Expectation Setting: The Key To Winning The Referendum

What is the key to opening that D.O.R (Debunk, Offer, Reassure)?

The winning condition for the referendum is a >51% of the vote verdict for either Remain or Leave.

 The most visible argument against firstly holding a referendum as well as against the Leave choice has been determined as "Uncertainty". When this term is employed we should appreciate it's meaning more specifically:-

High Uncertainty = High number of uncontrolled outcomes leads to a decision to avoid increased risks occurring

• Probably = A High Chance of an event happening.
• Improbable = A Low Chance of an event happening.
• Increasing the number of possible outcomes = Increase Uncertainty concerning the specific or intended or desired event
• Decreasing the number of possible outcomes = Decreasing Uncertainty concerning the specific or intended or desired event.

Uncertainty has a lot of derivatives:-

• X "Could" Happen where X is usually considered unplanned and/or unwanted.
• "A Leap Into The Dark"
• The EU has problems but it's not worth the risk.
• No one knows what Brexit/Leave would look like.
• Econometric/economic modelling outputs "Bad for the economy" results
• Lack of focus on the rules of withdrawal (Article 50) lead to multiples of "order of intentionality" involving retribution or moral blackmail

And the list goes on and on.

If we use this simple principle of reducing and minimizing uncertainty and removing economic issues from political issues then any Brexit plan which does not meet this condition is a non-starter from two perspectives:-

1. Ad Hoc: Perception of High Uncertainty = Very low probability = Bad Decision
2. Post Hoc: Practical Proof that such a decision would be highly risky and highly damaging to the economy is a risk not worth taking
3. Together the decision is very clear: Hence all of WTO, FTA, Customs Deal, Bi-Laterals as Brexit categories are unworkable on EU Withdrawal.

Whereas minimizing the number of outcomes towards:-

BREXIT (British Exit) = "Withdrawal from EU Treaties (via Article 50) - only."

Here the definition of LEAVE is a political status transition only which minimizes outcomes from the day before to the day after the Referendum. This is the genesis for the iterative method of withdrawal that The Market Solution adopts:-

The Market Solution is making the actual alternative much clearer. Aligned with reducing uncertainty through the increase in probability of possible implementation by reducing the number of outcomes from withdrawing from EU Treaties in the short-term.

Here with high certainty interesting repercussions on perception occur:-

• Ad Hoc: People are more confident of what Leave looks like and it tackles the question and problem of Political Union directly focused; reassuring many variable voices of specific interest over their own particular area of outcome interest.
• Post Hoc: It is bona fide do-able because Norway and other EFTA/EEA nations already do it including Lichtenstein and Iceland. There is no argument that it is not possible: It is Possible and Probable.

At EU Referendum: Leave Alliance launch, one of the speakers, the director of the Futurus think tank Anthony Scolefield made a very interesting comment; and background to the subject of this blog at Will It Be A Fudged Referendum? :-

"I have pointed out repeatedly reference the Scottish referendum that even if that referendum had won a majority ,that would not mean that Scotland would become independent and certainly not on the Nationalist prospectus."
 
"We also; Blair nearly had a referendum on the EURO where Robert Worcester of MORI and Ken Clarke advised Blair to go for an enabling referendum as a detailed referendum question would be hard to win."
 
Now Michael Portillo said last week that:-

''by the way a majority for Leave (which is what he expects) does not mean the UK leaves'.

He expects Johnson to come in and say he is 'the most brilliant negotiator and try to renegotiate things.'

In the above link we see that when Switzerland held it's own Referendum on whether or not to join the EEA, the government was very responsible to its people and provided a lot of facts and set out the categorical problems comprehensively allowing the people a free hand in how they chose to vote; which contrasts with the above so demonstrably in quality or lack of it from our own UK Government for decades.

What we can compare between the two is:-

EXPECTATION SETTING:-

If we have a very very clear Brexit plan chosen by the Leave side, effectively The Market Solution, we have a very clear basis for expectation setting for our own government's actions should the result in a fair and informative Referendum declare a Leave result >51% of the vote. It would be clear that with such a well-thought out plan that reduces number of outcomes from a singular Referendum decision as much as possible and focuses on a Political transition of status from:-

• EU/EEA or EZ/EEA = Remain.
• EFTA/EEA = Leave.

Where the EU has been by it's won rules, set our membership expectations of "Ever Closer Union" from the EU to the EZ (see above) compared to our expectations not to follow this route but to build a genuine single market via EFTA, then we give our clear expectation of what we want our government to achieve for us: The People manage their own government instead of the reverse which has become the norm:-

"Managing your manager": The Key To Setting S.M.A.R.T.E.R. Expectations!

