The Perils of "Everybody Knows."

If only words were such apprehensible objects and hence so apprehensible problems... but it's a deceptively simple "transitive" mistake to make and it's so frequent.

I grabbed the above image from this source (and hence reference it appropriately) where they're talking about the meaning of a "missionary": I'd answer by saying if you saw someone struggling up a flight of stairs on the London Underground with a heavy suitcase (or often a pram or sometimes a disability etc), then you'd take a choice to ask if they need help and lend a hand until they're up the stairs. Seems good enough to me to use a simple example. More useful, I'd argue than a missionary would be an "Anthropologist": Someone who seeks to understand the actual culture they insert themselves within BEFORE attempting to provide their skills or provide their help and areas of expertise perhaps? Namely good intentions are at the start of such voluntary endeavours to "make things better" but without an understanding they may err otherwise. I have a friend who went to Turkey in a similar voluntary vein, and it will be interesting to find out how it went: They're nice people which tends to find some success but I think it's also more of a lottery concerning success with only such a basis.

In fact something I've been troubled a lot by recently: "Everybody Knows..." seems to be the default of most of the people I talk to, and often on different subjects this "Everybody Knows..." attitude dominates how the conversation goes. In particular, on Brexit, "Uncertainty" and indeed "Everybody Knows... That Nobody Knows," is equally seductive and prevalent. People who appear most confident of their point of view tend to be heard and possibly more persuasive than a simple: "I don't necessarily know, however..."?

I realize I fall foul of this way too much too. Better to be silent, listen then think in silence and consider how much do I actually know? How many words and excessive talking on things I don't really know a lot about is certainly something to feel an "inner-cringe" about. I remember the first Brexit models or papers I came across, the problem could be "solved in an afternoon in Westminster by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act; whereas today 10 years of continuous and flexible work is required across multiples of policy making areas." It's just like thinking the world is in the cup of my palm. Fast forward to after the Referendum and "oh dear" *To be said in David Attenborough's natural history narrative voice* when an animal does something that does not turn out with the reward it was seeking (missed sex/loss of food/a rival competitor intruding). As such the response of the animal is to transform from it's habitual in autopilot mode or second gear and stimulate an increased response rate either to loss or to gain.

I would guess humans behave in this way when posed with an apparently important question (perception of loss/gain) and hence provide a view that they feel is confident and more certain as it applies to them (at least) than uncertain? To say, I know enough to know that I really don't know at all or else realize that many questions are so open-ended that they could be answered in thousands of different ways all of which would be plausible or subjectively equally applicable.

Namely, people provide a heightened stimulus response, that falls into the "I'm an expert" phase. Politicians seem to be expected to perform this trick then equally expected to be "lying" but "allowed to be lying about being an expert" because they're "obviously partisan" and hence I'm sure you know the rest, as they say! Pretty much useless.

Coming back to missionaries and converting people, I think a good indication of someone who actually is an expert is the back to "I Know Nothing" phase. Unfortunately this does not sound like that sought after "stimulated response" and secondly it can be confused for "hedging" when it's actually very careful and cautious communication of complex ideas - it should be evident that conversion is not a priority, an attempt to help explain and understand, is. And of course, it requires that the parties in communication share a sufficient knowledge level, which seems always to be assumed but never actually tested on the deficient communicator's side of the conversation.

Interestingly a lot of the reactions of people concerning the Referendum is either:-

• "Experts? Pffft! What do THEY know..."
• "Ha! See!! That's what happens when experts are ignored, BAD THINGS happen."

Above, Mark Carney is being assessed for "independence", namely his role as an expert is being considered in contention to his possible role as a partisan actor. There's a few good (understatement) blogs on this subject at EUReferendum.com by Dr. RAE North. Now donning our "Anthropologist's hat" let's look at what can be for the time-being be labelled "False Experts" and we'll see why the former response is seen from people:-

• Brexit: Dougan on Liechtenstein
• EU referendum: our learned but stupid friends 

Another opportunity to see this reversal from "knowledge" towards "coercion" is exhibited (it's almost laugh out loud by this compromised and crooked institution's consistency in this vein):-

Theresa May has two clear options on Brexit – neither of them easy

The interesting thing here is an inversion: The behaviour of "our fake expert" above is to induce the former reaction but at the same time hold some truth concerning the latter reaction. Now if we take the opposite direction to the above where expert who acts like a politician is this time replaced with a politician who acts like an expert:

• Brexit: Farage resigns … again

I think enough is known of Farage to not expand from what is written in the blog above. But the effect here now is an inversion:  "our politician acting as an expert" to convert people (ALSO) is easy to identify, he points out that everyone is an expert and dismisses "bad things" of the "fake expert" and promote the "Pfft! Experts..." but at the same time as inadvertently ensuring that as time progresses "bad things" do happen or would happen with people like him at the helm of decision-making!

