The Leave Alliance: Synthesis of Arguments

The Sierpinski triangle arranged in descending tiers

A very resourceful quote by Cicero on arguments:-

“The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down – such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator.” ~ Cicero: De Oretore

 For People: A True Choice depends on a visible and "Complete Picture"

In the above concept diagram, the top of the triangle represents:-

1. Referendum = Direct Choice

A real (direct) democracy choice on a particular subject that qualifies for such real democracy from the people directly as opposed via representation of people in a Parliament.

The EU clearly meets this criteria and if people need to wonder how to vote, this very act of holding a referendum for the first time since 1975 amid many previous promises to do so covering as many as seven major new treaties without having a direct vote, then the question that derives also derives this guiding context to all voters.

Stage 6: It may be the final stage in FLEXCIT... but it's actually inherent in everything preceding: A Choice for Leave is a choice towards more real democracy (working knowledge applied politically)

What is interesting is that the voter themselves is at the top of the decision-making process, which is not the case in our other voters bar of course the General Elections, which themselves politicians admit are degraded due to "safe seats" even as far back as 1975:-

"The reason why I submit this Motion to your Lordships at this time is that, in the first place, I believe the authority of Parliament, and public respect for it, has been dangerously eroded during the past decade. I believe that the economic health of Britain depends on its political health, and the political health, in turn, depends upon the degree to which the great mass of the people, and the groups into which they organise themselves, are prepared to recognise the authority of free institutions such as Parliament. They will do so only if they are persuaded that these institutions fairly represent their cherished values and profound aspirations. I do not think that this is true of Parliament today. I could give plenty of evidence to support this view. The concentration of power in sectional hands has sometimes been able to unhorse Governments in the past. The real danger today is that power, irresponsibly exercised, may destroy Parliament itself, and with it the basic freedoms of a democratic society and, even, the unity of Great Britain."  ~ Lord Alport, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION 23 April 1975

Often in the press the Tory divisions meme has been used as the headline reason for this referendum, but the true reason is rooted in the fundamental failure to represent people on this subject, to deceive upon it or else confidently present it to the people to decide.

2. Choice between 2 Paradigms

 Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech")

Here is presented two sides to the argument: Supranationalism vs Intergovernmentalism which frame the arguments for Remaining or Leaving the membership of the European Union. Without this correct framing, the question is devoid of understanding and context to derivative details.

 History repeats itself when...

One of the biggest biggest problems that so many have failed the British people concerning the volumes of argument that have been aired, is the neglection of The Great Deception history of the European Union to define one side of the argument, it's concept, it's definition and mode of working, it's philosophy, it's purpose, the origin of it's ideas and the people influential in developing those ideas into the institutions of today.

 Globalization and Sovereignty?

If that problem is large, so too is the other problem: The lack of knowledge of the opposite argument for Intergovernmentalism and the drive of globalization to build a picture of a possible position of the UK in such a developing future, so much more challenging to picture than the past!

It may have escaped your notice the specific flow diagram postulated here.

3. Arguments: Structured Data

A complete argument is coherent and consistent. Interesting this point is made very explicitly in the latest of Dr. RAE North's blog posts EU Referendum: countdown to launch:-

"There is no short-term economic benefit from leaving the EU. There are no immediate savings to be made, and any expectations that goods will be cheaper in the shops, or that wages will somehow increase overnight are vastly overblown.

Any financial benefits accruing from leaving the EU will be slow in coming and, in many respects, will be expressed in a negative sense: i.e., "had we not left the EU things would be even worse than they are now". [...]

The big problem is that it is almost impossible to demonstrate a clear case, unequivocally showing that all or any groups would be better off. This is especially so when we are seeking to argue for stability, presenting the case that there would be very little material change to the UK immediately after leaving, or in the short- to medium-term. [...]

To do so, though, would be to sell the lie. We are making promises we can't keep. Furthermore, it exposes us – as we are seeing – to "he says, she says" exchanges with the "remains", where the arguments are getting bogged down in ever-more arcane detail, and even more strident disputes, as each side seeks to establish their positions. [...]

