Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Monday, 27 June 2016

Referendum: Relief, Recovery; Some Humour and New Paths Ahead.

Great fun! And a lovely day out at such an unusual and idiosyncratic event.

The Bottle Inn, Marshwood, Dorset hosts "The World Eating Stinging Nettles" competition each year around the week-end of the 21st June (Midsummer). This occurred a few days before this Summer, and indeed the week before our Referendum. I had the chance to go along last year and took the above photo with a great deal of interest as you can see from the crowd in the sunshine with the Summer rainclouds in the background against the lush foliage of Midsummer. It was a great day out and lots of Real Ales on offer too as part of the festival.

The captivating spectacle is such as this borrowed from the mirror:-


The leaves have to be eaten, washed down with a drink, I think, and the total number of stems eaten within a couple of hours if I remember correctly is how the results are drawn up for the winner!

Now imagine after the Referendum, many of the Remain voters (not all) will wake up with a bowl or dish of stinging nettles in front of them for breakfast and their reaction might be palpably similar to the above reaction!!!

Given enough time, and common sense and debate, it is more than likely that such distaste will dim for a lot of people as "nothing really changes" for the next so many years given it's a gradual and slow process to effect change practically in the politics anyway, firstly. Secondly with the realization that what counted as performance (campaigns) bears very little resemblance to what is now the result (Leave/Brexit advisory result) then again there will be opportunity for relief for a lot of people from the initial unpleasant reactions.

Finally recovery can only be fully realized when results are found to be positive in consequence as opposed to negative, confirming that a decision made was a "good one" afterall.

However, before then there will likely be a lot of people who make an emotional mistake: They have created a self-identity and stake in a particular position which no result will touch: in fact such a sense of defeat will likely lead to the situtation where:-


They will look for more confirmation bias to reinvigorate their previous position. Hence the Legacy News-Media, obligingly and politicians calculating for their own craven reasons, will seek to feed people such "chillies and nettles" to get them frothing full of rage and tears at such a feast!!!

I'm already seeing a lot of people attempting to "swallow bitter, hot and stinging" more news and attitudes such as:-
  • Crash in the Pound!
  • Meltdown in the Markets!
  • The EU Strikes Back!!
  • Already people are packing their bags and piling onto the life-rafts!
  • They lied to us! They lied to us!
  • Start the thermo-nuclear Article 50 countdown NOW!NOW!NOW!!
Hopefully you "get the picture". But more interesting than these stupid news stories is the demand for them: People actively seek them out and WANT to eat "bitter" and "scorching hot" and "stinging pain".
Personally, I admit, after a long day sitting at a computer, either typing or coding, I tend to feel a bit "zombie-numb" and either stimulus of exercise (ping-pong or fuzzball are great for this!) or a hot Indian Curry, really get my juices flowing again from perma-freeze! So I have to be even-handed in suggesting on a wider scale, people like their news this way (eg tabloids Daily Mail and Sun and Mirror) but when you asshat journalist sources as above masquerading as something "more serious" well all I can say is repeat my previous preference that I look forward to the day robots replace these "journalists".

On the other side of this "transaction": Why do people behave in such an irrational way? Partly it's emotional digestion and developing a taste for such things like eating junk food and drinking sugary fizzy drinks. I think however part of the recovery from a Referendum is in having a sense of humour about the whole decision-making process and avoiding the band-wagon opportunist politicians who want to stir people up, the better to control them for their own "Game Of Thrones" that's going on right now everywhere in Westminster:-

And then following, Dr. RAE North's subsequent blog:  the above up with a serious rerun on Article 50 (The Leave Alliance: Article 50 - An Explainer):-

"With David Cameron skulking in No 10, declining to face the challenge of dealing with the aftermath of the referendum, and Corbyn's opposition party crumbling before our very eyes, the nation is currently without an effective government or opposition.

The ruling Conservative Party has shattered into warring factions and no one group has sufficient support to be able to elect a leader outright, while the plotters continue to position Alexander (aka Boris) Johnson as leader-in-waiting.

Meanwhile, Sky News's Faisal Islam "reveals" that Vote Leave doesn't have an exit plan. Having spoken to a Tory MP from Vote Leave, he learns that the plan does not exist. Faisal quotes the anonymous MP as saying: "There is no plan. The leave campaign don't have a post-Brexit plan".

The apparent absence of any such plan is adding to the uncertainty but, in terms of the media narrative, this is undoubtedly deliberate. Faisal knows full well of the existence of Flexcit which has had well over 80,000 downloads and is approaching the 100K mark. Yet he – and even journalists who have previously mentioned it - are studiously ignoring its existence.

