Rate Of Change: Velleity < Vanity: f(x)Δ > f(x)δ

Getting a grip on change!

Let's imagine X = Time. Y = Degree of Change (DELTA: Δ (large) or δ (small)) over time. The steeper the slope in the above graph the more rapid the rate of change is measured (ie increase in Y over time).

Velleity:-

The marketer Matt Bailey described it as "a desire to see something done, but not enough desire to make it happen".

"Velleity is what keeps companies locked in this mindset of reporting useless numbers. Desiring, even expecting to someday have an epiphany of change, but not willing to change the mindset or the culture of locked-in reporting to achieve it. Nor are they willing to ask the hard questions in order to uncover what must be done."

We could use another physical idea in combination with Rate of Change and Velleity: Inertia to which Isaac Newton described in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:-

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line."

There's a couple of ideas which can be applied to our arguments. Let's start with Rate Of Change:-

Stuck in the middle with EU: How global regulators are killing the value of EU membership ~ Roland Smith

In  the  modern  world,  trading  is  increasingly  organised  at  the  global  level.  It  involves  bodies  ranging  from  private  sector  rule-making  organisations  such  as  the  ISO, to various quasi-governmental institutions under the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation.
 
This has had a growing effect on the logic (or lack of it) for remaining in the EU and it also informs the debate on what Out looks like. The activities of such global bodies are known collectively as ‘global governance’ (as opposed to ‘global government’). There is no single body in play, nor even a 2 coherent group of institutions. Instead the different functions are carried out by a range of organisations which have little in common. The proliferation and reach of global organisations in recent times reflects the advantages they offer to the global trading system. Together they are the real-world manifestation of the word ‘globalisation’. 

These bodies have three specific advantages that the Bruegel think-tank once listed as follows.

1. They ensure more security and predictability than ad-hoc arrangements. Global  rules  provide  core  principles  and  legally  enforceable  commitments  for  all parties. The bodies also offer a forum for settling disputes.
2. Global institutions give a voice to all countries big and small and are accountable to these countries. Critics may complain with some justification about the lack  full  accountability  but  global  institutions  do  ensure  a  degree of fairness and ownership which other solutions lack. In other words, they provide a certain  stability  to  economic  integration  which  would  be  lacking  in  a multipolar world where integration is driven by private stand-alone initiatives only. 
3. Such institutions can be viewed as global ‘public goods’. This is because every time something new needs to be done, they don’t have to start from scratch. This cuts negotiation costs and avoids the long and painful process of defining a collective global response. Well-designed and well governed institutions, therefore, are an asset for all participants in the global economy. 

As more and more issues are addressed at global level, the EU  is  steadily  losing  control  over  its  own  regulatory  agenda.  For  example,  more  than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU’s Single Market legislation falls within the ambit of existing international organisations and is thus potentially amenable to global regulation (see pie chart below).

Here is a useful description of the "globalization" process and indeed the formation of an identity for it concerning trade. This process is not well known and the rate of change is not well appreciated. In fact our old friend and useful metaphor which Dr. RAE North used can make another appearance:-

Crikey! I'm just waiting for holographic screens and 'information waves' leaving functions "deviceless" and "tubeless" - "extrapolating at this rate of change".

Now so much of the discussion of the UK's options is "EU-Centric" concerning the rate of change or more appropriately "inertia" of failure to change successfully that afflicts the EU. The two can be compared very broadly with respect to the "globalization" of tangibles that can be quantified and digitally so. The latter is with respect to politics which is a form of information that is much more challenging to deal with: Social Information. In fact the more complex the relationships the more "inertia" the system will inevitably build up.

Rate difference and Inertia (resistance to change) difference in one

And this comes onto the psychology: Velleity. In the previous blog we looked at Political Barriers To Entry: An Image Of Power; A Course To Ruin. In particular re-quoting:-

"What is this fantasy? I suspect it's based upon "mixed-motivations": Attempting to win votes is itself a kind of divorced reality of politics from the facts themselves: Indeed we're right back where we started: Big Ideas and the problems of presentation that themselves lead to "other problems"."