It was for this that The Harrogate Agenda was devised, the implementation of which is incompatible with continuing membership of the EU. A necessary consequence of adopting THA, therefore, would be Brexit.

Given that the benefits of implementing THA would be tangible – and some of them immediate – returning powers to the people and giving them much greater control over all manner of things, including taxation, this could be the missing element which motivates people to leave the EU."

This point has already been made in 1. But without inheriting it downwards into our argument logic that creates patterns out of the data all we're left with is:-

 FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: The Greatest Trick The Politicians Ever Pulled on the People: With no context "anything COULD happen" and hence no sane solution presents itself.

It's beyond count the volume of words and works that end in the above result and the game turns into who can stack up the biggest and most impressive lies on each side of the confabulists' narrative of the day. We subsequently that because neither side can "win", then the temptation to argue according to the "biggest group" takes precedence resulting in an all too familiar picture:-

Migration Policy: An overloaded argument disproportionate to it's correct contribution to the "full picture"; trying to make it "the picture" itself.

 FLEXCIT: An Iterative method of organized the evidence and data to connect them into the service and form of a Direct Democracy choice for PEOPLE/VOTERS:-

4. Research-Driven Policy: Details & Data

 The macro within the micro encapsulated: John Ashworth's work perfectly demonstrates the entire synthesis of argument from Tier 1 (choice) to Tier 5 (The Complete Market Solution Work)

Possibly one of the biggest arguments against the EU is that it is a Supranational organization, that it's political agenda leads to less than desirable results so much so because it invalidates the evidence base via forms of bias and prejudice corrupting the process of developing knowledge-based solutions.

We met this via John Ashworth's investigations and experience and his campaign group "Restore Britain's Fish":-

Abstraction of Problems:-

1. Power Grab by EEC on political bartering of EEC Membership
2. Great Deception and abuse of power by our Prime Minister on advising membership at the same time as lying about Fisheries.
3. Derogation under Supranationalism instead of International Law is a clear reduction in British Sovereignty
4. So-called Pooling of Sovereignty has led to the wilful destruction of our Fisheries Industry and a Conservation disaster used as a political tool.
5. British Political Establishment (politicians and civil service) acting in great betrayal against the British People directly ie aberration of our political systems.
6. Example of "Beneficial Crisis" manipulation by the Supranational EU for greater integration of "ever closer union" eg Community Waters.
7. Imitative deceptive behaviour by successive British politicians sustain the original problems eg current Fisheries minister and David Cameron on "EU Reform" as a phrase to avert the problem identification and historic factual record.
8. Continual misrepresentation of the nature of the Supranational EU Political Project which has repercussions to the upcoming EU Referendum.

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".

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.

The argument for Fisheries not only includes the relevant facts and details, data and research and evidence basis but it is in a form that is conducive to organization in eventual service to the final form: The Voter's Choice!

When this is not done we end up with a sea of details such as I tried to convey concerning arguments for Scientists: EU: From Common Market To EU Constitution

5. Complete Argument by The Leave Alliance

The Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) was formed in 1969 as a cross party coalition

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 Market Solution: A Growing Solution

The Market Solution - A Dummies Guide

The Market Solution is a brexit paper (for more see: Brexit For Beginners) (also known as FLEXCIT: A portmaneau of FL-exible, C-ontinuous, EX-IT) written by Dr. RAE North in collaboration with The Bruges Group, EUReferendum.com correspondents and various other similar input sources. It is "a living document" that is constantly being updated online and, presently, comes in two written versions and one video presentation version:-

• The Market Solution: Full Work ~400 pages in length and content 
• Flexcit Lite: A "Lite" Paper version ~30 pages in length and content
• FLEXCIT Video Presentation ~ condensed from 60mins into 30mins

To add another alternative, accessible version:-

•  The Market Solution ~ A Mind Map

Feel free to download a copy. The aim of this new version:-

1. Expand the audience via alternative methods of communication.
2. Establish the major concepts for people to organize their own thinking.
3. I hope I can pass on some of the huge inspiration I've found from reading The Market Solution and from the other bloggers efforts (I've been using to help myself learn with, see side panel) to more people.

