Global Trade: Goodbye Uncertainty, Hello Change!

 TTIP like the EU/EZ appears to be grinding to a halt...

In the previous blog, the approach taken was to create a picture that helps explain some of the following:-

• Reformatting from "intractable" Establishment Bubble pseudo-politics
• And thus aiding in explaining the peculiar behaviour of our politicians in both the Leave camps (Vote Leave) and Remain (only the latest eg of this absurd  feedback-looping nonsense today:  Why is the Brexit camp so obsessed with immigration? Because that’s all they have Peter Mandelson.
• Providing an alternative model with kind thanks to Dr. RAE North of EUReferendum.com and Roland Smith of The Adam Smith Institute based on a positive process of Globalization in Trade via harmonization of regulations and standards.

In this blog we're going to see how this works again heavily drawing from the works of Dr. RAE North in particular The Definitive Plan for the UK to Withdraw from the EU: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution) and some of the other "Blogger's Army" sources and The Leave Alliance associations still further:-

• Our politicians themselves are the greatest source of "Uncertainty" to which they continually harangue the public to "vote the right way" once in so many decades when they're forced to deliver a token show of democracy to which they immediately set about corrupting and invoking "heightened uncertainty and FUD". This is the negative picture which I started with in the previous blog's opening illustration.
• This "uncertainty" retards our decision-making processes out of step with the emerging "reality" at Global level which again I illustrated using a graphical "rate of change" visualization. And here is the heart of the EU Referendum question: Tapping that rate of change by voting Leave and removing as a by-product or default a major source of Uncertainty: Both our own (The Prime Actors in The Great Deception) Establishment defeated by the people and secondly the ailing EU which by it's very design the "unstable and incomplete EU Treaties" are a major source of "Political Uncertainty" driving further "Economic Uncertainty" Eg: A fragile EUrozone.
• Some examples will be used to suggest this positive change, is empowering in expanding and explaining how things appear to work and hence work for us and our trading partners.

Again referring to the previous "battleground" inanity we see that "Trade" is heavily considered a part of the Economic Uncertainty used to prevent a Brexit Leave vote in the public and indeed the polling proves this "big idea" is more potent than Migration. Today we see more Legacy News-Media on this subject:-

Brexit would put 250 billion pounds of trade at risk - 'In' campaign

In considering any alternative to European Union membership, Brexit must:-

1. Secure Access to The Single Market
2. Apply for Withdrawal from Political Union via the legal process: Article 50
3. Ensure Trade Continuity
4. Understand the context and conditions for Political Negotiation process to achieve all the above.
5. Only then, does the question of Migration amongst other policies, become a relevant subject at that stage of the process.
6. So firstly Migration should not be 1. and secondly there's bigger fish beyond Migration (5.) in 6., the second most powerful argument for leaving the EU: Prosperity via Global Trade change.

We've already covered 1 and 2 and indeed Trade Continuity has been covered as per The Leave Alliance The UK will not have to renegotiate its trade deals and various other bloggers.

We that for both sides of the argument: Trade is now conducted in multifarious ways and the EU is by far not the only actor in this activity and as such the UK could take even greater actions outside the EU to boost Global Trade.

Looking again at the above, and in connection to the latest developments on the leaking of TTIP documents, then comparing to the plethora of different channels by which trade relationships are formed:-

Trade Argument 1:

The globalisation of regulation should be at the heart of the Leave campaign

"When dealing with international trade, it is said, it is much better for businesses to deal with one set of regulations that the 28 of each of the Members States of the EU.

There lies much of the justification for participation in the EU's Single Market but it is also one of the strongest arguments for ditching the EU and moving on. If, after all, it is better to replace 28 sets of regulations with one, it has to even better for the 162 members of the WTO to get together and replace all their regulations with one set."

However if we consider as above the "network effect" of a larger set of trading nodes, then the same logic applies, why not be part of a global standard for Trade?
FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 10.6 International Regulatory Cooperation (IRC)

"In particular, it notes that, for large or more advanced economies (or regional blocs), harmonisation might prove difficult as both parties have usually already developed a complex set of advanced standards and regulations. When large trading partners seek a reduction in their bilateral regulatory barriers to trade, it thus concludes, mutual recognition of existing standards may be an easier and better way forward. However, whenever possible, rather than developing competing and often incompatible regional standards, using global standards is the best option."  

