An Orbital Perspective: Brexit means "A Global Reality"

 Towards a data-driven model of the Earth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit: "A Global Dawn"

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

1. Recognition of our sovereignty:

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

2. Real local democracy:

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

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

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

Reports From Rebuilding: The Harrogate Agenda (THA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harrogate Agenda - order from June Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Power and Control 
• Navigational Problems

The Political Nexus: Turning Governance Into Garbage

The Political Nexus: 'How governance turns into garbage', stemming from people to politicians (also some regulation symbols on wheelie bins usage).

Worth a read are two recent blogs over at Pete North's Political Blog:-

A model of inefficiency

The politics we deserve

 

Both are worth a read. I especially agreed with this sentence in "A Model Of Inefficiency":-

"Eventually systems become so ossified that departments use the main system as a secondary administration task while using guerilla tools to perform the primary function. That's where I come in and that's how I make my living. In the corporate world I am a black marketeer peddling unofficial merchandise."

I tapped out a brief comment in reply to this illuminating observation from Pete's direct personal experience, but it became a little larger than a comment and it was my initial response to the posed process above:-


===================================================

"[START] I remember Dr. RAE North made a very telling comment some years ago recalling,back in the early 1970's (iirc), apparently The Treaty of Rome was published in a little booklet/pamphlet and he picked up and bought a copy (in London). Reading this document, some of the first words, as everyone fully knows today: "Ever Closer Union". From reading that, that was enough to vote against joining the EEC or "Common Market".

Strictly adhering to the EU structure or system this would be the quintessential definition of it's:-

• USE CASE

To clarify: The use case definition aims for stringent definition of the user (actor), system (anything built is built only towards what it's supposed to assist doing specifically) and outcomes (goals).


To revisit: EUReferendum.com: the "better deal" fallacy and connect:

"Eventually systems become so ossified that departments use the main system as a secondary administration task while using guerilla tools to perform the primary function."

Finally, the detractors of the above EU phrase "Ever Closer Union" have used a couple of methods:-

1. Dismissal: It's merely a phrase of good intent and hence insignificant.
2. Side-Tracking: Cherry-picking such a phrase is proof of an anti-agenda only.

But I think both detractions can be disproved if you consider that phrase leads to:-

1. A use-case that is wide enough for many additional and unlimited use-cases
2. If 1 then 2 follows: A bloated use-case effectively

History validates 1. with no question as per The Great Deception. What then happens with 2? I think Pete's blog here discusses this point very well. I'd like to add something to this. Inevitably when we correctly identity the Use Case of the EU we see one half of the problem:-

1. Legacy Logic:-

A) Original Design (DNA, Kernal, Constitution egs of: Once in place conservatism of these fundamentals is entrenched)
B) Self Maintenance (countless examples in the above 2 categories, see Dr. North's blog Fallacy of The "better deal" for examples and primary research of this effect in institutions: An equally powerful aid to understanding is Philip Selznick's theory of bureaucracy, in which he developed (if not actually coined) the principle of "self-maintenance" as a determinant of institutional behaviour.) This itself is a great driver of the Conservatives "wrong deal" on the EEC excuses.

C) With emphasis on B) subsuming A) comes greater demand for growth for more use cases and hence more support.
D) Visible and increasing mismatch of Inefficiency of the system/institution or organization with the original design to the current and changing conditions.

2. Conflict Logic:-

A) Because there is a mismatch between the function and the legacy support support there is conflict inherent.
B) Reporting of this conflict is either amplified or dampened in the Legacy News-Media depending.

C) Avoiding Blame is reaction to B)
D) Visible and increasing mismatch in the actual subject in question to the nature of the debate being conducted. See wide-spread confusion and poor quality democracy.

The second most important parameter is:-

• MINIMAL COST

In fact, looking at the EU Referendum it was dominated by these two considerations:- "What's the use of the EU and is it worth it?" [END]" This is particularly pertinent in today's circumstances with "austerity" and Government debt and deficit clearly out of control and of course I'm referring to Pete North's first blog "A model of inefficiency" here.

===================================================

The cartoon I've modified above looks at this question:-

"What little information is enough for a few people, so much information is not enough for so many people concerning such a political vote as the UK's membership to the EU."

"Why?"

