Vote Leave and Boris Johnson's invocation of Hitler moment: "Where the show 'jumped the shark' and the polls nose dived from the artificial "neck and neck".
The term "Operation Trust" refers to the setting up "a fake anti-Bolshevik resistance organization as a counterintelligence operation of the State Political Directorate (GPU) of the Soviet Union". In fact Vote Leave can only be a fake (not authentic) anti-EU resistance organization: It's derived from the same sources as the opposite side to the campaign Pro-EU supporters from Westminster (Outer Party). Traditional "euroscepticism" has served so well to contain information by usurping it with multiplications of misinformation distribution via the Legacy News-Media to effectively "swamp" intelligence at large on the nature of the EU project.
I'm sure it's almost impossible to separate "fact and fiction" towards this effective result for the EU Referendum, it's no matter. What is of interest is something entirely different. First a recap, in the first three blogs I wrote:-
1. How do you become eurosceptic? (learning)
2. I've been expecting you (FUD/propaganda)
3. The greatest problem of our time (democracy in action)
I more or less already laid down everything that this blog has attempted to convey and now's the time to "memory recall" that now that it is so apparent:-
1. Few people have really learnt during this referendum process.
2. FUD has been on a prodigiously high industrial scale.
3. Democracy has been assumed and controlled by the political class away from the people.
One of the most important messages for any Pro-Brexit (Brexiteer) or other campaign is that there's 2 types of people for simplification:-
The people who believe there's essentially nothing wrong but some minor problems with respect to our politics and EU Membership.
The people who believe there's essentially significant problems and that this leads to so much else being wrong with respect to the above again.
Of course the frame for this is the EU Membership. And the requirement is to develop the conviction in people of 2 if you come to the conclusion that Brexit is politically high magnitude but significantly important enough to warrant such a decision. I did not use "Operation Trust" to suggest a conspiracy theory but much more to work on the suggestion that intelligence is blocked from Top-Downwards in the current political system we inhabit. In fact the link with Operation Trust to a work of fiction by George Orwell lends the diagram from 1984:-
Tip: The Big Idea (actually the structure built off people), Top (Figureheads such as Cameron PM or Obama or Carney) Middle (Vote Leave, BSE and "eurosceptic aristocracy") Bottom: Ignorant people create the political system according to the level of ignorance en mass in combination with the Outer Party distraction.
Effectively BSE and Vote Leave fulfill the "Outer Party" role. The core of our political class such as David Cameron are current form of Prime Minister (along with previous forms: Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Heath etc) form the Inner Party and are untouchable. Indeed Cameron is the core target in this referendum with his absurd degree of power to control the Referendum context and to deceive successfully to such high degree around it too, all of which have been explored but little distributed and in particular by those in Vote Leave (Outer Party).
And yet, ultimately the fundamental error, the idea or "Big Brother" itself is not a person but a systemic structure of our politics and the mass apathy and ignorance and acceptance of the "Proles" or people themselves. The idea of "Big Brother" or whatever you wish to call it, is built on this bottom condition which thus lends itself to the formation of this top condition with the tyranny of "One Big Idea" in this case (And not the only one): The EU. No matter, remove that and another "Big Idea" will take it's place soon enough given the base of people has not changed "shape".
However, this sort of possibility does indeed sound still in the realms of sci-fi as per 1984, only to be found in fiction. And yet let's look at the latest development in the EU Referendum from Vote Leave driving the "Proles" to distraction (only for the members of the "inner party" to come out with ever more sage and gravely kind advice saving us from ourselves by voting to keep the EU):-
All these blog posts from EUReferendum.com and in particular "opportunity cost" give rise to what has a useful name that perhaps many people are already so familiar with such a trend: "Jumping The Shark":-
"Jumping the shark" is an idiom popularized by Jon Hein
that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television
show when it begins a decline in quality, signalled by a particular
scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type
of gimmick in an attempt to keep viewers' interest, which is taken as a
sign of desperation, and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the
show strayed irretrievably from its original formula. The phrase is
based on a scene from a fifth-season episode of the sitcomHappy Days when the character Fonzie jumps over a shark while on water-skis. The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond
television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise, or
creative effort's evolution declines.
