The Spectre Of (Real) Democracy

One of the most persistent considerations of Brexit has been:-

"JOBS"

I noticed this common and recurring theme in Pete North's blogs and his considerations and general feeling about Brexit post Referendum.

Yes, Brexit is a mess. So what?

"Just this morning I noted Theresa May announcing that the Swansea Bay tidal barrage "is part of our plan to deliver an economy that works for everyone and will mean £1.3bn of investment and 9,000 jobs". They haven't learned anything.

We are not a country that can piss money away on eco-vanity projects any more. We stopped being that country in 2008. The politics of binge and splurge to keep the plebs in make-work jobs is dead in the water. We want the fundamentals addressed."

Yes, Brexit is a mess. So what?

"With Hinkley Point, the eye watering strike price is much the same as the Renewable Obligation Certificate scheme. An incentive to make a bad idea attractive to business. Rather than being direct taxation it effectively grants corporates a licence to raid our wallets through our energy bills.

Politicians love it because it notionally creates jobs - but that is a result of government spending, not foreign investment."

Brexit: the end of the great British ponzi scheme

"And who does this keep in jobs exactly? Middle class engineering graduates. People who vote Tory/Blair. Effectively, since 1997 the UK national grid has been an elaborate corporate welfare scheme whereby the mug punters are obliged to fund the vanity schemes of politicians peddling their eco credentials." 

Brexit is political, not economic.

"Finally I would add how little I care. When I look at Nissan and Airbus I mainly see massive job creation schemes which have a history of taking big government money - largely as part of an industrial strategy to keep jobs in the regions. Though valuable they are a sticking plaster masking a more deep rooted economic decay."

A status quo too big to fail

"For a while I have has the impression that we are in a period of stagnation. For all the government's boasting of boosted numbers in jobs, there is an air of unreality to it all as people are shunted into insecure work and increasingly pushed into "self-employment". The fundamentals are not sound. The middle class is being propped up by massive government spending on defence and energy and soon HS2."

Considering I've only just tipped over 200 blogs, whereas this blogger has blasted past a huge number, it's one way to consider things from someone who has honestly put a lot of their energy, attention and time forming their work in this subject. Not only that, the great meme of the Remain campaign was for so long based on "3 million jobs!" (which itself has an interesting and mutating history).

Sorry Civitas, it's not ok to walk away

"We anticipated the usual remainer lie that three million jobs would be lost should we leave the EU. Our argument was that these jobs depended on trade, not political union. It was therefore necessary to show that we could end political union while maintaining favourable trading conditions."

'FLEXIBLE' + 'CONTINUOUS' + 'EXIT'

One of the core arguments in FLEXCIT was to anticipate the counter-argument based on FUD: Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt. A spectre of dread to so many people. Strangely enough this spectre looms over all the news broadcasts and all the agitation of people anxious about the outcome of the withdrawal process. Why?

Dr. RAE North's latest blog points out a summary of why: Brexit: back to darkness

"This (albeit limited) intelligence comes in a briefing from Alex Pienaar, head of EU exit policy for HMRC. He says that, "any form of customs controls will increase the costs to businesses and consumers of imported and exported products", adding that these costs "can be both financial and measured in time/delays".

What we have here is the first official acknowledgement of problems to come. And, in a separate piece, we also see recognition that: "the situation would be particularly onerous for those exporting food and other agricultural products into the EU with delays of up to a week for meat tested at official laboratories".

"As its worst, a botched Brexit could rival the Great Depression in its effects on the UK economy, returning darkness to the land. At its height, the 1929 depression cost the US some 30 percent of its GDP.

Destroying our external trade is as good a way as any to trigger an economic depression. Our Brexiteers seem determined that we should have one. Our government seems happy to give them one." 

In FLEXCIT, this is precisely the scenario stipulated as first of all avoiding in our planning and secondly in our communication of such planning to people to vote upon.

To vote upon, via our politics. We've come full circle, in effect from prediction to fulfillment. All the while talking about the effect of our decisions on our jobs. A quick summary of the various sectors Dr. RAE North has been writing about tirelessly and assiduously demonstrates the shattering detail of this statement:-

• Customs
• WTO
• Formula 1
• Global Fraud
• CETA & Meat
• Duration of Trade Negotiations
• Automotive Sector
• Cosmetics & Standards
• Border Inspection
• Maritime Surveilance
• Tariffs, REACH & NTBs/TBT
• Elevator Business
• Geographical Indications Standards (GI)
• Digital Single Market
• Medicines & pharmaceuticals 
• Fishing Policy
• Hazard Equipment Market
• ........... [ list continues counting] ............................................

To quote the last listed bullet point:-

Brexit: a potentially explosive issue

"At that point, he [David Davies] said, they were looking in detail at over 50 sectors and cross-cutting regulatory issues, a statement he was to modify on 2 February this year, when he claimed that the number of sectors covered had grown to 58.

On this blog, though, we've recently looked at 20 sectors and can see hundreds more that need to be considered, if the department for the UK's exit from the EU is only covering 58, then we're in serious trouble. One of those sectors which Secretary of State might have missed is the growing market for the very specialist equipment used in potentially explosive atmospheres, the so-called "hazardous area equipment" market."

