A Slip Of The Tongue I noticed on BBC's Newsnight, a number of times, comes up during the subject of "Europe". People can't help slipping into:-
"When I Go To Europe..." or "On the Continent."
Both Pro-EU and Pro-Brexit speakers make these slips of the tongue before being corrected by David Dimblebee: "We are in Europe." And there's nothing exceptional about this common mental model of our place in the world: Britain is a geographical island in the North Atlantic, off the coast of "mainland Europe".
Especially vigorously so from Caroline Flint MP (Labour), which was considered in a scorecard style of communication previously:-
One of the core concepts I've promulgated from the very start of this blog is "quality of argument" in particular arguing the central point where it can be established. Another approach is engaging the arguments of the "other side" and a strong way of showing this engagement is to "Speak Their Language" as well as offer the suggestion of alternative conceptual models of understanding.
A cursory inspection of the above scorecards suggests "tally the ticks vs crosses": EFTA/EEA aka Norway Option:-
Global Council: 6 v 4
British Influence: 5 v 3
Which is higher than all the other options, assuming equal weighting. So questioning the validity of those x's is perhaps a rational next check on which Brexit to choose:-
Influence over EU Regulations retained
Able to adopt own approach to regulation
Freedom to pursue trade deals independently (FTAs)
No Contribution to EU budget
Freedom to impose immigration controls
We looked at a small sample of VIP politicians in The Columbo Method: Norway previously. But the Legacy News-Media:-
EFTA/EEA Influence on Regulations
In general this can be boiled down to at the most forceful negatives:-
100% of the EU Rules with 0% say in how they are made
All the EU Rules with No Say in how they are made
Quoting Dr. RAE North who references EFTA official sources on the quantity of rules applied:-
"By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957
acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus
Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the
three-quarters that is claimed."
This is hard evidence. As such in any popular debate there's no opinion: It's factual and quantitatively asserted. Onto the actual regulations: Making and Shaping again this was somewhat covered previously.
1. Norway does not have a seat in the EU Institutions with representation to vote on legislative process. However the UK only has:-
29/352 votes 8% in the Council of Ministers (requiring q.maj: 252, ~74%)
Of 73 MEPs in EU Parlliament (9.7%) they do not vote as a block to reach 376/751 for a majority
According to Dr. North: x30 more legislation by-passes the above normal legislation process in any case "delegated legislation".
More and more legislation has it's origins at "Global Level" via "international standards bodies"
As for the Acquis Communautaire itself, again as per Dr. RAE North EU law: definitive stupidity and it's origins:-
"A very
substantial amount of that law originates with higher bodies, from UNECE
to Codex and points south. Of the 6,000 or so laws in the Single Market
acquis, potentially 80 percent are of international origin. The rest of the acquis
also has international input, which means that a substantial proportion
of the so-called "EU laws" would remain in force even if we left the
EU."
Indirect means of influence applicable to EFTA/EEA: Veto, contest of "EU acts marked as EEA relevant" by EFTA in various commitees (holding-pens as I conceptualize it), case studies include: Oil & Gas, Postal Services, Iceland disputing Bank Charges and Lichtenstein uses EEA provisions on Migration.
"Alongside Norway and other EFTA/EEA members, Britain resumes its place on global and regional "top-tables", and would be able to argue its own positions."
"When it comes to a vote, if the UK objects to a measure, it can either veto proposed standards or opt out of them. A 27-member EU, once the UK left, would cast as many votes on international councils (see above diagram!), but would have only one veto - giving the UK an exact equivalence with the EU."
"[...] Only if proposals get past this filter, and then have a mutually accepted Single Market relevance, would Britain - as an EEA member - have to consider adopting them. Even then, the States can also refuse to adopt EU law that they consider against their national interests."