There is a certain wilful stubbornness about this, which defies rational expectation. Even MPs and others, anxious to block the ascendency of Mr Johnson, and who are thus determined to produce their own plans, are ignoring the material in front of them, preferring to reinvent the wheel, mostly in any shape but round.

We thus see all around us the beginnings of the debate that we should have been having before the referendum, but at so basic a level that issues we were discussing four or five years ago are now only just being aired."
What you have above is a demonstration of the opposite of feeding people chillis or stinging nettles to rouse them up! If you prefer some healthy debate and knowledge increase, the above is the first of it post-Referendum, but which was already being "served" as far back at least as 2012 and further back in some regards still.

Now, the important thing to realize between the two types of "information" is that all essential measure: TIME. I personally have not got time to be pissing around with the Legacy News-Media or our stupid big-gob politicians duplicities and survival strategies in their own enclosed and from the outside perverse ecosystem of advancement and personal power. 

So much work was put into this subject by The Leave Alliance, and when I read The Sunday Telegraph newspaper "EU Special" on my commute to work yesterday, all I saw was one break-through article amid the sea of garbage: A sea of drama of politicians doing politics but without the politics and without the people!!! Look at this:-

  • Front page: Cameron vs Boris.
  • Page 2-3: Gove and Wife outside house
  • Page 4-5: Farage (Mr. UKIP)
  • Page 6-7: EU Leaders around a petit dejeuner table & a david blair FUD article full of bs.
  • Page 8: Lord Hill and then Page 9: Bootleconometrics
  • Page 10-11: Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn.
  • Page 12-13: Cameron and Wife with Osborne, Macmilland & Heath
  • Page 14: Vote Leave the inside story...
  • Page 16-17: Sturgeon (A rotting head of the SNP) & Sinn Fein something...
  • Page 18-19: FUD Economics on Domestic and European fronts
  • End of EU Referendum Special.
  • BUSINESS section: "In then out, up then down, a day of rollercoaster turmoil and shocks". 
 One good article Roland Smith: We have the chance to forge a new Britain and Europe that we are all at ease with.  

As per my previous blog, I have a minor problem even with this: It's tailored to the tastes of those with chilli addiction. It really needs some communication that is more "structured information" beyond the use of words mixing Aristotle's guide to political process: Logos, Pathos and Ethos.

For example coming back to Article 50:-

"On that basis, it is a given that it is not in any way politically or legally realistic to frame any exit strategy which does not conform fully to the provisions of international and treaty law. Strategies really need to be road-tested for compliance, before they are given a public airing.

For the likes of the odious Johnson, Gove and many others, therefore, I am addressing the general principles which strategists should keep in mind. These essentially amount to five points.

Firstly, the right of a Member State to leave the EU lies outside the EU Treaties. The Treaties neither confer the right to leave or impose any conditions which might affect the decision. As Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) itself states:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
Article 50, therefore, simply recognises the state of the art. This Article applies only after the decision to leave has been made.

Secondly, the procedural choices on leaving are then limited by international law. We are not allowed pick 'n' mix options, dipping into different treaties to come up with our own desired mix.

We are bound by the principle of lex specialis derogat legi general (special law repeals general law), which is regarded as a fundamental tenet of international law. In short, whenever two or more laws or treaty provisions deal with the same subject matter, priority goes to that which is more specific.

Where Article 50 makes specific provisions for withdrawal, these take precedence over more general provisions, as in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). We do not have the choice of using one or the other. Our choices are determined by lex specialis.

Thirdly, and subject to my further comments, until the Article 50 procedure is complete, the UK remains bound by the provisions of the EU Treaties, with all the rights, responsibilities and obligations.

As parties to the Treaties, we are obliged under international law to conform with their provisions. This general obligation is conferred by virtue of Article 26 of the VCLT, under the universally recognised provision of pacta sunt servanda: "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith".

As one of the major guarantors of the writ of international law, it is inconceivable that Her Majesty's Government could countenance a breach of pacta sunt servanda. The international ramifications would be profound, with implications far beyond just relations with the Union and its member states. It would gravely weaken the international standing of the United Kingdom.

Therefore, inasmuch as we are obliged to resort to Article 50 by virtue of lex specialis, the principle of pacta sunt servanda obliges us to comply with its provisions."
This groundwork is incredibly important, as it structures the start of subsequent possible solutions as well as sharpening up hence what is communicated to people as to what is possible and what is not by direct reference to the rules we are all agreeing to live by with each other!

So much time was spent by The Leave Alliance, in particular Pete North attempting to "keep in check" the multiple sources of error conflation from both UKIP (Complete Bastard, the hero we all deserve!) and Legacy News-Media and Politicians (Pete North's Politics Blog).