It seems to me when the "Big Ideas" become the attachment of personalities who support such "Big Ideas" for whatever reason, maybe they have "invested" so much mental or other form of "capital" into these ideas. And here we see that this is the old form called "Vanity". It seems to me that there is possibly a great requirement to reorientate people's support and investment of belief and nowhere more so than this process which increases in magnitude via centralization of power that dominates and centralizes around SW1 (Westminster, Big Business (CBI) and News-Media), back to "The Road To Serfdom": People/Voters in servitude to ideas which do not serve us well; because they do not reflect a greater notice of what is actually happening in the world as opposed to what is happening in our own minds - or indeed the minds of a select few and their capricious exercise of their own Vanity and social information. This suggestion is beyond my own understanding (I don't have the expertise nor the experience), but what I can inform further on is that idea of globalization:-

Two broad observations: (1) High Quality Arguments and Experience of People talking (2) So Few People in attendance, comparative to this quality.

Fortunately video recording was conducted of the event EU Referendum: questions, questions …

So for expediency and to take on board the advice to "stick to one argument well made" (Thank you!!); to select from my notes of the day the relevant information to the topic of this blog:-

1. Booker recounts the Trend of Thatcher on EU

From The Great Deception, we see an example or indeed "an experiment" of the situation when a politician who makes a big U-Turn over support of the EEC/EC/EU (and subsequently deposed). Christopher Booker mentions the key lesson of Jean Monnet the genuinely gifted "political fixer" to "GRADUALLY CHANGE" towards a Supranational entity; to which as far back as 1961 was aware of. Booker quoted: Hugh Gaitskell:-

"In a speech to the party conference in October 1962, Gaitskell claimed that Britain's participation in a Federal Europe would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!" He added: "You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought.""

I want to point out that this lesson of "careful deliberation" (in our present time 41 years of EU Membership) also deserves such as "needs a little care and thought", too. Therefore there is no surprise from Semi-Partisan Politics: If The Remain Campaign Succeed In Cheating Their Way To Victory, Their Joy Will Be Short Lived. This rushed through referendum is an exercise of pure Vanity by the politicians and Establishment in power. In effect it shows their cowardice and lack hence lack of courage to "ask the hard questions" and apprehend the changes in the world outside their comfortable bubble world in Westminster (itself hollowing out atst as we'll see concerning the EU).

2. North compares the rate of change

I'm amazed at how prescient Sir James Goldsmith must have been having been recounted some of his own thoughts and words on this subject at the meeting:-

Sir James Goldsmith held a rally to reach 10,000 people. It is hoped that with the age of modern technology and internet distribution of information beyond social information barriers, that the video presentation of the day will reach many more than that number, to reflect the theme of this blog's discussion. I was just listening to today's Andrew Marr Show and both Tim Farron and Theresa May: The Bubble Illusion that they talk from within, and Sir James Goldsmith even points this behaviour out in the above clip back in 1997, let alone 2016! He even points out EFTA (European Free Trade Association).

I need to get back to Globalization, which Roland Smith manages to summarize so effectively and articulately above. Dr. RAE North suggests this "Rate Of Change" difference is our "Stokes Precept" EU referendum: strategy is the problem:-

"Nor is there any recognition of the "Stokes precept", from Richard Stokes, the Labour MP for Ipswich, who on 15 October 1940 told the House of Commons in a debate on war aims that it "... is no use fighting for a negative object. You must have a positive one, and the sooner that [is] stated the better".

To gain a broader acceptance from the majority of the population that we should leave the EU, we must be able to offer a positive object. Simply to fight on the negative one of leaving the EU is not enough. And just to argue for a referendum, without the first idea of how you would win it, is suicide.