Robert Oulds: Chapter 3: A Question Of Influence, p.60
The above also avoids the referal to the ECJ for resolution. Again another side of the coin is EU influence according to it's objectives of Ever Closer Union and increasing members requiring diluting of total percentage per member nation, and her Robert Oulds book helps when we consider that the British Government and in particular MEP's are often Pro-Integration measures and Pro-EU over National Self-Interest, a particular exemplar being the British Commissoner role's oaths to the EU. I would argue that citizens influence is very low input too in the EU limited to EU Elections and rejected in Major New Treaties!
Norway has a half-in, half-out relationship that gives it free trade with Europe but keeps it out of the EU‘s political institutions. Jonathan Lindsell in a Civitas report New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option looks at The Norway Option and EFTA/EEA rules on Trade Policy:-
Again the argument would seem to fall down if the UK joined the EFTA/EEA group this would as per FLEXCIT create the 4th largest trade group in the world which would seem to indicate that any talk of requiring to be in a "large club" apart from being highly contentious as per Lindsell's report highly likely to be a redundant argument!
FLEXCIT: 4.3 The "off-the-shelf" Market Solution ~ Dr. RAE North
What should be most satisfactory about the above status and relationship of the UK is that this is what was offered in 1975 as per the wording of the Referendum specifying "Common Market" membership in the EEC. This has not only the virtue of delivering that which was requested, but also denying the opportunity for further Great Deception by politicians with the stipulation of "ZERO" Political Representation in the EU Political Institutions amounting to 100% TRUST in our Trade dealings with the EU and other equal partners. Dr. North reveals the tortured history of the EU "what could have been..." discussing an alternative vision for the EU + EEA members in FLEXCIT: Background to the EEA, p.76 once again:- "The President's vision, at the time, was a of a European village", in which he saw a house called the "European Community." [...] What is so relevant to the current debate is that, at this point, the Community (now EU) was seen by Delors as one "house" in a village, alongside the EFTA "house", with which decision-making could be shared."
"On the other hand, in 2014, the UK gross contributions
to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent
gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net
contribution was £9.8 bn.
"With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution
(without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223
per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments"
Quoting FLEXCIT for the equivalent cost of Single Market for the UK in the EFTA/EEA arrangement:-
"Budgetary costs attributed to EFTA run to 22,360,000 Swiss Francs (about £16 million), of which 55 percent is borne by Norway. This includes categories defined as EEA related activities, EFTA/EU statistical co-operation and EU/EFTA cooperation programmes. That, strictly, is the cost of Single Market.
"Access which, on a pro-rata basis, would cost the UK less than £200 million per annum."
"Funnily enough, this would be very similar to Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement, the so-called "Safeguard Measures"
which permit EFTA states unilaterally to take "appropriate measures" if
serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral
or regional nature arise and are liable to persist."
In the areas where apparently The Norway Option scores a "cross" it actually does BETTER than the EU! It might be time to create our own Brexit Score-Card?
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 GoldsmithEuro 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).
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:-
"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."
"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?
In Literature and Science, Aldous Huxley considers the differences and uses between science and literature. On the one hand, science which reduces, simplifies and defines things in systems of thought and in the other hand, literature which explores the multitudinous manifestations of subjective experience for each person's own sensitivity and their own shaping of meaning in their world. So far, this blog has taken the latter approach what I've termed as "qualitative inference".
One of the reasons this approach has been taken, is that if we look at for example a newspaper, such as The Evening Standard free paper found in London, and count the general news pages which comprise "stories" that shape our feelings and our emotions compared to "investigations" which define certain limited results with numbers and logic, there's a clear majority of the former to the latter and this is how we apprehend the world everyday as a matter of course.
The picture above is taken from the famous London bookshop Foyles and the European Union Politics section is curiously next to the Slavery section is a joke too good to miss! If you were interested in learning about the European Union, what it is and so on, you might come across this shelf, if you were serious. How would you choose from all these dozens and dozens of dense tombs on the subject? You might randomly pick a sample, find advice online from reviews. Then you break the problem down and work out what it is that is most useful to you to know and to what degree of detail per component.
