've added a nice flashing "BREXIT" logo alongside highlighted text: Press Here to "turn off".

Article 50 And Withdrawal: An explainer
To quote The Leave Alliance Explainer: "In summary Article 50 allows us to fulfil our international obligations, abide by our EU treaty agreements and allows for an orderly exit with minimum of disruption particularly with regarding trade."

EU Referendum: more angst on Article 50 

 Mysterious, Foreign Dignitary and their extravagant claims...

 You would do well to read Dr. RAE North's blog above and again also from Mr. Brexit GOD gets it largely right, yet Vote Leave offers a ludicrous response.

There's a couple of intuitive assumptions here:-
  1.  In a Referendum debate it should be clear what Signing up to EU Treaties means as well as how to "unsign" from EU Treaties.
  2. That this would not be the first time a member wanted to sign and unsign from some or other treaty.
  3. That such a process of "on/off" or unsigning is designed to work correctly towards that particular function!!! (or you'd want to use your warranty rights!!!).
Indeed. This is the case, Andrew Duff is an expert and reliable witness:-

The EU Bill and Parliamentary sovereignty - European Scrutiny Committee  ~ Written evidence from Andrew Duff MEP
11.   The establishment of the European Union is not irrevocable. Any state of the Union has always been able to secede from membership under the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties by taking a unilateral decision according to its own constitutional requirements. In the case of the UK, abrogation of membership would be achieved by the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. Sensibly, the Lisbon treaty installed a mechanism for the orderly withdrawal from membership status and the negotiation of alternative arrangements between the states that go and those that stay (Article 50 TEU). 
One of the problems is that the people talking are infusing all sorts of bullshit and non-sequitur inferences:-
  • "New Relationship"
  • "Exit Agreement"
  • "Get a (new) Deal"
When these variable set names are given all sorts of fairies or goblins come flying out of the box and then the silly bitching matches starts with the commentators shouting "Oi REF!!!".

You can listen to Gus O'Donnell at the soundcloud provided at blog above, by Dr. RAE North. Dr. North suggests he provides at least "a more-or-less coherent rendition" and "That notwithstanding, he talks limited sense". I actually think this is overly generous, perhaps in contrast to the moronic Vote Leave it's x100 more sensible. But I am thinking to myself: This is one of the most experienced people in the UK who is on air to discuss the Rules of this game and not overly speculate but if providing commentary on scenarios to do so with sensible reasoning.

 Well, well, well... I really wish I could say, "I was learning how Article 50 works while you were still shitting yourself in your swaddling clothes..." to our Political Establishment, except the reality isn't quite like that! This has been available for >2+ years...

Instead listening to the tone of his voice he sounded liked a trembling, frightened bunny-rabbit and did not structure the order of things.
  1.  Leave Vote >51%
  2. From Referendum Day Result + N Days of preparation (>1 year likely) before triggering Article 50 Officially.
  3. Article 50 gives up to 2 Years to as quickly as possible tidy up renegotiations.
  4. During 2 Years UK remains EU member.
  5. Negotiations:-
  • Single Market entry
  • Relationship with EU
  • Trade - He even gets this wrong as per Mr. Brexit:-

"This is where O'Donnell went wrong, with his comments about trade treaties with other countries. We are not under pressure to negotiate trade treaties with other countries, only make a deal with the EU to maintain single market membership to ensure British trade and economic interests are not damaged by Brexit. There is provision in international law for the continuation of treaties by parties who were not parties to the original agreements, i.e. those made by the EU on behalf of the UK.
This means the UK would not have to renegotiate trade deals and agreements which already include us. The continuance of the existing agreements in their current form needs only to be agreed by both parties and assent to this lodged with the United Nations, in line with the conventional practice in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This was borne out by the separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia into independent nation states."

 All this is covered in FLEXCIT. What is a complete non-sequitur is the concept of "haggling" over German Cars or "my stick is bigger than your stick" or "tough negotiator" or any of the rest of that Silver Spoon Dinner genteel, horseshit snobbery (!). This attitude that's rife in the Politicians and News-Media that then always ends with an over-the-top gracious and dull "Lord X, Tharnk YOO very much... ." This ends up substituting for the actual arguments and no one learns anything. That is the problem. By all means indulge in the above, so long as it does not get in the way of the actual significant communication - but it invariably, always does.

Yes the deficiencies of Article 50 are real, but no they are not an insurmountable barrier to post-hoc Democratic Mandate and secondly Expectation Setting as per The Market Solution ("not a penny more, not a penny less"). In context to it's opposite:-

 it does not seem so scary, it seems equivalent and even sensible.

I think possibly because I've read FLEXCIT it seems much clearer to me, and it borders on frustration (that emotion where you feel you can normally or should be able to do something very reasonably but for whatever present reason are unable to):-
"Here we are then, less than three months from the referendum and the leave campaign as a whole has not settled on the basics, with one of the main players offering a crass perversion which opens the door to the likes of O'Donnell and the "remain" campaign to put the boot in.

We also see a counter from justice minister Dominic Raab who declares O’Donnell "wrong", saying – not without merit – that: "O'Donnell isn't a diplomat or an international lawyer. I used to negotiate treaties and tell you we could get an exit agreement", he says.

