An Empty Core: The Top-Down Referendum

 False Positive = Vote Leave ; False Negative = HM Government & David Cameron

With just over 6 weeks until the Referendum day on June 23rd, it's worth considering the state of the arguments and the underlying emotional energy that drives them in the absence of carefully building a factual and intellectually-driven basis for voting either Remain or Leave the EU.

Indeed the emotional histrionics and sense of urgency are all carefully created by the HM Government under David Cameron and aided by Vote Leave (see "Intellectual Quagmire" below).

In describing what we all CAN so easily observe, we may create an opportunity to avoid becoming bogged down in the quagmire that our politicians and legacy news-media have created: EU Referendum: an intellectual quagmire

"With less than two calendar months to go before polling day, it is nothing less than alarming to find that fundamental questions relating to Brexit are so far from being settled by Vote Leave that we're not even past first base. [...]

In the first instance, Jenkin is making the same error (although perhaps unwittingly) that Mr Cameron has made in agreeing his supposed treaty. He has neglected the provisions of Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the dictum res inter alios acta vel iudicata, aliis nec nocet nec prodocet, where two or more people cannot agree amongst each other to establish an obligation for a third party who was not involved in the agreement.

What these amounts to is that the member states, even if they agreed to carry out negotiations (which seems unlikely), would be acting inter-governmentally (which Jenkin acknowledges), which means they could not bind the European Union – which has its own, separate legal identity – to the terms of any agreement.

The inescapable bottom line, therefore, is that, if there is to be an exit settlement, the negotiations have to be with the EU. And that means working within the constraints of Article 50. [...]

We are actually paying good money for this extruded verbal material, to achieve nothing but a further attestation of the capacity of our elected representatives to waste time and money.

Whether by MPs or the official campaign, we are so badly served in this referendum that the issues have been submerged in that self-same quagmire. Not for nothing does Mr Brexit argue that the political game playing and personality politics of the referendum campaign is snatching the goal away from us.

When this is all done and dusted, he says, there needs to be a reckoning. We could not even begin to disagree."

We can see some foundation rules to this Referendum in the above that are denied by the politicians on either side of the Official Campaigns. Some examples of the results of this:-

Michael Gove’s interview on the Andrew Marr Show was a car crash
 

Vote Leave: "Lookin' Good" (feeling inadquate)

Cameron : “Stock up on canned food”

 HM Government/David Cameron: "Gotta Hide!" (feeling insecure)

The result of the above was already predicted as per Dr. RAE North, EU politics: Germany in stasis :-

"The new movement, "Direct Democracy for Europe", Patzelt speaks about favourably. It certainly has "a chance", he says, a man who is demonstrably no great fan of representative democracy.

Those who want more democracy must resort to other means - referendums initiated by citizens, regardless of elections. The problem with representative democracy is that, after the vote, the citizen has no voice. "The most important instrument of political influence between elections", he says, "is the referendum".

However, not all referendums have the same value. If they are top down, they are a tool in the hands of professional politicians. The must work from the bottom up, with citizens deciding on the topics. He who fails to make this distinction will miss the opportunity of making a truly democratic system of government, Patzelt says."

The predicament this leaves those who are fully in agreement that there needs to be an intellectual foundation to arguments of such importance as national Real (direct) Democracy decision-making at such scale of human organization of people for their future (millions over decades) is the attempt "to clear the rubbish" out of the way:-

• The Vote Leave “free trade zone” is mythical: It is the EEA or nothing (The Sceptic Isle)
• Leaving the EU is not a simple menu of options (White Wednesday)
• Pig Ignorant And Grossly Offensive To Boot (Lost Leonardo) 
• EFTA EEA is the real deal (Paul Reynolds, EU Question)

But this is "losing cause" I think. What it is doing is reducing the time possible for the dissemination of the arguments into new forms at ever greater scale and speed of distribution and multiplicity of forms while sustaining the original quality source of such derived communications to people. It's a stalling exercise, a holding up exercise due to the lack of seeing what both Vote Leave and HM Government are actually behaving according to, as opposed to making the mistake of listening to their nonsense words:

• "A Free Trade Zone Across Europe" ~ Vote Leave: "Lookin' Good" 
• "World War III" ~ David Cameron/HM Government: "Gotta Hide!"

