Politics & Power: The Power Of "Will Power".

Dance music is one choice, but listening to these speeches before an exercise session might just be another choice to give the old adrenaline a booster?

I listen and read and think about the current "currents" in the legacy news-media and beyond, in other deeper sources of information on the current triangle between the EU, Brexit and the Referendum Campaign. The former two are indeed scholastic or intellectual. I think the Referendum Campaign was nationally hyper-emotional, and it's no surprise there have been reports of mass hysteria. Interestingly, I was watching some of the World At War Series as well as some of the series on World War I. These events that imbued the EU with so much of it's spiritual "guidance" as a matter of fact: Booker: the EU dies where it was born. I may have not mentioned it before but I am a great admiring of Booker's "book":  The Seven Basic Plots. Moving on: I think am right in saying get the feeling that during the 1930's Germany went through the various stages described so well by Booker: The Dream Stage and such deep tragedy, The Nightmare Stage subsequently. Booker has long used this tool of filtering events, and I think you can see in his latest piece it's correct application  (once again) concerning describing the leadership of the EU's reactions currently? Probably without stretching the theme too far, there's a draining away of will power about the EU... maybe.

Anyway, one of the interesting descriptions of Hitler's rise to power was his own powerbase was built on multiples of fractious groups only united behind a common cause or leadership on a very thin surface of support, perhaps a leadership with a great deal of "will power"? If you watch the clip (it seems slightly doctored to enhance the effect of his "hypnotic speeches" and the religious fervour they worked up in crowds of people) I think it's fairly evident that this is the effective message and promise Hitler offered Germany at this time? And the preceding details that created such an environment I think are easy to understand just how conducive they were to transforming the emotional state of Germany towards such a leadership outcome? It was all building all along.

As said, I listen, watch and read and think about the current situation and it's infernally complex and chaotic. There was a very interesting example of some of the emotions tumbling around about Brexit and the EU linked at EUReferendum.com in the comments:-

I'm not entirely sure how much of the above is a combination of emotional processing, pedestal pitching of emotions and other incontinent reactions. But there's some useful insights into how people are genuinely feeling and reacting to the dissonance of a result that is going to be difficult for them to apprehend given the build up of anticipation, expectation and the subsequent dissipation and negatively in this case. There's plenty of this sort of material all over the place. It also incidentally has it's corollary in the Leave supporters. What's tell-tale and this is repeated a lot:-

• WHO?
• HATE
• FASCIST

Apart from the hilarious, unintentional joke about "I thought that would be America..." (!!). Most people are basing their reactions on the other side. For them the symbol of this other side (from the Remain perspective) is Haters which when given a political colour scheme becomes "Fascists!". We come full circle back to Hitler. And I think the myth begins here. The myth has taken over the reality (see: The Many Not The Few for a another (very different but still "Myth supplanting"). It's become a story about symbolizing "hate" taking control.

I think it's not this actually. It's much more accurate to consider it as a case of a beaten people in difficult conditions with all the usual fractious divides amongst so many people at such numbers, finding a political structure which pooled them together under the aegis of "Will Power".

If looking at the subject of the EU, there is The Great Deception. On Brexit there is FLEXCIT. But when it comes down to the Referendum Campaign there is none of this intellectual dimension. There's emotion and vying for groups and the politicians promising that "Will Power" will resolve all problems if only it is "lent" to them in sufficient number. And likewise, post-Brexit The Leave groups are all pomp and fanfare and prestige and crowing that Will Power is all that is needed for a successful Brexit. Coincidentally I believe this integrates into what Dr. North has suggested supplants careful reasoning: Brexit: the failure of feedback. When people are swept up in the tide of emotions outpouring from so many different groups, then the solution is will-power and any problems are grossly de-emphasized.

It's not just the UK, but the EU uses Solidarity which incidentally the Nazis also used of course. It's not that either political entity is "hateful" it's that they're both under the same pressures and stresses pulling in different directions in multiple ways, it seems to me. Inevitably the solution is always:-

"More solidarity/sovereignty, more EU/UK (or folk-strength), more will power!!!"

Could almost be a Hitler speech, eh?

I really want to get back to reading about Agriculture, Fisheries and the Environment, I've been collecting various bits of information. Considering all the above, there's so many different ways of talking about it, it ends up being the case that simply remaining silent is the best reaction, because it captures all the above without neglecting too much of it by zealously selecting only a small drop of this ocean of outpourings.