But what we don't get from Raab is any intimation of how this apparent miracle is to be achieved. Apart from Vote Leave's insane proposal that we by-pass Article 50, trawling the newspapers leaves us none the wiser."

 I've personally always been suspicious that the foundation rules are not made clear, there's inevitably going to be cheating; and nowhere has this been more apparent and more consistent than Vote Leave's rejection of Article 50 as well as the Government's own attempts to avoid too much clarity on it as well:-
  • Transparency
  • Possibility
  • Expectation Setting 
  • International Law (a big world above the little EU)

 Not a perfect fit but useful: Replace "Anonymity" with "Unclear Rules" = "Total Fuckwad Polician or Journalist"

how it works and so this leaves the conclusion that if this is the best we get as people from the people running the Establishment then the next best is x100 worse from the major lead Leave Campaign run by more of the Establishment, what the problem really is is I think similar to these:-

 The behaviour of so many politicians and journalists in this Referendum is little better than Prince Jones Dimka or Prince Isa Ahmed!!!

If you can't get the basic ground rules established, we know the consequences:-
"And that is why, with the referendum closing by the day, we have not settled issues which should have been long resolved, and why this campaign has degenerated into one of the worst-managed displays of incompetence that I can ever recall. But then is is far more important that us serfs know our place, than doing what is necessary to win this referendum." 

 AIRBUS A320 cockpit and autopilot panel

The UK Establishment summed up:-
"Modern man lives isolated in his artificial environment, not because the artificial is evil as such, but because of his lack of comprehension of the forces which make it work- of the principles which relate his gadgets to the forces of nature, to the universal order. It is not central heating which makes his existence 'unnatural,' but his refusal to take an interest in the principles behind it. By being entirely dependent on science, yet closing his mind to it, he leads the life of an urban barbarian." ~ Arthur Koestler

Democratic Deficit: Out Of Touch

 Layers of Popularity: Is that Democracy or something else? I think this picture explains the nature of progression of this referendum succinctly

Above is a synthesis of the complete discussion of the subject of this blog. It's an illustration of the low quality arguments and why they appear so much more visible. Starting back to front almost with a conclusion and then proceeding to explain. Let's describe the above:-
  1. Left-Hand Side Columns: X-axis Knowledge 0-5 dominates the debate
  2. If we presume that in the absence of knowledge people resort to what they believe to be "true" or most applicable to them this is based on emotion or personal bias ("what matters to me").
  3. Top Left-Hand Side Row: Y-axis Popularity 10-5: We see that with a leader figurehead our PM holds the most prestige and drives at least 50% of the polling attitudes and all the political infrastructure beneath his office.
  4. Second to him is Boris Johnson, and this is reflected in the Personality Contest that has taken over the Referendum.
  5. Right-Hand Columns: X-axis: I've only added Dr. RAE North. I could have added Andrew Duff floating around a similar area, but wanted to highlight the disparity visually more strikingly so with a single face.
  6. The various ratios are indicative, a general feel, a general impression of the speakers and their coherence and consistency of their arguments vs how regularly they draw attraction from mass media channels of communication.

There was an interesting and I think accurate observation in City AM by Louisa Bojesen:-
"Then an important point was made. Democracy only works when you have a society of smart people. Think about it. [...] Some might argue that, if you can’t have an “intelligent democracy”, then you would be better off with a kind of “benevolent dictator” system."
Now looking at the reaction of a system of government that believes democracy does not work:-
Phillips quotes the Communist party-controlled Global Times: “The rise of a racist in the US political area worries the whole world… He has even been called another Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler by some western media... Mussolini and Hitler came to power through elections, a heavy lesson for western democracy.” Phillips writes, “Trump, or ‘Chuanpu' as they call him in China, has been a gift to Communist party spin doctors paid to convince the country’s 1.4bn citizens that rule of the people is a sure path to chaos and destruction.”
Before progressing, retrospectively there's some themes that repeat here: We looked at the absence of intelligence in How To Vote: A Simple Guide to Decision-Making; which as part of a long-standing goal of this blog attempted to provide a simplification for conducive decision-making for the voter. This was off the basis of previous work: Discrīmen: Arguments have their own reasons where the idea of reduction in knowledge per level of dissemination/distribution to more and more people is a natural process of democracy decision-making but still a workable framework for improving national decision-making and I believe do-able/achievable. Then to come back to Democracy directly: Dêmos + Kratos = A Community That Communicates Productively here we looked at a similar theme to this blog but also provided details of successful democracy in Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. The assertion here was that the quality of communication is possibly correlated positively with democracy and by implication a more intelligent decision-making process; achieved.

 Uniting Nations - Out Of Touch: "You're outta touch; I'm outta touch!"

Our older forms of social organization are our family and then tribal forms which probably existed many times longer than all the subsequent forms of human organization put together. thus when dealing with people, the LOCAL SCALE of Democracy is all important.

The Harrogate Agenda2. Real local democracy

"To that effect, our aim must be to invert the entire structure of the British state. Instead of the top-down systems, we need to start locally and create structures built from the bottom-up. [...]

