IMF, FUD & JENGA

 Thanks to Google News we can see FUD for what it really is: JENGA!

A very significant and repeating aetiology:-

"Etiology (/iːtiˈɒlədʒi/; alternatively aetiology or ætiology) is the study of causation, or origination. The word is derived from the Greek αἰτιολογία, aitiologia, "giving a reason for" (αἰτία, aitia, "cause"; and -λογία, -logia). The word is most commonly used in medical and philosophical theories, where it is used to refer to the study of why things occur, or even the reasons behind the way that things act."

in the Pro-EU arguments takes the form of:-

1. The EU is not in terribly great shape, I admit that. I accept there is some minor issue with the eurozone or with Greece or with borders... however,
2. It needs reform and we would be "throwing away" our friendship with our good friends if we were to leave.
3. We should not "turn our backs" on """"""""Europe""""""""" but show "solidarity" and work on the inside... otherwise spurning our friendships, they would not think to treat us badly if we left having treated them so disrespectfully. And besides if Murdoch can influence Number 10 but not Brussels that tells you everything doesn't it!
4. And... and... that is why Climate Change, Terrorism, Crime and... and... CHINA!!!
5. I shall be fighting body and soul to remain in the EU my good people! How I will fight for you...

Example of giving a really "low-quality reason for"... Substitute labelling = Superstitious Results

This old appellation was used to label "the unknown" on old maps. And so it seems we experience the same use of a fearsome image when we fail to provide a map for our thinking in decision-making, in this case political so-called "democratic" decision-making for the UK's EU Referendum.

Now with any decision-making there is an element of uncertainty as opposed to certainty when there is no decision-making and hence it's certain. However I think this is an underlying cause of over the long-term increasing uncertainty more and more instead of dealing with smaller quantities of more specific areas of decision-making, what might be called "Antifragile" engineering into our politics: The longer the lack of decision-making the longer the lack of selective forces operating on any given system and the more divorced it becomes from reality checks until:-

A House Of Cards: The longer the game goes on, the bigger the fragility and FUD

The "sudden" collapse, that apparently none of the experts predicted. You can read more of this concerning the IMF via Dr. RAE North:-

EU Referendum: IMF – it's not over

There's an especially resounding reminder of the predictions of such economists:-

"In fact, so inaccurate is IMF forecasting that one commentator suggested taxpayers' money could be saved by replacing  its staff with dart-throwing chimps.This was after its 2013 forecast for world growth came in at 4.1 percent when the S&P 500 had been at 1,400. When it issued its revised outlook of 2.9 percent,  the S&P 500 had been just a whisker off its all time high.

In 2014, the Finanical Times was assessing its record in predicting the 2009 recession. Its verdict was: "An astonishing record – of complete failure". To be fair, this remark was not confined to the IMF. Nevertheless, none other than IMF economist Prakash Loungani found there was little to choose between the IMF and the World Bank, and private-sector forecasters. Their records were all "terrible". Loungani wrote: "The record of failure to predict recessions is virtually unblemished".

By 2104, Loungani, with a colleague, Hites Ahir, had returned to the topic in the wake of the economic crisis. The record of failure remained "impressive", he said. Of 77 countries under consideration, 49 had been in recession in 2009. Economists had not predicted a single one."  

The language used in markets: The Bear And Bull Market:-

"The terms "bull market" and "bear market" describe upward and downward market trends, respectively, and can be used to describe either the market as a whole or specific sectors and securities. The names perhaps correspond to the fact that a bull attacks by lifting its horns upward, while a bear strikes with its claws in a downward motion."

Seems to be concerned with either an upward or a downward trend but little with the respective "antifragile" quality of such directions in either direction. Confidence or Uncertainty are the two psychological terms for market conditions. And if you look at Google News and the IMF and Brexit and The Bank Of England, truly you'll start to see how ineffectual these institutions really are:-

"Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty. Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and stays the same; the antifragile gets better".

If we are to be sucked against our will into converting a Political Decision into something that has Economic consequences, then we can always point out that in any case, the IMF and the likes of the Pro-EU supporters created such a picture as this:-

As for Brexit and it's effect, the political causes "a priori" are:-

It seems to me that the take-home from the intervention and use of FUD by the likes of the IMF and The Bank Of England and the Eurozone/EU and Westminster is that not only do we need to reform our own politics, but the part that has not been completed; namely the "Separation Of Powers" to increase decision-making feedback on the exertion of those powers is in particular the "Monetary" Powers; to which a lot of "Here Be Dragons" is still applied in our daily lives:-

Electoral Commission/Lead Brexit Designation

FLEXCIT: Talking The Talk 2

FLEXCIT: 2.2 The Europhile counter-attack , p.26

"With the possibility of a referendum very much on the political agenda, supporters of continued membership of the European Union have been quick to present their arguments. Basically, these have fallen into two broad categories."

"Firstly, there are those, such as Open Europe, who argue that reform is a better proposition than withdrawal. Secondly, they and others have sought to demonstrate that the consequences of withdrawal would be seriously damaging to the UK."

• Fallacy of the Middle Way argument has significant advantages for political manipulations: It is a common thought process in the West that not too extreme on the one hand leaving but on the other hand the current state is "not good enough". Secondly it potentially gains borderline adherents from either side. Next it sounds plausible which is a part of sense-making where plausible > accuracy applies in the news media due to imperfect information and media manipulation in a multi-polar viewpoint society.