Probably a lot of people don't give a stuff about politics or think they don't, but you only have to look at just how &*%! crass that a particular scene is from Happy Days:-
EU Referendum 2016: Summed up perfectly in this total garbage attempt to manipulate audiences emotionally invested in this sitcom back in 1977!
Some day, people will look back at all the media information and and the hopelessly ignorant and gullible people and wonder how people could be so brain dead and so unquestioning and indeed tolerant or trusting of the garbage produced by our "opinion shapers and makers" of society such as the legacy news-media, surrounded as we are by oceans of information available at our fingertips within seconds?
I look at this clip above and all I see is cynism dripping off the screen filling buckets - pretty much like this whole EU Referendum political fraud enacted on the entire UK.
There's an argument that people on a side of the argument may not agree but must pull-together. No, this is wrong. Underlying the actual argument dictates what is of consequence.
I had to attend Church or Sermons of that kind, at school and sometimes in the school holidays. Perhaps what I did not realize at the time was that attending meant I was effectively a "captive audience". Given an alternative I'd decide that if I'd attended once or twice I'd attend all the times.
Sometimes you'd get a speaker with something interesting to say. Mostly, there would be various "sermons" from the bible about all sorts of things that I honestly had no clue as to their actual relevance but just seemed like oft-repeated phrases for their familiarity effect than anything very insightful. I did well in school at Religious Education, usually coming top in the class or year group, so it was not a question of not understanding it. But I found it so boring. I suppose looking back now, the essence of the practice was that "Whatever was the core idea" was there to "keep us safe" or "look after us" if we "behaved in the right way" eg prayers, good thoughts and actions and so on. This seems to be a role the present govern sermonizes to us about today, I would make the tentative comparision?
I always felt so sleepy in these sessions too. The essence of what was said, I never had a problem with. I think what made it boring was that it was beyond denial or beyond demonstration or example; it was like talking about something so very long ago and not very relevant to today. I actually really like churches and love seeing these old buildings all over the UK, and some of the materials in the Christian tradition as well as some works overall have a good balance of aiming for positive ethos and value system which I think are central to education, too. But that's when and after you strip out a helluva lot of "fluff" or "filler" or "packaging" that's complete garbage.
So this is all meandering preamble to the topic at hand in this blog: Security. I noticed in the previous blog that the Government was targeting families for the "Risk" factor that will hit hardest with them. Then we looked at the narrative shaping, "Good vs Bad (Obama vs Putin) and this leads to the other side: "Security" to go with "Risk". I just watched the complete garbage on offer on BBC Newsnight:- Would the UK Be Safer In Or Out of the EU?
"Newsnight
focuses on security and asks whether the UK would be safer in or out of
the EU. Would the UK's standing in the world change if the UK votes to
leave?"
If there's one thing I'm going to take away from this absurd politics today, that's bubbling away and beginning to boil over, due to the "fright" that Direct Democracy is giving the politicians, it's the complete crassness and propaganda of the politics that's taken for something serious or useful; it seems fit only for widely-read and familiar fiction or even good science-fiction:-
Quoting "General Jackson" or "Jens Stoltenberg" is absolutely absurd.
I think parading talk of security on the airwaves is a bit like being stuck in a church sermon: You have no actual choice on it but it IS for your own good! This was made very visible during the anti-war marches and protests against Iraq War during Tony Blair's Prime Ministership. Such matters as "Security" are too important for voters to get in the way of, it seems. Yet the results of these decisions don't actually in my opinion back up such an "elitist view" of this subject as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine all appear to point out: UK or EU, both.
"Having
lost the ability to legislate over huge tranches of activity that were
once the exclusive provenance of Parliament – mainly because the EU has
been handed the power – our Government has acquired the singularly
unhealthy habit of asking Parliament to impose binding legislation on
itself.
First it was the Climate Change Act, committing us to pay £1.3 trillion,
so I suppose we should be relieved that, this time, Parliament is only being asked to commit us to spending 0.7 percent of national income.
