A Failure of Governance: Power flows down and dilutes knowledge of political decision-making at each "tier". Knowledge must flow upwards and control decision-making at the highest executive level of concentrated political power eg Wargames, Referendum Campaigns, Spending and Taxation of Peoples' Money etc...
Huge attention is reserved for the top tiers of our governance and this is primarily due to the inward and self-regarding effect of these "decision-workers" who must reserve "the wind-borne apples and milk" for themselves:-
Newsnight has already done it's "self-regarding self-importance" show a few days ago on the death of one of its MPs. But this tragic event if abstracted only confirms the prevalence of which way the cameras are eternally pointing in this Top-Down driven government.
The results are already in for this Referendum, the real results not the "stoicastic" elements and that is confusion and people talking in confabulation loops over and over with each other, a useful illustration of this is Reddit once again due to the high visibility of the commentating structure:-
Illustrative of all the newspapers, think tanks, "experts" and tiers of governance and otherwise that contribute to this "universal" Babel-17 confabulation or "nonsense" or indeed as George Orwell called it: "Duckspeak".
Pete North has somewhat heroically blogged on the current "Media-o-drama" concerning the tragic and senseless killing of a human being (Female, Mother, Daughter, Sister, Charity & Community Worker etc ie diverse and positive identities irrespective of her views on politics Labour Pro-EU Minister of Parliament). I'm not sure even so how effective his articulated views can possibly be in the face of the media storm of emotional self-importance and egotism with all the powers of state and media behind such self-involved displays:-
The expectation that I hold from these displays of hyper-emotional peer pressure and conformity shaming?
More reactionary "stunts" by people who pick up this "energy" and believe it's the way to act whichever side of the good people vs the bad people you are on:-
See Pete North's blog for more of this: An Atmosphere of Contempt. It's interesting that terrorist attacks from Jihadist Adherents have occurred against UK citizens whereas a terrorist attack from citizens has occurred against the Establishment identity and it was primarily the Establishment that triggered the Middle Eastern wars... as well as the EU Membership without the Mandate of the UK Citizens (people) on both subjects:-
The 1975 Referendum ~ Butler & Kitzinger p.10
There will be no self-criticism of the UK Establishment and Legacy News-Media over this issue: What will happen is that they will revert to type as they always do:-
Dominance: The Westminster Politicians will exert their dominance in displays of Social "Solidarity" dictated by themselves when "one of them" is struck down senselessly.
Hyper-Emotionality: The Legacy News-Media will whip up a frenzy of outpouring of sentiment and assume a sensible veneer but the cameras will be focusing inwards self-regardingly.
I don't mean to come across in lacking in pity or heartless. This is another news-story in which someone or some people lost their lives. In fact so many news stories are of this sort, I avoid watching the news given it's not productive or positive to do so: Every day in every life there are the small and personal trials and tribulations we all have to contend with personally, that is more than enough in my opinion to shoulder. But I dilike immensely the modern societal condoning of this collective displays with 1 minute silencing popping up everywhere as "a mark of respect".
The problem with this I find is that it sanctifies a very narrow picture of what to respect:- [Source: http://bigemf5.deviantart.com/art/Burning-the-Midnight-Oil-25847669]
Carrying on carrying on... there is real work being done for people, by people but not for intention to be recognized and lauded by other people that seems to be the primary perogative of those people and politicians who cleave to centralized power above everyone else.
Previously I blogged about the stages in attempting to learn a lot of information in a given subject The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge; in this case on the EU, Brexit and hence Referendum. Part of the problem is a systemic defect in our National Lack of Conversation Competencies (or "Scaled Communication Dehabilitation" to be correct or give it a name) or what substitutes for it: Dêmos + Kratos = A Community That Communicates Productively. The stages if I remember correctly, and this seems to apply to learning a lot of different subjects, are:-
Logistical (input)
Semantic (processing)
Ordering (output)
Memory (information)
Application (knowledge)
Ravel's Bolero
Above, I've included one of my favourite classical music pieces, Ravel's Bolero. It helps remind me of those above 1-5 stages when I become bogged down in any of 1-4 and feel lost! I don't know enough about music to comment technically but I do know that from the smallest units put together according to an intended design and applied you create this growing pattern of music that is enjoyable to listen to: A growing pattern in the Bolero above which reinforces the idea for me. The same can be said in comparison with other areas, possibly?:-
Music: Notes are the units
Writing: Words are the units
Programming: Code are the units
Film-making: Frames are the units
Art: Colours are the units??
