Early Purple Orchid - Many Thanks To You All

Early Purple Orchid (photographed today: 6th March, 2017)

This was posted by The Boiling Frog over at EUReferendum.com concerning Dr Helen Szamuely:-

On 24/06/2016: Well I was wrong ....

"Yesterday I was thinking about my first meeting with Alan Sked in 1991 at the house of Eva Taylor, widow of A. J. P. Taylor, our common supervisor and what came out of that. What a long way we have come. I claim some credit."

It was The Boiling Frog blog that led me to EUReferendum.com and the variety of useful influences and help in attempting to further expand the scope and improve the quality of political discussion and debate in the UK concerning this subject. I think I came across the blog sometime in early 2013 or perhaps just before. Pete North Politics Blog: Helen Szamuely:

"Helen was a massively influential part of the early eurosceptic movement long before Ukip became a household name. One of the original Brexiteers. She was a hugely respected thinker on the right and a well known voice in conservative circles."

I had not heard of this lady but it brings to mind the many many people who started this movement far beyond my reckoning(some as far back as the late 1960's in the Campaign for an Independent Britain CIB group) and contributed in the right way to it who are not well known but who need to be thanked for their early and essential actions.

On that note, this blog (finally) ends. I aim to start a new a new website and continue what others started:-

John Ashworth has produced another excellent Fisheries booklet... "Seizing The Moment: The Opportunities For UK Fisheries After Brexit" while Scribblings From Seaham has started another website for Real Democracy: Direct Democracy 4 UK "Moving Forward – A Public Consultation." and Lost Leonardo has murmings of starting blogging again...

For current Brexit Research from Dr. RAE North, don't forget to keep checking and reading (and re-reading) The Brexit Monographs at EUReferendum.com as well as the daily blogging.

Reports From Rebuilding: The Harrogate Agenda (THA)

The Harrogate Agenda: "Continuing the work..."

Page 1 of The Harrogate Agenda: "Demands for governance by the people for the people":-

"The original aim of the Chartists was to reform the political system to make it more democratic. And, although five of their six demands were eventually conceded, their work was not done. The system, although improved, is still very far from democratic. Thus we seek to continue their work, with another six demands, which we intend to be the focus of a new political movement."

On 1st October, 2016, I attended a meeting for The Harrogate Agenda. To choose one single subject to define the heart of the meeting: Power. There was some very deliberate and defined discussion at one point in the meeting concerning Demand 4: The Peoples Consent with respect to the mechanics of power. On the one side you have The Peoples Consent requirement to legislation proposed by Parliament and on the other hand you have Parliament's Consent to legislation proposed by people, which sparked a number of questions: Who then holds true power if the "right of proposal" is curtailed"? Or how is power truly restrained? There's more on this (see the website link above) on Page 14-.

This example is at the heart of the movement mentioned here and in the above passage all within the ambit of Power:-

• Reform
• More democratic
• Continue their work
• Six Demands
• new political movement

It seems to me that The Chartists helped build some of the foundations of democracy, but the work is incomplete. And to complete this work or continue it, I think what is required is "people with skills" in political processes. The ability to develop these skills and educate more people with these skills, is I think the essence of real power in politics.

Much is made today, for example today's Daily Politics, just the latest example of types of power:-

• Money (eg funding sources)
• Vote Count (eg MPs per party) - this one mentioned
• Communication (eg data mining)
• Prestige (eg social hierarchies)

The Harrogate Agenda - order from June Press

It's tempting to explore so much more and to elaborate on the ideas behind these basic ideas on power so much more, too. But to keep this report succinct: If we stop and consider that maybe our present politics really does revolve around such accepted notions of power as summarized above, then a consideration of where we are at with respect to political change as it exists today, may be in order:-

In times of transition or change, new problems arise. Not only are these new problems to solve, but old ways of viewing problems may themselves become problems too?

When you translate the above "viewing" into how the politicians "view" peoples current problems you end up with the type of "party speeches" that have been aired in the past few days, the usual fodder dolled out year on year:-

• 'Building a bigger, better, fairer more inclusive society'
• 'Those at the bottom neglected will be included again'
• 'We will regain control of immigration, housing, economy and...'