There's in reality a lot of jobs involved by a lot of people within all these sectors. But what dominates so many people/voters attention is:-

It doesn't matter who wins the US election. The decadent West is in terminal decline ~ Christopher Booker

However, this spectre is an image, with a human semblance only seemingly ushering in to millions tremulous emotions. Much much more terrible in it's "titanic" true form in it's irresistible and implacable force and almost impossible to understand effect on turning people into "tiny cogs within a huge machine" (Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" in other words) and where people spend so much of their lives' finite time: Fuelling our economies:-

One of the very interesting things right at the start of FLEXCIT:-

Our vision: The Harrogate Agenda

"Our vision is of a self-governing United Kingdom, a self-confident, free-trading nation  state,  releasing  the  potential  of  its  citizens  through  direct  democratic control of both national and local government and providing maximum freedom and responsibility for its people."

Isn't that what our economies were supposed to yield unto us? Progress, GDP, Consumer Goods, Trade?

Adventures into the depths of "Irrational Brexit"

 ISO 216: Paper Sides Length : Width aspect ratio (1: 1.4...)

ISO 216 specifies international standard (ISO) paper sizes used in most countries in the world today, although not in Canada or the United States. The standard defines the "A" and "B" series of paper sizes, including A4, the most commonly available size. Two supplementary standards, ISO 217 and ISO 269, define related paper sizes; the ISO 269 "C" series is commonly listed alongside the A and B sizes.
All ISO 216, ISO 217 and ISO 269 paper sizes (except some envelopes) have the same aspect ratio, 1:√2, at least to within the rounding to whole numbers of millimetres. This ratio has the unique property that when cut or folded in half widthwise, the halves also have the same aspect ratio. Each ISO paper size is one half of the area of the next larger size.

"The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is an international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.

Founded on 23 February 1947, the organization promotes worldwide proprietary, industrial and commercial standards. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and as of March 2017 works in 162 countries."

 

One of the biggest mistakes I know I've made concerning the EU Referendum Campaign was insisting that people could argue more successfully if they acquaint themselves with the arguments more rigorously (so to speak). An ideal situation for arguments to flourish. Whereas I know from my own experience of making mistakes, I have to make almost "all the mistakes in the book", before I then feel like I have really learnt whatever it is that I was attempting to learn. I'm sure there are people who do learn more effectively by doing what is required right away and being more methodical and logical in their approach: I'm not one of them though and perhaps most people are not, also?

Worse, not only the poor learning efficiency of most people (including myself), but the profusion of invalid arguments and numerous false conclusions built from a majority of false information and some true information mixed together aka "Both Sides Have 'Good' Arguments For Remain or Leave" or "People want to hear the truth but the truth depends on how you interpret the arguments" (more or less one answer on BBC's Question Time from a canny woman MP on the panel: In effect feathering the political nest for future boom in business!). The Norway "All The Rules And No Say" very bad argument in particular, carried on in zombie fashion in the legacy news-media time and time again after it had died a horrible and deserved death (from a translation error mostly); given "un-life" by the prestige of various high society rhetorical salesmen.

I noticed a comment on EUReferendum.com recently that caught my notice, as it paralleled this long held "if only things were different!" useless response I've stubbornly held onto (having a desire to promote such a high quality work as FLEXCIT through good arguments to more people - with limited success) to the observation people can be provided with FLEXCIT :-

"Certainly, nothing has changed – for years. We have long since known that neither the so-called WTO option nor the free trade option were viable." ~ Dr. RAE North

FLEXCIT - Full Paper
FLEXCIT - Booklet
FLEXCIT - Speech ("The Movie")
FLEXCIT - Monographs post Flexcit
FLEXCIT - Mind Map (conceptual picture)

[Note: These links are just to establish clearly how available this strong argument has been to anyone, anytime: before, during and after the Referendum - of note in the lead up to Article 50 being triggered]

Brexit: value for money

Richard North, 15/03/2017

"When in October 2013 I began the process of writing what was to become Flexcit, I quickly concluded that the so-called "WTO option" was a non-starter.

In my submission for the Brexit prize, I thus dismissed the idea, stating that a strategy based on an expectation that Britain can rely solely on WTO agreements, without securing direct agreements with the EU, would not be well-founded. Britain, I wrote, would struggle to maintain its current levels of external trade.

Of my various objections to the option, I specifically pointed out that the major problem was the proliferation of non-tariff barriers. As time has progressed, I have been writing more and in greater detail about the flaws in the option, to such an extent that you would think there was nothing left to say.

That was three years ago and so transparently obvious are the drawbacks that, had there been even a halfway intelligent debate, the WTO option would no longer be an issue. It would have been ruled out of the political discourse as too hazardous and damaging. The discussion would have moved on to more profitable and realistic areas.

But, not only has the matter not been settled, we have to suffer the low drone of ill-informed commentators such as Matt Ridley adding their ignorance to collective. Now we have a further offering, this one from Douglas Carswell "

or other really strong arguments (true or false being another question entirely) but make little use of such attempts at strong arguments to promote successful political decision-making. And everyone wonders "why do things tend to go wrong?" in politics?

What I have so far tried to briefly demonstrate, using the WTO Undead Option, is that the arguments have been not towards proving a workable Brexit. The insistence on curious mixtures of persuasion and rhetoric camouflaging bad arguments or invalid arguments and/or "not viable" even if they are valid (because they their premises are so weak), takes precedence in our politics.

Isn't this irrational? Isn't it irrational when you have John Major and Tony Blair babbling away in Babel-17 (Decrypting: What is Babel-17?)on Brexit?

