It seems more accurate to describe our "current democracy" as closer to a "public sounding off" or "letting off steam" as the true type of participation with which people interact with politics. The most recent example is the hyperventilating as above: People resorting to "Displacement Activities":-
- Marching up and down
- Chanting and engaging in righteous condemning activities
- Joining large groups of other such people.
- Making a lot of noise and jumping up and down...
Assuming the above is very quick and general description, then we could consider what the next step in such a flow diagram might be?
The above exchange is in fact a perfect example of the implications of "Powerless Protest" to elaborate on:-
John Finn's understanding is based on an assumption he reveals in his subsequent response, but first his communication shows a couple of problems:-
- He's expressing an opinion without checking his own state of knowledge: "Have you actually read FLEXCIT?" And that itself is just the beginning of that journey.
- He sprinkles politeness and "friendliness" as substitute for the above in his communication.
The assumption is laid bare here: "You only have an opinion and no say in strategy." This really is a couple of things:-
- Applicable in general to everyone concerning moving politics onto the next stage away from people - leaving people with powerless protest and possibly even encourage to be distracted in this displacement type of activity mistaking it for real political action that is real because it's effective.
- Dr. North provides his own answer below. But I'd suggest this is mixing up arguments: It veers away from explanation of arguments which is exactly what FLEXCIT does do (as Dr. North mentions examples of below). It literally is accepting that argument explanation must be trumped by those in power who do have a say on strategy!!!
- This is a remarkable claim and I suspect a claim that perhaps most people blindly, mutely and hence in behaviour STUPIDLY accept... something along the lines of "that's the way the world works". This is a sort of "abbatoir of democracy":-
Here to point out the correct made by Dr. North's response, pointing out how much FLEXCIT asserts the "Political Context" not a "vacuum" unlike the IEA Brexit Competition papers (!). But also notice:-
- Coherent Exit: An argument that is built up from beginning to end logically that increases explanation value if used and hence if used...
- Rational Negotiation - again insistence to avoid basing arguments on lies, on games such as "Brinkmanship" (see historic errors that manifest from this) etc.
From The Harrogate Agenda:-
"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value."
The political abberations follow from this:-
1. Recognition of our sovereignty
If we can start seeing how people actually integrate into politics currently, we might also begin to think ahead a bit further imagining our political flow chart: What is the next step on that?"One consequence of Germany losing the Second World War was that the success or state to the Third Reich had imposed upon it a new constitution, in which British legal experts had a part to play. It is thus highly significant that Article 20 of that constitution (the Basic Law) declares that all state authority comes from the people. Although not specifically stated, the effect of this was to recognise that the German people are sovereign.Despite the British effectively bequeathing this principle to a nation it had a hand in vanquishing, it does not apply to the people of the United Kingdom. Instead, we have the doctrine of “Parliamentary sovereignty”. Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that futureParliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty, says the Parliamentary website, is the most important part of the UK constitution.We believe this should change, not least because, in the name of parliamentary sovereignty, our MPs have a licence to ignore the wishes of the people and to hand power to bodies such as the European Union. This has led to a situation where UK courts recognise the supremancy of EU law in preference to our own, and can strike down laws made by Parliament.However, we do not believe that we should make a statement along the lines of the German constitution, declaring the source of power. What can be made can be unmade. What can be granted can be rescinded. Instead, we take our guidance from the United States constitution, which starts with the words: “We the people … ”. In so doing, it signifies that the fount of all political power stems from the people, but there is no declaration of sovereignty as such. Sovereignty is regarded as inalienable. Because of that, it cannot be taken away by any body, governmental or otherwise."
Well, again, I think you can spot this for yourself if you pay close attention: One example on The Andrew Marr Show today is the fact that Mrs. May's incoherence in her speech allows other politicians their own fiefdoms from which to operate from such as the previously, heavily discredited Nick Clegg, who now suddenly appears to be a politician of wise caution and sensible suggestions. In fact these politicians manufacture their own almost inscrutable dynamics to people where so much is veiled and muddied, that ensures their arguments always appear to be FROM THE SOURCE OF POWER (which is not the people) to which people cannot possibly fathom... "experts" or "authorities" or "chiefs" or "celebrities" even too.
Compare: Rational Argument egs from Dr. North's EUReferendum.com:
With the monopoly of Arguments by these imposters:-
They are imposters on account of from first principles derived above in The Harrogate Agenda (again John Finn above is probably highly representative of most people falling under the opposite delusion created by these "authorities") but also on performance which betrays that they too are just as ignorant as most "ordinary voters" are and are made to feel by their useless demonstrations and protests. By dint of their superior prestige in society they act more coolly and appear thus ever more superior - the trappings of power.
Let's try and therefore combine all the thoughts and ideas above and make a useful prediction: What the hell will happen with Brexit given all the noise?
If we consider the above, it seems likely that the politicians are much more involved in allowing people to demonstrate and protest mistaking this as democracy before they themselves then use various political fudges to ascertain how much political power they really are in control of. Thus the options may present themselves if we use this as our guide:-
- the EFTA/EEA option and it's auxillery options as per FLEXCIT is too clearly too rational and visible to be ostensibly chosen. The power dynamic would be too exposed and out of control by the politicians in the UK and EU members.
- If we had voted Remain however the other problem would have been how to deal with the UK while the rest of the EU engage in a New Treaty. Again the power dynamic under stress.
- Attenuating out Brexit into fudged language and backroom deals and popular sounding nostrums and generally blurring and blending it's meanings as far away from coherence as possible and closer towards, "Who said what" and hence how many prestigious consensus can be sold to peoples across Europe, then I think we'll see a variation on a New Treaty and some renamed Association Membership balancing the Non-EUROS with the EUROS members.
But what I believe I have achieved, far from perfectly, is link this expected result with the roots of failure of democracy and power: As again already pointed out with people failing to understand the true nature of the Brexit vote previously: It was always a test of people to rise above themselves and be worthy of living and running a real democracy of relations between each other: Which they failed even at the same time as apparently winning against the Establishment. Cue the politicians reassert their former roles once again with zero opposition permissible.
That Twitter comparison above is food for thought: The inchoate animal-like anger-fear mixture at a perceived threat to the self = probably most voters?
