Brexit: "The Lost Sheep" (poor little fella!)

Oh dear a bleating little lamb calling plaintively for his mother: He's wandered away from the safety of the flock and now the great shepherd (EU) will be needed to save him... or something like that.

Ugh, we've got Christoph Scheuermann writing in Spiegel Online The Waiting Game: Playing for Time After Brexit attempting to "change the tune" concerning reacting from Brexit: Instead of the "little foolish lamb (Reference attribution) will be left to be ripped to pieces by the wolves if it dares to stray from the EU flock", it's now "let the poor bleating blighter suffer for a bit all alone" before the good shepherd of the EU arranges a sort of "Association Membership" deal for the UK to lure it back to the flock of other frightened sheep.

Well, it's an attempt to capture the tone of superiority and the priestly orthodoxy of the Pro-EU politicians/lawyers/economists/journalists and it's also highly revealing too. It's show their attitude and beliefs in such a construct as the EU and hence just potentially how divergent they could be from what British voters actually are comfortable with in their relationship with the EU.

• Political Supranational Union
• Common Regulatory Region or Regulatory Portal (for the UK)

If there's any reason that's essential to understand about Brexit leaving the EU I think it's this divergence in objectives and motivations: Withdrawal from EU Treaties means that the confusion and coercion by stealth to manipulate or persuade the UK (the political class who have their hands all over the levers of power in particular) is safely removed and reduced.

That sorts out the dreary mess that has plagued so much poor communication on the EU in UK Political discussions all the shadow games played out in place of actual substance and policy.

However what's is left is the other indication above concerning that "Regulatory Portal" and here anyone on all sides of the argument need to pay attention:-

1. There's not going to be a short-term change here
2. Keeping it is not going to be an ultimate destination either (EEA)
3. It's going to continually be under the forces of change of globalization and hence any policy needs to be made concerning "trend" or "direction of travel" as opposed to for example "Association Membership" orbiting the EU.

Now if you've been following FLEXCIT and EUReferendum.com this is all not surprising. But it's worth emphasising the inertia and resistance to change and kicking up dust by the Pro-EU Federalists and their short and narrow vision conflating Supranational Union with this alternative premise of "globalization trend on regulations and standards" for say trade as opposed to political philosophy; and such an example is provided by Jean Monnet Chair Professor Dougan:-
Oral evidence: The UK's Future Economic Relationship with the European Union

Professor Dougan: The day of the constitutional lawyer has come. We are all aware that there is a very important legal debate happening within our own country about whether Article 50 can be triggered purely by Royal Prerogative, about whether Article 50 should be triggered by primary legislation, about whether there is some combination of parliamentary and governmental participation that we need to secure. We are all probably aware that this issue is likely to end up in the superior courts for a judicial determination, which will effectively settle the issue for us.

There's a good summary that clarifies this: Brexit | On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate.What is perhaps not appreciated is something that I will predict will rule the decision-making process and needs to be verbalized clearly:-
There must be an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that the EU rules and hence motivations are divergent and different from the UK rules and hence motivations as expressed in the EU Referendum.
And that is to come back to the idea of Supranational design (lol sounds like supernatural) compared to what we the UK have left over from the Referendum: That Regulatory Portal idea from Dr. RAE North. That is something we can and must and should work with and on and about. And interestingly this perhaps may explain a lot of the subsequent flood of discussion and focus on the EEA which was so ruthlessly and so crookedly removed from the IEA Brexit Prize process.
Funny how things look now? A failure to make this distinction is a failure to progress the argument away from blockheads such as Dougan and other Pro-EUs who will always look for complications and barriers and complexity additions to the problem of withdrawal from the EU. The very opposite to finding solutions that are to quote FLEXCIT: The Market Solution:-

