When To Attend/Hold Meetings

Britain in a Global World: Rejecting renegotiation, leaving the EU

So far I've attended a few political meetings, from The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) as per How do you become a "eurosceptic"? ,  Global Britain, and the The Bruges Group (as above). It's interesting to note they're all cross-party or non-affiliated (Global Britain) as well as focused on the full picture of UK/Britain in reference to the EU and to the World. As a voter it's a lot more satisfying proposition to be involved and interested in. The "biff-bam" personality politics of party-politics in Westminster as reported ad naseam, by The Legacy Media isn't productive or interesting in my opinion. Evidently it does serve a function, a high-class version of the Celebrity Stories which reminds me of studies done on Monkeys: Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques :-

Individuals value information that improves decision making. When social interactions complicate the decision process, acquiring information about others should be particularly valuable. In primate societies, kinship, dominance, and reproductive status regulate social interactions and should therefore systematically influence the value of social information, but this has never been demonstrated. Here, we show that monkeys differentially value the opportunity to acquire visual information about particular classes of social images.

I've come to the conclusion that the General Elections in the UK are, for a general voter, a complete waste of time but also emotional energy and attention. Voting for squabbling parties that soon forget their promises before an election doesn't encourage much future trust in the system of politics used. So instead of voting for something I don't believe in (thus having to endure some form of cognitive dissonance or Catch-22 dilemma?) 

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules. An example includes: "To apply for this job, you would have to be insane; but if you are insane, you are unacceptable for the job."

Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.

The logical extraordinary alternative is to donate a small amount of money directly to a small and specific political cause I do believe in, interact with, contribute actively with and learn from others in such a group; because I've taken some time to try to understand it and think there's a chance it will be a productive function; a positive feedback-loop on decision-making: My own, the groups and hopefully connecting wider and wider until eventually at the national governance level; an example of which is provided by Christopher Booker: Our 'Snatch’ campaign is still saving soldiers’ lives:-

 Catch-22: Do Something Different!

It seems like a more honest and direct way of "voting" to me; particularly if you consider that "half our government is in Brussels as well as Westminster", it's diluted democracy even more as per Sir James Goldsmith Euro Moments: Goldsmith on setting up Referendum Party. Who knows perhaps cross-party groups that promote not voting in the General Elections is a good way to arm-wrestle our government into democratic reforms such as The Harrogate Agenda?

I was fortunate in the CIB meeting, because it was very high quality information and presentation, the size of the group was about right no more than 30 (high-end of classroom size to note); the people there were in general "on the same wavelength" with some of the basics to be presented, discussed and developed, there was diversity in the groups broken down into workshops again changing the dynamic and of course the extra-ordinary material or work being presented by Dr. RAE North (see EUReferendum.com blogroll), FLEXCIT: The Definitive EU Exit Plan For Britain:-

 Flexcit: The highest quality understanding is online for people to use and debate with...

So there are some meetings despite the above being freely available which very much are worth attending. However this raises possibly a critical question to consider upon which the fabric of success or failure is going to be woven into everyone's effort:-

What is the value of meetings for Brexiteers and how can they be of real value to those who attend them and what shape do they currently take?

 No words: The context & body-language tells the story

I also attended a Global Britain meeting, a while ago and although the pedigree of speakers and attendees was extremely high,with almost all "The Usual Suspects", it felt like a lot of "treading water" was being done; a lot of low quality communication exchanges between people: A genteel peace being observed in the room as opposed to exploring and structuring the debate more logically. There was nothing there that anyone serious and committed (in conviction, ideals or finance even) could not have already covered in their own time or even previously up to that point in time with some 3/4 years until a possible referendum out of over 40 years to get to this "home-straight" point in time. From that perspective it was for me, very bizarre ie not very efficient. Why?

Last night I attended The Bruges Group meeting, for two preceding reasons: Robert Oulds , The Bruges Group director is in my opinion from his speeches and his book as per Literature And Science : Everything you wanted to know about the EU - But were afraid to ask very informative (facts for memory recall), structured and referenced, well written and organized around "a guiding principle", above all. Secondly, one of the speakers was Owen Paterson, who again has been raised before. For example:-

Owen Paterson ("in beautiful Shropshire"): The EU is doing the leaving (subject) of the UK (object) = New Relationship

I spoke briefly to Robert Oulds, while in the process of acquiring some extra materials for future use (another reason to attend the meeting), and complimented him on a particular passage in his book. The significance, or qualifier of quality of the above two, to single out, is that due to starting with "a guiding principle" (whatever that may be!!), it follows that their thinking and organization of thoughts is invariably conducive to producing the most essential component of progression between arguments: A Concept Shift. This does not have to be as "disruptive (positively)" as a Paradigm Shift but can be in the most simple details or larger general topic realignments/reconnections between different sub-topics within a subject (tbc in future blog post).