So much wasteful energy & time spent. And in fact if you are a Remain advocate still still disappointed with the EU Referendum: Think on this: We can cut out a large area of wasteful activity bickering about what something means (to whom and by whom????), and get on with the job (to borrow Cameron's favourite phrase) of actually doing something directly for the UK by the UK!! And besides, here's a wise head with perhaps a more useful and enjoyable meal of news for you:-

Europe makes Brexit-voting UK look like a safe haven ~ Merryn Somerset Webb

As for me, back blogging already, but different paths and directions await; I don't want to have to keep commenting on commentators who should "know better"... there's some really interesting stuff regarding the next 10yrs that I want to sink my teeth into next given we have this golden opportunity ahead of us now (~14mins in) and ahead of time, too:-

edit: blue bug!

Saturday, 25 June 2016

Structured Information (Arguments) vs Visible Disintegration (EU Politics)

Network Effect: Graph Theory describing System Risk or Failure: Source/Attribution:

Well the Result did not match the Performance of the campaign and my prediction of a close Remain victory was wrong! What occurred was the choice by many millions that the Referendum provided a great opportunity to vote AGAINST our entire political establishment's own position.

Now I have to say, this inference by so many people shows good common sense. If the deductive arguments are so horribly polluted, then a proxy argument against people who time and time again distort and deceive, is a very fair way of discerning a choice to be made with low information.

Unfortunately, I don't feel that our politics has an underlying positive change from such a result. The Referendum was a "one-off" and little will visibly change after the Leave vote as predicted in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

My intention was to pack in the blogging for a time and move on with other things, but it's worth one more post to point out the observation of how people have reacted to the Referendum result.

Let me say that according to my own perception of Performance matching Results, I've been very pacific about either result: Some part of me wants the opportunity to campaign and educate in another Referendum more people more successfully. But another part of me is delighted to see so many people who used such horrible manipulation of communication (were they self-deluded?) to confuse so many people, and for me to see their works of deception destroyed in a big way. Pete North notices this also, particularly the malign effects of "Identity Politics" which have taken pride of place in the BBC's coverage of the past 24HRS+:-

I try to find ways of visualizing ideas, arguments, concepts and the like. If I were to paint a picture on a canvas between what appears so according to the Left/BBC and their "Identity Politics" I would paint a surrealism picture which is showing a lot of imagery in an incoherent but strangely captivating and slightly disturbing form: You can google such pictures if you like. When I look at these, they are powerfully engaging my emotional brain but I don't like them, they don't seem to have any greater ideas behind them (perhaps there's the odd exception I am unaware of?) that connects "function and form" holistically.

And so we see so much wailing and rending of clothes post-Referendum with so much inchoate nonsense spoken. There's two really good examples I watched and show of this:-

 The above presenter in Brussels conflates emotional reaction (you can decode it in her tone of voice change when asked the relevant question) with statements of facts and logical sequence of assertions and their degree of certitude or indeed that abused word in the media "Uncertainty". Secondly and a great example by Richard Starkey of the below:-

"Negative conflation, which is used mainly in attack propaganda, is employing a negative presentation idea to deliver a desirable payload idea. For instance, Stephen Lewandowsky used a negative presentation idea in a subsequently retracted paper, which was that climate skeptics had been scientifically classified as conspiratorial, reactionary and psychologically disturbed individuals. Reconstructing the shattered propaganda syllogism and expressing it explicitly; skeptics are deranged, you’re a skeptic, therefore you’re deranged. The implicit and unexpressed payload idea is of course that the last thing you’d want to be known as is a skeptic."
"Attack propaganda, as its name suggests, is nothing more than aggression against opponents but it also serves the useful purpose of scaring any of your own fellow travellers, who may be having doubts, to stay on side.
When used skilfully, explicit conflation very often goes unnoticed by those on whom it is being practised, but even when they do happen to have vague doubts about the payload idea, it does tend to mute objections, if not suppress them entirely. It takes a strong personality not to hesitate expressing reservations with a subtly conflated idea, which everyone else around you appears to think is obviously a good idea."

We see in the Newsnight debate with Paris Lees an attempt at "negative conflation" but fortunately we have Richard Starkey who is indeed a "strong personality" and he points out problems he has with this "group psychology" form of identity politics above and around the fallacy of arguments on display, veiled by so much hyper-emotional conflation and confusion (and likely as Pointman suggests Conditioning). It ends with Paris Lees attacking Richard Starkey for being "white, male" and apparently "privileged" just after he's pointed out perhaps the major reason why "unprivileged" people voted for Leave: And thus imo successfully answered the question why people in a democracy voted Leave. Thus understanding the situtation, is the first step to helping resolve problems for people! But no, for those conditioned by "Identity Politics" the stimulus of hyper-emtional signals is too big a reward or too big a personal cost to leg go of...