The deal, of course, is overseas aid – labelled in less PC times as
foreign aid. But just to make us feel a little happier about it a bunch
of Conservative MPs, led by Tory MPs Philip Davies and Jacob Rees-Mogg,
gathered together in a forlorn attempt to kill off the Bill.
However, it was indeed a forlorn hope, as MPs voted by 146 to six to
allow the Bill to proceed, and the legislation has now completed its
stages through the Commons.
As it stands, we are committed to donating £12 billion a year
"voluntarily", although this may have to go up by another billion over
the next two years as the new system for assessing GNI cuts in – the
same that has added £1.7bn to out EU contributions. This is a far larger
sum than is disbursed by any other EU state and, among the world's big
nations, only the US spends more.
The Financial Times
thinks it is "hugely to the credit" of David Cameron's government, and
his Labour predecessors, that Britain maintains a noble aspiration to
assist the world's poor. But at a time of immense pressure on public
finances, is says, it is reasonable to question the rigidity of the UK's
commitment to international development spending.
The figure, we are reminded, goes back to the 1960s when the World
Council of Churches declared that governments of the developed world
should devote 0.7 percent of their gross national income to
international aid. It was then adopted as a target by Mr Cameron's
coalition, helping to soften the Tories' "nasty party" image."
"It is all very well having these ex post facto confessionals, but the
point is – as we have argued here again and again - it was obvious at
the time that the campaign was failing and was doomed to failure. So
obvious was it that, in July 2008, we wrote a 12-part analysis called "Winning the War", setting out why we thought things were going wrong.
Now for these highly-paid incompetents to be admitting that they got
things wrong, when they were paid to get it right – and amply rewarded
with rank, baubles and privileges for so doing – is simply not good
enough. But the worst of it is that nothing will change. It has only taken the
Army five years as a corporate body to convince itself that it scored a
stunning victory in Iraq, despite the evidence I record in Ministry of Defeat. By the time the whitewash machine has completed its work, the Army will emerge unblemished from Afghanistan as well.
And nor do I buy the Oborne line
that this was a case of "Lions led by donkeys". For sure, amongst the
very small fraction of troops in theatre who actually saw combat, there
were some amazingly brave people. But there were crass, ill-informed
decisions made at all levels, and by all arms.
In terms of the bigger picture, in every theatre in recent times, the
Army has been badly led, badly generalled and has under-performed. One
warms to the idea of slashing the Armed Forces to the bare minimum. At
least then our politicians will no longer be tempted to deploy them. We
simply cannot afford any more of these corporate "victories" that the
Army insists on delivering."
This is all sounds and seems so familiar... roll on Referendum and then roll on Eurozone Treaty...
In George Orwell's 1984, the character Winston Smith comes to the conclusion that in his totalitarian society, the freedom to say the above mathematical truth without negative political repercussion is the genesis for all subsequent political change. It's a statement that is independent of personal subjectivity; an objective truth of the world around us and indeed the exercise of realizing this allows us to realize that we exist in a world separate than ourselves and this is also true for other people. The other type of relationships which also form another equally important environment as well as this physical "reality" is our Social environment or relationships with each other.
Objective Reality: Pythagoras' Theorem: The Square of the Hypoteneuse
Various "Group Cohesion" rituals (submission to the dominance of the group) are based on suppressing the tendency in individuals to promote the ego's agenda, our survival instinct as per our "will to survive" and our desire to benefit ourselves and also our kin. A major feature of this system is Social Status in dictating the TYPE of interaction between individuals which is conducive to avoiding the clash of individuals' egos leading to physical violence with one another. Such interactions invariably can be boiled down to Dominance-Submission in Social Status Interactions and attempts at interchanges between these social roles.
Ricky Gervais: The Office - A comedy of social status & real world role-playing of dominance interchanges
Perhaps Ricky Gervais' The Office is an instrumental example of the comedy involved in this pervasive form of human interaction? I often found the office environment especially dull in the type of predictable communication that takes place between different people role-playing and attempting to continually out-rank each other. Looking at this from a research point of view Uniforms: A Certificate of Legitimacy, we can see that people "comply" very strongly to the symbols of authority:-
University of Warwick Study: Compliance to Roles of Authority
Reading recently King Arthur: The True Story, it reminded me of J.R.R Tolkien's theory about some stories that act like an allegorical "Soup" from Leaf And Tree. There is a basic stock to the story from which different people at different times throughout history add their ingredients or "lumps" into the soup that becomes the story we know of today. Such narratives for example ancestor worship which beget some of the "stock foundations of modern religions" which invariably across the world all add this to other parts of the "stock" such as Creation Myth Stories. For example the stories of Abraham are full of geneological tracings back to "direct relationships" with God ("Good").