Hot-Cross Buns: "2 a penny, 3 a penny... hot - cross - buns!"
If you look at the above, it has to have the right notes to go with the words to make the right sound or music. It feels right when we get it right. Likewise, when we perhaps don't then it feels harsh or dischordant. I think this a bit like when we hear or know a lie has been spoken according to our own pattern of meaning that we are sure is true?
"The reality, of course, is that regulation is a mechanism by which integration is achieved, employing what is known as the Monnet method. This, Jean Monnet devised after the near failure of the project on 30 August 1954, when the French Parliament rejected the European Political Community and the first European Constitution.
It was then that Monnet realised that his United States of Europe could not be created openly, whence he came up with the idea of using progressive economic integration as a Trojan horse. The resultant drip-drip process became known as engrenage – loosely translated as "salami slicing", using harmonising regulations to bring the economic activities of the member states closer together."
"The Pied Politiciars": Liars lied lies, lying about liars, calling liars liars.
I've been wondering about the current campaign. There's too much
senseless data. Not only that but the input of the data becomes the
argument: It becomes questionable and questioned endlessly: Because
often it's Bullshit behaviour by the people pushing it. To me this seems
a bit like people talking about the musical note somewhere in Ravel's
Bolero and saying how there's more notes in some other music, "Gungs And Roses" (?) and not the total experience they derive from listening to it's
repeating pattern actually played and hence referred to as a complete
and full work. What is the point of holding an
exam if the students are allowed to cheat while taking it? What is the
point of allowing people to sit on TV or write their newspaper pieces or
go on the radio or internet and communicate garbage data and become
embroiled in it? What use is that to people listening and watching?
My opinion is this:-
"There's enormous complexity in creating something like the Bolero. But to enjoy and listen to it is a very very simple thing."
I tend to think this whole subject is a bit like this. People will vote according to "gut-feeling" despite the "Babel-17" that's emitted endlessly and so stupidly in such prodigious volume. If you compare Bolero to "Babel-17" as I am nicknaming it from the sci-fi book, the former allows an ordering of thoughts, the latter an unravelling (no pun intended!) of thoughts.
Most of what is said, is "bits of data" that may often be erroneous too. In this communication system: The "bigger" the bit of data the "bigger the argument" supposedly = Genesis of Große Lüge which in turn leads to a new language: "Babel-17" spoken by politicians and journalists
This idea of taking this data, and processing it into structured information to then apply to different knowledge sets to complete knowledge domains (legislation in this blog's own subject today) with which to THEN argue productively for people to listen to the patterns thus ordered and made:-
Building Arguments: Arranging according to higher patterns of Knowledge:-
Too much unproductive attention at the faulty "data" production stage leads to lying politicians. "Information #1" is an illustration of information becoming useful when contextualized correctly. Then itself merely being "x1 byte" of information in our full higher arguments which are accessible to people to follow the sense and meaning of = Real Democracy In Action.
Fortunately there are people who are dependable when it comes down to the Data component. Lawyers tend to look for interpretation in the "units" or legal jargon and tend to therefore get bogged down in the information stage and hence are rarely it seems from my own experience at all helpful! Thanks lawyers but then they would not be lawyers would they?!
So the method of processing is a separate discussion, critical but we can depend I think on Dr. RAE North's method of processing
"As far as
I can ascertain, this law is all currently in force (even if some of it
no longer applies, which is a different thing). So, with all the usual caveats, it can be set against EU law
currently in force. This (as of yesterday) stands at 19,389 entries.
That puts EU law as a proportion of UK law at almost exactly 19 percent.
This is very much a "quick and dirty" figure, as it includes EU
regulations and decisions which have direct effect, as well as
instruments which have been transposed into UK law. The big problem, as
we pointed out and which was raised by Booker, is that so much EU law no longer originates in Brussels. Increasingly the law comes from global and regional bodies.