Brexit: plus ça change

Fortunately "Complete Bastard - The Hero We All Deserve" flies to the rescue and explains this particular inversion very well and expands the point from Farage to the entire Leave Campaign rounded of by Vote Leave and their failure to "master the Brexit Argument".

Interestingly, not an expert view, but one that manages to capture the major flaw in both the above types of behaviour without fully appreciating it and neither from an expert nor politician but in a very "I know nothing" but at least I have some "common sense" to use even if there's a good number of "leaps of faith": When people try to "convert" other people they're invariably whether or not they realize it, are acting in a "coercive" way: "Everybody Knows..." is a terrible form of self-deception and group-deception. There are some things "Everybody Knows..." but everybody realize they don't need to talk about those things or else bore people. Brexit has been talked about far far too much by far too many people in a way that has been dominated by "Coercion" motivation.

Keep calm and Brexit on: History suggests leaving Europe is great for Britain

There's a number of different connections here. But I have to pick one that is at present most important and most urgent and hence discard the rest for sake of brevity (much like Brexit!!):-

Even if this last article touches on a core "truth" at the very heart of this argument, it fails to deal with the very serious consequences that the "fake experts" are able to continue trading off: "Bad things!"

There we really do need a real expertise that acts as such. And people in their millions muddling along in the middle of the communication of knowledge will likely never begin to understand through all the cacophany of "converting" going on that leads to those two opinions of experts: How can two different opinions both be right and wrong at the same time?! The simple answer is: Asking The Wrong question(s) is likely.

In a crazy way, the inversion that both sides through avoiding improving the quality of arguments, create it seems unintentionally, "equal each other out" and that "core" above just peeps through might be somewhere within the numbers where the Referendum result lies?

But what is most important and most urgent now?

Read this:-

Hopefully it's the first thing Theresa May, upon becoming our new Prime Minister, will advice her new Cabinet to do on Wednesday. I don't think the difficult answer is very comforting, but it might suggest that where there is a clear assessment of loss or gain, then such a Referendum choice on so large a single argument (without multiple divisions of it) will necessarily lead to a scope of enormously magnified loss or gain depending on the correct or mistaken decision-making taken by our new government.

The Referendum was won by Leave it seems without expertise, but the process of Brexit cannot be successful without the right expertise applied correctly.

Permissible Predictions: President Cameron Agrees To EUROZONE Treaty 2017

COMPRESSION TIME: Emotional hysteria will peak towards the EU Referendum vote then (AT)TENSION will return to the EUROZONE and the time pressure it is under.

There's some pure gold in the legacy-news media pulling out the "big-guns" in manipulating voters according to preferred criteria on how to vote Remain; in particular: Nobel prize-winning economists warn of long-term damage after Brexit and Reddit once again provides a convenient summary of tailored messages:-

 Compression exerted on voters not according to THEIR criteria but according to other criteria and indeed so many "buy it".

With regard to the economic uncetainty, there's inevitable flux as a mandate from people via democracy is a power signal with concentric waves of influence rippling out and affecting myriads of subjective realities (stock markets and currencies ( eg blog: Putting Theories To The Test: The EU As Symbol of "Good"?
confidence or uncertainty?) and the odd objective ones too. However all along the people are being deceived: To vote Remain is I predict to vote for Cameron as PM and President of the EU in 2017 where upon the UK will "Lead" the soft outer ring and pave the way for the EUROZONE Treaty post-2020 all according to schedule of the political classes, having managed the people out of the way and they will feel back in control once again. Massaging appearances back into their preferred form, again.

The Price Of "Pure Gold": FUD & Nobel Prize-Winning "Economic Uncertainty"

It will be interesting to see the results of the Referendum and the data on who voted. Then there will be calculations to infer WHY people voted the way they did. I infer however, that those who vote REMAIN will tend to be women and tend to be well-educated and tend towards following more obediently and understand things with respect to what sounds most sensible - namely the swing voters will I think still vote for REMAIN after all the ammunition that VOTE LEAVE have provided with David Cameron to then lean on the above economists and the like.

 Habit-Forming: Independent Thinking or Arranged Learning? What does teacher say?

In fact a vote to Leave won't change much apart from sending out those signals and hence flux and this is because:-

Safe harbour: why the Norway option could take the risk out of Brexit

Anthony Scolefield of Futurus makes one of the most sensible observations regarding the Leave Vote concerning how it will be an exercise in "Political Permissibility" as the UK is already a full EEA member, the perogative of removing that would fall on the EU's decision-making shoulders and that is something it cannot and won't do for practical reasons apart from political permissibility reasons also.

"Inside the corridors of pro-remain Whitehall, and among many of the most informed Brexit advocates, there is a belief that the UK could find a much safer way to pull out of the EU. Proponents of a so-called “Flexcit” suggest that the UK might use a safe harbour that already exists to remove much of the risk from an EU divorce.

Backing out of the EU after a vote to leave, and re-entering the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) group of countries could pave a way out while doing minimal damage."