Well I think Pete North answers that question very effectively in his second blog post "the politics we deserve":-

"The problem for politicians is that they are playing a game they cannot win. Take the NHS. Everybody wants first rate high quality personalised care. Nobody though wants to pay for it and thinks that someone else should regardless of the fact that what they want actually costs more than they have ever paid in taxes. The people themselves are hypocrites. The middle classes want the welfare system reformed and benefits reduced. Until they themselves have need of it. And of course you cannot expect top be elected or retain a position in high office if you do not pander to this basic hypocrisy.
This same dynamic underscores a good deal of popular euroscepticism. People say they want democracy but when given the chance to exert their own power they take no interest whatsoever. By abdicating politics to politicians there is a punchbag and someone to blame and the people are then absolved of all responsibility for what is done in their name. This is what we call representative democracy. 

So really our politics in a way is representative in that the hypocrisy and dishonesty of our politicians is only really a mirror image of ourselves.

Worse still the public persist in demanding simple solutions to complex problems while making zero effort to familiarise themselves with the issues.

Here we are in the middle of an information revolution with absolutely all the opinion, fact and data you could possibly want at your fingertips and people sit there gormlessly pleading for their government to spoonfeed them with the answers. This notion that politicians should do as we say instantly falls apart when the public are so hopelessly dependent on politicians and government.
Not for nothing is it said that people get the government they deserve. If we have lazy, facile and shallow politics it is again a reflection of ourselves."

Coming back to what Pete was saying about System Inefficiency, a simple and useful graph of this problem:-

Going Pro in Data Science by Jerry Overton O'reilly media: Volume and variety of data increases, statistical correlation (garbage or noise) increases compared to use-ful or meaningful data (signal)

Perhaps, for a lot of people, the inductive common sense of "What's the use of the EU and is it worth it?" probably swayed their perception of it's merits and it's faults. Intuitively the conception that there's a gap between what is said and what is actually done is felt or inferred. By the way, that blue line? I think might well explain the excessive use of the legacy news-media's narrative device of "X Could Happen?" in conjunction with "Negativity Bias": Namely "Uncertainty" from the exponential increase in statistical correlations possible no matter that they serve no useful specified Use Case. I really dislike those words thanks to the legacy news-media reporting for so many years on the EU.

But what of the people on the inside of such a system? How do they feel? This question probably takes a number of different and compatible forms:-

• The Bubble Effect derived from Prestige (a form of social rent-seeking?) where the legacy of the system itself selects the people who "run" it accordingly or what is are known as,

• "Political Dynasties" or "The Political Class" emergence in society where fewer and fewer are from "Working Class Backgrounds" and more and more from the "Diplobrat" upbringing of the likes of say a Nick Clegg or Daniel Hannan

And hence on the other hand, with the identity formation of such politicians layers above the other classes in society, a free shot of discontent (see financial ruin wreaked across the Western World), why wouldn't you vote "Leave" to give these people (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) a kick in the teeth for the first time in living memory for many?

In my reply above which was going to be a comment, to flesh it out some more, looking at the above "gap" it may need more description and hence direct application to what is discussed above. In the "Legacy News-Media", one of the dominant drivers is "Conflict Narration", again this itself takes on other forms or names such as

• "Negativity Bias" and itself is an enormously important cog in the engine driving governance into garbage. But what this adds is part of the political system's survival or self-maintenance is driven by establishing the ruling narrative that acts positive or avoids acting negatively in it's favour, our old friend
• "The Status Quo Effect" or what we'll see as the features fuelling a crisis: Inflexibility, opacity, post-hoc blaming and so on.

A side-note, the above is summarized in Dr. RAE North's most recent blog posts here for further context ie immediacy that feedback of the above is actually operating presently ie it's very real and observable:-

Brexit: nothing to report	06/09/2016
Brexit: a dose of reality?	05/09/2016
Brexit: the hacking of Redwood	04/09/2016
Brexit: a sterile debate	03/09/2016
Brexit: Liechtenstein reprised	02/09/2016
Brexit: muddy waters	01/09/2016
Brexit: parallel negotiations	31/08/2016
Brexit: the power of prestige	30/08/2016
Brexit: the failure of feedback	29/08/2016

 What the above are all describing in such detail is that policy is driven as much by a certain kind of narrative building or world view such that these are possibly popular in appearance or avert hostile reception AS OPPOSED TO taking the lead of policy driven by data and it's fidelity (veracity). Hence the emergence of this gap in form (call it noise, presentation/spin or inefficiencies) to function (use case, policy, efficiency). In fact in any operating system a feedback-system involves both positive feedback and negative feedback on processing data into information to then use for various functions for executing decision-making.