On that basis, the figure (any figure) is of very little importance –
even without dealing with the many other variables. But it does put Mr
Johnson and the other pundits back in the box. If you want to quote a
figure, round it up to "about 20 percent". It don't mean nuffink, but at
least it has something of a plausible base."
to provide purely descriptive statistics that we can then fit into the above Legislation Sets per category of the Legislation Domain as it applies to our Referendum Question:-
Summarizing the information allows the context and sense-making to create a meaningful dicussion which voters can follow and appreciate. Linear strings of words in binary biff-bam contexts helps no one besides the shitty over-paid politicians
I started with Dr. RAE North's EU Referendum: them laws and EU law: definitive stupidity most recent (and is it ironic?) figures of information as a very basic baseline: All this information tells us is that we get a good deal of legislation from the EU. It's useful to state that simply.
However, what I've done is contextualize legislation via categories, repeating one "byte" of information in 2 categories for example where it applies to both. Where further context is needed I've used magenta to suggest these "bytes" of information are not equal in weight but highly significant to emphasis. Where the "bytes" are in blue, they're individually not particularly significant, but collectively they all add up to produce significant weight, they all support each other for a Like-Vs-Like comparision between EU/EEA vs EFTA/EEA Legislation Comparison. This is a building block to the bigger arguments of globalization of legislation especially in the UK's areas of interest: The Single Market. Now looking at the area that bothers the UK: The Political Ever Closer Union, this is for me the most signficant result:-
It's the source of breakdown of communication and national-decision making competence. Fundamentally it does not matter where or how the legislation is made if whatever the technical matrix of legislation may or may not be it's effect on our own people who are responsible for the rules is to lead them to wilfully deceptive politics: It is a cancer on our decision-making and knowledge development capabilities as a functional and thriving nation.
This final assertion, I would posit as above "knowledge" and as we explored previously determine it to be "wisdom" (the technical derivation of the word, not the mystical), as per Cicero above. And it's a really simply point to understand: Just as with Ravel's Bolero, I can't read music nor can I play music, but I can listen to Ravel's Bolero and understand it's pattern.
I look at the EU's "pattern" and I don't like it; I don't like the other twin fact to this that is to ostracize and reject counter-arguments of high quality, such as, when I look at the alternative, FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and it is like Ravel's Bolero, intellectually - it's quite addictive if deeply complicated!
Now when we get politicians and journalists on TV, you're not helping people understand this subject blathering about details of bits of data! If you start unpicking that stuff when you're supposed to get it right then argue the informative arguments towards knowledge systems for people to use, you'll never reach that productive elevation; trapped in arcane bs. Yes they need to be done be experts under a sense-making methodology - so - make use of such experts - not charlatans. The rest is comparatively simple if a mug like me can do...
As above, all those "bytes" of information can be used to form arguments. The arguments from my viewing purely of the legislation tell me that the UK is interested in the Single Market to connect to Globalization (see Appendix of FLEXCIT for the dozens and dozens of Global Bodies) and to remove the Political Union. It does not tell me "HOW" alone, but we already know this from FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.
Futurus: Adding Context, Adding Perspective, Adding Depth of Understanding
CONCLUSIONS:-
1) Operational Fixes to EU Membership are Deceptive
The key point is the arguments are put to useful service: We do have a problem operationally which The Serial LiarDavid Cameron and the whole nations knows but they do not use information beyond superficial and deceptive pretence as resolving such problems.
What then is the outcome of that solution strategically, the destination set? This is where a Referendum is possibly a much more positive and productive process than the flailing politicians stuck at their lower level of priorities and hence continuance of short-termism and hence future failure: Futurus is very helpful here; it helps create a complete pattern from history.
In the previous blogs, Expectation Setting: The Key To Winning The Referendum we've looked at a critical measure of Brexit arguments right from their genesis and where they fall on the "Uncertainty Spectrum" regarding their possibility for implementation. This applies to both sides of the argument as per Our Once And Future Sovereignty. It should be noted that arguments now are shaped by probability later and where this is taken advantage of is by our ruling class of politicians on both sides of the argument: Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money.