I don't even know, the monotone sound-bites filtered through the way politics is currently viewed according to the context of who has power and who is perceived to hold power. Apparently to then resolve/solve problems through that power that's filtered through the above channels.

Nowhere was this more in evidence than the Referendum on the EU. My assertion is this: The Leave Alliance affliation provided all the tools and much of the education for people to learn to skill themselves up for the Referendum, freely available: Power effectively was being given to people for free! What was potentially possible for people to acquire Real Power ie exercise Real Democracy was almost completely squandered and replaced by the vast majority of people cleaving to the above forms of power - in the hands of "The Few"!

Hence, in my opinion, at The Harrogate Agenda meeting, there was the feeling of being dwarfed by the scale of the problem: If this is such a good idea, why hasn't it already been done before, a "sanity check" style of question?

Interestingly, The Chartists already did attempt this, as stated before! And by the very means of perceived power of their time, too:-

"The strategy employed was to use the scale of support which these petitions and the accompanying mass meetings demonstrated to put pressure on politicians to concede manhood suffrage. Chartism thus relied on constitutional methods to secure its aims..."

What did they rely on that made them successful? I think if there is going to be any kind of success, for The Harrogate Agenda, then finding out what "this" is, will be essential; if it isn't already known? For more discussion on the challenges understanding this, Scribblings From Seaham provides further commentary:-

• Power and Control 
• Navigational Problems

Better Rhetoric For Brexit: "Acres Of Diamonds."

What is the value in Brexit?

There is one silver-lining from having to endure the nonsense rhetoric or what is given the (overly-) serious political description of "phony war", and that's that rhetoric can be made to work BOTH ways.

In one previous blog, the obervation was made that the common wisdom is that "no-body knows" if Brexit is good or if Remain is good or better or worse. Namely confusion and complexity at work before communication is able to even parse anything worth saying. This is one reason I find it particularly difficult these days to comment over at EUReferendum.com. I know in most cases I've not done the requisite work, research and preparation to master the details to be able to simplify enough to ask useful questions and hence develop/advance the discussion presented there.

I've seen a number of times group meetings where people have come out with the usual mantras irrespective that being present at these meetings they should, as preliminary, be familiar with the overall conceptual picture... and predictably you see a "flash of lightning" darken Dr. North's response the speed of which is probably proportional to the number of "man-hours" invested in these materials so that people might actually have the basics of communication wrapped up first before attempting to argue the details and logic in seriousness using this common platform.

For this reason I've chosen to attempt to limit the scope of this blog to policy areas: Environment, Fisheries and Farming, in future, at least that may aid in attempting to master the details as much as I am capable as a non-expert. As well as this, some of the thinking that goes around the subject of Brexit such as this blog: Namely connecting the principles to the details at different ends: Working on the problem from both ends.

I watched yet another BBC political production: Britain After The Referendum: What Next? which, did not answer the question: "What Next?" but did as with Question Time provide a pedestal for various talking heads to spout their rhetoric from.

The central question which keeps failing to be acknowledged, that from The Great Deception: "What is the EU for anyway?" then from that "Is it worth it?" is derivative. Instead we have from the speakers:-

• Ben Page's preferred filter from public polls: "You wot, mate?"
• Nick Clegg's student of the EU speech: "Friend Of Big EU Chief".
• CBI: "Business is about money. I rest my entire case."
• Polly Toynbee who demonstrates that being misinformed makes you more wrong than being ignorant time and time again.
• Tim Montgomerie: Seizing the negative tone of all the others to present a positive message to probably gain persuasion points?

All the speakers are very studied in the effect of their words, but none bothered to establish before "What Next?" first: "Where Right Now!"

So, looking for a countervail of rhetoric: Where words rely less on substance and more on style to shift attitude as opposed to carefully argue reason for reason, the "management style stirring speech" is a possible approach; one that has some merit and points out to people: That work, preparation and research are all prerequisites:-

Recognizing Opportunity: How?

These sorts of motivation or management style talks necessarily contain an amount of cliché to them, but that does not detract from the likely reason for this: How many people, have heard such "advice" a number of times  in a number of different ways? Or perhaps so many times that, and end up only feeling good about such speeches and the positive prospects mentioned, and then "What Next?" Do absolutely nothing about applying them or testing them to see if they actually work?