If you persisted eventually you might come up with a full "map" of the subject (as per The Greatest Political Problem of Our Time) and understand how they all connect to each other to what degree as well as to what depth per subject "node". However practically you are short of time, you have a limited budget and even then if you are a complete neophyte reading the right book simply will be a limited though useful beginning to begin of this "intellectual framework" due to the full complexity of the subject. Incidentally there's only x1 actually useful and accurate book on that entire shelf and I recommend: Robert Ouldes : Everything you wanted to know about the EU - But were afraid to ask
There is a movie out in the cinemas that has just released by the author Andy Weir, called The Martian. I am very excited to watch this movie. However, having been aware of the novel for sometime and not having read it yet, I have a dilemma: Do I watch the movie then read the novel or do I try to read the novel and then watch the movie? This novel is really well written from some of the pages I've read in the bookshop.
What also makes it fascinating is that it's a novel which uses a lot of technical description precisely calculated and related to decision-making: It's quite challenging, not to mention it's set in space on Mars and hence is very "science-heavy" and unfamiliar. The visuals of the film will enable enormously for me to visualize and relate the theoretical calculations to the practical implementations as well as the emotionally-cool-headedness of the titular character, Mark Watney, played in the movie by the excellent actor Matt Damon. Here is a really solid combination of Literature and Science: We can relate the private experience of "The Martian" as well as the objective problems of his extraordinary environment, simultaneously.
Here's a contemporary and topical example of the dynamic between:-
Expectation or Prediction
Results vs Performance
Analysis and interpretation
From The Evening Standard, on the Friday eve before the England Rugby Team played Australia:-
England Rugby World Cup stars past and present today said the team can triumph in their do-or-die clash with Australia with the help of their "amazing" fans.
Johnny Wilkinson, who won the tournament in 2003 with his famous drop goal against the Wallabies, said he was "full of confidence" that England would progress tomorrow. Wilkinson, 36, added: "This weekend is going to be bigger and better. It is going to be a bigger and better England team, a bigger and better atmosphere, and it is going to be a bigger and better result."
His optimism echoed that of Prince Harry, who met the players after a training session at the team base at Pennyhill Park hotel in Surrey yesterday. The royal insisted England could win, saying: "Of course they can! Bring on this Saturday." And current fly-half Owen Farrell pledged that he and the rest of the players would give the fans something to cheer about."
"Something has to change in order to deliver better results,"
Let's look at this, many of the "professionals" were masquerading/mixing" expectation or "wish-fulfilment" "bigging-up both the tournament's appeal and giving the England team a "vote of Confidence" to help them feel upbeat and positive about the match.
Unfortunately the above is a huge issue for when things go wrong, people are full of consternation, disappointment and confusion: "How could this squad that promised so much go out of the World Cup at the pool stages, the first ever?!"
For that the ever-useful assessment of player's performance vs the Australian peformance is considered: Pocock played a blinder; Ford should have been in on instead of Farrell, England missed Vunipola through injury. We made mistakes at bad moments; the referee made some tight calls against us etc etc.
However looking at the actual data and analysis:-
And breaking up "when" in the game and "where" the flow directed to "how" Australia scored their points over England to win the result, a more definite picture of the performance is analysed. It's more concrete and dependable than opinions and suggestions "why". The above is really useful to work out "what" decisions players and team were making that contribute to performance alongside stoicastic factors. Finally "who" was playing compared to selection and opposition.
How does all this relate to the EU and the Referendum?
What's very observable above is the reliance on "inference" and subjective feeling" before the Referendum and only with the benefit of "20/20 Hindsight" can we more narrowly use data to work out how things turned out: Whether or not our decision-making was a good result or a bad result - over time.
Here the narrative is very much like the pre-match "mood music" for England before they were defeated by Australia. There's so little reported on the actual rules of the EU the Treaty Structures as the "arena" in which David Cameron has real choices. Instead we see the as per Aldous Huxley "crystallization" of literary mode of communication inferring nothing of value and aiding deliberate deception. Here "the professionals" as above are all applauding Cameron's chances vs Merkel in the same way as the England team.
Described as a member of Business for Britain, one of Matthew Elliott's business ventures, this woman would have it that the EU was turning out to be a "flawed concept" because it had monetary union without fiscal or political union.