 The Market Solution starts with 2.0 The Political Background p.17 - 3.0 The Negotiating Framework p.30. These sections raise some important concepts:-

• Referendum was a matter of time from the 1970's through 1990's and onwards until David Cameron's entering office as Prime Minister, presently. The Bruges Group provides a list of Referendum and EU and "EU Reform" promises that have been accumulating over decades.
• EU Referendum = A Political Question essentially, first and foremost, as the linked evidence above clearly demonstrates (stresses and strains).
• Remain's default is effectively a shifting "status quo" held together by promises of "EU Reform" which may in the future tend towards an "Association Membership". The EU Treaties themselves are a source of political stress and strains.
• Paradigm Shift: Brexit is a process not a single event. It will be iterative as in the case of a soft or gradual or staged withdrawal "bit-by-bit". This paradigm shift is only noticeable in The Market Solution compared to the other Brexit papers that have been produced (see Brexit For Beginners).
• The Referendum Question itself must be made as clear to voters either side of the argument to validate the Referendum or else account for how people respond to the chance to exercise some Real (Direct) Democracy. This includes effects such as FUD propaganda exploitation from the Legacy News-Media, The Status Quo Effect of risk-aversion and the Prestige of our Prime Minister David Cameron himself: Is he someone we can trust with our nation's future?
• The Campaign designation for it to truly be a Bottom-Up People led Referendum must not fall into the hands of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" who inhabit SW1/Westminster and would treat the campaign as their personal property, their opportunity for career advancement or else turn the Referendum into a Top-Down Political Calculation for various Parties in power in Westminster. The symptoms of this negative result is of course: An Epidemic of Confabulations traded across the upper tiers of The Political Food Web of Prestige; which is their "bread and butter" and our "thin gruel of democracy".

1. Withdrawal, EU Referendum: the choice to be made, is an option to return "having a say" back to the people after losing it for >40yrs and never being asked for it since. Those long against EU Membership intuit this feeling already. But THEY must also be the first to understand HOW TO withdraw.
2. Withdrawal is about loss of legitimacy of our government, morally they've deceived the nation. Cognitively however we can only withdraw via the legal procedures to do so.
3. Article 50 Lisbon Treaty: As above, it delimits transition even if we are democratically legitimate from winning a Referendum, we must follow the rules which are 2 years. This excludes 2 of the 3 main categories of Brexit: WTO and Bi-Laterals. It would be triggered some 100 hundred days as a guide after the Referendum to set up the Negotiation Unit. The only Exit that fits the criteria of the rules that is legally legitimate is The Market Solution's Stage 1.
4. Ideally EFTA/EEA as you can see for the "radiation of positive reasons" from choosing this safe, secure option. There are full backs to this version happily as safety-nets to catch our legitimate and democratic withdrawal to add cognitive legitimacy, namely technical or stoicastic considerations are accounted for pragmatically.
5. Anyone, not accepting the imperative of Article 50 as illustrated above is simply attempting to bog the argument down and void it of legitimacy, the very thing that has been lost from our government and resulted in them forced over decades of dithering to offer a Referendum with the real and legitimate possibility of withdrawal: It must be both valid (legally) and viable (pragmatic: Single Market access sustained)) how to withdraw successfully.

Migration Policy is the most highly visible EFFECT of our government's loss of legitimacy! It is however not the CAUSE. In order to resolve the cause we must withdraw FIRST from the EU.

That means go back to Stage 1 and determine the strict parameters of successful withdrawal, then proceed back to Stage 2. Stage 2 we can finally start attending to the untangling of this policy which the public rightly want to see some competence and security in managing. This goes back to Labour taking the democratic conversation off the table for over a decade on this policy, subversively so and continuing with the present government's cleaving to "EU Reform" irrespective of this continued deception.