 And getting to the heart of the matter concerning "Permissibility":-

"The larger risk to the Flexcit plan comes in the form of potential international opposition. Britain’s re-entry into EFTA would require the unanimous approval of its existing members. Having secured that blessing, the UK would then need all 27 of the EU’s remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA.
Smith concedes that France could put up a fight. “There are a number of people in the French political establishment, who would try to dig in and just not do anything,” he says, admitting that Paris could attempt to block a deal outright.
However, he believes that the pressure applied by other European countries, including fellow trading nations such as Germany, would be enough to get EEA entry on the table for the UK.
This may require a concession to France, “a pound of flesh”, Smith suggests, perhaps in the way of higher payments to the EU than other EFTA countries face."

Indeed this ties in with the thoughts of Anthony Scolefield of Futurus on "Permissibility":-

However underneath this particular and seemingly final Russian doll is in fact the final and last "one": The Voter, as Dr. RAE North explores and clarifies:-

"The purpose of Flexcit is to give reassurance to undecided voters, by showing that leaving the EU can be a safe, measured process. It need not have any economic fall-out.

As such, this exit plan does not seek to instruct government. It does not pretend to be actionable policy. It simply conveys a structured argument that says that, if it so desired, the Government can make leaving the EU relatively painless and ultimately very profitable. There is no "leap in the dark".


And indeed the real problem is communicating this to the voter so that their Selection Choice either for Remain or Leave feels both valid (Referendum) and viable (either choice depends on the voter's conception of the EU Membership vs a realistic alternative):-

"The point here, of course, is that Flexcit, very specifically, is NOT the Norway option. Phase One of our plan gives three choices, of which Norway is only one. There are two fallbacks, each devised to allow for the eventuality that Britain might fail to rejoin Efta – a prerequisite of the Norway option – or that it might be blocked from continued participation in the EEA.

With no reference to the fallbacks, the Telegraph mistakenly asserts that there is a "larger risk to the Flexcit plan", coming in the form of potential international opposition. Britain's re-entry into EFTA. This we are told "would require the unanimous approval of its existing members". And then, having secured that membership, the UK would "need all 27 of the EU's remaining nations to sign off on it entering the EEA".

Our concern here is that we have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid our plan being dismissed on these grounds. Failure to join either Efta or the EEA may be a risk to the Norway option, but it is not a problem for Flexcit. If the worst happens, we simply move on to one of the fallbacks – their availability being an absolutely integral part of the plan.

Dwelling on the issue of "entering the EEA", it should be said that the argument has progressed, and in leaps and bounds. Here, the specific point is that the UK is already in the EEA. Thus, it is not a question of "entering the EEA" but of whether we can continue as part of it, having transitioned from the EU to Efta. This issue is discussed at length in Flexcit."

Anthony Scolefield is one of the few to argue in a mature and responsible way about the Permissibility question gifted to UK Voters in this EU Referendum. If someone gives you two options but does not give you permission concerning one of them due to other 3rd parties who cannot be relied upon... you have to ask: What sort of choice is that, exactly? Secondly, if all that is holding up Europe is some words on a piece of paper and not the common goodwill of all the current members and future members, just what signal does that send out about how people are governed?

At the bottom of this even below the level of the voter, is the fear of those in charge who made illegitimate decisions in the past that are now leading them to attempt to control and manage the voters consequentially and avoid those voters deciding that the EU or the EUROZONE is really not what they ever wanted (see the objective results) because they fear the "chain reaction" that will trigger on a fragile and failing system of their own doing. And the reasoning:-

1. Real EU Reform Concessions were never ever on the cards: "I suspect that if Europe had been more willing to agree genuine reform when the Prime Minister went to Brussels for his renegotiation, the polls would be looking far better for Remain than they do today."
2. A Fair Referendum was never ever on the cards either: Managing to educate voters and lead to a Leave verdict is not how the politicians conduct their plans if they can help it!!
3. The EUROZONE has to be secured not just in practice but also in the event of uncertainty and fragility and the subjective reality that it is so prey to; before any real conviction will be seen towards Brexit and communicated as such.
4. With President Cameron leading the way of the narrowly voted Remain UK in 2017...
5. Indeed this whole Referendum as per the previous blog Referendum Result 2016: A Systemic Failure of Governance of People has been an enormous indictment against the governance of the UK by it's criminally deceptive and self-serving politicians.

So, we will have a serial liar in David Cameron in 2017 giving permission to the EUROZONE Treaty, I expect as a consequence of a Remain vote.

Whatever happened to people giving their politicians their permission? I think this Referendum will confirm this inversion.

Putting Theories To The Test: The EU As Symbol of "Good"?

A Real Test Of Conviction: "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is."

I've previously considered one of the successes of the future will be along the lines of High Street Shops closing down and eventually High Streets changing to meet more specific needs of people and communities: A more social experience and service provided, perhaps, in the face of Internet competition; an eventual adaptation and opportunity for new business and social enterprise? Likewise a success I look forward to is the "closing down of some of the current major news sources" such as:-

• The Guardian
• The Economist
• The Financial Times

In their support of the EU, they exhibit "Special Pleading":-

"Is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception."