"Primarily, the counter-attack highlighting the adverse consequences of withdrawal has been based on economic arguments, but with a strong reliance on fear, uncertainty and doubt (known as FUD)."

• FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is the magician's trick of attempting to deflect attention onto Economic grounds for not leaving which are in essence uncertain which fuels myriad forms of doubt and can then be exaggerated as those doubts all manifest as acceptable fear-mongering.

"This FUD has been a characteristic of pro-EU campaigns for some decades. The fear exploits the status quo effect which is a significant phenomenon in all referendums, where the innate conservatism of the electorate can weigh heavily against change, allowing the pro-EU side to enjoy as much as an inbuilt 20-point advantage. Focusing on the economy sidesteps the sovereignty and independence arguments, and exploits the practical concerns about withdrawal."

• Status Quo Effect is leveraged by FUD as well as ensuring attention is drawn away from Sovereignty to Economic questions - this ensures insufficient interest can grow on the core questions of Sovereignty to which the evidence is very unequivocal and hence ensures delay of decision-making in people concerning their independence. The more FUD is fuelled the more effective is the lack of decision-making that the status quo effect manifests from.

"Thus in his 2012 New Year's address, we saw John Cridland, the CBI Director-General, declaring: "The debate about our future in Europe … must be based on an informed, hard-headed analysis of where our long-term economic and financial interests lie and business will need to make its voice heard"

• Controlling The Agenda All it takes is for the bigwigs in the CBI to pronounce their "profits of doom" economic sermons to summon FUD and ensure attention is diverted onto Economic matters and a lack of interest in Sovereignty information dominates the debate on Brexit. The full arsenal of economic weapons are deployed: Cars, Finance, Tariffs, FDI would all suffer catastrophically. The fact the CBI endorsed the EURO and predicted doom for not joining it is always swept under the carpet or the fact they are always wheeled out as Pro-EU economic weapon.

"The Economist asserted that, while a complete exit from "Europe" was certainly possible, few British Eurosceptics wanted it. They preferred "halfway options": a Norwegian one and a Swiss one. If Britain were to join the Norwegian club, though, "it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future".

• Prestige Owns All Arguments Establishment Set:{The Economist, The Financial Times, Open Europe, CER, CBI, Whitehall, Westminster} They are all part of the same set and hence argue both for and against the EU arguments even if politically they are all in the same Pro-EU camp. Without an independent Out Camp that assumes authority for the Anti-EU Camp all attention will be held by Prestige of the Establishment Set. They can even produce their own flawed Brexit options and set them up for failure as the Economist provides an example of above.

"The Economist asserted that, while a complete exit from "Europe" was certainly possible, few British Eurosceptics wanted it. They preferred "halfway options": a Norwegian one and a Swiss one. If Britain were to join the Norwegian club, though, "it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future".

• Social Ostracizing Meme aka "Seat at The Top Table" Meme or "Big-Player" on "The World Stage" in the "Influential Member's Club" are all marketing ploys to produce the idea that the EU provides "influence" which would somehow hurt the UK or leave it isolated and hence the people wanting that are "Little Englanders" or "Dwelling in the past" who want to "Pull-Up The Draw-Bridge" and are "Isolationist" and can't "The UK can'tSurvive alone in a Globalized World" and anyone who thinks so is "Dreaming of the Empire". NOTE: The same tactics were used in Norway in 1994 for reference.

"For domestic reasons, the magazine thus asserted, the Norwegian option could well fail. As soon as British MPs learned that Norway "has to swallow almost every regulation that comes out of Brussels, despite having virtually no power to shape them", they would waver. When they also learned that Norway had to pay for the privilege, "they may reject it outright".

• Poor-Man's EU is how Norway is branded by the Pro-EU and is dimissed as swiftly as possible as "telling the Anti-EU'ers" "It's not what they want anyway" or it is "Democracy By Fax" ie all the disadvantages and now none the advantages.

"In the view of the Economist, even the country's closest friends, who would rather keep Britain in to bolster liberal voices inside the EU, would be unlikely to be generous to a country that had chosen to leave. The most likely outcome, it suggested, would be that Britain would find itself as a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends. And, it declared, there would be one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again."

• Swiss Anomoly The Swiss option is always painted as exactly what the UK would want except for the tiny detail that it was a one-off and the EU would likely wish to punish the rash, short-sighted greed of the UK for attempting to Brexit and break the Clubs' rules. No "Privileged Partnership" or "Pic-n-Mix" or "Rugby in the Football Club" etc.

"On the other hand, we assume that the "out" campaign will have succeededbecause it will have offered a positive vision of a post-EU nation, emphasising high ideals such as self-determination and the restoration of democracy. But we also assume that success would have been unlikely without neutralising the torrent of FUD, of which examples we have seen here. To do so, assurances on continued membership of the Single Market will have been needed. Irrespective of the actual merits of membership, we do not see that a campaign could have succeeded without unbreakable assurances of this nature, to "kill stone dead" the business and foreign investment case against withdrawal."

"Such assurances as would have been given would have to be honoured, thus shaping the exit negotiations. They add further, insurmountable obstacles to the adoption of any tailor-made bilateral option (and, for that matter, the WTO option, discussed in Chapter 3). If those options were not already untenable, the need to keep the Single Market intact would make them so."