But it is noticeable that Migration itself is not the priority of the Leave Campaign yet it is presented as such, much by the "eurosceptic aristocracy" and greatly to the detriment of the effectiveness of the Leave Campaign. Not only that but within this strand of the argument Migration > Freedom of Movement (of Workers) is a minor singular and by no means most significant strand(!!!), Immigration: Is this really all we’re arguing about? when compared to Economic Migration or indeed for untangling the mess of Asylum Policy to return fairness and democracy and pragmatic competence to dealing with the problems here.

All of these can be addressed - only - if we first withdraw. All of them: Success. Concentration on one singular strand and indeed conflating it with all the other strands smacks too highly of the false Pro-EU arguments of conflating Europe == EU == Single Market. We can all do better than that, can't we?

And Behold - !!

We have discussed:-

1. Why we should LEAVE the EU.
2. How we should LEAVE the EU.
3. What we should be CREATING instead of the EU.

The EU may steam on with it's plans for "Ever Closer Union" and the creation of a New Nation of sorts under the Single Currency Eurozone. It is political. Instead the UK must detach the Regulatory and Standards Globalization Process of convergence, harmonization (rationalization etc etc) and forge a genuine single market to generate prosperity while sustaining sovereignty, democracy and I'm sure under such conditions peace will take good care of itself.

This is so little talked about and is perhaps the most important vision of Brexit/LEAVE, which tells you something about the state of our politics and politicians? If Lucy Thomas or whoever jibber-jabbers one more time about, "What does Brexit look like?" This is WHAT!

It's immensely complicated is part of the problem. But here is the Global Britain vision; I lean on White Wednesday again who seems to have the requisite "touchy-feely" skills to produce a standard-bearer vision, converting the above academic into the below:-

Globalisation is killing the EU. Bring it on

The Olympics: "World Stage"

You can see that Regulations is a huge positive for the Leave Campaign to argue for withdrawal from the EU: But not in the way it's been twisted by the "eurosceptic aristocracy" to cut/bonfire red-tape"; but to become fully involved in the global collaboration in this area to fascilitate global trade. Likewise "Global Governance" has expanded the sources of laws above the national, regional and up to the Global. This is where hundreds of bodies require our national representation and development of expertise in - and divorced of political power dynamics of the Supranational EU. Instead UNECE is proposed as a substitute for the entire European Nations for regulatory matters in this World Region:-

EU Referendum: an immensely complex operation

"… is founded upon recognition of the fact that no economic problem, indeed no important problem whatsoever, concerning sovereign governments can be solved by a majority decision in an intergovernmental organisation, but only by agreements between as many governments as are willing to consent."

 We see several emerging contexts to our Policy Control, now:-

• Supranational EU political intentions do not align with the Non-EZ UK.
• Globalization of Regulations and Standards require reform of our Policies aligned underneath and directly connected "at source" in the global top tables themselves to create "fully joint-up-policy" that is not dysfunctional eg Immigration, Defence, Flooding, Energy, Fisheries etc etc.
• Return of democratic accountability, responsibility and intelligence as part of the solution to these problems not as a problem to avoid additionally!
• The removal of a whole set of interfering posturing politicians ie EU and hopefully a cull of the useless centralized talking-shop in Westminster.

This arm was intentionally elongated to suggest that this stage will take a long time to emerge fully. But the benefits of cooperating within a functional Single Market with our Policy Control connecting democratically and technically, will ideally see progress in Global Trade truly connecting the Regional to the Global (Commonwealth and Transatlantic eg) as per Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT Flow Diagram:-

Finally the last stage which is in some ways the loop-back to the first stage. Holding a Referendum for the first time in >40yrs will be the first demonstration of Real (direct) Democracy eg Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight. As with the process of globalization of technical regulations and standards, the expansion of information and accessibility tends towards promoting more democratic conversation (Argument Abstraction) and input into "Good Governance". What starts with the EU Referendum may indeed not be the referendum to resolve the EU Question but the starting gun on a reformation of democracy and British Politics itself:-

 The Harrogate Agenda

Finally, one immediate take-home from presenting so much information and attempting to find a visual way to summarize a tiny fraction of it; if you take one thing away from this visualization, it's this Positive Vision of Brexit (Britain, Supranationalism & Globalization):-

The Referendum deliberation and Migration Policy are minor. Opportunities of the Genuine Single Market are dramatically more significant even if they're not promoted by Politicians, Legacy News-Media or Big Business/Banks - our so-called leaders.