As we get closer to the EU Referendum Date, it becomes more necessary to be able to disseminate according to a holistic argument to produce a clearer picture with which people can contribute positively via DIRECT REPRESENTATION of themselves to their own future - independently from politicians.

Vote Leave: A Lesson In Power

 

Tywin teaches Joffrey a lesson in power

White Wednesday aka Roland Smith follows up another valid blog post: Idle musings: “The EU will do a deal with us”:-

"One of the biggest claims by the Leave side in this debate is that “the EU will have to do a deal with us” — a claim usually backed up by other statements such as: “we’re the fifth largest economy in the world; they’ll still want to sell us BMWs; German industrialists will be on to Mrs Merkel immediately;” and “they sell more to us than we to them.” Some Leavers also claim that precisely because our economy is so heavily aligned with the EU, we may even be able to do such a deal over a weekend."

If you remember, I pointed out that these people, in particular the politicians at the head of the Leave Campaign and especially the Vote Leave "lot" all seem to possess a similar "aura" of "talking sideways at subjects with full confidence"; as I tried to illustrate concerning the HM Treasury Report:-

What an impressive-looking pen.

First of all, to contribute to the careful analysis by White Wednesday:-

1. Haggling: This implies the problem is one of degree. It is not: Two different Rules Systems: EU Treaties vs Outside EU Treaties (Self-Governance).
2. Inferiority Complex: The foundation for this thinking is based on our politicians' obsession with projecting a "self-important" image onto the world of the UK or more accurately themselves to the British people upon upholding this "legendary status"; hence any "deal" must come with silver tassels and other special privileges befitting such "status anxiety". A lot of the self-deception in our politics and hence "bubble driven policy" seems to derive from this affliction.
3. Whining Tone: The actual communication comes across as asking for things that are not actually relevant, and hence any concession must be massaging fragile egos; namely token and gesture based: "Special Status" sounds all too snugly fitting... for such swaddling infants.
4. Dominance-Submissive Dynamic: The clip above from Game Of Thrones is worth considering; people projecting a kind of dominance or coercion is an unbalanced relationship, where I think actually all that is actually demanded is an EQUAL Relationship - by withdrawing orderly and in cooperation with the EU from EU Treaty Rules.
5. Rule-Based Argument: John Ashworth pointed this out, in his booklet: The Betray of Britain's Fishing To The European Union; the problem the UK has with the EU is not necessarily the EU: It's our own politicians, who either:-

• Did not Read the EU Treaty Rules correctly, or,
• Did read these EU Treaty Rules but deceived and continue to deceive the British Public over the consequences of these rules.

Interesting, it was posited that the "Inferiority Complex" that may have been one of the major inputs into Britain opting to join the EEC back in the 1960's is a latent force at work still today, resorting to cowardice and a complete lack of courage in our politicians to face the factual feedback and revert back into their bubbles... as White Wednesday I think is careful in pointing out in the above blog post.

There appears however to be some "good people" attempting to do just this and put the facts first, such as The Sceptic Isle:

We need to get the politics right. If we de-risk Brexit, it will have almost no ill-effects

"The two pivotal words of the EU referendum campaign are “could” and “how”.  Every analysis of the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union are heavily reliant on the word “could”, or similar words like “might”. We will hear it endlessly right up until the vote. Brexit could mean this and Brexit could cause that. What it entirely comes down to is how we leave the European Union.
This is essential to keep in mind when considering the IMF warning that an EU exit could cause severe damage. The warning said Brexit would ‘disrupt established trading relationships’, and ‘disrupt and reduce mutual trade and financial flows’. Such points of concern are of course based on the consequences of leaving the Single Market without having concluded a trading arrangement. The IMF warning is entirely contingent on the UK unilaterally withdrawing from the EU or failing to make arrangements for trade.
I’ve argued repeatedly that due the conclusions of a vast multitude of analyses the Government will look to adopt the existing EEA based model to protect the economy, facilitate negotiations and prevent disruption. What the IMF is referring to is a worst case scenario that neither the UK or the EU want or can afford politically or economically."