 "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM"

~ Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

 Eg of "a guiding principle": Meta-organization forms content coherence

I took some extensive notes, partly because I was always taught "active learning/listening" is a more productive use of your time but also because I generally have a constitution that requires me to fidget actively to avoid feeling sleepy! Overall I did not learn anything new in this meeting, there were some useful "concept shifts" however from hearing how other people think about things so it definitely useful attending. However the other area that was useful was hearing the type of questions posed and here the flaws were evident. Many of the questions were random. What I mean is that a lot of the people present did not have a "a guiding principle" so many of the questions were of the type: "Basic FAQ", basic preliminary grounding for REAL DISCUSSION. If you're familiar with different forums online, they always encourage new posters (aka noobs/newbies) to read the FAQ because such questions are diverting from productive discussion, evidently. And yet these meetings (Global Britain and Bruges a bit less so fail to apply such conventions in personal groupings? Examples if I refer to my notes were:-

• FUD & Status Quo Effect of Referendums
• Role of The Media eg BBC bias
• Cost of EU Membership
• Priority: Economics of Politics?
• Difference between T. of Rome: Freedom of Movement of Labour and T. of Lisbon: Freedom of Movement of People

Etc. There were equally some good questions and the best of the night was concerning:-

• The role of David Cameron and the question of Trust in what he delivers?

The above question refers to EUReferendum.com (quelle surprise!) of whom the questioner said to me later they are a regular reader, there. It may seem I'm being biased or appear to be attempting a superior tone. But when you've seen an example of the idea of "a guiding principle" then you see it's absence, you really really notice it! We can look at different group contexts:-

• Self-Study, online research to establish the basics for oneself and perhaps more depending on time and inclination.
• Conversation between a few well-acquainted participants who are able to match each other's mental models of understanding more rapidly to then use as a basis for arguing from. Rapid increase in understanding for individuals possible here eg "mentoring".
• Small Group for specific discussion; useful for introducing new ideas to an established idea: Creative, challenging & constructive criticism to refine ideas and test them.
• Classroom Size where differences can be discussed productively atst as progression: Increasing group aggregate understanding is usually the intended result of such group size or depending on the people: Between up and below.
• Large Group/Lecture Size: Generally more 1/Few-Many relationship. The message has to be generalized for a larger variability of understanding and needs.
• Crowd Gathering: Primarily slogans, working the crowd, chanting, singing, much more focus on "group affirmation" what the EU keeps on calling "Solidarity" ie the overhead for "group cohesion" is very high and hence meaningful communication is overwhelmingly reduced.

I have some interesting notes from The Bruges Group meeting, but I can't help think the above consideration is a higher priority to establish. And this comes back to what Dr. RAE North has been saying time and time and time again:-

Chimpanzee Politics!

EU Referendum: biding our time:-

"When it comes to running the campaign, one of our strongest suits is that we are the only group to have adopted Flexcit, and thus are the only group promoting a comprehensible and credible exit plan."

EU Referendum: agreement on a plan:- 

"But the paper ignores Flexcit, as do most Europhile organs, inventing any number of excuses for doing so, when challenged. But they all amount to the same thing. They dare not acknowledge it because it so comprehensively demolishes their superficial and facile arguments."

Honestly I would be almost persuaded to express some form of demonstrative "cri de coeur!" of unfairness, except there's no reason to when if you think about the behaviour of The Legacy News Media, of our own Government in Westminster and even of some deceptive or self-deceived "eurosceptics" that their collective behaviour is something you'd expect to be reported by the primatologist Frans De Waal, in Chimpanzee Politics:-

"As we watch the chimpanzees of Arnhem behave in ways we recognize from Machiavelli (and from the nightly news), de Waal reminds us again that the roots of politics are older than humanity."

As referred to, The Bruges Group meeting had some useful contributions, group affirmation itself is useful, not least for donations to the group itself or the chance to hear the people "in the trenches in politics" giving their views live to a room aka these days as "Face Time" and meeting some other people and learning what their point of view is. It was useful to provide elements of the above "group compositions" as above too. But the limitations and contradictions of not having an Exit Plan in contention with maintaining "group integration/disintegration" and the ambiguity this casts everything else under this shadow resulted in for example contradictions, repetitions, lack of deduction, circular reasoning etc etc, in my opinion, too much of that "treading water" sensation.

 FLEXCIT: A fully integrated, researched argument: A Concept Shift and A Guiding Princple: All-in-One = a fully Scalable National Argument usable for different group sizes

There's a distinct lack of understanding the difference between: "A Guiding Principle" (Integration) and "Diversity of Details" (Differentiation). This is in my opinion the basis for holding meetings for different group sizes, their quality and hence productive "scaling up of arguments" over time to more and more people. Of course different people will be receptive at different group sizes and hence type of message. But you have to have the actual "concept shift" itself first before "scaling up the argument to different group sizes" instead of "scaling down of arguments" to reach more people, aka "Dumbing Down" That's back on The Road To The European Union. And surely this relies on "a guiding principle" already agreed upon?

