Alternatives To Certainty: A Bird In The Hand.

 

 ...and another one (Bullfinches are invariably found in pairs) in the bush!

Yesterday, a male Bullfinch above flew into a window, and stunned itself. Fortunately, it appeared only stunned and needed about 40 minutes to recover before flying away to a nearby apple tree with normal, strong flight returned and alertness in it's behaviour, restored.

Before then, I had picked it up and gone outside and held it in my hand in the sunshine until it had fully "woken up" while it seemed to doze off, at the same time as hoping it was merely stunned and not otherwise seriously injured. Well, it was wonderful to see such a beautiful creature so close and more so that it seemed to make a full recovery and fly away again. The above youtube clip is remarkably similar to my own experience, above, though I did not stroke the bird, merely providing a perch for it, in my hand and for some time a seat as it sat down for a good while too while it closed it's eyes and tried to recover from the stun or shock of it's impact. I remained calm though inwardly feeling consternation for such a bird, one of my favourites, in fact.

So I decided with this thought on my mind of such a beautiful creature to connect the experience with the current topic I noticed on the EU; afterall there's such little inspiration to be had from the channels of communication that so poorly serve the people in how our politics is conducted:-

1. Caroline Lucas was talking about people overestimating how democratic Westminster is.

2. Richard Dawkins was cited as suggesting his own ignorance is (he's actually aware of) is too high for people to really vote on this issue in a direct democratic vote ie Referendum.

3. Following on the daily status quo that "Remain" is the safe option" compared to "Leave" which is the essence of David Cameron's argument.

What I will say about the above: There's a lot of different things going on in what these people say. To briefly explain the arguments:-

1. Caroline Lucas is right: Westminster itself is not very democratic, but the argument she's really making is that for her particular arguments they deserve special status that is even less democratic so that they can't be modified as easily by voters, namely why she supports as a Green the EU.

2. Dawkins is it seems aware enough to assess his own state of ignorance and notice the low quality arguments in the news-media. But he fails to understand that ironically the process of Direct Democracy on the Subject as opposed to the People who espouse (supposedly for a range of subjects) is a positive experience for electorates to feedback on "democracy in action" directly. He also fails to appreciate that this activity promotes a higher trend of increase of knowledge on the subject and more pressure on the low quality arguments polluted by inverting the processes of conclusions and results. Namely polling presumes people already hold conclusions without recourse to results, so it's a question of massaging the message to assume the appearance that appeals to those people!!

3. And hence Cameron's "Devil's Trick" is to blind people to the actual EU Question = "EU Membership" not Economics.

• Description: Above I have described three people's arguments.
• Explanation: I've explained roughly the arguments used.
• Arguments: They each make some statements to form an argument to persuade others of some conclusion they desire or deem good.

This leads us to the question: How do we truly know the value of the above however? Well for that we'd need to deduct as much of the facts as possible. This is a complex process. So much so that:-

1. The complexity has limits to simplification.
2. The logistics of deducting and researching for oneself is necessarily highly involved and demanding and of course may be impractical for communication at a massive scale.
3. Where we can simplify we can make progress. Where we can't we have to rely on alternatives instead of "validation" we rely on "probability".

Hence the old cautionary phrase:-

In fact, Vote Leave have done everything possible it seems to me to ensure people think that Brexit is "a risk, because chances are that you (pl.) could lose everything."

Once people believe the frame of the question is this, then what David Cameron says sounds like the right answer...

... but it's the right answer to the wrong question! As per Roland Smith: Read The Question!

So people can save themselves time if they think and say these things with under a month until the voting day:-

• "I don't know enough how to vote."
• "They're all as bad as each other anyway."
• "It won't change anything anyway if I vote."

Let's look at Caroline Lucas' argument on our own Westminster Politicians:-

• "No Loss of Sovereignty" [Not Happening Argument]
• "There May Be Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's very little." [Happening but insignificant (and not applicable to the UK) Argument]
• "There is Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's worth it." [Happening and Significant and Applicable to the UK) but Positive]
• "Sovereignty is overrated and besides there's nothing we can do about it." [It's Happened already whether or not it's positive or negative and is now "normal" or "the way the world works" / status quo - there is no alternative.