Foreseeing a gloomy post-Brexit future for my family

Please convert all your cash and assets into EUROs now asshole and send a postcard from your new address in 2018, too.

 Divided We Fall

The Economist: Masquerading as knowledgeable and hence authorative and impartial in an economically rational voice - yet exhibiting exaggerated special pleading.

There's numerous such articles as these. Instead of repeating the same old tired Remain arguments and disputing them one by one, I'll summarize the sympathetic magical thinking:-

"The EU has a mystical property which means that no matter what is being talked about: Grasshoppers, Deodorant, History, Music, because the EU was founded with the intention to prevent wars, it is imbued with "Sacrosanct Good" and hence anything connected with it, must also symbolize this "Good". Thus the opposite becomes true, removing the EU also removes "Good" and thus the tenor of terror alluded to in these pieces above on all the tenuous connects to the negative consequences of Brexit."

• Boris Johnson as PM (as bad as Major, Blair and Brown? As deceitful as Cameron?).
• Families will suffer
• Western Civilization will suffer

Alternatively,

In FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: Introduction p.8-.9 it's acknowledged very candidly that a Withdrawal Process DOES NEED THE UTMOST CARE:-

"Leaving the EU is a big step and there can be no serious dispute that a botched process could have dire results... Any major disruption could do serious harm to our economy, well beyond just our trade with EU Member States. It could drive us into recession. There is no margin for error. We cannot afford to get it wrong."

"And we start with a basic premise. After nine treaties and 40 years of political and economic integration, there can be no clean break. Unravelling in a single step is not going to happen, and certainly not without compromises."

"The next point is that negotiations will not take place in a political vacuum... This means that our negotiators will not have a free hand... Another point is that these will be negotiations - i.e., a process which involves exchanges of views... Compromise will be essential."

Now this practical approach to the realities of the situation, I think is sensibly worth putting to the test! If only the EU had been put to the test more frequently for more people (ie democratically), it may have all been a quite different story to the "Special Pleading" now being paraded by the journalists in The Economist and Financial Times.

"Taking all that into account, we propose six stages to our plan. Its very essence is that it is split into stages. We arrived where we are by a series of graduated steps. It makes absolute sense that we should leave in the same way."

 

RELATIONSHIP: The Central Point Argument of the EU

Why did the EU SUPRANATIONAL RELATIONSHIP Form?

There's a good summary here from EUReferendum.com: EU Referendum: remember Verdun. In The Great Deception we learn the names of the core, original architects of this idea for "the subordination" of nation states in Europe under a "United States of Europe" Supranational government:-

• Arthur Salter
• Jean Monnet

Subordination:

"When these two men first conceived their dream of a "United States of Europe", absolutely central to it was the prospect of setting up an entirely new form of government: One which was "Supra-National", beyond ["above"] the control of national governments , politicians and electorates. Nation states, governments and parliaments could be left in place: But only so that they could gradually become subordinated to a new supranational government which was above them all."

• Altiero Spinelli

Deception:

"Altiero Spinelli realized that to bring his vision  about, it would be necessary to conceal from the peoples of Europe just what was being done in their name until the process was so advanced that it had become irreversible."

• Paul Henri-Spaak

Engrenage:

"the most effective way to disguise the project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretence that it was concerned only with economic co-operation."

What I'd like to highlight: The reasons as per Verdun were "good intentions" to avoid bad relationships leading to millions of deaths in wars. However the means to achieve this objective, the forms decided upon:-

• Subordination will lead to an abuse of power.
• Deception will lead to broken communication between "elites and people".
• Engrenage priority will lead to putting this Relationship over Reasoned Argument in Policy (for example see Fishing Discards below).

What we can see is the intention is good but the exectuion is negative and it's because of the relationship that was at the heart of the design which itself had to work through negative methods and hence it has become a negative or destructive relationship structure.

The evidence of this Relationship (As IT Relates TO and is Being Related FROM) in action vs the Technical  argument (IT Itself) being subjugated is exemplified in Fisheries evidence:-

Fish, Fisheries = IT ; UK's relationship with the EU and the EU's relationship with the UK = (it) RELATES TO/FROM

To Summarize from Owen Paterson's Fisheries Speech:-

Re-establishing Local and National control of fishing policy will revive our fishing communities and restore our marine environment. 

If anything it has got worse. 

"Eleven years ago I produced an Opposition Green Paper on fishing in which I stated that ‘The Common Fisheries Policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster; it is beyond reform. It is a system that forces fishermen to throw back more fish dead into the sea than they land, it has caused substantial degradation of the marine environment, it has destroyed much of the fishing industry, with compulsory scrapping of modern vessels and has devastated fishing communities’. Despite determined efforts to reform the CFP by the UK Coalition Government, not much has changed. If anything it has got worse. 