• It is intended to show that an orderly exit is plausible and practical and can be largely risk-free.
• Leaving the EU is a big step and there can be no serious dispute that a botched process could have dire results.
• Even in trade with the rest of the world, the EU is often the regulatory portal through which we access other markets so it has a huge influence on non-EU trade.
• To achieve a trouble-free exit, we must have an exit plan. Without that, we believe the "leave" campaign will not succeed.
• Our plan, therefore, has to be accurate, honest and pragmatic.
• And we start with a basic premise. After nine treaties and 40 years of political and economic integration, there can be no clean break
• The next point is that negotiations will not take place in a political vacuum.
• This means that our negotiators will not have a free hand.
• It starts with each of the parties setting out their opening positions but, to achieve a satisfactory outcome, both sides will have to listen to each other. Compromise will be essential.
• Proposals cannot be taken seriously unless they are politically attainable and publicly acceptable
• With this in mind, we stress that great care should be taken with exit scenarios based on economic models.
• Then, we must point out that all solutions must fit with others.
• In our view, that means we must – in the short to medium term – stay in the EU's Single Market.
• To stay in the Single Market, acceptance of the principle freedom of movement is non-negotiable. We can abolish freedom of movement or we can stay in the single market. We can't do both.
• We must accept a short-term compromise over freedom of movement.
• Under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which defines the exit procedures, negotiations are set to last two years.
• That confronts another reality. Brexit presents an existential threat to the EU.
• Taking all that into account, we propose six stages to our plan. Its very essence is that it is split into stages.
• In conclusion, we explain how leaving the EU becomes a process requiring continuous and flexible development. That repeats our central point: leaving the EU is not a single event but a multi-stage process.
• In short, by leaving the EU, we are not ending a relationship.

Here you can see the monumental difference between "problematizing" Brexit as opposed to carefully summarizing (introduction in a pamphlet form of the full treatment or worked and living document itself) the principle properties of Brexit (this itself above is merely a highlighted selection from a selection) for brevity.
But as much as pointing out this difference, the other differences need pointing out:-

1. Bad Plan = "Negatives"
2. No Plan = "Vacuous"
3. Any Plan = "Disastrous"
4. Knowledgeable Plan = "Practical"

Perhaps the leading source of bringing down the whole Referendum quality was the inability of these diffferent groups of people 1-3 referenced from Brexit: they haven't a clue in arguing honestly and not according to their own blindness and shallow motivations and failings. They truly are the lost little lambs. Meanwhile somewhere at large, on Darmoor: Dartmoor Zoo lynx: Will the call of mum trap Flaviu?

 Lynx At Large!

A Map Argument: Why Not?

1-page map for arguments on the UK's EU Referendum: Remain or Leave

1. 41 Years since the last Referendum in 1975

One of the basic facts about the 2016 Referendum, is the length of time it's taken for the politicians to "allow" the UK Electorate a direct vote on membership. 41 years. If there's any basic fact that guides how to vote it's that 41 years, 59 years of age and 9 Major New EU Treaties without a vote:-

Chronological View of EU Treaties:-

• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2012)
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2012)
• Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Consolidated version 2012)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012)
• Treaty of Accession of Croatia (2012)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2010)
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2010)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2008)
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2008)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007)
• Treaty of Lisbon (2007)
• Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (2005)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2006)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2006)
• Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004)
• Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (draft 2003)
• Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2002)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2002)
• Treaty of Nice (2001)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 1997)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 1997)
• Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
• Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (1994)
• Act amending the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank empowering the Board of Governors to establish a European Investment Fund (1993)
• Agreement on the European Economic Area (1992)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 1992)
• Treaty on European Union (1992)
• Single European Act (1986)
• Schengen Convention (1985)
• Treaty of Accession of Spain and Portugal (1985)
• Treaty of Greenland (1984)
• Treaty of Accession of Greece (1979)
• Treaty amending certain provisions of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank (1975)
• Treaty amending certain financial provisions (1975)
• Treaty of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom (1972) 

The Trend of Powers is unidirectional as they can only be under EU Treaty Rules

Our General Elections were already a duopoly between Labour and Tories for the majority of the last Century and now even less vote on our own Self-Governance by the people.

The failure to hold a Referendum sooner than 41 years is merely a symptom itself of lack of democracy in the UK due to our ruling Establishment's monopoly on power away from the people.

