Brexit: "The Lost Sheep" (poor little fella!)

Oh dear a bleating little lamb calling plaintively for his mother: He's wandered away from the safety of the flock and now the great shepherd (EU) will be needed to save him... or something like that.

Ugh, we've got Christoph Scheuermann writing in Spiegel Online The Waiting Game: Playing for Time After Brexit attempting to "change the tune" concerning reacting from Brexit: Instead of the "little foolish lamb (Reference attribution) will be left to be ripped to pieces by the wolves if it dares to stray from the EU flock", it's now "let the poor bleating blighter suffer for a bit all alone" before the good shepherd of the EU arranges a sort of "Association Membership" deal for the UK to lure it back to the flock of other frightened sheep.

Well, it's an attempt to capture the tone of superiority and the priestly orthodoxy of the Pro-EU politicians/lawyers/economists/journalists and it's also highly revealing too. It's show their attitude and beliefs in such a construct as the EU and hence just potentially how divergent they could be from what British voters actually are comfortable with in their relationship with the EU.

• Political Supranational Union
• Common Regulatory Region or Regulatory Portal (for the UK)

If there's any reason that's essential to understand about Brexit leaving the EU I think it's this divergence in objectives and motivations: Withdrawal from EU Treaties means that the confusion and coercion by stealth to manipulate or persuade the UK (the political class who have their hands all over the levers of power in particular) is safely removed and reduced.

That sorts out the dreary mess that has plagued so much poor communication on the EU in UK Political discussions all the shadow games played out in place of actual substance and policy.

However what's is left is the other indication above concerning that "Regulatory Portal" and here anyone on all sides of the argument need to pay attention:-

1. There's not going to be a short-term change here
2. Keeping it is not going to be an ultimate destination either (EEA)
3. It's going to continually be under the forces of change of globalization and hence any policy needs to be made concerning "trend" or "direction of travel" as opposed to for example "Association Membership" orbiting the EU.

Now if you've been following FLEXCIT and EUReferendum.com this is all not surprising. But it's worth emphasising the inertia and resistance to change and kicking up dust by the Pro-EU Federalists and their short and narrow vision conflating Supranational Union with this alternative premise of "globalization trend on regulations and standards" for say trade as opposed to political philosophy; and such an example is provided by Jean Monnet Chair Professor Dougan:-
Oral evidence: The UK's Future Economic Relationship with the European Union

Professor Dougan: The day of the constitutional lawyer has come. We are all aware that there is a very important legal debate happening within our own country about whether Article 50 can be triggered purely by Royal Prerogative, about whether Article 50 should be triggered by primary legislation, about whether there is some combination of parliamentary and governmental participation that we need to secure. We are all probably aware that this issue is likely to end up in the superior courts for a judicial determination, which will effectively settle the issue for us.

There's a good summary that clarifies this: Brexit | On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate.What is perhaps not appreciated is something that I will predict will rule the decision-making process and needs to be verbalized clearly:-
There must be an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that the EU rules and hence motivations are divergent and different from the UK rules and hence motivations as expressed in the EU Referendum.
And that is to come back to the idea of Supranational design (lol sounds like supernatural) compared to what we the UK have left over from the Referendum: That Regulatory Portal idea from Dr. RAE North. That is something we can and must and should work with and on and about. And interestingly this perhaps may explain a lot of the subsequent flood of discussion and focus on the EEA which was so ruthlessly and so crookedly removed from the IEA Brexit Prize process.
Funny how things look now? A failure to make this distinction is a failure to progress the argument away from blockheads such as Dougan and other Pro-EUs who will always look for complications and barriers and complexity additions to the problem of withdrawal from the EU. The very opposite to finding solutions that are to quote FLEXCIT: The Market Solution:-

• It is intended to show that an orderly exit is plausible and practical and can be largely risk-free.
• Leaving the EU is a big step and there can be no serious dispute that a botched process could have dire results.
• Even in trade with the rest of the world, the EU is often the regulatory portal through which we access other markets so it has a huge influence on non-EU trade.
• To achieve a trouble-free exit, we must have an exit plan. Without that, we believe the "leave" campaign will not succeed.
• Our plan, therefore, has to be accurate, honest and pragmatic.
• And we start with a basic premise. After nine treaties and 40 years of political and economic integration, there can be no clean break
• The next point is that negotiations will not take place in a political vacuum.
• This means that our negotiators will not have a free hand.
• It starts with each of the parties setting out their opening positions but, to achieve a satisfactory outcome, both sides will have to listen to each other. Compromise will be essential.
• Proposals cannot be taken seriously unless they are politically attainable and publicly acceptable
• With this in mind, we stress that great care should be taken with exit scenarios based on economic models.
• Then, we must point out that all solutions must fit with others.
• In our view, that means we must – in the short to medium term – stay in the EU's Single Market.
• To stay in the Single Market, acceptance of the principle freedom of movement is non-negotiable. We can abolish freedom of movement or we can stay in the single market. We can't do both.
• We must accept a short-term compromise over freedom of movement.
• Under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which defines the exit procedures, negotiations are set to last two years.
• That confronts another reality. Brexit presents an existential threat to the EU.
• Taking all that into account, we propose six stages to our plan. Its very essence is that it is split into stages.
• In conclusion, we explain how leaving the EU becomes a process requiring continuous and flexible development. That repeats our central point: leaving the EU is not a single event but a multi-stage process.
• In short, by leaving the EU, we are not ending a relationship.