Pro-EU Arguments: Critical Thinking

A picture is worth a thousand words: Pro-EU Arguments = Anti-Brexit Arguments not Pro-EU Arguments!

The above pictures are captivating. They've each been used by Pro-EU Think Tanks: British Influence, Open Europe and Centre For European Reform (CER). and indeed replicated across other areas in the Legacy News-Media such as The Guardian.

The salient features of the above images:-

• Britain is small; EU/Europe is big
• Big Question marks
• Holes in where we fit in.
• We're being plucked out of Europe
• Our withdrawal would shatter ourselves and Europe/EU/EURO.

This really does a lot to frame the argument as we looked at in the last blog Flawed Arguments: Critical Thinking as "EU-Centric" and again this is replicated in the actual Pro-EU Arguments which are invariably conflations of Europe/EU/Single Market into one:-

• Single Market = Prosperity
• EU = Safety
• EU = Size & influence
• Brexit = -EU = -Prosperity -Safety -Influence == FUD

I think it is possible to back up these summaries of the Pro-EU arguments at least using Twitter as snap-shot of sources (avoiding a full analysis of for example Focal Point: Critical Thinking where we found a particular Pro-EU argument was 10/12 roughly actually a Single Market argument.

• Stronger In Europe (BSE) = business support for "EU"
• Academics for Europe = Leaving EU = Smaller
• British Influence = Leaving EU = Less Influence in research
• Brexit Watch = Economic Security/Safety
• Britain In Europe = Brexit is "Breaking" border collaborations

Have you yet noticed a pattern ABOVE the summary provided above, yet?

Pro-EU Arguments = Anti-Brexit Arguments not Pro-EU Arguments.

What effectively is happening is that Pro-Brexit arguments are not so far being intelligently made and coherently made as we already saw from Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com:-

Vote Leave - Get Remain; EU Major New Treaty = Pro-EU Argument, Cameron's "reform 2017 use by date", Protest Vote =/= Effective Campaign

Meanwhile the real Pro-EU arguments are from David Cameron, but we know we won't see those either until nearer Spring 2017 as per:-

The Bruges Group: EU Renegotiation Briefing: Associate Membership of the EU and David Cameron’s Reform Proposals

Hence the Legacy News-Media's insistence on Virtual Reality Politics TV: Westminster: In The Big Brother Household. The combination of Pro-EU groups arguing Anti-Brexit (Single Market + FUD repetition) arguments and Pro-Brexit groups arguing incoherent ghibberish, babbling like baboons, has been picked up a little bit in the news. But it's mostly been a waste of everybody's time, attention and energy: Making us all poorer effectively and if you observe it closely, making you feel like you're ageing daily or else finding something curiously hilarious about it all:-

Small things please small minds - immensely! (Jim Carrey, Dumb & Dumber)

But coming back to the Pro-EU Arguments seeing as we're so familiar with FLEXCIT and The Great Deception and indeed with the Brexit Plans. Little focus has been on Pro-EU Arguments:-

Borders of democracy? Ft. Ulrike Guerot, director of the European Democracy Lab

CLOSE THE GAP Tackling Europe’s democratic deficit - CHRIS TERRY

EU Political Plans: "Bringing Democracy to Nations" or "Ever Closer Union"?

