Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule

This is now the 81st blog post, so it seems appropriate to try to change the nature of Brexit Discussion to the essential "Positive Vision" component. Looking at the above graph, this is an illustration of a Power Law, in the above case the form of the 20:80 Rule aka The Pareto Principle that people are more familiar with:-

"The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.^[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas."

Namely and only in this case to illustrate as opposed to measure accurately: What we talk about when we talk about Brexit and our Referendum on the EU is prodigiously, prodigiously distorted. It's a reflection on the extremely low quality communication that is passed off as national decision-making in the UK/Britain today by our "leaders".

The even worse news is that the above 20:80 Rule is merely more memorable for illustration given Brexit discussions. I have not measured and categorized all the Brexit discussions the volume in the legacy news-media and I suspect in our politics conducted in Westminster but the above Power Law type is "too generous" the reality I guess is much closer to 5:95 or even 1:99...

That said, we can use the 20:80 Rule to illustrate a fundamental problem with the EU:-

The QMV voting percentages in the EU Parliament for example follow broadly population. But the effect of comparing GDP of EU Members shows a similarity to the Power Law above. Namely the economic power of a few large members suggests an uneven distribution of economic importance.

Here's the suggested problem: The UK as a member of the Supranational EU gains advantage ONLY from Single Market membership. It actually receives disadvantage from Political Union membership; where different political priorities interfere with the progression of the Single Market and with the growth in World Trade.

Therefore I would say a lot of the Brexit discussions FAIL to properly address: What is our desired outcome when/if we leave the EU? The answer is the reformation of the Single Market to globalization without the complications of Political Union (eg EURO). The problem is Supranationalism prohibits this process for the UK: Instead we have the deceptions of our politicians who are incompetent and liars and do not appear to have any motivation to resolve the problem, in fact they "prolong it".

EU Political Union of "Concentric Circles"

EU-Centric Europe: Illustrative gradations of Core = Centralization of Power to Outer-Periphery removal of political power

As per Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.0 UNECE:-

"Even within ther EU, there are different levels of commitment, with the inner core defined as the eighteen eurozone members iniwhat is often described as a Europe of concentric circles. The non-eurozone Schengen and then non-Schengen members are described as the outer core zone, while accesssion countries and EEA members are part of the "periphery". Neighbours are known as the "outer periphery".

"This image of concentric circles conveys the reality of an EU-centric Europe, where those furthest from the centre have least power."

 What we can clearly summarize:-

• Communication of the EU Political Project is horribly skewed in UK Politics.
• Members are unequal economically within it.
• Members are unequal politically within it.
• Members are in all likihood moving in different directions due to the preceding variability.

 And yet we have EU Treaties that tie all these nations together. The next step is:-

• The Monetary/Fiscal Union of the EUROZONE
• Aligning with the globalization process to boost prosperity

Effectively the UK in it's own decisions should be considering that the former is not a realistic nor desirable outcome. So the question remains why have we not had more discussion on the creation of a genuine single market and focus on what this really means?

Even the former has not been fully explored and discussed in the UK:-

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.1: Breaking away from Brussels:-

"For instance, when a group of European think-tanks in 2013 published a proposed draft treaty to take the EUropean Union on from the Lisbon Treaty, which they called "A Fundamental Law of the European Union", they defined the new status of "Association Member", whereby states could take part in specific policies of the EU - such as the single Market - without committing to the full acquis. This would accord a position of less power and influence to those states which adopted this status."

The biggest (political) "splash" is in the center!

Looking at the existing alternative:-

"A new EFTA-EU relationship, therefore, would still put it's members in a subordinate position, in the outer circle with Brussels still in the central, dominant position, perpetuating the idea of a Europe of concentric circles.

Despite this very obvious handicap, the "No to EU" coalition in Norway would welcome this development. There is considerable antipathy towards the Agreement and an aspiration to replace it with a free trade agreement. Here, British membership of EFTA is seen as increasing the negotiating power of the bloc. That position may be strengthened by other member states which may wish  to leave the EU."

 There's no protestant or catholic when it comes down to trade.

With possibly Denmark as well this would the ~20:80 forging the Single Market while the rest forge on with Political Union.

Britain, Supranationalism & Globalization

Is this what Pro-EU advocates believe the UK's position in the EU actually looks like?