Here you can see the monumental difference between "problematizing" Brexit as opposed to carefully summarizing (introduction in a pamphlet form of the full treatment or worked and living document itself) the principle properties of Brexit (this itself above is merely a highlighted selection from a selection) for brevity.
But as much as pointing out this difference, the other differences need pointing out:-

1. Bad Plan = "Negatives"
2. No Plan = "Vacuous"
3. Any Plan = "Disastrous"
4. Knowledgeable Plan = "Practical"

Perhaps the leading source of bringing down the whole Referendum quality was the inability of these diffferent groups of people 1-3 referenced from Brexit: they haven't a clue in arguing honestly and not according to their own blindness and shallow motivations and failings. They truly are the lost little lambs. Meanwhile somewhere at large, on Darmoor: Dartmoor Zoo lynx: Will the call of mum trap Flaviu?

 Lynx At Large!

Referendum: Clear Choices Ahead & Behind

The art of sales or marketing/advertising is often the ability to persuade. And the ability to persuade people when the actual product is either not wanted nor useful or in good quality is to substitute such evidential "virtue" with deception and that is done via introducing types of error which confuse the customer into thinking the exchange of their hard-earned money has higher value than it actually does to them for the item that they are sold.

I can think of such confusion from telesales marketers, sales people and in this case politicians join such illustrious company. When we can model what actually is the right context then we can ignore the various errors introduced to trick and deceive us by constantly keeping in mind, in this case the actual map (The North Downs Way) and core details:-

1. Origin
2. Route
3. Destination

If we KNOW what our destination is, we can create the right route to that destination. But we also must KNOW what our origin is and how it is different from either the fake version being sold to us and also know that it's not the same as the destination where we want to get to:-

Our own Government under David Cameron, most recently, introduce the errors of not asserting that the EU Rules are built as per the above LHS: That is the map for the EU and it always has been. But equally Vote Leave introduce errors by making assertions that there is no need for a ROUTE or PLAN to get to our Destination!!

In fact, worse, Vote Leave say that the rules can be changed after we vote to Leave however we want which is like saying we can draw our own map of how to get from Guildford to Canterbury: All we need is a black marker pen to make a few minor alterations to the map (not to the physical reality!)! They really need to be clear:-

• The EU is going towards a different destination to the UK and hence David Cameron is lying.
• There must be a well worked out route or plan to get out of the EU Treaties first.
• This is not the same as the subsequent stages the UK is aiming to travel towards eventually.
• It does however mean that the UK is ABLE TO LEAVE:-

1. Economically (via retaining Single Market access)
2. Legally (via Article 50)
3. Politically via Democratic Referendum Supported by the UK People (demos)
4. Politically: Negotiation (UK legitimate and true kratos exercised by our politicians according to the will of the people) with the EU and other European Members who I'm sure will respect such "democracy in action" so long as they can do so according to the Rules they have chosen to govern themselves by!

In The Referendum Soup

The above is a play on The Vinegar Tasters. In fact only recently did I realize that the interpretation I'd read in some book or other was partly wrong. I read that for one taster the taste of the substance was bitter, another sour and yet another sweet and so how could the experience be "negative for two" yet one of the three find the experience "positive"? It was that sweet taster was putting "mind over matter" and this was how we should approach things.

Actually I think that's a superficial rendition. First we learn through experience which is tasting. That experience may be either sour and bitter (or indeed sweet) and hence partly right but subjectively so depending on us and on the conditions in which we were tasting: In my cup of tea - yuck! On my fish and chips with salt - yum! The single objective answer we can all agree on is: "What is in the large pot?" The answer is of course "Vinegar." It it - in this case - what it is.

The Great Deception

 You may like it or you may not like it, but at least KNOW WHAT IT IS = Supranationalism

I was just catching up on the BBC Question Time for this week and watching the usual scenes of people who don't know therefore they replace this lack of not knowing with "emotional intuition" which they then force to fit into particular conclusions and emotively extrapolated statements.

EU Referendum: no such thing as free trade

Trade appears not to be a singular discrete object but more of a web of various possible interactions?

"If you care to Google "TTIP", a goodly number of reports will refer to it in terms of the creation of "the largest free trade area in the world". And in the simple designation of "free trade area" lies one of the most prevalent misunderstandings, quite literally, in the world. TTIP is not a free trade area (FTA).

[...]

Above all else, non-tariff barriers are the target, recognition of which requires breaking away from the tired old mantras, and understanding what we are dealing with. What we end up with is not free trade, but managed trade – and the better the management, the better the results."

