Politics For The People: Decay & Creation.

Brexit & EU Politics in the UK: A "Philip K. Dickian" sub-creation for voter consumption?

One of the major characteristics of our politics is the surreal and unreal "bubble effect" of the major arguments promoted between different groups and parties and support bases. This perogative to win the majority becomes the result as opposed to the arguments which hold the highest value to the most people.

This effect is old, described by Juvenal in Ancient Rome:-

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative". Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.

Change "Bread & Circuses" with "Economy/Consuming & TV/Distraction", today. Those in positions of leadership find ever more convoluted ways with which to distract and cajole citizens just long enough for their apparent support. To attempt to reverse the above trend, they have completely given up on as a sub-optimal strategy for holding onto power. In a previous comment elsewhere I pointed out the origin of the word "mafioso", a combination of arabic-italian which meant:

“acting as a protector against the arrogance of the powerful,”

Here is an example of a group using power to protect before devolving into a group who uses power for it's own profit, and the modern inheritance of that group today in Italy is "parasitic" on society in that failing nation collection of states. The British state nor the EU governance has not reached that extreme, but at least with respect to the EU, if one has read The Great Deception we see it as an organization that has fossilized in it's role of "protector" in an increasingly changing world. Instead as per Dr. RAE North (2014) at EUReferendum.com:-

Global governance: EU getting too big for its boots

Incidentally, just as write the above to the very seconds ticking away, listening to The Andrew Marr Show (he's actually not on the show today), the talk how the deal will be shaped by such as "leave voters' will never accept paying a single penny" on exiting deals or such like. THIS, dear readers is the image at the beginning of this blog, it is in the land of "alternate reality" or "sub-creation" of the pen and tongue not the "Global Reality" of the previous blog post. Again the very first and very last blog posts here (or penultimate now) pointed out this ruling principle: A change in how we think about things is the beginning from which we can make progress in politics and from which failing to do so, we end up with this Philip K. Dickian "red, white and blue Brexit" bollocks/bullshit shovelled in ever higher frequency distracting and confusing voters "on the hour every hour". It's a waste of energy, a waste of attention and hence a cost on useful work done by people in progressing in dealing with real problems successfully.

Meanwhile, coming back to the EU's new horizons and role as part of "Global Governance" as per the above link, let's consider this abstracted into a general form also, again as per Dr. RAE North (2015) at EUReferendum.com:

EU Referendum: the "better deal" fallacy

"This, however, is not the full extent of it. An equally powerful aid to understanding is Philip Selznick's theory of bureaucracy, in which he developed (if not actually coined) the principle of "self-maintenance" as a determinant of institutional behaviour. 

Distilled to its very essence, "self-maintenance" dictates that, wherever the founding principles of an organisation might be, its structure is shaped by the characteristic and commitments of participants and influences from the external environment. From this, over time, it develops means of self-defence. 

This self-defence develops into a series of activities which Selznick defines as self-maintenance, and his particular thesis is that these activities eventually become the superior goal. In effect, as with biological entities, the need to ensure its own survival emerges as the most powerful of driving forces - taking precedence over all else." 

Just as I write this we have Nick Robinson rambling on about "accepting Freedom of Movement" pinning down Diane Abbot as if he's sniffed out a stinking great "controversy" of Labour. Again, I'll repeat this is "sub-creation" as if the Nazis won the World War II and are ruling half of North America along with the Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun, taken from Dick's The Man In The High Castle for imagery of this idea of sub-creation (a word technically defined in use of fantasy writing by J.R.R. Tolkien). If you want an example, today, of this idea, again today's blog by Dr. RAE North recounts Christopher Booker's Sunday Telegraph column at EUReferendum.com provides an immediate illustration with reference to historic trend of such "mistakes" by "the great and good" (aka argument Appeal To Authority and the mass delusion that such strongly fault-ridden decision-making process entails): Brexit: eleven judges getting it wrong.