And decision-making has consequences depending on how well made those decisions were by whom: To take an example from The Financial Industry. In the banking industry, there's been some very serious "catastrophic system errors"

• Sarbanes-Oxley

"The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law that set new or expanded requirements for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. There are also a number of provisions of the Act that also apply to privately held companies, for example the willful destruction of evidence to impede a Federal investigation.

The bill, which contains eleven sections, was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, including Enron and Worldcom. The sections of the bill cover responsibilities of a public corporation’s board of directors, adds criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and required the Securities and Exchange Commission to create regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law."

• Dodd-Frank

"The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010. Passed as a response to the Great Recession, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry."

• Basel III

"Basel III (or the Third Basel Accord) is a global, voluntary regulatory framework on bank capital adequacy, stress testing, and market liquidity risk. It was agreed upon by the members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2010–11, and was scheduled to be introduced from 2013 until 2015; however, changes from 1 April 2013 extended implementation until 31 March 2018 and again extended to 31 March 2019. The third installment of the Basel Accords (see Basel I, Basel II) was developed in response to the deficiencies in financial regulation revealed by the financial crisis of 2007–08. Basel III is intended to strengthen bank capital requirements by increasing bank liquidity and decreasing bank leverage."

All the above are reactions/responses to what is easy to understand: The values and numbers traded in the financial world ended up becoming a huge data set of garbage with unreal values attached to various instruments or concoctions or "financial bubble". Here's a small exercpt from Basel III challenges (given this is the current period of attempting to regulate finance more effectively):-

BASEL III (2015): Progress in adopting the  principles for effective  risk data aggregation  and risk reporting

"In terms of the challenges that banks face in attempting to comply with the Principles, the industry panel indicated that the completion of large-scale IT infrastructure projects will aid in complying with the Principles. However, large scale IT projects are dependent on many smaller dependent IT projects, which increases execution risk. Also contributing to execution risk is the lack of subject matter experts to improve RDARR processes. Moreover they indicated the changing regulatory landscape, and consequent required reporting, further complicates the execution of IT projects. Industry members noted that the completion of these projects will improve business-as-usual RDARR, which will improve, but not completely resolve, challenges in risk reporting during periods of stress. Among the greatest challenges in risk reporting during periods of stress is the over-reliance of manually-created reports and developing processes and procedures for developing such reports when automated reports cannot be developed."

You can just imagine the sort of work Pete North mentions concerning databases from this report and the "clusterF!" involved! Not finance, but politics, a similar complexity issue probably dominates the effective delivery of Brexit with a minimizing of risk at such a large scale involving so much background noise? I'm not entirely sure how effective Basel III "can be" even with more effective regulatory requirements at global level without the actual finance industry restructuring entirely using data with more fidelity with a closer match to that data's USE CASE. The more bloated these systems become the more the motivation of the finance workers is "Get Rich Quick Before The Shit Hits The Fan!":-

'Lost' Financial System Needs Some Straight and Narrow Discipline (2014)

"In 2010, the bank launched Stride, the Strategic Reporting and Information Delivering System, which was designed to consolidate more than 1,000 information technology systems into one — an attempt to enhance the reliability of its financial reporting.
Despite this effort, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has concluded Deutsche Bank’s operations management systems remain unsatisfactory, and the goals of Stride have not adequately addressed the issues of concern, including oversight, auditing, reporting, and technology.
Echoing this financial dysfunction is a recent two year prison sentence and $1.75 million fine received by Jesse Litvak, a former Jeffries Group LLC senior trader on 15 counts, including 10 related to securities fraud. In essence, he misled clients regarding the prices he paid for bonds tied to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was designed to bail out the banks during the 2008 financial crisis.
This case is another microcosm of the dysfunctional financial system. One of his lawyers believes his client has demonstrated typical Wall Street behaviour and seems to be treated in a selective and disparate manner."

 Here's a report with all the features we've been discussing so far, a "microcosm of the macrocosm" of financial garbage data.

Now looking at both Westminster government and Civil Service and their apparent inadequacy concerning Brexit planning and dissemination of information in the event of a Leave Referendum result as well as the general pattern of governments who win election for five years and "pass the buck on" or "kick the can down the road". This becomes more explainable knowing there's inevitably a mismatch in the institutions stated functions and it's actual behaviour leading to perverse results such as apparently not planning for a "leave" vote! When all these people are carrying responsibilities that they cannot contend with, their behaviour is less effective policy and more about self-maintenance within a system dominated by self-maintenance and a very effective method to achieve this is self-assertion through either money (financial industry) or prestige (political industry):-

The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government ~ Christopher Hood

 What we see here: Divorcing Responsibility From Identity through (1) Perception (2) Time and (3) System complexity = Representative Democracy: The growth of "Blame Risk" driven institutions of Government

"What we are dealing with here is a type of risk that seems curiously unmentionable in the offi cial corporate lexicon of risk management — namely the risk of blame."