In the previous blog post Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation. We looked at examples of empty concepts or containers that dominate the EU Referendum arguments in place of i(e due to a lack of) a cooperatively shared and developed and disseminated "intellectual architecture" to advance our arguments quality with. Dr. RAE North provided a description of this previously in EU Referendum: back to basics, using the metaphor of building the foundations of a building before the actual useful components of the building that are functional for people to use can be developed; and indeed people who use these spaces are often unaware of what they are "literally" built upon.

 EU Parliament percentage of MEP's representing each national member

If we compare the above: What is yet another confabulation of our membership of the EU to the actual foundations, or "details" using merely one example that's more than illustrative and fairly representative: We see that in effect our leaders our telling the people that:-

"All Animals Are Equal But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." ~ Animal Farm, George Orwell

 If we look further at the effect of the Supranational EU:-

 Supranationalism: Effectively all UK MEP's could vote "no" but be overruled Supranationally in the EU Parliament (political institution)

 FLEXCIT: 5.5 "Influence" in perspective, p.97 _ Dr. RAE North:-

"As to Britain's voting power within the EU, most often agreements are reached by consensus. Where a vote is called, qualified majority  voting (QMV) applies to  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  (formerly  the  Council  of  Ministers). There, Britain  has  29  out  of  352 votes,  representing  eight  percent  of  the  vote. A qualified majority is 252 votes (73.9 percent).

In the European Parliament,  the  situation  is  little  better.  There  are  73  UK  MEPs,  and  these represent  a  mere  9.7  percent  of  the  751  elected  MEPs  (post-2014  election). Given the party splits,  this level of representation is notional. UK MEPs rarely vote together as a single bloc. Even if they did, they could never muster the 376 votes needed for a majority.

Furthermore,  the  powers  of  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  are  limited  in important  but  poorly  recognised  ways."

Worse the smaller nations have even fewer votes than the "major" nations such as Germany and the UK as dint of their population sizes. Even worse this is the proverbial "tip of the ice-berg" due to how the various streams of legislations are filtered down to the EU Parliament or either by-pass it completely or are already in their final form and require a "box-ticking" symbolic vote on them to be passed on Nationally (read on from p.97 in FLEXCIT above for more).

And here's the problem with this system:-

Europe's inherent diversity and complexity of network of actors and interests

Europe can be divided into distinct regions with distinct cultural, historic and geographic and political attributes that are VARIABLE per region and indeed per member nation! The above suggests the barest representation of this reality.

Now combining all this variation into one QMV system is simply suffocating this variation under a system that merges and mixes "political" and "technical" issues. This is of course the deliberate function of the EU as a Supranational Construct: To erode National Sovereignty and merge National Institutions under one EU Supranational Institution.

This is indeed seen in the way the EU Parliament actually works via groups:-

As you can see these groups work as "clusters" of alliances of MEP's. Predominantly the groups that are Pro-EU the institutions "club" together. So far from the UK "having a seat at the top table as a big player on the world stage in the EU club playing by the clubs rules", the UK is split up between these groups and it's national interest further diluted down. In fact these are politicians and their privilege and priority is to the EU and their careers. The amalgamation of different regional and national concerns of politics along with technical legislation is perhaps not a happy recipe?

An alternative model:-

FLEXCIT: 11.2 Potential regional structures, p.222 ~ Dr. RAE North:-

"Working within the aegis of the WTO's TBT Agreement, UNECE could thus be equipped  to  coordinate  the  production  of  single  market  instruments  for  the whole of continental Europe,  then administering the functioning of the market. It  would  replace the EU  as  the dominant  body,  thereby  involving  all  European countries in the decision-making process, not just EU Member States.

This is perhaps an improvement on that offered by Lord Leach of Fairford, who has advocated attempting "to redefine the EU as the Single Market" rather than as  "a  vague  aspiration  to  political  union". Such  a  scenario would  conform with  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee's  idea  of  "radical  institutional  change"  to give  decision-making  rights  in  the  Single  Market  to  all  its  participating  states, on  an  equal  footing. By  this  means,  the  EU-centric "Europe  of  concentric circles" would  be  avoided,  and  with  it  any  idea  of  first  class  and  second  class members. Each body, such as EFTA and the EU, has equal standing, creating a community of equals."

ASEAN and the European Union: Lessons in Integration


With this caveat, there are three main lessons worth considering for regional integration experiences in ASEAN and the EU.