In the story of King Arthur, one of the later lumps thrown into the story adding to the base stock was it seems an attempt by the Norman nobility to propaganda the story with their direct links to this historic and mythic King of Britain so as to encourage greater links to legitimacy of their right to rule the Ango-Saxons via bypassing them to a Celtic/Roman prior claim to such a title! Of course much of this also carries on the back of persuading the people of a common shared system of values often assumed in the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings, but no less a major component of Legitimacy:-
"Legitimacy is a ‘…a psychological property of an authority, institution,
or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that
it is appropriate, proper, and just’. Thus viewed,
legitimacy is the belief that the law and agents of the law are rightful
holders of authority; that they have the right to dictate appropriate
behaviour and are entitled to be obeyed; and that laws should be obeyed
simply because that is the right thing to do."
(Although the legend/myth/history of King Arthur points to an deeper level of legitimacy than merely the literal imposition of "divine right"). A more historic though equally dramatized story by William Shakespeare is Richard III.
Fact or fiction: the Machiavellian rise to power& short reign of Richard III
Interestingly Richard III is particularly depicted with villainous attributes by William Shakeaspeare, and as last of the Plantagenets before the Tudor succession of "Royal legitimacy" began, perhaps William Shakespeare was currying favour with the powers of the day in order to successfully hold his plays and be well received publicly and politically via such propaganda easing the thorny issues of legitimacy? Such seems likely when a fuller more historic picture is produced such as from The Richard III Society - A Brief Biography and Introduction to Richard's Reputation it seems a significant misattrubution of Richard III's character has been achieved by Shakeaspeare directly related to the issue of legitimacy and the new authority of the new King.
This theme of the interchange between Authority and Legitimacy appears to arise in another form in Dr. RAE North's The Many And The Few book. What appears to have been necessary propaganda during World War II's The Blitz and Battle Of Britain by the RAF to encourage people (bombing reporting changed, emphasis on the bravery of the RAF) what subsequently has been discounted is the efforts of so MANY people.
Necessary propaganda for it's time, but now national narrative that undermines The Many?
And this is directly relevant to today: We are governed by a few over the many. Fitting this into a general schema:-
Governance Type 1: One-Many: Divine / Metaphysical Legitimacy and hence Authority (Islamic Civilization)
Governance Type 2: Few-Many: The "Capable" Few Legitimacy and hence Authority (Western Civilization)
Governance Type 3: Many-Many: Real Democracy Many Legitimacy and hence Authority (Globalization)
I think one of the dangers to progression of the above, is mixing the problems of one civilization to another in the role of governance and hence legitimacy and authority as per Roger Scruton in The Road To The European Union. For many people the recent tragedy and terrorism in Paris will be to ask questions about Islamists/extremists. I think if you look at the above schema you see that Governance Type 1 as per Richard III for another example leads to a more violent world however that manifests, the rise in violence is the result. The statistics as per Samuel Huntington in The Clash Of Civilizations tends to back this up if you re-classify via the above schema where the One may be a legal or national government and the many may be multiple tribal communities/factions all under one nominal rule for example divine rule but practically fractious: Authority cannot be derived from tenuous legitimacy alone, and hence violence and los of political freedom invariably arises from Dominance via power and conflict.
Legitimacy Theory: Cognitive, Moral and EXTERNAL Pragmatic underpinnings
In the Western Civilization, by contrast, the notion of divine rule has passed, it is too subjective a relationship: The basis of nations has shifted emphasis of power from family or tribal units towards individuals (citizens) and the state/nation. The overhead of group cohesion of tribal units is less and hence the secularization of politics from religion and perhaps the trend of less violence in the world that Stephen Pinker describes in The Better Angels of Our Nature correlates positively with as per Democratic Peace Theory or as per Amartya Sen:-
''No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy,'' [This, he explained, is because democratic governments] ''have to win
elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to
undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.''