Now coming away from the first picture which is visible, when I trained as an undergraduate scientist, one of the core lessons was to "DEFINE: WHAT?" before working forwards with explanatory value of theories and hypothesis. Indeed the eventual result of the EU I think is fairly certain from extrapolating it's trajectory once this definition is zero-in'd on:-

To me what this allows is a network of arguments around the entire subject to form the visual image I have in my mind of the EU Referendum and Brexit subjects as per the blog's opening .gif image of graph theory showing system risk and failure in banks, to illustrate. This mental imagery is for me infinitely more structured and pleasing than the surreal images of emotion and incongruous confusion that issues forth like a tidal wave from the BBC and politicians. It's why I said before that the "Performance" vs "Results" once skillfully arrived at give a sense of pacific emotion towards the outcomes which are understandable and not confusing at all, but the rational analysis of the performance is where success and failure and detail is found.

Instead what we're witnessing is a lot of emotional people worried on a scale of millions of millions and guess what? This surrealism is manifest in the markets and volatility of currencies! It's self-made with the blame on "a dangerous referendum" and the like being bandied around.

If you look at things, the EU/EZ is in much more severe existential and concrete risk of failure and disintegration of it's over-elaborate political networks and the repercussions these have on the other areas such as economy and hence much further on people's lives. All you had to do was read the 615 pages of The Great Deception to consider that this "network of 28 nations" is at serious risk of failure.

They now expect the UK to trigger Article 50 due to this, but the UK has it's own problems to attend to and the should not trigger Article 50 until the problem has been examined and worked on in anticipation of the EU's own silly 2 year limit on Article 50!

See FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 3.0 The Negotiating Framework

"Assuming a referendum has been held, culminating  in a victory  for the "leave" campaign, there will be a number of preliminaries that the UK government will have  to  address  before  the  parties  can  even sit  down  at  a  table.  These  are  not incidental to the process, but will define and shape the negotiations and strongly affect their outcome."
And, to compare the "Visible Disintegration" with the above FLEXCIT structured arguments (sanity):-

 The patience of a Saint compared to the madness of the Crowd.

"While they're sweeping up all those chicken heads, we have Flexcit for you: it's all worked out here. Just follow the instructions and you won't go far wrong. Written by hundreds, read by thousands (currently over 80,000), this is the definitive exit plan, as noted by The Register.

There is also the video which helps explain some of the issues, and the short version here.

Over the next hours, weeks and months we are going to be assailed by ill-informed comment in super-tanker quantities, much of it from the BBC whose David Dimbleby referred to Article 50 as "Chapter 50" - reflecting the degree of knowledge and insight in the institution.

In this and other media organisations - and in government itself - there is terrifyingly little knowledge of the workings of the EU, and next to none about how we should extract ourselves from it. Listening to some of the offerings is painful."

Be careful who you allow yourself to listen to!

Finally, Farewell: I hope this blog despite it's many deficiencies has been useful!

Thursday, 23 June 2016

Gone... Walkabout: Performance vs Result


I've already got different horizons in my eyes... but one final comment on the Referendum: Thursday, 23rd June 2016.

The performance of this Referendum has demonstrated:-

1. Our Legacy News-Media are full of babbling idiots churning out news as a displacement of the previous structured communal observances of communities. It's actual information value is very low to it's circadian-social function.
2. Our Political Class is full of domineering POS' who hold unbelievable levels of power on how the UK is actually run independent of the voter/electorate base (those fucking shape-shifting lizards!).
3. People are taken in by this and irrespective of their general intelligence or knowledge in other areas are equally apt to insensible nonsense in how they formulate how to choose how to vote, based upon the above (on both sides!).

The results of this Referendum therefore should reflect this performance! My prediction is that this low-information and low-quality debate, overally will skew towards a Remain result.

What does it take to beat the "Establishment" who run both Remain and Leave sides of the campaign at once? A better alternative by a "team" that plays a lot better, prepares and plans a lot better so that individually and collectively they can argue and campaign to argue better and everyone "in crowd" can see and hear and know which team played the better game and deserved to win even if they don't full appreciate how to do this fully, themselves.

That is the trend I hope we'll see going forwards.

I'm taking a break at this blog for a while and hence "Go Walkabout", as I've got other things to do. Finally the opportunity to prepare with The Leave Alliance individuals has been like being lucky enough to be on a team in a team sport where you know your team mates are really good at their roles in the team and you enjoy the performance of playing with them and know that you can depend on a strong performance which will usually lead to a corresponding result. It raises your own game and as a team you can only get stronger. The better you get the more the quality performance becomes the driving result of success and the win or loss condition, explicable in those terms, very rationally and emotionally very pacific; apart from the odd chance factor here and there.