What we are proposing is nothing short of revolution. The fundamental building blocks of our democracy should become independent local units which owe their existence to the people who live within their boundaries. Instead of being statutory bodies – i.e., defined by statute, from which they derive their powers, under the control of central government – they become constitutional entities. Their existence, powers and revenue-raising capabilities are defined by the people via the medium of constitutions, approved by local referendums.
These local authorities – which could be counties, cities or the former county boroughs – become independent legislatures is their own right. Whereas local authorities were once permitted to make by-laws, defined and permitted by central government, true local government makes its own laws in its own name. Each district makes all the laws for matters exclusive to its area, using powers defined by its own constitution, applicable within its own boundary.
Some might think that local authorities are too small to become legislatures, but size is not an issue. Few people for instance, realise that Iceland, with a population of 313,000, boasts fewer people than the London Borough of Croydon (363,000) and very substantially less than the Metropolitan District of Bradford (501,000).

Yet Iceland is a sovereign nation. It has its own government, its own parliament, its own laws, its police and even its own fishing policy and navy to enforce it. Despite its small size, the country does tolerably well, with a GDP of $12.57 billion (146th in the world) and a GDP per capita of $38,500, the 24th highest in the global league (higher than the UK’s $36,600, the 33rd highest).  It also has its own local government, with 59 local municipalities.

In Norway, which has approximately five million inhabitants, there are 428 municipalities and 19 county authorities. More than half the municipalities have less than 5,000 inhabitants and only 14 have more than 50,000. The largest municipality is Oslo, which is also a county. It has approximately 620,000 inhabitants. But the smallest municipality is Utsira with 209 inhabitants.[...]

In some respects, this also solves some of problems we have with MPs. One might expect seats to be apportioned on a county basis, with approximately one per 120,000 head of population. This ratio gives a House of Commons roughly the same size as it is at present. The boundaries would be fixed.  As population varied, so would the number of MPs, keeping constituencies wholly within the bounds of specific local authority areas.

The reckoning should be, incidentally, based on population rather than electorate. Our MPs should be representing the interests of all of their constituents, not just those who can vote.

However, some might argue that, with a reduced workload, fewer MPs would be needed, with a ratio of perhaps 200,000 or more for each representative, possibly stretching to one per 500,000 head of population. Where the United States House of Representatives manages to make do with 435 voting members, our House of Commons might be able to reduce itself to less than 300, saving expense. We might expect numbers in the House of Lords to be proportionately reduced – with perhaps only a hundred or so working members needed.
 Now we look at China: Demographics of China

"According to the 2010 census, 91.51% of the population was Han Chinese, and 8.49% were minorities."
What we have it appears to me is the transition of Tribal to Institutional/ Centralized Governance which is then dealing with Globalization and Market Forces acting on such institutions. Many people think the solution to this is "The Blob Solution": To increase the size of the units of these institutions to counter-act global forces. I don't think this is a very good solution for the future, it takes power away from people and that usually ends up badly for people. Secondly we can look at the effects of the "Blob Solution" today in the UK and indeed in the EU. Firstly our UK Referendum:-

 Readers can feel "relief" that the result the Legacy News-Media promotes and supports is as banal as they thought it was; and how fortunate to have the Legacy-News Media point it out!

Is it irony or hypocrisy or both? Either way this result is exactly mirrored in the above graph I've provided. The problem is "loss of knowledge" the greater the mass of people the message is communicated to from a Centralized source. Here the Blob Effect exerts it's effects to the detriment of increasing knowledge and making intelligent democratic decision-making. So China may find this supports their own system of governance. But it does in the sense of the scale of people they have to govern and the "homogeneity" of those people (91% self-identifying Han). 

 Legacy News-Media Visualized Accurately: This is really the source of news you're being provided with!!! (packet of BLANK photocopy paper)

Compare to Europe:-


"Ancient Greece was the founding culture of Western civilisation. Western democratic and individualistic culture are often attributed to Ancient Greece. The Greeks city-state, the polis, was the fundamental political unit of classical Greece. In 508 BC, Cleisthenes instituted the world's first democratic system of government in Athens. The Greek political ideals were rediscovered in the late 18th century by European philosophers and idealists. Greece also generated many cultural contributions: in philosophy, humanism and rationalism under Aristotle, Socrates and Plato; in history with Herodotus and Thucydides; in dramatic and narrative verse, starting with the epic poems of Homer; in drama with Sophocles and Euripides, in medicine with Hippocrates and Galen; and in science with Pythagoras, Euclid and Archimedes. In the course of the 5th century BC, several of the Greek city states would ultimately check the Achaemenid Persian advance in Europe through the Greco-Persian Wars, considered a pivotal moment in world history, as the 50 years of peace that followed are known as Golden Age of Athens, the seminal period of ancient Greece that laid many of the foundations of Western civilization."

