An Orbital Perspective: Brexit means "A Global Reality"

 Towards a data-driven model of the Earth?

The nuance for the correct picture for this subject was actually quite challenging: I did not want just a perspective of the entire global earth planet: The whole picture or "bigger picture" which because it's so common a phrase turns people off immediately. I did want a perspective that suggested something physically demonstrable in being "bigger" than the European Union. But that was merely stating the obvious. Finally I chose the above picture irrespective that the actual satellite shown is not a classic "Earth Observation Satellite" itself. The image however fits the focus of this blog: An Orbital Perspective:-

• A higher perspective in both space and time.
• Is a dynamic or changing picture.
• Is driven by "big data" at this scale.
• An Earth-Centric basis to the human processes of "Globalization".

A-Train group of Earth Observation Satellites ~ Reference: NASA wiki

"Other environmental satellites can assist environmental monitoring by detecting changes in the Earth's vegetation, atmospheric trace gas content, sea state, ocean colour, and ice fields. By monitoring vegetation changes over time, droughts can be monitored by comparing the current vegetation state to its long term average."

Borrowing the name from: Lessons in Seeing the Big Picture from a Journey of 71 Million Miles ~ By Astronaut Ron Garan

"Scenes on the surface of Earth can be very still, which is not true when one is orbiting the planet. A snowy winter scene might impress us with its quiet stillness, even though the ground we are standing on is rotating at 1,000 mph, while Earth rotates around the sun at 67,000 mph, while our solar system rotates with the rest of the Milky Way galaxy at 515,000 mph, and the galaxy is hurtling outward at 1.4 million mph. All that motion is outside of our awareness. But when I gazed at Earth from space, there was no escaping the fact that I was traveling across the surface at five miles per second—17,500 mph. The lighting, colors, and the motion of the scene were constantly changing. And when my brain was able to extrapolate the curvature of Earth, I was filled with the certainty that I was witnessing a planet hanging in the blackness of space. Earth became my ever-present travel companion. This is the overview effect, which makes possible the orbital perspective."

A view of this from Europe and the UK, via The Overview Effect:-

Colours: White (North), Yellow (South), Green (East to West) and surrounding Blue (Oceans and Seas) with some more White (Clouds) and surrounding Black (Space)

"The overview effect is a cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts and cosmonauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth from orbit or from the lunar surface.

It refers to the experience of seeing first hand the reality of the Earth in space, which is immediately understood to be a tiny, fragile ball of life, "hanging in the void", shielded and nourished by a paper-thin atmosphere. From space, national boundaries vanish, the conflicts that divide people become less important, and the need to create a planetary society with the united will to protect this "pale blue dot" becomes both obvious and imperative."

That's a long preamble, but the observation of how we consider ourselves and our place on this planet, in the case of the UK, is highly relevant to our future politics. One of the most damaging inherent conditions of EU membership was the waste of political attention on a small sub-set of this larger perspective. If you reread the description by the astronaut above, the relative comparison of different speeds are highlighted. There's a national speed for the UK (and regional), a broader speed at the EU level and then another speed at the global level - of change. This is I think a good description of "globalization" in human processes, including but not exclusvely: Politics.

One of the very core messages contained within Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT - Summary p.5 Phases 5 & 6 (End-Game):-

"Phase five comprises a coherent programme to define our wider global trading relations. This comprises eight separate initiatives. The withdrawal settlement has now receded, having served its purpose as the launch pad. The way is now open for the UK to break out of the EU cul-de-sac and rejoin the world.

Sixth, and finally, we embark on a series of domestic reforms, by introducing elements of direct democracy and the other changes embodied in The Harrogate Agenda – the immediate aim being to prevent ever again a situation where our Parliament hands over our powers to an alien entity without the permission of the people."

You can determine from the recorded reactions of those who are categorized as 
experiencing "The Overview Effect" that it's quite a powerful context from which to then start using and viewing things through, including politics. Indeed nations are already party to "Global Top Tables" which produce legislation at a Global level, at an EU level and again at the national level and eventually at the local level.