There's so much to quote in the above by Dr. RAE North, that it would almost end up c&p'ing the entire article: Please read it and see that there is no special privilege to calling the EU = Supranational Political Entity than attempting to more clearly define what we mean by "A Trade Deal" by the Vote Leave lot as opposed to the Remain lot (HM Government, above):-

"This puts the likes of Boris Johnson, Gove and, latterly David Bannerman, on the spot. If they want to take what they insist on calling the "free trade" route, it is their responsibility to identify the extent of the financial penalty, and then to argue that Brexit is worth it. What they cannot do with any validity, is argue that there is no financial penalty. Nor can they argue that a partial CRA is equivalent to the Single Market. It is not.

Alternatively, and more sensibly, we can adopt the Efta/EEA route, as part of an evolutionary process of which even the Adam Smith Institute – spiritual home of "free trade" doctrine – seems to approve. That way, we remain part of the Single Market CRA and there is no financial penalty."

And this is about the "flavour" of the EU Referendum so far: Even the public have realized that one side says "Jump!" and the other side says "Duck!" but neither side are ready or able to explain to people why? 

The result is in fact that the people shouting out the commands to the people how to respond to the EU Referendum:-

Pig Ignorant And Grossly Offensive To Boot

"What is the point of the British legacy media? It is incapable and where capable unwilling to report on reality. It exists only to lie to you.
Sure, for the most part, the hacks are just clueless keyboard thumpers who know not what they do. But why should ignorance be an excuse when these people are being paid?

Everybody makes mistakes. But the extent of the deception and self-deception which bubble journalists evince is on another level. If these people are ill-informed, it is because they want to be. If I type “EU referendum” into a search engine, the top site is EUReferendum.com.

So we come to the focus of this post, this condescending and inaccurate Evening Standard article written by Anthony Hilton. I shall not rebut the entire piece, just a few illustrative examples."

 

It could be Anthony Hilton with his "cool pose" in the Evening Standard or Michael O'Leary (Ryan Air) on BBC Question Time with his apparent business sense on display... . There's too many people shouting about their own personal tastes based on ignorance and emotion and not enough on producing a coherent and consistent model of understanding of the subject to be debated and discussed BEFORE being voted on directly by people in this EU Referendum.

I think if we recollect where we are in time at present, however, looking back we may find that there was one group at least where people were sharing an understanding that people can use and make sense of by attributing to things what they really are as opposed to the reaction they might or might not induce in that person or others:-

The Leave Alliance

s 
                                                   

FLEXCIT Application: 3. Fisheries Outcomes

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

To recap we have correctly described the problem and it's correct context. We've then looked a the solution that draws away FROM the problem and now look at where/what we are transitioning TO: The Outcomes.

How do we come to outcomes? Quoting the Fisheries Green paper by Owen Paterson above:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

We have a true competition of ideas, the use of scientific method and the coherent integration of all dependent parties. This is the effective outcome that is better than the problem from which we desire to remove if we find the means to make it possible.

You can see that by looking at some of the best cases of Fisheries Management Systems from around the world, lessons can be learnt and applied, successfully. However they can only do this if the UK has Fisheries Policy Control restored to it's government in service of it's people and their ownership of their own resources: Themselves and their nation!

For example using the summary of the above paper on such policy proposals:-

"From that experience, backed by extensive discussions with scientists, experts, fishermen and environmentalists, we have devised a policy framework tailored to suit the specific requirements of the UK.  

It is based on the following principles":

• Effort control based on “days at sea” instead of fixed quotas
• A ban on discarding commercial species
• Permanent closed areas for conservation
• Provision for temporary closures of fisheries
• Promotion of selective gear and technical controls
• Rigorous definition of minimum commercial sizes
• A ban on industrial fishing
• A prohibition of production subsidies
• Zoning of fisheries
• Registration of fishing vessels, skippers and senior crew members
• Measures to promote profitability rather than volume
• Effective and fair enforcement

 It's clear to see from this map that the UK Fisheries Zones are enormously important Policy Competence for the UK to manage and govern responsibly and productively

The objective of this blog is to summarize and not "rehearse" nor "rehash" argument without attempting to provide more perspectives and alternative ways of combining and organizing information. So more of the above can be read via the particular paper quoted.

Here there's something worth pointing out: We need Policy Control returned to our government. But that government also needs to be Self-Governing. What does that mean? Most arguments take this to mean:-

Sovereignty = Self-Governing + Policy Control

In short-hand I would argue. Here we then see that this headline container of "Sovereignty" vs Supranationalism shapes so much of the arguments. Our Prime Minister David Cameron on this subject:-

David Cameron: "You have an illusion of sovereignty but you don't have power"

A Great Deception or An Illusion of Sovereignty?

 ~~ Thought Exercise Intermission ~~

This is one of the almost classic examples of when you know someone is either lying or deceiving (Tony Blair) but you can't necessarily explain how. To suggest that the UK must give up Sovereignty to have power is actually telling us how Mr. Cameron views the world and it's that the UK/"you" means those in charge of the people of the UK - not the people themselves. Now this minor intermission, is worth a pause: Repeat that phrase to yourself several times by rereading it and apply it as sort of "interpretation filter" the next numerous occasions you happen to be listening to a politician involved in a senior capacity in our own Westminster Parliament and note if this is the filter their own mental models tend to hint at: How they really see themselves: As masters or as servants of the British people?