You have to laugh, not at some of the now quaint aspects in the above, which have aged, inevitably, but at the difference between the contents of this speech and the contents of our modern politicians' speeches but as important if not more so: The intent behind the messages proposed in both cases. Let's explore this concerning how it affects talking about Brexit:-

Normally in science, light (white) travels through the prism then separates out into the various different colours which we take delight in when it reaches our eye (sparkle in the diamond's multi-faceted case). However, in politics, this is often what happens in a lot of communication between the questioner (sending out the "light"), the process of communication inbetween and the answer from who ever is on the other end, now scale this up to the institutional processes of politics but in the same Q&A form of person to person (as we always see on our tv screens eg):-

1. A question is asked on a particular area, let's say "colour blue" using above.
2. The questioner expects this input to be processed reasonably and output in "colour blue".
3. But what the questioner often wants to know is the specific value of the "colour blue" after the processing. When I say value, it could be money or some quantitative change that can be measured accurately and definitively.
4. What instead comes out is the white light. From blue you get all the colours combined and hence the answer is often in politics "uncertainty" or it seems as if the politician has evaded the question (often the case due to party line) but also:-
5. How To Recognize what where in the fully complex system the question actually resides and hence the limits to what it's effects will be once processed.

In the above, using Dr. North's points about Brexit being a complete thing or using the quote again "Swallow it Whole", the diamond being the different angles of questions asked of the (sub-) components of this complete structure:-

• Any individual detail or regulation must fit within the wider policy which must fit within the wider political realities.
• Any "positive outcome" desired in any given specific area, will naturally process through this complex structure and churn out an output based on multiples of different components operating together.
• Any "positive outcome" is itself a question of "joint-up-policy" being the focus of the components to create the complete outcome (which will include other outcomes). Thus the inputs should be considered as tools rather than ends accountable in themselves.
• Inevitably these outcomes will lead to "unforeseen consequences" or "uncertainty" which will introduce mistakes or errors. The process should be considered continuous and aim more to avoid catastrophic error ie reasonable deviation.
• Dr. North moves the argument further along pointing out that any such system itself needs another level of 'consciousness' in what it is used for: In how effectively it can react to correct these mistakes or indeed recognize them from the complexity inherent.

Much like the motivation speech above, it may be that people can listen and read or look at such considerations and yet ultimately not pay any heed to them, because without learning the very many and sometimes boring and seemingly infinitely endless details upon details (ie hard work here and now); people decide they'd prefer to feel good and be comforted in hearing of stories of others who've "miraculously" found Acres Of Diamonds across the other side of the world. This seems to be the politicians' bread and butter basis of rhetoric?

The value in Brexit is much more inherent than is imagined, is probably the best conclusion to use. But the cost is equally inherent and I think more easy to come to terms with right now: A failure of investment of people in this politics, is as per the speech above, "going backwards" and the results may then be considered to be understandable in terms of their "perversity" of outcomes; if check-box listing these the list would be long, of notorious note to summarize however:-

• No alternative or full fact sheets presented during the Referendum unlike for example in Switzerland as per recently from Scribblings From Seaham: That’s the way to do it………

In the next blog I will cover the Environment subject as applied to Brexit, as I've attempted already with Fisheries. However, from the ideas "talked about here", I hope to apply them to examples within that policy's context and thus better explain them as "examples in action" and observable.

If there's one thing Brexit has exposed, it's how perverse politics can become and how the inherent message within the modern political rhetoric is a message of "powerlessness of people to the political systems".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And hence May's remarks:-

"Brexit Means Brexit." - What?

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

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

Jesus Christ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this mean for people?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politics: Feeding the 46,500,001...

This info slide above describing junk food is possibly analogous to much/most of the news-media output on the political stories of the day. There does seem to be a social-circadian function to these stories that are "on the hour, every hour" so to speak, a collective rhythm to the day for peoples' establishment of their context to the world around them?

But if you're interested in more than this, then you may find that the quality of information is not very high for increasing understanding of politics apart from the more emotional stimulation and submersion socially within the constantly, ever-washing news stories.

The "good news" is that curated properly, there is a way to select (visibility problem) from this "roiling sea of emotion and excessive information":-

1. State of UK Politics

The great failures of statesmanship over Iraq and Brexit shows how much we need a proper leader

We pay but have no say

Just whose voice counts?