Those who refuse to accept this, who robustly argue simply for unilateral withdrawal and expect the nation to rally to that cause, are part of the problem – as much as those like Leadsom, who are arguing for "fundamental reform". Egos really don't matter. It cannot be emphasised enough that what counts is strategy."

There we see the "reason behind the reason" from the last blog: Vanity and the subsequent loss of power and loss of Sovereignty from the people to Parliament and thence to the Supranational EU.

What is remarkable is the present hysteria and propaganda profusion that masquerades as "intellectual honesty" when it is pure unrefined ego and vanity on display. Booker pointed out in his speech the parlous state of this Referendum and we can understand exactly why that is the case when connecting the causes and contexts together to complete the picture:-

The superstitious medieval politics of today

It might be "Save The Children!" or spurious statistics written with a golden pen by a prestigiously titled "institution":-

Ok so the focus of this blog has been side-tracked again! But coming back to the main argument on the day:

3. Creation of a Genuine Single Market

If you notice, Vote Leave have variously advocated:-

• A "Swiss-Style" Deal, better than either Norway or Switzerland
• An FTA "ala S. Korea" or "What Mexico/Chile have got".
• Scrap that, The British Option!
• It's just like "The Canadian FTA" agreement.
• Ok, from Belarus to Iceland to Albania, the Common European Trade Area!

Roland Smith articulately suggests perhaps any of these destinations are agreeable to Vote Leave, but what about: Idle musings: The EEA as a transition point or destination?

Forget Vote Leave, let's look at a conceptual picture that abstracts the key/core concepts of a positive vision, a "Stoke's Precept":-

We can draw some inferences from this remarkably useful diagram from Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT document:-

1. EU claims member states right of representation on global standards bodies
2. This means our influence is diluted per a "common position" by the EU hence not necessarily specifically per sector in the national interest.
3. The EU "Gold-Plates" some of the regulations that it "downloads" from the global bodies complicated the process.
4. It's indirect and mixes more complex politics with technical regulations thus we can refer to Rate Of Change graph above as product of the EU "inertia". And again as with complexity, more tendency towards "things going wrong" in general.
5. EFTA/EEA members have direct influence or representation over these bodies before they then feed back into the EU.
6. Global Regulation is driving "globalization":-

Here the arrow is indicating the increasing trend of globalization of standards and origins of various legislation "in action": In this "rate of change" argument, this is really where I wanted to get to and finish with:-

The quoted figures:-

• 70-80% of technical standards and regulations are made in Global Bodies
• 90-95% of these various technical standards pertaining to the Single Market have some form of "origin" in Global Bodies.

And the "Globalization" driver behind much of this "Network Effect" to increase World Trade:-

Hence in effect to come back to the talk and quoting by Christopher Booker, Roy Jenkins Speech at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference centre (22 March 1999), quoted in The Sunday Telegraph (28 March 1999).:-

"There are only two coherent British attitudes to Europe:-

1. One is to participate fully...and to endeavour to exercise as much influence and gain as much benefit as possible from the inside.
2. The other is to recognise that Britain's history, national psychology and political culture may be such that we can never be other than a foot-dragging and constantly complaining member; and that it would be better, and certainly would produce less friction, to accept this and to move towards an orderly, and if possible, reasonably amicable withdrawal."

And that brings us to:-

What both sides of the question: Remain and Leave both have to appreciate in their respective advocates is that:-

• Rate of Change will continue to apply at different rates in different directions either Globalization or "Political integration towards Supranationalism": Hence the present Lisbon Treaty is not an end destination but as Roland Smith remarks a "transit" position on "Ever Closer Union" at the same time as Dr. RAE North points out: EFTA/EEA is an interim stage of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution "staged withdrawal".

I think we can put some powerful arguments forwards that measure a degree of change in the world that is important to feed into our decision-making processes as a nation or indeed functional democracy. What we currently see on display, the appearance without the substance of such is Vanity driving Velleity: A lack of positive change despite that particular phrase being such a favourite saying of our politicians and their poverty of prosperous ideas.