Fortunately we can rely again on John Ashworth to clear up this question of Sovereignty and define our REAL PREDICAMENT and hence allow us to depart from Babel-17 - finally after 4 detailed blogs.

Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty 

There is a massive difference between loss of sovereignty, and what has actually happened. Our Westminster Parliament has “lent” sovereignty to the European Union. We start with the classic definition of sovereignty given by A. V. Dicey in his “Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution”:

• “The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that ‘Parliament’ has ‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.

This means that Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972. By doing so, Parliament — not the EU, not the European Court of Justice, but Parliament — decided to accept the obligations of EU membership for the UK. Parliament has continued to exercise its sovereignty in passing the legislation necessary to implement every EU amending treaty since the Single European Act 1986.

Therefore the UK Parliament is and remains sovereign. That is not affected one millimetre or one inch by the Lisbon treaty. As our own courts have ruled, by Lord Justice Laws:-

• “The fundamental legal basis of the UK’s relationship with the EU rests with the domestic not the European legal powers.”

John Ashworth makes the product of understanding our Sovereignty very clear: "We cannot change European Law."

This, however, is exactly what Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to do and explains why on becoming party leader he dumped the policy of returning fisheries to national control and why before this, he had been so opposed to Michael Howard’s letter outlining the course of using the supremacy of parliament to obtain national control of fisheries, because he has no intention of using the British legal order.

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.

Nine deceptions in our history with the EU

"To get back up to the shining world from there; My guide and I went into that hidden tunnel; . . .Where we came forth, and once more saw the stars." ~ Dante Alighieri: The Divine Comedy - Inferno Canto XXXIV:70-139 The Poets leave The Nine Circles of Hell

What is so interesting is that here with Fisheries we have the echo of the greater argument with which not only the details of a specific policy are in harmony with but also the entire philosophical principles and derivations from such principles or axioms of argument themselves when we now return to the present and see for ourselves The Great Deception in full operation via our own Prime Minister:-

Politicians: Ahead of the Law (for now...)

• EU Referendum: treaty fraud
• EU Referendum: papering over the lies
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal - 1
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 2
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 3 
• EU Referendum: debunking the deal

Dr. RAE North has suggested that what is needed is a Positive Vision, an offer that is worth travelling through that dark tunnel or across that bridge: What lies beyond? It is very easy to get bogged down by the deceptions and lose the vision. But if we have not lost our Sovereignty what are we to gain from leaving?

The European Union LEX: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Summaries

So hopefully we've concluded that via the European Communities Act 1972 we have "lent" our Fisheries Policy competence and hence self-governance to the EU as per the above applicable to the UK. We've decided that for this policy there is a problem and we have identified the solution to remove that problem: So what does the Outcome look like? In detail looking at the summaries provided we want to separate the Political Agenda of the EU (Supranationalism) from the Technical and Scientific Frameworks in accordance with good Self-Governance.

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

• Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. 
• an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union [COM(2007) 575 
• Towards the integration of maritime surveillance: A common information sharing environment for the EU maritime domain [COM(2009) 538
• Developing the international dimension of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union [COM(2009) 536
• Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean [COM(2009) 466
• “Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integrated maritime governance and stakeholder consultation” [COM(2008) 395
• Recommendation 2002/413/EC - Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe

Some of the integration measures here will help with cooperation practically so they are positive, but where they are political they are perhaps negative as we have seen. Effectively leaving the EU is removing the "Ever Closer Union" political attribution but keeping the cooperative trading and conservation agendas. Let's think about these as the source of an alternative positive oucome or vision:-

 We've decided we can do a much better job ourselves under our own policy control!

And here is the problem as John Ashworth has remarked: We have to swallow the entire EU acquis including Fisheries and the rules therein and this is why this policy has not improved because of our own government.

If we look at the EU's Management of Fisheries we can do a better job ourselves, but secondly if we look further at the Sustainability, Biodiversity and Conservation of Marine Ecosystems, which John Ashworth comments on very succinctly in how they essentially work, we see the EU is taking it's lead from:-

Target 6: addressing the global biodiversity crisis

The EU must step up its contribution to averting global biodiversity loss by meeting the commitments made at the 10th Conference of Parties (COP10) to the 

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which took place in Nagoya in 2010. During this conference, the EU committed to:

—	achieving the goals set by the Global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020;

—	implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (ABS Protocol); and

—	mobilising additional resources to finance the challenge of protecting biodiversity world-wide.

Secondly it seems the specific functions that are mutually beneficial perhaps between the EU and European Nations not in the in this policy area:-

• EMODnet
• Copernicus
• Inspire

Then the UK would still contribute and collaborate fully with anyway. Other bodies such as:-

•  OSPAR Commission

"OSPAR is the mechanism by which 15 Governments & the EU cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic."

• KIMO

"KIMO is your local government voice on marine pollution. KIMO engages with the most serious environmental threats using practical, diplomatic and research based approaches."

Outside the EU would equally be involved with the UK.