Sizing the ‘Liberal Leave’ position

2. State of Brexit

A Brexit consensus - EFTA EEA is the bridge 

Brexit: immigration versus market - a false choice

Public Law for Everyone: Brexit | On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate

This sources will more than suffice for an entire week of political news-media at the very least, if spaced across an entire week for the weekly intake of news - at the very very least!

Beyond 2020: The Sweet Spring of Real Democracy!

Building a Wildlife Pond: "The Sweet Spring Of Water For Wildlife."

After the Referendum, I've already made plans to build a Wildlife Pond. There's plenty of advice and instructions from which to learn and take inspiration from, online such as this excellent one from The Rural Gardener: "How To Build Your Own Wildlife Pond 1" and indeed extending the concept to add a "How To Build Your Own Wildlife Pond 2 - Adding A Stream". I've been doing various part-time work this Summer including some gardening and mowing lawns (so plenty of time outside in the Summer sun (and rain!)) and the above instructions and elsewhere and direct advice from people allow me to conclude that I know enough to be able to put that information into action and do this work (having earned enough cash to do so (hopefully no more than £150)!). From my mentioned experiences, I can't help but notice how people seem obsessed with having finely cut lawns; afterall I get paid to mow them every two weeks, particularly at this time of year when the grass can grow into majestic "Savannahs" of the British Isles, if left uncut!

It got me thinking, it may not be for everyone, but if all these gardens (big ones particularly) created some garden ponds with surrounding "wetland edges" and again surrounding "mini savannah edges" that then connected eventually towards the hedges and/or trees at the edge of the gardens, the calculation in increase in wildlife that this might lead to compared to the by comparison "green deserts" of finely mowed lawns with their various versions of ornamental-only (low biodiversity) "topiary" (the yellow meadow ants don't seem to mind the lawns so much)?? I appreciate mown lawns have other utilities but a portion of a garden given over to Wildlife (especially the larger or lesser used gardens and ponds are a hazard for young children), but the "appearance" of nature/green managed by people vs the "information value" contained in biodiverse wildlife gardens always strikes me as incredibly disparate: The former to me is "empty" and so many suburban districts have a kind of dead energy to them, whereas the latter is "alive" or "vital".

I can't help but conclude people seem very oblivious to the land they live in; perhaps less so to the house prices, however (and doubly so to their rise and fall)? Mown lawns are part of the assets that need the occasional management incurred cost and the nature of grass is to keep on top of it, I suppose, so the equipment does not break and incur extra costs such as petrol and spare parts etc. But the question to ask: The bit of land in peoples' temporary possession, how do they conceive it to be and how about after they leave it?

So I intend to create one and then calculate the biodiversity and maybe systematize this information some more if possible but also so that I can enjoy the richness in wildlife that this will bring. As The Rural Gardener says above, "Nature does the rest" or "finds a way".

So goodbye EU, Brexit and Referendum... and to be honest: Good riddance!

1975:Labour's Peter Shore on Project Fear - "The message that comes out is fear, fear, fear" 

There's plenty of evidence that the 1975 Referendum was a horrible exercise in deception and industrial scaled propaganda against people and used similar FUD tactics to today. In 1994 the Norwegians experienced similar tactics:-

"Learn what it feels like to be used/duped by poliicians early": This stuff from Norway in 1994 is excellent material to educate children: First with the Yes Campaigns claims and "how true and good they appear", then hit them with this stuff from >20yrs ago saying similar things!

The fog of ignorance

Scribblings From Seaham summarizes the ignorance today in the public very well above. As for today, 2016, it becomes tedious hearing David Cameron and George Osborne being allowed to lie by Vote Leave as such:-

• "There is no Brexit Plan if you vote Leave".
• "Brexit is unknown and full of uncertainty."
• "Leave have said they will leave The Single Market."

Vote Leave allow these premises to dominate all other utterances which then lead to:-

• "Trade will collapse if we vote Leave: An action of self-harm!"

Jesus Wept!