National symbols and democratic electoral voting systems now provide legitimacy of rule of law and authority of government in the exectutive and legislative functions of governance of the people. I remember reading a report from one of the Global Bodies such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP):-
Development Index Map from 2010
You can see above a general pattern: Type 2 Governance appears to lead to higher measures on the multiple indexes of development of societies across multiple data sets. If we look at the tragedy of Paris this week, we can at least take solace and comfort in perceiving these two very broad and very general patterns between the two types and KNOW we are progressive and such actors of terror are regressive and they are merely pawns of greater trends of violence due to out-moded and pragmatically poor results of governance.
However, there's a cautionary tale: We don't appear to as yet hold a vision of current trend that is possible towards Type 3 Governance (Many-Many) which it seems is "container" tag or description of use connecting the process of Globalization and interconnectivity between nations and the effect of this on our Type 2 Governance such as the UK's "Representative Democracy".
An example of the politician projecting dominance and hence not listening
"UPDATE: I challenged Bannerman
on these points. His response was repeated obfuscation with totally
irrelevant points, followed by blocking me. I suspect he just doesn't
understand the point at all. These people are not up to the job of
running the leave campaign."
This may not be the best example, as twitter is notoriously shallow for communication, but I tend to see the dominance behaviour in many such as DCB, Daniel Hannan, Ruth Lea, Dominic Cummings and of course in David Cameron. Apparently Arron Banks also does this: Most people do: But do they also allow themselves to listen? Our government has had 43 years to use their capacity to understand and educate this understanding to people in the UK: They have not listened and have concerned themselves with the apearance of legitimacy only as per previous blogs: Argumentum Ad Infinitum or Pattern Recognition or Our Government: No ifs, buts or maybes.
What our government has done is effectively take 43 years worth of membership and cram all of that, all the undemocratic major Treaties (x7) into the voting public making a single day's choice x1 on the upcoming EU Referendum day.
That is the most damning illegitimacy of our government: The Few-Many Relationship In Action.
One of the problems of the Type 2 Governance that does not seem to appeal to Type 1 is the loss of "Moral Authority" as per the concept diagram above. Equally what WE must concentrate on is the quality of the "Cognitive Legitimacy" of our Government in this system and it's relationship to Pragmatic Legitimacy of execution of policy. Our politicians appear to hold very very low Moral Legitimacy, they are characters similar to the schemers we enjoy watching on our televisions such as Game Of Thrones: Chaos is a Ladder. In previous blog posts the lies over the EU by David Cameron remove all or any moral authority he ever purported to hold. Eating a hot-dog or drinking a beer with another world leader are all "mummer's farce" designed to make him appear to be "one of the people by the people for the people": He excuses his privileged position of Eton and Oxford and mentoring for Number 10 Downing Street but is yet another Prime Minister from such an "aristocratic" background.
We have detailed The Great Deception of our Government and David Cameron over the EU as well as the failures of our Government to promote prosperity, namely they lack Pragmatic Legitimacy too which must be down to a lack of Cognitive Legitimacy. Peter Hitchens makes the point that democratic legitimacy, the system itself is a set-up for such people:
Peter Hitchens: Does our government have any right to rule us?
Dominance-Submissive Interaction In-Built into our politics = No Communication because there is no listening pressure; only dominance projection
"Direct election
would correct a manifest unfairness in our current arrangements, exemplified by
Prime Minister David Cameron who gained office by virtue of 33,973 votes in the
2010 general election. All those votes were cast in the constituency of Witney,
which boasted 78,220 electors. The rest of the nation was not allowed to vote
for the man. He may have been elected as an MP, but he was not elected as prime
minister through a general franchise.
Furthermore, when
Mr Cameron holds office on the back of 10,703,654 Conservative votes, from an
electorate of 45,844,691, his franchise represents only 36 percent of the votes
cast and less than a quarter (23
percent) of the overall electorate. In any election, the PM hardly ever reflects the choice of leader for the nation."