Brexit: all the wrong people

Dr. RAE North writes:-

It is even worse when they are ostensibly talking sense, as with Blair who told Andrew Marr yesterday:

…one of the things I’ve done in the last few months is talked to a range of people and if it's permissible still to talk to experts, a range of experts particularly on the trade issue, I didn't understand how complicated this is going to be. If they're going to try and deliver exactly the same benefits as we have now in the single market and customs union, this is an endeavour of unparalleled complexity and what people explain to me is that normally in trade negotiations you're talking about how you liberalise trade, right. This is about how you de-liberalise over 40 years of complex trading arrangements.

 [Red Cliffs note: Red = Persuasive style of Blair (his actual arguments about complexity are valid arguments: See FLEXCIT), his signature delivery style that I detest so much because it sounds like thousands of slithering snakes and apparently for a long time was so effective on so many people...]

Then we have John Major who offers this unarguable if unpalatable observation:

The 48 percent who voted Remain have as big a stake in our future as the 52 percent who voted Leave: they, and especially parliamentarians, have a right – indeed a duty – to express their views. No one can, or should, be silenced. That being so, it is time for the minority of "Ultra Brexiteers" – those who believe in a complete break from Europe – to stop shouting down anyone with an opposing view. It is not only unattractive but profoundly undemocratic and totally un-British. What is most striking is that, amid all the noise they make, they comprehensively fail to address any argument put to them.

[Red Cliffs note: Blue = Highly Ethical point: To argue successfully requires both sides to be permissible participants for their side of the argument and the other side of the argument, in promoting strong arguments and identifying strong arguments: On both sides to draw closer to what we consider to be what is the state of things as they are, with which we then choose our decisions] The Ultras don't qualify as participants of arguments is a very important label correctly applied to them by Major (even though he too abuses his own delivery with his own style of rhetoric and persuasion).]

"All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Brexit together again."

 

That Humpty saying about "being on a wall" then "falling off the wall" seems appropriate for the mess on display! How to make any sense of it all? Well coming back to that long held feeling I've had about the effective use of arguments: It seems if you hold the premise that Britain should remove itself from the EU (Read The Great Deception for "Why?" questions and FLEXCIT for "How?" questions and browse for your self "What?" questions (eg Europe, the UK, Globalization etc) you would naturally try to prove this argument to other people.

And yet the opposite process is evident as I've tried to demonstrate in this blog above: The irrationality of Brexit reigns supreme "above the surface". I came across a name for this type of argument actually which is a very clever approach to arguments themselves. I don't comment on whether there is any consciousness in how things have panned out or whether it's a natural manifestation but what we're witnessing is the argument and the truth of the argument expressing itself one way or another (it will have it's say):-

There's a type of clever argument I only just came across and registered fully; which goes about using "Proof By Contradiction" and this is very applicable to our new friend (√2 = "Brexit Ultras"/ Remoaners) as per the standard used in the dimensions of paper (above):

Proof By Contradiction method on The Square Root of 2

proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition. It starts by assuming that the opposite proposition is true, and then shows that such an assumption leads to a contradiction. 

We're assuming that The WTO Option or The Free Trade Option are true and then putting them to the test against the actual conditions to produce a contradiction: Article 50 for one glaring example. It might NOW be questioned if this is such a good idea to "play with fire", but we're past that point now, given May's declaration to invoke Article 50 and start the count-down on Brexit.

It seems as with mathematics, so with politics, the best way to deal with Irrationality (of numbers of people) is to use Contradiction. I think this is something I will have to remember when dealing with people who don't wish to argue fairly: By their nature eg  √2 ( 1 trillion ${\displaystyle =}$ 10¹² ${\displaystyle =}$ 1,000,000,000,000 ) decimal places and counting, they behave irrationally and can continue providing irrational reasons forever and ever!

An Orbital Perspective: Brexit means "A Global Reality"

 Towards a data-driven model of the Earth?

The nuance for the correct picture for this subject was actually quite challenging: I did not want just a perspective of the entire global earth planet: The whole picture or "bigger picture" which because it's so common a phrase turns people off immediately. I did want a perspective that suggested something physically demonstrable in being "bigger" than the European Union. But that was merely stating the obvious. Finally I chose the above picture irrespective that the actual satellite shown is not a classic "Earth Observation Satellite" itself. The image however fits the focus of this blog: An Orbital Perspective:-

• A higher perspective in both space and time.
• Is a dynamic or changing picture.
• Is driven by "big data" at this scale.
• An Earth-Centric basis to the human processes of "Globalization".

A-Train group of Earth Observation Satellites ~ Reference: NASA wiki

"Other environmental satellites can assist environmental monitoring by detecting changes in the Earth's vegetation, atmospheric trace gas content, sea state, ocean colour, and ice fields. By monitoring vegetation changes over time, droughts can be monitored by comparing the current vegetation state to its long term average."

Borrowing the name from: Lessons in Seeing the Big Picture from a Journey of 71 Million Miles ~ By Astronaut Ron Garan

"Scenes on the surface of Earth can be very still, which is not true when one is orbiting the planet. A snowy winter scene might impress us with its quiet stillness, even though the ground we are standing on is rotating at 1,000 mph, while Earth rotates around the sun at 67,000 mph, while our solar system rotates with the rest of the Milky Way galaxy at 515,000 mph, and the galaxy is hurtling outward at 1.4 million mph. All that motion is outside of our awareness. But when I gazed at Earth from space, there was no escaping the fact that I was traveling across the surface at five miles per second—17,500 mph. The lighting, colors, and the motion of the scene were constantly changing. And when my brain was able to extrapolate the curvature of Earth, I was filled with the certainty that I was witnessing a planet hanging in the blackness of space. Earth became my ever-present travel companion. This is the overview effect, which makes possible the orbital perspective."