• Totemic Status of access to The Single Market and FDI for the UK and The City and sustaining Trade and neutralizing Economic perturbation have to factor into a successful Referendum and hence Brexit Plan to vote for during:-

1. The Referendum Political Event.
2. The Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty Formal Secession (2-years)
3. The Full Brexit Operational Process spanning days, years, decades.

FLEXCIT: 2.3 Timing complications , p.33

"Following the "in-out" referendum, however, we also believe there will be a strong demand for the earliest possible exit from the EU. We thus anticipate that the two years initially set by the Treaty for Article 50 negotiations will be treated as a maximum. Although the period can be extended by unanimous agreement, there will be little tolerance for prolonged talks and certainly not for a process that drags on for many years."

"Expectations will undoubtedly create a political momentum that will be difficult to ignore, especially if a general election intervenes. Dominating the talks, therefore, will be an over-riding need to bring them to a speedy conclusion. Furthermore, speed is no bad thing. To avoid unnecessary market uncertainty and political instability, leaving the EU is best done quickly – advice which was tendered to nations proposing to leave the euro. Delay in reaching a settlement could be highly damaging."

• Economy Of Time is critical to be controlled. Any Brexit plan that attempts to increase SCOPE will increase the forces acting on the negotiations and the referendum campaign itself, leading to increase in loss of control, which leads to increase in loss of confidence which leads to higher chance of lack of success both in support (before) and in resolution of negotiations (during).

"Advocates for bilateral options, though, rarely discuss the time needed to conclude negotiations. Economist Roger Bootle, for instance, posits that many British people imagine that the UK would not be able to negotiate free trade agreements because it is small and insignificant, then asserting that "this is not true". The UK is still about the sixth-biggest economy in the world, larger than Russia, Brazil or India, he says, then asking, "Why shouldn't it be able to negotiate satisfactory trading arrangements?"

"This, of course, completely misses the point. Undoubtedly, given unlimited time, the UK would be able to negotiate a different deal than when having to negotiate under time constraints. In the Article 50 scenario, however, the presumption must be that time is limited."

• Brexit is Political not Economic: The politics needs to be POSITIVE and the economics needs to be NEUTRAL to remove it from the Referendum Question. Is part of the winning strategy of the referendum; it neutralizes the FUD of the Pro-EU's, it maximizes the arguments of the Anti-EU/Pro-Brexit. Too many Anti-EU'ers misconceptualize Brexit as the time to maximize the economy. WRONG! It's the time to maximize the politics of Democracy, Sovereignty, Self-Determination, Global Destiny. The Referendum Question must be positive political and that means economically neutral, because any economic arguments positive or negative come with uncertainty and uncertainy is NEGATIVE to confidence which is to support which is to success of decision-making.

"When it comes to establishing trade agreements with more complex economies, the contrast is extreme. For instance, the current round of EU-Swiss talks -which provide the basis for many of the exit models proposed for the UK -started in 1994 and took 16 years to conclude. 73 And if that is to be an example, no negotiation scenario can realistically ignore the political and practical implications of negotiations taking a prolonged period."

• Council of Despair of the Pro-EU's depends on uncertainty of negotiations and on doubt of economic predictions which is inherent in economic arguments aka "The Dismal Science". This is to be avoided with a Positive Political campaign and a comparison of Influence in vs out of the EU and that is Sovereignty and Democracy questions not Economic.

"On this basis, it is highly improbable that British and EU negotiators could conclude a de novo bilateral agreement in less than five years. Whatever their attractions in theory, the bilateral options are not viable within the context of Article 50 negotiations, purely on the grounds of the time needed to negotiate them."

• Playing By The Rules of Brexit will ensure Pro-Brexit/Brexiteers'ers are not harshly dealt with by the biased media, the biased civil service, the biased government, the biased big business. The more they are forced to bend and break the rules the more the people will see the deception and corruption operating within the Pro-EU Project.

~~Fin.~~

It's very interesting to note so little of this advice has been taken by Vote Leave or Leave.EU/GO campaigns:-

The Leave campaign is failing. We need your help. 

 

Reluctant Remainders: Submission to Power

 Symbols of Power; Exercise of Submission

The above is in fact a photo of people bowing to their national figurehead in North Korea. In many respects there's nothing unusual nor necessarily bad about such practices. An equivalent for the UK is the various prestigious figures bowing to the Cenotaph in rememberance to the sacrifice of our soldiers lost in wars for the national cause and service. And many other nations or affiliations of various kinds follow similar practices of groups of people for various reasons. The One-Minute Silence seems to be ushered into groups of people at various entertainment functions, for example football matches, almost daily, at present.

However, I think there's a very important distinction: Is the personal choice to serve and believe in such service consciously made or is the exercise merely a tool of those in power to exercise people and groups of people to submit to their authority automatically or even by repeated exercising of submission to ensure their tendencies to submit are more powerful than their tendencies to act according to their personal convictions or their personal state of knowledge?

 The Cenotaph, at Whitehall in London for Rememberance

You may look at the above, knowing it is a scene from North Korea and feel and think along these lines:-

1. Identify from what you know that this is possibly a totalitarian display rather than a purely elective exercise of people.
2. Feel a sense of "relief" that such practices are "over there" and not "here".
3. Would empathise with the plight of these people and feel possible anger if you were forced to submit yourself to such a leader in your own nation, under such a display of society submission to the state. Would you bow to David Cameron, for example?
4. Your rationale as someone who lives in a democracy would be that the essence of democracy is that we have a free choice to elect our political leaders and any visible expectation against these "rights of citizens" would be such a trespassing against our core values and beliefs that we would be forced to realign such convictions with proactive political voting to correct such violations.

