Adventures into the depths of "Irrational Brexit"

 ISO 216: Paper Sides Length : Width aspect ratio (1: 1.4...)

ISO 216 specifies international standard (ISO) paper sizes used in most countries in the world today, although not in Canada or the United States. The standard defines the "A" and "B" series of paper sizes, including A4, the most commonly available size. Two supplementary standards, ISO 217 and ISO 269, define related paper sizes; the ISO 269 "C" series is commonly listed alongside the A and B sizes.
All ISO 216, ISO 217 and ISO 269 paper sizes (except some envelopes) have the same aspect ratio, 1:√2, at least to within the rounding to whole numbers of millimetres. This ratio has the unique property that when cut or folded in half widthwise, the halves also have the same aspect ratio. Each ISO paper size is one half of the area of the next larger size.

"The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.

Founded on 23 February 1947, the organization promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and as of March 2017 works in 162 countries."

 

One of the biggest mistakes I know I've made concerning the EU Referendum Campaign was insisting that people could argue more successfully if they acquaint themselves with the arguments more rigorously (so to speak). An ideal situation for arguments to flourish. Whereas I know from my own experience of making mistakes, I have to make almost "all the mistakes in the book", before I then feel like I have really learnt whatever it is that I was attempting to learn. I'm sure there are people who do learn more effectively by doing what is required right away and being more methodical and logical in their approach: I'm not one of them though and perhaps most people are not, also?

Worse, not only the poor learning efficiency of most people (including myself), but the profusion of invalid arguments and numerous false conclusions built from a majority of false information and some true information mixed together aka "Both Sides Have 'Good' Arguments For Remain or Leave" or "People want to hear the truth but the truth depends on how you interpret the arguments" (more or less one answer on BBC's Question Time from a canny woman MP on the panel: In effect feathering the political nest for future boom in business!). The Norway "All The Rules And No Say" very bad argument in particular, carried on in zombie fashion in the legacy news-media time and time again after it had died a horrible and deserved death (from a translation error mostly); given "un-life" by the prestige of various high society rhetorical salesmen.

I noticed a comment on EUReferendum.com recently that caught my notice, as it paralleled this long held "if only things were different!" useless response I've stubbornly held onto (having a desire to promote such a high quality work as FLEXCIT through good arguments to more people - with limited success) to the observation people can be provided with FLEXCIT :-

"Certainly, nothing has changed – for years. We have long since known that neither the so-called WTO option nor the free trade option were viable." ~ Dr. RAE North

FLEXCIT - Full Paper
FLEXCIT - Booklet
FLEXCIT - Speech ("The Movie")
FLEXCIT - Monographs post Flexcit
FLEXCIT - Mind Map (conceptual picture)

[Note: These links are just to establish clearly how available this strong argument has been to anyone, anytime: before, during and after the Referendum - of note in the lead up to Article 50 being triggered]

Brexit: value for money

Richard North, 15/03/2017

"When in October 2013 I began the process of writing what was to become Flexcit, I quickly concluded that the so-called "WTO option" was a non-starter.

In my submission for the Brexit prize, I thus dismissed the idea, stating that a strategy based on an expectation that Britain can rely solely on WTO agreements, without securing direct agreements with the EU, would not be well-founded. Britain, I wrote, would struggle to maintain its current levels of external trade.

Of my various objections to the option, I specifically pointed out that the major problem was the proliferation of non-tariff barriers. As time has progressed, I have been writing more and in greater detail about the flaws in the option, to such an extent that you would think there was nothing left to say.

That was three years ago and so transparently obvious are the drawbacks that, had there been even a halfway intelligent debate, the WTO option would no longer be an issue. It would have been ruled out of the political discourse as too hazardous and damaging. The discussion would have moved on to more profitable and realistic areas.

But, not only has the matter not been settled, we have to suffer the low drone of ill-informed commentators such as Matt Ridley adding their ignorance to collective. Now we have a further offering, this one from Douglas Carswell "

or other really strong arguments (true or false being another question entirely) but make little use of such attempts at strong arguments to promote successful political decision-making. And everyone wonders "why do things tend to go wrong?" in politics?