A view of this from Europe and the UK, via The Overview Effect:-

Colours: White (North), Yellow (South), Green (East to West) and surrounding Blue (Oceans and Seas) with some more White (Clouds) and surrounding Black (Space)

"The overview effect is a cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts and cosmonauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth from orbit or from the lunar surface.

It refers to the experience of seeing first hand the reality of the Earth in space, which is immediately understood to be a tiny, fragile ball of life, "hanging in the void", shielded and nourished by a paper-thin atmosphere. From space, national boundaries vanish, the conflicts that divide people become less important, and the need to create a planetary society with the united will to protect this "pale blue dot" becomes both obvious and imperative."

That's a long preamble, but the observation of how we consider ourselves and our place on this planet, in the case of the UK, is highly relevant to our future politics. One of the most damaging inherent conditions of EU membership was the waste of political attention on a small sub-set of this larger perspective. If you reread the description by the astronaut above, the relative comparison of different speeds are highlighted. There's a national speed for the UK (and regional), a broader speed at the EU level and then another speed at the global level - of change. This is I think a good description of "globalization" in human processes, including but not exclusvely: Politics.

One of the very core messages contained within Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT - Summary p.5 Phases 5 & 6 (End-Game):-

"Phase five comprises a coherent programme to define our wider global trading relations. This comprises eight separate initiatives. The withdrawal settlement has now receded, having served its purpose as the launch pad. The way is now open for the UK to break out of the EU cul-de-sac and rejoin the world.

Sixth, and finally, we embark on a series of domestic reforms, by introducing elements of direct democracy and the other changes embodied in The Harrogate Agenda – the immediate aim being to prevent ever again a situation where our Parliament hands over our powers to an alien entity without the permission of the people."

You can determine from the recorded reactions of those who are categorized as 
experiencing "The Overview Effect" that it's quite a powerful context from which to then start using and viewing things through, including politics. Indeed nations are already party to "Global Top Tables" which produce legislation at a Global level, at an EU level and again at the national level and eventually at the local level.

Brexit: "A Global Dawn"

It's for this reason I've chosen to end this blog and launch a new blog/website with this combination in mind: Connecting Local Real (or direct) Democracy to the Global Environmental challenges and changes that are already being developed in tandem with other globalization processes. To look at the first two of The Harrogate Agenda demands specifically through this context:-

1. Recognition of our sovereignty:

"The peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations, and our Parliaments and Assemblies;"

2. Real local democracy:

"The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;"

One of the challenges ahead will indeed be reinterpreting Sovereignty within the context sparingly outlined, here. The final blog on this site will be, the below which I'll carry over to a new blog/website subsequently:-

"Environmental Audit Committee hears from the Department for Exiting the European Union and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how the Government intends to approach the environment in its negotiations with the European Union after the EU Referendum result."

Entertaining Political Times: "Infinite Monkey Brexit"

Monkey + Laptop = Metaphor for randomly throwing out "results" source:
http://bluntmonkey.wordpress.com

Recently I've been pouring over many papers concerning the environment policy as well as extending that into something else I'm preparing for another purpose, and it has not been possible to write that up as the next blog post, probably for at least another week. Hence I wanted to explore this idea about how people think about things while providing a hopefully enjoyable diversion for anyone feeling bored out of their minds by the "noise" or to reframe this positively into something to find entertaining, afterall 'politics/politicians' "like to be entertaining" when it suits them, as much as being ignored also when it suits them.

I enjoy metaphors almost as much as I enjoy watching animals and in fact the combination is irresistible for use in communication. Why? I think in written communication, the rules of grammar dictate the form of what is said and that is necessarily so. A metaphor allows a wider unspoken space to be intuitively grasped perhaps in addition to following the rules of grammar. We already use what we know to understand what otherwise would require lengthy details and descriptions.

This is useful but it seems it can lead to errors. If the metaphor is overstretched then it will become the argument and lead to non-sequiturs and the like. Or in other words the container for ideas becomes the argument as opposed to the actual ideas held within. This has already been seen regarding the totemic "voodoo dolls" in discussion for Brexit:-

What is brexit? Atm a voodoo doll to stick pins into, in the legacy-news media. Every pin feels better!

• European Union European Family of Peace
• The Single Market of European Free Trade
• The Customs Union of Tariffs and Regulations
• The Brexit Options beneath all the above:-  

1. Norway Option
2. Swiss Option
3. Turkey Option
4. Canadian Option
5. WTO Option

• Bespoke "British Option" which is either nearest (Cameron's reform fudge) or farthest away from the EU (Old Empire), interestingly.

Dr. RAE North comments on similar themes: Brexit: "mind boggling" complexity & Brexit: a "massive overhead for very little gain".

The simple answer is that Brexit is very complicated. But also, equally the simple answer to the subsequent step in thinking taken that "the problem is, there is no solution" is to recognize first behavioural responses: (1) "pin sticking activity above" as well as recognize (2) such a mantra is logically a fallacy of thinking that the problem itself has not been defined, hence there is no solution and if no solution - no problem defined, not necessarily no solution. Pete North makes this observation about the excessive problematizing of Brexit: The way forward for Brexit. Not only is he right, he's also well within his "rights" to feel a trifle "peeved" with the behaviour of people being so enormously entertained by "typing monkeys" thinking and "voodoo doll" pin sticking behaviour. If you want real entertainment, this wonderful quote from Dr. RAE North:-

"It's thirty months since we published the first version of Flexcit, pointing out that a trade deal with the EU inside two years was not possible, and now the Independent considers it news that "experts" have woken up to that fact."