If there were more people more silently listening and considering more and then asking sensible questions about ordinary things some more, maybe the actual process of Brexit in light of understanding the EU (and it's deep origins back in history) might become a bit more apparent and a bit more of a priority, first?

FLEXCIT: Dance, Dance, Dance.

This beautiful picture shows two people dancing a beautiful dance.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to learn some dance, and perhaps not very good, but at least I learnt that it is a careful choreography between two partners and obviously they have to respond and interact to the music and each others moves to be able to dance well. Much easier said than done (!) though very very enjoyable when the odd successful routine is achieved.

I've said it before and will say it again, too often on television when you have a politics question and answer it's like watching the most fucking aweful dance routine possible!!!

Well, fortunately for one day, the conversation and question and answer session on a particular aspect of Brexit was conducted and it was "moderately good"!

The UK’s future economic relationship with the European Union

Witnesses: Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy, Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute, and Richard North, Author

Look Closely: A copy of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution on the far RHS of the table.

The above screenshot is at the end of the 2 hours session and it was quite technical and complicated and in my opinion the problem was that the questioners must have been struggling to understand the answerers: Namely the "dance" was perhaps one-sided to use the metaphor above. Secondly I think the actual "dance" went very far very often away from the actual "beat of the music" ie relevance loss again probably because the questioners had a set number of questions and were in formality mode of going through those without really understanding the answers received beyond probing where they could their own set criteria? Just imagine one of the dancers going through the set moves without the blindest bit of awareness to the rhythm of the music! Well that was the impression I took from the questioners; the answerers were overall very good.

I use the metaphor of dance because even though it is technical and complicated, I am guessing there is a dance going on here that could be described in addition to pointing out the disparity above. For a more descriptive observation of the meeting Pete North fills in here: Treasury committee: first thoughts.

I read a lot of comments over at EUReferendum.com and they seemed to generally think that Hosuk Lee-Makiyama was overly negative and indeed it may appear that way. Whereas in general Shanker Singham seemed positive. I'll come back to Dr. North in a moment.

First as Pete North points out, it was quite an important meeting considering it covered ground in 2hrs that was never covered correctly in the entire Referendum campaign. We managed to remove from Brexit:-

• WTO Option (unilateral fall-back)
• FTA Alternative to Single Market Membership

I think I'm right in asserting both these options were completely eliminated? Goodbye, don't come back, the end!

"The general impression from the whole panel is what we said from the outset. CETA and WTO options are completely out there. For the birds. And though the expertise we heard today was extremely valuable in adding to our understanding we still see a Déformation professionnelle at work as our trade experts tend only to look at it from a trade perspective, neglecting to take into account, defence, cooperation programmes, aviation and the rest of the EU institutions."

It may have worked in the EU Referendum Campaign (how?!) to have multiple different voices all advocating different Brexit plans so that all "Leave" voters and potential such voters would "hear what they wanted to hear"? I don't know, but right now we can now all agree that most of those voices were talking complete and utter bullshit. If you signed up to any of those, you might want to reconsider how you choose to trust or assess information when you make decisions for yourself.

Now looking at Pete North's quote above we can come back to Dr. North and that last bit after Déformation professionnelle this is what is fascinating: Dr. North was at incredible pains to point out and stress just how challenging and potentially difficult withdrawal of the EU will be: The arch "eurosceptic or brexiteer" talking up the EU Institutions and their particular competencies, their particular requirements and such like. You know it sounds to me like we have a real expert talking here... .

As for the other two experts, I have to disagree with the commentators impressions over at EUReferendum.com: I think Hosuk Lee-Makiyama was almost coded in his careful demolition of both the WTO and the FTA (CETA) options and only obliquely alluding to EEA+ via pointing out that EEA- would likely be a bridge too far while EEA+ would "NOT SAVE MONEY" (actually fitting in with the title of the session about the economics of Brexit (something of a dubious quesiton imo in the first place). As such far from merely being a "problemator" (creator of problems) I think his negative appearance was very useful!