The picture is a merging of the Global bodies and specialisms with the local bodies and specialism, effectively and removing the excesses and inefficiencies of centralized government where this is negative in this area. In another EU document on this subject:

Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment

"In particular, with regard to the regional conventions, their long track record of scientific and technical competence and ability to act as a bridge with non-EU countries will make them invaluable partners in delivering the EU Strategy. With regard to the existing institutional and legal arrangements at an international/global level (e.g. IMO, UNCLOS) EU policy will be developed within the context of the Green Paper on Maritime Policy."

In particular:

"Community participation in Regional Fisheries Organisations (RFOs)"

Given the size of the UK's Fisheries more direct specialism and expertise and collaboration in this sphere would seem very productive as per Owen Paterson's Fisheries paper we already mentioned:-

"To produce it, we have built on an earlier visit to the Falklands, visiting numerous British fishing ports and successful fisheries in Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the USA."

As per the link above on RFO's they in turn are influenced by other global bodies such as FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Then looking at Deep-sea Fish Stocks there is collaboration between an international organization and an EU one:-

• International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
• Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)

 When David Cameron says there's an "illusion of Sovereignty" vs Power (for business in the example he gave) if we compare with Fisheries it's quite clear that the UK gains far more local and global power outside the EU! We remove the problem and additionally have a positive vision of an outcome in collaborating and sharing expertise with global bodies removed of political pollution.

Moving away from the management of Fisheries and into the Commercial Trade Industry for Fisheries, taking Norway as an example outside the EU on Fisheries influence, and now using Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution and compare this with the EU's: EU market for fishery and aquaculture products:-

 In FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.1 Replacement and removal of existing law Dr. RAE North provides a summary of the law the UK operates under via domestic and EU sources:-

 What we're seeing therefore is the entire argument about "power" as David Cameron calls it is about the RULES we impose on ourselves and how these are developed and by whom and how we agree to accept them or otherwise. In Fisheries Outcomes we've already seen that this EU Law has some major components:-

• Some is not specific to the UK
• Some of it is engendered with the principles of the EU: "Ever Closer Union"
• Some of it is from global sources who are the specialist in making it.
• Community Law takes precedence over Domestic Law which applies to all members and limits members equally according to "Community Rules" applied equally or equivalently.

With respect to the above market for Fisheries there is a mismatch between the regulatory requirements for example with food products (Horsemeat) and criminal activity which is based on National enforcement of standards. Secondly there is a "Two-Tier Regulation" System argument that fails to acknowledge that standards are increasingly being set at global levels for convergence eg WTO. Dr. RAE North remarks in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 10.1: The EU Role In Global Governance:-

"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  organisations and  is thus potentially amenable to global regulation. In   terms   of   detail,   over   33   percent   of   the acquis comprises "technical regulations,  standards,  testing  and  certification".  Much  of  this  is  implemented through standards bodies which will eventually emerge as ISO standards."

Further reference with direct respect to Norway: Norway has no influence? Let's now take a look at Fisheries in this respect to Norway now the wider picture scene is set:-

 So according to Mr. Bjorn Knudtsen he and his nation Norway are ALREADY in the situation we've decided might be hypothetically desirable for the UK in this particular case for Fisheries Policy. We do not need to deliberate, we can decide DECIDEDLY as per international rules on food "Codex was the "top table" and evidently the source of expertise of technical considerations.

This highlighted section is the argument we've been trying to elucidate all this time for the effect that separating EU Supranational Politics from UK Politics (Self-Governance) and hence UK Policy Control (Competence).

We see that Norway has been "from inception to the final formulation of rules" been involved "at every step of the process".

Here encapsulated into Fisheries Policy we have our Positive Outcome!

Norway has no influence?

"Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies few have ever heard of, where the EU takes our seat and negotiates on our behalf. Norway is fully engaged in the process before it gets anywhere near the EU. They are at the top tables with full rights of veto." 

 Abstraction of Outcomes:-

1. Specific Policy requirements for the UK Fisheries are needed at Local level.
2. These cannot be "reformed" inside the EU due to the nature of the working of the Supranational nature of it's rules system in service to Supranational political destination.
3. This is especially adverse for the UK which has extensive Fisheries national resource and has the knowledge via comparing globally to produce the best outcomes for policy superior to the EU.
4. The argument concerning Supranationalism for Sovereignty is a false dilemma. It's exchanging Supranationalism for Intergovernmentalism and Sovereignty is better served by this outcome or paradigm shift!
5. The "emergence" of this results also indicates a by-product advantage: We can cut down on the enormity of deception enacted without checks and balances to their egregious behaviour of our politicians and leadership against the Sovereignty of the British People: Public Enemy Number One: David Cameron can be removed and the source of so much confusion; it's head chopped off.
6. When we break down the EU Legal instruments we see that global bodies are just as influential and increasingly so on Fisheries Management and Conservation as well as Products and Marketing standards of Fish produce eg Codex.
7. Secondly in areas where it makes regional sense the UK can still form positive partnerships with the EU which is complementary to the UK regaining seats at the real "top tables" of global standards and regulations setting and making bodies.
8. We see that removing the EU specific political legal instruments will likely lead to stronger scientific input into our policies in the case of Fisheries used to exemplify here.
9. This trend is quantifiable given 80-90% of EEA acquis has it's origins in such global bodies. Again the EEA acquis split with the Single Market shows that these are predominantly of a "technical nature" as opposed to forming a hidden "political agenda" eg "Community Waters/Fleet" etc.
10. Through Dr. RAE North's research on regulations great challenges are found to realigning here and reforming conditions so that world trade can be boosted.
11. This evidence is already extant with Norway being an exemplar bona fide case study for direct comparison.
12. Much of modern law is made at an international level, along with trading rules. They are made by UNECE, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, ILO, IMO, UNEP and a whole host of bodies indicates that Fisheries is far from being alone or exceptional example but rather a very clear example of the general trend.