The statistics are eye-watering

In 1995, 9,200 British fishing vessels landed 912,000 tons of fish; by 2002 there were 7,003 vessels landing 686,000 tons. That is a 25 per cent decline in just seven years, and meant the loss of on average one fishing vessel per day. A whole crew losing their livelihood each day.In that period landings dropped from over 900,000 to just 627,000 tonnes annually, with a value of only £770 million.  But the real contrast has come with imports. By 2012, by which time there were just 6,406 British fishing vessels at work, UK imports reached 638,410 tonnes, valued at £2.6bn, of which just under a third came from our EU neighbours. To make matters a great deal worse, many of them were caught in British waters."


How did this happen?
 
How did this happen? Politics. Access to fishing grounds has been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of ‘equal access’ to what Brussels called a ‘common resource’. When we joined, fishing fleets from other EU member states were given proportionately a greater share of the fish allocation in UK waters than the British fleet.  This ‘Total Allowable Catch’ was determined annually during a seedy bargaining session in Brussels.  We can’t say we weren’t warned. 

When Britain, Ireland, Norway and Denmark were negotiating to join the Common Market it was realised that 80 per cent of the EEC fish stock would now be in the internationally recognised ‘Exclusive Economic Zones’ of these four new member states. The Norwegian fisheries minister resigned rather than accept the deal, and when given the vote on whether to join, his countrymen sensibly said ‘nei’.

Effect on environment 

Considering this devastating effect on the industry, it’s almost an achievement that the Common Fisheries Policy has also managed to be an absolute ecological failure, too.

To Visualize the different arguments and the effect of this "new" Relationship on Fisheries Policy:-

Why overfishing?

Contrary to there being ‘too many fishermen chasing too few fish’, as the European Commission concluded after studying its own failures, the problem is caused by management in allowing overfishing for political reasons.

In the previous blog, Intermission: How To Argue About European Union Membership Effectively, it was looked at how to argue effectively to a general audience this message about the Central Point of the Argument about the EU as per Roland Smith's EU Referendum: Read The Question! and it needs to be reformulated in simple language that is undeniable: It is a question of Relationship Status of the UK with the EU and the merits of this status compared to a new relationship status such as:-

Explosive poll shows that the public back leaving the EU and remaining in the Single Market ~ Ben Kelly (The Sceptic Isle)

Far from in fact "selling the EEA" for it's "wonderful properties" which the Remain supporters are so desperate to contradict and step over the line into:-

• Lying
• Black-Naming & denigrating
• Manipulating via Authority and Prestige sources
• Not answering the question ie Mischaracterizing

ERM & Maastricht (Eurozone) "Economic Uncertainty" unleashed by John Major; Iraq War and Mass Immigration "Political Terror" unleashed by Tony Blair. Whether or not you like Nigel Farage the demagogue, he's the creation of both of these former Prime Ministers and their deep deep deceptions over the British people. The Deception is bigger than all the personalities and their declining prestige.

One of the worst mischaracterizations is from David Cameron's Immigration broken promise of <99,999 p.a. promise after his "Cast-Iron Guarantee Referendum" broken promise and then manipulation of the Referendum via his "Special Status" Dominance-Subordination discussions with the EU as Pete North notices: A matter of trusting David Cameron...


There's a simple truth here: The EEA is not about it's "Pros" in the first case and hence it's not about Immigration (The EU Question) either in the first case:-

The EFTA/EEA Transitional Brexit solution is effectively answering the FIRST Question of Political EU Union Membership and removing that FIRST!!!! as perahps both Lost Leonardo A Step Into The Light and The Brexit Door Transition (EEA) Unites Voters, appreciate.

The Three Body Problem of the UK's EU Relationship

Failure of uptake of The Great Deception seems to come about because of a lack of democracy. But only a rise of democracy seems possible to lead to an uptake of The Great Deception and hence determination to trigger the need for The Market Solution.

As much as my colleagues are positive about the recent reactions to the EEA, underneath I think there's this "3 Body Problem" (to nick from science: N > 2, the N-body problem is chaotic).

I think what needs to happen is to create more means and methods for Direct Democracy that by-pass a lot of the current news-media (see Scribblings From Seaham: The ‘pot-mess’ in which the UK now finds itself) and political bubble of SW1/Westminster politics (see ME Synon: How Cameron and the Commons will overturn a Leave vote) with more public <-> public (Mr. Brexit) debate and discussion generation.

This Referendum is a real result of this, any potential outcome Remain or Leave I think will be due more to "chaotic" factors!

EU Referendum: would we vote to join?

"Booker – like many observers - is getting increasingly fed up of what he calls "this claustrophobic referendum campaign". He is by no means alone.

Lord Ashcroft's focus groups are reporting increasing frustration, where many people's perplexity over the decision at hand is turning not into enlightenment but exasperation. Among the many words people used to describe the contest so far ("unreliable", "unrealistic", "uninformative", "not that interesting", "unnecessary", "a quagmire", "a lot of bullsh*t"), by far the most common was "confusing"."