Whereas the positive trade negotiator perspective of Shanker Singham, I found overly descriptive of "in principle there's positive to be had" as opposed to "in application to the present conditions we perhaps need to tread carefully": It seems to me that there was great effort to point out the opportunities here and commercial imperative that would mostly likely drive the process, but this was all hinged on the assumption of an "EU Deal" being more of a formality to subsequent opportunities. In fact I found a distinct lack of structure though the content of what was said was certainly of high quality regarding the subject. Namely I'd argue here was someone who knew the moves but it seemed not so with the music. Having experience in trade deals, I'm sure there will be a place for such expertise and reading the Civil Service World website says they're desperate for such people who can bring their previous experiences and apply them and hence I'm sure give confidence and goodwill to all ("common interest" as Mr. Lee-Makiyama puts it).

As to the questioners, The Chair seemed most useful in his questions but did not chair the discussion I feel adequately for the entire course (a big challenge tbh it seemed); I'm not sure he was able to "ask the right questions" ie he did not "know the moves" well enough. But the rest of the questioners seemed to me to be completely out of their element. I mean really, really, really (!) poor and not able to maximize such a useful opportunity.

Interestingly enough, even though Dr. North was insistent on the challenges, as to the actual question of the economics, "any final contributions" had Dr. North mentioning "Trade Fascilitation" and the very real monetary benefits possible via this discussion... . This seems like a very solid and concrete contribution but with the cautionary privisio of our "Treaty obligations" and the magnitude of political change required to be undertaken - first.

Finally I'd like to contribute something myself that I think will help future discussions of Brexit:-

Firstly there's a lot of variable "relationships" with the EU. But crucially for the UK to quote FLEXCIT: The Market Solution, with "nine treaties and over 40 years of convergence" with an almost "unique degree of convergence required" with the Supranational EU as per the Treaty requirements ie concerning the acquis communautaire "swallow the lot and swallow it whole": When it comes to withdrawal from EU Treaties ie exit away from such convergence politically, legally, monetary and economically, it has to be reduced to 3 options and now 1 option after this meeting: EFTA/EEA of some variable composition eg EFTA/EEA and UK/EEA+. But that will Stage 1 axe for sure monetary, legal and political aspects while securing that commercial and economic... namely you guessed it: Once you boil down the actual possible solutions you see the logic of FLEXCIT emerging all by itself and I could go on to list as per the previous blog's introduction all over again the correct sequence of moves in time to the correct beat!

Finally The Chair of the meeting did try to probe concerning the idea of freedom of movement of labour and single market membership or else FTA (which we can thank Hosuk Lee-Makiyama for shooting down with his ellided but quite precisely pressurized statement that he did not think the UK was ready for such a "high societal cost" even if technocrats would be!). This comes back to the idea of the EU as Treaty in the process of designing a Supranational governance or to use the visual picture again, to develop a form of integration that converges nations so closely in so many areas to such a high degree as compared to other forms of "Trade Deals" (see Dr. North's (or Mr. North...) contribution that was extremely useful at the meeting here for retrospective: EU Referendum: no such thing as free trade) .

Namely we're back to dancing to FLEXCIT's beat again, we have to accept Freedom of Movement of Labour in the short-term if we are to be Single Market members (not merely FTA access to it outside it). In fact the Trade expert Shanker Singham (usefully) pointed out as such convergences get closer to incorporating more "sectors" such as services then these matters of employment and hence labour do become more involved in such relationships... an example of this was provided in financial services by Hosuk Lee-Makiyama on the loss of "safe harbours" (it's not something I'm personally familiar with!) for US workers from the EU. Curiously he did not seem to believe the timing issues under Article 50 of the EU Treaties stating 2 years would be very relevant: If there's one detail that needs to be prioritized I'd back up Dr. North's suggestion of requesting an extension with a view to notification of the EU of Article 50 by the UK if requested to do so sooner than later.

Afterall, we do not want to put a foot wrong in this very complex and very challenging process.

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ~ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Samuel R. Delany's sci-fi novel Babel-17 tells the story of a humanity encountering an alien language in the far future galaxy. This language "appears" to threaten invasion, but in order to counter the threat, the messages must first be understood. Not only the above consideration from Wittgenstein is implicit in this contention, but also:

"...my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."

Here we have two considerations: The limitation of language and the limitations of what we select in order to use language to communicate. In fact Wittgenstein manages to get to the heart of the story in Babel-17 without giving away the underlying plot of the story.