Trade Argument 2:

Arguing for membership of the EU as a large bloc leads to stronger negotiating clout than lead to a poor deal with a stronger negotiating partners such as China or the USA.
Well hot off the presses, just in: We're seeing that there's a lot about TTIP that's negative and driven by "power play" and indeed this itself is increasingly grinding the whole process to a halt:-
 EU Referendum: the TTIP leaks

"We've not written a great deal on TTIP on the blog (although it is covered comprehensively in Flexcit) for one very good reason. I've never believed is will happen. Even if it is finally agreed (which I doubt), I would expect Congress to refuse to ratify it.

Now, it appears, it may not get even that far. The massive leak of hitherto restricted documents by Greenpeace Netherland is being widely reported – not least be the BBC as spelling the death-knell for any agreement.  
We've dipped into some of the documents to take a look, and it does seem that there are some quite substantial differences, even after nearly three years of negotiations, with the starting gun actually being fired in November 2011."

In fact there's a whole load of different ways to formulate trade as per the above diagram also from FLEXCIT above comparing the approach of the US-EU talks on the objective of TTIP:

1. Remove Trade Barriers
2. Standardize Regulations (from the infograph summary)

Concerning the Trade Barriers there's numerous methods:-

• Integration/Harmonization through Supranational Institutions (EU); perhaps on some areas Climate Change this may or may not be fruitful as a larger bloc? But it is one of the typologies described by the OECD, there's many more:-
• Treaties/Conventions
• Inter-National Cooperation Agreements
• Joint Standard Setting via Inter-governmental bodies
• Adoption and Recognition of International Standard Bodies standards
• Trade Agreements with regulatory conditions (RTA's, FTA's)
• Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA's)
• Unilateral Convergence

etc! In many sectors different approaches and/or what is termed "Unbundling" When it comes to trade, the EU isn't that good at it as per Pete North.

Here we see that there are negatives with EU Membership as Pete describes. Another example detailed in FLEXIT and again by Pete, is concerning the IMO and the EU: And they call this "cooperation":-

"This barely requires additional commentary, save to say that here is your irrefutable proof that detailed regulation (hard law) is made by global entities (and that is the trend throughout) - and that the EU removes our vote and overrides our veto in instances that are critical to our economic interests. It also sabotages the timetables to prevent any challenge to barely legitimate assumption of competence. It should also be noted that it is our own civil service report saying this."

And back to FLEXCIT and how this fits in with the UK:-

"The  UK  government  is  fully  aware  of  the  extent  of  IRC  and  has  its development agency, DfID, describe it as "the range of institutional and procedural  frameworks  within  which  national  governments,  sub-national governments, and the wider public can work together to build more integrated systems for rule making and implementation, subject to the constraints of democratic values such as accountability, openness, and sovereignty"

And here we have a powerful argument for Brexit at the core of this globalization argument which as per: The globalisation of regulation should be at the heart of the Leave campaign

Trade Facilitation – a couple of definitions 

• “simplification, standardization, and harmonization of procedures & processes and associated information flows to move goods through the supply chain in a transparent and predictable manner”

• “identifying and addressing bottlenecks that are imposed by weaknesses in trade related logistics and regulatory regimes and that prevent the timely, cost effective movement of goods.”

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF TRADE FACILITATION REFORM

itself globalization and the rate of change and influence of prosperity at global level as per Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com:-
EU Referendum: why is Vote Leave trying to lose?

"The point here is a simple one. We rely for our prosperity on international trade, yet the improvements in global trade have stalled. Despite the technical advances in containerisation and shipping, and the expansion of air freight, the huge benefits from reducing tariffs through GATT and WTO have been wiped out by the growing scourge of non-tariff barriers.

Thus, while pre-GATT tariffs were estimated at about 22 percent, recently the Atlantic Council reported the cost of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to the US automotive trade was 25.5 percent.