 EU Politics: Just Another Drop In The Bucket

A lot of people believe that the present Referendum on the EU is merely in-fighting between those who are conveniently labelled "Europhobes/eurosceptics" and those who are labelled "europhiles/Pro Europe". When the Referendum is contextualized this way, most people think this is the reserve of politicians or journalists or other commentators such as economists who have little better to do with their specialised job roles in society than to pick at such tiny distinctions and magnify their significance along with their own interests. What therefore does any of it have to really do with the ordinary person or the average voter? So long as they have jobs and schools and hospitals? Pete North Leaving the EU is only the beginning. Westminster doesn't work.

Each day a news story comes out with such examples. Yesterday: It was the Security of Britain being in or out of the EU, Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: on making mistakes; which seems already forgotten by most despite it being only days previously. Today it is the Disruption to Ireland if the UK leaves the EU, EU Referendum: border checks for Ireland?; either trade or peace process or whatever. And on and on this amnesia goes. Each is in fact like a drop into a bucket: Completely insignificant alone, but when you collect all these stories together en masse the pictures changes:-

Each drop, carefully collected and stored - ADDS UP - eventually.

This is a more accurate picture of the EU Referendum for the UK:-

REFERENDUM PROMISES

EUROPEAN UNION - INTEGRATION

THE EURO 

THE LISBON TREATY

What is the purpose of presenting these quotes? I think there's a good chance many so-called "swing-voters" will vote to Remain. Why will this significant (artefact) group category of people behave in this way?

First of all they will likely only hear the "drip-drip of decaying democracy" to inform their views as above, the exercise FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and this will be heavily skewed without "Rememberance" but emphasizing Fear of Alternatives, which if it is argued honestly White Wednesday: What does ‘In’ look like?.

Secondly, some more informed amongst them will have targetted concerns such as:-

• We will lose our vote to influence laws made in the EU that will influence us anyway.
• Brexit will cause market uncertainty which is simply to practical a cost given we're members anyway. This will be negative to the UK for the future secondly be it the Pound and inflation or the decline of the City as a Finance center: "Our clout" will be diminished.
• There's no obvious benefit to leaving so why risk it?
• There's no clear argument for leaving.
• Trade deals will unravel.

 The 3rd category of "Reluctant Remainders" will vote for Cameron irrespective of his lies which is how he exercises power over people to submit and vote for him. They will choose Submission to Power over Service to their own Knowledge: Being true to themselves in words matching deeds. I expect this will apply more so to women, secondly, in thinking along these lines.

Thirdly, you will have a group who possibly may learn that these obvious problems are indeed problems but they can be overcome: Mr. Brexit What does 'out' look like? Cameron should ask the civil service. Here we move on from 1st Group = Fear. 2nd Group = Uncertainty to the final and most important 3rd Group = Doubt. The final stage of understanding of reluctant remainders and I am guessing the most profoundly challenging: They don't really believe in the EU, they know the EURO is not a good idea, they think the UK might even prosper out of the EU, but what is going to sway them to vote to Remain is:-

• Doubt: The EU and the other 27 Member Nations will not give us a deal that works because it will undermine them. We effectively don't have enough power to bargain, so any Brexit has a fundamental fault in it.

I've highlighted the key word in this final form of Remain vote inclination: Power.

You have two choices:-

1. Submit to Power
2. Serve your personal choice according to your knowledge and own feelings: Being true to yourself irrespective of fear, uncertainty or doubt.

If you want an evidence check against this, I can present you with one that connects this idea or contention with our present political reality:-

SUBMIT - TO - POWER

 SUBMIT - TO - POWER

Through all the above, it is a more sophisticated and layered approach to exercising people to SUBMIT TO POWER, not to learn and hence vote according to their personal freedom of choice: Pete North Brexit: what's in it for you?. If people behave as per the former, the results end up looking the same time and time again:-

You might wish or choose to deny it, but this is the behaviour of most voters in the UK today

Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money

Economic Modelling gives you...

The above is a clip from the  blaxploitation action comedy or comedy-spoof Black Dynamite, by watching it you see a sketch of "making it up as you go along" riffing on detective stories. Economic Modelling is perhaps a kind of detective exercise on the economy. Once the "chain of reasoning" gets going into rapid gear, it's perhaps hard to follow and hence become bogged down in the complex details; A loaded question or complex question fallacy:-

"Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda."

The Brexit Door blogs on this subject in The CBI/PWC ‘Cost of Brexit’ report,

"This morning all the talk has been about the report from the CBI into the implications for the UK economy on leaving the EU. I had rather hoped it would start to enliven real debate over the issues, but I’m afraid it won’t."
"It’s economic analysis is probably beyond question, I certainly won’t challenge its modelling. That is not where it’s problem lies. It’s real problem is that it simply analyses a situation which is never likely to exist. A straw man is built, and effectively knocked down (at great expense I would expect, knowing PWC’s eye watering hourly rates), simply to create a convenient story for the government and it’s Remain camp allies, notably the BBC who went big with it this morning I’m told."

"The CBI is openly Pro EU, so they make no pretence to impartiality here."