"But most of it is officially concerned with risks to society or to corporate organizations. In contrast, this book puts the spotlight on the risk of personal blame faced by public office holders, including politicians, managers, professionals, and front-line bureaucrats. That is a type of risk and risk management that is rather less commonly identified on the management-seminar circuit. And curiously—or tellingly—it does not have any conventional term-of-art label.

"So we shall simply call it “blame risk” for the purposes of this book."

 "... start to find answers to some of those puzzles that we began with, about disjunctures between officially stated claims and observed behaviour. That is because the management of blame risk — perhaps contrary to intention and usually in an unacknowledged way — so often shapes the organization and operation of modern executive government, producing its own curious logic of administrative architecture and policy operation."

"negativity bias is the reef on which international trade talks often falter, even if, as is claimed there, there might be more winners than losers from liberalizing world trade."

"Indeed, the blame-avoidance perspective cuts across three different strands of political science that are normally separated— namely the analysis of (1) institutional architectonics (why institutions are designed the way that they are), the analysis of (2) policy processes (how policies play out at all stages from their emergence onto the decision agenda down to the way they operate on the ground), and the analysis of the (3) working of electoral processes and public opinion. In fact, all of those different analytic strands are needed to explore the questions we posed at the outset, about =>"why organizations often don’t connect" in policy delivery, why rigidity often trumps flexibility and proportionality in organizational functioning, and why opacity tends to trump clarity in accountability after policy fiascos."

The author cites three categorical "Blame Risk" strategies to avoid blame:-

• Presentational Strategies
• Agency Strategies
• Policy Strategies

And they're well worth reading along with the accompanying diagram. However, for brevity, to put this into the context of this blog, if you do read these strategies they are in fact overwhelmingly familiar and you can very easily recall dozens and dozens of such examples you may have heard of in the media hundreds of times printed and distributed in multiples of Legacy News-Media sources: TV, Web, Print, Radio and of course Forums and Comments Sections.

Coming to the last section, often you see people making contributions to improve governance after disaster strikesand the legacy news-media full of hypocracy in it's own role in this entire systemic failure, comes out with the usual outpourings of "an unjust and class-ridden society" (self-flagellation) grows the divides between people ever deeper" and the usual nonsense along these emotional narrative lines. This my personal experience is to assert that such attempts to add a contribution by ordinary people within these limits imposed all around are doomed to fail: The whole system or

• "Political Nexus" from the people to the legacy news-media to the political institutions work as a complex system which is inevitably going to grind along in a particular direction and chew up anything for it's own internal working's logic.

What we have according to Christopher Hood's work:-

1. Naming
2. Blame (avoidance) Or Credit (seeking)
3. Claiming

According to "Negativity Bias" we see that this leads to Blame being x2 or x4 times higher weighted to avoid than seeking credit. Similarly, the inbuilt bias in "Conflict Narration" built off the top of "Legacy Systems" drives peoples' reactions and legacy news-media practices. The author also noties that in complex systems, it's impossible to perform "police patrols" ie stopping a problem happening before it happens, so the emphasis is on "fire-alarms" namely setting up systems that report when problems happen. Unfortunately this design appears to reinforce "Blame Risk" driven behaviours.

What is a better way to design systems? I think the USE CASE in politics should start with the principles of minimalism and simplicity in their design and limited scope. How could such a system become more applied?

The Harrogate Agenda

Principles:-

1. Direct Data Driven
2. Local Execution with Responsibility
3. Clear Use Case Definition
4. People are their own best Use Case or Self-Learning
5. Direct Cost Controls grounds the above in Reality
6. Limits on Parliament's acquired Use Case (see it's extension into the EU)

The facts seem clear: Politicians can never fully take responsibility away from people who in the first place should never be so careless to assume other people will solve their problems for them without their own self-interest interfering and eventually corrupting the process (of politics).

Knock knock. Who's there? Brexit. *dead pan voice*.