The Key Criteria to Positive Expectation Setting and Good Communication
This sets our expectations, The Leave Alliance: A Choice With A Plan, the journey our nation agrees to travel along and the destination set. And this depends on everyone having a clear idea of what the rules are, Our Once And Future Sovereignty, and hence what agreements are possible and what the consequences will be and by whom, Our Once And Future Sovereignty, and where those agreements either way will lead to; again this applies as much to Remain as Leave as per EU: From Common Market To EU Constitution. Which if we accept the rules of our present relationship with the EU, as commandeered by our politicians, which is evident in analysing their type of communication with us, Decrypting: What is Babel-17? and which also allows us to probe for what they don't want to communicate to us as per The Columbo Method: Norway; remember Nip a hidden act that damages the community. Then we have to decide: Why? Living Someone Else's Dream or do the hard work and choose our own.
Watching the amusing Little Britain clip above reminds me of the last few decades of the Leave Campaigns dominated by the "eurosceptic aristocracy": Too self-important, too comfortable, too lazy, too well-off to really care about more than the appearance of wanting to forge a future vision, The Leave Alliance: Our Vision: I've had the opportunity to consider the arguments and done the necessary "home-work". With that there's a temptation to become arrogant when you look at just how low in quality the prevailing substitution arguments are; the more prestigious such as John Major or David Cameron, the more the emotion of "disgust" bubbles up. For the general public, struggling to navigate and help themselves understand the arguments, it looks like as previously: Argumentum Ad Infinitum:-
Ant Mills: Infinite loop: Going nowhere
Capturing some of these arguments and this behaviour can be done using online commenting systems such as Reddit uses, which is much more useful than most commentating systems to visibly follow a trail of arguments. Given the latest fashion on Canada FTA as per The Lady In Mouve! from Vote Leave and Boris Johnson, here's a Argument Ant Mill in Action:-
Promisingly Vote Leave's Canada FTA is being seen for what it is: A title and an ending and nothing in between. Amazingly when described as such so simply that so many in the media and politics take it so serious: "The Lady In Mouve! ... The End!" is about as substantial as it gets. But then the people who talk about it such as Boris Johnson get a free pass in the media according to their Prestige:-
Power is being able to talk and be listened to
What is damaging however is where this provides opportunity for smothering productive communication:-
Which Criteria is most effective for people to use to aid their decision-making?
It comes back to the basic proposition, that if the UK were not a member, how many would actually vote to join it? See Norway. Coming to Iceland:-
Sir: In his Notes on 5
March, Charles Moore tells the story of a visit by Sir Winston
Churchill to the Icelandic Parliament, Althingi. Mr Moore says:
Churchill
famously irritated its members by the first half of his sentence and
gratified them with the second half: ‘I come from the mother of
parliaments [pause] to the grandmother of parliaments.'
A
good line, but one that was delivered not by Churchill but by Lord
Newton, who was sent to help the Althingi celebrate its 1,000-year
anniversary in 1930.
Incidentally, our first laws
were spoken rather than written, so the presiding officer had to recite
them when parliament met. This is the origin of the phrase ‘Mr Speaker'.
Björn Bjarnason Kvoslaekur, Iceland
The Althingi is one of the oldest extant parliamentary institutions in the world.Its establishment, as an outdoor assembly or thing held on the plains of Þingvellir ("Thing Fields") from about the year 930 AD,laid the foundation for an independent national existence in Iceland. To begin with, the Althing was a general assembly of the Icelandic Commonwealth, where the country’s most powerful Leaders (goðar) met to decide on legislation and dispense justice.
Then, all free men could attend the assemblies, which were usually the
main social event of the year and drew large crowds of farmers and their
families, parties involved in legal disputes, traders, craftsmen,
storytellers and travellers. Those attending the assembly dwelt in
temporary camps (búðir) during the session. The centre of the gathering was the Lögberg, or Law Rock, a rocky outcrop on which the Lawspeaker (lögsögumaður)
took his seat as the presiding official of the assembly. His
responsibilities included reciting aloud the laws in effect at the time.
It was his duty to proclaim the procedural law of Althing to those
attending the assembly each year.