For sure, a single, global figure for NTBs is almost impossible to compute and there is no agreed methodology for calculating such a figure. Furthermore, a single value is probably not relevant as there are huge regional and sectoral differences. 

The range varies considerably, from a few percent to as high as 45 percent, growing to 73 percent in some sectors. The World Bank estimates NTB costs in Africa average 40 percent. Nevertheless, what is known as the "ad valorem tariff equivalent" (AVE) - the average value - for NTBs is variously estimated at around 20 percent. It has wiped out all the gains from tariff reductions.

Enter the Bali trade facilitation agreement under the aegis of the WTO in December 2013. As we reported at the time, and has been remarked upon since, the impact could be huge. When fully implemented, it was said that it could increase global GDP by almost $1 trillion.

That is probably an under-estimate. The World Bank offers even higher figures. If all countries reduced supply chain barriers halfway to global best practice, global GDP could increase by 4.7 percent or $2.6 trillion, potentially worth about $60 billion a year to the UK, far outstripping the illusory value of any savings from leaving the EU

Furthermore, world trade overall would increase by 14.5 percent, or $1.6 trillion, this figure itself far outweighing the benefits from the elimination of all import tariffs.

In terms of detail, we have seen reports that agreement on a global tyre specification for passenger vehicles could save $40 billion a year. An ostensibly simple thing like standardising nomenclature for existing pharmaceutical products could save $20 billion. Adopting electronic documentation for the air cargo industry could yield $12 billion in annual savings, and prevent 70-80 percent of paperwork-related delays.

These savings, though, will not happen spontaneously. Nor will they happen without a great deal of work – and leadership. And it is there, in that latter category, that the EU is not delivering."

I think this is a positive of the UK leaving the EU and using the UK's very capable and competent array of strengths to be a force for positive change at global level.

FURTHER READING:-

 Britain's Global Leadership

The Market Solution: Stage Five - Trading with the rest of the world

Britain, Supranationalism & Globalization

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

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

 EU Parliament percentage of MEP's representing each national member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here's the problem with this system:-

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

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

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

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

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

An alternative model:-

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

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

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

ASEAN and the European Union: Lessons in Integration


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

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

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

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

2. Institutions (and mechanisms) do not always work

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

3. Regional disparities can hamper integration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

The Sceptic Isle has a full summary here:-

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

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

When To Attend/Hold Meetings

Britain in a Global World: Rejecting renegotiation, leaving the EU

So far I've attended a few political meetings, from The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) as per How do you become a "eurosceptic"? ,  Global Britain, and the The Bruges Group (as above). It's interesting to note they're all cross-party or non-affiliated (Global Britain) as well as focused on the full picture of UK/Britain in reference to the EU and to the World. As a voter it's a lot more satisfying proposition to be involved and interested in. The "biff-bam" personality politics of party-politics in Westminster as reported ad naseam, by The Legacy Media isn't productive or interesting in my opinion. Evidently it does serve a function, a high-class version of the Celebrity Stories which reminds me of studies done on Monkeys: Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques :-

Individuals value information that improves decision making. When social interactions complicate the decision process, acquiring information about others should be particularly valuable. In primate societies, kinship, dominance, and reproductive status regulate social interactions and should therefore systematically influence the value of social information, but this has never been demonstrated. Here, we show that monkeys differentially value the opportunity to acquire visual information about particular classes of social images.

I've come to the conclusion that the General Elections in the UK are, for a general voter, a complete waste of time but also emotional energy and attention. Voting for squabbling parties that soon forget their promises before an election doesn't encourage much future trust in the system of politics used. So instead of voting for something I don't believe in (thus having to endure some form of cognitive dissonance or Catch-22 dilemma?) 

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules. An example includes: "To apply for this job, you would have to be insane; but if you are insane, you are unacceptable for the job."

Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.