The economic "sky falling on our heads" has not come to pass as swiftly as some had hoped before the referendum, so a new circus has had to come to town to entertain everyone instead - probably the above, which I've used the metaphor of Infinite monkey theorem to keep with the standard of entertainment expected:-

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols."

Of course it's worth appreciating that the monkeys are a metaphor, because this interesting experiment putting the practicalities into practice shows a somewhat more "down to earth result":-

"In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes crested macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon in England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website.

Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter S, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it. Mike Phillips, director of the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technology (i-DAT), said that the artist-funded project was primarily performance art, and they had learned "an awful lot" from it. He concluded that monkeys "are not random generators. They're more complex than that. ... They were quite interested in the screen, and they saw that when they typed a letter, something happened. There was a level of intention there."

Thanks to the commentators at EUReferendum.com for pointing this out some time ago. And any readers of this blog, thank you for reading, but I hope you've been entertained by the notion of the story above as well as using it to compare with what is currently the output in the Legacy News-Media concerning Brexit?! Hmm.

 I was reading about totem poles in "Art: The Whole Story" recently and as opposed to what is usually thought: The lower-down segments are usually the more important story components...

1. If we take, the above latest subjects getting an airing, if you read Dr. North's two linked blogs you'll see how people are not arguing accurately about the subjects anymore but are using the subjects more and more as metaphors or what is perhaps a well known process: Totems to represent the full story or subject. Huge amount of political activity and associated industries around it, are more or less bowing down and doing fantastically complex ritualized genuflections in front of a totem pole.
2. As Pete North points out, FLEXCIT was "there from the beginning" or 30 months old to be accurate. What does this tell us about the EU Referendum? Well let's use a metaphor of the typing monkeys: In the experiment above to quote: "Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages largely consisting of the letter S, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it." The detail about the "lead male" just makes me crack up the most! You could not write the script any better. But on a serious note, look at monkeys and look at a super advanced and extraordinarily complex technological tool such as a computer or look at people and FLEXCIT.
3. If you read the Wikipedia link to the "infinite monkey theorum" it comes up with a mathematical formula to describe this. I think it's possible to come up with a similar formula for politics and problems. Probably not as rigorously defined but more or less: Number of actors, number of subjects, applicability of subjects to actors. Given a rise in all three, you will have a growth rate in problems, increase in problems complexity and of course a rise in actors/people who are experiencing disruption to their lives through problems! In the campaign phase, this seems to tack onto this notion of conflict by simplifying messages and each phase accentuating the fact the other group are agents of disruption. [might try and add something here in formula notation in the future]
4. Now here's the curious outcome: That thinking is being used to problematize Brexit when it's a process of campaigning BEFORE decision-making. Namely the attempt being made is to use the same process of campaigning and problematizing AFTER decision-making. In fact the process after campaigning and decision-making is very different: Educating and widening understanding as opposed to narrowing and simplifying a message to amplify it and distribute it repeatedly. Yet there are people using the "Because Leave campaigned for it" argument this is "politically impossible", hence the latest suave argument using the tempting but false "binary presentation: Norway, Switzerland, bespoke-UK – no option looks easy. The UK faces a stark choice – a solution that works economically, or one that works politically, says Sebastian Remøy. It can’t have both. It seems to me that the complexities don't stop within the UK, but expand "higher and higher and further and further afield" - for the politicians that is - as much as for the people concerning the idea of the above formula. "Because Vote Leave campaigned for it", is mostly a question of resolving the problem of dealing with people who now feel disrupted because what they were told was of course simplified campaigning cobblers! And just imagine this also applying across Europe...

According to the article:-

Sebastian [Remøy] is Global Head of Public Affairs for Kreab and leads the consultancy’s Trade Competition and Digital practice. He is part of the London School of Economics’ [LSE] Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe and is European Co-Chair of the Brexit Working Group in the Trans-Atlantic Business Council. Previously, Sebastian was Senior Officer in the EEA Coordination Division of the EFTA Secretariat and was Deputy Head of the Commercial Section at the U.S. Embassy in Oslo. He has dual Norwegian/American citizenship.




It's interesting because Pete North further makes the observation in the comments section at his blog The way forward for Brexit:-

"He knows full well Flexcit exists but prefers his brand of problematising because that's what his acolytes feed off...

As to my tone, it's largely because I am sick to death of these cleverdicks who persistently lie by omission and put the walls up when challenged. Brexit problematising is a cottage industry whereby anyone with ideas and solutions is excluded because the very last thing they want to do is discuss ways forward.
The joke of it is, were he actually interested in solutions he would have found us 

Flexciteers helpful and cooperative. We have perfectly amicable relationships with remainers who are interested in answers - but that is not DAG.

There is a whole universe of other issues he has yet to discover and when he does he'll parade it round like nobody has ever thought of it before. And again when it turns out that there is a perfectly viable solution he'll ignore that too. You can't really work with that - so if sneering derision is what he gets then it's no less than he deserves.

Throughout the FT clique have framed the debate by excluding critical pieces of information..."

There's a commentator "HarryT" there who falls for the predictable:-

"Yeah... perhaps. It would be a shame if Flexcit were a great idea but people were put off finding out about it by the way its proponents behaved." 