On one level it is all about risk if we use our "Left-Brain Thinking" adeptly. If we look at our "Right-Brain Thinking" complementary however, I'd argue that it's not merely risk, it's our "breaking through our own barriers" and putting aside this destructive force of "inferiority complex" that drives so much of our political (lack of) leadership and makes such cowards or "Donkeys Leading Lions" and the poor consequences that has a tendency to keep on leading towards?

What is something we can all agree on?

I'd suggest that we can all agree on what is written down in the rules that govern us. The Brexit Door produced an outstanding piece of work reflecting on this both for our own Democracy with reference to Tony Benn's famous five question and also with respect to how to message correctly in this campaign:-

EU Referendum – Your help is needed

Richard Corbett and Benn’s 5 Questions

One of the things you'll notice about King Joffrey/Vote Leave is the way in which both "grasp at things"; for all their self-styled indomitable shows of supreme confidence in themselves and their place in the world, if we look at Vote Leave to keep things on track:-

• Better Deal/Reform For Britain!
• The Public Demand Immigration Control of Borders for any Plan!
• Don't worry we don't need a plan, we'll sort it all out after we leave!
• The PM has done well under the circumstances lying to us all!
• We need a Great Leader such as BoJo to lead us to the promised land! All hail!
• Hannan, the breath-taking Orator of our times! Cummings the boy-wizard mastermind without a plan.

Anyone who has to say: "I am the King"...

This behaviour kind of reminds me of King Joffrey in the above clip: "Flipping out" reactions and edicts: It's delinquent and hence delusional. There's a short summary of Owen Paterson's Brilliant Brexit Patter by contrast:-

1. Paterson’s vision for a UK outside these uncertainties is one of a self-governing, free-trading nation, a true part of the global family, its international trade and participation no longer absorbed into the EU.
2. There is no status quo. If the UK remains in the EU, it will be a second-class citizen, and the EU’s political centralization will continue, dragging the UK along with it. The eurozone, politically integrated by 2025, will dominate the rest. 

And how?

"Leaving the EU is not an instant commitment, but a process. There would – and certainly should – be a long process of discussion before the formal commitment to withdraw (and the two-year i-dotting period that follows it) is given."

By redrawing and choosing to find new agreements on which rules we choose for ourselves and hence our future relationships with each other, hopefully for the better of all. God forbid we end up with more "King Joffrey"!

Qualitatively different arguments about Rules and Change In Rules and Rate of Change

Our own politicians as John Ashworth rightly observes, are the real problem even beyond the highly rational analysis that is readily available to anyone to help them come to their own conclusions in their own way.

How To Vote: A Simple Guide to Decision-Making

Confusion of arguments predominantly involves the 'mixing up of' these 3 Decision Levels (simplified)

One of the 'most crude' and stupid arguments I've come across does not come from the Remain advocates but from the Leave advocates. It's so staggeringly stupid that stupidity on such a scale becomes "invincible ignorance". There is no argument against such a position because it is so devoid of thought that it is sub-thought, emotional-conviction and hence to argue against it is misdiagnosing the problem of the people who believe in the position, not appreciating that a position must be built from an argued case. I think I've managed to identify the problem in their thinking, their confusion: It's above, mixing the levels of decision-making in combination with not holding the requisite knowledge to understand the argument themselves.