In George Orwell's 1984 quote:-
Type 1: "True": 2 + 2 = 4 ; 2 + 2 = 5
Type 2: True: 2 + 0 = 2 (Spin)=> True: 2 - 2 = 0
Type 3: True: 2 + 2 = 4 (Apparently only if governments are made up of the governed themselves... and hence listen to themselves)
In Type 1 Governance, there's a deep issue with even the political freedoms of the first assertion. In Type 2 Governance we assume that our Government at least may have some legitimacy but their lying and their ineffective Governance is merely "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.' ~ Churchill. However what's actually true, is that the Cognitive Legitimacy is related to the Pragmatic Legitimacy (eg ERM via Lawson/Howe, eg 2008 Financial Crisis via Brown as per Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) ).
Looking at that above index, nations that score highly appear to be well ordered, organized and in general employ greater democracy such as Norway (strong grass-roots movements) and Switzerland (direct democracy). If we start with 2 + 2 = 4 a basic truth in our communication, and we avoid the dominance of politics by "The Few" aka The Establishment, then we may find that comunication is opened up and stronger Cognitive application to our national decision making is effected... this cannot be done in the EU by the way: Our dispute with the EU cannot be resolved
The British Model = Cameron = Our National Politics low quality = Not Listening
But first we have to understand Legitimacy and it's relationship to Dominance before our "leaders" start listening to "We The People". We have a plan FLEXCIT, and there are many other Brexit plans all inferior cognitively, but if your leaders are not listening then we have the illegitimate liar David Cameron and his warmongering, recession-inducing "leaders" leading us into a series of future unfortunate events: Strategy week: the politics of expectation
Listening & Legitimacy:I don't think either Leave.EU/Vote_Leave or BSE listen given they're made of the same people as Cameron and Osborne.
In my opinion the stronger triangulation for any voter to think about is this: Which "triangle" holds Greater Cognitive Legitimacy and consequently can also exhibit Morally Greater Legitimacy (attempting to work honestly and present results as they are)? Can we suppose that those two combined will yield Greater Pragmatic Legitimacy, too?
How To Disagree: Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Argument Quality
All the blogs to date have been aligned towards this one blog.
It threads together all the ideas concerning Metacognition, "beginning to begin", "Concept Shifts" and measuring quality of arguments in relation to the upcoming EU Referendum (EUReferendum.com), Brexit (FLEXCIT) and Democracy (The Harrogate Agenda). The above diagram is from Paul Graham's How To Disagree (and is relatively well known):-
"The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago,
writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and
increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their
own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be
expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing.
And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something
the author said, but he has probably already explored the
most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering
territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially
measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier.
The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account
for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in
disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement
will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to
say things you'd never say face to face."
xkcd: Duty Calls
Democracy's vitality principle is the quality and distribution and frequency of argumentative engagement between people, as humorously satirized by xkcd. Where this declines, the "power to the people" also declines as per The Goldfinch and the Gilded Cage with it and centralization of power inevitably increases, in our case along The Road To The European Union (not necessarily for the better quality of life experience of people):-
T.H. White: "100 People: 1:9:90"
In A Clash Of Kings it was noted that "the nine knaves" (see T. H. White's The Book Of Merlyn above) arguments belong in a different dimension to our arguments, "We The People" or "we the ninety fools" because we spend our valuable time, energy and attention unwisely as per Squaddie TV. And Off The Ball Movement illustrated "the one central question" in our argument in comparison to the "ten thousand details" it is constituted from that is the focus:-
"Choosing How We Are Governed?"
In The Referendum Question which will be posed most likely in 2017:-
"Choosing How We Are Governed?"
Remain = Supranationalism
vs
Leave = Intergovernmentalism
At The Bruges Group meeting in terms of agreement and consensus were reached via x2 Important "Concept Shifts":-
"If we were asked to join the EU today, would we?"
"The EU is Leaving us."