Now imagine these 2 core elements of the language used in the our politics of EU Referendum and Brexit in the Legacy News-Media broadcasting the ideas from the Top Tiers of the Political Food Web:-

• (1): Without the core concepts of understanding - one cannot speak without being able to think first.
• (2): What is said necessarily omits a vast range of potential communication.
• (1) + (2) = (3): Combining both: If the language itself omits the words and hence ideas, then these in reverse prevent the necessary thinking!!!

By now I hope you are reading this, thinking I knew this blogger was cracked; a little too quirky and now banging on about sci-fi and Wittgenstein and language... !

 A "low drone" dominates and is broadcast incessantly

Now, instead of travelling far into the future and facing the seemingly inscrutable dangers of an alien language, let us take a journey back into the recent past that already looks so far away: PANORAMA The Great Euro Debate TX. 27/1/97.

 Panorama: The Great Euro Debate - 27.01.97

• "The words used in the argument are a foreign language."
• "Strong passions"
• "Most of us aren't well informed"

Our next witness is John Monks, the 
General Secretary of the Trades Union 
Congress, a man who fears for Britain’s 
workforce, that if they are outside a 
single currency life will be a cold and 
uncomfortable place, and Peter Sutherland 
questions him first. I should just point 
out that friendly witnesses are questioned 
for a rather shorter period than hostile 
witnesses, which is why Ruth Lea had 
rather more time than you did.  The 
opposite will happen when the other 
witnesses come in.  Peter Sutherland.

 Peter Sutherland 
 Well let me take up the invitation from 
that introduction.  What is your view as a 
union leader of the effect on jobs of 
staying out of a single currency when it 
is created? What will the effect be?


 
 John Monks 
 Well on balance I think it would be 
Caption: damaging. Immediately I think we would 
JOHN MONKS pay a premium in interest rates. I think 
GENERAL SECRETARY, TUC our interest rates would go higher than 
that for the Euro area and I think that 
would be a damaging consequence.

Peter Sutherland 
 So that would cost business and investors 
money?

 John Monks 
 Well it would cost everybody - mortgage, 
people who have got mortgages and so on.  
Because we’ve got a record of devaluation 
and the Germans haven’t, which will be the 
core of the system, we would pay I think 
greater, a premium on our interest rates. 
I think too that we would lose some of the 
inward investment  which has been very 
important to Britain. Something like forty 
per cent of our exports at the moment come 
from foreign-owned firms and that’s been a 
tremendous boost at a time when a lot of 
British industries of the traditional kind 
have been struggling. And the third reason 
I would say it’s damaging is that our 
influence in this thing called Europe, the 
European Union, would be so much less. We 
would be peripheral to what was going on. 


 We would be in a small minority of 
countries and I think for Great Britain 
that’s a pretty hopeless future. We want 
to be at the centre of things, not on the 
edge. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Do you think it would be possible to 
Caption:  sustain membership over the medium to long 
PETER SUTHERLAND term by remaining outside a single 
CHAIRMAN, GOLDMAN SACHS currency with virtually everybody else in 
INTERNATIONAL the European Union inside a single 
currency? 

John Monks 
 You see I think it would be difficult to 
stay in the European Union indefinitely if 
we were floating our currencies against 
the Euro. If, as some people would argue, 
we actually pegged the level of the pound 
to the Euro then we get all the 
disadvantages of being in the Euro without 
 any of the influence and the advantages 
and probably still pay a premium on 
interest rates but I think, if we float 
against it, then it’s a matter of time 
before there’s tremendous tensions between 
us and the Euro area about devaluations or 
revaluation, probably devaluations on the 
long-term given our recent economic 
history, and that could blow us out of the 


 European Union which would be tremendously 
damaging. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Thank you, Mr Monks.

 David Dimbleby 
 Norman Lamont. 

What is absolutely fascinating is that the time is different, yet the pattern of the subject is almost identical to the present prevalent "LOW DRONE" we find drowning us in the Legacy News-Media in the newspapers, webpages, radio and television mediums.

You can read the above or watch the video link.

I was just watching the latest BBC Question Time and the deception over the Norway Option was manifest once again:-

Summary from White Wednesday refining Paul Reynolds "Norway Scorecard"

Unfortunately this scorecard won't be broadcast far and wide by the BBC so instead we have:-

• Shabana Mahmood - Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
• Sal Brinton - House of Lords Peer and President of the Liberal Democrats

Emitting their "low drone" and suffusing the British electorate with it. Do they know what they speak of? If not they cannot speak of it. 