The argument to put to the Leave supporters is simple: You support the Brexit plan that sets the most confident Expectation Setting which is The Market Solution (see probability scale diagram above).

The alternatives are also quite simple to define, effectively. For Leave Voters who want to "Control Our Borders" above all else:-

GO/UKIP/Leave.EU: Delayed Gratification: You have one marshmallow now or two if you can wait a few minutes.

Except in this Referendum, The Market Solution: Stage Two - Free movement, immigration and asylum, you won't even get "1" marshmallow if you cannot "delay gratification". I sympathise, but above all I believe that Migration Policy should have a very strong democratic input into it to arbitrate management of this policy closer to the people's choices. It's about democracy for me and that means withdrawing from EU Treaties first! Then implementing the effects of that decision over time.

As for the "EU Reform" position of Vote Leave: We've already seen that unless we set clear expectations, The Market Solution: Stage 1 - Leaving the EU for how we demand our government acts and does not break it's "oaths of office" then we leave room for them to deceive us for them to make election pledges that they never had any intention of keeping, as per:-

 Vote Leave: Same old politicians, same old con-artists

The Key is intellligent and honest EXPECTATION SETTING if we are to demand more democracy and open that DOR (more choice) we must ensure it is SMARTER and then it become a simple choice of trusting the people over the politicians in how we self-govern the UK towards stronger decision-making and indeed such political foundations reduce/remove "uncertainty" most effectively:-

The Great Deception: A Shift in Attention

Higher perspectives in time and space: So calm above, what lies below?

Dr. RAE North in EU Referendum: open that DOR points out the simple message required to be transmitted to voters:-

"Hence, enter the open DOR strategy: Debunk; Offer; and Reassure. The first priority is to Debunk Mr Cameron's deal, and ensure that the public are fully acquainted with the fact that he is perpetrating a fraud on the British public."

1. The Great Deception: The future follows the past

Here we have many details, a history of evidence as per The Great Deception and summarized by Christopher Booker:-

1. How it all began

"Winston Churchill’s call for a “United States of Europe” in 1946, which led two years later to the “intergovernmental” Council of Europe. But no one was more scornful of this than the Frenchman Jean Monnet, who had a wholly different model in mind, first conceived back in the Twenties. His “United States of Europe” would be centred on an entirely new kind of “supranational” government, able to overrule the vetoes of any of its individual member states."

2. 'Switch-sell’ in Rome

"When Monnet’s first bid to move straight to the complete political union of its original six members was rebuffed in 1954, he and his allies realised they could only achieve their real goal step by step."

3. Macmillan joins deceit

"When, in 1961, Britain first applied to join “the Six”, Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath had been fully briefed by Monnet’s allies as to the project’s ultimate goal, full economic and political union. But papers released under the 30-year rule show that, at the end of June, the Cabinet accepted their urging that, for “presentational” reasons, this should not be revealed to the public or Parliament. British entry should be sold as being only to a “Common Market”, concerned just with trade and jobs."

4. Britain taken in by Heath

"His Europe minister was sent to plead with Brussels to keep quiet about its already emerging plans for a single currency (another Monnet idea). And although we were repeatedly told that British entry would involve “no essential loss of sovereignty”, a secret Foreign Office paper, released 30 years later, shows that the government knew how important it was to conceal just how untrue this was."

5. Towards 'Union’

"In the early Eighties, much more ambitious plans were afoot for a further leap forward to integration." 

6. The Maastricht treaty

"The 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union brought out into the open the next instalment in the march towards the ultimate goal, centred not just on full “economic and monetary union”, including Monnet’s single currency... but also much else, never fully explained at the time."

7. Blair 'at heart of Europe’

"Tony Blair’s ambition to be “at the heart of Europe” led him to collaborate fully with moves to make the European Council (another Monnet idea) the EU’s political “Cabinet of Europe”, with its own foreign and defence policies, and also towards giving the EU its own “Constitution”, to make it in effect a sovereign government on the world stage." 

8. The 'Lisbon switch-sell’

"After the “Constitution for Europe” was in 2005 rejected by French and Dutch voters, virtually the same document was then smuggled back in as the more harmless-sounding “Lisbon Treaty” in 2007."