On Richard Dawkins argument:-

• We've missed a Referendum on the previous major treaties, the problem is not a Referendum, it's not enough Referendums on subjects that are smaller and more apprehensible and applicable as and when they are passed for motion for democratic legitimacy by the people.
• We've been in the EEC/EU for over 40 yrs, a long enough time for people to educate more people, so the problem is not the impossibility of knowing, it's the methods or failure of democracy to do just that! See previous.
• His very argument that the Referendum should be an exlusive argument is indeed the very reason why he and so many others feel so ignorance: Because it is an exclusive argument under the current systemic failings of our politics in the UK, that led the UK into the EEC in the first place!

On David Cameron's argument:-

• People voting in the EU Referendum: The big con trick being asked of you is to apparently vote for either one set of Westminster Pro-EU politicians or an alternative set of Westminster Anti-EU politicians and both of their fallacious arguments come a distant second as if this is a General Election.
• This "Devil's Trick" by Cameron and Vote Leave is setting up the "One Bird In The Hand" Inductive Thinking in people to vote Remain.
• One bird in the hand may seem to be "probably" better than speculating on two in the bush. But in fact the Sovereignty of the People of the UK does not belong to either the EU or Westminster!
• This is indeed the question that is being asked in the EU Referendum as Roland Smith correctly points out.
• Knowing that is the question, the answer is simple. What is the best reason to vote to Leave the EU?

 

Success for me was seeing the Bullfinch fly away back into the bush and not in anyone's hand, thankfully!

The Heavens Opened: A Thunderous Voice Spoke!

David Miliband descends from the heavens in the wake of fire and wind and all the people cow and huddle down in terror and awe!

The above picture could have been Lord Mandelson, David Cameron, Boris Johnson or Nigel Lawson or any other of dozens of such individuals.

What they have to say may be low quality, it may be proven to be inferior arguments, it may further be shown to be exposed as numerous fallacious argument techniques and finally just like Tony Blair, and now today David Cameron, it might be shown to be a Big Lie.

But repeatedly these individuals invade the political life of millions of people and hold disproportionate influence built through the media news with their privileged positions and access to these channels. This is based on their positions of prestige and not on the merit or quality of the arguments they are promoting.

"Leaving the EU would be an act of political arson that risks the destruction of international order, the former foreign secretary David Miliband has said.

In one of the starkest warnings of the referendum debate so far, Miliband argued that the impact of Brexit could extend far beyond the UK and that it could have a disastrous effect on the rest of the world.
Writing for the Guardian before delivering a key speech in Westminster on Tuesday, he said it would amount to “giving up on our alliances” with the rest of the world.
“It means forsaking our position at the negotiating table and abandoning our international responsibilities – unilateral political disarmament. No nation in human peacetime history has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June.”

Remember this is off the back of Nigel Lawson's own grand speech:-

The Brexit Door: Why Lord Lawson is wrong

Here Lawson has trashed the work done on building up arguments concerning the Irish Border and The Single Market. He's reported as the head of the Vote Leave group of Tory Politicians and thus symbolically the source and quality of their arguments or it's figurehead. He's only the latest in that rotation from Boris Johnson and David Cameron and Peter Mandelson:-

As The Brexit Door point out again Cameron’s “Bazaar” deal:-

"The most striking piece of the interview is when he is asked whether if the European Union was to change the deal, whether Britain should interpret that as a failure to honour what was promised.

"Who counts as the “the European Union” here? Member state leaders have met within the framework of the European Council, but their agreement is in no way a document of the European Union, but a text of hybrid character, which is unspecified and not legally binding.

At the moment, the whole thing is nothing more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar. The European Union, however, is a community of law, in which there are regulated responsibilities. If the British are going to put all their eggs in one basket, in a promise made like this, which has not yet complied with our clean process of law, then, for me, this process of law is more important and preferable."

This finally puts to bed any doubt that the deal struck by David Cameron is not binding. Here the Vice President of the EU Parliament spells it out in totally transparent language – the EU hasn’t agreed to anything, it cannot be held to a promise it never made.

I'm sure David Milliband has learnt from the likes of Peter Mandelson, the ideology of these people that they rightfully are in power and must dictate how people behave, as if they are gods amongst mere mortals:-

Their important weapons:-

• Fear
• Prestige
• Idolatry of the People themselves
• Control over The Speaker's Position (They speak, people listen obediently and silently)

Communication: The Reaction Barrier

Facial Expressions, Posture, Gestures, Tone of Voice and... Words.

