Article 50: "Kept In The Dark" not "A Leap In The Dark"

The above is perhaps one of my favourite The Far Side cartoons by Gary Larson. I've done some TEFL work so it's satisfying in that context. I've also done some science, so the combination is particularly appealing to me.

In the above cartoon, the scientists are adept at measuring the sounds of the Dolphins and matching patterns of sound and repeated uses of such... but the enjoyment is the fact that all they really need but entirely lack is a sense of the Spanish language and then they'd be perfectly fluent in "Dolphin" who themselves appear to be the intelligent actors attempting to communicate to the "dumb" human scientists!

It might seem there's little application to politics directly, which is correct. But it does remind me of the strange situation where the basic or core rules of political process are not established and agreed upon perhaps by an "Electoral Commission" inquiry that asserts some "ground rules and factual foundations" for the campaign to proceed by... on either side of the Referendum process at large?

There's a very basic secret being displayed here in our politics, which our Dolphins above can help describe for us:-

A factual assertion of rules, opens up the logical legitimacy and indeed practical possibility, hence, politically of a fair choice either to Remain a member of the European Union or else to Leave the membership of the European Union.

If the rules were asserted and hence agreed, then the above knowledge would become "common knowledge", unexceptional and in fact ordinary: It would effectively cease to be a tool of power of politicians OVER people: It would radically be the gift of power in the hands of people.

What however we see instead is the replacement of this knowledge of these rules with the attempt to guide peoples' intuition towards ensuring any choice to Leave appears NOT to be based on any rules, but to be emotionally wishful or emotionally regressive or emotionally uninformed. It is beyond count how much this is backed up again and again and again in the prevailing politics, at present.

The Basis of All Propaganda: Even the smallest crack will allow the brightness of light to replace darkness and show the "way to the wider world"

But I think what is driving this failure to establish the fundamental rules, a spoiling motivation behind such a failure can only be deducted from such lack of sensible diligence to such a significant political decision-making watershed in the UK's history, is the dread of those who hold power to allow a glimmer of light to shine from behind the opening of the smallest crack of this Brexit Door: For this would allow the consent amongst all involved that it is possible to leave the European Union and to do so politically in a sensible and mature and responsible way.

And once that becomes a matter of fact, devoid of emotional energy and sound and fury, then it leaves space for: "What next?" And once that engine of decision-making starts moving forwards, I think there could be a substantial shift in peoples' attitudes and hence polling of confidence and expression of self-determination.

People want to know "What next?" it's so much more rewarding to know "What next?" and there is one way of achieving this: Choosing for oneself "What next?" and not allowing a small subset of warped politicians to choose for us instead and deprive us of this.

• fears that the divorce would be turbulent
• a polite way of saying that Britain could expect no favours from its jilted partners.

It's interesting that "fear-mongering" is a kind of common knowledge but it is commandeered by the politicians for their own agendas.

First the correct assertion of Article 50 is corrupted by CER using an increase in emotional pitch via "soap opera" language.

But this is reinforced by the Brexit likes of Vote Leave:-

1. "Brexiters claim that this is all scare-mongering. Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, thinks that article 50 is another example of a Brussels diktat constraining sovereign member-states, and suggests that the UK could simply ignore it.
2. Others still cling to Boris Johnson’s idea, now recanted, that a vote to leave does not have to mean exit, and that Britain could negotiate better terms for its membership than Cameron obtained. Brexiters are confident that the rest of the EU will have no choice but to offer good terms to the world’s fifth largest economy.
3. And if that does not work, Michael Gove, the pro-Brexit justice minister, has said that Britain could threaten to block other European projects if the EU did not give the UK what it wanted." 

 All these Vote Leave results:-

• Denial of the Rules of EU Members on Withdrawal specifically.
• Referendum vote for another Referendum on Reform (extended negotiation) again contradicting the EU Treaty Rules.
• Zero-Sum Relationship asserted above the equality of rules.

All the above however are in fact based on false intuition building in the British public over the primacy of the rules that are currently operating. Keeping Pro-Brexit supporters in the dark with false expectations and a portfolio of phony politics.

Vote Leave: Ensuring voters are "kept in the dark" and ensuring Brexit is "out of reach"

So we see, that Vote Leave utterly fail because they use the "false intuition" form of argument equally as the Remain advocates to ensure people are "kept in the dark" which is then used as "a leap in the dark" by the Remain advocates to falsely intuit this message to the voters.