Pete North responds accurately:-

"You are looking at this as one single post from Green. It isn't. This is part of a pattern of behaviour from him. Continued problematising and catastrophisation to the exclusion of all external sources."

I was watching   Recorded coverage of the president of the European Parliament Martin Schultz MEP making a speech at the London School of Economics on EU and Brexit, from Friday 23 September. And I have nothing personally against what is said in the speech by Mr. Shultz who curiously keeps to the straight and narrow line and points out it's mostly a question of acceptable behaviour, but watching the tittering behaviour of the LSE group in attendance was as fascinating, however, at the mention of "Boris": Reassuringly superior laughter. Pete North is right, above, a huge part of all the problems in that potential "formula" suggested above is "behaviour" (as above even with the accusation that those who are "unpleasant" are the ones who are not behaving!) much more than it is the actual subject itself which will indeed pose problems of it's own kind, which as FLEXCIT points at for so long, already, are indeed very complicated of themselves. But when you factor in this other form of behaviour: The question is as per the typing monkeys: How much time do they need to type out the full Brexit solution?

A Fisheries Forecast: "Easterly, slight - or moderate, falling slowly..."

This map! "40 yrs of high quality cod discards"... "A Sea of Opportunity" including the UK Continental Shelf Limit," the implications of "turning this over to common grazing" in the 1970's"... [The CFP] "is simply unfit for purpose... "MP's/MEP's who simply know nothing about Fishing".

This blog brings to the reader's attention: Select Committees - Brexit and Fisheries Committee: Sub-committee session on the impact of Brexit on fisheries with evidence from academics, from Wednesday 7 September.  A lot of this reconnects to the arguments fairly well made in FLEXCIT and from John Ashworth's The Betrayal of Britain's Fishing to the European Union.

It's worth watching. Why? If you happened to catch this evening's Newsnight A look at David Cameron's legacy, the future of the EU this topic has already been covered in the previous blog: Sunday Reading: The Political Tea Leaves of Brexit


There's too much "adversarial nonsense" or "noise" mixed into the Newsnight report from people with their own "filters" operating. Read the blog for a more accurate summary. However if you watch the above select committee on Fisheries it as previously recognized, acts as an exemplar of the "problem - solution - outcome" triangle recognized previously and a model of other patterns that will also operate in other policy areas. For example, some of the core themes that pervade a lot of the prominent communication concerning Brexit:-

• "Hard vs Soft Brexit" in purely technical terms.
• Achieving Brexit for the UK "legitimately" at the same time as dealing with EU and other International Implications of this or "resonance".
• Coordinating the "public relations" of Brexit Negotiations.
• Above all building a conceptual framework from which all the above take their relative meanings

Final point will be revisited in a subsequent blog, it's been mentioned previously in the blog under "intellectual architecture" from Dr. RAE North. One point to bring up here that the Select Committee fails to start with or "beginning to begin" appropriately: The history of the UK's Fisheries that John Ashworth documents in the above booklet. Here the general themes of leaving the EU and the CFP connect, see Dr. North's latest monograph for expanding this same idea from for example here, one policy area, to the entire subject of leaving the EU:-

LEAVE ALLIANCE: Brexit Monograph 12 - Taking back control

Barrie Deas (National Federation of Fisherman's Organizations (NFFO) stated that UK's Fisheries has become "emblematic" since the question of UK membership of the EU has been put to national debate through the EU Referendum political process. This is historic and cultural and social value even if GDP value is not that significant, for very simple example:-

Does this map look familiar or sound familiar!

The BBC Shipping Forecast, was definitely something I grew up hearing, with it's strange but familiar language litany, for example:-

• Viking

- Wind: "Easterly or southeasterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 later."

- Sea State: "Slight or moderate." 

- Weather: "Fog patches." 

- Visibility: "Moderate or good, occasionally very poor."
The NFFO's chairman's report:

"The referendum on 23rd June, which decided that UK should leave the EU, represents a seismic change for the UK fishing industry. We are taking the view that there may be risks and pitfalls associated with this monumental change of direction but overall, this is a huge opportunity to reshape the management of our fisheries to the great benefit of our fishing industry and coastal communities. The Common Fisheries Policy has taken us down many blind alleys over the years. Now a new era beckons. This will not be without its own challenges; but the very fact that the fickle and cumbersome European co-decision process will no longer be the arbiter of our fate, is tremendously liberating." 

Bertie Armstrong (Scottish Fisherman's Federation (SFF)) makes an excellent distinction: (1st) The removal of the CFP not because they dislike rules, but because it is a system with too many rules that go wrong and hence "A Sea Of Opportunity" to revise this system in a more coherent and better managed way. He also makes the telling point that (2nd) the negotiations will be concluded at "the macro" level that for any given policy, in this case Fisheries (partly it's GDP ratio) it will not be a "pure debate" concerning the given policy in question in a political vacuum. This echoes the predictions made in FLEXCIT's introduction, (p.55 current version 13 July 2016 v.08) on the matter encapsulated in reversing the quote:-

Famously summarised by lead negotiator, Con O'Neill, he described his strategy as: "Swallow the lot, and swallow it now". which is the title component to the above monograph 12 requote.