There's some amusing Brexit memes and some funny Brexit jokes. But the jokes that are reported from the various comedy circuits I've heard don't seem very funny, in my opinion, and secondly don't seem very accurate either. Generally I find jokes can be funny of themselves as an interesting sentiment without being accurate, but more rewarding when they're both funny and accurate in some insightful way.

In fact most of the jokes seem to be closer to the "Knock knock" formula: They're not really providing anything close to original or spontaneous and hence insightful. "Contrived" might be best word to describe them?

And so it is with the majority of the Legacy News-Media's reporting of the UK's EU Referendum and the Brexit Leave result as demonstrated by the report and research from Will It Kill Us Or Make Us Stronger? How Europe’s Media Covered Brexit.

The first paragraph provides a useful summary of what I think is the established doctrine of those who predominantly control power aka "Political Orthodoxy" (in the UK known as "The Establishment"):-

"Europe’s newspapers were overwhelmingly negative towards Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, according to a review of the press in 13 countries in the week after the referendum. Most articles presented the view that Brexit was bad for the EU, would damage their own nation’s interests and would also be bad for Britain. Of the articles that discussed the possibility of following Britain out of the EU, the majority concluded it would not be in their country’s interest to do so."

The other interesting prevailing view in response to this:-

"However the majority view, across all political opinions, was that it should be reformed rather than be allowed to fail."

Back to "EU Reform" territory again, and yet The Great Deception goes into great detail as to the essential form this takes or to be clearer it's such a generalism as to be a form of falsehood much more than a form of concrete solution.

However, all of this is secondary. What's of real interest:-

"In the UK analysis, of the three newspapers studied (The Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail) two had backed the leave campaign, yet coverage after the vote was mostly anti-Brexit (39%), 27% pro-Brexit and 34% neutral."

I think what's useful is that what is only apparent is the value-score of the papers cumulatively:-

• Emotionally Good (positive)
• Emotionally Bad (negative)
• Either Good and/or Bad or Neither

In effect, the legacy news-media is most likely not very useful for increasing understanding of people beyond emotional means and using the stock tools (pro vs con, authority vs opinion, fancy presentation, consensus of orthodoxy etc). Hence most people relying on this form of communication are most likely to only be emotionally engaged in the Referendum.

I think I'm on the right tracks here and I can perhaps give some examples:-

Before the Referendum the Environmental Groups and Universities for example were very clear that Brexit would be bad for Britain. But given the chancellors' recent recommendations their fears appear to be allayed to a major degree. By comparison, the promises of leaving for "leave voters" such that "control of our borders" was clearly going to massively improve the "immigration problem", I suspect this is the area of politics that is being worked very hard on in it's presentation and delivery to people to reassure them that it too has been handled or will be. The problem is however that these voters only hear what they want to hear (like most voters who require persuading) and so the solutions must be packaged into a form of emotion that makes it acceptable or palatable: Namely stoking up the very grave dangers of Brexit and reigning in expectations a bit like angling and tiring out a fish before pulling it out of the water.

 Source: Will It Kill Us Or Make Us Stronger? How Europe’s Media Covered Brexit

If you look at the reporting in other nations, very very few are in the "grey bar" category. But I wonder what the actual feelings of people is? The danger for the EU is the idea of "contagion": It seems a strong motivation to impress upon people and institutions that "Brexit is foolhardy" such as the FT.com and Guardian are doing such a wonderful post-Brexit job of catering towards, along with the equally charlatan The Economist. The Express on the other hand demonstrates the bias-supporting of "Immigration-ultras" who are so invested in stopping Migration they've given up with solutions and shout slogans with redoubled energetic displays of zeal towards this cause. The opposite but equals of the "catastrophizing" voices in the FT.com and Guardian and elsewhere. All they're doing is adding to the emotional aggregation in the Legacy News-Media.

If there is a conclusion, then I think these banal jokes, only indicate the "joke is on the people" and the dance macabre of emotion that is the beat of the legacy news-media (the so-called life (free press) but closer to death of democracy) and the level of actual democratic engagement achieved in the UK. The 78% or so of turn-out may be "the highest since whenever..." but like the legacy news-media, all it merely records is the attempt to stimulate enough people to feel emotional about a subject to record "democracy in good health" when in fact all it's doing is suggesting democracy in it's present form is merely an exercise according to two simple parameters:-

1. Stimulate enough of the population to take a few hours out to officially record a vote for the statistics of the exercise to increase it's "validity".
2. Given democracy at such scale of millions, to provide so many ignorant and emotional people with a format of participation which mostly can be counted as "satisfactory": Their numbers may be great, but their actual input into the relevance of the arguments is significantly tiny.