 Economic FUD amplified via "Große Lüge" - A Loaded Big Lie technique

There's a couple of techniques here included FUD which is becoming apparent all the time, the other one is: Große Lüge (Big Lie):-

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

We know from Decrypting: What is Babel-17? that Economics is a useful language of deception to use because as per 1997:-

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

The above cocktail is ripe for confusion and FUD to feed the Status Quo Effect. Given the stagnation in development of the arguments it's also clearly very effective given the same complaint is pointed out by people: "We don't know enough".

"CBI Director-General, Carolyn Fairbairn, has warned that leaving the EU would cause a serious shock to the UK economy, with a potential cost to UK GDP of £100 billion and 950,000 jobs by 2020 and negative echoes that could last many years after that."

"Under both PwC scenarios, UK living standards, GDP and employment are significantly reduced compared with staying. The analysis indicates a cost to the British economy of leaving of as much as £100 billion – the equivalent of around 5% of GDP - by 2020. Even in a scenario where a Free Trade Agreement with the EU is secured rapidly, the analysis indicates GDP could be 3% lower by 2020. GDP per household in 2020 could be between £2100 and £3700 lower, and the UK’s unemployment rate between 2 and 3 percentage points higher, than if the UK had remained in the EU. GDP growth in the years 2017-2020 could be seriously reduced – and possibly be as low as zero in 2017 or 2018." 

The CBI and "magic money"

The Brexit Door notices an interesting outcome however:-

"So why is the remain campaign and its supporters avoiding analysis on the Market Solution?"
"Well it’s hard to escape the conclusion that they are rather concerned that it cannot be easily rebutted because it is well researched and thought through. To draw attention to it would do more harm to their cause than good – so they, and the government, pretend simply that it doesn’t exist."

 The numbers in the CBI/PWC Report merely grow and grow as per the growing chains of reasoning from the loaded question in accordance with their uncertainty value:-

CBI/PWC focuses on Left-Hand-Side and ignores the Right-Hand-Side, like so many of the Leave Campaign, The Establishment and the Legacy News-Media

Instead what we have is Misdirection (magic) Money:-

Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.

Managing the audience's attention is the aim of all theater, it is the foremost requirement of theatrical magic. Whether the magic is of a "pocket trick" variety, or, a large stage production in Las Vegas, misdirection is the central secret of all Magic.

 The Leave Campaign (Vote Leave) are proving to be David Cameron's Rabbit, the Dodgy Deal was the Hat.

The basis of the misdirection is the Polls and confessions of the Leave Voters themselves, apparently UKIP, Leave.EU and GO want:-

• "Control Our Borders" (empty meme) removal of Freedom of Movement
• Saving Loads of Money from Economic Membership
• A Free Trade Agreement or Something Like the WTO
  

Vote Leave are similar:-

• Bonfire of Redtape!
• FTA like Canada has
• EU will still buy our cars no matter what!

This allows the Remain and David Cameron deception to use their opponents own weight of fallible arguments against themselves:-

Imbalanced & Weak Arguments: Leave Campaign's own weight used against itself: "Control Our Borders": No! To Freedom of Movement! or "We Can Do So Much Better Than Norway or Switzerland" as "They Buy More Cars Than We Do!"

The Leave Campaign plays right into the hands of The Great Deception; it's not surprising it's been going since the early 1960's concerning the UK, at least. This leaves the intended picture of Brexit instead of The Market Solution:-

Edit 22/03/2016: City A.M. 21/03/2016:-

Major added those in favour of a Brexit were wrong to insist Britain could leave the EU and then rengotiate trade deals to its advantage.

"Their argument is that the EU needs the UK market more than we need theirs. This is at best disingenuous, more bluntly it is fantasy," he said.

If people referred to the arguments more, they would realize that Major describing the kind of Judo throw above and pointing out such arguments are "imbalances" that are so ripe for taking advantage of. The Deception is the focus on these bogus Brexit propositions aka "Big Bang" Brexit categories (LHS above, all of them). However the misdirection is NEVER to mention The Leave Alliance nor The Market Solution staged iterative withdrawal and secondly that these are themselves stages towards conditions more closely aligned to FTA or otherwise removing "EU Centric Political Integration" from "European Genuine Single Market" evolution.

If any Leave or undecided voters read this, remember the use of the opponents' arguments as Judo atst as Misdirection and the amplitude of FUD as Big Lie technique. The solution? Learn and find the arguments that: Discrīmen: Arguments have their own reasons.

Pro-EU Deception, The Intended Picture: Lie Big, Lie Frequently and use your opponent's arguments against themselves:-

 Big Lie: Brexit will cost you dearly, 100m, 1m jobs and 5% GDP to be "on top authority".

Referendum: Choice With No Meaning

The Seventh Seal: A game/euphemism with only one outcome

In the above film by Ingmar Bergman, The Seventh Seal (Swedish: "Det sjunde inseglet") the game of chess with the personification of death indicates an inevitability juxtaposed with the other euphemism of the title name: "The silence of god". By the end of the story "Death" asks the Knight [Spoilers]
if he has achieved his "one meaningful deed" yet? [/Spoilers]

A few weeks back when I heard that David Cameron had issued an early referendum, I felt very much like the above Knight. One of the biggest reasons is that I feel as if after waiting so long to have a true and fair referendum, David Cameron has acted with great iniquity on the correct running of such a measure of Real (direct) Democracy. He has his deal, now let there be time to think and absorb and discuss and analyse and finally decide.

The media are very good at pointing out:-

• The Referendum is dominated by Politicians
• The Referendum is dominated by Men
• The Referendum is Project Fear on both sides
• What does Out Look Like?