s

FLEXCIT Application: 2. Fisheries Solutions

 Understanding the Solutions means understanding their context too: Under Supranationalism or Under Intergovernmentalism

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

1. The Solution Defined:-

Before looking at the potential Solutions if we agree that there are indeed problems:

"The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform.  It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea
than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated
fishing communities."

"Fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale; they need local control." ~ Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January, 2005

Then we must establish the exact nature of those Problems, to which John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1 provides the exact description of the rules of the EU, how it works:-

"When a Regulation is created, at the top it states the articles within the Treaty the regulation takes its authority from, and as soon as a Regulation comes into force, it in turn becomes what is known as the acquis communautaire:-

• "The Court of Justice has ruled that the EU acquis takes precedence over national law if there is a conflict, and that the acquis may have direct effect in the Member States."

In understanding the workings of the then EEC, now European Union, the above paragraph is probably one of the most important aspects to have to learn.

Firstly – what is this acquis communautaire. -. It is all EEC/EU treaties, EU legislation -(regulation), international agreements, standards, court verdicts, fundamental rights provisions and horizontal principles in the treaties such as equality and non-discrimination. In short, all EU-law.

When Britain joined in January 1973, the acquis communautaire amounted to around 5,000 pages; today it is estimated to be 170,000 pages and growing. When a nation joins, what is now the EU, it has to accept, and comply, with the acquis communautaire in full, without exception, other than with transitional derogations. In addition the existing members have to all agree, to the applying Nation joining under those terms, which in effect the existing members, by Treaty, are endorsing their allegiance/compliance to the acquis communautaire."

 The UK joined the EEC in 1972 and has been a member of the EU for 44 years and a part of the acquis system above. Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - 9.0 Regulatory issues provides a summary of the full weight of membership to this system for the UK:-

"In  this  event, the UK will be obliged to keep all Single Market  regulation in place. This  is an extensive body of law. From May 1992,  when the EEA Agreement encompassed 1,849  legal acts, by  December 2013 it had grown  o 5,758  legislative  acts, out  of  the 20,868  EU  acts  currently  in  orce (Table 3). By the end of October 2015, there were 4,957 acts remaining in force, with EU laws in  force recorded at  23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis stood at 22 percent."

2. The Two-Step Solution Applied (I):-

"Since there would be no obligation to retain the remainder of the acquis, theoretically, leaving  the EU could  give relief from around 15,000 acts (although  by no  means all are  applicable to the UK). Amongst  others,  high profile policies such as the CFP and the CAP, would be amendable to abolition if there was the political will to do so, and the nation was prepared to accept the consequences."

 Of which, Table 3: European Union Legislation in force Fisheries Acts = 1,170.

Solution = transition or "bridge" between Problem and Outcome

If we look at our FLEXCIT model we remind ourselves what is the "problem" we are trying to actually solve. Is it economics? No It's political. We saw in FLEXCIT Application: 1. Fisheries Problems of Supranational membership. This is why "keeping all the Single Market regulations" in place is undertaken on withdrawing from Political Union.

The solution is as per Dr. RAE North in FLEXCIT:-

"To  allow time  to revise  our  law  books,  a  holding  process  will  be  needed.  The best option is to repatriate the entire body of EU law, converting it en bloc into British law (by a device similar to the ECA)"

 Hence the solution is to again quote John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.:-

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK’s fishing zone of 200 mile/median line are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments."

"The first priority, therefore, is that control/competence is returned back to Britain."

Here we have the solution, repatriation of the acquis does mean full "control/competence is returned back to Britain."

3. The Two-Step Solution Applied (II):-

This comes back to the quote above concerning removing Supranationalism to quote Owen Paterson Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters:-

"Since its inception, it has been dominated by political considerations that have had little to do with good fisheries management, so the decline and impending collapse of British fisheries has to be laid squarely at the door of the CFP."

"There is now increasing evidence that the reason for the failure is that the core regime applied by the CFP is irredeemably flawed, not least in terms of its appreciation of fish biology, the quality and interpretation of data, as well as the treatment of fishermen"

To come back to John Ashworth:-

"However, as far as fisheries are concerned, it is no good scrapping one régime in order to establish another equally bad system. Withdrawal presents us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to show what can be achieved in an area that contains one of the finest marine resources in the world."

John Ashworth: The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.

"But the distinction has been made, once we regain Sovereignty of a national resource, the full British Fisheries Industry scope is set according to International Law that allows Sovereignty to be clearly defined and not obfuscated under Supranationalism (which we see persistent examples of):-
An inshore industry could be built around the 0 -12 mile limit, which would have a beneficial effect on coastal communities through tourism, recreational fishing, employment and other ancillary industries. All could be administered locally."