Seemingly a small detail, the EU cannot be regarded as a flawed concept for this reason. The very essence of the single currency was to launch an incomplete construct in the knowledge that the stresses would create political pressures which would drive further integration.
This is the mechanism of engrenage, at the core of the so-called Monnet Method, relying on the doctrine of the beneficial crisis. It is not, as they say, a bug, but a feature. The European Union was designed to act in this way.
Business is being allowed to talk in a professional way just as the England ex-players were doing before the England match.
BUSINESSES did battle over Britain’s potential EU exit yesterday, with a war of words erupting about the repercussions of a Brexit or staying put. Gina Miller, founding partner of SCM capital management, kicked off the exchange by warning that the City faces “disaster” if the UK is forced to renegotiate. She said: “It will take years of negotiations, during which Britain, and the City, will be stuck in a limbo.”
The event at Guildhall was hosted by Business for Britain, the City of London Corporation and Business for New Europe. Miller added: “One of one is weaker than one of 28. It’s a fallacy that we would be stronger on our own.” She also pointed to the skills shortage and said, speaking as a fintech business, Britain is “struggling to provide the skilled workers we need to remain at the centre of the financial world. The coders, the hackers. We rely on a mobile marketplace with Europe, and would be very much impacted by leaving.”
Serial entrepreneur Luke Johnson, of Risk Capital Management, was more upbeat about the effect of a Brexit, stating: “The City will remain great, no matter what.” While Johnson said that with significant negotiations he’d stay in the EU, he pointed to the “countless anti-City measures” – from bonus-caps and short-selling regulations to the Common Agricultural Policy – as things he’d be happy to see left behind. He also pointed to “all the doom-and-gloom scare-mongering when we didn’t join the Euro… and it never happened.”
Tim Skeet, director of the International Capital Markets Association, warned that the French will “eat our croissants and the Germans will steal our sausage” in the event of Brexit. He also lauded the City for having been “pragmatic” in the face of EU regulations. Andrew Lilico from Europe Economics argued if the UK went it alone, the country could attract new trading partners, such as Switzerland, Norway and Denmark, and create a new partnership
What's so fascinating is that both Pro-EU and "eurosceptics" are using the same system of thought of inference and headline arguments that hold this quality and trading them. As it happens I would predict that the "eurosceptics" have the stronger memes and emotions to play, but that the prospect of defeat with such uncertainty then matched with a Cameron arrangement which allows us all to "avoid" such a high-stakes match, will see people vote to stay in the EU.
But this comes back to Will Carling above: "Something has to change." Cameron in the role of Lancaster will likely step-down and we'll have a new coach in the hot seat of England Rugby manager. But like our football team and cricket team that also went out in their respective World Cup pools: Will we learn the mistakes presented from our past results and improve our decision-making performance?
For that we have to leave the News-Media, we have to look at that "wall of books" or find other mediums such as videos to convey information to us on the EU such as:-
By Robert Oulds if the book appears to be too far advanced a step. Whatever choice we as a people need to start making however relies on using not only qualitative inference but "deductive quantification" WHERE we can. It's not always possible, but where it is it will limit the excesses of our leaders as per The Goldfinch and the Gilded Cage
And that applies equally to Pro-EU advocates and to people who aspire to becoming genuine "Brexiteers". It's the simple reason why insisting on the relationship as UKIP under Farage do:-
Immigration > EU > Democracy <= Media, UKIP, Establishment focus
The old "reversi" trick:-
Democracy > EU > Immigration <= FLEXCIT (see side for video)
Can we deduce a more rigorous case for "British Exit" (Brexit) Withdrawal from the EUropean Union Treaties via the above? And will that change our performance and hence improve our results?
I believe it's the first step to success and for the people to leave this decision-making to the £professionals£ will lead to yet more cases of the amusing joke:-
"Britain invents a sport. Teaches others how to play the sport better than themselves. Invites the world around to compete in these sports and ends up losing in all of them."
