Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain!

Moses The Raven: "Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest forever from our labours!"

In George Orwell's Animal Farm the character Moses The Raven is described as such:-

"The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr. Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. It was situated somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses said. In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place."

Dr. RAE North writing in Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan:-

"Anything as complex and challenging as leaving the European Union will present significant problems. Therefore, you do not need a focus group to tell you that, when confronting the prospect of an EU referendum, voters will need to be reassured that a choice to leave is not a leap in the dark.

That much has been obvious to anyone who has even begun to look at the issue. More specifically, I have long argued that we would need to produce a credible exit plan. Without that – as I was writing in May 2008, over seven years ago – our opposition would rely on the status quo to support their case and, in particular, the assertion that there is no alternative (TINA) to our membership of the European Union.

It actually took five years, until June 2013, for the IEA to trigger the process of producing an exit plan, with its Brexit Prize. But so badly managed was the competition – and then ultimately rigged – that the winning entries added nothing to the debate and have disappeared into the obscurity they rightly deserve."

 Sugarcandy Mountain!

There is no such thing as "Sugarcandy Mountain" but there is such as thing as people who make a good living for themselves selling it:-

EU Referendum: Hannan, the enemy within 

"In Mr Hannan's world, however, time has stood still. The idea of a staged exit is rigorously excluded while he rehearses the same issues he was writing about ten years ago, in terms that have scarcely changed. Laboriously, he goes on a hunt for the ideal "model", with a tedious and somewhat flawed review of the Norway-EEA and Swiss arrangements.

This leads him then to conclude that Norway "gets a better deal than Britain currently does", and – quite wrongly – that Switzerland gets "a better deal than Norway". And upon this flawed assumption, he then drops into an exposition of the better deal fallacy as he assert that "a post-EU Britain, with 65 million people to Switzerland's eight million and Norway's five, should expect something better yet"."

 EU exit: death of the WTO option?

"One of the converts to this idea is Ruth Lea. She was formerly an advocate of the so-called "Swiss option" (page 27), so she now stands – without explanation - completely at odds with her earlier position. But we have also seen an intervention from Global Britain." 

EU Referendum: let stupid dogs lie

 

There is a telling difference between us lesser mortals and men such as John Redwood. We believe that we need the 419 pages of Flexcit, and something like three years of study, to define how we leave the EU. Redwood believes he can do it in a mere 417 words, contradicting the bulk of what we have to say in the process.

Both writers take exception to Mr Redwood's many assertions, including the most egregious of them which have him declaring that "the Leave campaign does not want the UK to seek a Norway style deal", that in order to leave "the UK could simply amend the 1972 European Communities Act" and that, after leaving, we could "simply rely on World Trade Organisation membership to stop tariffs and other barriers being imposed"."

 EU Referendum: we, the invisibles

"Amazingly, the Eurosceptic "aristocracy" simply can't get their soggy little brains round the idea that it would be extremely unwise to attempt a "big bang" separation from the EU. They also have difficulty with the idea that the two year period allowed for the initial Article 50 exit negotiations isn't long enough to broker a bespoke free trade agreement – which can take 5-15 years to conclude."

 Britain can enjoy the good life after Brexit ~ by David Campbell Bannerman

"Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!"

"My answer on what the alternative plan should be called is "WTO Plus". All other benefits - democratic control, border control, economic control - flow from it. It is a simple and genuine alternative plan. So, you may ask, what on earth is it? 


My plan for the UK outside of the EU combines a guaranteed basic trade deal based on current World Trade Organisation arrangements with a better free trade deal on top.

The basic deal is guaranteed whatever happens, as the UK and EU are both World Trade Organisation members in their own right and must follow its rules or be hauled into an international court.

This worst case scenario would mean tariffs on some goods. But I think we can do better than that. There are already indications that German car manufacturers would ensure their government does not impose tariffs on UK cars – why penalise BMW-owned Minis and Rolls Royces? There would be such demand from all sides for a better deal"

He then rattles off a list of Pro-Brexit Arguments: Beyond the Mirage:-

 Back to Moses The Raven:-

"In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still did no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy Mountain. He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by the hour to anyone who would listen. "Up there, comrades," he would say solemnly, pointing to the sky with his large beak– "up there, just on the other side of that dark cloud that you can see– there it lies, Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!" He even claimed to have been there on one of his higher flights, and to have seen the everlasting fields of clover and the linseed cake and lump sugar growing on the hedges. Many of the animals believed him. Their lives now, they reasoned, were hungry and laborious; was it not right and just that a better world should exist somewhere else? A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, and yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a day."

