Bercow's Law: Deus Ex Politics?

Lost Leonardo raises a very very interesting observation in his latest blog: Not Whether, But How:-

"What can one say when confronted with this level of wilful self-delusion? Europe is not the EU. I will keep saying that because it is true and because anybody who attempts to muddy the water on that particular issue is either being manipulative or is so stupid as to warrant no further attention. Many of the people who refer to the EU as Europe are both.

These are not knowledgeable people. These are people who have not troubled to learn anything new since the vote. Their arguments, if one can call them that, are stuck in the past, wishing after a referendum outcome that the British people declined to deliver."

What is an Argument?

An ARGUMENT is a sequence of statements of which one is intended as a CONCLUSION and the others, the PREMISES, are intended to prove or at least provide some evidence for the conclusion (using declarative sentences).

Though the premises of an argument must be intended to prove or provide evidence for the conclusion, they need not actually do so. There are bad arguments as well as good ones.

Building chains of premises based on midpoints being both premises to forward conclusions and such conclusions acting as premises subsequently are non-basic arguments or complex arguments. Those premises and assumptions which form the foundation of such arguments are BASIC PREMISES or ASSUMPTIONS.

If we are careful we define our premises. For example using the above diagram:-

• Environment = European Continent
• Economics = Customs Union, European Economic Area + Single Market, EFTA, UNECE and more.
• Society = Various European Nations (see venn diagram of variable relationships) including a European Union.
• Politics = Variable national demos as well as international and supranational and intergovernmental and global institutions.

To add to Lost Leonardo's examples is Speaker John Bercow: I voted to remain in EU recent statements or "argument" for voting to Remain as he freely communicates:-

1. "Personally I voted To Remain" (CONCLUSION 2)
2. "I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not." (NON-BASIC PREMISE or INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION).
3. "Partly for economic reasons, being part of a big trade block." (PREMISE).
4. "And partly because we're in a world of power-blocs." (BASIC PREMISE or ASSUMPTION).
5. "And I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies of the European Union, it's better to be part of that big power-bloc, in the world. (CONCLUSION 1).

That is the order of his argument as it is said. To rearrange into the correct argument order:-

1.  "And partly because we're in a world of power-blocs." (BASIC PREMISE or ASSUMPTION).
2.  "Partly for economic reasons, being part of a big trade block." (PREMISE).
3. "I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not." (NON-BASIC PREMISE or INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION).
4. "And I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies of the European Union, it's better to be part of that big power-bloc, in the world. (CONCLUSION 1).
5. "Personally I voted To Remain" (CONCLUSION 2).

It's worth noting that the visible majority of coverage of Bercow has been on point 5 his final conclusion in context to his SOCIAL ROLE IN OUR SOCIETY.

However it's worth a lot more to note his "basic premise" or assumption and what this foundation to his subsequent argument and conclusion and hence decision and hence information value input into this subject; is worth or worthless:-

Let's repeat it:-

• "And partly because we're in a world of power-blocs."

1.  IF we are in a world of power-blocs then as a single nation we must be part of one of those power blocs.
2. IF 1 is true and observable THEN which power-bloc derives?
3. IF we are in EUROPE (which is self-evident) then the only legitimate/sensible power-bloc or powerful or relevant power-bloc or best power-bloc is the EU.

Here Bercow has defined the model of our reality, our environment through IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS within his basic premise or 1st assumption of his argument. From this defintion of reality he then creates a model or concept of what this means in his next PREMISE:-

•  "Partly for economic reasons, being part of a big trade block."

1. Not only are 1-3 unquestioned and untested, but his economic concept of the EU as a "big trade block" is a bad argument. It firstly appears to define the EU as predominantly economics derived from our environment and not from our politics which it always was. You might mistake world wars as environment-driven conflict between European nations... but Anthony Scolefield's comment at EUReferendum.com - Journey Into The Unknown is powerful counterbalance to this view in mere representation of a huge other argument that exists but which is not propounded here (see below):-
2. Secondly it also excludes the exploration of economic and trade relations with Europe and the EU and the rest of the world without EU Membership or assumes that such is so deleterious to our economy as to be a void choice even if categorical in possibility. Thirdly that such a decision being void now must always be void or void as long as is invalid and/or not viable either.
3. Fourthly it assumes that the EU "trade bloc" not being a political creation (see point 1) is a successful "economic" or "big trade bloc".

"The terms of the Armistice of 11th November are quite interesting.One historian put it very well
 
'The Allied statesmen were faced with a problem:so far they had considered the 'fourteen commandments'(Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points) as a piece of clever and effective American propaganda,designed primarily to undermine the fighting spirit of the Central Powers,and to bolster the morale of the lesser Allies.
 
Now, suddenly, the whole peace structure was supposed to be built up on that set of 'vague principles', most of which seemed to them thoroughly unrealistic,and some of which,if they were to be seriously applied,were simply unacceptable'.
So in a few days punitive armistice demands were cobbled together which laid the basis for another war."

• "I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not." (NON-BASIC PREMISE or INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION).

1. (continuing from the basic premise) Fifthly it assumes that the UK could not have been successful outside of this from the start (remaining in EFTA(-EEA) as a non-viable powerbloc) or that sixth a transition depending on time-frame may be more successful eventually. Here the definition or bad argument reaches it's final crystallization: For economic reasons Bercow prefers Remain. This statement does fit the apparent stupidity of May's White Paper and hence his comments gain political intra-logical coherence thus appearing deceptively self-evident and/or correct. But that is a product of the assumptions behind his initial basic premise.

Following this chain of logic and concluding that John Bercow has made a bad argument may have appeared laborious at this point. But the core concept of this blog is arrived at and named

Bercow's Law

The use of political argument to appear to be environmental or "reality" informing our context or conceptual understanding which surrounds future arguments in the political arena or argumentation. In fact his argument is a DEUS EX MACHINA argument of Politics and politicians manipulating and controlling the level they abstract (derive) from: SOCIETY:-

"Nietzsche argued that the deus ex machina creates a false sense of consolation that ought not to be sought in phenomena."

THAT IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP to which they are obsessed and driven concerning. Effectively once this is repeatedly done and becomes orthodoxy of political belief-systems; it's self-reinforcing: Hermetically sealing off data and research which in turn drives logical relationships which in turn should drive arguments which in turn should drive societies choices through political engagement.

Let's alight from such lofty heights for a moment and come back down to earth with a personal anecdote: I had opportunity to assist some students with their English learning as they had to make speeches. I noticed that curiously they tended to pick subjects such as gender politics or racism and other such moral Aesop bolted on one-liner style topics. It took some persuasion to ask the students to consider speeches on: One something they know a lot about and perhaps are skillful at carrying out (!) and Two something they find genuinely interesting to themselves which they personally picked as individuals (!) - not apparently important as per what they can always without fail find to watch on the news shows daily... . My final thoughts from the English lesson were that young students when learning English Language seem to imitate their proximate authorities (schools themselves suffering the moral hazard of education by law and thus by force of either threat of sanction/fine or imprisonment) as opposed to learn their actual relationship with the world through the relations which we discover when learning from Logic used in argument?