What I have so far tried to briefly demonstrate, using the WTO Undead Option, is that the arguments have been not towards proving a workable Brexit. The insistence on curious mixtures of persuasion and rhetoric camouflaging bad arguments or invalid arguments and/or "not viable" even if they are valid (because they their premises are so weak), takes precedence in our politics.

Isn't this irrational? Isn't it irrational when you have John Major and Tony Blair babbling away in Babel-17 (Decrypting: What is Babel-17?)on Brexit?

Brexit: all the wrong people

Dr. RAE North writes:-

It is even worse when they are ostensibly talking sense, as with Blair who told Andrew Marr yesterday:

…one of the things I’ve done in the last few months is talked to a range of people and if it's permissible still to talk to experts, a range of experts particularly on the trade issue, I didn't understand how complicated this is going to be. If they're going to try and deliver exactly the same benefits as we have now in the single market and customs union, this is an endeavour of unparalleled complexity and what people explain to me is that normally in trade negotiations you're talking about how you liberalise trade, right. This is about how you de-liberalise over 40 years of complex trading arrangements.

 [Red Cliffs note: Red = Persuasive style of Blair (his actual arguments about complexity are valid arguments: See FLEXCIT), his signature delivery style that I detest so much because it sounds like thousands of slithering snakes and apparently for a long time was so effective on so many people...]

Then we have John Major who offers this unarguable if unpalatable observation:

The 48 percent who voted Remain have as big a stake in our future as the 52 percent who voted Leave: they, and especially parliamentarians, have a right – indeed a duty – to express their views. No one can, or should, be silenced. That being so, it is time for the minority of "Ultra Brexiteers" – those who believe in a complete break from Europe – to stop shouting down anyone with an opposing view. It is not only unattractive but profoundly undemocratic and totally un-British. What is most striking is that, amid all the noise they make, they comprehensively fail to address any argument put to them.

[Red Cliffs note: Blue = Highly Ethical point: To argue successfully requires both sides to be permissible participants for their side of the argument and the other side of the argument, in promoting strong arguments and identifying strong arguments: On both sides to draw closer to what we consider to be what is the state of things as they are, with which we then choose our decisions] The Ultras don't qualify as participants of arguments is a very important label correctly applied to them by Major (even though he too abuses his own delivery with his own style of rhetoric and persuasion).]

"All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Brexit together again."

 

That Humpty saying about "being on a wall" then "falling off the wall" seems appropriate for the mess on display! How to make any sense of it all? Well coming back to that long held feeling I've had about the effective use of arguments: It seems if you hold the premise that Britain should remove itself from the EU (Read The Great Deception for "Why?" questions and FLEXCIT for "How?" questions and browse for your self "What?" questions (eg Europe, the UK, Globalization etc) you would naturally try to prove this argument to other people.

And yet the opposite process is evident as I've tried to demonstrate in this blog above: The irrationality of Brexit reigns supreme "above the surface". I came across a name for this type of argument actually which is a very clever approach to arguments themselves. I don't comment on whether there is any consciousness in how things have panned out or whether it's a natural manifestation but what we're witnessing is the argument and the truth of the argument expressing itself one way or another (it will have it's say):-

There's a type of clever argument I only just came across and registered fully; which goes about using "Proof By Contradiction" and this is very applicable to our new friend (√2 = "Brexit Ultras"/ Remoaners) as per the standard used in the dimensions of paper (above):

Proof By Contradiction method on The Square Root of 2

proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition. It starts by assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. 

We're assuming that The WTO Option or The Free Trade Option are true and then putting them to the test against the actual conditions to produce a contradiction: Article 50 for one glaring example. It might NOW be questioned if this is such a good idea to "play with fire", but we're past that point now, given May's declaration to invoke Article 50 and start the count-down on Brexit.

It seems as with mathematics, so with politics, the best way to deal with Irrationality (of numbers of people) is to use Contradiction. I think this is something I will have to remember when dealing with people who don't wish to argue fairly: By their nature eg  √2 ( 1 trillion ${\displaystyle =}$ 10¹² ${\displaystyle =}$ 1,000,000,000,000 ) decimal places and counting, they behave irrationally and can continue providing irrational reasons forever and ever!