For whatever reasons, Greece, perhaps it's network of surrounding cultures fed into an increase culturally shared and synthesized knowledge as well as it's own forms of cultural transmission and education? I think this is the measure of success that is worth looking at more than territory size or number of people within a grouping system. If we look at the history of the European Union in The Great Deception (I recently reread it) it shows a lot of attempts to make a big group unit at the same time as not acknowledging a changing world nor the negatives of politicians power mongering more power between themselves as we've seen so often with the outcomes of the European Union. Instead I think the increase in Local Democracy via:-

Curiously I came up with a similar model of understanding to explain the differences between the Middle East and the Western Civilization and where Western Civilization might need to be focusing attention while being overly distracted by the Middle East's transition problems (their problems don't necessarily match our problems: See transitions T->I/M vs I/M->N): a dire shortage of alternative models.

At the same time as the explosion at Globalization, this leaves the present institutions simply failing people and resorting to reversals to Tribalism or else attempting to make democracy work at ever larger groups/blobs of people: The European Union ie Institutional Hierarchies further away from Local Democracy ie Family and Local Ties in touch with their personal experience and relationships.

Looked at via this particular model or perspective, it seems to me to connect a lot of different things that otherwise appear disparate:-
I think it's probably better for anyone interested to read the above articles then start to think in context to the above model how they all are connected; for example "understanding the troubles that afflict the Middle East" may actually improve Foreign Policy along with greater democratic input into our policies by our people. Suffice to say for the purposes of this blog a simple and honest conclusion:-

The result of this referendum does not matter either way. The process of knowledge dissemination via the various channels which will be an indication or measure of the quality of communication via mass media and now electronically see Dr. RAE North's comments EU Referendum: positives and negatives:-

"Interestingly, at the Dawlish meeting, back in September 2014, we predicted that the opposition would be majoring on the idea that leaving the EU would be a "leap in the dark". Here we are now, with the Prime Minister pushing precisely that as a slogan and the "Stronger In" campaign sending out leaflets with that emblazoned on the front.

Countering this meme will be our positive contribution to the campaign, funded largely by the generous contributions of our readers, which are still coming in via the direct route. Nonetheless, we still need additional funds to get the message out, and to support our blogging effort.

Our current plans take account of the Scottish experience where much of the campaigning took place on the internet. The battle was largely out of sight of the legacy media – which made the usual mistake of believing that it was dominating the debate"
this is changing the nature of how we communicate ideas and make decision-making at a political level. The quality of communication is a very strong measure of the underlying deficiencies or deficits in democracy: How open it is, how transparent (not behind closed-doors) and how diverse the ideas input into decision-making are. In answer to the question by Louisa Bojesen above: I'd prefer to live in a politically much more local system such as Norway, Iceland or Switzerland than China: The Blob Solution just increases the exertion of political weight over those below. When we see figures such as Trump or Johnson on our televisions and newspapers, all that's proving is:-

Pigeon-Holing Popularity = '50% Democracy' (at it's maximum)
  • A Democratic Deficit
  • Hierarchical Institutional Redundancy (News-Media, Parliament, Religion, Banks etc)
  • A lack of Alternative Solutions: reverting to old or present solutions to future problems

Sunday, 27 March 2016

How To Vote: A Simple Guide to Decision-Making

Confusion of arguments predominantly involves the 'mixing up of' these 3 Decision Levels (simplified)

One of the 'most crude' and stupid arguments I've come across does not come from the Remain advocates but from the Leave advocates. It's so staggeringly stupid that stupidity on such a scale becomes "invincible ignorance". There is no argument against such a position because it is so devoid of thought that it is sub-thought, emotional-conviction and hence to argue against it is misdiagnosing the problem of the people who believe in the position, not appreciating that a position must be built from an argued case. I think I've managed to identify the problem in their thinking, their confusion: It's above, mixing the levels of decision-making in combination with not holding the requisite knowledge to understand the argument themselves.

Now it's not my preference to direct the description of someone's intelligence to "stupid" without good reason: Afterall, mistakes and errors are in the majority and all different types of mistakes and errors make them very reasonable to make by anyone!! The real trick is not calling someone stupid, but in UNDERSTANDING HOW they have made their mistake: This is incredibly useful way to learn for oneself. And I've benefited from it a lot and I too make mistakes and errors.

An intellectual foundation and attention to detail are essential in the #Brexit campaign ~ The Sceptic Isle / Ben Kelly

So why call this mistake stupid? It's an absence of thought, that is what I would argue is stupid, the opposite of intelligent, an application of thought/thinking. People assume if enough people hold enough conviction then the vote "will go their way". An example, "events" will dictate the vote such as:-
  • Immigration (leave)
  • Terrorism (leave)
  • Uncertainty (remain)
  • No Alternative (remain)
Now these types of arguments all fall within the same category: Stupid! So stupid in fact, that looking at how the nation and how the political leaders actually arrive at decisions, makes for viewing a world that full of madness. I don't think it's unexpected that when things don't turn out how we anticipated them to for our benefit, we see so much "pulling at heart-strings" and "why is the world/politicians/people such a terrible place?!". Stupidity is the singular answer.

Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit or sense. Stupidity may be innate, assumed or reactive – a defence against grief or trauma.