As for the rest of the CER article, Agata Gostyńska-Jakubowska could just simply read and refer to FLEXCIT: The Market Solution on how the negotiations would need to be handled, but like the entire charade that counts for adult decision-making, the omission of FLEXCIT is deafening by it's absence.

EU Referendum: the Booker beat

"Then, Booker turn to the main theme of his column, headed: "Brexiteers! We need an exit strategy and we need it now!". Here, he also picks up on the theme he had raised earlier this month, observing that "even more astonishing ignorance of the nature and rules of the EU" is that being displayed by the main players in our referendum battle, not least, alas, by those running the official "leave" campaign.

This begins with their amazing inability to recognise that the only possible legal way for any country to leave the EU is by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which derives from the insistence back in the Eighties of Altiero Spinelli, the "father of the European Union" that his Union must not be "a prison" from which no country could escape.

Again and again, when two very senior experts on EU law gave evidence to a House of Lords committee on 8 March, they emphasised that Article 50 is the only conceivable mechanism for a country to leave - all it seems falling on deaf ears to those who should know this before anything else.

The transcript of the oral evidence is here, with supplementary written evidence here. There is also written evidence from David Edward here. The crucial words are: "Article 50 is the only route for withdrawal consistent with the UK's legal obligations".

This makes even more terrifying, says Booker, the quite deliberate refusal of the Leave campaigners to come up with a convincing and coherent exit plan which could reassure voters that, by leaving the EU we would not be excluded from the European Economic Area, allowing us to continue trading in the single market just as we do now"

Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes"

Referendum Party: 1997 election video

It's interesting to look back and consider what the people interested in the question of EU membership and in 1997, in particular EURO membership, thought about both the UK, the transition from the EEC (Common Market) into the EU (Political Union) and of course EURO membership. Also how they considered the past from that position in time, the present then, the past now.

What stands out in my opinion is just how static a lot of the general arguments have remained. They've been differentiated from our British Politics of the day or otherwise bogged down in details. In the video above:-

"The politicians are putting up a smokescreen to deceive us, this time in the shape of a referendum on the Single Currency. But whether or not we join it it will make little difference."

Looking at the BBC's various Timeline Summaries of the idea of the EU: A timeline of the EU it loses a lot of the critical arguments found in The Great Deception.

• 1948 - Plans for a peaceful Europe
• 1950 - The Schuman Declaration

For example the above, the formation of the idea well before 1948. Jean Monnet's important role and the engineering of "engrenage" behind the scenes as per Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination unknown?.

 "No erosion of essential sovereignty."

But above all, the nature of the EU as a Supranational organization and the essential difference of this compared to Intergovernmental Cooperation as per Dr. RAE North: EU Referendum: an immensely complex operation. It makes clear how long these debates have been endlessly being dragged out:

Making interesting reading is an extract from a Cabinet Office document entitled: "Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Community - Memorandum by the Law Officers" (C(67) 62) dated 25th April 1967 – and secret at the time.

The key bit comes at the end, and reads as follows:

"The requirements under the Treaties would restrict our independence of action in future international dealings, and would, broadly speaking, have the effect of transferring to Community institutions our power of concluding treaties on tariff and commercial matters …

As a matter of international law, we would have no right to withdraw from the Treaties unless there was a fundamental change in circumstance s (e.g. if one of the member States were over-run by a foreign power). We regard this as somewhat academic; if for any reason, the United Kingdom decided to withdraw, and an Act of Parliament were passed for this purpose, we find it difficult to imagine that our Courts would not give effect to it. Withdrawal from the Treaties would certainly be an immensely complex operation."

As per the 1997 election video:-

"These fear I need hardly say are completely unjustified." ~ Mr. Edward Heath

 In the above video,  "Now in 1997 we can look back...". Now we look back from 2015 back to 1975 and again from Of Democracy and Time Dilation  from "The 1975 Referendum":

Politicians and people knew, as important as it was, it remained an exercise to "to be got out of the way."

This seems quite similar to recent articles and attitudes today, to take one up to date example at random: Business group urges David Cameron to call European Union referendum earlier . This reflects Business For Britain's arrogance (see Business for Elliott's Friends by The Boiling Frog) in that Business's voice is one of the loudest but actually represents few of the actual people who will vote in the Referendum. Yet their coverage is disproportionate in the News-Media. In the piece the argument goes:-

"There's a real possibility that a 2017 referendum would be a short-term judgement on the government:  A chance to whack the poltiical elite."