 Here's a most illuminating consequence of our "Babel-17" language on the EU Referendum: Pawel Swidlicki now TALKS FOR PEOPLE!!! because he knows what they want - OR, because people like him exploit the "low drone" language that people use to speak about the subject.... [Details: Norwegian model or Norway Option a lot like EU / Europe; Flexit or FLEXCIT]

There are 2 very hard results to discuss here:-

1. The language of the EURO matches the language today of the EU immaculately in it's shape, it's pattern, it's tendencies: Above all: It's severe limitations.
2. This language allows our "betters" to think for us and hence speak instead of us.

 It's probably for the best if you don't give Martin Durkin any money

Yet more Babel-17; coming to cinemas near you in 2016!!!

EU Sketches: The Importance of Being Ernest

The Eurozone: Seen better days

 Cameron's EU-Turn

Project: Projecting Fear aka FUD

 Leave: "motion & agitation" may feel good...

See No EU, Hear No EU, Speak No EU

Tax-Payer held hostage by banks held hostage by EU

Let Them Eat 1/28th Cake! 

Cameron's EU Reform

EU Supranationalism: Time to put this idea into the bin?

Merkel's Feeding of the 10,000 pigeons

Thanks for being so honest, for once!

 Poor Old UKIP

 The Real Global Top Tables

Britain's EU "influence"

Global Britain: Feeling Left Out?

Some humour to keep things light-hearted and hopefully generate some warm laughter during the dark, cold Winter months.

Referendum: "Plenty of Time To Finish This Game."

"There is plenty of time to finish this game. And to thrash the spaniards too." ~ attributed to Sir Francis Drake, 19th July, 1588

Quoting BritishBattles.com - The Spanish Armada:-

"On 19th July 1588 Captain Thomas Fleming in the Golden Hinde, glimpsed the Armada through the swirling morning mist off the Lizard and raced for Plymouth, Lord Howard’s home port. Fleming came up the channel into Plymouth with the afternoon tide to find Sir Francis Drake playing bowls with his officers on the Ho, high above the harbour. On hearing of Fleming’s sighting Drake insisted on continuing with the game."

I grew up in this part of the world and hence this story of Sir Francis Drake and The Spanish Armada, captured my imagination very deeply, as a child, and the quote above is ingrained into my memory as more stylish and sophisticated than anything I ever heard the fictional James Bond 007 come up with, irrespective whether or not it is an apocryphal anecdote: It makes sense and serves as an instructive example of "taking action when action can be taken":-

"It is possible that he knew that the tide of the River Tamar in Plymouth was against him, so that he could not get his ships out of Devonport - therefore, he knew that he could finish his game of bowls because his ships were dependent on the tide to move. If the tide was coming in, his ships had to stay tied up. If the tide was going out, then he had the freedom to move his ships into the Channel."

Now if the tide had somehow been the reverse he might have instead said:-

"Time to finish this game and to finish the Spaniards, too." 

The former shows his pragmatism and bravery. The latter would merely have shown his potential bravery. I think it's this that makes the quip so fine in meaning as well as providing unspoken interpretations of events eg the tide.

Here people are being asked for the first time in >40yrs: What does Remain in the EU mean? What does Leave the EU mean?

The above ballot paper form asks two questions. But like Sir Francis Drake's quote above, our answers very much depend on the context (is the tide coming in or going out?) when we give our answers.

The big problem I have with the Remain question being asked between now and 2017 is that it is not at the same time as Next Major New EU Treaty. Irrespective of Mr. Cameron's:-

Read David Cameron's speech outlining his four key EU reform demands

The four key points from David Cameron's EU letter

We have x3 Elements to look at:-

• David Cameron
• Reform
• EU

David Cameron:-

We looked previous at David Cameron's track-record on the EU, in MIND THE (credibility) GAP. He is not "consistent".