The logical extraordinary alternative is to donate a small amount of money directly to a small and specific political cause I do believe in, interact with, contribute actively with and learn from others in such a group; because I've taken some time to try to understand it and think there's a chance it will be a productive function; a positive feedback-loop on decision-making: My own, the groups and hopefully connecting wider and wider until eventually at the national governance level; an example of which is provided by Christopher Booker: Our 'Snatch’ campaign is still saving soldiers’ lives:-

 Catch-22: Do Something Different!

It seems like a more honest and direct way of "voting" to me; particularly if you consider that "half our government is in Brussels as well as Westminster", it's diluted democracy even more as per Sir James Goldsmith Euro Moments: Goldsmith on setting up Referendum Party. Who knows perhaps cross-party groups that promote not voting in the General Elections is a good way to arm-wrestle our government into democratic reforms such as The Harrogate Agenda?

I was fortunate in the CIB meeting, because it was very high quality information and presentation, the size of the group was about right no more than 30 (high-end of classroom size to note); the people there were in general "on the same wavelength" with some of the basics to be presented, discussed and developed, there was diversity in the groups broken down into workshops again changing the dynamic and of course the extra-ordinary material or work being presented by Dr. RAE North (see EUReferendum.com blogroll), FLEXCIT: The Definitive EU Exit Plan For Britain:-

 Flexcit: The highest quality understanding is online for people to use and debate with...

So there are some meetings despite the above being freely available which very much are worth attending. However this raises possibly a critical question to consider upon which the fabric of success or failure is going to be woven into everyone's effort:-

What is the value of meetings for Brexiteers and how can they be of real value to those who attend them and what shape do they currently take?

 No words: The context & body-language tells the story

I also attended a Global Britain meeting, a while ago and although the pedigree of speakers and attendees was extremely high,with almost all "The Usual Suspects", it felt like a lot of "treading water" was being done; a lot of low quality communication exchanges between people: A genteel peace being observed in the room as opposed to exploring and structuring the debate more logically. There was nothing there that anyone serious and committed (in conviction, ideals or finance even) could not have already covered in their own time or even previously up to that point in time with some 3/4 years until a possible referendum out of over 40 years to get to this "home-straight" point in time. From that perspective it was for me, very bizarre ie not very efficient. Why?

Last night I attended The Bruges Group meeting, for two preceding reasons: Robert Oulds , The Bruges Group director is in my opinion from his speeches and his book as per Literature And Science : Everything you wanted to know about the EU - But were afraid to ask very informative (facts for memory recall), structured and referenced, well written and organized around "a guiding principle", above all. Secondly, one of the speakers was Owen Paterson, who again has been raised before. For example:-

Owen Paterson ("in beautiful Shropshire"): The EU is doing the leaving (subject) of the UK (object) = New Relationship

I spoke briefly to Robert Oulds, while in the process of acquiring some extra materials for future use (another reason to attend the meeting), and complimented him on a particular passage in his book. The significance, or qualifier of quality of the above two, to single out, is that due to starting with "a guiding principle" (whatever that may be!!), it follows that their thinking and organization of thoughts is invariably conducive to producing the most essential component of progression between arguments: A Concept Shift. This does not have to be as "disruptive (positively)" as a Paradigm Shift but can be in the most simple details or larger general topic realignments/reconnections between different sub-topics within a subject (tbc in future blog post).

 "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM"

~ Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

 Eg of "a guiding principle": Meta-organization forms content coherence

I took some extensive notes, partly because I was always taught "active learning/listening" is a more productive use of your time but also because I generally have a constitution that requires me to fidget actively to avoid feeling sleepy! Overall I did not learn anything new in this meeting, there were some useful "concept shifts" however from hearing how other people think about things so it definitely useful attending. However the other area that was useful was hearing the type of questions posed and here the flaws were evident. Many of the questions were random. What I mean is that a lot of the people present did not have a "a guiding principle" so many of the questions were of the type: "Basic FAQ", basic preliminary grounding for REAL DISCUSSION. If you're familiar with different forums online, they always encourage new posters (aka noobs/newbies) to read the FAQ because such questions are diverting from productive discussion, evidently. And yet these meetings (Global Britain and Bruges a bit less so fail to apply such conventions in personal groupings? Examples if I refer to my notes were:-

• FUD & Status Quo Effect of Referendums
• Role of The Media eg BBC bias
• Cost of EU Membership
• Priority: Economics of Politics?
• Difference between T. of Rome: Freedom of Movement of Labour and T. of Lisbon: Freedom of Movement of People

Etc. There were equally some good questions and the best of the night was concerning:-

• The role of David Cameron and the question of Trust in what he delivers?