This fear was echoed, as recorded in The 1975 Referendum book but atst we see recordings of Parliament holding

"Mammoth Five-Day Debate."

There were various issues in the 1970's from the post-war years and more. However comparing 1975 to 2015 we have a track-record to access and hence to use to decide if Parliament, David Cameron and their usual "tricks" repeat. In the above Dogbert cartoon, the "consultant" uses the trick of first creating anxiety in the customer, then providing a "service" to remove it if the customer is happy to pay for their services. Here's another one from The Far Side:

 The performance of our government seems more preoccupied with maintaining it's position in the face of not progressing the EU argument. Their performance is made clear in their communication: Manipulative, Evasive resorting to "Ifs, Buts, Maybes" in as much of their talk of "EU Reform" as possible which as per David Cameron's false renegotiations are deliberately ill-defined:

 "Believe me, I have no romantic attachment to the European Union and its institutions. I'm only interested in two things: Britain's prosperity and Britain's influence. That's why I'm going to fight so hard in this renegotiation, so we can get a better deal and the best of both worlds."

Lost Lenardo makes this point Language Matters on the poor quality of reporting on Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty and the deliberate omission of it also in the conflated Reform, Renegotiation, Referendum debate:-

Like the above "Anxiety Inducements" they'll be on hand to alleviate the "pain" from the public just before we vote in the Referendum with some "spectacular deal" without as per repeated historic examples solving the actual problem. Here Pete North provides elaboration on what is missing from Mr. Cameron's speech: The EU is really about the elimination of democracy

The delay, procrastination and gold plating that occurs inside the EU is not necessary and adds no value to the process. The conclusion of Trans-Pacific Partnership, if ratified, demonstrates that independent nations are perfectly capable of of creating alliances without the artificial edifice of the EU. Alliances are always better than bloc treaties in that they allow nations to change allegiances according to the industry they are regulating so that the best deals can be made without unfavourable compromises.

The reason it survives is because it bribes special interest groups with our own money, farming out rights and entitlements as though there were no unintended consequences, and the result is slower growth, fewer opportunities and less secure contracts as Europe struggles to compete. But you won't find an academic in a cosy sinecure who's opposed to receiving EU funds, nor activists in EU funded NGOs and influential think tanks. That is how they control the message and that is how they dominate media opinion.

The bottom line is the EU is the fabrication of a fictional demos to impose on a people who wouldn't want it if they were told the truth about what it is and why it exists. Had it never existed, as things stand today, nobody would bother to invent it, unless of course they wanted what the EU wants - the elimination of democracy and the end of the nation state.  

"Ifs, Buts, Maybes..."

Big Ben: The Four-Faced Liar

It's a beautiful sight to pass by the Palace of Westminster with it's "Clock (Elizabeth) Tower" also known as "Big Ben" (actually the name of the bell). It's one of the sights I always enjoy in London. Let's imagine there's something wrong with the clock's mechanism in Big Ben and each of it's four clock-faces still manages to tell the time but each face is now telling a different time of the day, depending upon which face you can see. Now imagine that this was not a malfunction at all but a deliberate and subtle manipulation of the clock to produce different times in each direction as if the people in those directions all disagreed on what time it was and insisted on their own time of day!

"What's the time, Mr. Cameron?"

Just as with the allegory of The Goldfinch and the Gilded Cage. Let's now imagine that "Big Ben" represents David Cameron himself and his position on the EU: He says different things to different people according to what he believes they want to hear. David Cameron as Prime Minister and politician and leader of the Conservative Party is not in the business of working out what the actual GMT really is: He's in the business of selling the most "popular time" according to a deception of what the "actual time" is. This "popular time" is known to not be particularly accurate or consistent but that is now accepted, what concerns the media is the competition between the different faces, now to which Lost Leonardo observed also: 2-Track Debate .

Pete North in his blog The task at hand... (see blogroll) also highlights this central focus of the flaws in the "eurosceptic" side of the argument stemming from David Cameron's "Four-Face Liar" warping influence on the arguments as per the Politicians and then the Media reporting the Politicians which we saw in You know, we're just not reaching that guy. effectively the arguments are on another track from the Public: It's not about finding out a universal time-keeping for all people to benefit from, it's about controlling the "Clock Tower"/Big Ben for political reasons. Interestingly this process is replicated by the EU as well in comparison with the Global Stage: Little Europe is retreating from the world.