Now if we come back to Juvenal's insights about the dangers to Civic Society (aka the decay of the relationship between state and society) involving the population of citizens:

(1) "Consumption > Production" + "↑Distraction"

With the latter masquerading this growing imbalance in societies functioning (commentators over at EUReferendum.com often referred without realizing it, to this principle at the heart of the rise and fall of civilizations) and proactively encouraged and induced by the leadership who hold onto centralized power (their interests become parasitic to the host's interests: Instead of serving, subjugating) (note: the examples referenced above to support this assertion). If you take (1) then the picture created for Brexit/EU Politics is a bit like the title picture: The Word Cloud (actually in a cloud, rather neatly!) is a huge mess of mangled meanings creating a world that looks very different and behaves very differently. A huge distraction in effect from progressing arguments and resolving problems productively.

Is such distraction necessary, however? As said, if the "foundations" of society are not in place, or are eroded over time then this seems to dictate the resulting behaviour of our politicians in commandeering the EU Referendum Campaign to such dire levels of output - almost as if this was intentional - as we might rehearse saying for the umpteemth time again: "With the EU/Brexit nothing is as it seems". Mentioning the EU above, we also mentioned the UK system of governance and that needs looking at next. In a previous comment, I made two observations:-

1. I've never seen any reason to communicate with MP's: All I see is greedy social-manipulators working towards a group message control agenda.
2. As for the UK, again there's predominant "democracy is the least worst option" type of conventional resignation/wisdom"  assumed by 'everyone' of no more thinking required; whereas if you look at the contradiction of this made by The Harrogate Agenda (hence it's inclusion in FLEXCIT: Stage 6)

Currently, I'm listening the journalists contribution to the above consideration and it's all "being slapped down!" and two politicians bitching with each other in ritualized but empty rhetoric of "doing politics for the people" about "immigrashion" (note: Dick's writing was very effective at warping language with just the right nuance of alternate meaning in his alternate worlds!). To illustrate this danger of growing volume of words with lowering meaning:-

The Laughing Cavalier at The Wallace Collection

The above, I took on a recent visit to The Wallace Collection, for as with "Representative Democracy" which is mostly neither representative nor democratic, the The Laughing Cavlier is neither laughing nor is he a Cavalier, either!

Again we come full circle: The current Brexit news is ephemeral, it's probably indeed a smal cog within the great machinery of modern politics, that few are aware of an even fewer understand (if any?). To conceptualize it as a sub-creation to entertain and passify, as Juvenal says, a "palliative" that takes away the keeness of pain experienced without healing the decay that has crept into the "body politic". That negative feedback painful as it may be must be listened to however. So the surface level of events are entirely forgettable, the Supreme Court will likely finish it's circus act before long and be long forgotten in time too. On the other hand, lurking and latent within every person is an opportunity to rectify the poltical decay with creation towards a more healthy and productive politics where things are as they appear and words mean what they do more so too. If one looks at Brexit: It changes nothing, the political machinery will creak along (you could call the current phase an "inverse square law" relationship of reaction management by the politicians):-

(2) Intensity (of reaction) ∝ 1/Distance²

What the f! does that mean? It means several things which were already recorded in FLEXCIT but because of the failure of our political productivity, the proactive decay of politics by politicians and journalists (and others "in power") and the seemingly eternal distraction of people by the way in which society is structured (short-hand see Juvenal), these are:-

• Brexit as an event has been dominated by EGO not QED.
• Hence emotional reaction takes precedence over rational reception/acceptance.
• Due to the severity of the intensity both to the UK and the EU, it must be attenuated as a result (see distance relation above).
• As per FLEXCIT's prediction it's inevitable that it will amount to a transitional or interim phase of withdrawal.
• This will last years to decades.

If anyone reading has gotten this far, the above ideas about "fallacy of a 'better deal' " are seen to be what they really are: A mass delusion as part of a complex movement and management of power.