In my opinion, the beginning and end of democracy for people is within the contraints of the legacy news-media: Good or Bad or Both (more or less or equal) or Neither. That's about as good as it gets. For consolation, the Think Thanks are little better... for example the complete nonsense that springs up, dominated by the same Orthodoxy mentality (irrespective of the people or their professed positions):-

• InFacts by Hugo Dixon
• Vote Leave Watch by Chuku Umunna
• Brexit Central by Matthew Elliott

However another consideration that is worth looking at form this research on the European Journalists reporting of Brexit:-

"Despite the anti-Brexit views in western Europe’s quality newspapers"

There's the implicit assumption that these newspapers actually are adequate let alone not inadequate! In fact they're more: They're superior quality (see below by contrast to the tabloids!). This is in my opinion a fatal flaw of this study indicating yet again the "Orthodoxy" at work. 

"In general coverage in tabloid and popular newspapers was more superficial and often focussed on issues such as immigration, racism and migrant workers in the UK."

Yes, as above, a question of "by degree" and "relative to what?". Overall the service of newspapers is EMOTION (see below again). 

"Most of Russia’s domestic coverage consisted of “short news about Brexit-related events without providing interpretation or authorial comments,” said Andrejs Berdnikovs, editor of EJO Russia. Berdnikovs said that while overt political statements were avoided, the media coverage was selective."

The problem about accusing Russia of doing this is again comparing Russia to more sober and impartial press in the West. However, the experience I have of the British Press in particular is that they're a closed shop commentating in their own little bubble amongst themselves, excluding and actively building "walls" to communication expansion. When they do include it's as a prop to then reinforce future exlclusion via direct "dismissal": See EUReferendum.com: Brexit: Newsnight.

"Often seen as a model of how to exist outside the EU, Switzerland"

No, no, no! Often "presented deeply deeply erroneously...". And I have tons and tons of evidence: The Columbo Method: Norway

"The negative tone is also reflected in headlines that included words such as fear, anger, frustration, chaos, panic, turmoil, populist revolt, confusion."

The FT.com and Economist may not be as explicit but they've tended this way also. I suspect tabloids boost "political participation" and serve a useful role to the Orthodoxy at the same time as our betters "crying oh the shame of the daily mail, mirror, express and sun!". Nothing is worse than being ignored, not even those tabloids' headlines! One of the interesting things however: Scared To Death.

"The negative way Europe’s news media reported and presented the outcome of the UK’s referendum indicates how the issue might be discussed in national public arenas in the future, according to Dr Raluca Radu, of the University of Bucharest and Director of EJO Romania."

No, Brexit: a surfeit of negativity I think it only leads to "limiting democracy" and controlling via the excessive usage of "fear" or FUD as discussed a couple of years ago in FLEXCIT.

The best joke I heard on Brexit is in this article, and it's not really a joke... but it 'sort of/kinda' is:-

"Berdnikovs said that while overt political statements were avoided, the media coverage was selective. “The decision of which quotes to use was dependent on portals’ ideological stance. Thus, conservative REGNUM tended to present an atmosphere of confusion among ruling European politicians, normally trying to make Pro-Europeanists sound naïve and trivial (“Moldova should strengthen efforts towards European integration, because it can bring Moldovan citizens welfare, social solidarity, good laws and respect”), but eurosceptics – witty and wise (“The EU is a project with a past but without a future”),” Berdnikovs said."

I'm not seeing any difference (apart from role reversals) in the Russian Press than the European and British Press! I guess those in the Orthodoxy of politics are much more similar to each other than they care to admit?!

The Spectator is taking enjoyment from the confusion: Luvvie anger over Brexit is palpable at Edinburgh – and it’s exposing their true colours; and I think makes at least one valid point, the question of money dictating a lot of peoples' reactions to politics.

This is valid, but the solution is not so much the short-term flux over money ("They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work"), it's the politics of power as per The Harrogate Agenda:-

5. No taxation or spending without consent:

"No tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures; "

Irresponsible it was by Vote Leave to bang on about £350 million figure because it's a lie. But the underlying message of "Who the hell gets to have a say on how our money is taken from us and used by who for whom," probably was an attractive underlying idea to people? Well The Harrogate Agenda attempts to promote this question further and more honestly than Vote Leave or the Luvvies. 