1. Integration processes are not really comparable, though their fundamentals are similar

"Many like benchmarking ASEAN’s progress to that of the EU’s. There is a tendency to project the EU as a model for ASEAN and to propose the European way of integration as applicable to ASEAN as well.  The EU’s commitment to pooling sovereignty for common gains has been cited as key to an integrated community.  On the other hand, ASEAN pursues integration without yielding individual sovereignty of member states.  This has created the impression that the EU is a supra-national body in a way that ASEAN cannot or does not aspire to be. The principles of inter-state relations enshrined in the ASEAN Charter reiterate respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and national identity.  Yet, the two organisations are more similar in their decision-making processes than is generally acknowledged.

The EU depends on unanimity – not just consensus – for its major decisions. The image of the EU’s supra-national authority has also been recently shattered as the Eurozone crisis evolves. Individual members have made their (national) preferences prevail at the regional table.  Regional consensus cannot be forged without taking into consideration the national interests of individual members." 

2. Institutions (and mechanisms) do not always work

"Recent experiences in both ASEAN and the EU have shown that institutions notwithstanding, no regional organisation can accomplish its goals of regional peace and security nor economic integration without national commitment to regional priorities. Regional institutions can certainly play a role in community-building. However, if regional decisions are not supported – and implemented – at national levels, the institutions by themselves cannot do much, even with well-meaning attempts to fine-tune or reform them."

3. Regional disparities can hamper integration

"While the EU faced less of a problem of regional disparities in pursuing economic and monetary integration (with “strong” political will carrying the day) in the past, the EU today is confronting  the problem of relatively weak and unstable economies. The financial crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities of the EU economies, especially those in its periphery. Greece’s budget deficits have considerably weakened the EU’s economic position and standing, as have those of Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain."

What we're seeing is that political integration is introducing it's own set of stresses. What is needed for the EUROZONE is increase in Global Trade to increase it's chances of recovery. Effectively in conjunction with the wider global processes happening (see below) there's fundamental need in the EU Political Project for boosts to prosperity to "salvage" it's future. ASEAN shows that "Supranationalism" is not the only nor necessarily the best option for regional cooperation.

This is very important part of the Globalization of Regulations to which a full blog of links and references will be needed to cover the full details. As we can see above it's in the UK's ultimate interests to split the Single Market from Political Union. It might be argued from the opposite position, if argued honestly, that the Political Union needs to be split from the Single Market also for those goals and objectives; namely the future of the EUROZONE which we've already looked at referencing the top EU thinkers and their plans for this Political Union.

Pete North has written some excellent blogs on this globalization process. Which will be listed in another blog. But to try to show a summary of the concept (perhaps failing and falling far short, in the attempt):-

Metcalfe's Law: Two computers can make only one connection, five can make 10 connections, and twelve can make 66 connections.

Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n²).

Metcalfe's Law is related to the fact that the number of unique connections in a network of a number of nodes (n) can be expressed mathematically as the triangular number n(n − 1)/2.

The law has often been illustrated using the example of fax machines: a single fax machine is useless, but the value of every fax machine increases with the total number of fax machines in the network, because the total number of people with whom each user may send and receive documents increases. Likewise, in social networks, the greater number of users with the service, the more valuable the service becomes to the community."

The irony of raising fax machines into the discussion...

Above Eg: 16(16-1)/2=120 ; EEA-31: 31(31-1)/2=465 ; UNECE-56: 56(56-1)/2=1540

As said the full globalization process is staggeringly complicated. But the above at least gives an illustration of the virtue of a larger network at GLOBAL - REGIONAL - NATIONAL connectivity level and as Dr. RAE North points out in:-

FLEXCIT: 19.0 Trading with the rest of the world p.350 ~ Dr. RAE North

"The  global  economy  is  being  re-shaped at  breakneck  speed.  In  the  past decades,  political  systems  have  changed,  new  players  have  emerged  on  the markets,  as  well  as  new  materials,  new  technologies  and  workers  who  are better skilled  than ever. To compete  in  this fast-changing economy requires regulation that promotes growth, better access to markets and the availability of new sources of energy. Cut EU Red Tape: Report from the Business Taskforce February 2014

By  this  penultimate  stage  of  our  six-stage  programme,  all  the  structural  issues have been addressed, leaving the way clear to look at Britain as a global trader. As  we  have  seen  earlier,  organising  trade  in  continental  Europe,  adopting formal   structures   around   UNECE,   would   not   replicate   European   Union arrangements,  in  that  there  would  be  no  external  trade  policy.  Britain  would thus  be  free  to  act  on  its  own  account  in  relations  with  the  rest  of  the  world. Alternatively,  it could act with EFTA, or take collective action through ad hoc alliances."