Brexit: "A Global Dawn"

It's for this reason I've chosen to end this blog and launch a new blog/website with this combination in mind: Connecting Local Real (or direct) Democracy to the Global Environmental challenges and changes that are already being developed in tandem with other globalization processes. To look at the first two of The Harrogate Agenda demands specifically through this context:-

1. Recognition of our sovereignty:

"The peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their nations and are the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognised by the Crown and the Governments of our nations, and our Parliaments and Assemblies;"

2. Real local democracy:

"The foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall become constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to the national government;"

One of the challenges ahead will indeed be reinterpreting Sovereignty within the context sparingly outlined, here. The final blog on this site will be, the below which I'll carry over to a new blog/website subsequently:-

"Environmental Audit Committee hears from the Department for Exiting the European Union and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how the Government intends to approach the environment in its negotiations with the European Union after the EU Referendum result."

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.

Alternatives To Certainty: A Bird In The Hand.

 

 ...and another one (Bullfinches are invariably found in pairs) in the bush!

Yesterday, a male Bullfinch above flew into a window, and stunned itself. Fortunately, it appeared only stunned and needed about 40 minutes to recover before flying away to a nearby apple tree with normal, strong flight returned and alertness in it's behaviour, restored.

Before then, I had picked it up and gone outside and held it in my hand in the sunshine until it had fully "woken up" while it seemed to doze off, at the same time as hoping it was merely stunned and not otherwise seriously injured. Well, it was wonderful to see such a beautiful creature so close and more so that it seemed to make a full recovery and fly away again. The above youtube clip is remarkably similar to my own experience, above, though I did not stroke the bird, merely providing a perch for it, in my hand and for some time a seat as it sat down for a good while too while it closed it's eyes and tried to recover from the stun or shock of it's impact. I remained calm though inwardly feeling consternation for such a bird, one of my favourites, in fact.

So I decided with this thought on my mind of such a beautiful creature to connect the experience with the current topic I noticed on the EU; afterall there's such little inspiration to be had from the channels of communication that so poorly serve the people in how our politics is conducted:-

1. Caroline Lucas was talking about people overestimating how democratic Westminster is.

2. Richard Dawkins was cited as suggesting his own ignorance is (he's actually aware of) is too high for people to really vote on this issue in a direct democratic vote ie Referendum.

3. Following on the daily status quo that "Remain" is the safe option" compared to "Leave" which is the essence of David Cameron's argument.

What I will say about the above: There's a lot of different things going on in what these people say. To briefly explain the arguments:-

1. Caroline Lucas is right: Westminster itself is not very democratic, but the argument she's really making is that for her particular arguments they deserve special status that is even less democratic so that they can't be modified as easily by voters, namely why she supports as a Green the EU.

2. Dawkins is it seems aware enough to assess his own state of ignorance and notice the low quality arguments in the news-media. But he fails to understand that ironically the process of Direct Democracy on the Subject as opposed to the People who espouse (supposedly for a range of subjects) is a positive experience for electorates to feedback on "democracy in action" directly. He also fails to appreciate that this activity promotes a higher trend of increase of knowledge on the subject and more pressure on the low quality arguments polluted by inverting the processes of conclusions and results. Namely polling presumes people already hold conclusions without recourse to results, so it's a question of massaging the message to assume the appearance that appeals to those people!!

3. And hence Cameron's "Devil's Trick" is to blind people to the actual EU Question = "EU Membership" not Economics.

• Description: Above I have described three people's arguments.
• Explanation: I've explained roughly the arguments used.
• Arguments: They each make some statements to form an argument to persuade others of some conclusion they desire or deem good.

This leads us to the question: How do we truly know the value of the above however? Well for that we'd need to deduct as much of the facts as possible. This is a complex process. So much so that:-

1. The complexity has limits to simplification.
2. The logistics of deducting and researching for oneself is necessarily highly involved and demanding and of course may be impractical for communication at a massive scale.
3. Where we can simplify we can make progress. Where we can't we have to rely on alternatives instead of "validation" we rely on "probability".