It's been "awesome" being involved with such a team of people: Thank you all. Perhaps are team will reassemble and we'll recruit some new "players" in the future for the next big tournie?!

The only useful source on the developments of this results of the Referendum, I can recommend:-

But I'd also advise: Look at the performance, not the results:-

Arguments or Relationships 1st? Modern Family & "Emotional Digestion"

The Dark Heart of Politics: Barriers To People?

All this bs about "divided politics/healing/coming together" after the Referendum in the media... that ain't the game I've been playing and watching.



Some further considerations to compare to the result tomorrow:-

1. What happens when you rely for information from the Legacy News-Media. There has been a tendency to use polling data to frame identities along the lines of Good (young, educated, house-owning, professionals) vs Bad (old, less educated, left-behinds). People seem to pick up their information according to which group they are a part of (above and below).
2. An example: Teachers: They work with the framework that they are "do-gooders" for society shaping tomorrow's brains/citizens to be "good people". For them the EU is a symbol of "good" and UKIP (sharp intake of breath) is appalling with the vitreol against poor unfortunate migrants desperate to find safety and succour eg multi-cultural classroom inclusiveness where children naturally learn to get on well with each other.
3. The major comfort blanket has been provided by Vote Leave: Allowing Remain to argue about the safety of the economy within the EU for the middle-class and swing-voters. Combine that with the anti-immigrant identity and it's a double-whammy.
4. Another very interesting thing going on here: The number of "highly visible in society" people poking their oar in from their advantaged position to do so and being as hopelessly prey to the Legacy News-Media version of events as anyone else, no matter if they're highly decorated in whatever field they're apparently extremely talented and successful at.
5. Again, this "version" (above the line) has not been recognized fully and widely enough: It's that the politicians have treated the Referendum as another one of their own to dominate along with the legacy news-media, in the same way as they always do. People have been robbed of their Direct (real) Democracy process here on all sides of the debate. If there's one hard and fast outcome, it's this Top-Down Referendum Result.
6.There are glimmers of people seeing this from time to time eg the volatility in the markets which then after reports of pandemonium in the news return to where they were 24hrs or a few days later or where they were 'back in February" and people start to wonder at the wisdom of Osborne and Cameron using economic FUD against them thinking more about things. I'd guess however you're more likely to get more questioning by people in the lower classes than the middle classes however on the "market gods". Carney or Osborne or Soros, are not prestigious individuals so much as "just another bullshit merchant" if what they say is over-elaborate and the results don't seem to add up either.
7. I find perhaps the people most vulnerable to FUD appear to be the Middle-Classes? It's possible the people most vulnerable to extremist rhetoric are the Lower-Classes by comparison? This might explain a lot of the messaging (Tory Remains vs UKIP Leavers) in this Referendum?
8. People emotionally compromised by either of the above usually communicate their political intentions in this "alter-language" commanded by the SW1/Legacy News-Media which pollutes the arguments quality very detrimentally and ends up dominating it. What they say they themselves probably cannot explicate very well even to themselves, the support becomes ingrained attitude and belief aka world view within the context of our politics.
9. Polling seeks to measure this - absurd outcome.
10. Politics in the UK is hence driven in a suitably shallow mainstream narrative of a small component of the full views of people which are "invisible". I think there's possibly a lot of potential and productive politics that can be done "under the radar" or "below the line" as such? They're fruitful targets as it were. It remains an intention to develop "new tools" for Real Democracy for people to make use of in the future.


Tuesday, 21 June 2016

Beyond 2020: The Sweet Spring of Real Democracy!

Building a Wildlife Pond: "The Sweet Spring Of Water For Wildlife."

After the Referendum, I've already made plans to build a Wildlife Pond. There's plenty of advice and instructions from which to learn and take inspiration from, online such as this excellent one from The Rural Gardener: "How To Build Your Own Wildlife Pond 1" and indeed extending the concept to add a "How To Build Your Own Wildlife Pond 2 - Adding A Stream". I've been doing various part-time work this Summer including some gardening and mowing lawns (so plenty of time outside in the Summer sun (and rain!)) and the above instructions and elsewhere and direct advice from people allow me to conclude that I know enough to be able to put that information into action and do this work (having earned enough cash to do so (hopefully no more than £150)!). From my mentioned experiences, I can't help but notice how people seem obsessed with having finely cut lawns; afterall I get paid to mow them every two weeks, particularly at this time of year when the grass can grow into majestic "Savannahs" of the British Isles, if left uncut!