At the heart of this is the fear invoked by holding power disproportionately over others and the reactions and negative potential built up over time that this as we looked at at the beginning invariably leads to. However, Brexit itself may change nothing but: For people, some of these layers are being stripped away from central authority, and it's a question of how productively active and energized people choose to be at this juncture in time, place and people, that will lead to future results and future forms of our politics - an opportunity presents it's possible (not necessarily probable) success, with positive not negative potential:-

The Harrogate Agenda

"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value. To help us acquire power, we are adopting the original strategy of the Chartists. Like them, we felt it was vital to frame a very limited number of achievable demands – six in number. These are listed below."

Permissible Predictions: President Cameron Agrees To EUROZONE Treaty 2017

COMPRESSION TIME: Emotional hysteria will peak towards the EU Referendum vote then (AT)TENSION will return to the EUROZONE and the time pressure it is under.

There's some pure gold in the legacy-news media pulling out the "big-guns" in manipulating voters according to preferred criteria on how to vote Remain; in particular: Nobel prize-winning economists warn of long-term damage after Brexit and Reddit once again provides a convenient summary of tailored messages:-

 Compression exerted on voters not according to THEIR criteria but according to other criteria and indeed so many "buy it".

With regard to the economic uncetainty, there's inevitable flux as a mandate from people via democracy is a power signal with concentric waves of influence rippling out and affecting myriads of subjective realities (stock markets and currencies ( eg blog: Putting Theories To The Test: The EU As Symbol of "Good"?
confidence or uncertainty?) and the odd objective ones too. However all along the people are being deceived: To vote Remain is I predict to vote for Cameron as PM and President of the EU in 2017 where upon the UK will "Lead" the soft outer ring and pave the way for the EUROZONE Treaty post-2020 all according to schedule of the political classes, having managed the people out of the way and they will feel back in control once again. Massaging appearances back into their preferred form, again.

The Price Of "Pure Gold": FUD & Nobel Prize-Winning "Economic Uncertainty"

It will be interesting to see the results of the Referendum and the data on who voted. Then there will be calculations to infer WHY people voted the way they did. I infer however, that those who vote REMAIN will tend to be women and tend to be well-educated and tend towards following more obediently and understand things with respect to what sounds most sensible - namely the swing voters will I think still vote for REMAIN after all the ammunition that VOTE LEAVE have provided with David Cameron to then lean on the above economists and the like.

 Habit-Forming: Independent Thinking or Arranged Learning? What does teacher say?

In fact a vote to Leave won't change much apart from sending out those signals and hence flux and this is because:-

Safe harbour: why the Norway option could take the risk out of Brexit

Anthony Scolefield of Futurus makes one of the most sensible observations regarding the Leave Vote concerning how it will be an exercise in "Political Permissibility" as the UK is already a full EEA member, the perogative of removing that would fall on the EU's decision-making shoulders and that is something it cannot and won't do for practical reasons apart from political permissibility reasons also.

"Inside the corridors of pro-remain Whitehall, and among many of the most informed Brexit advocates, there is a belief that the UK could find a much safer way to pull out of the EU. Proponents of a so-called “Flexcit” suggest that the UK might use a safe harbour that already exists to remove much of the risk from an EU divorce.

Backing out of the EU after a vote to leave, and re-entering the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) group of countries could pave a way out while doing minimal damage."

 And getting to the heart of the matter concerning "Permissibility":-

"The larger risk to the Flexcit plan comes in the form of potential international opposition. Britain’s re-entry into EFTA would require the unanimous approval of its existing members. Having secured that blessing, the UK would then need all 27 of the EU’s remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA.
Smith concedes that France could put up a fight. “There are a number of people in the French political establishment, who would try to dig in and just not do anything,” he says, admitting that Paris could attempt to block a deal outright.
However, he believes that the pressure applied by other European countries, including fellow trading nations such as Germany, would be enough to get EEA entry on the table for the UK.
This may require a concession to France, “a pound of flesh”, Smith suggests, perhaps in the way of higher payments to the EU than other EFTA countries face."