If anything it is the banks who are leading the way because they like regulation, they like standardisation and they like global networks without technical barriers. In many respects they are way ahead of downstream lawmakers like the EU in terms of creating a global single market in banking. But that's never good enough for the EU. The EU always attempts to claim such initiatives as their own. In any other sphere it would be considered plagiarism. It is born of this myopic little Europe mentality, where Europe breaks away from the global effort to focus on its own back yard, further complicating what is already fairly good regulation.

Consequently, by creating a technical barrier to trade with the rest of the world, it means is that the rest of the world will suffer "the Brussels effect" whereby any nation that trades with Europe will adopt the EU standard by default because compliance with the most stringent is usually the cheaper option in the long run and less hassle than running two concurrent regimes. But that's only for the big boys who can afford it. Smaller operations and start-ups will simply ignore Europe and seek investment opportunities with less developed states who use the global default standards. Rather than being free market, once again we see "little Europe" putting its head in the sand and protecting its own internal economy at the expense of doing business with the evolving global markets.

The EU's first priority is always the taking of more powers by means of the beneficial crisis doctrine - and its supranational ambitions always take priority over what is in the common good.

 As above, the strategy being employed in some genres is known as "Camping or holding onto the high ground on the battlefield". And it's as per the above blogs to control the debate. And how has David Cameron and the Conservative Party achieved this? By the adoption of lower quality arguments on the "eurosceptic side" Camping side via:-

 The above is an example of the bread and butter of the poor ability of the News-Media to cover Politics and the results are invariably:-

Media Politics: The Rat In The Room

The arguments will effectively crystallize (as per Aldous Huxley) around David Cameron's False Choice Referendum framing of the debate to include as many people as possible (telling them the time they want to hear). How it works is where the select few participants have already established their own counterfeit version of "World Disclosure" what we've been referring to ever since from Dr. RAE North's quote as Media: lacking the intellectual architecture noted in the Inteview with Owen Paterson on the BBC previously via "example in action".

via predominantly Business For Britain:-

The underlying assumption that is negated as "a given" is even within their book's title: "Change Or Go" s having framed the debate as a "business case" the economic arguments will please the media (See Calvin arguing with Suzie above) and retain control via being so nebulous that the painfully important political decision of providing a Popular Referendum to the people will be perfectly pitched as:-

David Cameron's False Choice Catch-22 "Economic Brexit"

We saw a similar dishonesty at work in the Scottish Referendum: Five Important Lessons Learned From The Scottish Referendum and fortunately with "20/20 Hindsight" we can learn some very important lessons from that referendum:-

5 Lessons of Referendums:

1. Global Elites Greatly Fear Secession and Decentralization
2. Secession Movements Will Demand a Vote
3. American Ideas about Secession Are Unsophisticated and Parochial
4. Secession is a good way to bargain 
5. Centralization is Unnecessary for Economic Success

And here's a 6th and all-important lesson for "Brexiteers" to learn: If we do not understand how to argue correctly, and this means we do not develop an intellectual case for Brexit, which means creating an "Intellectual Architecture" or "World Disclosure" ( Erschlossenheit) then we cannot structure our arguments and the result is the ability of the Establishment and David Cameron to set the trap above as depicted in Gary Larson's imagining of the "Catch-22" argument. This point was made right at the very beginning: "Beginning to begin": How do you become a "eurosceptic" Brexiteer?

Without beginning in the right way, we end up with almost everyone setting their watch by Mr. Cameron's "Popular Time". But wouldn't you like to know what the "Actual Time", really is and wouldn't that be much more universally useful to the people?

You know, we're just not reaching that guy.

The above cartoon probably means different things to different people; but most of those being in some way funny: How do you become a "eurosceptic"? If you were cynical you might suppose that the "devils" are our politicians and the "worker" is us. But that's far too fine a fit to be intentional! Actually I would strongly support the very reverse "intentions": Our politicians have given up trying to "reach us".

Previously, I've Been Expecting You...  it was noted how the News-Media aka The Legacy Media channels in particular present arguments using structures which ill-fit the scale and complexity of politics actually operating; their over-reliance on story tropes, on what we also call "the lowest-common denominator" or "dumbing down" according to commercial competition in a market of consumers who can be more efficiently exploited (aka "monetized") via techniques to create an emotional reaction. This in turn transforms a mere "event" into an "experience" to use further technical language from an altogether different subject domain. Information and Education are presented mixed with Entertainment and the portmaneau expression "Infotainment" is achieved.