"REFORM":-

His x4 Reforms are:-

• Economic governance: Securing an explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not disadvantaged. The UK wants safeguards that it will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts
• Competitiveness: Setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of excessive regulation and extending the single market
• Immigration: Restricting access to in-work and out-of-work benefits to EU migrants. Specifically, ministers want to stop those coming to the UK from claiming certain benefits until they have been resident for four years
• Sovereignty: Allowing Britain to opt out from further political integration. Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation

Has this clarified his position to vote Remain? Well again looking at the BBC's output, gives us an indication:-

 Reform doesn't sound very clear by the sounds of it: It sounds much more like political calculation than problem-resolving

In effect "Reform" still means this:-

The Hydra of Complexity: Voters will not know what they are voting for: "A leap in the dark" = "Reform"

 European Union (EU):-

 And what of the EU:-

• The Five Presidents' Report: Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union
• A Fundamental Law of the European Union
• Andrew Duff - Protocol of Frankfurt: A New Treaty for the Eurozone

Here we see high magnitude, high orders of multiple intentionality and uncertainty concernign the EUROZONE required changes. This is effectively what the EU is transforming towards in the next major EU Treaty.

We also see confusion in the role of the Legacy News-Media, for example the BBC:-

David Keighley: Not the BBC news. Norway is very rich and very outside the EU

"But then the rot set in. According to website Leave HQ, what followed about the boiler-maker and Norway’s involvement with EU rules and the single market was ‘a pack of lies’, essentially because it most certainly does have influence, through its participation in the European Economic Area (EEA) and membership of EFTA (the European Free Trade Association)."

Dr. RAE North also looks at the BBC bias EU Referendum: BBC – the enemy without

Tommy R's blog Dismantling Britain Stronger in Europe's Leaflet showing that the Anti-Brexit case is being made by the "Remain" Campaign group not the case for Pro-EU (see above). This type of campaigning is increasing confusion and complexity.

Dr. RAE North notes not the first nor last time that the Tory's are fuelling confusion too EU Referendum: the Tory delusion; leaving the word. "eurosceptic" devoid of value and meaning. Vote Leave are also adding to confusion on Article 50 by Dominic Cummings: EU Referendum: a lack of thoughtful analysis along with EU Referendum: Hannan, the enemy within. And finally various think tanks are spreading more confusion: Civitas: EU Referendum: a report to myth the point; CER: If the UK votes to leave: The seven alternatives to EU membership ; Credit Suisse: Brexit: Breaking up is never easy, or cheap. Pete North points out the obvious: Stop problematising Brexit.

Effectively,

Is proliferating, and hence increasing the "Poltitical Plausibility Scope" into ever greater and wider implausible scenarios away from actual limits of political possibility that delimit the argument between "Remain" and "Leave":-

So, if we look at all the above, the hope for Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight; feels as distant as it ever did when we joined the EEC back in 1972 before a Popular Referendum! However, we can remove an enormous source of the confusion:-

• Single Market (EEA) = Remove Economic Question
• Article 50 = Remove Legal Question
• Referendum = Resolve Political Question

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

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

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

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

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

EU Parliament Building

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

Houses of Parliament at Westminster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Road To The European Union

In The Greatest Political Problem of Our Time the observation of the parallels between our current government's EU Referendum and the National Scale problem, opened to the public via the creation of "The Board of Longitude" in 1714 (301 years ago) were made and resorting to the people to help resolve this problem. Namely: "broadening the debate" by opening it up. In modern terms this might be thought of as "Crowdsourcing" the problem.

 1. Celtic Tribes - Roman Britain AD 43–c. 410

Ordinarily the UK's Representative Democracy system of governance appears to be capable of solving most problems of running policy solutions to improve results at the Nation level and as part of the decision-making and debating process, via consulting the people in General Elections. In this way we can think of democracy as a large forum of debate and discussion to test arguments before choosing via voting which arguments we feel are the "fittest" at this large scale of human organization (millions) and also the most "representative" of the needs of the people. Roger Scruton describes this sort of situation in a very brief summary very clearly underpinning these features: A Point of View: Is democracy overrated?:-

• Freedom of Speech and opinion
• Property Rights
• The Rule of Law & Judicial Independence
• Legitimate Government Opposition

"Long before the advent of democracy, our parliament divided into government and opposition, and except in stressful periods during the 16th and 17th Centuries it was acknowledged that government without opposition is without any corrective when things go wrong. That is what we saw in the Soviet Union and its empire - a system of government without a reverse gear, which continued headlong towards the brick wall of the future."

