FLEXCIT: Back From The Future

• Tier 1 = "............................"
  
  
• Tier 2 = Conceptual Framework
  
  
• Tier 3 = Problem-Solving Process
  
  
• Tier 4 = Application
  
  
• Tier 5 = The (complete) Market Solution
  

In the previous blog FLEXCIT: A Paradigm Shift the key point was made that, to use a metaphor, "Brexit is a bridge - only". It is merely the evidence that it is legitimate (valid) and possible (viable) to withdraw from the EU. To quote Dr. RAE North in EU Referendum: suffering in silence:-

"By way of background, we are engaged in the political battle of the century, and to win it we need to do three things. Firstly, we need to convince enough voters that we need to leave the EU. Secondly, we need to offer them an alternative vision – one which is better than anything the EU has to offer. Thirdly, we have to be able to reassure people that moving from the EU to our alternative is practicable and safe. That is our so-called exit plan.

These three things I have previously described as the "three-legged stool". In my view, they are not optional. Together, they comprise the essential elements of the campaign. Without them, I am convinced that we cannot win this referendum.

What we don't need, therefore, is people of status and some prestige coming out of the woodwork, promoting ridiculous and totally unworkable ideas for an exit plan, and then undermining the work of those people (such as myself and all the other contributors to Flexcit) who have come up with a workable plan."

Effectively FLEXCIT/The Market Solution is the full context within which the solution (Brexit) is held between Problem and Outcome; and only one (but central) element of the full picture:

Incorrect/Zero Framing of the Problem:

Brexit: A small but pivotal part of the full story: NOT the full story!

What we see when the context/framing is not applied correctly is a list of declarative battles over what is the problem and what is the solution? Nobody apparently knows and both "sides of the argument" are apparently equivalent: They're not - they descend into low quality arguments as per Argument Abstraction:-

The Political Dark Ages Today: Exemplified by these "prestigious groups" AND The Economist

In Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule it was pointed out that most of the EU Referendum discussion and Brexit by implication is wasteful communication, "mountains of madness" in the legacy news-media and "piles of garbage" produced by Westminster politicians. The assertion was made that the Positive Vision as per Dr. RAE North,above, is predominantly the future creation of a genuine single market in which Britain plays a leading role amongst equals, due to initiating this change, not by default of dominating.

However there is another positive outcome preceding this one: "Which is which when all is said and done?" And that is the very process of holding a referendum is an opportunity to increase the quality of arguments and increase the positive engagement of people into the political decision making process itself.

If you've noticed our politicians for decades and in great volume have talked about "uncertainty" in our politics: They're the biggest source of this so-called "political disease" as per The Root Of All Uncertainty, both the above two sides represented/hand-picked in The Economist above are full of The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich.

In fact what we're already doing is starting to describe the problem of our EU Membership indirectly. But there is much much more to do to build up the argument to it's full completion:-

FLEXCIT: The sum of it's parts and more than the sum of it's parts

Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule

This is now the 81st blog post, so it seems appropriate to try to change the nature of Brexit Discussion to the essential "Positive Vision" component. Looking at the above graph, this is an illustration of a Power Law, in the above case the form of the 20:80 Rule aka The Pareto Principle that people are more familiar with:-

"The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.^[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas."

Namely and only in this case to illustrate as opposed to measure accurately: What we talk about when we talk about Brexit and our Referendum on the EU is prodigiously, prodigiously distorted. It's a reflection on the extremely low quality communication that is passed off as national decision-making in the UK/Britain today by our "leaders".

The even worse news is that the above 20:80 Rule is merely more memorable for illustration given Brexit discussions. I have not measured and categorized all the Brexit discussions the volume in the legacy news-media and I suspect in our politics conducted in Westminster but the above Power Law type is "too generous" the reality I guess is much closer to 5:95 or even 1:99...

That said, we can use the 20:80 Rule to illustrate a fundamental problem with the EU:-

The QMV voting percentages in the EU Parliament for example follow broadly population. But the effect of comparing GDP of EU Members shows a similarity to the Power Law above. Namely the economic power of a few large members suggests an uneven distribution of economic importance.

Here's the suggested problem: The UK as a member of the Supranational EU gains advantage ONLY from Single Market membership. It actually receives disadvantage from Political Union membership; where different political priorities interfere with the progression of the Single Market and with the growth in World Trade.

Therefore I would say a lot of the Brexit discussions FAIL to properly address: What is our desired outcome when/if we leave the EU? The answer is the reformation of the Single Market to globalization without the complications of Political Union (eg EURO). The problem is Supranationalism prohibits this process for the UK: Instead we have the deceptions of our politicians who are incompetent and liars and do not appear to have any motivation to resolve the problem, in fact they "prolong it".

EU Political Union of "Concentric Circles"

EU-Centric Europe: Illustrative gradations of Core = Centralization of Power to Outer-Periphery removal of political power

As per Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.0 UNECE:-

"Even within ther EU, there are different levels of commitment, with the inner core defined as the eighteen eurozone members iniwhat is often described as a Europe of concentric circles. The non-eurozone Schengen and then non-Schengen members are described as the outer core zone, while accesssion countries and EEA members are part of the "periphery". Neighbours are known as the "outer periphery".

"This image of concentric circles conveys the reality of an EU-centric Europe, where those furthest from the centre have least power."

 What we can clearly summarize:-

• Communication of the EU Political Project is horribly skewed in UK Politics.
• Members are unequal economically within it.
• Members are unequal politically within it.
• Members are in all likihood moving in different directions due to the preceding variability.

 And yet we have EU Treaties that tie all these nations together. The next step is:-

• The Monetary/Fiscal Union of the EUROZONE
• Aligning with the globalization process to boost prosperity

Effectively the UK in it's own decisions should be considering that the former is not a realistic nor desirable outcome. So the question remains why have we not had more discussion on the creation of a genuine single market and focus on what this really means?

Even the former has not been fully explored and discussed in the UK:-

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.1: Breaking away from Brussels:-

"For instance, when a group of European think-tanks in 2013 published a proposed draft treaty to take the EUropean Union on from the Lisbon Treaty, which they called "A Fundamental Law of the European Union", they defined the new status of "Association Member", whereby states could take part in specific policies of the EU - such as the single Market - without committing to the full acquis. This would accord a position of less power and influence to those states which adopted this status."

The biggest (political) "splash" is in the center!

Looking at the existing alternative:-

"A new EFTA-EU relationship, therefore, would still put it's members in a subordinate position, in the outer circle with Brussels still in the central, dominant position, perpetuating the idea of a Europe of concentric circles.

Despite this very obvious handicap, the "No to EU" coalition in Norway would welcome this development. There is considerable antipathy towards the Agreement and an aspiration to replace it with a free trade agreement. Here, British membership of EFTA is seen as increasing the negotiating power of the bloc. That position may be strengthened by other member states which may wish  to leave the EU."

 There's no protestant or catholic when it comes down to trade.

With possibly Denmark as well this would the ~20:80 forging the Single Market while the rest forge on with Political Union.