It got me thinking, it may not be for everyone, but if all these gardens (big ones particularly) created some garden ponds with surrounding "wetland edges" and again surrounding "mini savannah edges" that then connected eventually towards the hedges and/or trees at the edge of the gardens, the calculation in increase in wildlife that this might lead to compared to the by comparison "green deserts" of finely mowed lawns with their various versions of ornamental-only (low biodiversity) "topiary" (the yellow meadow ants don't seem to mind the lawns so much)?? I appreciate mown lawns have other utilities but a portion of a garden given over to Wildlife (especially the larger or lesser used gardens and ponds are a hazard for young children), but the "appearance" of nature/green managed by people vs the "information value" contained in biodiverse wildlife gardens always strikes me as incredibly disparate: The former to me is "empty" and so many suburban districts have a kind of dead energy to them, whereas the latter is "alive" or "vital".

I can't help but conclude people seem very oblivious to the land they live in; perhaps less so to the house prices, however (and doubly so to their rise and fall)? Mown lawns are part of the assets that need the occasional management incurred cost and the nature of grass is to keep on top of it, I suppose, so the equipment does not break and incur extra costs such as petrol and spare parts etc. But the question to ask: The bit of land in peoples' temporary possession, how do they conceive it to be and how about after they leave it?

So I intend to create one and then calculate the biodiversity and maybe systematize this information some more if possible but also so that I can enjoy the richness in wildlife that this will bring. As The Rural Gardener says above, "Nature does the rest" or "finds a way".

So goodbye EU, Brexit and Referendum... and to be honest: Good riddance!

1975:Labour's Peter Shore on Project Fear - "The message that comes out is fear, fear, fear" 

There's plenty of evidence that the 1975 Referendum was a horrible exercise in deception and industrial scaled propaganda against people and used similar FUD tactics to today. In 1994 the Norwegians experienced similar tactics:-

"Learn what it feels like to be used/duped by poliicians early": This stuff from Norway in 1994 is excellent material to educate children: First with the Yes Campaigns claims and "how true and good they appear", then hit them with this stuff from >20yrs ago saying similar things!

Scribblings From Seaham summarizes the ignorance today in the public very well above. As for today, 2016, it becomes tedious hearing David Cameron and George Osborne being allowed to lie by Vote Leave as such:-
  • "There is no Brexit Plan if you vote Leave".
  • "Brexit is unknown and full of uncertainty."
  • "Leave have said they will leave The Single Market."
Vote Leave allow these premises to dominate all other utterances which then lead to:-
  • "Trade will collapse if we vote Leave: An action of self-harm!"
Jesus Wept!

Of course even more deadly is that this allows incontrovertible "experts" & certified "good people" to wade in:-

  • Nobel Laureate Economists (decision-workers)!
  • Scientists and Universities (brain-workers!) 
  • Save The Children! (It's their future hence their decision)
  • Business Entrepreneurs and other Names (Ian McEwan the latest dunderhead duckspeaking)
  • EU Legal Experts (ffs...!)
Leave is then left with (lol!):-
  • The Left-Behind!
  • The old (who honestly cares about them anymore, a weight on the NHS...)
  • Racists against immigration who'll go out and gun down an MP (female) in broad daylight.
  • Johnson, Farage, Galloway...
The other big issue I have with this, is the problem people seem to have separating themselves and their direct relation to the EU with the universal perspective that is possible too.

For example, from my above "Wildlife Pond" project you can tell I'm very keen on wildlife, th environment and conservation. In fact these are areas that by and large I tend to agree quite a lot with the EU on!

One of the reasons is simple:-

Is well worth a full read. I hazard to comment on the politics directly, but my own idea is that Sovereignty is to do with three elements:-
  • Land
  • People
  • Rules
The land will be here when we've all passed through, hopefully for the new/next people. People need space to live (same with wildlife). How we all organize that space is via our common rules. I like to think Sovereignty is therefore effectively using rules of some sort in some way to make the land and people better today and tomorrow than they previously were ie for all to flourish at once? In the past we've had "Divine Rule" then we've had "Monarch Rule" and today we have so called "Parliamentary Sovereignty" where instead of by Holy Book or Crown, Politicians Discuss amongst themselves how the rules are made. Tomorrow if we build it I think we'll have "Real Democracy" which is the "spring of water" from which Sovereignty will be more highly distributed amongst people discussing rules more with each other according to their direct knowledge more applied to themselves and across the land (and our seas of course) in this part of the world.

The measure of success will be how well run the UK and British Isles are compared to other parts of the world, more likely less fortunate (and wise) than our selves in such a case? One of the results here will be less requirement for large groups of people for protection (from other such large groups) and smaller higher quality groups of people administering themselves more locally more responsibly and specifically and hence beneficially.