The root word stupid, which can serve as an adjective or noun, comes from the Latin verb stupere, for being numb or astonished, and is related to stupor. In Roman culture, the stupidus was the professional fall-guy in the theatrical mimes.
According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the words "stupid" and "stupidity" entered the English language in 1541. Since then, stupidity has taken place along with "fool," "idiot," "dumb," "moron," and related concepts as a pejorative appellation for human misdeeds, whether purposeful or accidental, due to absence of mental capacity.

We'll come back to this later. First what is this stupid mistake?

Ben Kelly The Sceptic Isle: An intellectual foundation and attention to detail are essential in the #Brexit campaign, manages to provide a very useful argument to correct it:-
"We are told by some that having a plan is not necessary or helpful and that we are wrong to worry about “unnecessary detail”. Obviously, we couldn’t disagree more. The purpose of a plan is not so that the whole public should read it, but so that it gives our campaign and our arguments an intellectual foundation. It is absolutely necessary to know the details so that when people raise questions, as they inevitably will, we have the answers. Brexit is complex and people are worried about the details, therefore to refuse to worry about details or offer any kind of plan when proposing what amounts to the biggest political change in 50 years and a huge geopolitical event is an abdication of responsibility."
I've tried to illustrate this visually previously:-

What A PLAN looks like: The Big Triangle that's a complete plan? That's called FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - from which all derivative details derive from.

The first thing to assert as Ben Kelly does is:
  1. We have a highly credible plan
  2. We have an alternative to the Status Quo (or Null vs Alternative Hypothesis in scientific testing language)
From this "credible" (believable) plan we move onto the merits which are data-driven or research driven. We've removed FUD and moved onto Intelligence-driven arguments which are positive in nature: Innovative-seeking to find solutions and happy outcomes.

1. Plan: A detailed "how to" achieve/do something from NOW/HERE to THEN/THERE:-

However, I think the problem can be highlighted if we relearn how to communicate using simple English and being precise in the words we use:-

  1. Plan = "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something."
  2. Navigation = "the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one's position and planning and following a route."
  3. Negotiation = "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement."
In the case of the Leave side of the argument, the Alternative Hypothesis or question, we have to have a plan "to do something". That "something" is to "navigate and plan a route to a new position from our present position". This is done in the context of a discussion between different parties to reach a mutual agreement. This is an assertion of very simple intelligence. As Ben Kelly describes:-

2. Navigation: From-To via what is In between:-

"The questions come thick and fast in this debate: How will the economy be affected by Brexit? Will I still be able to live and work in Europe? What about our trade deals with other countries, will they need to be renegotiated? How will the negotiations work? Will the EU look to punish us for leaving?  What about agriculture subsidies after the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy, will farmers lose out? The financial sector is vital for Britain, will leaving be detrimental? Will we get a say in its regulation? They go on and on."

3. Negotiation: UK WITH EU on Leaving realistically and mutually:-

 Reading The Market Solution Introduction we can list the key concepts of a workable plan:-

  • We must have an Exit Plan that plots the route, demonstrates an Alternative Hypothesis and hence choice to the null/default choice of Remain - except this time we have a vote for the first time as a voting public
  • Such a plan must be modest and set expectations that are fair with the EU's side of the negotiation as much as it is for the UK.
  • As such a gradual, staged, soft or iterative withdrawal is safest and most reasonable expectation setting.
  • Negotiation on compromise means that minimizing number of total outcomes increases probability of agreed settlement between both parties.
  • Thus advocating "conviction-based" "blue-sky" proposal NOW are damaging to future proposal THEN! Do not do this to win votes!
  • Removing predictive models that are based on garbage data or garbage processing is enormously aided by declaration to retain MEMBERSHIP OF The Single Market.
  • A holistic solution means that short-term TACTICAL solutions serve the larger Strategic Goal of transferring from Supranationalism to Intergovernmentalism. Any short-term deficiencies must either be reassured via Operationally repatriating the entire acquis so there is little to no actual change to derivative policies.
  • Both Trade and Migration are linked to TACTICAL reorientation from EU/EEA to EFTA/EEA as the short-term immediate solution. This allows future Strategic alterations and fits the holistic solution sense above.
  • MEMBERSHIP OF the Single Market requires the rules top be applied. Anything less unravels this holistic tactical solution and that then has negative repercussions to all operational details on policy. Thus failure to secure and retain Single Market access will lead to failure to achieve our strategic destination.
  • The conditions to all the above negotiations, the legal process to go with the securing of the Single Market is Article 50 which has limitations. Thus removing Legal and Economic questions leaves purely Political Questions which = "Withdrawing from EU Treaties" only = Successful Brexit negotiations navigated using a detailed Plan: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.
  • The Six Staged Plan is the complete Strategic Decision-Making Level.
  • Repatriation of the acquis is the Operational decision-making.
  • The subsequent few years (EFTA/EEA) is the Tactical Decision-Making Level.
The Current confusion over the EU Referendum debate:-

 Deception via Imbalanced Perception: David Cameron's LIE depends on confusing "Operational Decision-Making" for Remain as a safe option compared with "Strategic Leap Into The Dark" disaster for Leave.