So far I've quoted from the second session. The first session very much aligns with this quote above, from the expert witnesses:-

• Dr. Bryce Stewart
• Professor Richard Barnes
• Robin Churchill

Some notes on their contribution in summary:-

1. Discards is an area that requires resolving positively from Brexit.
2. Access Controls are a key part of management and compromise.
3. The degree of control over policy is deeply connected to North East Atlantic Fisheries eg (NEAFC) this is already evident with Norway and the EU cooperation for example.
4. All 6 agree that the fundamental zone of control or EEZ aligns with UNCLOS. Robin Churchill goes through the history of this and concludes that the 12 mile border and 200 mile border or median line take effect through his interpretation of preceding subsequent EEC and derogation matters with respect to the UK's Fisheries Sovereignty. "Historic Rights" could be assessed through this perspective it seems, too, interestingly.
5. Interconnection exists in Trade using variable economic measures in different sea food subsets eg shellfish or scollops differentials and then total percentages to the EU or other nations. Margins are often fine in multiple areas around fisherman (11,000) for example food processing or fish and chip shops rising (120,000) etc.
6. DEFRA's responsibilities will rise at the same time as it's capacity to absorb these changes has fallen with budget cuts. Alternative funding from EU sources will have to be arranged in other areas eg Lobsters for Baronness Wilcox's constituency.
7. The regulations that currently operate are not so easy to remove without already being in place a full substitute system, this will take a lot of time!
8. The UK will be open to join other Fisheries "Bodies" either international bodies or nations agreements and so forth which is useful.
9. Dr. Bryce Stewart was particularly interested in the fundamentals of a data-driven natural resource as the primary signal to economic yield, effectively sustainable stock maxima will lead to a economic yield maxima with the context of a dynamic stock that may absolutely grow and hence grow the above ratio, given the decline of Fisheries eg the pyramid base of sand eels from CFP. This had critical implications for "TAC" (Total Allowable Catch).
10. All three strongly agreed led by Professor Richard Barnes that the UK should be some sort of "adjunct member" of the CFP as a transitional measure or for example ISIS (An Integrated Sea information System) would continue it's functions for the UK for data as one visible example.
11. For example the current Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ's) were already a step in the right direction for reversing declines in fish stocks as some of the CFP had improved... but if you read Dr. North's latest monograph you'll see the core principles behind it's significant and long lasting failures.

Again coming back to Bertie Armstrong for a third valuable insight into a principle of regaining "control", (3rd) the perception difference is that cooperation allows compromise on access, but that the key to regaining this Policy was "prescription" as Norway currently enjoys when it allows other nations' fishing boats to fish in it's waters. This is useful policy to combine with the work of John Ashford concerning the absolute necessity to work with "immediate data" to feedback from the sustainable resource to the economic sustainable yield with the secondarily, cooperation of the actual fishermen, instead of criminalizing them. This point was further elaborated on differences in technical gear usage rules between zones (EEZ's) which the experts agreed was not necessarily a problem so long as the fishermen knew what the the rules were, given the above logic of using such equipment, eg John Ashworth's work explores this in greater detail.

Finally, perhaps I merely remember Bertie Armstrong's contributions more than the others hence I requote him again, despite the others all being very useful and informative: The key from the future of Brexit concerning Fisheries is The Positive Vision, that means the UK with it's factual assets could be become a (4th)  WORLD LEADER IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT and it's critically needed:-

Advancing conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (IUCN)

• NOTING that nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean is beyond national jurisdiction, and that this area provides valuable ecological, economic, social and cultural benefits;

• CONCERNED that marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is being significantly reduced by certain human activities, and noting the need to protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), such as by establishing  marine reserves or other types of marine protected areas;

• RECALLING the recommendation in the marine crosscutting theme at the IUCN World Parks Congress (Sydney, 2014) to urgently increase the ocean area that is effectively and equitably managed in ecologically representative and well-connected systems of MPAs or other effective conservation measures. This network should target protection of both biodiversity and ecosystem services and should include at least 30% of each marine habitat. The ultimate aim is to create a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no-extractive activities;

 

Mapping plastic in the ocean

Here's a picture of a beach I was walking along today:-

I picked up a very large bag of plastic rubbish washed up or left on the beach, mostly plastic bottles. Such a beautiful resource for the UK, I hope the future leads to more jobs looking after it.

The final point to add: As well as the "emblematic social/cultural and historic factors, the geographical and biological fact of of UK Fisheries must be the foundation from which good policy and hence good governance of this natural resource can be achieved and the relevant expertise exercised on a global and world level: Truly a positive vision.

"Brexit Means Brexit" But Does Formulation Mean Execution? No.

This is what the EU Referendum looks like to most people I can imagine? And so they also think this is what "Brexit" must/will also look like: From Leave vs Remain punch-up to UK vs EU pile-up?

"As I have said Brexit means Brexit and I firmly believe we will make a success of it, not just for the UK but for our European partners too." ~ Theresa May, UK Prime Minister

A quick word: I've colour coded the above EXPLICITLY to match the two title "posters" (in this blog)

Next, a quick trip down memory-lane. Remember the detractors/"dementors" of Brexit originally posed it like this:-

1. Brexit = Not possible (impossible).
2. Brexit = Not permissible (even if a chance of possible then impermissible).

All of those qualities have been blown-away post EU Referendum. Today we're left with:-

1. Brexit = Poor. ~ Remain (extreme version)
2. Brexit = Big (if true!). ~ Leave (extreme version)

And hence May's remarks:-

"Brexit Means Brexit." - What?

"Making A Success Of It." - How? How Not?

What I want to point out is that pre-Referendum (1,2) were all about Brexit is not formulated so is either impossible/impermissible or both. The argument now is not whether it is possible to formulate it but about executing it: Mainly because various "groups" are at odds and hence "politically" either a poor version (EFTA/EEA) or a very very poor version are to be had or apparently from the other side: The poor version is not Brexit (not Big enough) and the poor, poor version (WTO) is Big!