FLEXCIT: Dance, Dance, Dance.

This beautiful picture shows two people dancing a beautiful dance.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to learn some dance, and perhaps not very good, but at least I learnt that it is a careful choreography between two partners and obviously they have to respond and interact to the music and each others moves to be able to dance well. Much easier said than done (!) though very very enjoyable when the odd successful routine is achieved.

I've said it before and will say it again, too often on television when you have a politics question and answer it's like watching the most fucking aweful dance routine possible!!!

Well, fortunately for one day, the conversation and question and answer session on a particular aspect of Brexit was conducted and it was "moderately good"!

The UK’s future economic relationship with the European Union

Witnesses: Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy, Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute, and Richard North, Author

Look Closely: A copy of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution on the far RHS of the table.

The above screenshot is at the end of the 2 hours session and it was quite technical and complicated and in my opinion the problem was that the questioners must have been struggling to understand the answerers: Namely the "dance" was perhaps one-sided to use the metaphor above. Secondly I think the actual "dance" went very far very often away from the actual "beat of the music" ie relevance loss again probably because the questioners had a set number of questions and were in formality mode of going through those without really understanding the answers received beyond probing where they could their own set criteria? Just imagine one of the dancers going through the set moves without the blindest bit of awareness to the rhythm of the music! Well that was the impression I took from the questioners; the answerers were overall very good.

I use the metaphor of dance because even though it is technical and complicated, I am guessing there is a dance going on here that could be described in addition to pointing out the disparity above. For a more descriptive observation of the meeting Pete North fills in here: Treasury committee: first thoughts.

I read a lot of comments over at EUReferendum.com and they seemed to generally think that Hosuk Lee-Makiyama was overly negative and indeed it may appear that way. Whereas in general Shanker Singham seemed positive. I'll come back to Dr. North in a moment.

First as Pete North points out, it was quite an important meeting considering it covered ground in 2hrs that was never covered correctly in the entire Referendum campaign. We managed to remove from Brexit:-

• WTO Option (unilateral fall-back)
• FTA Alternative to Single Market Membership

I think I'm right in asserting both these options were completely eliminated? Goodbye, don't come back, the end!

"The general impression from the whole panel is what we said from the outset. CETA and WTO options are completely out there. For the birds. And though the expertise we heard today was extremely valuable in adding to our understanding we still see a Déformation professionnelle at work as our trade experts tend only to look at it from a trade perspective, neglecting to take into account, defence, cooperation programmes, aviation and the rest of the EU institutions."

It may have worked in the EU Referendum Campaign (how?!) to have multiple different voices all advocating different Brexit plans so that all "Leave" voters and potential such voters would "hear what they wanted to hear"? I don't know, but right now we can now all agree that most of those voices were talking complete and utter bullshit. If you signed up to any of those, you might want to reconsider how you choose to trust or assess information when you make decisions for yourself.

Now looking at Pete North's quote above we can come back to Dr. North and that last bit after Déformation professionnelle this is what is fascinating: Dr. North was at incredible pains to point out and stress just how challenging and potentially difficult withdrawal of the EU will be: The arch "eurosceptic or brexiteer" talking up the EU Institutions and their particular competencies, their particular requirements and such like. You know it sounds to me like we have a real expert talking here... .

As for the other two experts, I have to disagree with the commentators impressions over at EUReferendum.com: I think Hosuk Lee-Makiyama was almost coded in his careful demolition of both the WTO and the FTA (CETA) options and only obliquely alluding to EEA+ via pointing out that EEA- would likely be a bridge too far while EEA+ would "NOT SAVE MONEY" (actually fitting in with the title of the session about the economics of Brexit (something of a dubious quesiton imo in the first place). As such far from merely being a "problemator" (creator of problems) I think his negative appearance was very useful!

Whereas the positive trade negotiator perspective of Shanker Singham, I found overly descriptive of "in principle there's positive to be had" as opposed to "in application to the present conditions we perhaps need to tread carefully": It seems to me that there was great effort to point out the opportunities here and commercial imperative that would mostly likely drive the process, but this was all hinged on the assumption of an "EU Deal" being more of a formality to subsequent opportunities. In fact I found a distinct lack of structure though the content of what was said was certainly of high quality regarding the subject. Namely I'd argue here was someone who knew the moves but it seemed not so with the music. Having experience in trade deals, I'm sure there will be a place for such expertise and reading the Civil Service World website says they're desperate for such people who can bring their previous experiences and apply them and hence I'm sure give confidence and goodwill to all ("common interest" as Mr. Lee-Makiyama puts it).