Whereas, Supranationalism is the fundamentally flawed and faulty and POLITICAL question that we want voters to consider as the Null Hypothesis vs Alternative Hypothesis or Paradigm: Intergovernmentalism.

We can only get to that question by removing Economic and Legal issues:-

  • Single Market Access (Tactical)
  • Article 50 Lisbon Treaty + Repatriation of Entire Acquis (Operational)
 This leaves A Simple Guide on How to Vote:-
  • Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism
Given that the question on Remain should be Strategic Level decision-making given our Referendum is for x43 Years of Membership covering x9 EU Treaties towards "Ever Closer Union" once you remove the above (below) levels the decision-making for voters who do not need to know all the details because they are covered  on both sides of the question, then it looks like voting for the next 10-20,30 years outside the EU is a very very valid and viable decision to consider. It's also a very simple question too to answer given we have the EU Treaty Rules themselves with which to refer tot he Strategic Decision-Making of the EU which has led to the EUROZONE which will have new Treaty for more Sovereignty to the EU coming up before 2025.

When the Deception is on an enormous scale... the stupidity that follows

It should be discernable that David Cameron's deal is dressed up as "Strategic" when it's barely even "Operational" given it is not legally-binding. It serves to confuse voter's decision-making that the UK has "special status" which is camouflage for No EU Reform whatsoever. Our Prime Minister is a failure and worse: A Liar and a deceiver of the people.

This is the gift of Supranationalism working through him presently and previously via his predecessors in entering the UK into the EEC back in 1973 (Jan) on the pretext that Strategically it was a Market Solution.

We all make mistakes, sometimes we're stupid. That's forgivable. But what I think our Membership of the EU proves, our Null Hypothesis is that it is built on Deception at the highest level of decision-making: Strategic.

 Honest Mistakes: We can learn from. Deception however...

This deception is not stupid, it is intelligence used for hurtful and destructive outcomes; even if the intentions were presumably "good"; the intelligence is infernal and it leaves the quality of arguments and political decay in the UK as it's defining outcome which in effect is a kind of increase in stupidity; Check: EU Referendum: corruption at the heart of the media and EU Referendum: the Johnson saga continues a decrease in intelligence at the top of the UK's strategic decision-making processes and people; wouldn't you agree?

Friday, 25 March 2016

Building Arguments: From Hot Cross Buns to Bolero

Hot Cross Buns! Hot Cross Buns!

Previously I blogged about the stages in attempting to learn a lot of information in a given subject  The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge; in this case on the EU, Brexit and hence Referendum. Part of the problem is a systemic defect in our National Lack of Conversation Competencies (or "Scaled Communication Dehabilitation" to be correct or give it a name) or what substitutes for it: Dêmos + Kratos = A Community That Communicates Productively. The stages if I remember correctly, and this seems to apply to learning a lot of different subjects, are:-
  1. Logistical (input)
  2. Semantic (processing)
  3. Ordering (output)
  4. Memory (information)
  5. Application (knowledge)

Ravel's Bolero

Above, I've included one of my favourite classical music pieces, Ravel's Bolero. It helps remind me of those above 1-5 stages when I become bogged down in any of 1-4 and feel lost! I don't know enough about music to comment technically but I do know that from the smallest units put together according to an intended design and applied you create this growing pattern of music that is enjoyable to listen to: A growing pattern in the Bolero above which reinforces the idea for me. The same can be said in comparison with other areas, possibly?:-
  • Music: Notes are the units
  • Writing: Words are the units
  • Programming: Code are the units
  • Film-making: Frames are the units 
  • Art: Colours are the units??

Hot-Cross Buns: "2 a penny, 3 a penny... hot - cross - buns!"

If you look at the above, it has to have the right notes to go with the words to make the right sound or music. It feels right when we get it right. Likewise, when we perhaps don't then it feels harsh or dischordant. I think this a bit like when we hear or know a lie has been spoken according to our own pattern of meaning that we are sure is true?

 Oh JHC: Not ANOTHER angels dancing on pins law percentages to the nearest decimal place debacle? FFS - !!! Pills, gun, rope - check, check, CHECK!

Surely the laws might be the fundamental "units" that describe our political Sovereignty? So these arcane discussions are actually very applicable?

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 3.2 Public Information, p.36

"The reality, of course, is that regulation is a mechanism by which integration is achieved, employing what is known as the Monnet method. This, Jean  Monnet  devised  after  the  near  failure  of  the  project on  30  August  1954, when the French Parliament rejected the European Political Community and the first European Constitution.

It  was  then that  Monnet  realised  that  his  United  States  of  Europe could  not  be created   openly,   whence   he   came   up   with   the   idea   of   using   progressive economic integration as a Trojan horse. The resultant drip-drip process became known as engrenage – loosely translated as "salami slicing", using harmonising regulations  to  bring   the  economic  activities  of  the  member  states  closer together." 
This was covered in Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? and even visualized in comparison to Antikythera Mechanism. We don't need to get bogged down in competing camps out-bidding each other in their attempts to tell the biggest lies: Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money.

 "The Pied Politiciars": Liars lied lies, lying about liars, calling liars liars.