FLEXCIT: 21.4 Conclusion, p.402 ~ Dr. RAE North

"But it is this idea of a six-stage plan, integrating disparate points, which makes The Market solution what it is. We start with stage one – the process of leaving the EU.  We then move on  to  stage two – sorting  out  immigration  and asylum. Stage  three  has  us  launching  a  genuine  European  single  market,  breaking  free from the EU-centricity of Brussels and building a European village where every "house" is  equal.    In  stage four,  we address  the  task  of  rebuilding  independent policies, and stage five has us reinvigorating global trade, with the adoption and implementation of an eight-point programme."

Conclusions:

When we started this blog post we had this horrible confabulation of "Leading in EUrope!" that means nothing except false and broken promises to people and the abrogation of democracy itself.

I've tried to summary a vastness and of course failed in the attempt. But at least a glimpse may have been provided for the rational, the "intellectual framework", the foundations that are invisible and underpin the First Stage Of The Market Solution:-

The Sceptic Isle has a full summary here:-

• I -The Market Solution: A soft landing
• II – The Market Solution: EFTA/EEA
• III – The Market Solution: Negotiating Brexit 
• IV – The Market Solution: Exerting influence in Europe and beyond 
• V – The Market Solution: The realistic option

Coming back to the objective of this blog, to dispell the starting premise of confabulation from our Pro-EU Politicians; the rot starting at the top, I hope Leave Campaigners will not fall for such arguments as "Leading in EUrope", but choose an eminently wiser and more pragmatic and maturer political outlook:-

The Columbo Method: Norway

"Oh Sir/Madame/Dr., just one more thing... ."

I'm sure most people are familiar with Lieutenant Columbo detective series on television and his famous/infamous method of uncovering the criminals or to be more accurate, his method in provoking them into uncovering themselves? Apart from his combination of initially appearing to be unassuming and bumbling to gain their mutual rapport and underestimation, he then uses that base to keep plugging a few questions before getting into their heads with suggestions and seeing if they change their story and then again repeating more questions from unexpected places. What's relied on in general is the lack of consistency of the villain's story when the Motive is clear. Columbo usually has to work out the Opportunity and Means from the villain themselves alongside his own detective work and evidence gathering.

Unassuming: Weakness or Strength?

Coming back to The Norway Option which has recently been highlighted in both Brexit For Beginners and  considered under the constructive filter of A Science Of Simplicity as per fulfilling those conditions for example reducing the "Brexit Choices Pie Piece" which then like dominoes knocks on removing and reduces other Pie Pieces which is exactly what we want for The Referendum Day Present Simple People's Choice. After all, blame the politicians for pushing >40yrs of membership into x1 day with poor explanation and development of the subject to the people all this time. And this is what Columbo is dealing with in the villains the audience is presented with: How to disentangle their deception.

Honesty and pragmatism will win the referendum

We almost certainly will not "win" 2017, but if we hold to the above we cannot "lose", either

 In Dr. RAE North's Strategy ten: communication: at EUReferendum.com (see sidebar):-

"But there was something more to it – a lot more. What we were also seeing were the effects of "prestige". On the one side there were the three main party leaders, Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Jeremy Thorpe, most of the business community and almost every newspaper – plus the BBC. On the other, as Kellner points out, there was "half the Labour party, most trade unions, Enoch Powell and the Scottish National party".

In truth, the issues hardly mattered. Not one in a thousand had any real idea of the political ambitions of the EEC. The majority were prepared to have their opinions handed down to them by people who were endowed with that magical property, "prestige". They were not going to argue with the prevailing wisdom.

Forty-plus years later, if anyone thinks things are going to be any different, they are being delusional. In the information game, one just has to put a big name newspaper report against a blog post (which may be better written, more accurate and with more detail) and the newspaper will win every time.  Simply compare the reach the idiot Boris Johnson with that of lesser mortals." 