Of course even more deadly is that this allows incontrovertible "experts" & certified "good people" to wade in:-

• Nobel Laureate Economists (decision-workers)!
• Scientists and Universities (brain-workers!) 
• Save The Children! (It's their future hence their decision)
• Business Entrepreneurs and other Names (Ian McEwan the latest dunderhead duckspeaking)
• EU Legal Experts (ffs...!)

Leave is then left with (lol!):-

• The Left-Behind!
• The old (who honestly cares about them anymore, a weight on the NHS...)
• Racists against immigration who'll go out and gun down an MP (female) in broad daylight.
• Johnson, Farage, Galloway...

The other big issue I have with this, is the problem people seem to have separating themselves and their direct relation to the EU with the universal perspective that is possible too.

For example, from my above "Wildlife Pond" project you can tell I'm very keen on wildlife, th environment and conservation. In fact these are areas that by and large I tend to agree quite a lot with the EU on!

One of the reasons is simple:-

EU Referendum: to be a sovereign power

Is well worth a full read. I hazard to comment on the politics directly, but my own idea is that Sovereignty is to do with three elements:-

• Land
• People
• Rules

The land will be here when we've all passed through, hopefully for the new/next people. People need space to live (same with wildlife). How we all organize that space is via our common rules. I like to think Sovereignty is therefore effectively using rules of some sort in some way to make the land and people better today and tomorrow than they previously were ie for all to flourish at once? In the past we've had "Divine Rule" then we've had "Monarch Rule" and today we have so called "Parliamentary Sovereignty" where instead of by Holy Book or Crown, Politicians Discuss amongst themselves how the rules are made. Tomorrow if we build it I think we'll have "Real Democracy" which is the "spring of water" from which Sovereignty will be more highly distributed amongst people discussing rules more with each other according to their direct knowledge more applied to themselves and across the land (and our seas of course) in this part of the world.

The measure of success will be how well run the UK and British Isles are compared to other parts of the world, more likely less fortunate (and wise) than our selves in such a case? One of the results here will be less requirement for large groups of people for protection (from other such large groups) and smaller higher quality groups of people administering themselves more locally more responsibly and specifically and hence beneficially.

So irrespective, I think that the EU as an idea is outdated, though it has some things that may work but are certainly open to more political debate: 
 
UK agriculture would be better off outside the EU at the Oxford Farming Conference January 2016

Fishing Speech

Environment Speech 

Particularly by the people who live and make a livelihood here and who lay claim to the benefit of their future generations too - which must include the consideration on how to look after the land and sea, also.

There's a lot of room for improvement here and indeed that does not mean throwing out what is already good such as the various international environmental regulations that the UK would need to continue to conform with and possibly participate with more directly out of the EU?

The final thing is that the current process of democracy itself seems full of flaws in politics and economics (the power of governments over peoples' money for example...). To come back to Sovereignty and quote Dr. RAE North:-

"And this is where The Harrogate Agenda comes in. The group that has been so careless of their powers, and so indifferent to the prospect of recovering them can hardly be trusted to safeguard them for all time, and not to repeat their give-away. Thus, it is we the people who must recover our sovereignty, wresting it from Parliament which has been so reluctant to use it on our behalf.

That is the back story. Parliament is sovereign, supposedly holding it trust for the people. But, in failing to exercise it, the people themselves must act, and demand the recovery of powers that Parliament has so carelessly given away. And then, with the horse firmly back in the stables, we must bolt the door.

We the people, on Thursday, must make a start in recovering our sovereignty – not from Brussels, but from Westminster. We the people are sovereign, and this week we have an opportunity to exercise it. And if we don't, we the people have only ourselves to blame."  

I think people remain ignorant and hence feel "powerless" to the bunch of politicians in Westminster, only because they choose to remain oblivious to the potential and possibility surrounding them everywhere: The UK is a fortunate part of the world and very hospitable and "green and pleasant", it just takes a few "good ideas" and some work by a lot of people and lots of small positive changes can add up to a lot of positive change: Something politicians always promise and never deliver to people: They can't, but people probably could if they thought about it and decided they wanted to.

IMF, FUD & JENGA

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

A very significant and repeating aetiology:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EU Referendum: IMF – it's not over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electoral Commission/Lead Brexit Designation

Ragnarök or Referendum: The Final Battle

Ragnarök: The Final Battle of the Norse Gods: Odin, Thor, Tyr, Freya.