"The offshore Industry would be based on the 12 to 200 mile/median line, and then you have the straddling stocks and reciprocal arrangements, which brings genuine friendship between fishermen of different nations. When other nation’s vessels fish in our waters they would do so under our rules."

What we see is that there is no "leap in the dark" there is a orderly two-step withdrawal that regains Sovereignty and removes Supranationalism. Remember that the Solution is not the Outcome, it's a bridge FROM Supranationalism TO Intergovernmentalism:-

 This simple distinction is not made by so much of the political commentary on this subject not just say on Fisheries but on Immigration or any other "Policy Outcome Aspirations". The process of transition itself.

What this solutions does not provide (Outcome) it does provide in terms of relief as per Owen Paterson above, relief from Bad Politics interfering with good fisheries management. It also will help provide a stronger scientific and technical basis for Fisheries Conservation, Sustainability and Recovery and hence a thriving industry administered locally by people who have a vested interest in it's welfare and their own. For example John Ashworth again summarizes:-

Two essential features are needed for a viable fisheries policy:-

1. The first is the ability to be able rapidly to close areas down where juvenile fish are abundant. This has to be done within hours, even if the closure period may only last for a day or two. This ability to react quickly will never happen while our waters are under the control of Brussels control.
2. The other important feature of any contemporary fisheries management is the use of selective gear, As a fishing gear designer I need to emphasise that the gear you design for one area is not the same for another area. Even if you are catching the same species, you need to make slight alterations to the gear. This level of adaption is impossible under the policy imposed by Brussels where one set of rules must fit the whole of a large area.

"You must have fishermen on side to make this work, but again, under the North/Paterson proposals, this is far more likely than under the current EU- controlled regime. The attitude it has engendered is that if I don’t catch it, some other foreigner, even though it is another EU citizen, will get it, so I will get in first."

"Personally, I am strongly in favour of the model used by the Faeroe Islanders which operates in a diametrically opposite way to the EU system of setting for each species a total allowable catch on an annual basis, often based on dubious research. In my view it is no good working from the top of the pyramid downwards. Research should be directed at the base of the pyramid upwards; starting with the food source. Once you know the availability here, you can calculate what can be sustained at the top. If for example you have a collapse of the base, you have to fish the top hard, the very opposite to what would happen now."

And on the problems in-built into the "DNA" of the Political "Ever Closer Union" Supranational EU:

"Ranged against us are those who don’t want the Nation State, and those reformists who either don’t understand the workings of the EU, or else who have a hidden agenda. If they really believed in reform, they would want to get rid of the principle of equal access to a common resource without discrimination. However, such reform is impossible because of the thinking behind the EU Common fisheries policy, which is incapable of beneficial reform along the lines suggested here as it violates the very principles of integration enshrined in the EU treaties which it was designed to promote. Unfortunately, so-called reformists never acknowledge this harsh reality."

"Leaving the EU per se is no solution in itself. It is only the beginning." ~ John Ashworth The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
.

Abstraction of Solutions:-

 

1. Member states must take up the full acquis communautaire under the terms of the EU Treaties.
2. With respect to Fisheries this takes precedence over our own law as per the ECJ and with respect to the derogation of Fisheries we lose Sovereign Control of our Waters under "1982 Law of the Sea Convention".
3. As we are removing Supranationalism, we retain Single Market acquis to trade with the EU via EFTA/EEA in the ideal settlement. This leaves possible scope for revision of the CFP acquis which is not part of the EEA agreement; ie Policy Control is returned. It also means the return of our Sovereign Waters.
4. In the process of withdrawal we would repatriate the entire acquis simply to make the withdrawal and renegotiation expedient and avoid disruption to all economic activities.
5. This would in the longer term however provide potential relief from EU legislation not part of the EEA acquis and secondly reform of various sections of the acquis itself such as the CFP.
6. This itself is full Policy Control returned to Britain as well as relief from the maladaptive political interference of the EU under it's principles of "greater integration".
7. It would also provide relief from the false arguments of EU Reform which by the nature of the rules are restricted in scope.
8. This sets the greater scope for scientific and technical considerations in the management of Fisheries over "capricious Supranational politics".
9. Clarification of Fisheries under International Law is a positive boon for our politics and how that influences the Fisheries success of management proposals.
10. We can remove wasteful years of excessive "political maneuvering" by our politicians and EU officials to be replaced by practical and positive policy implementation that is measurable and accountable and comparative to good practices and the spread of high quality expertise and application over "political horse-trading".

FLEXCIT: A Paradigm Shift

What is Brexit? A Bridge. What is Flexcit? A Paradigm Shift.

Brexit is misconceptualized in almost all communication and particularly by the majority of "Leave" supporters.

• Brexit = A Bridge or "A Process". It is not the same as "The Outcome".

THE LEAVE ALLIANCE

Flexcit - The Market Solution to leaving the EU

Dr Richard A E North with Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group and the assistance of readers of EUReferendum.com

The Root Of All Uncertainty

The Uncertainty Precept: Start with the right question(s).