As to the questioners, The Chair seemed most useful in his questions but did not chair the discussion I feel adequately for the entire course (a big challenge tbh it seemed); I'm not sure he was able to "ask the right questions" ie he did not "know the moves" well enough. But the rest of the questioners seemed to me to be completely out of their element. I mean really, really, really (!) poor and not able to maximize such a useful opportunity.

Interestingly enough, even though Dr. North was insistent on the challenges, as to the actual question of the economics, "any final contributions" had Dr. North mentioning "Trade Fascilitation" and the very real monetary benefits possible via this discussion... . This seems like a very solid and concrete contribution but with the cautionary privisio of our "Treaty obligations" and the magnitude of political change required to be undertaken - first.

Finally I'd like to contribute something myself that I think will help future discussions of Brexit:-

Firstly there's a lot of variable "relationships" with the EU. But crucially for the UK to quote FLEXCIT: The Market Solution, with "nine treaties and over 40 years of convergence" with an almost "unique degree of convergence required" with the Supranational EU as per the Treaty requirements ie concerning the acquis communautaire "swallow the lot and swallow it whole": When it comes to withdrawal from EU Treaties ie exit away from such convergence politically, legally, monetary and economically, it has to be reduced to 3 options and now 1 option after this meeting: EFTA/EEA of some variable composition eg EFTA/EEA and UK/EEA+. But that will Stage 1 axe for sure monetary, legal and political aspects while securing that commercial and economic... namely you guessed it: Once you boil down the actual possible solutions you see the logic of FLEXCIT emerging all by itself and I could go on to list as per the previous blog's introduction all over again the correct sequence of moves in time to the correct beat!

Finally The Chair of the meeting did try to probe concerning the idea of freedom of movement of labour and single market membership or else FTA (which we can thank Hosuk Lee-Makiyama for shooting down with his ellided but quite precisely pressurized statement that he did not think the UK was ready for such a "high societal cost" even if technocrats would be!). This comes back to the idea of the EU as Treaty in the process of designing a Supranational governance or to use the visual picture again, to develop a form of integration that converges nations so closely in so many areas to such a high degree as compared to other forms of "Trade Deals" (see Dr. North's (or Mr. North...) contribution that was extremely useful at the meeting here for retrospective: EU Referendum: no such thing as free trade) .

Namely we're back to dancing to FLEXCIT's beat again, we have to accept Freedom of Movement of Labour in the short-term if we are to be Single Market members (not merely FTA access to it outside it). In fact the Trade expert Shanker Singham (usefully) pointed out as such convergences get closer to incorporating more "sectors" such as services then these matters of employment and hence labour do become more involved in such relationships... an example of this was provided in financial services by Hosuk Lee-Makiyama on the loss of "safe harbours" (it's not something I'm personally familiar with!) for US workers from the EU. Curiously he did not seem to believe the timing issues under Article 50 of the EU Treaties stating 2 years would be very relevant: If there's one detail that needs to be prioritized I'd back up Dr. North's suggestion of requesting an extension with a view to notification of the EU of Article 50 by the UK if requested to do so sooner than later.

Afterall, we do not want to put a foot wrong in this very complex and very challenging process.

Article 50: We trip over our tongues much more than our legs

The above screenshots are at the precise time of response concerning the answers given to the question of notifying Article 50 timing.

I don't know much about either lady but I do know enough about their answers to the question concerning Article 50 to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" and hence who if they accord their actions with their words is right to be the next Prime Minister of the UK.

An exert from Theresa May:-

"First, Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to make sure we do just that."

May shows a higher understanding of "HOW?" in her Article 50 answer and a more honest answer of "WHEN?" too, which Leave voters need to pay more attention to irrespective that anyone needs to pay attention to "HOW?"