Hence the old cautionary phrase:-

In fact, Vote Leave have done everything possible it seems to me to ensure people think that Brexit is "a risk, because chances are that you (pl.) could lose everything."

Once people believe the frame of the question is this, then what David Cameron says sounds like the right answer...

... but it's the right answer to the wrong question! As per Roland Smith: Read The Question!

So people can save themselves time if they think and say these things with under a month until the voting day:-

• "I don't know enough how to vote."
• "They're all as bad as each other anyway."
• "It won't change anything anyway if I vote."

Let's look at Caroline Lucas' argument on our own Westminster Politicians:-

• "No Loss of Sovereignty" [Not Happening Argument]
• "There May Be Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's very little." [Happening but insignificant (and not applicable to the UK) Argument]
• "There is Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's worth it." [Happening and Significant and Applicable to the UK) but Positive]
• "Sovereignty is overrated and besides there's nothing we can do about it." [It's Happened already whether or not it's positive or negative and is now "normal" or "the way the world works" / status quo - there is no alternative.

On Richard Dawkins argument:-

• We've missed a Referendum on the previous major treaties, the problem is not a Referendum, it's not enough Referendums on subjects that are smaller and more apprehensible and applicable as and when they are passed for motion for democratic legitimacy by the people.
• We've been in the EEC/EU for over 40 yrs, a long enough time for people to educate more people, so the problem is not the impossibility of knowing, it's the methods or failure of democracy to do just that! See previous.
• His very argument that the Referendum should be an exlusive argument is indeed the very reason why he and so many others feel so ignorance: Because it is an exclusive argument under the current systemic failings of our politics in the UK, that led the UK into the EEC in the first place!

On David Cameron's argument:-

• People voting in the EU Referendum: The big con trick being asked of you is to apparently vote for either one set of Westminster Pro-EU politicians or an alternative set of Westminster Anti-EU politicians and both of their fallacious arguments come a distant second as if this is a General Election.
• This "Devil's Trick" by Cameron and Vote Leave is setting up the "One Bird In The Hand" Inductive Thinking in people to vote Remain.
• One bird in the hand may seem to be "probably" better than speculating on two in the bush. But in fact the Sovereignty of the People of the UK does not belong to either the EU or Westminster!
• This is indeed the question that is being asked in the EU Referendum as Roland Smith correctly points out.
• Knowing that is the question, the answer is simple. What is the best reason to vote to Leave the EU?

 

Success for me was seeing the Bullfinch fly away back into the bush and not in anyone's hand, thankfully!

A Map Argument: Why Not?

1-page map for arguments on the UK's EU Referendum: Remain or Leave

1. 41 Years since the last Referendum in 1975

One of the basic facts about the 2016 Referendum, is the length of time it's taken for the politicians to "allow" the UK Electorate a direct vote on membership. 41 years. If there's any basic fact that guides how to vote it's that 41 years, 59 years of age and 9 Major New EU Treaties without a vote:-

Chronological View of EU Treaties:-

• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2012)
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2012)
• Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Consolidated version 2012)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012)
• Treaty of Accession of Croatia (2012)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2010)
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2010)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2008)
• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2008)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007)
• Treaty of Lisbon (2007)
• Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (2005)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2006)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2006)
• Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004)
• Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (draft 2003)
• Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2002)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2002)
• Treaty of Nice (2001)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 1997)
• Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 1997)
• Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
• Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (1994)
• Act amending the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank empowering the Board of Governors to establish a European Investment Fund (1993)
• Agreement on the European Economic Area (1992)
• Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 1992)
• Treaty on European Union (1992)
• Single European Act (1986)
• Schengen Convention (1985)
• Treaty of Accession of Spain and Portugal (1985)
• Treaty of Greenland (1984)
• Treaty of Accession of Greece (1979)
• Treaty amending certain provisions of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank (1975)
• Treaty amending certain financial provisions (1975)
• Treaty of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom (1972) 

The Trend of Powers is unidirectional as they can only be under EU Treaty Rules

Our General Elections were already a duopoly between Labour and Tories for the majority of the last Century and now even less vote on our own Self-Governance by the people.