Big Ben: The Four-Faced Liar

It's a beautiful sight to pass by the Palace of Westminster with it's "Clock (Elizabeth) Tower" also known as "Big Ben" (actually the name of the bell). It's one of the sights I always enjoy in London. Let's imagine there's something wrong with the clock's mechanism in Big Ben and each of it's four clock-faces still manages to tell the time but each face is now telling a different time of the day, depending upon which face you can see. Now imagine that this was not a malfunction at all but a deliberate and subtle manipulation of the clock to produce different times in each direction as if the people in those directions all disagreed on what time it was and insisted on their own time of day!

"What's the time, Mr. Cameron?"

Just as with the allegory of The Goldfinch and the Gilded Cage. Let's now imagine that "Big Ben" represents David Cameron himself and his position on the EU: He says different things to different people according to what he believes they want to hear. David Cameron as Prime Minister and politician and leader of the Conservative Party is not in the business of working out what the actual GMT really is: He's in the business of selling the most "popular time" according to a deception of what the "actual time" is. This "popular time" is known to not be particularly accurate or consistent but that is now accepted, what concerns the media is the competition between the different faces, now to which Lost Leonardo observed also: 2-Track Debate .

Pete North in his blog The task at hand... (see blogroll) also highlights this central focus of the flaws in the "eurosceptic" side of the argument stemming from David Cameron's "Four-Face Liar" warping influence on the arguments as per the Politicians and then the Media reporting the Politicians which we saw in You know, we're just not reaching that guy. effectively the arguments are on another track from the Public: It's not about finding out a universal time-keeping for all people to benefit from, it's about controlling the "Clock Tower"/Big Ben for political reasons. Interestingly this process is replicated by the EU as well in comparison with the Global Stage: Little Europe is retreating from the world.

If anything it is the banks who are leading the way because they like regulation, they like standardisation and they like global networks without technical barriers. In many respects they are way ahead of downstream lawmakers like the EU in terms of creating a global single market in banking. But that's never good enough for the EU. The EU always attempts to claim such initiatives as their own. In any other sphere it would be considered plagiarism. It is born of this myopic little Europe mentality, where Europe breaks away from the global effort to focus on its own back yard, further complicating what is already fairly good regulation.

Consequently, by creating a technical barrier to trade with the rest of the world, it means is that the rest of the world will suffer "the Brussels effect" whereby any nation that trades with Europe will adopt the EU standard by default because compliance with the most stringent is usually the cheaper option in the long run and less hassle than running two concurrent regimes. But that's only for the big boys who can afford it. Smaller operations and start-ups will simply ignore Europe and seek investment opportunities with less developed states who use the global default standards. Rather than being free market, once again we see "little Europe" putting its head in the sand and protecting its own internal economy at the expense of doing business with the evolving global markets.

The EU's first priority is always the taking of more powers by means of the beneficial crisis doctrine - and its supranational ambitions always take priority over what is in the common good.

 As above, the strategy being employed in some genres is known as "Camping or holding onto the high ground on the battlefield". And it's as per the above blogs to control the debate. And how has David Cameron and the Conservative Party achieved this? By the adoption of lower quality arguments on the "eurosceptic side" Camping side via:-

 The above is an example of the bread and butter of the poor ability of the News-Media to cover Politics and the results are invariably:-

Media Politics: The Rat In The Room

The arguments will effectively crystallize (as per Aldous Huxley) around David Cameron's False Choice Referendum framing of the debate to include as many people as possible (telling them the time they want to hear). How it works is where the select few participants have already established their own counterfeit version of "World Disclosure" what we've been referring to ever since from Dr. RAE North's quote as Media: lacking the intellectual architecture noted in the Inteview with Owen Paterson on the BBC previously via "example in action".

via predominantly Business For Britain:-

The underlying assumption that is negated as "a given" is even within their book's title: "Change Or Go" s having framed the debate as a "business case" the economic arguments will please the media (See Calvin arguing with Suzie above) and retain control via being so nebulous that the painfully important political decision of providing a Popular Referendum to the people will be perfectly pitched as:-

David Cameron's False Choice Catch-22 "Economic Brexit"

We saw a similar dishonesty at work in the Scottish Referendum: Five Important Lessons Learned From The Scottish Referendum and fortunately with "20/20 Hindsight" we can learn some very important lessons from that referendum:-

5 Lessons of Referendums:

1. Global Elites Greatly Fear Secession and Decentralization
2. Secession Movements Will Demand a Vote
3. American Ideas about Secession Are Unsophisticated and Parochial
4. Secession is a good way to bargain 
5. Centralization is Unnecessary for Economic Success

And here's a 6th and all-important lesson for "Brexiteers" to learn: If we do not understand how to argue correctly, and this means we do not develop an intellectual case for Brexit, which means creating an "Intellectual Architecture" or "World Disclosure" ( Erschlossenheit) then we cannot structure our arguments and the result is the ability of the Establishment and David Cameron to set the trap above as depicted in Gary Larson's imagining of the "Catch-22" argument. This point was made right at the very beginning: "Beginning to begin": How do you become a "eurosceptic" Brexiteer?

Without beginning in the right way, we end up with almost everyone setting their watch by Mr. Cameron's "Popular Time". But wouldn't you like to know what the "Actual Time", really is and wouldn't that be much more universally useful to the people?