I've been wondering about the current campaign. There's too much senseless data. Not only that but the input of the data becomes the argument: It becomes questionable and questioned endlessly: Because often it's Bullshit behaviour by the people pushing it. To me this seems a bit like people talking about the musical note somewhere in Ravel's Bolero and saying how there's more notes in some other music, "Gungs And Roses" (?) and not the total experience they derive from listening to it's repeating pattern actually played and hence referred to as a complete and full work. What is the point of holding an exam if the students are allowed to cheat while taking it? What is the point of allowing people to sit on TV or write their newspaper pieces or go on the radio or internet and communicate garbage data and become embroiled in it? What use is that to people listening and watching?

My opinion is this:-
"There's enormous complexity in creating something like the Bolero. But to enjoy and listen to it is a very very simple thing."
I tend to think this whole subject is a bit like this. People will vote according to "gut-feeling" despite the "Babel-17" that's emitted endlessly and so stupidly in such prodigious volume. If you compare Bolero to "Babel-17" as I am nicknaming it from the sci-fi book, the former allows an ordering of thoughts, the latter an unravelling (no pun intended!) of thoughts.

 Most of what is said, is "bits of data" that may often be erroneous too. In this communication system: The "bigger" the bit of data the "bigger the argument" supposedly = Genesis of Große Lüge which in turn leads to a new language: "Babel-17" spoken by politicians and journalists

This idea of taking this data, and processing it into structured information to then apply to different knowledge sets to complete knowledge domains (legislation in this blog's own subject today) with which to THEN argue productively for people to listen to the patterns thus ordered and made:-

Building Arguments: Arranging according to higher patterns of Knowledge:-

 Too much unproductive attention at the faulty "data" production stage leads to lying politicians. "Information #1" is an illustration of information becoming useful when contextualized correctly. Then itself merely being "x1 byte" of information in our full higher arguments which are accessible to people to follow the sense and meaning of = Real Democracy In Action.

Fortunately there are people who are dependable when it comes down to the Data component. Lawyers tend to look for interpretation in the "units" or legal jargon and tend to therefore get bogged down in the information stage and hence are rarely it seems from my own experience at all helpful! Thanks lawyers but then they would not be lawyers would they?!

So the method of processing is a separate discussion, critical but we can depend I think on Dr. RAE North's method of processing

"As far as I can ascertain, this law is all currently in force (even if some of it no longer applies, which is a different thing). So, with all the usual caveats, it can be set against EU law currently in force. This (as of yesterday) stands at 19,389 entries. That puts EU law as a proportion of UK law at almost exactly 19 percent.

This is very much a "quick and dirty" figure, as it includes EU regulations and decisions which have direct effect, as well as instruments which have been transposed into UK law. The big problem, as we pointed out and which was raised by Booker, is that so much EU law no longer originates in Brussels. Increasingly the law comes from global and regional bodies.

On that basis, the figure (any figure) is of very little importance – even without dealing with the many other variables. But it does put Mr Johnson and the other pundits back in the box. If you want to quote a figure, round it up to "about 20 percent". It don't mean nuffink, but at least it has something of a plausible base."

to provide purely descriptive statistics that we can then fit into the above Legislation Sets per category of the Legislation Domain as it applies to our Referendum Question:-

Summarizing the information allows the context and sense-making to create a meaningful dicussion which voters can follow and appreciate. Linear strings of words in binary biff-bam contexts helps no one besides the shitty over-paid politicians

I started with Dr. RAE North's EU Referendum: them laws and EU law: definitive stupidity most recent (and is it ironic?) figures of information as a very basic baseline: All this information tells us is that we get a good deal of legislation from the EU. It's useful to state that simply.

However, what I've done is contextualize legislation via categories, repeating one "byte" of information in 2 categories for example where it applies to both. Where further context is needed I've used magenta to suggest these "bytes" of information are not equal in weight but highly significant to emphasis. Where the "bytes" are in blue, they're individually not particularly significant, but collectively they all add up to produce significant weight, they all support each other for a Like-Vs-Like comparision between EU/EEA vs EFTA/EEA Legislation Comparison. This is a building block to the bigger arguments of globalization of legislation especially in the UK's areas of interest: The Single Market. Now looking at the area that bothers the UK: The Political Ever Closer Union, this is for me the most signficant result:-

It's the source of breakdown of communication and national-decision making competence. Fundamentally it does not matter where or how the legislation is made if whatever the technical matrix of legislation may or may not be it's effect on our own people who are responsible for the rules is to lead them to wilfully deceptive politics: It is a cancer on our decision-making and knowledge development capabilities as a functional and thriving nation.

This final assertion, I would posit as above "knowledge" and as we explored previously determine it to be "wisdom" (the technical derivation of the word, not the mystical), as per Cicero above. And it's a really simply point to understand: Just as with Ravel's Bolero, I can't read music nor can I play music, but I can listen to Ravel's Bolero and understand it's pattern.

I look at the EU's "pattern" and I don't like it; I don't like the other twin fact to this that is to ostracize and reject counter-arguments of high quality, such as, when I look at the alternative, FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and it is like Ravel's Bolero, intellectually - it's quite addictive if deeply complicated!