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:-

 Attribution: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/anyone-nettle-eating-8-weird-3737825

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:-

 attribution: http://www.real-fix.com/bizarre/chef-creates-and-eats-his-own-version-of-the-worlds-hottest-pot-noodle/

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".

• This Is Just the Start of the Brexit’s Economic Disaster (New York Times)
• Chaos was predicted and chaos has ensued & Britain is sailing into a storm with no one at the wheel (The Economist)
• Sterling falls to fresh 31-year low as banks and builders slide (The Guardian)
• Britain faces up to waning influence on global stage (The Financial Times)

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:-

Brexit: alarm bells 

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!

Article 50: "Kept In The Dark" not "A Leap In The Dark"

The above is perhaps one of my favourite The Far Side cartoons by Gary Larson. I've done some TEFL work so it's satisfying in that context. I've also done some science, so the combination is particularly appealing to me.

In the above cartoon, the scientists are adept at measuring the sounds of the Dolphins and matching patterns of sound and repeated uses of such... but the enjoyment is the fact that all they really need but entirely lack is a sense of the Spanish language and then they'd be perfectly fluent in "Dolphin" who themselves appear to be the intelligent actors attempting to communicate to the "dumb" human scientists!

It might seem there's little application to politics directly, which is correct. But it does remind me of the strange situation where the basic or core rules of political process are not established and agreed upon perhaps by an "Electoral Commission" inquiry that asserts some "ground rules and factual foundations" for the campaign to proceed by... on either side of the Referendum process at large?

There's a very basic secret being displayed here in our politics, which our Dolphins above can help describe for us:-

A factual assertion of rules, opens up the logical legitimacy and indeed practical possibility, hence, politically of a fair choice either to Remain a member of the European Union or else to Leave the membership of the European Union.

If the rules were asserted and hence agreed, then the above knowledge would become "common knowledge", unexceptional and in fact ordinary: It would effectively cease to be a tool of power of politicians OVER people: It would radically be the gift of power in the hands of people.

What however we see instead is the replacement of this knowledge of these rules with the attempt to guide peoples' intuition towards ensuring any choice to Leave appears NOT to be based on any rules, but to be emotionally wishful or emotionally regressive or emotionally uninformed. It is beyond count how much this is backed up again and again and again in the prevailing politics, at present.

The Basis of All Propaganda: Even the smallest crack will allow the brightness of light to replace darkness and show the "way to the wider world"

But I think what is driving this failure to establish the fundamental rules, a spoiling motivation behind such a failure can only be deducted from such lack of sensible diligence to such a significant political decision-making watershed in the UK's history, is the dread of those who hold power to allow a glimmer of light to shine from behind the opening of the smallest crack of this Brexit Door: For this would allow the consent amongst all involved that it is possible to leave the European Union and to do so politically in a sensible and mature and responsible way.

And once that becomes a matter of fact, devoid of emotional energy and sound and fury, then it leaves space for: "What next?" And once that engine of decision-making starts moving forwards, I think there could be a substantial shift in peoples' attitudes and hence polling of confidence and expression of self-determination.

People want to know "What next?" it's so much more rewarding to know "What next?" and there is one way of achieving this: Choosing for oneself "What next?" and not allowing a small subset of warped politicians to choose for us instead and deprive us of this.

• fears that the divorce would be turbulent
• a polite way of saying that Britain could expect no favours from its jilted partners.

It's interesting that "fear-mongering" is a kind of common knowledge but it is commandeered by the politicians for their own agendas.

First the correct assertion of Article 50 is corrupted by CER using an increase in emotional pitch via "soap opera" language.

But this is reinforced by the Brexit likes of Vote Leave:-

1. "Brexiters claim that this is all scare-mongering. Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, thinks that article 50 is another example of a Brussels diktat constraining sovereign member-states, and suggests that the UK could simply ignore it.
2. Others still cling to Boris Johnson’s idea, now recanted, that a vote to leave does not have to mean exit, and that Britain could negotiate better terms for its membership than Cameron obtained. Brexiters are confident that the rest of the EU will have no choice but to offer good terms to the world’s fifth largest economy.
3. And if that does not work, Michael Gove, the pro-Brexit justice minister, has said that Britain could threaten to block other European projects if the EU did not give the UK what it wanted." 