The failure to hold a Referendum sooner than 41 years is merely a symptom itself of lack of democracy in the UK due to our ruling Establishment's monopoly on power away from the people.

Hence the EU Referendum is a Political Choice first and foremost and hence a Political Argument in nature.

This crucial definition is important to make: The EUropean Union (EU) is not Europe, it's not the Single Market, it's not International Law: It's a clear argument between:-

• Political Executive and Legislative and Judiciary and Monetary in the EU
• Political Executive and Legislative and Judiciary and Monetary in the UK

2. Understanding Remain(If Not? Then What?)

If we break down the EU Political Union:-

• Why? The history of Supranationalism as per The Great Deception

• How? Reading the official document by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; FCO 30/1048: Sovereignty & The European Communities it is clear that the UK Government in the 1960's-70's deceived the UK People into joining not a Common Market but a Supranational organization. 

• Who? The Federalist ambitions and end-goal of the current EU is laid out in the document: The Fundamental Law of the European Union. It is to create a new "country" called Europe, so this is who you are voting for to vote for Remain.

• What? Where? When? The EU is planning a New Treaty for the Eurozone to increase it's power even further on Monetary before further again Politically: Completing Europe's Economic & Monetary Union.

The first thing I would establish when considering the EU Referendum argument is:-

Question: "Have you read all the above and understood all the above and support all the above?"

If so, I would be interested in your answers. Secondly I would be interested in you demonstrating your understanding and reasoning for supporting the above. I would also be interested in your opinion as to why in the UK the major actors in the public domain who are allocated the greatest seriousness and air-time do not categorize, nor define the EU Membership question as above, a core political project for "Ever Closer Union"?

If, the UK is not a member of the EURO, not a member of Schengen and as above the next major EU Treaty is to treat the EUROZONE as it's core priority to resolve this crisis; then why is the UK a member? And why is the UK not planning an alternative relationship with the EU? In such a case it may pay to look at what the Leave question looks like:-

3. Why Leave?

• Why? If we look at The Harrogate Agenda, to summarize it's about the right to Self-Govern.

Now this Core Argument is illustrated no better than in the Pro-EU officially nominated campaign group itself and even in it's name and it's own colours!

The Fundamental Deception at the heart of the EU Supranational idea is I think more or less above. The excuse given is that "Pooling Sovereignty" must be done to be able to increase "collective power" and/or "Subsidiarity" allows nations to retain their powers. But observation is consistent: The EU has been divisive in the UK and it's because of the above by the likes of BSE: Mixing where political power is held and by whom and hence how it is represented compromises democratic representation. If the UK is not an EU member then it must be held in the UK Parliament. Any problems there must be considered. But not only this, with the rise of globalization, the Single Market technical standards are now made not in Westminster Parliament nor in the EU Parliament but in hundreds of global bodies:-

These increasingly feed into the Single Market:-

Quoting FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 10.1 The EU role in global governance p.198:-

"Nevertheless, despite the activity of the EU at global level, there is a perverse effect arising from globalisation. As more and more issues are addressed at global level, the EU is losing control over its own regulatory agenda. More than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU's Single Market legislation) falls within the ambit of existing international organisationsand is thus potentially amenable to global regulation."

Now looking at the Government's counter claims in their pamphlet:-

1. As previous blog IMF, FUD & JENGA we already suffer accumulation and political arrears for "years of uncertainty".
2. An "Off-The-Shelf" Solution already exists, replacing EU/EEA with EFTA/EEA: The Leave Alliance Grows In Support by Semi-Partisan Politics. 
3. Following EU Rules is in fact under the EEA acquis; EU Referendum: the EEA acquis following global rules and being represented on those global bodies directly. The supporting arguments: Payment is not an issue and nor is Freedom of Movement concerning the Central Argument: Political independence of our decision-making processes. They are secondly time-modified subject to the actual Political result of the EU Referendum itself.
4. It does fulfill the criteria for clear political separation at the same time as trading through the single market.