The above question refers to EUReferendum.com (quelle surprise!) of whom the questioner said to me later they are a regular reader, there. It may seem I'm being biased or appear to be attempting a superior tone. But when you've seen an example of the idea of "a guiding principle" then you see it's absence, you really really notice it! We can look at different group contexts:-

• Self-Study, online research to establish the basics for oneself and perhaps more depending on time and inclination.
• Conversation between a few well-acquainted participants who are able to match each other's mental models of understanding more rapidly to then use as a basis for arguing from. Rapid increase in understanding for individuals possible here eg "mentoring".
• Small Group for specific discussion; useful for introducing new ideas to an established idea: Creative, challenging & constructive criticism to refine ideas and test them.
• Classroom Size where differences can be discussed productively atst as progression: Increasing group aggregate understanding is usually the intended result of such group size or depending on the people: Between up and below.
• Large Group/Lecture Size: Generally more 1/Few-Many relationship. The message has to be generalized for a larger variability of understanding and needs.
• Crowd Gathering: Primarily slogans, working the crowd, chanting, singing, much more focus on "group affirmation" what the EU keeps on calling "Solidarity" ie the overhead for "group cohesion" is very high and hence meaningful communication is overwhelmingly reduced.

I have some interesting notes from The Bruges Group meeting, but I can't help think the above consideration is a higher priority to establish. And this comes back to what Dr. RAE North has been saying time and time and time again:-

Chimpanzee Politics!

EU Referendum: biding our time:-

"When it comes to running the campaign, one of our strongest suits is that we are the only group to have adopted Flexcit, and thus are the only group promoting a comprehensible and credible exit plan."

EU Referendum: agreement on a plan:- 

"But the paper ignores Flexcit, as do most Europhile organs, inventing any number of excuses for doing so, when challenged. But they all amount to the same thing. They dare not acknowledge it because it so comprehensively demolishes their superficial and facile arguments."

Honestly I would be almost persuaded to express some form of demonstrative "cri de coeur!" of unfairness, except there's no reason to when if you think about the behaviour of The Legacy News Media, of our own Government in Westminster and even of some deceptive or self-deceived "eurosceptics" that their collective behaviour is something you'd expect to be reported by the primatologist Frans De Waal, in Chimpanzee Politics:-

"As we watch the chimpanzees of Arnhem behave in ways we recognize from Machiavelli (and from the nightly news), de Waal reminds us again that the roots of politics are older than humanity."

As referred to, The Bruges Group meeting had some useful contributions, group affirmation itself is useful, not least for donations to the group itself or the chance to hear the people "in the trenches in politics" giving their views live to a room aka these days as "Face Time" and meeting some other people and learning what their point of view is. It was useful to provide elements of the above "group compositions" as above too. But the limitations and contradictions of not having an Exit Plan in contention with maintaining "group integration/disintegration" and the ambiguity this casts everything else under this shadow resulted in for example contradictions, repetitions, lack of deduction, circular reasoning etc etc, in my opinion, too much of that "treading water" sensation.

 FLEXCIT: A fully integrated, researched argument: A Concept Shift and A Guiding Princple: All-in-One = a fully Scalable National Argument usable for different group sizes

There's a distinct lack of understanding the difference between: "A Guiding Principle" (Integration) and "Diversity of Details" (Differentiation). This is in my opinion the basis for holding meetings for different group sizes, their quality and hence productive "scaling up of arguments" over time to more and more people. Of course different people will be receptive at different group sizes and hence type of message. But you have to have the actual "concept shift" itself first before "scaling up the argument to different group sizes" instead of "scaling down of arguments" to reach more people, aka "Dumbing Down" That's back on The Road To The European Union. And surely this relies on "a guiding principle" already agreed upon?