So irrespective, I think that the EU as an idea is outdated, though it has some things that may work but are certainly open to more political debate: 
UK agriculture would be better off outside the EU at the Oxford Farming Conference January 2016

Fishing Speech

Environment Speech 

Particularly by the people who live and make a livelihood here and who lay claim to the benefit of their future generations too - which must include the consideration on how to look after the land and sea, also.

There's a lot of room for improvement here and indeed that does not mean throwing out what is already good such as the various international environmental regulations that the UK would need to continue to conform with and possibly participate with more directly out of the EU?

The final thing is that the current process of democracy itself seems full of flaws in politics and economics (the power of governments over peoples' money for example...). To come back to Sovereignty and quote Dr. RAE North:-

"And this is where The Harrogate Agenda comes in. The group that has been so careless of their powers, and so indifferent to the prospect of recovering them can hardly be trusted to safeguard them for all time, and not to repeat their give-away. Thus, it is we the people who must recover our sovereignty, wresting it from Parliament which has been so reluctant to use it on our behalf.

That is the back story. Parliament is sovereign, supposedly holding it trust for the people. But, in failing to exercise it, the people themselves must act, and demand the recovery of powers that Parliament has so carelessly given away. And then, with the horse firmly back in the stables, we must bolt the door.

We the people, on Thursday, must make a start in recovering our sovereignty – not from Brussels, but from Westminster. We the people are sovereign, and this week we have an opportunity to exercise it. And if we don't, we the people have only ourselves to blame."
I think people remain ignorant and hence feel "powerless" to the bunch of politicians in Westminster, only because they choose to remain oblivious to the potential and possibility surrounding them everywhere: The UK is a fortunate part of the world and very hospitable and "green and pleasant", it just takes a few "good ideas" and some work by a lot of people and lots of small positive changes can add up to a lot of positive change: Something politicians always promise and never deliver to people: They can't, but people probably could if they thought about it and decided they wanted to.

Monday, 20 June 2016

Permissible Predictions: President Cameron Agrees To EUROZONE Treaty 2017

COMPRESSION TIME: Emotional hysteria will peak towards the EU Referendum vote then (AT)TENSION will return to the EUROZONE and the time pressure it is under.

There's some pure gold in the legacy-news media pulling out the "big-guns" in manipulating voters according to preferred criteria on how to vote Remain; in particular: Nobel prize-winning economists warn of long-term damage after Brexit and Reddit once again provides a convenient summary of tailored messages:-

 Compression exerted on voters not according to THEIR criteria but according to other criteria and indeed so many "buy it".

With regard to the economic uncetainty, there's inevitable flux as a mandate from people via democracy is a power signal with concentric waves of influence rippling out and affecting myriads of subjective realities (stock markets and currencies ( eg blog: Putting Theories To The Test: The EU As Symbol of "Good"?
confidence or uncertainty?) and the odd objective ones too. However all along the people are being deceived: To vote Remain is I predict to vote for Cameron as PM and President of the EU in 2017 where upon the UK will "Lead" the soft outer ring and pave the way for the EUROZONE Treaty post-2020 all according to schedule of the political classes, having managed the people out of the way and they will feel back in control once again. Massaging appearances back into their preferred form, again.

The Price Of "Pure Gold": FUD & Nobel Prize-Winning "Economic Uncertainty"

It will be interesting to see the results of the Referendum and the data on who voted. Then there will be calculations to infer WHY people voted the way they did. I infer however, that those who vote REMAIN will tend to be women and tend to be well-educated and tend towards following more obediently and understand things with respect to what sounds most sensible - namely the swing voters will I think still vote for REMAIN after all the ammunition that VOTE LEAVE have provided with David Cameron to then lean on the above economists and the like.

 Habit-Forming: Independent Thinking or Arranged Learning? What does teacher say?

In fact a vote to Leave won't change much apart from sending out those signals and hence flux and this is because:-

Safe harbour: why the Norway option could take the risk out of Brexit

Anthony Scolefield of Futurus makes one of the most sensible observations regarding the Leave Vote concerning how it will be an exercise in "Political Permissibility" as the UK is already a full EEA member, the perogative of removing that would fall on the EU's decision-making shoulders and that is something it cannot and won't do for practical reasons apart from political permissibility reasons also.
"Inside the corridors of pro-remain Whitehall, and among many of the most informed Brexit advocates, there is a belief that the UK could find a much safer way to pull out of the EU. Proponents of a so-called “Flexcit” suggest that the UK might use a safe harbour that already exists to remove much of the risk from an EU divorce.