Now it's not my preference to direct the description of someone's intelligence to "stupid" without good reason: Afterall, mistakes and errors are in the majority and all different types of mistakes and errors make them very reasonable to make by anyone!! The real trick is not calling someone stupid, but in UNDERSTANDING HOW they have made their mistake: This is incredibly useful way to learn for oneself. And I've benefited from it a lot and I too make mistakes and errors.

An intellectual foundation and attention to detail are essential in the #Brexit campaign ~ The Sceptic Isle / Ben Kelly

So why call this mistake stupid? It's an absence of thought, that is what I would argue is stupid, the opposite of intelligent, an application of thought/thinking. People assume if enough people hold enough conviction then the vote "will go their way". An example, "events" will dictate the vote such as:-

• Immigration (leave)
• Terrorism (leave)
• Uncertainty (remain)
• No Alternative (remain)

Now these types of arguments all fall within the same category: Stupid! So stupid in fact, that looking at how the nation and how the political leaders actually arrive at decisions, makes for viewing a world that full of madness. I don't think it's unexpected that when things don't turn out how we anticipated them to for our benefit, we see so much "pulling at heart-strings" and "why is the world/politicians/people such a terrible place?!". Stupidity is the singular answer.
:-

Stupidity is a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit or sense. Stupidity may be innate, assumed or reactive – a defence against grief or trauma.

The root word stupid, which can serve as an adjective or noun, comes from the Latin verb stupere, for being numb or astonished, and is related to stupor. In Roman culture, the stupidus was the professional fall-guy in the theatrical mimes.
According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the words "stupid" and "stupidity" entered the English language in 1541. Since then, stupidity has taken place along with "fool," "idiot," "dumb," "moron," and related concepts as a pejorative appellation for human misdeeds, whether purposeful or accidental, due to absence of mental capacity.

We'll come back to this later. First what is this stupid mistake?

Ben Kelly The Sceptic Isle: An intellectual foundation and attention to detail are essential in the #Brexit campaign, manages to provide a very useful argument to correct it:-

"We are told by some that having a plan is not necessary or helpful and that we are wrong to worry about “unnecessary detail”. Obviously, we couldn’t disagree more. The purpose of a plan is not so that the whole public should read it, but so that it gives our campaign and our arguments an intellectual foundation. It is absolutely necessary to know the details so that when people raise questions, as they inevitably will, we have the answers. Brexit is complex and people are worried about the details, therefore to refuse to worry about details or offer any kind of plan when proposing what amounts to the biggest political change in 50 years and a huge geopolitical event is an abdication of responsibility."

I've tried to illustrate this visually previously:-

What A PLAN looks like: The Big Triangle that's a complete plan? That's called FLEXCIT: The Market Solution - from which all derivative details derive from.

The first thing to assert as Ben Kelly does is:

1. We have a highly credible plan
2. We have an alternative to the Status Quo (or Null vs Alternative Hypothesis in scientific testing language)

From this "credible" (believable) plan we move onto the merits which are data-driven or research driven. We've removed FUD and moved onto Intelligence-driven arguments which are positive in nature: Innovative-seeking to find solutions and happy outcomes.

1. Plan: A detailed "how to" achieve/do something from NOW/HERE to THEN/THERE:-

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution

However, I think the problem can be highlighted if we relearn how to communicate using simple English and being precise in the words we use:-

1. Plan = "a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something."
2. Navigation = "the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one's position and planning and following a route."
3. Negotiation = "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement."

In the case of the Leave side of the argument, the Alternative Hypothesis or question, we have to have a plan "to do something". That "something" is to "navigate and plan a route to a new position from our present position". This is done in the context of a discussion between different parties to reach a mutual agreement. This is an assertion of very simple intelligence. As Ben Kelly describes:-

2. Navigation: From-To via what is In between:-

"The questions come thick and fast in this debate: How will the economy be affected by Brexit? Will I still be able to live and work in Europe? What about our trade deals with other countries, will they need to be renegotiated? How will the negotiations work? Will the EU look to punish us for leaving?  What about agriculture subsidies after the abolition of the Common Agricultural Policy, will farmers lose out? The financial sector is vital for Britain, will leaving be detrimental? Will we get a say in its regulation? They go on and on."