In the previous article I argued concerning the importance of data especially on the health of our Sovereign concept of Britain/UK. This flows "upwards" to inform our policy (compare freely spending billions on foreign policy wars). In this blog I've ended with a suggestion that Brexit was probably driven by a keen sense that money which should flow "downwards" from first setting good policy, is sensed by people not to be doing so, but to being abused and wasted and indulged by those who are in power and share the same "Orthodoxy" supported by the major institutions predominantly: Legacy News-Media, Universities, Entertainers etc all siphoning off their share of money while it slowly becomes clearer and clearer the policies made are "bad" while "economic recovery is just around the corner" (good?).

"What do 'The Youth' think?" Adapted from Dr. RAE North, FLEXCIT: http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcit.pdf from which referencing: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/cyri/our_research/esrc_festival_of_social.Maincontent.0008.file.tmp/eu1%20copy.pdf

Explanations, Reactions, Decisions and Chain-Reactions

A mere snap-shot attempting to illustrate a merest modicum of complexity, but at least fun to watch!

I think one of the biggest single explanations that captures a lot of, if not all of, the reasons that we finally see arguments made now that could or should have been made during the Referendum Campaign, is the way and worry of how politics really works. Any clearly stated course of action to be motioned for decision-making upon, creates a reaction and hence a chain of reactions forms and counter-reacts then reforms and so on.

What is left? A shadow-play of words; a calculation on intended but veiled effect; most particularly on manipulating relationships and groups of relationships: What is generally taken for granted as "Politics". Thus because we have finally had a decision, that has the weight of finality about it (despite the whinging), suddenly a lot of talking heads are coming onto the issues that were SO CLEARLY LAID OUT in FLEXCIT a few years ago. This itself is worth observing: The information may be available and highly accessible, but the emotional state of people seems to predominate in their behaviour, effectively blinding them to it. If ever there's a need for a mass anthropolitical (hehe!) study... Indeed if you believe in following those that govern the people because "they know best" and act "in everyone's best interests" just read this: Brexit: the darkest of games.

And so, to point out in EUReferendum.com 's recent postings:-

The WTO Option:-

• Brexit: the consequences of failure 
• Brexit: an accidental crisis 
• Brexit: questions and consequences

It is complex! In fact to save you attempting to master the details, just think of it in terms of a chain-reaction of complexity as the above video at least indicates though not on a scale or degree of dimensional complexity that is needed. The point is made, one false move and the whole bloody thing:-

1. Sets off in an uncontrolled manner.
2. Grinds to a halt in a manner unintended.
3. Loss of the stored potential to leverage the present working state. 

The other issue that seems to be burning away still apparently unresolvable but actually operating in the above description of "chain-reactions" and managing these things is "Freedom of Movement"; again using EUReferendum 's research to summarize:-

• Brexit: free movement and the Single Market
• Brexit: it's NOT an "emergency brake"

As has been noted, the "hollowing out" of the UK's national decision-making organs or institutions for the running of the UK, means that the politicians in Westminster serve only one useful function, these days: Enacting their role of "shadow play words" over everything for public and media consumption: Namely to use the chain-reaction motif, managing reactions, not it seems actually using information to make decisions: Perhaps Whitehall is doing that... using the one Brexit plan that actually defines the parameters then applies those conditions to any solution.

If you want an explanation for what "goes as argument" in 99% of the Legacy News-Media, then I would posit "this is as good as it gets!" Hence to be clear: The false narrative that thrives at present between The Single Market continued membership vs Freedom of Movement is merely a management of factions and their own infernal recursion of meanings: Complete gibberish fuelling the emotional reactions and managing them.

What's this all about then? There's an interesting discussion on the BBC iPlayer at the moment, you may care to watch and it contains some useful information: Britain's Vote In The EU Referendum
 
I took some notes while watching it and again using the idea of a chain-reaction to contain the relevant information and interpret it:-

Geoff Evans made some very interesting comments on the legacy of New Labour and Tony Blair and the interaction of this on Old Labour, The Working Class Vote, Immigration and Referendums/Referenda. It's worth watching.

However his information may be quite applicable and probably quite accurate, it did occur to me that his explanation was a bit like looking at the end of a chain reaction and saying "Here's the really important bit!" I think again to reference, a fuller understanding is the reward for reading The Great Deception history and reference and research on the EU, itself! Some of his language is good: "Liberal Intelligensia" or "UKIP Curious".

Next up Jane Green, it seemed to me was waffling off her feet and I could not understand her speech, only see her mouth moving. I think it was all pointed to saying "Remain was against the Status Quo of British people who were fairly pessimistic about the "so-called good" of the EU as described by the "Liberal Intelligensia". Again common sense vs a dangerously deluded over-thinking it bunch of pricks telling other people what to think.