Ideally I'd have found a windowed portrait of expressions, gestures and postures bar tone of voice for a fuller comparison. This is of course assuming that all these external indications are only a small fraction of the full reaction of feelings and thoughts of the listener to communication when we talk to each other about various ideas.

I wonder if people at school would all benefit from taking acting classes so that they can convey their emotions more successfully via non-verbal language as well as possibly taking Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (Trivium) to be able to talk and use words more clearly and more effectively, too? I know I struggle with all these and I'm sure many if not most people do too?

Is the above a good representation of how most people communicate? Or is another example more representative?

Alicia Silverstone in the comedy-movie: "Clueless" perhaps the comedy is in the accuracy of "clueless reacting and seemlessly re-acting" she manages to perfectly convey in her charming but borderline delinquent character in the movie's story?

Recently there's been another example of how people end up communicating with each other:-

 Great use of "Colourful Prose", Tay! Yay! Well done Yuo! *smiley-face*

An interesting observation from this:-

More generally, a lot of communication seems to be an automatic reaction based on a preset "feeling" which requires very little to "zero" actual thought. The results of "Tay" a "chatbot" created by Microsoft fulfill the function of "communication exchange" with no required thinking.

So when a serious subject with plenty of scope for rigorous and defined communication is available but not made productive use of; the above must be considered as a significant barrier to effective communication. How prevalent is this? How can it be circumvented effectively? If the above forms of the Trivium in general education are of a lower standard, how does that influence:-

"What We Talk About... When We Talk About Politics?"

The majority of the UK voters will not see David Cameron as:-

But they will see him as Prime Minister:-

Interestingly most of the news presented by the likes of the BBC is characterized and dramatized and personalized and so on. The interrogative Interview, the investigative Report; the former is the simulation of the judge and jury on guilty or innocent judgements and the latter is the "smart" investigator or detective looking for clues of guilt or innocence. I've not done it, but if there were a language/linguistic analysis it might be interesting to see the results? Secondly I wonder how much of the chatter in the news is anything more than a glorified "human interface chatbot" devoid of actual thinking?

BBC: Explaining Away mere trifles in the Establishment's use of propaganda

Leave: Does it sometimes feel as if you're talking to a chatbot?

This is an interesting outcome: Popularity is not a good foundation for arguments; I think the quality of arguments is a good foundation for popularity.

Victoria

Just back from watching the above film Victoria. I mentioned another film out recently "High Rise" which as I expected though had hoped otherwise, was a little disappointing. This film, I think is exceptionally good: There's a strobe-light excess right at the beginning and if you get into the story your heart-rate might be pumping furiously, so be careful of those. Otherwise I thought it was cinema magic. I'm a big fan of the Dogme 95 film-making movement; and given Victoria, above, is very much a movie existing in the moment, in one single shot, it's a good fit:-

"Dogme 95 was an avant-garde filmmaking movement started in 1995 by the Danish directors Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, who created the "Dogme 95 Manifesto" and the "Vow of Chastity" (Danish: kyskhedsløfter). These were rules to create filmmaking based on the traditional values of story, acting, and theme, and excluding the use of elaborate special effects or technology. It was an attempt to take back power for the director as artist, as opposed to the studio."

But also recently I've been enjoying the Spring season and outdoors more; doing more sport and socializing more with more people who I want to catch up with. I noticed on a recent evening out, everyone was unexpectedly rowdy, as if feeling relief and letting go a bit more; that this time of year was beginning: It was a good night out. Anyway I feel this idea of following and finding a "joie de vivre"; is strong undercurrent in the above film, though other vibes may appear more visible.

Hence in considering the above; it's actually annoying that David Cameron seems to have had exclusive rights to dictate when we hold our Referendum, almost right on top of Midsummer, 23rd June, 2016. I wonder when people might have chosen when to hold it if given a choice?

As said, I've got more rewarding things to do, such as enjoying living and life at this time of year: We really should have been having this Referendum in October 2017 just at the turn of the season and I start feeling miserable again! Instead it's clashing with:-

• EUROS Football
• Glastonbury
• Wimbledon Tennis
• Cricket

Etc, in general people are making plans to enjoy their time. So no thanks to our Prime Minister for holding a Referendum on 23rd June, 2016; with the necessary very short couple of months for people to be "alerted" that yes indeed we supposedly do live in a democracy... and hence should be given a "good show" by the politicians and media about that ""fact"". What I think is certain, our Prime Minister will keep on hearing "Banging on about Europe (EU)" if people vote to Remain. That's almost "guaranteed". People still complain that they don't know enough and yet it's full steam ahead to erase "Uncertainty"!! As with the "hang-over" from the Scottish Referendum; which was always similar to hype over watching a film, that's risen so high, that wehn it comes out: It really disappoints: EU Referendum: the irony in honesty. In this case we've been waiting for over 40 years for such a Referendum. The sense of disappointment and lack of resolution I'm sure will be palpable!