Hence the EU Referendum is a Political Choice first and foremost and hence a Political Argument in nature.

This crucial definition is important to make: The EUropean Union (EU) is not Europe, it's not the Single Market, it's not International Law: It's a clear argument between:-

• Political Executive and Legislative and Judiciary and Monetary in the EU
• Political Executive and Legislative and Judiciary and Monetary in the UK

2. Understanding Remain(If Not? Then What?)

If we break down the EU Political Union:-

• Why? The history of Supranationalism as per The Great Deception

• How? Reading the official document by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; FCO 30/1048: Sovereignty & The European Communities it is clear that the UK Government in the 1960's-70's deceived the UK People into joining not a Common Market but a Supranational organization. 

• Who? The Federalist ambitions and end-goal of the current EU is laid out in the document: The Fundamental Law of the European Union. It is to create a new "country" called Europe, so this is who you are voting for to vote for Remain.

• What? Where? When? The EU is planning a New Treaty for the Eurozone to increase it's power even further on Monetary before further again Politically: Completing Europe's Economic & Monetary Union.

The first thing I would establish when considering the EU Referendum argument is:-

Question: "Have you read all the above and understood all the above and support all the above?"

If so, I would be interested in your answers. Secondly I would be interested in you demonstrating your understanding and reasoning for supporting the above. I would also be interested in your opinion as to why in the UK the major actors in the public domain who are allocated the greatest seriousness and air-time do not categorize, nor define the EU Membership question as above, a core political project for "Ever Closer Union"?

If, the UK is not a member of the EURO, not a member of Schengen and as above the next major EU Treaty is to treat the EUROZONE as it's core priority to resolve this crisis; then why is the UK a member? And why is the UK not planning an alternative relationship with the EU? In such a case it may pay to look at what the Leave question looks like:-

3. Why Leave?

• Why? If we look at The Harrogate Agenda, to summarize it's about the right to Self-Govern.

Now this Core Argument is illustrated no better than in the Pro-EU officially nominated campaign group itself and even in it's name and it's own colours!

The Fundamental Deception at the heart of the EU Supranational idea is I think more or less above. The excuse given is that "Pooling Sovereignty" must be done to be able to increase "collective power" and/or "Subsidiarity" allows nations to retain their powers. But observation is consistent: The EU has been divisive in the UK and it's because of the above by the likes of BSE: Mixing where political power is held and by whom and hence how it is represented compromises democratic representation. If the UK is not an EU member then it must be held in the UK Parliament. Any problems there must be considered. But not only this, with the rise of globalization, the Single Market technical standards are now made not in Westminster Parliament nor in the EU Parliament but in hundreds of global bodies:-

These increasingly feed into the Single Market:-

Quoting FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 10.1 The EU role in global governance p.198:-

"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 organisationsand is thus potentially amenable to global regulation."

Now looking at the Government's counter claims in their pamphlet:-

1. As previous blog IMF, FUD & JENGA we already suffer accumulation and political arrears for "years of uncertainty".
2. An "Off-The-Shelf" Solution already exists, replacing EU/EEA with EFTA/EEA: The Leave Alliance Grows In Support by Semi-Partisan Politics. 
3. Following EU Rules is in fact under the EEA acquis; EU Referendum: the EEA acquis following global rules and being represented on those global bodies directly. The supporting arguments: Payment is not an issue and nor is Freedom of Movement concerning the Central Argument: Political independence of our decision-making processes. They are secondly time-modified subject to the actual Political result of the EU Referendum itself.
4. It does fulfill the criteria for clear political separation at the same time as trading through the single market.

This leaves us where we actually are in the arguments today:-

Why does it seem that there are political processes and mass media accommodation of exclusively narrowly sanctioned ideas and concepts, whereas the the arguments from The Leave Alliance in support of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution; the measures used against it, they have been bordering on the antithesis of Real Democracy via REJECT, ALIENATE, EXCLUDE & OMIT such "vigorous and rigorous" positive contributing arguments to democratic decision-making? Why?

In the next blog, this question - will be answered definitively.