Backing out of the EU after a vote to leave, and re-entering the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) group of countries could pave a way out while doing minimal damage."

 And getting to the heart of the matter concerning "Permissibility":-
"The larger risk to the Flexcit plan comes in the form of potential international opposition. Britain’s re-entry into EFTA would require the unanimous approval of its existing members. Having secured that blessing, the UK would then need all 27 of the EU’s remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA.
Smith concedes that France could put up a fight. “There are a number of people in the French political establishment, who would try to dig in and just not do anything,” he says, admitting that Paris could attempt to block a deal outright.
However, he believes that the pressure applied by other European countries, including fellow trading nations such as Germany, would be enough to get EEA entry on the table for the UK.
This may require a concession to France, “a pound of flesh”, Smith suggests, perhaps in the way of higher payments to the EU than other EFTA countries face."
Indeed this ties in with the thoughts of Anthony Scolefield of Futurus on "Permissibility":-

However underneath this particular and seemingly final Russian doll is in fact the final and last "one": The Voter, as Dr. RAE North explores and clarifies:-

"The purpose of Flexcit is to give reassurance to undecided voters, by showing that leaving the EU can be a safe, measured process. It need not have any economic fall-out.

As such, this exit plan does not seek to instruct government. It does not pretend to be actionable policy. It simply conveys a structured argument that says that, if it so desired, the Government can make leaving the EU relatively painless and ultimately very profitable. There is no "leap in the dark".

And indeed the real problem is communicating this to the voter so that their Selection Choice either for Remain or Leave feels both valid (Referendum) and viable (either choice depends on the voter's conception of the EU Membership vs a realistic alternative):-

"The point here, of course, is that Flexcit, very specifically, is NOT the Norway option. Phase One of our plan gives three choices, of which Norway is only one. There are two fallbacks, each devised to allow for the eventuality that Britain might fail to rejoin Efta – a prerequisite of the Norway option – or that it might be blocked from continued participation in the EEA.

With no reference to the fallbacks, the Telegraph mistakenly asserts that there is a "larger risk to the Flexcit plan", coming in the form of potential international opposition. Britain's re-entry into EFTA. This we are told "would require the unanimous approval of its existing members". And then, having secured that membership, the UK would "need all 27 of the EU's remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA".

Our concern here is that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid our plan being dismissed on these grounds. Failure to join either Efta or the EEA may be a risk to the Norway option, but it is not a problem for Flexcit. If the worst happens, we simply move on to one of the fallbacks – their availability being an absolutely integral part of the plan.

Dwelling on the issue of "entering the EEA", it should be said that the argument has progressed, and in leaps and bounds. Here, the specific point is that the UK is already in the EEA. Thus, it is not a question of "entering the EEA" but of whether we can continue as part of it, having transitioned from the EU to Efta. This issue is discussed at length in Flexcit."
Anthony Scolefield is one of the few to argue in a mature and responsible way about the Permissibility question gifted to UK Voters in this EU Referendum. If someone gives you two options but does not give you permission concerning one of them due to other 3rd parties who cannot be relied upon... you have to ask: What sort of choice is that, exactly? Secondly, if all that is holding up Europe is some words on a piece of paper and not the common goodwill of all the current members and future members, just what signal does that send out about how people are governed?

At the bottom of this even below the level of the voter, is the fear of those in charge who made illegitimate decisions in the past that are now leading them to attempt to control and manage the voters consequentially and avoid those voters deciding that the EU or the EUROZONE is really not what they ever wanted (see the objective results) because they fear the "chain reaction" that will trigger on a fragile and failing system of their own doing. And the reasoning:-

  1. Real EU Reform Concessions were never ever on the cards: "I suspect that if Europe had been more willing to agree genuine reform when the Prime Minister went to Brussels for his renegotiation, the polls would be looking far better for Remain than they do today."
  2. A Fair Referendum was never ever on the cards either: Managing to educate voters and lead to a Leave verdict is not how the politicians conduct their plans if they can help it!!
  3. The EUROZONE has to be secured not just in practice but also in the event of uncertainty and fragility and the subjective reality that it is so prey to; before any real conviction will be seen towards Brexit and communicated as such.
  4. With President Cameron leading the way of the narrowly voted Remain UK in 2017...
  5. Indeed this whole Referendum as per the previous blog Referendum Result 2016: A Systemic Failure of Governance of People has been an enormous indictment against the governance of the UK by it's criminally deceptive and self-serving politicians.

So, we will have a serial liar in David Cameron in 2017 giving permission to the EUROZONE Treaty, I expect as a consequence of a Remain vote.

Whatever happened to people giving their politicians their permission? I think this Referendum will confirm this inversion.