Anyway, can't recommend the above film enough if you like either foreign films or fairly intense stories.

The British Governing Class

The above is a quote from Kim Philby, in the BBC's "New Footage of Kim Philby" concerning how such "pedigree" aided his ability to deceive for so long. It matters much much less the substance of what someone says than their social status and the ability to put on the airs of such in communication.

Our British Governing Class has been doing exactly this deception to the British people since the beginning of the 1960's. And the result of that today, to quote Pete North: Brexit is the last chance for democracy in our lifetime:-

"Once we vote in, there is going to be no more reform. If it was unreformable with the very real threat of Brexit, they are not going to listen to us once we have caved in and accepted Cameron's bogus package of reforms.
And on that matter, I have a bone to pick with Leavers. We are seeing far too much rhetoric from Tory MPs who have come out in favour of Brexit that largely lets the PM off the hook - saying that it was not the fault of Cameron that he didn't get a good deal. Not only did he not try to reform the EU or our relationship with it, instead merely restating various existing instruments that will never be used - he has actively lied about it.

And so any MP giving Cameron a free pass is hedging their bets - when to fully campaign for Brexit necessarily demands visceral opposition of the PM - who is, de facto, the leader of the Remain campaign. If such mealy mouthed behaviour is the best we can expect then you're simply not in in the game and ceding ground to the opposition.

I cannot stress how much is at stake here and why it matters so very much. If we don't get out now, there is only one real way out and if you think the Brexit on offer presently means uncertainty then you'll get a nasty re-education as to what that word means when we're forced out at the next Euro crisis. And there will be one.

The bottom line is that no supranational entity with so little mandate to govern has ever survived and it has never ended well. So we can take it as read that one way or another we are leaving and the choice in this referendum is not the choice you might think."

Sounds like our modern day "Philby", David Cameron is enabled to get away with his Deceptions over the Dodgy Deal by his other British Governing Class colleagues.

 The Smirking Arrogance of Kim Philby - Completely missed by British "Intelligence"

• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal - 1 
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 2 
• EU Referendum: a denial of democracy 

 Aided by the Government:-

• EU Referendum: the good, bad and the lies - 1 
• EU Referendum: the good, bad and the lies - 2

 What do the "Soviets" think (laughing!)?:-

• EU Referendum: a Duff deal  

And will the British people ever learn?

• EU Referendum: the nine deceptions 

 Much has been made of David Cameron being born into the British Governing/Ruling Class:-

Here we have another "Philby" in Boris Johnson who will be the current leader of the Leave Campaign to David Cameron's Remain Campaign:

• EU Referendum: not in our name
• EU Referendum: not on our side 
• EU Referendum: beyond stupidity 
• EU Referendum: the Johnson saga continues 
• EU Referendum: the Johnson disease 

The British Governing Class - today

I don't personally care what the background of people is, very much. In fact at least Mr. Cameron and Mr. Johnson are adept at presenting themselves well and in fact dealing with so much inanity that passes for serious and productive argument - when the complete opposite, our "sophisticated savages" / "urban barbarians" routine rears it's unwelcome head nine times out of ten: I value their contribution for dealing with that maelstrom of unrefined shit-stirring. But what I dislike is that these individuals are the head of a rotting system of governance such as:-

"Britain's exit from the European Union would lead to the “implosion” of the continental bloc and force the United States to intervene to put “Humpty Dumpty back together again”, the boss of the London Stock Exchange has claimed.

Xavier Rolet added that the “UK leaving the European Union is the end of the European Union”. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Rolet, one of 200 business leaders to sign a high-profile letter in February supporting the campaign for the UK to remain in Europe, said such a prospect would be “devastating.”

“I think this would be a geopolitical event that would reverberate way beyond the European Union. I think it would be devastating to the economy of the United Kingdom, and would not be good for anyone with their headquarters in the European Union.

He said that the fallout would trigger a major shift in current geopolitical allegiances. “It will mean an advantage for Russia, it will mean a reassessment of the value of the UK relationship and the European relationship by China, and it will mean that the United States has got to come back in and intervene.”