You can see that BOTH of these concept shifts are successful because they are underpined by quality hierarchy of argument via:-
RefutingThe Central Point
DH6: of EU membership is based honestly and truly and openly on rejecting Supranationalism as incompatible and possibly therefore deleterious to democracy as our and Western Nations' system of governance. Therefore in the 2017 Referendum the question itself holds the correct Frame Of Reference considering our current EU Membership of >40yrs. Answering the question is a question of disagreeing with Supranationalism as well as defining it's alternative given the concept shift above:-
Brexit = "Withdrawal from the European Union (EU) Political membership, representation in it's political institutions (Parliament, Council etc) - ONLY ie Supranationalism (QMV) removal."
If this central point of disagreement is not acknowledged, explained and distributed as the "Intellectual Foundations" of all subsequent and derived arguments of detail, then progress will be limited: Effectively as per Dr. RAE NorthEU Referendum: we, the invisibles because as referenced the arguments of A Clash Of Kings dominate instead, "the nine knaves" and their "labyrinths of chicanery, malice and war." instead of Off The Ball Movement and the people's argument as per a "Bottom-Up Referendum".
Counterargument and Confusion
DH4: One of the prevailing arguments of Brexit supporters at the moment is inference that leaving the EU for an alternative would be straightforward and obviously positive; given that we now have >40yrs of "the data has been returned and the results are clear" on EU membership for prosperity (see Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (1) and Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) in which a new "Demand-Supply paradigm/foundation to our relationship is being requested by "the nine knaves" with the other "nine knaves" across the EU". Unfortunately I cannot argue along these lines as they must take their Order Of Precedence in our argument's hierarchy behind the above:-
Daniel Hannan: Greed is our good and our right (and the politicians' snare)
And at When To Attend/Hold MeetingsThe Bruges Group meeting, it was noticed that the failure to distribute arguments effectively (the confusion in matching arguments to group size hence follows) is boiled down to a lack of "beginning at the beginning": To acknowledge a "guiding principle" for the foundations (integration) of all subsequent arguments and the "differentiation of details". This is outstandingly important for refutations such as from Daniel Hannan:- "So, to summarise, Norway has a much better deal than the UK, but
Switzerland’s is better yet. There is no reason why, after Brexit, we
shouldn’t get an even more attractive arrangement. We are 65 million
people to Norway’s five million and Switzerland’s eight million. We run a
massive trade deficit with the EU (but a surplus with the rest of the
world). On the day we left, we’d become the EU’s single biggest market,
accounting for 21 per cent of its exports – more than its second and
third largest markets (the US and Japan) combined. To be clear, both Norway and Switzerland are inspiring, beautiful,
freedom-loving countries. They’re both in my top ten favourite nations.
They are the two wealthiest states in Europe and, according to the
United Nations (which measures literacy, longevity, infant mortality and
the like) the two happiest places on Earth. Their deal with the EU
would be a big improvement on where we are now; but we can realistically
expect to do far, far better."
It's not that Hannan is necessarily wrong to point out and compare and contrast Norway and Switzerland vs the EUROZONE Crisis between Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism; it's that his arguments appear driven by greed; built on confidence vs uncertainty of the "nine knaves" / A Clash Of Kings mentality that the ruling political class believe is the right application of control on the "ninety fools" / "We The People" and a new superficial Demand-Supply Relationship is the language of power. And the results are a staggering retardation of argument quality over decades of EU Membership. In the real-world a self-correction of arguments would be driven by success and failure transparency eg Sports Teams and their methods feedback loop as per Pattern Recognition and Argumentum Ad Infinitum :-
Work of The Nine Knaves: "ad hominem" and "name-calling": Backing up Orthodoxy of a consensus of confusion in the news media
"More than
ten years ago, and I others were arguing strongly that we needed to
develop an exit plan, for when we had an opportunity to leave the EU.
The need became even more apparent when the prospect of a referendum
emerged."
Dr. RAE North writes and responds to Dominic Cummings (clearly one of the nine knaves in Cameron's A Clash Of Kings "above the line" allowed arguments with the EU as demonstrated by the Legacy News-Media's 1984 -like splash coverage of our Prime Minister's malignant lies) EU Referendum: internet nutters and reported by the legacy new-media:-
"One of these was Professor Iain Begg, writing in the Telegraph
under the headline, "What might Britain leaving the EU look like?