Unfortunately we are dealing with serial hypocrites. Unless it's mentioned in their own circles it does not exist previously:-

Lilico: Genteel Conversation is the number one priority for self-pleasuring

The media have collectively failed to hold David Cameron to account over the legitimacy of his "deal" as well as trampling over the clear recommendations of the Electoral Commission. So when they come out with the above nonsense rejoinders what the hell are they actually doing apart from indulging themselves in "Genteel Manners": Are they really communicating or not? Equally we look at Lilico above: What he is actually doing here? These so-called "experts of communication".

Again it's quite interesting that Boris Johnson suddenly wades in with There is no conspiracy. The EU is completely open about its superstate plan. An argument that needed to be asserted long, long ago, and with little direct reference to The Great Deception. 

 Plagued by empty, heroic-sounding memes

What is wrong with these people? I remember teaching and being given advice on how to write end of term school reports for subjects and students I was teaching which is similar to these: Must do better… what school reports really mean & teachers - fess up, what are your parent evening euphemisms!:-

• “keen to share his ideas and opinions” = Chatterbox
• “In drama, he uses his humour and imagination to create expressive body and facial movements whilst experimenting with different characters’ = Class Clown
• “a pleasure to teach” = Doesn't cause any trouble
• "is a natural leader” = "is a bossy little madam”
•  "should work on his organisational skills" = "would lose his head if it wasn’t stuck on”.
• “’Tries hard’ =  ‘not very bright, but plods on’ 
• ‘enjoys the more active tasks’ = ‘I can’t get them to do their written work for love nor money’
• "enthusiastic" - never shuts up
• 'Very popular in class' - one of the in crowd who doesn't like working.
• 'Has made good progress over the course of the year' = If you think they're bad now, think how much worse they were last year!
• "he's very well mannered and polite" = Struggling to find anything noteworthy to report.

There probably at least two simple rules for actually achieving results that are productive and without confusing code and euphemism in conversation when the parameters are fairly clear, for example in the case above on childrens' progress in school:

1. Argumentative in the sense of constructively critical
2. Listening in the sense of actively absorbing before responding

 What these euphemisms do is is remove argument by obfuscation and implicit though still unclear gentility of communication. How is anyone supposed to listen to what the actual results are and hence what is the appropriate response?

Here we have an article by the FT from a number of distinguished City luminaries and their prestigious opinions on Brexit/The Referendum: FT City Network: GOOGLE: "What should the City fear most from Brexit?" and pick the top result and you can read the full article behind the paywall.
  

• Sir Win Bischoff, FRC

1. Save The Children!
2. It's In Our DNA
3. Cunning linguists

• Sir Philip Hampton, GSK  

1. Some applicable economic history context given
2. Spiteful Rejection
3. Uncertainty
4. Political Context?

• James Bardrick, Citigroup

1. Single Market direct link
2. Improve the Financial Sector of the Single Market
3. Conflates the Rule-Makers of Finance Regulations with the EU and Single Market Access

• Stephen Hester, RSA

1. Being a member of the Club
2. Straw Man of "better deal fallacy"
3. Brexit as an EU-Centric limited field of vision

• Alex Wilmot-Sitwell, Baml

1. Access To Single Market is only possible as an EU member?

• Helena Morrissey, Newton

1. Uncertainty depends on HOW Brexit occurs
2. Brexit is a Process not a shock event
3. Reference Work Actually Read & Cited: Dr. Richard North's FLEXCIT
4. Staged Exit Access to Single Market
5. Regulations are made globally
6. Clear communication to avoid market turbulence
7. City success independent of EU membership, Global perspective
8. No Remain status quo: Risk of political uncertainty

• Brenda Trenowden, 30% Club

1. Uncertainty
2. Trade Deals with the EU?
3. Single Market contribution
4. Regulations and passporting
5. Revenge
6. Don't know what Out looks like?

• Jean-Pierre Mustier, Tikehau

1. City not in danger of replication in Europe
2. Clear Vision for alternative needed to avoid collateral damage

• Johannes Huth, KKR

1. My experience tells me: "Brexit is self-harm"
2. Global uncertainty means it's too risky to experiment
3. A Leap Into The Unknown
4. Private equity must have a "Strong UK in Europe".
5. ... benefits of "UK being part of Europe".

• Simon Walker, IoD

1. British Success = "Global entrepôt"
2. Signal of leaving will be negative
3. Britain "turning it's back" would be negative for FDI
4. False dichotomy: Sovereignty and border control vs growth and prosperity
5. There will be disruption, We'll all be dead as Keynes says.

• Sir Mike Rake, BT

1. Benefits of membership are clear == Single Market == EU
2. Single Market all regulations but no influence
3. Trade Deals time required
4. City and US both recognize the advantages
5. Scotland would then leave
6. Significant period of uncertainty and disruption
7. We need EU Reform 

• Paul Drechsler, CBI

1. CBI members consistently call for "EU Reform"
2. Uncertainty both ways but Cameron's deal helps
3. Uncertainty of leaving far greater, many questions unanswered
4. Businesses and Politicians can help inform the people

• Michael Tory, Ondra

1. Current opt-outs already are "best of both worlds"
2. How can things then be so broken we'd be better outside alone?
3. Populism is the biggest worry about Brexit causing a chain-reaction

• Colm Kelleher, Morgan Stanley

1. EU membership has healed the UK "sick man of Europe"
2. Leaving would lead to serious "backlash" against the City
3. Trade deals and China "Hopes Britain will remain a member"
4. Change in trade deals would hurt services the major industry
5. Migration is a boon for the City
6. Virtuous circle would reverse on Brexit
7. Better off staying in a Reformed EU

• Sir Roger Carr, BAE

1. Leap of Dark into Splendid Isolation or act of Collective Strength
2. Challenges of staying as a constructive agent of change are well understood
3. City would survive but as a wounded animal on Brexit
4. Dislocate, derail and fragment our trade, economy and nation on Brexit
5. Voice of business and City must combine to reassure people to remain.