Referencing the Marshall Plan designed to help Europe to get back on its feet economically in the wake of the Second World War, he continued: “The gaze of the United States would have to move back towards Europe, with a view to putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

“It’s not business’s role to tell the electorate how to vote. But it’s not illegitimate for business to say, 'if this happens, that’s what we think the consequence could be’.

“In my humble opinion, in the area of clearing, which basically drives the bulk of our flows... the decision to leave the EU would be beyond devastating for the City of London.”

Assholes like this get a leg-up from people like Cameron or Johnson. And it seems to me all over again: The Lost 20 Years (Ushinawareta Nijūnen)

People can trust each other instead of these Hierarchical Social Structures full of Social Climbing and Deception:-

Economical with the Truth - Academic bias

~ Paul Reynolds 

s

David Cameron: Dominance Hierarchy Displays

Body-language often provides signalling of dominance hierarchies, especially homo sapiens; as does proximity positions in hierarchies!

Another day, and another dominance hierarchy display by David Cameron (ab)using his office of Prime Minister for all it's worth in conveying his Argument From Authority for the Remain side of the Referendum vote. Previously Cameron performed the same trick on his #DavesDodgyDeal:-

• EU Referendum: treaty fraud
• EU Referendum: papering over the lies
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal - 1
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 2
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 3 
• EU Referendum: debunking the deal 

 

To Be Seen... and "Seen With"

What is interesting is that the Deal was as per Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: beginning to make sense

"And indeed, there is much to hide – not least, as we pointed out at the time the document was published, that the Counsel was confirming that Mr Cameron's treaty was an intergovernmental agreement, subject to the Vienna Convention."

EU Referendum: debunking the deal:-

Technically, the instrument may be a "treaty" in terms of its construction. It may be irreversible in that the text cannot be changed, but the elements identified invalidate it. It may be a treaty, but that does not make it a valid treaty. As such, those elements cannot be legally binding.

As such, therefore, this matter has neither been properly addressed nor resolved by the many commentators who have discussed it. Not even a note by Arnold Ridout Counsel for European Legislation, acting for the EU Scrutiny Committee, has been of much help.

Asserting as it does: "This international law agreement does not purport to change the Treaties, only clarify or supplement them", it is plainly wrong. The phrasing in the agreement, stating: "The substance of this Section will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision …" is clear evidence of it purporting to change the treaties.

Ridout, however, does say that the areas of future Treaty change "are … conditional, as they must be, on the approval/ratification of the Member States". He then adds: "This makes any future Treaty change vulnerable to a change in government or an adverse referendum result in another Member State".

On that basis alone, the commitment to the treaty change cannot possibly be binding, as falling within Article 61 of the Vienna Convention. 

 Hugs All Around: Reaffirming social bonds and alliances

If we note also that the subject in question with the French leader President Hollande then looking at White Wednesday's Brexit and the Calais problem:-

The “Calais arrangements” mostly refer to the Le Touquet Treaty of 2003 (coming into force in 2004) which was signed by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett and his French counterpart Nicholas Sarkozy. It allowed British immigration officials and therefore passport checks on French soil and the reverse arrangement on British soil. A migrant seeking to claim asylum under the Geneva Convention of 1951 therefore becomes unable to even set foot on British territory in order to claim asylum under the convention. Thus we hear about makeshift camps in Calais where migrants get stuck.

But the important point about the Le Touquet Treaty is that it is an intergovernmental treaty between France and the UK. It has nothing to do with the EU. The fact the two states are EU members is incidental — the two states also happen to be members of NATO and other international organisations.

The point is that these issues/complaints are nothing to do with Britain’s membership (or not) of the EU — they are practical implementation issues calling for a British response. Basically more money.

And to spell it out, if the complaints are not related to EU membership then EU membership can’t be the cause of them.

 You can interpret David Cameron's behaviour as attempting to suggest that Brexit is risky and will lead to FUD. But I think as important you can given both of these "conspicuous shows" are outside relative to the EU (the irony of Cameron's deal...) that in fact they are purely an attempt to assert dominance of authority derived purely from his Office of Prime Minister over the quality of arguments to be had.

 Leading Primatologis Frans De Waal on his excellent book: "Chimpanzee Politics"

His "Snap Referendum" appears to further back up this possibility in combination with the lack of substance combined with high social visibility performances. If you really want to extend this way of describing behaviour, our politics in the highest capacity appears to be run by a naked ape conducting chimpanzee politics.