 All these Vote Leave results:-

• Denial of the Rules of EU Members on Withdrawal specifically.
• Referendum vote for another Referendum on Reform (extended negotiation) again contradicting the EU Treaty Rules.
• Zero-Sum Relationship asserted above the equality of rules.

All the above however are in fact based on false intuition building in the British public over the primacy of the rules that are currently operating. Keeping Pro-Brexit supporters in the dark with false expectations and a portfolio of phony politics.

Vote Leave: Ensuring voters are "kept in the dark" and ensuring Brexit is "out of reach"

So we see, that Vote Leave utterly fail because they use the "false intuition" form of argument equally as the Remain advocates to ensure people are "kept in the dark" which is then used as "a leap in the dark" by the Remain advocates to falsely intuit this message to the voters.

As for the rest of the CER article, Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska could just simply read and refer to FLEXCIT: The Market Solution on how the negotiations would need to be handled, but like the entire charade that counts for adult decision-making, the omission of FLEXCIT is deafening by it's absence.

EU Referendum: the Booker beat

"Then, Booker turn to the main theme of his column, headed: "Brexiteers! We need an exit strategy and we need it now!". Here, he also picks up on the theme he had raised earlier this month, observing that "even more astonishing ignorance of the nature and rules of the EU" is that being displayed by the main players in our referendum battle, not least, alas, by those running the official "leave" campaign.

This begins with their amazing inability to recognise that the only possible legal way for any country to leave the EU is by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which derives from the insistence back in the Eighties of Altiero Spinelli, the "father of the European Union" that his Union must not be "a prison" from which no country could escape.

Again and again, when two very senior experts on EU law gave evidence to a House of Lords committee on 8 March, they emphasised that Article 50 is the only conceivable mechanism for a country to leave - all it seems falling on deaf ears to those who should know this before anything else.

The transcript of the oral evidence is here, with supplementary written evidence here. There is also written evidence from David Edward here. The crucial words are: "Article 50 is the only route for withdrawal consistent with the UK's legal obligations".

This makes even more terrifying, says Booker, the quite deliberate refusal of the Leave campaigners to come up with a convincing and coherent exit plan which could reassure voters that, by leaving the EU we would not be excluded from the European Economic Area, allowing us to continue trading in the single market just as we do now"

The Market Solution: Bite-Sized Chunks

I'm working on something in the vein of the idea about "how to present different forms of answers for different approaches to answering the same question". As such this blog merely draws attention to The Market Solution in a form which may be welcome to people for different reasons as well as allowing me to copy and paste the relevant information here, while I continue on with my own "project".

EU Referendum: Flexcit, the pamphlet

Why we care about attention to detail, and why we have a plan

(1) The Market Solution: Stage 1 - Leaving the EU

(2) The Market Solution: Stage Two - Free movement, immigration and asylum

(3) The Market Solution: Stage Three – Creating a genuine European single market

(4) The Market Solution: Stage Four – Restoring Independent Policies

•  (4.1) Restoring independent policies: Agriculture 

•  (4.2) Restoring independent policies: Fisheries

•  (4.3) Restoring independent policies: Environmental policy

•  (4.4) Restoring independent policies: Climate change and energy

•  (4.5) Restoring independent policies: The Digital Market

So much useless focus has centered on (1) Leaving the EU by both the Remain and Leave advocates, while there is so much more arguments that subsequently follow. It's no surprise that the UK seems piss-poor at planning for the future.

Here's some resources that look into correcting that debate more accurately so we can actually progress the scope of arguments more widely and more deeply:-

The EFTA/EEA Route: An "off the shelf" model

The EFTA/EEA route - A soft landing 

(A) For successful Brexit negotiations, we need to adopt a transitional arrangement

 (B) Brexit: in "Europe" and ruled by Norway

(C) The EEA Acquis: Norway adopts 1 in 5 of all EU laws

(D) EEA costs: What does Norway pay?

(E) The EEA "emergency brake"

(F) The UK will not have to renegotiate its trade deals

 SUMMARY:-

 Norway has no influence?

The Norway Option — Some bookmarks

Finally:-

Article 50 And Withdrawal: An explainer