 Putting the key evidence together: Opportunity & Means

LeaveHQ also ran another blog post on The Norway Option in reflection of the latest Pro-EU Membership argument to accuse this option as "beneath Britain" in We'd rather have the Norway Option than Stockholm Syndrome which is a top quality play on words (wish I'd said that) as per Stronger In Europe's leader Lord Stuart Rose:-

"no credible alternative has been articulated. Following the path of Norway and Switzerland — who pay for access to the single market but have no influence over the regulations they must accept — would weaken our control over our economic affairs." ~ British Business must not stay silent in the Brexit debate - FT.com, Lord Stuart Rose

"For all practical purposes, Norway is part of the union, but has no influence. Norwegians must wait in the corridor when decisions are being made that affect them. This violates the entire idea of the enlightenment project and the European integration project. Here, everybody should be equal participants in the exercise of popular sovereignty...  No alternative project is in sight in the age of globalisation. With all its flaws and shortcomings, the EU is here to stay. It is ‘the only game in town’...Norwegian citizens have become second-class European citizens... democratic self-harm since our form of affiliation is based on choices that could have been different, and that would have been less harmful in a democratic perspective."  ~ Norway’s rejection of EU membership has given the country less self-determination, not more - LSE Blog, Erik O. Eriksen

"A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be “run by Brussels”...Without full European Union membership, however, it would have given up on having a say over EU policies: like Norway, it would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made... Norway and Switzerland, heavily integrated as we both are in the EU, have simply chosen between the two currently existing options for staying in the outer circle." ~ We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU - The Guardian Espen Barth Eide

"Some people arguing for Britain to leave the European Union ... have particularly pointed to the position of Norway saying that is a good outcome, Cameron said.

"Norway actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do, they actually take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country but of course they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate."  Cameron admits Norway no model for Britain in Europe ~ Euractiv, David Cameron

 “We [Norway] are fully integrated into the EU single market as members of the EEA, but what we don’t have is the right to vote on those regulations that are incorporated into our law when they are made by the council of ministers.”

“We now have the Norwegian Europe minister himself telling us to get a grip, get real and get involved in shaping Europe. Little England cannot be an option,” Wilding said. ~ Britain will lose influence in the world if it quits the EU, says Norway - The Guardian, Vidar Helgesen

Mr Brende today insisted ‘Britain can have more influence inside the EU than outside’. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘On the directives from the EU, we implement those in Norway. ‘We are one of the countries in Europe that are the fastest ones in doing so because the single market is so important for us. ‘Our arrangement being part of the European Economic Area is that we have to implement all the EU directives. ‘We are not around the table when these are discussed in Brussels.’ He said Britain could be a ‘no nonsense’ voice in Brussels on cutting red tape and regulation. ~ We implement Brussels rules faster than anyone, Norway warns UK Eurosceptics who want to copy Scandinavians outside EU The Daily Mail, Børge Brende

"Of course, we must tell the truth about the 3 million jobs, 25,000 companies, £200bn of annual exports and £​450bn of inward investment linked to Europe; and how the “Britzerland” or Norwegian alternatives (even Norwegians oppose the Norwegian option) leave us subject to EU rules, but denied a vote in shaping them." ~ The truly patriotic British view on Europe? We must lead from within - The Guardian, Gordon Brown

"Excellent... excellent..."

"This works for Norway’s economy, built on plentiful natural resources and with a far smaller population than Britain, but would be no good for an economy as complex as ours.
 
In return, Norway, under prime minister Erna Solberg, is the 10th-highest contributor to the EU budget, but it lacks any clout over EU decision-making because it has no seat at the table: no commissioner, no MEPs and no ministers attending European Council meetings." ~ Five reasons for staying within a reformed EU - John Cridland is CBI director-general The Daily Telegraph, John Cridland

"Norway has seen "extensive Europeanisation" in the past 20 years despite being outside the EU, a government-commissioned report says.
While it sees the economic benefits as largely positive, the report expresses concern at the political consequences as Norway is bound, in practice, to adopt EU policies "without voting rights".
 
Mr Sejersted calls this a "great democratic deficit... but this is a kind of national compromise since Norway decided it did not want to join the EU"
Some British eurosceptics, including Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, have argued that the UK should be like Norway, outside the EU, but according to this report Norway is both "outside and inside" the EU and just "one or two steps behind".