2. "Saxon" England and Celtic Wales & Scotland pre-Viking 5th to the 11th century

Therefore under the right conditions, necessary institutions or framework; effectively democracy is a National Level Forum for debate and discussion between people who have shared reasons to both agree and disagree over problem-solving with each other via both cooperation and competition. This point is made in Scruton's next piece: A Point of View: Why it can be good to give in to your enemies . Where you start to lose "legitimate opposition", you inevitably start the process of disenfranchisement of the people from the decision-making process. Already voter participation in large population size nations is operating at a scale that is less and less representative and hence resulting in increased disincentive for people to invest in the nation-level decision-making process. For people to invest they must feel part of the family, they must extend their identity what we call national or patriotic identity.

3. Modern Britain/UK (& Ireland)

Again Roger Scruton compares different systems of super-identity in groups of people for human organization leading to different results and "quality of democracy" operating ie quality of debate and discussion in groups of people to resolve their combined problems successfully: A Point of View: Should countries be more like families?

"In the wake of World War II the political elite in the defeated countries became sceptical towards the nation state. The European Union arose from the belief that the European wars had been caused by national sentiment, and that what is needed is a new, trans-national form of government to unite people around their shared interest in peaceful coexistence. Unfortunately people don't identify themselves in that way.

There is no first-person plural of which the European institutions are the political expression. The union is founded in a treaty, and treaties derive their authority from the entities that sign them. Those entities are the nation states of Europe, from which the loyalties of the European people derive. The union, which has set out to transcend such loyalties, therefore suffers from a permanent crisis of legitimacy."

 This is recorded extensively in The Great Deception history of the EU:-

"The real  key  to  understanding  the nature of  the  project  which is  the  theme of this book lies in appreciating just how the central idea behind it came to birth. The  foundation  of  our  researches  lay  in  uncovering  just  how  directly  the European  Union  had  drawn  its  inspiration  from  events  during  and  after  the First  World  War,  in  particular  from  the thinking  of  two  friends  who  had held senior  posts  in  the  League  of  Nations,  the  Frenchman  Jean  Monnet  and  his British colleague Arthur Salter.

One simple test of whether someone has an informed grasp of where and how the ‘project’ first came to be launched on its way is to ask ‘why was the EU organisationally  structured  as  it  was,  round  a  Commission,  a  Parliament,  a Council  of  Ministers  and  a  Court  of  Justice?’.  Not  one  of  many  previous histories  of  the  EU  had offered  an answer  to  this  question.  Yet  in  this,  as  we discovered,  lies  the  single  most  important  clue  to  the  ‘project’s’  essential nature and purpose, crucial to any proper  understanding of  its evolution up  to the present day." 

4. The European Political Union

Jürgen Habermas describes the European Union in his book: "The Lure of Technocracy" in Chapter 2: European Citizens and the People of Europe, p.29:-

I use the term "transnationalization" to refer to the process that aims  to create a "supranational " democracy, that is, one above the organizational level of a state."

Considering this above compared to Roger Scruton's observations and comparisons with both Totalitarian and Theocratic States compared with Secular Democratic States based on the underlying preconditions for Democracy, it does not seem to fit. Secondly it is a quite worth marking with a "Milestone" confirming that the EU Cake really is a Supranational Political Organization: Can we have our cake and eat it too? In any Referendum we must define which "cake" we as a "Demos" choose to vote for.

Looking at our maps evolution of governance at ever greater scales, it seems "natural" that the European Union should be the next stage for Britain and other similar sized Nations to integrate towards?

However according to  Friedrich von Hayek in The Road To Serfdom, similar such processes have not increased democracy through increases in size and power of the state, but Centralized power and decreased democracy:-

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning."

It becomes quite clear from reading The Great Deception and comparing the observed, actual results with the promised, predicted results of the EU "Projet" that to quote Scruton:-

"...a system of government without a reverse gear, which continued headlong towards the brick wall of the future." 

Some further quotes from Hayek:-

"The more the state "plans" the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.

The effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go; with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.

Is there a greater tragedy imaginable than that, in our endeavour consciously to shape our future in accordance with high ideals, we should in fact unwittingly produce the very opposite of what we have been striving for?

Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders."