This leaves us where we actually are in the arguments today:-

Why does it seem that there are political processes and mass media accommodation of exclusively narrowly sanctioned ideas and concepts, whereas the the arguments from The Leave Alliance in support of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution; the measures used against it, they have been bordering on the antithesis of Real Democracy via REJECT, ALIENATE, EXCLUDE & OMIT such "vigorous and rigorous" positive contributing arguments to democratic decision-making? Why?

In the next blog, this question - will be answered definitively.

EU Reform: Asking The Wrong Question

The jam is not for the wasps: They're considered "a nuisance" to trick, trap & remove

I'm not a fan of jam traps for wasps. I actually do think the best way is to be both careful with sweet foods when outside and to provide an alternative sweet source at some distance elsewhere for the wasps if they turn up. Live and let live. But the trick is clear: The jam of a trap is not for the wasps, they don't know this, as they're simple insects, but it effectively "keeps them out of the way".

Now, why's this important? The reason is that the "EU Reform" is a method to get people out of the way. Another example of this previously used was given by John Ashworth in his history of the Common Fisheries Policy series of articles at Campaign For An Independent Britain:

Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

"To quote David Howarth again: it is of our own doing that we are in this club. (The EU) While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rules—they can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

This causes a dilemma for David Cameron. He has no intention of leaving the EU"

The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?

"One theme that runs through the UK’s 43-year involvement with the EEC/EU is that our politicians –  supported by the Civil Servants – have done everything in their power to keep the UK locked into the Common Fisheries Policy and indeed, to the EU as a whole. There have been constant assurances and promises everything was being done for UK fishermen and the future was guaranteed to be better. There were glowing expectations of what reform would bring.

Yet the opposite has happened. These empty promises merely kept the UK locked into a system which progressively strangled our industry and the fishing communities. Constantly a light of hope and change for the better appeared to be shining at the end of the long tunnel but as you got nearer, the light disappeared further away into another tunnel so as to continue the flow of implementing integration – as commanded in the Treaties – often by stealth. An EU Common policy has one destination, a Union fishing fleet in Union waters."

 It is hard to do better than read John Ashworth's series of articles on the CFP as an exemplar of our relationship with the Political Union EU. But if "EU Reform" is the wrong question, then what is the right question?

It depends.

It is possible to demonstrate the opposite to asking these questions per side of the argument and show that asking the wrong question is the epitome of the art of deception:-

 Sunday Politics: Open Europe are a "EU Reform" aka "Remain" organization asking WHY? Leave questions and leading to deception: "Regulations Bonfire Cut Red-Tape"

If you are on the side of "Remain", you have this question to ask:-

• WHY should we Remain a Member of the Political Union (EU)?

If you are on the side of "Leave", you have this question to ask:-

• HOW should we Leave the Political Union (EU)?

OMG !!!! Parakeet invasion

BBC2 - The Great British Parakeet Invasion

The above mini-documentary on Rose-Ringed Parakeets is a very 'watchable' mixture of entertainment and investigation by the BBC: It's done with a balanced, playful tone at the same time as being informative and avoiding either sentimentality or hostility. It's not seeking to increase the dosage for servicing peoples' "emotional hits".

This is an example of a positive and balanced "investigative and discursive journalism" that aims to be informative and entertaining. It could do with a few more numbers on the actual population, a few more contributions from scientists studying their "impact" for both ecologically positive and negative outcomes as an "invasive" and now naturalised species. But overall it is inviting and inclusive of opinions and simultaneously fun. The best quality is that it is produced with confidence in letting the subject matter "do the talking" and leaving overall judgement and interpretation to the viewer.

There's something oddly familiar-sounding...