So you see it's quite useful having a clever talker persuading people that Paradise is just around the corner if they continue "working harder for a better Britain!" supporting their betters on such matters...

The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

A scene from The Big Lebowski (swearing)

"All the world's a stage,"

"And all the men and women merely players;"
"They have their exits and their entrances,"
"And one man in his time plays many parts,"

The quote above is from William Shakespeare's As You Like It, spoken by 'Jacques' in Act II Scene VII. The speech compares "the world to a stage and life to a play." The above video clip is from The Coen Brother's comedy The Big Lebowski and the title quote from Oscar Wilde who suggests the poor quality of the play (life) is not the script (As You Like It) or the stage (world) but often lies with the cast (people/players).

The film scene above is in my opinion very high comedy value despite the colourful language: Please watch it and enjoy. And if I'm honest it's the benchmark of the the vast majority of the "eurosceptic" and "Pro-EU" arguments and their (lack of) quality, their personality-driven behaviour, which drives miscommunication (arguing at cross-purposes) and general incoherence of meaning and purpose. In Pattern Recognition we looked at the "short-circuiting" effect "prestige" has on the progression of arguments after having looked at this very effect first brought up highlighting the emerging "Tory Strategy" (as part of a larger general pattern in politics itself) concerning the Referendum in The Goldfinch and the Gilded Cage and then exemplied or indeed personified in David Cameron in Big Ben: The Four-Faced Liar. Recently other "playes" in this political cast were considered and how their roles were shaped by the preceding along with the Media's input (see previously "I've Been Expecting You...") such as the role that UKIP has assumed in this political comedy over the EU, in OMG !!!! Parakeet invasion once again you could say personified in Nigel Farage.

  

Heath: EEC membership for "The Greater Good"

We know that the origins of the EU when Edward Heath signed the UK via The European Communities Act (1972) was by acting with full knowledge whatever his ideology or intentions, to paraphrase Winston Churchill's famous quote:-

"It is a lie wrapped in a falsehood inside a Great Deception"

Christopher Booker sets the record straight concerning Boris Johnson's account of Winston Churchill in "The Churchill Factor": Where Boris gets Winston Churchill wrong :-

Why does Johnson try to pretend, against all the evidence, that Churchill might have wanted Britain to join in with Monnet’s supranational project? Why, in quoting Churchill’s Albert Hall speech in 1947, does he omit the crucial passage in which Churchill made clear that, while supporting Europe’s political integration, he saw no direct part in it for Britain, with its “Empire and Commonwealth”? This was a position he had eloquently stated as far back as 1930, when there was first serious talk about creating a “United States of Europe”. Johnson even betrays his ignorance by suggesting that Churchill was first to coin this already familiar phrase. 

Accordingly, Dr. RAE North picks this up further: Booker: Boris tells it wrong

Johnson, for instance, quotes from the Parliamentary debate of 27 June 1950, on the Schuman Plan, but he omits any the key part of it which demonstrates, without the slightest hint of ambiguity, that Churchill was opposed to the plan. 

It is simply darkening counsel to pretend … that by participating in the discussion, under the safeguards and reservations I have read, we could have been committed against our will to anything of this nature. I would add, to make my answer quite clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he asked me, "Would you agree to a supranational authority which has the power to tell Great Britain not to cut any more coal or make any more steel, but to grow tomatoes instead?" I should say, without hesitation, the answer is "no". But why not be there to give the answer?

And from The Churchill Society:

"We have our own dream and our own task."
"We are with Europe, but not of it."
"We are linked but not combined."
"We are interested and associated but not absorbed."

 Here's an example of a man who played his part in the play to great general acclaim, and yet there are people who would due to this pervert his "performance" as something they would prefer it to be - not what it actually was.

 But the actual question is how many "players" are "well-cast" in this EU play?

Nick Clegg: When "image" is more attractive than "substance"

I can't help but think the very primitive role of "Captain EURO" was played by Nick Clegg in our actual national discussion of our membership to the Supranational European Union. Dr. RAE North That debate: a victory against a weak opponent mentions his weak performance where it was mostly agreed he lost to Farage in terms of the "argument" and indeed this seems to have been backed up in part by the poor General Election under Nick Clegg as well as EU Elections the Liberal Democrat Party suffered. His quality of contribution is further discussed in EU politics: he really is that ignorant.