From all this I would argue that The Road To the European Union is "paved with good intentions" despite selling itself as the "next-level of scale for debate and discussion to exist at a European Regional Level. But is there a more positive future, an "alternative cake" which not only strengthens our democracy in a realistic and quantifiable measure but also accepts the above trend of "Globalization" as per the sequence suggested in the maps above? Yes and here's the Twist In the Tale that even argues the central point about the EU to a higher level again without the deleterious results we're witnessing in the quality of our national-level arguments (aka Democracy):-

5. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE or ECE) was established in 1947[2][3] to encourage economic cooperation among its member states. It is one of five regional commissions under the administrative direction of United Nations headquarters. It has 56 member states

Why should UNECE turn out any different from the EU? Because it's a "different cake" created in a very fundamentally different way:-

In Supranational Subordination Versus Intergovernmental Co-operation the blogger "Lost Leonardo" at Independent Britain captures The Essential Difference: How we argue affects the questions and the answers we choose and hence the process of debating and discussion and hence the very formulation of successful democracy.

How about a nice game of chess?

[SPOILER!] At the end of the movie "Wargames", the principle actors attempt to teach a computer about the concept of "futility" or "no-win" contests to feed this into the simulations the computer runs on a Nuclear War and learn the result of "Mutually Assured Destruction" is "not to play" when a win or loss condition are effectively the same result. What this demonstrates is that how we argue or frame our arguments or rules itself shapes the sort of answers we therefore derive and hence interpret.

Before discussing the full relevance of the above, a reminder that when the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) via European Communities Act 1972 and then held a Post-Legislative Referendum in 1975 on membership with the wording of the Referendum Question:

"Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?"

We come back to our concept of Can We Have Our Cake And Eat It Too? Using the historic evidence that hindsight of recording and reporting allows: We now know that the cake was much less a "Common Market" cake than a "Supranational Cake" with "Ever More Layers" or as per the Treaty of Rome:-

• RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity,

• This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen

• DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,

• The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them,

 The wording of the above question therefore can be simply seen as very misleading in leading people to ask and answer a very different question and hence believe in a very different concept of "What is the EU?" This can be further demonstrated as pointed out via reviewing the reporting recorded at the time. Peter Hitchens provides a scan of the Campaign Documents in the 1975 Referendum here: The 1975 Common Market Referendum Campaign Documents

Again the same forces in the News-Media of the time framed the debate using the inevitable "Heroes vs Villains" narrative tropes:

Again this "vilification characterization of arguments process" was described previously: I've been expecting you...

What can we learn from these examples? I would suggest:-

"How we structure our arguments and hence how we classify the quality of the arguments themselves determines both the outcome and the quality of answers to the posed questions."

 And indeed this is highly relevant to how we approach Democracy. We must think about  how to argue before we then learn how to use the tools to argue before we then choose which arguments to make and with whom. The current form specifically concerns Referendums. It is probably a fair argument to make that the 1975 Referendum could be termed a "Top-Down" Referendum as opposed to a "Bottom-Up" Referendum from the people themselves. This categorization of the characteristics of a given referendum is well made: A Tale of Two Referendums: Elite Manipulation or Civic Engagement?

A useful summary beyond the technical details of regulation and running back towards the principles: EU politics: Germany in stasis :-

"The new movement, "Direct Democracy for Europe", Patzelt speaks about favourably. It certainly has "a chance", he says, a man who is demonstrably no great fan of representative democracy.

Those who want more democracy must resort to other means - referendums initiated by citizens, regardless of elections. The problem with representative democracy is that, after the vote, the citizen has no voice. "The most important instrument of political influence between elections", he says, "is the referendum".

However, not all referendums have the same value. If they are top down, they are a tool in the hands of professional politicians. The must work from the bottom up, with citizens deciding on the topics. He who fails to make this distinction will miss the opportunity of making a truly democratic system of government, Patzelt says."

Coming back to the idea of "learning how to argue" as per the movie reference above in "Wargames", then we can reshape how we think about the upcoming 2017 EU Referendum question:-

 "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

If we think of the question like the supercomputer in "Wargames" (WOPR) (War Operation Plan Response) only in terms of victory or defeat, Win or Lose, In or Out, Yes or No, Leave or Remain... then we are limiting ourselves to very narrow outcomes and hence a more limited future than is possible (in the film's case: Mutually Assured Destruction!).

What we have to do is "learn how to argue" in such a way that we ask more useful questions:  

"How about a nice game of chess?"