To compare to The Daily Mail which decides more of peoples' "emotional-buttons" need pressing to increase it's "attractive/detractive-value" or what people otherwise term "Deliberate (Professional) Trolling" of readers. Indeed, the RSPB "Giving Nature A Home" advise:-

'It is important that the spread of the ring-necked parakeet is monitored, and its potential for negative impacts on our native bird species assessed.'

If the parakeet population were to continue to grow, the implications for our native species must be closely monitored. The Government is obliged to ensure that non-native species do not adversely affect native wildlife, and is currently developing a policy framework for addressing the possible risks associated with such species becoming established.

And here we have "The 2 Overruling Themes" on our own National Conversations concerning Migration Policy often reported as "Immigration Stories" of one kind or another in the Legacy News-Media.

1. Communication: Hot-Buttons

Stephen Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature :-

"Aside from supplying a direct justification for violent conflict, the ideology of intergroup struggle ignites a nasty feature of human social psychology: the tendency to divide people into in-groups and out-groups and to treat the out-groups as less than human. It doesn't matter whether the groups are thought to be defined by their biology or by their history. Psychologists have found that they can create instant intergroup hostility by sorting people on just about any pretext, including the flip of a coin."

 According to Westphalian sovereignty :-

"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648... As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.

International relations theorists have identified several key principles of the Peace of Westphalia, which explain the Peace's significance and its impact on the world today":

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2. The principle of legal equality between states
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

In The Road To The European Union we looked at a comparison between different forms of governance via Roger Scruton's series of articles which concluded the significance of National Borders and hence Sovereignty to Nation States and the preconditions for Democracy such as The Rule Of Law etc, eloquently summarized by Jesus Christ Matthew 22:20-22 King James Version (KJV), whom Roger Scruton quotes:-

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

To add the context above, effectively National Democracies form "in-groups" and "out-groups" as such it will inevitably be a "hot button topic" in the nature of arguments that follow. From this statement of fact, it follows that due care and management of both: Communication and Policy are needed for the handling of Migration Policy at the National Level of good governance.

2. Migration Policy: A Government Dereliction of Duty

In Literature and Science we came to a hugely significant conclusion concerning the Visibility Of Arguments vs Quality of Arguments, to recap:-

• Media, UKIP, Establishment: Immigration > EU > Democracy 
• FLEXCIT: Democracy > EU > Immigration

 United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)

 This inference is backed up in two ways: First, the argument we make here (above) and secondly looking at a history of The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) (cheekily referred to as the UK-immigration-P); it demonstrates the growth curve away from being dismissed as a:-

"UKIP was founded in 1991 by the historian Alan Sked as the Anti-Federalist League, a single-issue Eurosceptic party. Renamed UKIP in 1993, the party adopted a wider right-wing platform and gradually increased its support vote over the coming two decades. Under Farage's leadership, from 2009 the party tailored its policies toward a politically disenfranchised white working-class support base, before making significant breakthroughs in the 2013 local elections and the 2014 European elections, where UKIP received the most votes. At the 2015 general election, the party gained the third largest vote share but won only one seat in the House of Commons.

"In 2006, Farage was elected leader of UKIP. He sought to broaden UKIP's image away from that of a single-issue party by introducing an array of socially conservative policies, including reducing immigration"

 UKIP EU Parliament Elections Results 2014

The numbers provided at wikipedia completely back up the growth of UKIP and it's politically impressive and significant to the state of our arguments. Looking also at:-

• A summary history of immigration to Britain
• Immigration Under Labour
• European Union | Key Topics

The full picture of the visibility of Migration Policy such that polling represents (in so much as polling represents anything of use - wet thumb for wind direction): Opinion Poll Results on Immigration shows this effect asserting itself in tandem with UKIP's political numbers and support growth.

However, UKIP and Immigration Polling are all about Visibility of Arguments, they represent (an especial topic for national democracies to be sensitive concerning) which are symptoms and effects of policy failure or lack of policy from our Government - not - the actual causes.