No-one really knows", with the sub-title, "The EU referendum debate has
gone on as if there is a clear vision for what a 'leave' vote might
mean, and this should be a cause for concern"."
Our 1984-Like Legacy News-Media: Tools of the Nine Knaves
In general you'll find that the most visible "Above-The-Line" "eurosceptic arguments" which are intended to sound most plausible, persuasive (because all the best lies contain a nugget of truth within them") and patriotic such as from Daniel Hannan, John Redwood, Bill Cash, The Brexit IEA Short-List (loaded jury!) eg Ian Mansfields Economic Demand-Supply Min-Max fallacy to Hannan's "sweet-but-distant promise dreamland" of Swiss-Style Association Membership all are allowed to trend towards David Cameron's EU deal that retains Supranational Membership and hence does not refute the central point of the argument.
The Min-Max Fallacy to distract via guile, greed and prestige away from "The Rules Of The Game"
The rest of the "Above-The-Line" arguments from both Pro-EU relies on FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and failing that "Confusion or Noise Generation" to destroy the quality of arguments downwards to eg UKIP's rhetoric and image on Immigration aka "name-calling" or appeals to authority and omission.
Unfortunately Owen Paterson had a golden opportunity to raise the quality of arguments and did not (it looks like a conscious decision if study carefully to "take a dive" given his reaction shows "pride" at having to hold his tongue. If he were ignorant there would not have been pride and hence pain showing:-
Owen Paterson: "Taking a Dive": Pride and Pain
"My Favourite option is the British Option: We are the 5th largest economy in the world... ." [No, No, No!]
He was saying this as The Bruges Group meeting and tbh it played on my mind, but I wondered if it was a tactical position or an "argumentum ad populum" for a positive reason to leave or a counterargument to the Pro-EU FUD of a scary Brexit (which I think can be progressed as per "refuting directly the central point FIRST!). Why, I cannot tell, and he has to put up with a cipher media personality dominating the interview and "knocking him out cold". All it does is show that the orthodoxy of confusion of the nine knaves reigns longer than 40yrs: It's impossible to predict the defining narratives of the Brexit campaign ; perhaps because he's a member of Vote Leave under Cummings and "the nine knaves" are having their say:-
"Lord Voldemort's" David Cameron's malignant lies
We can see here EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe" that the "normal rules of argument" are frozen and their critical importance demonstrated in Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game . There's a very simple reason why this is so crucial: By raising our own standards, our own conduct of behaviour and values and consistency, we force our opponents to also "play by the rules" under a fair trial and contest of quality of arguments without which corruption like a cancer eats away at prosperity and allows our Prime Minster be it Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Major or David Cameron to lie to millions of people as per Big Ben: The Four-Faced Liar .
If we are to improve the quality of arguments and avoid these traps, then refuting the central point must be established between all Brexiteers, a priori. When I was at the Bruges Group meeting the working hypothesis was "different people have different reasons for Brexit" so to choose a plan would inevitably divide them. I can't express the emotion this generates in me: Modern Art:-
Tracy Emin's Unmade Bed: "Fifteen years on, it can be yours for an estimated price of between £800,000 and £1.2m." (2014)
The above seems to me the state of mind of most "eurosceptics" confusion and hence lack of unity of objective even though they can be categorized by their unity of purpose. Instead of the "death by a thousand contested details" that Hannan, Paterson and Cummings and the Brexit IEA Papers all purport to be the "state of the art of EU-Sceptic arguments" establishing the the first position in our arguments on EU Membership vs Brexit and defining them, leads to a concept shift and shafts the "nine knaves" of their most potent tools of deception:-
The above "Below-The-Line" arguments contain vast ranges of detail on only Step 1 of Brexit as a flexible process. A large component of the arguments have resorted to "death by a thousand details", instead of asserting the refutation of the central point of the argument FROM WHICH (correct frame of reference and order of precedence) we derive the next step of the argument and hence pull all people who decide they want to disagree with the EU Membership question in our referendum. Progress will come from unifying people via their arguments' competition, not excluding 90% of people from that process nor from "wishing that all people's arguments were the same/singular".