 "Fax-Democracy", 2001: The source of origin itself

"The EEA gives it access to the EU's internal market and its “four freedoms”: freedom of movement for goods, services, people and capital. But this comes at a price. The Norwegians are obliged to accept every single piece of internal-market legislation, and they have no vote on these laws...
 
All this has led many to conclude that Norway would actually be better off joining the EU. At least it would have some say over all the legislation it is forced to adopt. Jens Stoltenberg, leader of Norway's opposition Labour Party, bemoans his country's “fax democracy”, in which officials sit by the fax machine waiting for the latest directive from Brussels to arrive." ~ The Norwegian option: Those strange European countries that have kept out of the European Union The Economist, 2004 - Jens Stoltenberg

  
Nick Clegg: 'Groomed' for the EU

"And heading to the exit would be the surest way to diminish the UK. Because what then? Become the next Norway or Switzerland? Advocates of repatriation point to these nations and say they have the best of both worlds: success to Europe’s markets without an assault on their sovereignty.

But these countries sit and wait for bills and directives from Brussels, duly paying their bit, changing their laws, but with absolutely no say over Europe’s rules. No political representation, no national voting rights, no voice at all.

They work by fax democracy: you find your instructions on the machine in the morning, and you follow them. They have no meaningful sovereignty in the EU. Norway has had to implement three quarters of all EU legislation, including the Working Time Directive.

To go down that route would be a catastrophic loss of sovereignty for this nation. I want better for the UK, and our other allies want better for us too. They pay into the EU Budget: for the specific programmes they participate in and for development grants to new member states." ~ Nick Clegg EU budget speech in full - recorded in Politics.co.uk, Nick Clegg

I tried to read a lot of books, for enjoyment and for education. I've not read a lot of detective fiction genre, but I have got to say, writing up this particular blog post has been exceedingly enjoyable! The thrill of the detective clues and linking up all the bits of evidence, I can see why/how people get hooked on this genre! What's noticeable:-

• Prestige of all the contributors hammering home how aweful Norway is
• Visibility of a free pass in the press and no fact checking done since <2001!
• Motive: This is the key: They're all Pro-EU big-shots who buy into the EU; particularly the last 2: The big cheese in NATO and Nick Clegg the model EU student in British Politics.

In my quick research online I only found x1 article that mentioned The Bruges Group paper The Norway Option above in contention to the prestige of all the above speakers who get a free pass in the legacy news-media; despite google results bringinig it up on the front page along with Jonathan Lindsell's Civitas work on The Norway Option:-

The Norwegian Way: A case study for Britain’s future relationship with the EU

New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option: 13 February 2015 by Jonathan Lindsell

Norway itself actually provides plenty of information:- Norway Government: 6 The EEA and Norway’s room for manoeuvre and EFTA itself via Decision-Making and Decision-Shaping.

The Boiling Frog covers this some more: EU Referendum: EEA Ruled by Fax? Iceland Said No as well as White Wednesday's useful bookmark resources for The Norway Option: Some Bookmarks and of course it comprises merely one part of FLEXCIT:

"And  one point, he  adds, "which  is  almost  always overlooked",  is  that  the  founding  charter  of  the  EEA,  the  Lisbon  Treaty, enshrines  the  EU's  jurisdiction  as  it  stood  on  2  May  1992.  It  provides  no mechanism  to  impose  on  Norway,  Iceland  or  Liechtenstein  the  extensions  of EU power  that  have  happened  in  subsequent  treaties,  notably  in  the  fields  of
employment  law,  social  policy  and  justice  and  home  affairs.  It  is  up  to  these countries to  decide whether  they wish  to alter  their  own law  to keep pace with the EU in these areas."

 FLEXCIT p.94: Two-Pillar System: Multiple EFTA-EU contacts at early stage of legislative process

"In  fact,  this  phenomenon  is  more  commonly  called "fax  democracy" a label coined by Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, in February 2001. He  was  seeking  to  promote  full  EU  membership  to  his  reluctant  countrymen, who  had  already  twice  rejected  membership." p.

We've finally completed our detective work: We've seen how prestige of these hugely important individuals gives them free access to the legacy news-media and then we see a huge component of the Norwegian Pro-EU Political Class and the British Pro-EU Political Class dominating the debate because of their shared motives to prevent both Norwegian people and British people in seeing how disruptive to further EU Integration The Norway Option for Britain would be.