Ragnarök:-

"In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterwards, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. It is as well the end of the world, and the start of eternal winter."

It's not unusual, for various world cultures to independently form:-

• Creation Myth
• Endings Myth (Doomsday or else) 

And given there's many many world cultures, there are hence many many such variations of the above types of story. No doubt in my mind this is the product of the human conscious mind: The tool of being able to think in future time and in past time as well as present time. This has allowed people to use memory to store learned experiences which in turn can be used to estimate risks and make future decisions that allowed people to flourish and here we all are today...

• Monday = Moon Day
• Tuesday = Týr 's Day
• Wednesday = Woden 's Day
• Thursday = Thor 's Day 
• Friday = Freyr 's Day
• Saturday = Saturn 's Day
• Sunday = Sun Day

At the beginning of each week, we look ahead and at the end of each week we look back. We've even named our days of the week from a mixture of the Norse Mythology and the Roman.

There does seem however to be some psychological side-products of this ability: People are more prone to suffering from anxiety and fear of perceived risk or danger when stimulus is intangible such as information inputs eg The Legacy News-Media. In fact some of the most useful current advice is "Mindfulness" and the training of the mind to not uselessly nor unproductively over-speculate about the uncertainties of the future and dwell on what "COULD" go wrong! In fact this is directly training the mind to be able to switch modes of thinking via a disciplined concentration on the present moment and what directly applies over the multifarious indirect thoughts. This "overhead of consciousness" is possibly one of the major drivers in behaviour management, possibly?

However, in our information rich world, we are bombarded with exposure to risks and the natural Fear inducement this leads to. Interestingly this phenomenon was identified in the book:-

 Conscious thought has a high energy cost and a high over-head of risk alertness; automatic "programmed" behaviour or "habit" is far less demanding but in it's own way as useful but also again when correctly applied within narrower contexts: But how can we control the switch between the two?

Why is this relevant to a blog on politics, specifically the politics of EU Membership vs Brexit? Firstly those habitual settings:

Rational Irrationality:

"The concept was popularized by economist Bryan Caplan in 2001 to reconcile the widespread existence of irrational behavior (particularly in the realms of religion and politics) with the assumption of rationality made by mainstream economics and game theory. The theory, along with its implications for democracy, was expanded upon by Caplan in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter."

Some examples:-

• Make-work bias
• Anti-foreign bias
• Pessimistic bias
• Anti-market bias

Books could probably and have been written concerning these subject; the "Make-work" bias I think can be considered in such as "Man's Search For Meaning" or "The Case For Working With Your Hands" etc etc. The one to focus on in this blog is the "Pessimistic bias":-

I was reminded of this "Pessimistic Bias" in an interesting City AM article: Why over-estimating the risk of terror just hands victory to the terrorists ~ Lars Christensen:-

"I believe that there are two primary reasons for these "do something" tendencies in European politics (they also regularly appear in enviornmental discussions).

First of all, psychologists have shown that humans in general are not very good at estimating the risk of very infrequent events and that people psychologically tend to seriously overestimate such risks.

Second we are what the American ecnomist Bryan Caplan has termed Rationally Irrational Voters. Caplan means that, in elections, voters don't really have to make rational assessments, as the likelihood that our individual vote will mean anything for the outcome is very limited - we are, so to speak, ratinally irrational, irresponsible and ignorant.

As a result we are much more likely to give into fears and fantasies in the political process than when we decide whether to, for example, buy a car or make an investment. Politicians know this all too well and are happppy to play on our fears. After all, politicians are rarely elected by presenting statistics to the voters.

But we cannot and should not cave into fear - not in our personal life or in our political decisions. The best thing to do is to "keep calm and carry on".

He said this in the context of terrorist attacks in Europe. But I think it equally applies to our problems with the EU political process and Referendum and Brexit: Communication: The Reaction Barrier

A great deal of which was in evidence once again on BBC's Question Time:-

No, we don't want to "be like Norway", but if it gets us out of the EU...