There is of course a more sophisticated and civilized alternative: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution

FLEXCIT Application: 3. Fisheries Outcomes

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

To recap we have correctly described the problem and it's correct context. We've then looked a the solution that draws away FROM the problem and now look at where/what we are transitioning TO: The Outcomes.

How do we come to outcomes? Quoting the Fisheries Green paper by Owen Paterson above:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

We have a true competition of ideas, the use of scientific method and the coherent integration of all dependent parties. This is the effective outcome that is better than the problem from which we desire to remove if we find the means to make it possible.

You can see that by looking at some of the best cases of Fisheries Management Systems from around the world, lessons can be learnt and applied, successfully. However they can only do this if the UK has Fisheries Policy Control restored to it's government in service of it's people and their ownership of their own resources: Themselves and their nation!

For example using the summary of the above paper on such policy proposals:-

"From that experience, backed by extensive discussions with scientists, experts, fishermen and environmentalists, we have devised a policy framework tailored to suit the specific requirements of the UK.  

It is based on the following principles":

• Effort control based on “days at sea” instead of fixed quotas
• A ban on discarding commercial species
• Permanent closed areas for conservation
• Provision for temporary closures of fisheries
• Promotion of selective gear and technical controls
• Rigorous definition of minimum commercial sizes
• A ban on industrial fishing
• A prohibition of production subsidies
• Zoning of fisheries
• Registration of fishing vessels, skippers and senior crew members
• Measures to promote profitability rather than volume
• Effective and fair enforcement

 It's clear to see from this map that the UK Fisheries Zones are enormously important Policy Competence for the UK to manage and govern responsibly and productively

The objective of this blog is to summarize and not "rehearse" nor "rehash" argument without attempting to provide more perspectives and alternative ways of combining and organizing information. So more of the above can be read via the particular paper quoted.

Here there's something worth pointing out: We need Policy Control returned to our government. But that government also needs to be Self-Governing. What does that mean? Most arguments take this to mean:-

Sovereignty = Self-Governing + Policy Control

In short-hand I would argue. Here we then see that this headline container of "Sovereignty" vs Supranationalism shapes so much of the arguments. Our Prime Minister David Cameron on this subject:-

David Cameron: "You have an illusion of sovereignty but you don't have power"

A Great Deception or An Illusion of Sovereignty?

 ~~ Thought Exercise Intermission ~~

This is one of the almost classic examples of when you know someone is either lying or deceiving (Tony Blair) but you can't necessarily explain how. To suggest that the UK must give up Sovereignty to have power is actually telling us how Mr. Cameron views the world and it's that the UK/"you" means those in charge of the people of the UK - not the people themselves. Now this minor intermission, is worth a pause: Repeat that phrase to yourself several times by rereading it and apply it as sort of "interpretation filter" the next numerous occasions you happen to be listening to a politician involved in a senior capacity in our own Westminster Parliament and note if this is the filter their own mental models tend to hint at: How they really see themselves: As masters or as servants of the British people?

Fortunately we can rely again on John Ashworth to clear up this question of Sovereignty and define our REAL PREDICAMENT and hence allow us to depart from Babel-17 - finally after 4 detailed blogs.

Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty 

There is a massive difference between loss of sovereignty, and what has actually happened. Our Westminster Parliament has “lent” sovereignty to the European Union. We start with the classic definition of sovereignty given by A. V. Dicey in his “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”:

• “The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that ‘Parliament’ has ‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.

This means that Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972. By doing so, Parliament — not the EU, not the European Court of Justice, but Parliament — decided to accept the obligations of EU membership for the UK. Parliament has continued to exercise its sovereignty in passing the legislation necessary to implement every EU amending treaty since the Single European Act 1986.

Therefore the UK Parliament is and remains sovereign. That is not affected one millimetre or one inch by the Lisbon treaty. As our own courts have ruled, by Lord Justice Laws:-

• “The fundamental legal basis of the UK’s relationship with the EU rests with the domestic not the European legal powers.”

John Ashworth makes the product of understanding our Sovereignty very clear: "We cannot change European Law."

This, however, is exactly what Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to do and explains why on becoming party leader he dumped the policy of returning fisheries to national control and why before this, he had been so opposed to Michael Howard’s letter outlining the course of using the supremacy of parliament to obtain national control of fisheries, because he has no intention of using the British legal order.