Dr. RAE North documents Government policy failure with perspicacity and detail:-

Migration: dealing with the problems
Migration: a continued parade of ignorance
Migration: the UN intervenes
Migration: the pot speaks of the kettles
Migration: reducing the pull factors
Immigration: not an EU issue?
Immigration: joined-up policy needed
Immigration: a series of marginal gains
Immigration: not quite what it appears
Immigration: the "pull factors" prevail
Immigration: the rehearsal is over
Immigration: a perfect storm in the offing?
Immigration: amateur time is over
Immigration: a "resolute Conservative government"
Immigration: a free pass for "criminals"
Immigration: opportunities galore
Immigration: Eritrea – confusion and ambiguity
Immigration: in the year to come
Immigration: a tale of incompetence
Immigration: Pegida hits a new record
 
A lot of the main arguments are summarized in FLEXCIT. Dr. RAE North as you can see provides a vast analysis of Migration Policy, and both deeper and broader than Migration Watch, as well as far more contextual and impartial. But it shows the complex web of Policy Failure that is the true measure of the Quality of Argument and you compare it to UKIP's website, which is so barren of information to educate yourself with, by contrast: They don't need to regarding relying on the visibility of arguments only:-

Legacy Media: "Pushing your buttons"

Ultimately we can establish a hierarchy: 

• "Representative Democracy" fails to represent voters.
•  The Political Party in office is more concerned with holding power than working on "joined-up policy" across not just Migration, but the EU, Energy, Defence etc.
• This incoherence is amplified in the News-Media along with various Political Correctness orthodoxy or "Groupthink".
• In turn the underlying tenets of National Democracy start to strain and the rise of alternative parties such as UKIP are a direct result of the Top-Down Crystallization of Westminster Politics under the further and continuous Centralization of the EU.
• Improving the quality of our arguments even if this appears less expedient than pushing the visibility value of arguments (which is where prestige is able to sustain no productive changes) will help people see beyond their normal moral filters and start to find greater consensus: Which means greater democratic representation and removing barriers towards that.

Coming back to the Parakeet examples of people's numerous varied reactions:-

Parakeets: "Flying secateurs" or "colourful characters"?

The above perfectly summarizes the hyper-emotional level of debate: Highly visible but extremely shallow and hence poor quality arguments: Mostly sentiment: Sentimentality and hostility. Towards Sir James Goldsmith's speech in The Referendum Party's Election video in Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes" he mentions that the great property of democracies is the ability of opposing groups with different views to accept the other side's arguments in a fair vote, fairly represented and hence "democracy heals itself". This property is not possible within the EU and is also very lacking in our own government at Westminster.

Previusly, the trend is from accusing UKIP, Dr. RAE North: EU Referendum: migrant misinformation. Then more people realize there's also something wrong with our media "in on it too" as per Lost Leonardo: A User’s Guide To The New Media and sooner or later it will work it's way back to the Government, The Brexit Door: Mrs May, Twittter & The politics of independence

When we gain more consensus closer to the ultimate source, then we will see that the argument beyond the government was all along within ours, the people's power to change things and force the govenment to actually work according to democracy. But in order to do that, all of:-

• UKIP
• Legacy News-Media
• Our Government
• Ourselves, The People

Must start using higher quality arguments according the fair rules of Real Democracy.  I personally believe UK/Britain has been one of the most tolerance and welcoming nations in the entire world and that we have one of the best and most cosmopolitan cities in the world in London where a lot of migration is focused.But without real democracy, those values and collective virtues of our culture are undermined; "our national treasures" as a people are tarnished by the politicians in power.

Rose-Ringed Parakeet tail-feather

Here's the tail-feather of a newly fledged Rose-Ringed Parakeet, I inadvertently saved from a Sparrowhawk, over the Summer. By everyone managing to improve the quality of their arguments across the board and not merely their visibility we'll all be able to "put a feather in our caps" for real democracy (pardon the pun!).