Now when we get politicians and journalists on TV, you're not helping people understand this subject blathering about details of bits of data! If you start unpicking that stuff when you're supposed to get it right then argue the informative arguments towards knowledge systems for people to use, you'll never reach that productive elevation; trapped in arcane bs. Yes they need to be done be experts under a sense-making methodology - so - make use of such experts - not charlatans. The rest is comparatively simple if a mug like me can do...

As above, all those "bytes" of information can be used to form arguments. The arguments from my viewing purely of the legislation tell me that the UK is interested in the Single Market to connect to Globalization (see Appendix of FLEXCIT for the dozens and dozens of Global Bodies) and to remove the Political Union. It does not tell me "HOW" alone, but we already know this from FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

BRITAIN AND EUROPE 1914 and 2014 - A FUTURUS Special by Anthony Scholefield ~ Director, FUTURUS

Futurus: Adding Context, Adding Perspective, Adding Depth of Understanding


 1) Operational Fixes to EU Membership are Deceptive

The key point is the arguments are put to useful service: We do have a problem operationally which The Serial Liar David Cameron  and the whole nations knows but they do not use information beyond superficial and deceptive pretence as resolving such problems.

 2) Brexit is a Tactical Solution to Change Direction (temporily)

We may need a tactical solution to reorientate.

 3) Our Positive Future Vision is a Strategic Knowledge-driven decision-making


What then is the outcome of that solution strategically, the destination set? This is where a Referendum is possibly a much more positive and productive process than the flailing politicians stuck at their lower level of priorities and hence continuance of short-termism and hence future failure: Futurus is very helpful here; it helps create a complete pattern from history.

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

The Referendum Show: Rules go with Responsibility

The Deep Convictions of the Cast - How Normal!

The above clip is the opening scene from The Truman Show movie. It's a mix of people being interviewed and providing profound beliefs for the roles they play in this "great tv project" ("of our times..."!). Everyone believes in what they say and it evidently accords with their values and inspirations of "higher things"; only all too often they habitually say their lines in front of product placements... .

It's all perhaps on the first viewing an introduction of "excitement" at the novel idea of a live tv show. On future viewings you can't help notice that this opening scene is terribly, terribly full of the full portents of irony, suffused into the film all the way through towards the final peak of "ekstasis" - and even then irony has the final say beyond that moment, too. Once you've watched the movie and are aware of where the film is heading, you are sharp eyed for every slight perturbation along this theme. It's a good story showing the resolution of a character at the same time as the irony of an indifferent environment to the character's underlying "crisis of self-identity". As another character in another movie once said, Total Recall: "If I am not me? Then who the hell am I?"

 "That's... weird..."

This is not going to be a long and patriotic speech that we are "British" and demand our "Sovereignty" or all the other identity and flag-waving emotions; although speaking to a friend after attending EU Referendum: Leave Alliance launch, they mentioned that the original notion of Sovereignty was probably something defined along the lines as "Not The French." ! No, it's an "epiphany", a way to describe the surreal, bizarre, perhaps madness that is the way in which the communication of this Referendum and indeed the EU and Brexit and our politics is conveyed via the Legacy News-Media by both politicians and journalists and to which many people themselves then take their own opinions from - within this self-contained world.

 Along with David Cameron, Boris Johnson, one of the main cast of actors: But who or what is directing this (virtual) "reality show"?

One of the strangest of strange results that has been operating for at least the last 4 years as far as my own recollection enables me to have personally observed it is this:-

  • 1st RULE of the EUROPEAN UNION:-

What are the Rules? Are we committed to follow these rules? Does the historic record confirm this is factual reality? 

If the above, then so:-

  • Last RULE of the EUROPEAN UNION:-

Generally when you buy a new appliance, you open up the "How To..." or "Instructions Manual" or if you play a sport you learn the rules of that sport. Why are our politicians not acting responsibly to the public to educate them on the rules?
  • The First Rule of the EU: "Ever Closer Union"
  • The Last Rule of the EU: "Article 50 Lisbon Treaty"
 Instead we get The Referendum Show:-

The sheer banality and inanity of our journalists and politicians

But I think the biggest joke is on the people who watch this and don't take a look at the rules, at the responsibilities of those rules in both the Remain and the Leave "emotionally incoherent and biased" drives:-

The politicians don't believe the people really want or should want "something else".

As per Lost Leonardo and for the last two years, apart from "Article 50" being side-lined and "Ever Closer Union" being side-lined for the last 43 Years (!) until of course David Cameron can "magically make it all ""go-away"" ":-

There is a solution, despite the enormous, the prodigious energies expended by those in power to deter people; the one thing the politicians don't want people to do:-

Spontaneity can often be a simple and honest reaction - if unpredictable

Poor on all the doom, all the threats, all the begging, all the pleading, all the bullying, all the coercing, all the antipathy of these prestigious aggrandizing people, abusing their responsibilities by very simply not referring to the simple rules that were supposedly agreed and are if you read them so simple and so clear in meaning.

It's your life and your choice, for the first time in 41 years. A lifetime in point of fact.