The basis of the Norwegian society is democracy. Norway has come to
learn how self-governance is the wise foundation of our decentralized,
elongated and scarcely populated country. As a sovereign nation, Norway
can cooperate and trade with other nations.
The Norwegian population has twice voted no to membership of The European Union. Referendums where held both in 1972 and in 1994
. No to the EU
strives to ensure a truly influential democracy, where important decisions are made with an effective democratic control.
No to the EU aims at being a widespread and diverse people’s movement. No to the EU has its own youth organization
(
Ungdom mot EU
)
and student organization
(Studenter mot EU)
.
Policy of the
Nei til EU
:
No to the EU
wants to ensure democracy and Norwegian sovereignty.
No to the EU
wants to ensure a continued Norwegian independence in international politics.
No to the EU
strives for fairness and equality in international trade and
cooperationllaboration, and urges Norway to play an active role on the
global arena in obtaining and ensuring such qualities.
No to the EU
strives for Norwegian natural resources to be administrated by Norwegian authorities and institutions.
No to the EU
promotes a broad international cooperationllaboration, not restricted by the boarders of Europe.
No to the EU
is engaged in women politics and information tasks promoting gender equality.
The parliament in its present form was first constituted at Eidsvoll in 1814, although its origins can be traced back as early as the 9th century to the allting, a type of thing, or common assembly of free men in Germanic societies that would gather at a place called a thingstead and were presided by lawspeakers. The alltings were where legal and political matters were discussed.
Switzerland
Direct (Real) Democracy in Switzerland
In Switzerland, Direct Democracy has a long tradition:
The origins of Direct Democracy can be traced back to the late
the middle ages: archaic forms (assemblies of the electorate discussing
and deciding major political issues) have been practised
in part of the country since the founding of the
Old Swiss Confederacy
in 1291.
The origins of Switzerland's modern system of Direct Democracy
with formalized opinion polls and frequent
referendums
lie in the experimental phase of democracy in the 19th century
when Switzerland was surrounded by monarchies on the European continent
that showed little to none enthusiasm for democracy.
"The
premise on which our movement is based is that democracy means "people
power". The word democracy stems from the Greek word, dēmokratía, comprising two parts: dêmos "people" and kratos "power". Without a demos, there is no democracy. But people without power is not democracy either.
Our current system of government is known as "representative democracy".
That phrase is a misuse of the word democracy. People do not hold
power: that system cannot by definition be a democracy. We seek to
return power to the people. We are concerned with power – who holds it
and under what circumstances and controls, and how to get more of it.
Above all else, we hold to the core principle that in a true democracy
the people must hold the power.
Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of
power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then
attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society.
But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any
lasting value. To help us acquire power, we are adopting the original
strategy of the Chartists. Like them, we felt it was vital to frame a
very limited number of achievable demands – six in number. These are
listed below"
Politicians use maechavellian phrases: "Save The Children!" and then over-spend on other areas and not Education Policy... This is the legacy of their communication to people
We do have the BBC: Reality Check: The EU referendum and they're evidently trying to provide lots of information. But it's unstructured, lists that quickly fatigue the brain even if via high-sharing it's connecting "consumers" at high volume: It's still "low-sense-making". A more productive way to make sense and communicate knowledge more effectively:-
BBC: High-Sharing, Low Sense-Making
Looking at the above Nations: Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, it's interesting to consider their own political histories and modes of communication to effect a community and hence to derive decisions and learn from the consequences of those decisions:-
Most people have heard Clay Shirky’s
quote that, “It’s not information overload, it’s filter failure.” The
professor and author has coined terms such as ‘cognitive surplus’ to
explain that we have the mental capacity to do a lot more with our
collective intelligence, but too often, societal barriers inhibit us. We
are too busy with the day-to-day commute, usually in a deluge of noise
from radios, billboards, and news sources, to reflect and consider
bigger issues. Getting paid every two weeks focuses employee attention
on the short term, as do quarterly reports for executives. Filter failure is only part of our challenge to make sense of our
world. Even with good information filters in place, we remain passive
consumers of information. We can share our filtered information, which
many do on social media or over a coffee, but what value are we adding
to it? It takes more time and effort to take our filtered information
and make sense of it. Shirky, once again, says that “Curation solves the
problem of filter failure”. I would say that curation adds a layer of
value, but is still not enough.