There is very little value in Nick Clegg's contribution, for several reasons: The argument is no longer dominated by the "orthodoxy of Pro-EU" membership and a side-show to British Politics since "New Labour". As above Cameron's new orthdoxy of "EUrosceptic Reform" has now become "the latest fashion". His arguments built on lies and deception could only assert the negative of the opposite of EU Membership not the positive of EU membership via FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). This behaviour in our arguments was what started my own scepticism as per How do you become a "eurosceptic"? 

When masquerading arguments replaces the real thing

There it was pointed out, that without honesty, transparency and trust in our arguments we are effectively unable to argue coherently on either side of the argument. Again Christopher Booker writes, Our political scene is weirder than I can ever remember . Even on the "Pro-Brexit" side of the debate, the clear professionals on this topic such as Daniel Hannan sounds very convincing but when their actual arguments are looked at in closer detail, Dr. RAE North writes: EU exit: stretching the debate

"Danny Champion of the Anglosphere"

Wearily, that is where Mr Hannan is stuck, in a decade-long groove that has not advanced an iota - even down to his arrogance in claiming to represent "most British Eurosceptics".

Of all the issues, though, the one that has progressed least is the question of regulation. Mr Hannan believes that having to deal with less regulation (the nine percent that he asserts) is better than the situation we encounter within the EU. But what he and others don't seem to realise is that there can be no difference in the amount of regulation we apply, in or out of the EU - in the short term, at least. 

Invariably the above arguments end up becoming each proponents' own personal fiefdom: The arguments become identified with the personality of the proponent or "player" too much. So it is a honestly welcome contribution to the arguments when one of the cast knows what their role is and plays it honestly in this "play": Enter Right Of Stage: Andrew Duff :-

 Andrew Duff: One Last Hurrah For Chivalry!!

Andrew Duff, former Liberal Democrat MEP and "Pro-Federalist" for the EU, who also contributed to "Fundamental Law of the European Union, published jointly by the Spinelli Group and the Bertelsmann Stiftung" and has written in the capacity as per: On Governing Europe and written before on The case for an Associate Membership of the European Union (2013) and then more recently Coping with the British: here’s how (September 2015) and again Cameron’s bid for irreversible guarantee means constitutional chaos (October 2015). A summary of which is provided my Mr. Brexit (so there's no need to review the content here and our purpose concerning the quality of arguments besides (see blogroll: Vote To Leave The EU) Andrew Duff... the best ally Brexiteers have in the fight against Cameron 

Looking at the title you could be forgiven if you are a "eurosceptic" for reacting in a petty manner and crowing triumphantly that here at last the "EU has dropped the ball" and now we can tell the world and win. I don't see it this way. As a "Brexiteer" (or even "Flexiteer"!) I read the title in this way:-

"Here is a player who knows their lines, knows their role, is experienced on stage and hence plays their part with some talent and dignity."

There are big problems in the world (the stage) in Europe and the UK, with our Money Supply, with debt/deficit, with democracy, our system of governance, with the EUROZONE and with the democratic deficit of the EU itself. Brexit is our focus, but it bears remembering that the entire cast all contribute one way or another in the quality of our arguments on all sides of the debate. Failing to accept this is effectively failing to learn from the mistakes of the good intentions of the people who decided to create the EU in the first place and circumvent effective arguments in the open, honestly put forwards for people to freely choose from.

In the case of Andrew Duff, I disagree with his vision of Europe, but when it comes to: "The world is a stage", at least he's doing his bit to ensure it's well cast.

Thank you.

You know, we're just not reaching that guy.

The above cartoon probably means different things to different people; but most of those being in some way funny: How do you become a "eurosceptic"? If you were cynical you might suppose that the "devils" are our politicians and the "worker" is us. But that's far too fine a fit to be intentional! Actually I would strongly support the very reverse "intentions": Our politicians have given up trying to "reach us".

Previously, I've Been Expecting You...  it was noted how the News-Media aka The Legacy Media channels in particular present arguments using structures which ill-fit the scale and complexity of politics actually operating; their over-reliance on story tropes, on what we also call "the lowest-common denominator" or "dumbing down" according to commercial competition in a market of consumers who can be more efficiently exploited (aka "monetized") via techniques to create an emotional reaction. This in turn transforms a mere "event" into an "experience" to use further technical language from an altogether different subject domain. Information and Education are presented mixed with Entertainment and the portmaneau expression "Infotainment" is achieved.