• Edward Bonham-Carter, Jupiter

1. Nothing to add to either side in particular but,
2. Positive case on both sides needs making better
3. Dire negatives are a case of exaggeration
4. Undecided's will likely vote as per their feeling on the economy by present government.
5. Important for the population to engage in high quality debate standards.

• Rhydian Lewis, RateSetter

1. UK innovates in market lending
2. some EUropean rules are beneficial
3. Our lenders 70% say Remain

• Guy Hands, Terra Firma

1. Brexit will lead to the Break-up of the EU and war.
2. City of London could not possibly survive in the brexit environment
3. UK FO is the backbone of EU Foreign Policy
4. Brexit would destroy everything made in the prosperous last 50 years.

• Tidjane Thiam, Credit Suisse

1. Africa counts eg China during the 90's
2. Successful transformation of the EU will help global trade 
3. UK cannot have more influence outside the UK than the EU it seems to me.

• Daniel Godfrey, ex-Investment Association

1. Fear and contingencies
2. Europe will become less safe without UK
3. Violence is the biggest reduction in investment
4. Fabulous arguments for remaining have been made.
5. Arguments for remaining other than City will resonate more with voters

Firstly, the above is far from complete. It's necessarily condensed in part draw out obvious patterns but primarily to lead to a very very specific outcome in demonstrating exactly where we are positionally in this argument, our current bearings and coordinates not according to opinion but according to the actual arguments as they are.

Some of the RED =

• Euphemism
• Incorrect Statement of Fact
• Personalization
• Ignorance
• Lack of Definition/Conflation of meaning
• Irrelevance
• False dichotomy/choice
• Propaganda Agency
• Argument from authority
• Incorrect Causation
• Misapplied metaphor or model of understanding

There's a lot of different patterns here too:-

1. People don't distinguish between what they actually know and what they do not know.
2. Often this starts with lack of clear definition of words or the use of euphemisms with lack of careful attention to their use.
3. This void is filled by confabulation to fit disparate bits of information that
4. May or may not be relevant or directly linked causally to the neighbour they're currently linked to.
5. This in tern leads to false models of understanding or because there is a lack of a model of understanding false metaphors driven by emotion/personal prejudice or other fallacies of argument structure being made.
6. Hence many arguments are broken before they've begun (all read).
7. Some arguments start well then fall apart and others are jumble of insights randomly cobbled together eg 3 magic reasons, 5, 7 12, 20 arbitrary top lists.
8. Brenda Trenowden starts off showing she's actually researched the argument for herself, but with a limited knowledge ends inconclusively and therefore reverts to the risk-caution principle of her working instincts (it seems) which lead to poor ending arguments unfortunately. Here's a case of almost getting it right: I know A but I do not know B, so C depends on me knowing A and B.
9. One argument is very positive in arguing about arguments themselves from Edward Bonham-Carter. This is helpful.
10. There are in fact two OUTSTANDING EXEMPLARS of both the Leave actual argument and the Remain actual argument:-

 Selection Bias

• Remain = Mike Rake. He uses all the adept experience of Pro-EU Propaganda. I have seen this so often it is obvious when it's intentionally motivated. The above video is all he's good for.
• Leave = Helen Morrissey. She is remarkable in being the only person who cites the expertise of work already carried out in the subject in question, firstly. This gifts her the opportunity to define the question clearly which she does: "It depends HOW we Brexit". She is able to immediately frame her selection of arguments around core concepts: Process and Staged transition with zero change to our present operating conditions on economy/trade. She idenfities clarity of options to avoid speculation boosting uncertainty which is also a prerequisite of a fair vote for the public to know what they are voting on. A comparison is fairly made with alternative contexts.

 Asserting one's limits of knowledge brightens up democratic debate, ironically as well as being a good opportunity to switch to listening instead of talking

The other result from the above, is that the Business Leaders here make excellent case studies. They are able to articulate and orientate themselves around the language of economics and politics in a way that in general the lay public possibly are not very experienced or familiar with; as often demonstrated in the unstructured responses polling companies attempt to corral into their own limited vehicles - unsuccessfully. This I think makes it much sharper in working out what they are actually trying to say and hence assess the level of understanding demonstrated as well the level of ignorance or at worse in the case of Rake, deliberate and artful propaganda.

How much does euphemism replace the simple assertion: "I do not know"? And how does this then lead to "Genteel Conversation" overtaking "constructive critical argument" and hence productive communication? So much for manners being mandatory!