From the various additional areas of research we see this:-

The Authority of the prestigious individuals allows their Pro-EU motive to manipulate public understanding of the Brexit options. What's interesting is this is backed up by polls of Norwegians themselves to add to our previous poll on British people in A Political Mirror: People:-

Despite all the prestige and pomp and power: The people hold the power in Norway over EU representation and they don't see either the dangers of non-membership nor the riches of representation in the EU Political Union promised and threatened by the politicians, equally.

The politicians have exerted vast powers of influence and political persuasion and propaganda to convince people to not vote for The Norway Option, apart from infrequent and perhaps calculated concessions such as Dear Britain, there is life outside the EU. Brexiteers and so-called "eurosceptics" may like to take note of the Pro-EU's efforts and equally anyone else might like to question their received arguments from authority, too.

Combining all the quotes by the Pro-EU on The Norway Option and the people who make them provides an impressive pattern from which to include in our arguments as demonstration of "changing the story" and inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the "story" growing the more the fabricated story is retold and retold to us. Just like Columbo, we can rely on the liar to trip themselves up over their own lies, when we persist in asking:-

"Just One More Thing..."

Brexit For Beginners

 Founding Purpose: Supranationalism to override Nations = Concentric Circles

The EU Onion seems a good way to remember the vertical tiers that DEFINE:  Brexit = "Withdrawal From The European Union (via Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty". This definition accords with our workings out previously in The Brexit Number & The EU Onion  via parsimony that simply defined, Brexit is the "threshold" of crossing from Supranational EU political membership: Either conceptually, the number count quantitatively (Currently 43 years and counting) the maximum number of days before the first day outside membership or emotionally and very realistically, removal of our membership and representation in the EU political institutions and forums such as

• EU Commission
• EU Parliament
• European Council of Nations
• European Court of Justice
• European Central Bank 

In fact removal of all the vestigial forms of the EU's drive towards a higher form of governance above our own such institutions which if you remember was alluded to in The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up:-

• Executive
• Legislative
• Judiciary
• Central Bank
• Electoral System

What's important for Brexit is defining withdrawing from POLITICAL (Ever Closer) UNION of the above which means membership and representation and voting rights in the above institutions for the above functions! The words:-

How Long Ago: And we're still having to resolve the above!

"No! No! No!" EU Treaties: Ctrl+Find: "EVER CLOSER UNION"

Is a big lie by David Cameron. Effectively the EU is similar to the concepts as per Legitimacy & Listening, a "Dominance-Submission" Relationship on a whole larger scale of political organization. We can verify this from a history of the EU as per The Great Deception. The core acts like a political black-hole of political gravity in Europe, around which various rings of association gravitate and from which "Ever Closer Union" or ever more policy powers or "competencies" are sucked INWARDS via the process of "Engrenage" as per Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? 

But why should The Brexit Number be so interesting? If we've only so far had a ratio of x1 day to vote vs 43 years of EU Membership then it bears remembering the relationship between democracy and time as per Of Democracy and Time Dilation. Or think of it like this, in the way our politicians treat our democracy and voting competence/ knowledge on the EU and on Brexit and all the many issues:-

 "They work for you" /s: 45 years of EU Membership; x7 Major EU Treaties: Every voters' In-Tray for x1 day in 2017

This should not be surprising as discussed in Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes" where our government prefers to prolong the problem, and indeed this is explained in Dr. RAE North's most recent Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan :-

"So fraught with risk would be such a process that, wisely, any sensible politician (i.e., one who wishes to remain in office) would run a mile from it.

That is not to say that the complexity could not be addressed and overcome, but the word means what is says. Complex is, er … complex. To come up with a well-founded strategy for leaving the EU – and thus replacing the web of EU policies with distinctive national policies of our own – would take a massive amount of work, requiring a huge team of experts familiar with every aspect which the EU touches.

That work has not been done – there is no likelihood of it being done in the immediate future. Yet, unless and until the British public (and the politicians) can be offered a reasoned and better alternative to the EU, like it or lump it, TINA (There Is No Alternative) lives."

 Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan

 If TINA lives, Then Brexit is DOA!