To quote The Brexit Door who looks in-depth at The Fundamental Law of the EUropean Union:-

"This would be the last step to the truly Federal Union, the long held aim of the architects of European Integration.
When the PM comes back and says he has removed the words ‘ Ever Closer Union’ – he won’t be lying. They do not appear in the new text. This is because the Federal Union is complete, the words become redundant.
The inner core would have primacy, it could use special co-operation to increase its own internal centralisation, the associate members would not be part of that process.
In international affairs, the EU would have primacy in a way it has not had up to this point. Britain (and all the associate members) would be increasingly marginalised as the core pressed ahead with its own agenda.
If we fail to secure a Leave vote in 2017, it will be on the back of this agenda being disguised as ‘the British Option’. Once we have voted to remain, it is unlikely that the British public would want to engage with the detail of this again, making ratification of the full federalisation a strong likelihood.
If a Remain vote in 2017 could be read as our Federalist opponents placing us in Check, the ratification of a new treaty that followed the principles in the Fundamental Law would simply be…."
Checkmate

Here, we've at last arrived at the real Pro-EU Arguments. The intention of the current Anti-Brexit Arguments argued by the Pro-EU Campaigners is simple:-

• (LHS) Vote Leave: Prevent Pro-Brexit Arguments from developing
• (RHS) BSE: Prevent Pro-EU Arguments from being visible

We know from White Wednesday the strategy is triangulation by David Cameron and Dr. RAE North: Strategy ten: triangulation:-

"In this referendum what should come first is an intelligence-driven appraisal of the enemy intentions. Then we devise our response and implement it. The polls are simply tools (and limited ones at that) for measuring the effects of our own strategy, allowing us to fine-tune our activities."

Therefore we have 3-steps:-

1. Develop Brexit Argument to neutralize the Anti-Brexit Arguments of the fools making them under the guise of Pro-EU Campaigners.
2. Expose as much as possible the real Pro-EU arguments and when they are counter-argued argued our Pro-Brexit Arguments back (reserve the present situation)
3. In time before Cameron's Middle Way Reform Score-Card is played for Association Membership which will look like what it really is: Pro-EU Argument disguised. 

And it's here we can leave with Pete North's vlog request to UKIP and other Migration worried people: Yes! You're correct there's a problem with our policy. But the BIGGER/BIGGEST problem is to quote Dr. RAE North again:-

"The issue of concern is the ABILITY to control our own policy - in the wider sense."

We do that by first withdrawing from the EU via Article 50 Rules (explained here The Brexit Door and here LEAVE HQ Article 50: An Explainer) putting pressure back and only on Westminster politicians who hide behind the EU and don't hence allow themselves to be represented directly and responsibly to the voters in the UK who do want management of Migration Policy improved, for one of many examples. Who has allowed this to go and was elected on such promises of Migration management? Cue David Cameron.

 

FIRST we must regain Political Control before we can correct Policies: Migration, Fisheries and many more NEXT.

As I said the best way to control David Cameron is through Brexit arguments that neutralized Anti-Brexit puppets. So that we can argue about What Is The EU? and demonstrate only Brexit resolves the problem of the EU - not David Cameron's lies.

Finally if you look again at the title images of Brexit. They are powerful and visible symbols of Anti-Brexit.

Here's The Fundamental Law Of The European Union. There's no image of it.

What we now need to do is focus on this Pro-EU Argument, the real Pro-EU Argument and give it a real face with which to argue about and contrast with Brexit more clearly.

Then it may be seen that the we can shift the frame of reference from "EU-Centric" tunnel vision to "UNECE/Global-Centric expanding horizons.

Now how about that picture of The Fundamental Law?

A Political Mirror: People

Wickher Island: The News-Media's Political Mirror

Both the BBC news reporters, Matthew Elliott and George Osbourne are all viewed through the mirror of Monty Python's Wicker Island. Meanwhile John Longworth like some sort of religious prophet talks about uncertainty that has been talked about since the early 1960's on our EU Membership!

"The period of uncertainty could be very damaging... get the referendum out of the way as quickly as possible and then move on!

 The Tower Of London: Popular poppies - art, history & culture and opinions

Listening to the many opinions of people on whether or not the Ceramic Poppy "installation" should end or continue, at The Tower of London in November 2014, for a few more weeks was very illustrative of the diversity and strength of feeling people have over any given subject, given enough respondents.