 Inevitable Outcomes: Not even past the Referendum Stage of the argument where the crude FUD of Uncertainty has even been removed leaving the core political argument

Finally the other interesting outcome here is that if so many of our "brightest and best", and successful if you are to measure their economic success as the best measure of success, demonstrate such low understanding of this subject and you can see the instinct to be cautious, conservative, risk-averse, avoid uncertainty, fear and doubt and bet on the devil you do know, which is merely the very first stage of Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution, then truly this Referendum has barely even begun and much of that failure falls on the Leave Campaigns: EU Referendum: no excuse:-

Leave Campaigns: An inevitable lack of meaning in these groups

In the Seventh Seal, the Knight does achieve his purpose, but it's not exactly a happy ending nor an ending with an unpredictable outcome, but an inevitable one. I think much of the good work done for the Referendum is of the same. But it is at least still a meaningful choice. Something most people will be deprived of, this Thursday 23rd June, 2016.

Confabulation: Lessons To Learn, Promises To Keep

"I got the feelin' something ain't right..."

If you look up the above Sunday Politics on the BBC show: Is the EU good for business? you can observe the argument between Digby Jones and Richard Reed. Both are apparently very prestigious and successful businessmen. I like Jones' projected persona when he's on TV a lot, even though Richard Reed comes across as shrill and tremulous in his attempt to appear dominant, I do love Innocent Smoothies drink.


Previously we looked at Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation; and we see that the above is exactly this kind of false argument. Now we look at a glimpse of how far and wide this potentially was distributed:-

BBC: Distribution of the above argument across the entire UK

 What is the function of Confabulation Arguments? In this case the title gives the game away: The Economic Question of the EU Referendum is focused upon. The very thing we already suggested is not needed:-

 Confabulation Arguments are detracting from the Main Point/Central Focus of the Argument

 Now, we have information why the Pro-EU side of the argument would want to conflate EU and EEA from political calculations information:-

Leave could be making the same mistake Labour made at the 2015 General Election

"If the referendum comes down to a popular leader with economic credibility versus an unpopular leader without any economic credibility then there will only be one winner, again."

"The ComRes poll showed “44% British adults say they think the state of the British economy would be better off with Britain remaining a member of the EU, compared to 23% who feel the state of the economy would be better off if Britain left the EU.” This is the type of polling advantage the Tories enjoyed over Labour in the run up to the last election."

Irrespective, the default voting intentions of the electorate are invariably to avoid risk to the Economy. However the article's parting advice is poor interpretation through clear lack of understanding of the argument itself:-

"Leave should make more use of someone like Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, under Margaret Thatcher, to help boost their economic credibility. As a seasoned political campaigner once observed about winning votes and elections, it’s the economy, stupid."

We know Lawson is no use from his ERM days. But also his stupidity and arrogance concerning the IEA Brexit Prize competition, from previous blogs: Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2). Secondly the nature of the argument is not an Economic Question. We can remove the Economic Question via EFTA/EEA. In fact comparing EU/EEA to EFTA/EEA is what Campaign For An Independent Britain have recently done in this article:-

EU/EEA or EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?

Notably the exact reverse effect is produced from arguing for EFTA/EEA instead of EU/EEA:-

Q. What does the opinion poll show for different regions of the UK?

• A. Scotland: EFTA/EEA 68%, EU/EEA 32%
• A. Wales: EFTA/EEA 59%, EU/EEA 41%
• A. London: EFTA/EEA 63%, EU/EEA 37%
• A.UK: EFTA/EEA 71%, EU/EEA 29%

What we see from the Pro-EU argument is the use of "RISK + ECONOMICS". There is a solution to this inherent in sticking to the Political Question: "GROUP + POLITICS":-

 Possible EFTA+ Group via UK removing EU->EFTA + EEA

The rational for EFTA/EEA replacing EU/EEA for the UK needs to be the greater focus of the argument. And this lesson has yet to be learnt, to find more examples of Confabulation arguments:-

(1) FEAR (FUD/Risk-Aversion Exploitation):-

 

Britain Stronger In (BSE): 1. We'll lose FDI if we leave 2. We'll lose "lower airfares if we leave" 3. We won't protect the environment if we leave 3. Ireland will be majorly disrupted if we leave 4. Leaving EU or Europe or Single Market (???) will be "worst of all worlds": How terrible and frightening.

The defeatist, dishonest, manipulative propaganda from Pro-EU campaigners who cannot even campaign on the real merits of Political Union (EU) and must resort to conflation and fear of: Europe, Political Union, Single Market.

(2) UKIP: Control Our Borders & Trade Deal!

 Poor old Steven: Comparing China and the UK's political situations... Confabulation is in full throttle to excuse "Control of Borders!" empty meme and explain away EEA Treaty obligations via reference to China... and - and Trade Deal! Trade Deal!

If you look at the above Steven is trying to self-justify borders with appeals to non-applicable Treaty relationships to the UK's EU present membership status.

(3) Bonfire of Cutting Red-Tape & "We Buy more German Cars!"

 Ruth Lea bangs on about Economic Question and falls for Confabulation over both Red-Tape Bonfires (see Digby Jones also) as well as "German Cars!" economy comparisons. She's detrimental to Leave Arguments

Lessons still need to be learnt. And if there is any good reason to learn them, for Leave Campaigners it's this: Sooner or later if you make arguments which attack promises to them, you have to either PROVE those promises beforehand or afterwards KEEP your promises.

EU Referendum: the third battle

Ask yourself both of those questions before selecting from the tired, old out of date eurosceptic arguments that are the property of the old eursceptic aristocracy who fail to advance the arguments because they believe they OWN the arguments and hence are a part of the problem as much as the Pro-EU campaigners who resort to low quality arguments too.

"Political Union" OR "Free Trade Association"?