9. Mr Cameron’s 'treaty’

"Almost everything about Cameron’s “treaty” to give Britain a “special relationship” with the EU is yet again smoke and mirrors, not least the insistence that it is “legally binding and irreversible”. Under the Vienna Convention, a treaty is only valid when the signatories can guarantee delivery of what they have agreed."

It's worth assessing this history of the EU because one of the founding principles of Jean Monnet was to ensure a Supranational government above national democracies could prevent wars in Europe via pooling political power above those nations.

2. The Great Deception: The Present Political Storm Arising

But what we see is a long history of deception to acquire those powers. The damage done to nations to acquire those powers exists today in the EUROZONE Crisis, in the state of Greece. At the same time the EU has been adding more members to ensure it is the Regional centre of power via the Eastern former Soviet states. Naturally Freedom Of Movement from weaker economies has been part of this agreement to promote growth in these economies after decades of stagnation behind the Iron Curtain. But this has inevitably led to a conflict of the EU with Russia in prizing more states via numerous methods into it's political sphere of influence.

 The Great Deception: Today - Where has your attention be drawn to in the Legacy News-Media and by Politicians and where should it be drawn towards?

With this war in Ukraine and sanctions in Russia, comes Syria. Here Russia also has the facts on the ground driving the migration crisis currently into Macedonia. Already the high youth unemployment in the Eurozone is not a suitable destination for many of these migrants.

Yet the UK has already had it's mass immigration "helping" the Eastern European nations as no doubt the full intention of the EU has been and conducive via the Supranational overriding of democracy so that governments past and present can simply ignore the electorate's preferences whether or not those preferences are either foolish or well-reasoned.

And currently we have David Cameron perpetuating this cycle as it grows into a stronger and stronger political storm increasing fragility and uncertainty spilling over to markets with knock-on effects around the world.

What we see with the likes of Trump or Farage or Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece is a growing uneasiness with those in power who control political power and feed it ever higher and more central away from people in the politicians bid to control meta-politics ie geopolitics against Russia with predictable results of war. The EU has not stopped our governments own stupid and bloody foreign policy in the Middle East either exacerbating the cultural and political transitions of those societies as closed-communities become ever opened up by globalization, mass communication and growing networks of information distribution eg Internet.

 The Sum of David Cameron's "fraudulent new deal": The same broken arguments of The Great Deception Then & Now

3. Real Democracy: Will the patient take the medicine?

There is an unspoken acknowledgement in the Pro-EU Remain supporters whether or not they have fully realized it. In their arguments for EU Membership there is very little acknowledgement of the Great Deception towards "Ever Closer Union". From that, they concede the core of the argument that membership is positive. Instead we get the deceptive "EU Reform", the light at the end of the tunnel, despite the long duration of political storm clouds over Europe under the EU.

One of the outcomes of this type of argument is the attempt to make reality appear as if there is no way the UK could leave EU Membership because our interestins are tied up with what the EU has done for us. A good example is this recent blog post by Dr. RAE North:-

EU Referendum: those trade deals

The message here by Philip "lying scum of the universe" Hammond is that it is not within our political right to cease our membership with the EU despite all the laws at international level above the EU that set out precedents for nations to be able to amicably and fairly do just this - so long as they are careful with each other.

This is one side to another side: There is also no alternative to which we get study after study after study looking at "What happens to the UK after Brexit" invariably then making up Economic models based off garbage scenarios that are not clearly defined but in fact are erroneously defined:-

If the UK leaves the EU, any path it chooses would carry economic costs

This is not Scientific Method - !!!

I looked at the source paper. I then looked at the references and indeed the only possible relevant link reference on the question of The Norway Option.

When I studied science at university, for my dissertation I had to studied a specific area. I ended up reading the TOP SCIENTIFIC PAPERS in that field, by the research groups who produced it. I knew the top four names from which a lot of progress had been established and hence to which multiples of secondary science had been successfully conducted to gain new details to add to these original papers conceptual shifts.

If I was looking at this question I would split up the top research on each possible category of Brexit: The Norway Option, Swiss Bi-Laterals, WTO/FTA etc. I would know the names of the top researchers and reference their works and other works around the context of those primary works.

This is how a body of knowledge is developed within a specific knowledge domain, coming back to "joining the whole" from The Leave Alliance: Sharing Knowledge. We know this works in this political subject of Brexit as per FLEXCIT: Changing The Political Reality.

So what happens we this does not happen on an epidemic scale? Eventually people lose trust in the state, there is a disconnect between the state and society and it throws up any visible alternative no matter if their arguments are poor too.

What are we looking for that can help here? An alternative Offer:-