Of course these were real people and they expressed themselves with great emotion, with respectable point of view and curiously all had a valid contribution. In effect there was no such thing as "The Answer"; any decision would prove both popular and unpopular; a point which was made at LeaveHQ in The Problem With Politics. What however was refreshing about this was that everyone provided well reasoned answers however and managed to communicate themselves and their point of view with sincerity but also it seemed to me with self-confidence and appreciation that many other opinions existed yet they believed in their own contribution equally.

The Bruges Group: Who Governs Britian? Meeting today

Above The Bruges Group is putting on another meeting and the title quesion is very good to see. I was tempted to go along to this, yet I decided that despite some of the eminent speakers and the opportunity to talk to people attending this event, there was a more constructive and much much larger audience I would prefer to "talk to" and also to attempt to understand their understanding as being the focus of that title question: "Who Governs Britain?" You do or should.

Previously, When to Attend/Hold Meetings, it was noted the function of a meeting is directly related to it's group size. At significantly large group sizes you get singing/chanting/music group cohesion signals and bonding and identification with colours and banners; and very little "content" for members understanding, which is assumed, for example:-

Protest without power: Music, movement, gathering activities may make people feel better, but...

"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value."

 The above from the title page of The Harrogate Agenda, perhaps is the best place to start when considering what "The Many/We The People" generally behave like, understand and coordinate like. It has to be recognized that as group animals we naturally tend to form groups and create a lot of action and noise and move around a lot as our initial approach to solve political problems: Observations invariably confirm this is the first reaction and pattern of behaviour adopted by people. Perhaps we all see ourselves as Potential Lions if only we're given a fair political platform to stand on; aided by our fellows?

 Do you feel an urge to join in?!

It can safely be said that this is the unacknowledged working assumption of all the Referendum Campaign Groups, particularly UKIP and Leave.EU: It shapes their output as per many summaries from Pete North:

• Continuity UKIP
• Leave.EU is working for David Cameron
• Right On Cue

The other campaign group Vote Leave employ a different political strategy as per Pete North again The Leave campaign race to the bottom. They're effectively attempting to ensure that the campaign is framed by the preferences of The Establishment, and ensure the argument is complex and contradictory and hence fertile ground for the politicians to deceive and fuge as per Using A Macroscope on Cameron's Reform. Vote Leave Campaign appear to be an example of The politician's Top-Down Referendum as per How About A Nice Game Of Chess?

As per Dr. RAE North's Strategy Ten: Communication series:-

This may seem bizarre to us now, but it is the case that anyone who wanted to know in 1975 could easily have deduced that he negotiations were a fraud. All they had to do was read Kellner's piece on the front page of the Sunday Times.

At the time, it seems to me, there was a sort of collective delusion. People didn't know that the negotiations were a sham, because they didn't want to know. They didn't know that staying in the EEC meant "ever closer union", because they didn't want to know.

But there was something more to it – a lot more. What we were also seeing were the effects of "prestige".

When we look into the mirror we individually we see a Lion, but when Politicians look at us through the mirror of Polls this is what they see:-

The Few vs The Many: General Elections are a Catch-22

And Polling is in general becoming the type of mirror they see us through, even less as sheep and more and more as mere random numbers as per Politics And The New Machine:-

I asked Doug Rivers what role the measurement of public opinion plays in a democracy. He said, “The cynical answer is ‘Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down.’ ”

This said, there is some use in knowing roughly what other people think, if they are broad sentiments and as reported by Dr. RAE North EU politics: we're on our own (almost) 

EU Referendum 2017: UK (& Cyprus) - The EU anomalies in the data

"Picking up on the Eurobarometer poll again, it is interesting to see the EU-wide question being asked on whether individual countries "could better face the future outside the EU" see chart above - click to enlarge).