Booker rightly observes that a "1-Body Problem" is very very very simple to answer for people (UK Unleashed) as opposed to this "3-Body Complexity" issue due to a lack of Direct Democracy operating in our politics. And that is the Central Point of the Argument: EU Political Relationship. The seeming obvious fact that all the most praised Remain positives of this Relationship are the UK's current "Opt-Outs" is or should be a minor epiphany of the poor logic of this relationship.

FLEXCIT: The Movie

FLEXCIT: A Holistic Argument

FLEXCIT THE MOVIE Intro by Christopher Booker.

 

 

FLEXCIT The MOVIE The Definitive EU Exit Plan Richard North Part 1

 

 

Richard North FLEXCIT THE MOVIE The Definitive EU EXIT Plan Part 2 

 

 

Richard North FLEXCIT THE MOVIE The Definitive EU Exit Plan Part 3

 

 

 

 

The 2 Competing Booklets: Leave or Remain

The Market Solution = Leave ; Why The Government believes in Supranational EU Membership = Remain

A recap on the previous question in 1975:-

Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?

 That question was a blatant lie. If the Referendum is so "important" to decide for a generation the Nation's future, then I think getting the question right is a good start: 2016:-

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

• Remain a member of the European Union
• Leave the European Union

Irrespective, with the above 2 documents/booklets you do posses all the information you need on how to vote Leave or vote Remain.

• Leave = The Market Solution

• Remain = Why The Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK. 

Interestingly what the government has to say about LEAVE:-

This reads to me as if the Government is suggesting that European Union (EU) membership is a necessary evil?

It seems to me Vote Leave (a bunch of arrogant Tories effectively) WANT people to believe this too by arguing that The Single Market is not important hence destroying the Leave argument entirely against Political Union in favour of a "Market Solution":-

That's much clearer!

And a quick peek at the next blog post:-

Ragnarök or Referendum: The Final Battle

Ragnarök: The Final Battle of the Norse Gods: Odin, Thor, Tyr, Freya.

Ragnarök:-

"In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterwards, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. It is as well the end of the world, and the start of eternal winter."

It's not unusual, for various world cultures to independently form:-

• Creation Myth
• Endings Myth (Doomsday or else) 

And given there's many many world cultures, there are hence many many such variations of the above types of story. No doubt in my mind this is the product of the human conscious mind: The tool of being able to think in future time and in past time as well as present time. This has allowed people to use memory to store learned experiences which in turn can be used to estimate risks and make future decisions that allowed people to flourish and here we all are today...

• Monday = Moon Day
• Tuesday = Týr 's Day
• Wednesday = Woden 's Day
• Thursday = Thor 's Day 
• Friday = Freyr 's Day
• Saturday = Saturn 's Day
• Sunday = Sun Day

At the beginning of each week, we look ahead and at the end of each week we look back. We've even named our days of the week from a mixture of the Norse Mythology and the Roman.

There does seem however to be some psychological side-products of this ability: People are more prone to suffering from anxiety and fear of perceived risk or danger when stimulus is intangible such as information inputs eg The Legacy News-Media. In fact some of the most useful current advice is "Mindfulness" and the training of the mind to not uselessly nor unproductively over-speculate about the uncertainties of the future and dwell on what "COULD" go wrong! In fact this is directly training the mind to be able to switch modes of thinking via a disciplined concentration on the present moment and what directly applies over the multifarious indirect thoughts. This "overhead of consciousness" is possibly one of the major drivers in behaviour management, possibly?

However, in our information rich world, we are bombarded with exposure to risks and the natural Fear inducement this leads to. Interestingly this phenomenon was identified in the book:-

 Conscious thought has a high energy cost and a high over-head of risk alertness; automatic "programmed" behaviour or "habit" is far less demanding but in it's own way as useful but also again when correctly applied within narrower contexts: But how can we control the switch between the two?

Why is this relevant to a blog on politics, specifically the politics of EU Membership vs Brexit? Firstly those habitual settings:

Rational Irrationality:

"The concept was popularized by economist Bryan Caplan in 2001 to reconcile the widespread existence of irrational behavior (particularly in the realms of religion and politics) with the assumption of rationality made by mainstream economics and game theory. The theory, along with its implications for democracy, was expanded upon by Caplan in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter."

Some examples:-

• Make-work bias
• Anti-foreign bias
• Pessimistic bias
• Anti-market bias

Books could probably and have been written concerning these subject; the "Make-work" bias I think can be considered in such as "Man's Search For Meaning" or "The Case For Working With Your Hands" etc etc. The one to focus on in this blog is the "Pessimistic bias":-

I was reminded of this "Pessimistic Bias" in an interesting City AM article: Why over-estimating the risk of terror just hands victory to the terrorists ~ Lars Christensen:-

"I believe that there are two primary reasons for these "do something" tendencies in European politics (they also regularly appear in enviornmental discussions).