This is a big problem on several levels: News-Media is competing with multitudinous sources of entertainment for people's limited attention and hence potential further interest and commerce. Namely a successful exchange of "value". Secondly, politics as above being a complex layered subject is in danger of becoming a specialist knowledge domain for, to use George Orwell's Animal Farm expression: "Brain Workers"

Squealer: "Comrades!" he cried. "You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for YOUR sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples."

EU Parliament Building

There is inevitably going to be specialization and stratification of society as it becomes ever more complex and hence a state with which the people (society) form a contract. Therefore through this division of labour according to economies of scale, people who are elected to represent other people through an election and voting process is necessary and functional for modern nations. This is simply obvious and we call such people in the UK "Ministers Of Parliament" who we task professionally to do this important job for us at Westminster Parliament or MP's: Our Politicians representing "We The People".

Houses of Parliament at Westminster

Having accused the News-Media of profiting from a model of communication that leans to heavily on a structure that is a poor fit for our modern politics, to then cite George Orwell's Animal Farm might seem to be hypocritical. Coming back to How about a nice game of chess? It was noted the consequences of "Narrowing down the Debate" to binary responses void of greater context leads to it's own set of "nested problems within nested problems"; a bit like the Russian Doll concept to take some infamous political leaders:-

Again the rise of such people either in the visible "villain" motif we identify so easily or the faceless, nameless government that is equally detached from the people that it serves. Alternatively the striving for greater participation by more people: The Greatest Political Problem of Our Time is an historic example of the opposite of "the possibility" within "Broadening the Debate". Specifically the allusion to the creation of a map within which such a greater context or to hit the nail on the head and quote Dr. RAE North's immensely consequential phrase: "Intellectual Framework" to which our arguments are sensible, are coherent and hence above all can THEN be communicated across differences in understanding.

At present "We The People..." are still travelling along The Road To The European Union along with Hayek, Orwell, Habermas and many other's arguments: Some will be arguing the right arguments but perhaps come to different conclusions; this is at least a start, or "Beginning to begin". Others, most will be arguing the wrong arguments and inevitably leading to the wrong conclusions much like the Russian Doll concept above, concerning the political leaders control over political power to then be able to actually enact policies.

Daniel Hannan (Conservative MEP) enjoys oratory on the subject of the EU and Brexit and is very good at it. He often likes to point out, mischievously,  if people are fed up with the above and hence by implication our politicians then, In a democracy, you get the politicians you deserve . It does sound like the "Pigs are now sleeping in the beds", and you could ask Daniel very fairly: Are you also one of those pigs?!

Coincidentally, Scribblings from Seaham (see blogroll) makes the point that our Prime Minister, David Cameron is not listening to one of his constituents at all: A letter to the Telegraph .

There's dozens of such insights to make, but it becomes necessary to encapsulate the arguments so far and come back to the "Central Point of The Argument":

• (3) The Politicians are operating  at a level where a "nested set of problems" as per a Russian Doll has superceded the original problems and hence arguments are mixed producing effectively mishmash in communication with people.
• (2) The Media are operating at a basic level of communication that indicates low quality arguments in our democracy.
• (1) What about the people? 

Here's a rare example of when things do go right with our politicians' managing to set out "strong arguments in daylight" only for the media process itself to dilute the value in the communication:-

Evan Davis (who iirc new to the job and against his nature is attempting the combative interview technique, which does not suit his style at all) interviews Owen Paterson on the subject of EU Membership. Here is a rare occassion where a politician attempts to broaden the argument while the Media in Evan Davis attempts to narrow it and we have a situation where "Talking Heads" are merely in disagreement over "which map" is of better quality let alone actually understanding "the map" and hence the people "are left none the wiser": It's been bogged down by the "sound-bite nature of the interview process based on spoken words only".

Coming back to the cartoon at the start: The devils "job satisfaction" is being questioned here: Their job satisfaction relies on "reaching through to their charges" to presumably ensure that in hell they are in eternal state of toiling hardship and hence miserable. Our politicians should seemingly gain "job satisfaction" from correctly representing us, but the problem is that without people clearly being represented and hence expanding the debate through greater representation, we end up with an outcome not dissimilar to the Pigs in Animal Farm: Their job satisfaction becomes "the political arithmetic" arguments not the arguments of the people themselves.