3. Negotiation: UK WITH EU on Leaving realistically and mutually:-

 Reading The Market Solution Introduction we can list the key concepts of a workable plan:-

• We must have an Exit Plan that plots the route, demonstrates an Alternative Hypothesis and hence choice to the null/default choice of Remain - except this time we have a vote for the first time as a voting public
• Such a plan must be modest and set expectations that are fair with the EU's side of the negotiation as much as it is for the UK.
• As such a gradual, staged, soft or iterative withdrawal is safest and most reasonable expectation setting.
• Negotiation on compromise means that minimizing number of total outcomes increases probability of agreed settlement between both parties.
• Thus advocating "conviction-based" "blue-sky" proposal NOW are damaging to future proposal THEN! Do not do this to win votes!
• Removing predictive models that are based on garbage data or garbage processing is enormously aided by declaration to retain MEMBERSHIP OF The Single Market.
• A holistic solution means that short-term TACTICAL solutions serve the larger Strategic Goal of transferring from Supranationalism to Intergovernmentalism. Any short-term deficiencies must either be reassured via Operationally repatriating the entire acquis so there is little to no actual change to derivative policies.
• Both Trade and Migration are linked to TACTICAL reorientation from EU/EEA to EFTA/EEA as the short-term immediate solution. This allows future Strategic alterations and fits the holistic solution sense above.
• MEMBERSHIP OF the Single Market requires the rules top be applied. Anything less unravels this holistic tactical solution and that then has negative repercussions to all operational details on policy. Thus failure to secure and retain Single Market access will lead to failure to achieve our strategic destination.
• The conditions to all the above negotiations, the legal process to go with the securing of the Single Market is Article 50 which has limitations. Thus removing Legal and Economic questions leaves purely Political Questions which = "Withdrawing from EU Treaties" only = Successful Brexit negotiations navigated using a detailed Plan: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.
• The Six Staged Plan is the complete Strategic Decision-Making Level.
• Repatriation of the acquis is the Operational decision-making.
• The subsequent few years (EFTA/EEA) is the Tactical Decision-Making Level.

The Current confusion over the EU Referendum debate:-

 Deception via Imbalanced Perception: David Cameron's LIE depends on confusing "Operational Decision-Making" for Remain as a safe option compared with "Strategic Leap Into The Dark" disaster for Leave.

Whereas, Supranationalism is the fundamentally flawed and faulty and POLITICAL question that we want voters to consider as the Null Hypothesis vs Alternative Hypothesis or Paradigm: Intergovernmentalism.

We can only get to that question by removing Economic and Legal issues:-

• Single Market Access (Tactical)
• Article 50 Lisbon Treaty + Repatriation of Entire Acquis (Operational)

 This leaves A Simple Guide on How to Vote:-

• Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism

Given that the question on Remain should be Strategic Level decision-making given our Referendum is for x43 Years of Membership covering x9 EU Treaties towards "Ever Closer Union" once you remove the above (below) levels the decision-making for voters who do not need to know all the details because they are covered  on both sides of the question, then it looks like voting for the next 10-20,30 years outside the EU is a very very valid and viable decision to consider. It's also a very simple question too to answer given we have the EU Treaty Rules themselves with which to refer tot he Strategic Decision-Making of the EU which has led to the EUROZONE which will have new Treaty for more Sovereignty to the EU coming up before 2025.

When the Deception is on an enormous scale... the stupidity that follows

It should be discernable that David Cameron's deal is dressed up as "Strategic" when it's barely even "Operational" given it is not legally-binding. It serves to confuse voter's decision-making that the UK has "special status" which is camouflage for No EU Reform whatsoever. Our Prime Minister is a failure and worse: A Liar and a deceiver of the people.