In the previous blog Decrypting: What is Babel-17?, the lack of successful communication was pointed out with historic reference to the EURO debate and comparing it to today's EU debate and indeed seeing the "low drone" on BBC Question Time concerning The Norway Option, again and again and again, that substitutes thinking and communicating successfully, so successfully it's believed by so many to be "the real thing".
Daniel Dennett: Language allows us to "share knowledge and expertise" (rapidly)
In the above Daniel Dennett makes the telling observation that our language provides a high quality exchange of communication of ideas which can lead to a more rapid progress in solving problems and hence increasing knowledge.
There has been enormous "EXCLUSION" of people and experts from EU Debate. This has increased "OMISSION" of large areas of ideas from the debate. What we see & hear is "Babel-17".
Likewise the opposite holds, the omission of ideas will reduce the flow of ideas and increase in knowledge that is required to solve current problems collectively. An example of this is Exclusion from debate eg:-
This exclusion often goes in tandem with omission, though of course not always because knowledge and information depend on the total current state of knowledge (assuming it is all equally accessible!) which itself sits upon more unknowns than knowns and equally reflected in the number of people who have expert knowledge to those that do not.
An example of how this exclusion works and how it applies to our failing democracy:-
David Cameron "shares false ideas" to the Nation without challenge: There's no exchange of ideas only dictatorship of delivery of "dictated ideas".
It might considered that in choosing examples such as Dr. North that I too am excluding ideas that I don't like? Well I'm not I can look for the clearest ideas about the EU from it's most intelligent and honest proponents such as Andrew Duff:-
Andrew Duff is an expert on the EU and the EU Treaties and it's very easy to spot his consistency because he refers directly to the written words in the EU Treaties themselves to support his advocacy of the purpose of the European Union Political Project. In coming to my decision about my ideas about the European Union I am attempting to understand the other position that exists within the minds of these people. I'm sharing their ideas to come up with more ideas and in my case alternative ideas I find to be stronger.
Let's take an example of this. Stephen Pinker calls the problem of language communication the transition between:-
A Web of Ideas:-
A String of Words:-
So we might hold a conversation about EU Membership and start it off with: "I'm Pro-EU because by being an EU Member it helps "achieving a cleaner and greener Britain."
I have a lot of sympathy for this sub-argument by itself and you'd assume that "Green Groups" must therefore be in full support of the EU? For example:-
"Assessing the need for beaver reintroduction has a legal basis, in particular the ‘Habitats Directive’. This requires EU Member States to study the desirability of reintroducing certain species, such as Eurasian beaver. The potential for beaver reintroduction to contribute to the aims of the ‘2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity’ (related to Natura 2000) is a further consideration"
Looking at,
p.194 "Appendix 2: Summary of Applicable Legislation"((not exhaustive but most reflective):-
Habitats Directive
Fisheries and Salmond Act
Pests and Disease and Control Directive
Animal Welfare Act
Countryside Act
Nature Conservation Act
European Zoo Directive
Water Framework Directive
Floods Directive
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
Etc!
So even taking a highly specific case we easily get bogged down in the vast string of words required to describe the argument just for Beavers!
But this comes back to the above about "Exclusion and Omission". It seems like Monbiot's idea of planting trees in upland areas is a good idea. It certainly appeals to me and contributes to biodiversity and "Re-Wilding Brtain". But what if his evidence and ideas are not good enough given another set of ideas and research by another expert who was excluded and hence who's ideas were omitted? Well, it could have been a chance to refine those ideas. Maybe planting trees may help in some situations. Maybe in combination reintroduction of dam-building Beavers "could" also help much more effectively in slowing down the water flow?
The EU has taken on "totemic" significance in UK Politics: Beyond real democracy
I think if there's one argument that is most important against the EU membership it's this exclusion and omission and hence reduction of ideas. We have EFTA/EEA nations that have proven to be more prosperous than EZ/EEA nations suffering under the EUROZONE Crisis; yet our Prime Minister lies about "The Norway Option" repeatedly and deigns not to mention the EURO and our previous suggestion of membership of this at all.