Unfortunately it's a lesson a lot of voters curious about the EU membership and interested in Brexit have failed to fully appreciate, in part because Vote Leave is staffed/stuffed with the same people as our government above and hence the same mentality:-

"For more than forty years, though, that debate hasn't happened. This is largely due to the malign grip of a small number of individuals – mainly London–based, who dominate the public arena. These are the so-called eurosceptic"aristocracy", currently including the likes of Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan, the self-styled David Campbell Bannerman, Roger Bootle, Lord Lawson and Ruth Lea – as well as the two co-directors of Vote Leave Ltd, Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings.

These people regard "euroscepticism" – insofar as it is an intellectual movement – as their own personal domain. They believe they "own" it. And, far from fostering the widest possible debate, they try to contain it – to keep it to themselves and thereby block others from taking part in it."

What's the link between the "greed of our government", their political and legal obligation (Pro-EU'er holding on) since the 1960's to "The Heart of EU / At The Center of EU" and now equally the opportunity (eurosceptic opportunists) to towards a Global Britain or British Model?

= Impossibility:

 The monkey trap: Without unclenching it's fist from the food reward, the monkey remains trapped.

Effectively we have people in power who are greedy for legitimacy and we have so-called "eurosceptics" who are greedy for brexit without first understanding the problem's nature. And this extends from the above mentioned people into the Legacy News-Media as per Understanding The Mountains of Madness. The product of this is the EU's offer of association agreement and rebranding of this by David Cameron (much as the monkey is trapped above). For most people the "the full in tray" is augmented by the Legacy News-Media's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt):-

EU Membership Cacophony: Presented as a Many-Headed, Hydra Of Complexity

Effectively the above is a Hydra Of Complexity. And here's where this blog becomes interesting: How do you defeat it? You lop-off one head, two more heads will grow in it's place, it cannot be defeated this way? And yet this is the very "declarative Brexit" approach of the various Brexit Options, ALL OF THEM!

WTO Brexit:

Out Of The EU And Into The World ~ William Dartmouth

"Splendid Isolation" Option

 A Global Britain: The "Brexit Option"

"The Perfect Vacuum" Option

EFTA + Bi-Laterals Brexit:

 A Blueprint for Britain - Openness not Isolation ~ IEA Winner Ian Mansfield

 "Min-Max Fallacy" Option

 Cutting the Gordian knot: A road map forBritish exit from the European Union ~ IEA Finalist Iain Murray and Rory Broomfield

"Min-Max Fallacy" Option

 Swiss Option (Bi-Laterals) Brexit:

 Britain and Europe: a new relationship ~ Ruth Lea and Brian Binley

"2 birds in the bush mistake" Option

EEA -Lite: A Positive Vision of an independent Britain outside The European Union ~ David Campbell-Bannerman 

"Superficially Attractive" Option

Norway Option (EFTA/EEA) Brexit:

EFTA or The EU? ~ Hugo van Randwyck

The Norway Option ~ Dr. RAE North - Bruges Group

"Authentic Off-The-Shelf" Option

You could tabulate all the above Brexit Options according to Pros vs Cons Attributes and indeed many so-called academics/scholars on this subject do this to little fruitful outcome other than to confirm/conclude the impossible complexity that serves so well Referendum Status Quo Effects. But it still ends up looking like the above:-

The "terrible", Many-headed, Hydra of Complexity

 If we then look at the arguments against Brexit:-

CER: The Economic Consequences of Leaving the European Union

"Economic Brexit" = Economic Apocalypse!

Open Europe: What if...? The Consequences, challenges & opportunities facing Britain outside EU.

"Economic Brexit"

 If you look at:-

1. Legacy News-Media's "Mountains of Madness" output on multitudinous beyond count issues and angles and details and opinions
2. Brexit Papers themselves and their complexity of details and specialist areas of interest or emphasis for "What Is Brexit?"
3. The Pro-EU papers that emphasis Economic aspect of Brexit

What you come to the conclusion is that the way to defeat the "Hydra" is not lopping off heads and multiplying complexity but reducing complexity and taking a fire to each head that will be burnt away from the Argument leaving us with the Central Point of the Argument - as much as possible. Going back to The Brexit Number & The EU Onion Brexit was variously defined as a simple number or a threshold that results in the easiest, quickest and least complex exit/withdrawal from the EU. If there is a present option that is practically in use that fulfils this criteria then that is the Present Simple best option for Brexit and indeed for defining WHAT Brexit is.

Redefine Brexit via Simplicity: Reliable, Predictable, Repeatable