"I watched the thoroughly repellent Ruth Lea on Question Time last night denouncing the Norway Option, laying down the law that we don't want to be a supplicant of the EU. It was said quite deliberately to try and close down the argument, or at least make it more difficult to advance that argument. And yet somehow, it is we pleb bloggers who are failing to cooperate.
The point of the EEA Efta route (Norway Option) is that it's safe. It is the one means available to us that guarantees the least disruption to trade and industry. The reason being that practically nothing changes - especially if, in the first instance, we adopt the entire body of EU law. As much as anything, that reduces the uncertainty of Article 50 negotiations.
What that means is on day one of being out of the EU things are no better, but no worse either. But we are out of the EU. By advancing that as the plan it takes the sting out of the scares and gives business no real right to intervene. Certainly no just cause. That then gives us all the time in the world to sort out which bits we want to keep and which bits we don't. It could take a decade or more, but there would be no cliff edge. The pace of change would be no different to the normal business of government."

I also watched this; more repellent than Ruth Lea was that odious "Made In China" knock-off imitation of Tony Blair, Chris Bryant (nothing against China) along with the venomous Anna Soubrey.

So I'm going to take unaccountable satisfaction at connecting Norse Mythology which shapes our days of the week with Brexit opting for The Norway Option as the right choice for our Nation to take and pull the V-Sign to the cretins who said "Norway would not suit Britain's Self-Image" or other such "Norway has Fax Democracy" petty pronouncements from petty politicians:-

The Second Coming is a poem composed by Irish poet W. B. Yeats in 1919, first printed in The Dial in November 1920, and afterwards included in his 1921 collection of verses Michael Robartes and the Dancer. The poem uses Christian imagery regarding the Apocalypse and second coming allegorically to describe the atmosphere of post-war Europe.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

Again, the juxtaposition of the end of World War I with our knowledge of the history of the inception of the EUropean Union as per The Great Deception:-

We know fear was the driver behind the Supranational paradigm for "A New Europe" by it's founding architects: Arthur Salter and Jean Monnet. In fact The Great Deception does a great service to the EU Referendum debate.



Let's construct 3 examples:-

1. LEAVE (vote leave / leave.eu:GO)

"EU wastes £500,000,000 a year promoting itself, with our money. EU red tape is now over 130 miles long. 3600 new laws in three years as EU strangles UK firms. Britain 'will thrive after Brexit': Leaving will boost pay and jobs. Millions face £25 hike in insurance bills after 'disastrous' VAT ruling by hated European judges. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The heart of what we all want is the continuation of tariff-free trade with minimal bureaucracy. Countries as far away as Australia have Mutual Recognition agreements with the EU that deal with complex customs (and other ‘non-tariff barrier’) issues. We will do the same. Sixth, we will have a sensible regime for the movement of people that allows us to replace the awful immigration policy we have now - a combination of an open door for low skilled labour and convicted criminals from the EU while simultaneously stopping highly skilled people from outside the EU coming to the UK to contribute. The top 100 EU regulations cost the UK economy £33.3 billion per year. Since 2010, the EU has introduced over 3,500 new laws affecting British business.

We will "Take Back Control of Borders"! "They sell us more German Cars than we sell to them!" "They need us more than we need them!" "We can do a new deal and depend on the WTO!" "We can have a bonfire of redtape!" "We can spend all our membership money making every family 699 pounds better off!" "We don't need a brexit plan, we'll have a British Plan!""

Leave Campaign: At a loss as to how to communicate with people: Make it up or Be Rational? Choice: "Erm, Make it up is what people know!!!"

Here are campaigns that are effectively over-selling to the Rational Irrational Voter who they deem can only be manipulated to vote the right way due to the "Communication: Reaction Barrier". What people think other people will think will be popular is effectively the communication or "input" into the EU Referendum from the Leave side to convince people to change our political relationship.

All the above are summarized from the various groups own webpages and/or newspaper headlines. The "Meme" quotes are all quote-unquote reproductions of their favourite slogans.

2. REMAIN (Britain Stronger In; David Cameron and followers)

Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.

• If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would risk higher prices of some household goods  

• A vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty

• Opportunities for you and your children 

• This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

You know if you've ever worked on some sort of Scientific Equation and you get data first then wonder if it fits a particular equation...

... AND YOU CANNOT BELIEVE HOW WELL IT FITS IT!!!