This is a big problem on several levels: News-Media is competing with multitudinous sources of entertainment for people's limited attention and hence potential further interest and commerce. Namely a successful exchange of "value". Secondly, politics as above being a complex layered subject is in danger of becoming a specialist knowledge domain for, to use George Orwell's Animal Farm expression: "Brain Workers"

Squealer: "Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples."

EU Parliament Building

There is inevitably going to be specialization and stratification of society as it becomes ever more complex and hence a state with which the people (society) form a contract. Therefore through this division of labour according to economies of scale, people who are elected to represent other people through an election and voting process is necessary and functional for modern nations. This is simply obvious and we call such people in the UK "Ministers Of Parliament" who we task professionally to do this important job for us at Westminster Parliament or MP's: Our Politicians representing "We The People".

Houses of Parliament at Westminster

Having accused the News-Media of profiting from a model of communication that leans to heavily on a structure that is a poor fit for our modern politics, to then cite George Orwell's Animal Farm might seem to be hypocritical. Coming back to How about a nice game of chess? It was noted the consequences of "Narrowing down the Debate" to binary responses void of greater context leads to it's own set of "nested problems within nested problems"; a bit like the Russian Doll concept to take some infamous political leaders:-

Again the rise of such people either in the visible "villain" motif we identify so easily or the faceless, nameless government that is equally detached from the people that it serves. Alternatively the striving for greater participation by more people: The Greatest Political Problem of Our Time is an historic example of the opposite of "the possibility" within "Broadening the Debate". Specifically the allusion to the creation of a map within which such a greater context or to hit the nail on the head and quote Dr. RAE North's immensely consequential phrase: "Intellectual Framework" to which our arguments are sensible, are coherent and hence above all can THEN be communicated across differences in understanding.

At present "We The People..." are still travelling along The Road To The European Union along with Hayek, Orwell, Habermas and many other's arguments: Some will be arguing the right arguments but perhaps come to different conclusions; this is at least a start, or "Beginning to begin". Others, most will be arguing the wrong arguments and inevitably leading to the wrong conclusions much like the Russian Doll concept above, concerning the political leaders control over political power to then be able to actually enact policies.

Daniel Hannan (Conservative MEP) enjoys oratory on the subject of the EU and Brexit and is very good at it. He often likes to point out, mischievously,  if people are fed up with the above and hence by implication our politicians then, In a democracy, you get the politicians you deserve . It does sound like the "Pigs are now sleeping in the beds", and you could ask Daniel very fairly: Are you also one of those pigs?!

Coincidentally, Scribblings from Seaham (see blogroll) makes the point that our Prime Minister, David Cameron is not listening to one of his constituents at all: A letter to the Telegraph .

There's dozens of such insights to make, but it becomes necessary to encapsulate the arguments so far and come back to the "Central Point of The Argument":

• (3) The Politicians are operating  at a level where a "nested set of problems" as per a Russian Doll has superceded the original problems and hence arguments are mixed producing effectively mishmash in communication with people.
• (2) The Media are operating at a basic level of communication that indicates low quality arguments in our democracy.
• (1) What about the people? 

Here's a rare example of when things do go right with our politicians' managing to set out "strong arguments in daylight" only for the media process itself to dilute the value in the communication:-

Evan Davis (who iirc new to the job and against his nature is attempting the combative interview technique, which does not suit his style at all) interviews Owen Paterson on the subject of EU Membership. Here is a rare occassion where a politician attempts to broaden the argument while the Media in Evan Davis attempts to narrow it and we have a situation where "Talking Heads" are merely in disagreement over "which map" is of better quality let alone actually understanding "the map" and hence the people "are left none the wiser": It's been bogged down by the "sound-bite nature of the interview process based on spoken words only".

Coming back to the cartoon at the start: The devils "job satisfaction" is being questioned here: Their job satisfaction relies on "reaching through to their charges" to presumably ensure that in hell they are in eternal state of toiling hardship and hence miserable. Our politicians should seemingly gain "job satisfaction" from correctly representing us, but the problem is that without people clearly being represented and hence expanding the debate through greater representation, we end up with an outcome not dissimilar to the Pigs in Animal Farm: Their job satisfaction becomes "the political arithmetic" arguments not the arguments of the people themselves.