Jesus Christ.

First, Brexit has been formulated (note this is not the same as executing Brexit):-

FLEXCIT is a full treatment or FORMULATION of "the problem of Brexit".

• FLEXCIT: A Plan For Leaving the European Union
• The Market Solution - FLEXCIT: Flexible Exit and Continuous Development
• FLEXCIT: The Definitive EU Exit Plan (movie and presentation)
• Brexit Monograph Series (life after FLEXCIT)

Bear in mind the talk at Dawlish (Red Cliffs of Dawlish name of this blog is derived from this day/presentation) was in Oct 22, 2014. ("big if true"!) Let's once again go over defining Brexit so we define the problem:-

Brexit (British Exit) = "UK Withdrawal from EU Treaties by Article 50 (only)."

Let's look now at the different groups of Leave and Remain:-

1. Leave: What does "Brexit means brexit" mean to you? It means the above ONLY! I'm just the messenger...
2. Remain: What does "Brexit means brexit" to you? The preceding months have firstly meant "Leave means Leave" in case you didn't get the memo,hopefully by now you have. But you're hopefully now onto the second meaning finally...

Before then a quick recap to clear up the source of confusion:-

• EU Referendum = Hyper-Emotional activity
• EU = Intellectual subject of study
• Brexit = Intellectual subject of study

For many people the EU Referendum was the equivalent of a slug-fest of words and feelings and of course not forgetting everyone's suddenly an expert on how much lying was going on, too. Well most people end up "shit-talking" to each other when emotions are up and it's more of a slagging off match than anything else. In the above "punch-up and pile-in picture" if you were to only see this fist-punching you might think rugby league just a big brawl and not a sport with rules at all...

And so it is with Brexit. Commentators spread their own confusion saying that Brexit cannot be anything else but a Brawl with no rules as per the EU Referendum experience. Fuck you all! There were rules from the careful formulation of the principles and details: You (pl.) just decided not to read the rule-book. I remember Dr. North pointing this out concerning Football: Everyone knows the rules but how many have actually read the rule book of football published by FIFA? So it is with the EU and Brexit and the Referendum on them: Just imagine how much more information is required in this formulation compared to football rules.

As stated the EU Referendum failed to follow the rules and the result was a bit like a nasty punch-up. All the major political organs conspired independently to achieve this result especially the rotten Legacy News-Media and the equally corrupt Westminster system of political representation.

If people have not learnt their lesson yet... then for a second time, if we look at the subjects of the EU and Brexit we certainly do have a full formulation of both of these (The Great Deception explains the EU and FLEXCIT is the superior solution from hundreds for Brexit Formulation with the EU):-

What does this mean for people?

We're going to see the persistent confusion on "EXECUTION" repeatedly dolled up: Just like for the past 2 years we've had neglect of FLEXCIT (ie formulation) so EXECUTION will dominate the Bullshit pumped out to most people. Hopefully it will act as a distraction for the idiots who confuse the emotional referendum pallava with assuming that will be the case with the EU too. On both leave and remain advocate sides. They will be entertained by the punch-up headlines in the media for years to come. I mean only today Sky news managed to drum up Oliver Ilott and Mrs. Barnham (some EU law expert) and just watch the total drivel on the execution speculation on exhibition: See Scribblings From Seaham for more on this tangent: Thought of the day – but not just for today.

Yes bullshit also won the Referendum. People were not fully reassured and hence we're stil stuck with the madcap politics of "execution" trying to placate multiple fractious groups.

Equally because of this, and because of the political system in the UK, our politicians will likely spend as much time attempting to navigate how to EXECUTE Brexit according to the groups and it will end up looking like a punch-up with the EU on the lines of the EU Referendum. Here the questions on how to make Brexit successul will feel interminable because people are not prepared to understand the formulation ie FLEXCIT.

In some ways this fits nicely: People get politicians to distract them with crap. Just look at any other nation and look at their crap politicians also. They're always a bunch asshats! They deal with the execution side of politics shepherding their flocks of sheep. Meanwhile the Civil Service will be or should be full of problem-solvers and they'll insist (Sir Humphrey style) on actually attending to the nature of problems seemingly thwarting democracy through technocracy: More on this from Pete North:

• We must leave the single market - but not yet
• There is no simplifying Brexit 
• Marching orders from Mrs May 
• If it helps, don't think of it as Brexit 
• The EU needs to tread carefully in negotiating Brexit
• Brexit is an opportunity for meaningful Lords reform 

What more people could have been more aware of is "FORMULATION" which stands in for what Mrs. May has to contend with: Brexit means brexit. FLEXCIT successfully formulates the problem. The only problem left is how to execute this amongst different groups suffering various mass delusions.

Fortunately most of these people and most of these politicians can carry on their side-show while gradually the formulation's qualities end up being the only thing left worth doing in deliver "Brexit means Brexit" and "making a success of it" for both the UK and the EU and EFTA/EEA most likely too and perhaps further into the world, others as well.

Execution is ultimately up to the civil and intelligent contribution of the UK voter. It's curious but not unexpected that never before is the voter so "rich" considering access to finding out the relevant and applicable information to aid in understanding which choice to decide upon when voting and yet so few exhibit the "will power" to take up that opportunity. What we're left with is politicians apparently adding value and arranging the execution of decisions in the modern and bizarre way we consider "real politics":-

 Is this the zenith of modern British politics for most people?

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?