Coming back to improving our communication again from Stephen Pinker:-
We have to find the means of establishing a shared focus of joint attention before productive communication of ideas is promoted; or else the quality of our communication is improved - in simple language!! It seems to me this is very important where we are talking and using strings of words to convey our ideas.
If it's possible to build up that "intellectual architecture" of a "web of ideas" to organize our thoughts and allow us to relate our arguments to an overall structure I think this will help reduce the detrimental tendencies of our politicians on both sides of the EU debate to exclude and omit ideas that expand the argument and increase knowledge and understanding subsequently.
Web Of Ideas rejecting major arguments that are "Pro-EU". LHS: The arguments are generic and not exclusive to the EU. Middle: Political Union IS exclusive to EU Membership which I reject. The other major headline reasons I also reject and can use "headline" arguments to deal with economically and hence communicate effectively.
In the above digression on Beavers I was supportive of x1 Pro-EU idea except I believe it's not necessarily dependent on "Political Union" and may even be improved if we remove "political union". Yet I was bogged down in vast detail on a side of a side of a sub-specialist argument of a string of words!
Looking at my summary of ideas above to visualize ideas, the one "tick" is for Single Market access. Knowing The full EFTA/EEA aka "The Norway Option" argument for this I am very happy with this. Yet too many Pro-Brexit / Anti-EU supporters fail to appreciate this argument as per:-
"For most European observers and officials this just won’t happen. No
country has full access to the single market without making a
contribution to the EU budget and accepting the four freedoms – and no
such exception would be made for Britain. Campaigners assume that on
Britain leaving, the EU’s remaining 27 members would be intent on
helping. This is paradoxical given that the same people campaign to
leave on the basis of these states’ unwillingness to accede to British
demands for reform."
I read this before then seeing it on Pete North's blog site. Irrespective that the author Jacek Rostowski is correct here, what he's done is single out x1 argument from a set of flawed ideas supported by the major Leave Campaigns.
In doing so he's able to limit and reduce (ie omit and exclude ideas) the Pro-Brexit argument and then speak via "authority" on the sanctioned ideas aka more Babel-17:-
"I have seen for myself, at more than 60 meetings of finance ministers,
the influence Britain has when in the room. Decisions to deepen the
single market, cut the EU budget (unfortunately), reduce the legislative
burden and increase competitiveness have all been taken in response to
British voices. Over 40 years of membership, the UK has negotiated
advantages for itself on a vast range of issues, especially financial
services. This influence would be immediately relinquished at the point
of a leave vote, as remaining members would position themselves to
“divvy up” the British cake."
It's a great shame this grand speaker does not clear up both sides of the argument for everybody.
Each is a web of ideas. What we need is more open and more effective communication on each for lots of different people to share these ideas. But there is a qualitative choice:-
Pro-EU: Listen to Leaders: You will get minor change in service of the present conditions.
Pro-Brexit: Listen to Experts: You will eventually get major changes in service of the future conditions; but you will not likely be able to recognize it: It is for many/most "unknown unknowns". But these are just the kind of changes that equate to the sharing and increase of real knowledge.
The Leaders are good at excluding it seems to me. Whereas the experts are good at identifying what ideas are omitted: And hence changing the entire nature of the argument - if they are allowed to be included - in our communication of ideas or "democracy".
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ~ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Samuel R. Delany's sci-fi novel Babel-17 tells the story of a humanity encountering an alien language in the far future galaxy. This language "appears" to threaten invasion, but in order to counter the threat, the messages must first be understood. Not only the above consideration from Wittgenstein is implicit in this contention, but also:
"...my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."
Here we have two considerations: The limitation of language and the limitations of what we select in order to use language to communicate. In fact Wittgenstein manages to get to the heart of the story in Babel-17 without giving away the underlying plot of the story.
(1): Without the core concepts of understanding - one cannot speak without being able to think first.
(2): What is said necessarily omits a vast range of potential communication.
(1) + (2) = (3): Combining both: If the language itself omits the words and hence ideas, then these in reverse prevent the necessary thinking!!!