To quote David Howarth again: it is of our own doing that we are in this club. (The EU) While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rules—they can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

Nine deceptions in our history with the EU

"To get back up to the shining world from there; My guide and I went into that hidden tunnel; . . .Where we came forth, and once more saw the stars." ~ Dante Alighieri: The Divine Comedy - Inferno Canto XXXIV:70-139 The Poets leave The Nine Circles of Hell

What is so interesting is that here with Fisheries we have the echo of the greater argument with which not only the details of a specific policy are in harmony with but also the entire philosophical principles and derivations from such principles or axioms of argument themselves when we now return to the present and see for ourselves The Great Deception in full operation via our own Prime Minister:-

Politicians: Ahead of the Law (for now...)

• EU Referendum: treaty fraud
• EU Referendum: papering over the lies
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal - 1
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 2
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 3 
• EU Referendum: debunking the deal

Dr. RAE North has suggested that what is needed is a Positive Vision, an offer that is worth travelling through that dark tunnel or across that bridge: What lies beyond? It is very easy to get bogged down by the deceptions and lose the vision. But if we have not lost our Sovereignty what are we to gain from leaving?

The European Union LEX: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Summaries

So hopefully we've concluded that via the European Communities Act 1972 we have "lent" our Fisheries Policy competence and hence self-governance to the EU as per the above applicable to the UK. We've decided that for this policy there is a problem and we have identified the solution to remove that problem: So what does the Outcome look like? In detail looking at the summaries provided we want to separate the Political Agenda of the EU (Supranationalism) from the Technical and Scientific Frameworks in accordance with good Self-Governance.

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

• Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. 
• an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union [COM(2007) 575 
• Towards the integration of maritime surveillance: A common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain [COM(2009) 538
• Developing the international dimension of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union [COM(2009) 536
• Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean [COM(2009) 466
• “Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integrated maritime governance and stakeholder consultation” [COM(2008) 395
• Recommendation 2002/413/EC - Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe

Some of the integration measures here will help with cooperation practically so they are positive, but where they are political they are perhaps negative as we have seen. Effectively leaving the EU is removing the "Ever Closer Union" political attribution but keeping the cooperative trading and conservation agendas. Let's think about these as the source of an alternative positive oucome or vision:-

 We've decided we can do a much better job ourselves under our own policy control!

And here is the problem as John Ashworth has remarked: We have to swallow the entire EU acquis including Fisheries and the rules therein and this is why this policy has not improved because of our own government.

If we look at the EU's Management of Fisheries we can do a better job ourselves, but secondly if we look further at the Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation of Marine Ecosystems, which John Ashworth comments on very succinctly in how they essentially work, we see the EU is taking it's lead from:-

Target 6: addressing the global biodiversity crisis

The EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss by meeting the commitments made at the 10th Conference of Parties (COP10) to the 

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Nagoya in 2010. During this conference, the EU committed to:

—	achieving the goals set by the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;

—	implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (ABS Protocol); and

—	mobilising additional resources to finance the challenge of protecting biodiversity world-wide.

Secondly it seems the specific functions that are mutually beneficial perhaps between the EU and European Nations not in the in this policy area:-

• EMODnet
• Copernicus
• Inspire

Then the UK would still contribute and collaborate fully with anyway. Other bodies such as:-

•  OSPAR Commission

"OSPAR is the mechanism by which 15 Governments & the EU cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic."

• KIMO

"KIMO is your local government voice on marine pollution. KIMO engages with the most serious environmental threats using practical, diplomatic and research based approaches."

Outside the EU would equally be involved with the UK.

The picture is a merging of the Global bodies and specialisms with the local bodies and specialism, effectively and removing the excesses and inefficiencies of centralized government where this is negative in this area. In another EU document on this subject:

Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment

"In particular, with regard to the regional conventions, their long track record of scientific and technical competence and ability to act as a bridge with non-EU countries will make them invaluable partners in delivering the EU Strategy. With regard to the existing institutional and legal arrangements at an international/global level (e.g. IMO, UNCLOS) EU policy will be developed within the context of the Green Paper on Maritime Policy."