Vernon Bogdanor, was of course very interesting on the so-called UK Constitution using an array of quotes on the subject that were both entertaining and insightful and hence useful for interpreting events against. In particular the "delegation of power" from people to Parliament and the limits that such power could or should be further bartered onwards away from and indeed how Referendums consequentially at least in the upper-echelons of the political elite became a crisis of their own identity and making.

The next speaker was Sarah Hageman, and here we really reach the business of this blog: She described "Contagion" or what I've then called "Chain-Reaction" in general application. Here specifically:-

1. Brexit Result from UK Referendum=>
2. N/Fr/D/Sw-EXIT Referendums in other EU nations? =>
3. Maybe not, but domestic political repercussions =>
4. Rate of Change aka uncertainty triggering ITA/SPA Banks in the Eurozone! =>
5. The effects of all this looping back onto "what kind of deal will the EU give the UK"?

Here we return to the drivel about Freedom of Movement vs The Single Market!! Hello!

But there is a really important principle here: The complexity is REAL: From both perspectives of the Remain EU'ers or the Brexiteers and hence absolutely Brexit must be a very measured and controlled plan: Indeed FLEXCIT's staged or iterative withdrawal principle is exactly what this means given the complexity at stake (just think of those dominoes). It hence suggests the EU cannot "give in" on Freedom of Movement if the UK is sustain Single Market access, which would go a long way to calming market flux; ie the EFTA/EEA option purely for political reasons is very rational. Indeed looking at the EU, they really need to resolve the 4th issue above and speed on with their new Eurozone Treaty. Finally as per the blogs by Dr. RAE North above on Freedom of Movement, it's iteratively improving in the EFTA/EEA set-up secondly in any case - as planned.

The opposite of this? Shit communication, the likes of which are in torrents in the Legacy News-Media and politicians of Westminster. In fact, as per the previous blog a negative spiral against correct and healthy democratic processes.

Interestingly the final speaker, Cathyrn Costello, backs this up with her talk of "Regulated Labour Markets" and circular flows and the inadequacy of regulatory measures on these economically driven flows. She even usefully makes the point that it only took One Day before all the talk of "control" or "sovereignty" was discarded and EEA becomes the main candidate. Remember after all those years and years of lies on aka "The Norway Option": The Columbo Method: Norway.

As to the meeting and "experts" the observation I made was that these people apart from Geoff Evans and Vernon Bogdanor looked like they had "panic stricken faces" on. Namely they failed to communicate as experts or in their role as experts. For example, Cathyrn Costello showed her shallow understanding or deep ignorance chirping about "No say on internal market regulation" and a somewhat righteous tone of "betrayal of polish friends" mixed with "the EU has done everything to accommodate the peculiarities of the UK". These value-laden judgements are what was discussed previously: The emotional soup washing over people.

This is the work of the politician. The work of the expert is more neutral in tone and much more measured in stating what is known or at least thought to be known compared to what most certainly is not known, for example describing the complexity of these potential chain-reactions is I think very very useful for helping people make sense of where we are at and hence how we perhaps might prefer to proceed concerning Brexit and as Mrs. May our new Prime Minister says: "Making a Success of It!"

I think it is easy to see politics feels so alien to so many people. Does it have to be this way? Probably: With change comes winners and losers. My view is however, that the change has been in motion since the history of the EU and today globalization is accelerating this rate of change which also as a subject is seeing this emotionally hot battle of winners and losers (the narrative that Brexiteers are losers is amusing! in this regard if it were perhaps not so serious at the same time).

The Harrogate Agenda

However, I think if the UK is able to take a bigger picture, or macroscope of things, it may help: In fact FLEXCIT starts off with the "least worst option" but confronts the challenges in order that in the future overall most dividends will it is hoped lead to maximizing "winners" and minimizing "losers": There is always going to be people who feel politics has afflicted them as opposed to served them: But how we manage our reactions to that and how we inform ourselves will help our reactions: And who knows, perhaps that itself will finally change politics, positively?

Beyond 2020: The Sweet Spring of Real Democracy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fog of ignorance

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

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

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

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

Jesus Wept!

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

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

Leave is then left with (lol!):-

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

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

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

One of the reasons is simple:-

EU Referendum: to be a sovereign power

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

• Land
• People
• Rules

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

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

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

Fishing Speech

Environment Speech 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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