Indeed this ties in with the thoughts of Anthony Scolefield of Futurus on "Permissibility":-

However underneath this particular and seemingly final Russian doll is in fact the final and last "one": The Voter, as Dr. RAE North explores and clarifies:-

"The purpose of Flexcit is to give reassurance to undecided voters, by showing that leaving the EU can be a safe, measured process. It need not have any economic fall-out.

As such, this exit plan does not seek to instruct government. It does not pretend to be actionable policy. It simply conveys a structured argument that says that, if it so desired, the Government can make leaving the EU relatively painless and ultimately very profitable. There is no "leap in the dark".


And indeed the real problem is communicating this to the voter so that their Selection Choice either for Remain or Leave feels both valid (Referendum) and viable (either choice depends on the voter's conception of the EU Membership vs a realistic alternative):-

"The point here, of course, is that Flexcit, very specifically, is NOT the Norway option. Phase One of our plan gives three choices, of which Norway is only one. There are two fallbacks, each devised to allow for the eventuality that Britain might fail to rejoin Efta – a prerequisite of the Norway option – or that it might be blocked from continued participation in the EEA.

With no reference to the fallbacks, the Telegraph mistakenly asserts that there is a "larger risk to the Flexcit plan", coming in the form of potential international opposition. Britain's re-entry into EFTA. This we are told "would require the unanimous approval of its existing members". And then, having secured that membership, the UK would "need all 27 of the EU's remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA".

Our concern here is that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid our plan being dismissed on these grounds. Failure to join either Efta or the EEA may be a risk to the Norway option, but it is not a problem for Flexcit. If the worst happens, we simply move on to one of the fallbacks – their availability being an absolutely integral part of the plan.

Dwelling on the issue of "entering the EEA", it should be said that the argument has progressed, and in leaps and bounds. Here, the specific point is that the UK is already in the EEA. Thus, it is not a question of "entering the EEA" but of whether we can continue as part of it, having transitioned from the EU to Efta. This issue is discussed at length in Flexcit."

Anthony Scolefield is one of the few to argue in a mature and responsible way about the Permissibility question gifted to UK Voters in this EU Referendum. If someone gives you two options but does not give you permission concerning one of them due to other 3rd parties who cannot be relied upon... you have to ask: What sort of choice is that, exactly? Secondly, if all that is holding up Europe is some words on a piece of paper and not the common goodwill of all the current members and future members, just what signal does that send out about how people are governed?

At the bottom of this even below the level of the voter, is the fear of those in charge who made illegitimate decisions in the past that are now leading them to attempt to control and manage the voters consequentially and avoid those voters deciding that the EU or the EUROZONE is really not what they ever wanted (see the objective results) because they fear the "chain reaction" that will trigger on a fragile and failing system of their own doing. And the reasoning:-

1. Real EU Reform Concessions were never ever on the cards: "I suspect that if Europe had been more willing to agree genuine reform when the Prime Minister went to Brussels for his renegotiation, the polls would be looking far better for Remain than they do today."
2. A Fair Referendum was never ever on the cards either: Managing to educate voters and lead to a Leave verdict is not how the politicians conduct their plans if they can help it!!
3. The EUROZONE has to be secured not just in practice but also in the event of uncertainty and fragility and the subjective reality that it is so prey to; before any real conviction will be seen towards Brexit and communicated as such.
4. With President Cameron leading the way of the narrowly voted Remain UK in 2017...
5. Indeed this whole Referendum as per the previous blog Referendum Result 2016: A Systemic Failure of Governance of People has been an enormous indictment against the governance of the UK by it's criminally deceptive and self-serving politicians.

So, we will have a serial liar in David Cameron in 2017 giving permission to the EUROZONE Treaty, I expect as a consequence of a Remain vote.

Whatever happened to people giving their politicians their permission? I think this Referendum will confirm this inversion.