Ragnarök or Referendum? Politics or Religion? Our "Political gods" now fight for the fate of the world as our divine representatives - mere mortals cannot comprehend the magnitude of such words and deeds! But they can tremble in fear at the possibility of the coming end!! Leave or Remain? The forces of darkness vs light!!

In the last night's BBCQT:-

We had Chris Bryant assimilating "genuine sentiment" to use as a mask for his own agenda. This technique of using the veneer of truth to cover the traces of deceit is especially poisonous political communication:-

"I just want to see the facts".

Later on,

"Sick and tired of the Out side only going into process points and avoiding the substance of the matter."

There is again some truth in this. But in both cases: On a population and frequency scale of measurement: Are people being honest? Are the Leave Campaigners being sincere to people?

"We achieve more on our common endeavour, the big issues that face us as a country... [SEE LIST] ...we need to be permanently cooperating with our closest allies in Europe, and that's why I will be fighting every day of my life to stay in the European Union."

• Climate Change
• International Terrorism
• International Crime & Drugs
• China (later on)

 Brexit: Looks a helluva a lot like Ragnarök, apparently (The Final Battle) to me: It's even got Jörmungandr (The world ending serpent in the form of China's Red Dragon!); cataclysmic "Fire & Ice"; War between good and bad, and the eruption of the underworld... almost a perfect fit.

So we see very clearly, how Remain is using a very ancient human tendency to manipulate people's emotions and frighten them like little children...

3. "Not 1. Nor 2."

Scribblings From Seaham responds to my previous blog: The Stoic Minority: and it's taken a lot of thought (all the above) to reply to a simple question:-

But...

Red Cliffs of Dawlish kindly pays me a great compliment in this post; but I have to ask just who is the ‘Stoic Minority’ (stoic: seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive) – those of us seeking a re-assertion of democracy, who are in the minority, or those of the minority who wish to impose their views on the majority? Just asking, RCofD ………

It's easier to answer within the context of this Referendum, namely "NOT 1. Nor 2." above! But to embellish "If Not, Then What?"

1. Prepared to start learning & educating processes at the beginning ie with people.
2. Prepared to not look for short-cuts to " quick, successful results" (eg Short-circuit popularity via either deceptions: Hope (leave) or Fear (remain).
3. Work towards the goal not for personal promotion (ego) but towards increasing the use of working knowledge; being applied by people in making decisions (superego).
4. Understand the difference between what could be achieved ideally compared to what can only be done realistically in the present with the present conditions and people; towards promoting democracy now.
5. Finally, not making the same mistakes as our EU politicians and our UK politicians: Any decision must "bring the people along with it at the same time" and not attempt to circumvent their decision-making input "for the greater good" or "the ends justifies the means".

In all these, the idea is to not allow Deception to enter into the decision-making.

• On the "input" side (looking forwards to the future) we have "Leave" hoping for change that will be postive.
• On the "output" side (looking backwards to the past) we have "Remain" fearing for change that will be negative.

• In the middle we have: "Process"; which, requires conscious effort to understand what actually "is" and hence how we can actually know how to effect change from "was" to "will be"; which I think is a perfect way to describe:-

The Market Solution: OUR VISION

"Our vision is for a United Kingdom as a self-governing, self-confident, free trading  nation state, releasing the potential of its citizens through direct democratic  control of both national and local government and providing maximum freedom  and responsibility for its people.  The history of Britain for a thousand years has been as a merchant and maritime power playing its full role in European and world affairs while living under its  own laws. It is our view that the UK can flourish again as an independent state  trading both with our friends in the EU and the rest of Europe, while developing  other relationships throughout the world as trading patterns evolve. 

For an age, the United Kingdom has freely engaged as an independent country  in alliances and treaties with other countries. It has a long history of entering into  commercial agreements and conventions at an inter-governmental level. We wish  to uphold that tradition.  The ability of the people of the United Kingdom to determine their own  independent future and use their wealth of executive, legislative and judicial  experience to help, inspire and shape political developments through international  bodies, and to improve world trade and the well being of all peoples will only be  possible when they are free of the undemocratic and moribund European Union. 

The prosperity of the people depends on being able to exercise the fundamental  right and necessity of self-determination, thus taking control of their opportunities  and destiny in an inter-governmental global future with the ability to swiftly correct and improve when errors occur. 

Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core of true democracy."