First of all, psychologists have shown that humans in general are not very good at estimating the risk of very infrequent events and that people psychologically tend to seriously overestimate such risks.

Second we are what the American ecnomist Bryan Caplan has termed Rationally Irrational Voters. Caplan means that, in elections, voters don't really have to make rational assessments, as the likelihood that our individual vote will mean anything for the outcome is very limited - we are, so to speak, ratinally irrational, irresponsible and ignorant.

As a result we are much more likely to give into fears and fantasies in the political process than when we decide whether to, for example, buy a car or make an investment. Politicians know this all too well and are happppy to play on our fears. After all, politicians are rarely elected by presenting statistics to the voters.

But we cannot and should not cave into fear - not in our personal life or in our political decisions. The best thing to do is to "keep calm and carry on".

He said this in the context of terrorist attacks in Europe. But I think it equally applies to our problems with the EU political process and Referendum and Brexit: Communication: The Reaction Barrier

A great deal of which was in evidence once again on BBC's Question Time:-

No, we don't want to "be like Norway", but if it gets us out of the EU...

"I watched the thoroughly repellent Ruth Lea on Question Time last night denouncing the Norway Option, laying down the law that we don't want to be a supplicant of the EU. It was said quite deliberately to try and close down the argument, or at least make it more difficult to advance that argument. And yet somehow, it is we pleb bloggers who are failing to cooperate.
The point of the EEA Efta route (Norway Option) is that it's safe. It is the one means available to us that guarantees the least disruption to trade and industry. The reason being that practically nothing changes - especially if, in the first instance, we adopt the entire body of EU law. As much as anything, that reduces the uncertainty of Article 50 negotiations.
What that means is on day one of being out of the EU things are no better, but no worse either. But we are out of the EU. By advancing that as the plan it takes the sting out of the scares and gives business no real right to intervene. Certainly no just cause. That then gives us all the time in the world to sort out which bits we want to keep and which bits we don't. It could take a decade or more, but there would be no cliff edge. The pace of change would be no different to the normal business of government."

I also watched this; more repellent than Ruth Lea was that odious "Made In China" knock-off imitation of Tony Blair, Chris Bryant (nothing against China) along with the venomous Anna Soubrey.

So I'm going to take unaccountable satisfaction at connecting Norse Mythology which shapes our days of the week with Brexit opting for The Norway Option as the right choice for our Nation to take and pull the V-Sign to the cretins who said "Norway would not suit Britain's Self-Image" or other such "Norway has Fax Democracy" petty pronouncements from petty politicians:-

The Second Coming is a poem composed by Irish poet W. B. Yeats in 1919, first printed in The Dial in November 1920, and afterwards included in his 1921 collection of verses Michael Robartes and the Dancer. The poem uses Christian imagery regarding the Apocalypse and second coming allegorically to describe the atmosphere of post-war Europe.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

Again, the juxtaposition of the end of World War I with our knowledge of the history of the inception of the EUropean Union as per The Great Deception:-

We know fear was the driver behind the Supranational paradigm for "A New Europe" by it's founding architects: Arthur Salter and Jean Monnet. In fact The Great Deception does a great service to the EU Referendum debate.



Let's construct 3 examples:-

1. LEAVE (vote leave / leave.eu:GO)

"EU wastes £500,000,000 a year promoting itself, with our money. EU red tape is now over 130 miles long. 3600 new laws in three years as EU strangles UK firms. Britain 'will thrive after Brexit': Leaving will boost pay and jobs. Millions face £25 hike in insurance bills after 'disastrous' VAT ruling by hated European judges. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The heart of what we all want is the continuation of tariff-free trade with minimal bureaucracy. Countries as far away as Australia have Mutual Recognition agreements with the EU that deal with complex customs (and other ‘non-tariff barrier’) issues. We will do the same. Sixth, we will have a sensible regime for the movement of people that allows us to replace the awful immigration policy we have now - a combination of an open door for low skilled labour and convicted criminals from the EU while simultaneously stopping highly skilled people from outside the EU coming to the UK to contribute. The top 100 EU regulations cost the UK economy £33.3 billion per year. Since 2010, the EU has introduced over 3,500 new laws affecting British business.

We will "Take Back Control of Borders"! "They sell us more German Cars than we sell to them!" "They need us more than we need them!" "We can do a new deal and depend on the WTO!" "We can have a bonfire of redtape!" "We can spend all our membership money making every family 699 pounds better off!" "We don't need a brexit plan, we'll have a British Plan!""

Leave Campaign: At a loss as to how to communicate with people: Make it up or Be Rational? Choice: "Erm, Make it up is what people know!!!"

Here are campaigns that are effectively over-selling to the Rational Irrational Voter who they deem can only be manipulated to vote the right way due to the "Communication: Reaction Barrier". What people think other people will think will be popular is effectively the communication or "input" into the EU Referendum from the Leave side to convince people to change our political relationship.