With the question being asked in January, it comes as no surprise to see the UK recording 47 percent agreeing with that proposition, as opposed to 41 percent disagreeing. And that is against the EU average of 32 percent agreeing and 58 percent disagreeing. In other words, we are way out ahead of the EU average in believing we'd be better off out.

But what is fascinating here is that, apart from Cyprus, we are on our own. With Cyprus, which has 51 percent preferring out, to 43 in, we comprise just two of the 28 EU member states who can turn in a majority against the EU."

 There's an interesting contemporary interview of the public in London by aljazeera: 'Brexit': Should the UK leave the EU or not? and to summarize:-

• "We live in globalized times."
• "We managed on our own for thousands of years."
• "We must look to history to see why we are united."
• "We are tied together - culturally, economically and socially."
• "We have strength in unity."
• "It's important for us to stay together."

How we like to think of ourselves when we give our political opinions...

In actual fact, the above summary of word/spoken/linguistic form of opinions are no different from the above footage of mass gathering: The instinctive reaction to huddle together as a group to solve political (group) problems/pressures/threats. This probably explains the emphasis on polling data: The whole, the behaviour of groups as a whole: Their random opinions merging into a group "feeling".

It's much easier to observe this via live footage:-

1) Dubliner’s Reactions to Joining the EEC 1972 
2) Scottish Independence Referendum:-

Bashful Opinions: Scottish Independence: "Aye or Naw"

3) Denmark Referendum on EURO membership:-

Old vs Young: People/News-Media/Advertising overestimate "youth" and underestimate "maturity" in Western Industrialized cultures (compared to traditional societies)

4) Young UK Students Political Education of debating:-

Commendable enthusiasm from young students but very very black and white thinking processes; no wonder politicians/advertisers target the young

I think there is a connection between all these clips, and in fact many other clips that could have been presented or perhaps have been aired at one time or another that most people will have watched and listened to other members of the publics' opinions... Invariably when the public are interviewed on any sort of political subject, invariably they respond in a juxtaposition between providing an answer full of conviction at the same as providing an answer that makes them look as they would like to appear or not wish to appear. Usually this leads to a sort of "bashful confidence" which is peculiarly contradictory in such combination!

'Public Opinion': The Holy Grail of Politicians

We've looked at News Presenters and increasingly so our leading politicians. Most people know how the rest of the politicians behave. But less well appreciated is how the most important group, the people tend to speak and behave when we talk about politics. There's enormous industry and expenditure on the data science and analytics of polling data; because understanding how people behave and think about politics is a kind of "Holy Grail" of politics.

And here's the "the greatest trick the politicians ever pulled on the people in referendums":-

And how we really behave when we give our political opinions...

Many people will not know the details of the politics, it will be an unknown and this unknown leads to the natural reaction of caution and even as per the inexperienced kitten above "fear" as we've come across so many times before FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). But because we don't understand something does not mean we have to be fearful of it.

As per Dr. Simon Usherwood, University of Surrey:-

My own view would be that the UK has suffered for a long time from a lack of deep public debate about European integration, just as it has from a lack of debate about the country’s wider position in the world, from which the European question cannot be disentangled. The referendum is probably the best opportunity there will be for a generation to get people interested and engaged enough to talk about, so we should make the most of it.
That debate doesn’t need to be brought to life by politicians or the media, because we enjoy a public space that is more open and accommodating of different voices than ever before. If those people who do care about having the debate can start to build it, then there is an opportunity to create something that is organic, considered and useful, however the referendum turns out. That opportunity is in our hands, not anyone else’s.

What is people's power? In General Elections, there is none. It's a Catch-22 system. But when it comes to a Popular Referendum, there's a reason the Politicians have not given the people a referendum (EEC,EC,EU,EZ...) in >40 years and the first and only in 1975:

 In Referendums, peoples' opinions are the real power and the politicians know this.

If everyone acts fearful we get the results we DO KNOW (as per The Knight 'N Knave method) so well: General Election results of musical chairs where no-one's vote amounts to anything of value! If we drop our fear, then I think we will get something of value from our vote: Making the politicians do what we want them to do for us - for once.