By now I hope you are reading this, thinking I knew this blogger was cracked; a little too quirky and now banging on about sci-fi and Wittgenstein and language... !
A "low drone" dominates and is broadcast incessantly
Now, instead of travelling far into the future and facing the seemingly inscrutable dangers of an alien language, let us take a journey back into the recent past that already looks so far away: PANORAMA The Great Euro Debate TX. 27/1/97.
Panorama: The Great Euro Debate - 27.01.97
"The words used in the argument are a foreign language."
"Strong passions"
"Most of us aren't well informed"
Our next witness is John Monks, the
General Secretary of the Trades Union
Congress, a man who fears for Britain’s
workforce, that if they are outside a
single currency life will be a cold and
uncomfortable place, and Peter Sutherland
questions him first. I should just point
out that friendly witnesses are questioned
for a rather shorter period than hostile
witnesses, which is why Ruth Lea had
rather more time than you did. The
opposite will happen when the other
witnesses come in. Peter Sutherland.
Peter Sutherland
Well let me take up the invitation from
that introduction. What is your view as a
union leader of the effect on jobs of
staying out of a single currency when it
is created? What will the effect be?
John Monks
Well on balance I think it would be
Caption: damaging. Immediately I think we would
JOHN MONKS pay a premium in interest rates. I think
GENERAL SECRETARY, TUC our interest rates would go higher than
that for the Euro area and I think that
would be a damaging consequence.
Peter Sutherland
So that would cost business and investors
money?
John Monks
Well it would cost everybody - mortgage,
people who have got mortgages and so on.
Because we’ve got a record of devaluation
and the Germans haven’t, which will be the
core of the system, we would pay I think
greater, a premium on our interest rates.
I think too that we would lose some of the
inward investment which has been very
important to Britain. Something like forty
per cent of our exports at the moment come
from foreign-owned firms and that’s been a
tremendous boost at a time when a lot of
British industries of the traditional kind
have been struggling. And the third reason
I would say it’s damaging is that our
influence in this thing called Europe, the
European Union, would be so much less. We
would be peripheral to what was going on.
We would be in a small minority of
countries and I think for Great Britain
that’s a pretty hopeless future. We want
to be at the centre of things, not on the
edge.
Peter Sutherland
Do you think it would be possible to
Caption: sustain membership over the medium to long
PETER SUTHERLAND term by remaining outside a single
CHAIRMAN, GOLDMAN SACHS currency with virtually everybody else in
INTERNATIONAL the European Union inside a single
currency?
John Monks
You see I think it would be difficult to
stay in the European Union indefinitely if
we were floating our currencies against
the Euro. If, as some people would argue,
we actually pegged the level of the pound
to the Euro then we get all the
disadvantages of being in the Euro without
any of the influence and the advantages
and probably still pay a premium on
interest rates but I think, if we float
against it, then it’s a matter of time
before there’s tremendous tensions between
us and the Euro area about devaluations or
revaluation, probably devaluations on the
long-term given our recent economic
history, and that could blow us out of the
European Union which would be tremendously
damaging.
Peter Sutherland
Thank you, Mr Monks.
David Dimbleby
Norman Lamont.
I was just watching the latest BBC Question Time and the deception over the Norway Option was manifest once again:-
Summary from White Wednesday refining Paul Reynolds "Norway Scorecard"
Unfortunately this scorecard won't be broadcast far and wide by the BBC so instead we have:-
Shabana Mahmood - Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
Sal Brinton - House of Lords Peer and President of the Liberal Democrats
Emitting their "low drone" and suffusing the British electorate with it. Do they know what they speak of? If not they cannot speak of it.
Here's a most illuminating consequence of our "Babel-17" language on the EU Referendum: Pawel Swidlicki now TALKS FOR PEOPLE!!! because he knows what they want - OR, because people like him exploit the "low drone" language that people use to speak about the subject.... [Details: Norwegian model or Norway Option a lot like EU / Europe; Flexit or FLEXCIT]
There are 2 very hard results to discuss here:-
The language of the EURO matches the language today of the EU immaculately in it's shape, it's pattern, it's tendencies: Above all: It's severe limitations.
This language allows our "betters" to think for us and hence speak instead of us.