All the above are summarized from the various groups own webpages and/or newspaper headlines. The "Meme" quotes are all quote-unquote reproductions of their favourite slogans.

2. REMAIN (Britain Stronger In; David Cameron and followers)

Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.

• If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would risk higher prices of some household goods  

• A vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty

• Opportunities for you and your children 

• This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

You know if you've ever worked on some sort of Scientific Equation and you get data first then wonder if it fits a particular equation...

... AND YOU CANNOT BELIEVE HOW WELL IT FITS IT!!!

Ragnarök or Referendum? Politics or Religion? Our "Political gods" now fight for the fate of the world as our divine representatives - mere mortals cannot comprehend the magnitude of such words and deeds! But they can tremble in fear at the possibility of the coming end!! Leave or Remain? The forces of darkness vs light!!

In the last night's BBCQT:-

We had Chris Bryant assimilating "genuine sentiment" to use as a mask for his own agenda. This technique of using the veneer of truth to cover the traces of deceit is especially poisonous political communication:-

"I just want to see the facts".

Later on,

"Sick and tired of the Out side only going into process points and avoiding the substance of the matter."

There is again some truth in this. But in both cases: On a population and frequency scale of measurement: Are people being honest? Are the Leave Campaigners being sincere to people?

"We achieve more on our common endeavour, the big issues that face us as a country... [SEE LIST] ...we need to be permanently cooperating with our closest allies in Europe, and that's why I will be fighting every day of my life to stay in the European Union."

• Climate Change
• International Terrorism
• International Crime & Drugs
• China (later on)

 Brexit: Looks a helluva a lot like Ragnarök, apparently (The Final Battle) to me: It's even got Jörmungandr (The world ending serpent in the form of China's Red Dragon!); cataclysmic "Fire & Ice"; War between good and bad, and the eruption of the underworld... almost a perfect fit.

So we see very clearly, how Remain is using a very ancient human tendency to manipulate people's emotions and frighten them like little children...

3. "Not 1. Nor 2."

Scribblings From Seaham responds to my previous blog: The Stoic Minority: and it's taken a lot of thought (all the above) to reply to a simple question:-

But...

Red Cliffs of Dawlish kindly pays me a great compliment in this post; but I have to ask just who is the ‘Stoic Minority’ (stoic: seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive) – those of us seeking a re-assertion of democracy, who are in the minority, or those of the minority who wish to impose their views on the majority? Just asking, RCofD ………

It's easier to answer within the context of this Referendum, namely "NOT 1. Nor 2." above! But to embellish "If Not, Then What?"

1. Prepared to start learning & educating processes at the beginning ie with people.
2. Prepared to not look for short-cuts to " quick, successful results" (eg Short-circuit popularity via either deceptions: Hope (leave) or Fear (remain).
3. Work towards the goal not for personal promotion (ego) but towards increasing the use of working knowledge; being applied by people in making decisions (superego).
4. Understand the difference between what could be achieved ideally compared to what can only be done realistically in the present with the present conditions and people; towards promoting democracy now.
5. Finally, not making the same mistakes as our EU politicians and our UK politicians: Any decision must "bring the people along with it at the same time" and not attempt to circumvent their decision-making input "for the greater good" or "the ends justifies the means".

In all these, the idea is to not allow Deception to enter into the decision-making.

• On the "input" side (looking forwards to the future) we have "Leave" hoping for change that will be postive.
• On the "output" side (looking backwards to the past) we have "Remain" fearing for change that will be negative.

• In the middle we have: "Process"; which, requires conscious effort to understand what actually "is" and hence how we can actually know how to effect change from "was" to "will be"; which I think is a perfect way to describe:-

The Market Solution: OUR VISION

"Our vision is for a United Kingdom as a self-governing, self-confident, free trading  nation state, releasing the potential of its citizens through direct democratic  control of both national and local government and providing maximum freedom  and responsibility for its people.  The history of Britain for a thousand years has been as a merchant and maritime power playing its full role in European and world affairs while living under its  own laws. It is our view that the UK can flourish again as an independent state  trading both with our friends in the EU and the rest of Europe, while developing  other relationships throughout the world as trading patterns evolve. 

For an age, the United Kingdom has freely engaged as an independent country  in alliances and treaties with other countries. It has a long history of entering into  commercial agreements and conventions at an inter-governmental level. We wish  to uphold that tradition.  The ability of the people of the United Kingdom to determine their own  independent future and use their wealth of executive, legislative and judicial  experience to help, inspire and shape political developments through international  bodies, and to improve world trade and the well being of all peoples will only be  possible when they are free of the undemocratic and moribund European Union. 

The prosperity of the people depends on being able to exercise the fundamental  right and necessity of self-determination, thus taking control of their opportunities  and destiny in an inter-governmental global future with the ability to swiftly correct and improve when errors occur. 

Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core of true democracy."