Quoting Wikipedia once again on the "Uncertainty Principle" (must donate!):-

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

So "uncertainty" is in-built it seems into the very nature of the realistic universe! Or to adapt it for a more "relate-able" misuse:-

And this is indeed a hilarious transposition of "uncertainty" when we also find the same "joke"as noted by Mr. Brexit:-

London School of Economics' CEP publishes partial and inaccurate Brexit report

CEP: "You Just Made That Up."

Interestingly enough we can actually take what Dilbert says above and apply it to the CEP "analysis" above:

"If you understand a project you won't know it's cost, and vica versa." ~ Dilbert

Effectively to para-phrase: "because we don't understand the project (Brexit)" we therefore DO understand it's costs: They're "ginormous"!! The Project Uncertainty Principle, in action.

This is attributed to "uncertainty". So how do we reduce/remove uncertainty?

What does "uncertainty" look like = Bad Decision-Making ; What is at the root of uncertainty = Not asking the right questions aka 1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Once we use such a framework it should be noted, CEP above launches into Stage 3. [See Above: "What are the UK's options outside the European Union?"] suggesting there is uncertainty over 3 million jobs and The Single Market and the EU are all blurred into one amorphous and undefined entity to which all manner of uncertainty properties can be attributed.

But the dual fallacies are both launching into Stage 4. AND not starting at Stage 1.

I think this simple process explains probably 95% of all the work we see published by various think tanks on the EU Referendum and on Brexit as per Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com.  It's staggered that our National Decision-Making apparatus and institutions is so primitive in it's observable out-put.

Progress? Nope. Uncertainty? Yup.

The enormous disregard for The History of the European Union as described and defined in The Great Deception has been a key contributor to failure of progression of the argument.

If anyone is interested in Brexit, they must know what the defined problem is as per Lost Leonardo: For The Avoidance of Doubt. But this also allows an insight into the workings of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" who are taking over the Leave Campaign forming their own "Policy Ponzi" scheme as per Leave HQ: What's Wrong With the WTO Option?. Why? Why do they do this? What we see by the process of obscuring the definition of the problem ie ignoring The Great Deception is that it means the "Consideration Set" is kept broad and undefined. Here is the space with which the politicians can peddle their "Policy Ponzis" as per The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich to a bewildered public. By going through the entire cycle of Decision-Making we can connect the original problem itself to a form that is "fitted" to democratic decision-making on a mass scale for voters to be an executive part of the full decision-making cycle. But it relies on HIGH QUALITY!

It's funny you don't need the likes of LSE or CER who are paid so much by such powerful entities with such jealously guarded vested interests, a simple tabulation tells the story as effectively and more clearly. And as pointed out they deliberately go about:-

Finding The Right Answer(s) to The Wrong Questions.

There seems to be a lot of money and prestige sloshing around in those think tanks as per The Political Food Web of Prestige and possibly far too much geopolitical power projection invested in the EU to allow us plebs to decision on the right question: EU Reform: Asking The Wrong Question.

Is economics in the core defined problem? No. So remove it.

We can see that CER and Open Europe are determined to also ask the wrong questions and get the right questions on economic projections. This is why FLEXCIT removes this area from the original question and from the practical implementation of Brexit too. No other Brexit plan do we see this simple high quality thinking.

And this itself can be used to reinforce our Problem Definition:-

Just look at all these useless reports that fail to Define The Problem and Ask The Right Questions.

Our Membership of the Supranational EU is itself a deterioration of democratic decision-making processes as a nation!!

"If it sounds too good to be true": Elliott, Lea, Campbell-Bannerman, Redwood, Cash, Hannan, Carswell, Cummings,

Why don't the above avowed "Leave Campaigners" seek to solve this problem via higher quality decision-making and hence avoid uncertainty? It's their trade as "eurosceptic aristocrats" in SW1 as part of the political class: Farage on that front is certainly right!

It's up to voters to force such people either out of the way as part of the problem preventing problem definition or make them part of the solution:-

Why Norwegians never wanted EU membership

Importance of sovereignty

"Many voters had sovereignty at the top of their list for their reasons to say ‘no’, both in 1972 and 1994.

Norway gained independence from 90 years of Swedish rule in 1905, and was prior to that a part of the Danish Kingdom for more than four centuries. Skinner writes that this history of foreign rule has made Norwegians reluctant to give up independence to a supranational union such as the EU.

“For many Norwegians, the distance to Oslo is long,” says the researcher. “But the distance to Brussels is even longer.”

She says Norwegians are content with their political system, characterised by a short socioeconomic distance between the government and the governed, and are put off by the decision-making process in the EU.
Marianne Sundlisæter Skinner.

This attitude was found both in the seventies and nineties."

I guess the Norwegians had their heads screwed on tightly both:-

• Defining the Problem.
• Defining the Challenge: Not trusting or being led by THEIR lying politicians who did want to join! 

However one important difference to sharp-eyed observers, this was about Sovereignty to them in the 70's and 90's.

Today, in the 10's the problem is still Supranationalism but the challenge is Intergovernmentalism. The problem with Supranationalism?

Bad Decision-Making = ... (you guessed it!).