In particular:

"Community participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs)"

Given the size of the UK's Fisheries more direct specialism and expertise and collaboration in this sphere would seem very productive as per Owen Paterson's Fisheries paper we already mentioned:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

As per the link above on RFO's they in turn are influenced by other global bodies such as FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Then looking at Deep-sea Fish Stocks there is collaboration between an international organization and an EU one:-

• International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
• Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)

 When David Cameron says there's an "illusion of Sovereignty" vs Power (for business in the example he gave) if we compare with Fisheries it's quite clear that the UK gains far more local and global power outside the EU! We remove the problem and additionally have a positive vision of an outcome in collaborating and sharing expertise with global bodies removed of political pollution.

Moving away from the management of Fisheries and into the Commercial Trade Industry for Fisheries, taking Norway as an example outside the EU on Fisheries influence, and now using Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and compare this with the EU's: EU market for fishery and aquaculture products:-

 In FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.1 Replacement and removal of existing law Dr. RAE North provides a summary of the law the UK operates under via domestic and EU sources:-

 What we're seeing therefore is the entire argument about "power" as David Cameron calls it is about the RULES we impose on ourselves and how these are developed and by whom and how we agree to accept them or otherwise. In Fisheries Outcomes we've already seen that this EU Law has some major components:-

• Some is not specific to the UK
• Some of it is engendered with the principles of the EU: "Ever Closer Union"
• Some of it is from global sources who are the specialist in making it.
• Community Law takes precedence over Domestic Law which applies to all members and limits members equally according to "Community Rules" applied equally or equivalently.

With respect to the above market for Fisheries there is a mismatch between the regulatory requirements for example with food products (Horsemeat) and criminal activity which is based on National enforcement of standards. Secondly there is a "Two-Tier Regulation" System argument that fails to acknowledge that standards are increasingly being set at global levels for convergence eg WTO. Dr. RAE North remarks in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 10.1: The EU Role In Global Governance:-

"Nevertheless,  despite  the activity  of  the EU  at  global  level,  there  is  a perverse effect  arising  from  globalisation.  As  more  and  more  issues  are addressed  at global  level,  the  EU  is  losing control  over  its  own regulatory  agenda."

"More than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU's Single Market legislation) falls  within  the ambit  of existing international  organisations and  is thus potentially amenable to global regulation. In   terms   of   detail,   over   33   percent   of   the acquis comprises "technical regulations,  standards,  testing  and  certification".  Much  of  this  is  implemented through standards bodies which will eventually emerge as ISO standards."

Further reference with direct respect to Norway: Norway has no influence? Let's now take a look at Fisheries in this respect to Norway now the wider picture scene is set:-

 So according to Mr. Bjorn Knudtsen he and his nation Norway are ALREADY in the situation we've decided might be hypothetically desirable for the UK in this particular case for Fisheries Policy. We do not need to deliberate, we can decide DECIDEDLY as per international rules on food "Codex was the "top table" and evidently the source of expertise of technical considerations.

This highlighted section is the argument we've been trying to elucidate all this time for the effect that separating EU Supranational Politics from UK Politics (Self-Governance) and hence UK Policy Control (Competence).

We see that Norway has been "from inception to the final formulation of rules" been involved "at every step of the process".

Here encapsulated into Fisheries Policy we have our Positive Outcome!

Norway has no influence?

"Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies few have ever heard of, where the EU takes our seat and negotiates on our behalf. Norway is fully engaged in the process before it gets anywhere near the EU. They are at the top tables with full rights of veto." 

 Abstraction of Outcomes:-

1. Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
2. These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
3. This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
4. The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
5. The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
6. When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
7. Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
8. We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
9. This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
10. Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
11. This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
12. Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.

s

Back to Basics: Babel-18

Successful Communication: How?

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:-

Monbiot Grandstands At Environmental Committee, But Expert Witness Is Banned

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:-

EU Referendum: democracy is broken

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:-

• ‘Facilitating Coexistence’: the endgame for Brexit 
• If not ‘ever closer union’, what next for Europe?

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:-

Beavers in Scotland: A report to Scottish Government

"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?

Who knows. The exchange of ideas has been deprived of exploring and refining ideas which are inadequate by themselves. On the purely conservation side of reintroducing Beavers, I went to a talk at The Royal Zoological Society and the evidence was overwhelmingly that they are a net positive for biodiversity and habitat enrichment albeit not without some minor knock-on negative implications in specific areas.

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:-

The time has come to ignore the Leave campaigns

"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.

I have, On the one side The Fundamental Law of the EU and 40 years of trends of our membership to compare and contrast with the other side you have The Market Solution.

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".