This is the gift of Supranationalism working through him presently and previously via his predecessors in entering the UK into the EEC back in 1973 (Jan) on the pretext that Strategically it was a Market Solution.

We all make mistakes, sometimes we're stupid. That's forgivable. But what I think our Membership of the EU proves, our Null Hypothesis is that it is built on Deception at the highest level of decision-making: Strategic.

 Honest Mistakes: We can learn from. Deception however...

This deception is not stupid, it is intelligence used for hurtful and destructive outcomes; even if the intentions were presumably "good"; the intelligence is infernal and it leaves the quality of arguments and political decay in the UK as it's defining outcome which in effect is a kind of increase in stupidity; Check: EU Referendum: corruption at the heart of the media and EU Referendum: the Johnson saga continues a decrease in intelligence at the top of the UK's strategic decision-making processes and people; wouldn't you agree?

Britain, Supranationalism & Globalization

Is this what Pro-EU advocates believe the UK's position in the EU actually looks like?

In the previous blog post Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation. We looked at examples of empty concepts or containers that dominate the EU Referendum arguments in place of i(e due to a lack of) a cooperatively shared and developed and disseminated "intellectual architecture" to advance our arguments quality with. Dr. RAE North provided a description of this previously in EU Referendum: back to basics, using the metaphor of building the foundations of a building before the actual useful components of the building that are functional for people to use can be developed; and indeed people who use these spaces are often unaware of what they are "literally" built upon.

 EU Parliament percentage of MEP's representing each national member

If we compare the above: What is yet another confabulation of our membership of the EU to the actual foundations, or "details" using merely one example that's more than illustrative and fairly representative: We see that in effect our leaders our telling the people that:-

"All Animals Are Equal But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." ~ Animal Farm, George Orwell

 If we look further at the effect of the Supranational EU:-

 Supranationalism: Effectively all UK MEP's could vote "no" but be overruled Supranationally in the EU Parliament (political institution)

 FLEXCIT: 5.5 "Influence" in perspective, p.97 _ Dr. RAE North:-

"As to Britain's voting power within the EU, most often agreements are reached by consensus. Where a vote is called, qualified majority  voting (QMV) applies to  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  (formerly  the  Council  of  Ministers). There, Britain  has  29  out  of  352 votes,  representing  eight  percent  of  the  vote. A qualified majority is 252 votes (73.9 percent).

In the European Parliament,  the  situation  is  little  better.  There  are  73  UK  MEPs,  and  these represent  a  mere  9.7  percent  of  the  751  elected  MEPs  (post-2014  election). Given the party splits,  this level of representation is notional. UK MEPs rarely vote together as a single bloc. Even if they did, they could never muster the 376 votes needed for a majority.

Furthermore,  the  powers  of  the  Parliament  and  the  Council  are  limited  in important  but  poorly  recognised  ways."

Worse the smaller nations have even fewer votes than the "major" nations such as Germany and the UK as dint of their population sizes. Even worse this is the proverbial "tip of the ice-berg" due to how the various streams of legislations are filtered down to the EU Parliament or either by-pass it completely or are already in their final form and require a "box-ticking" symbolic vote on them to be passed on Nationally (read on from p.97 in FLEXCIT above for more).

And here's the problem with this system:-

Europe's inherent diversity and complexity of network of actors and interests

Europe can be divided into distinct regions with distinct cultural, historic and geographic and political attributes that are VARIABLE per region and indeed per member nation! The above suggests the barest representation of this reality.

Now combining all this variation into one QMV system is simply suffocating this variation under a system that merges and mixes "political" and "technical" issues. This is of course the deliberate function of the EU as a Supranational Construct: To erode National Sovereignty and merge National Institutions under one EU Supranational Institution.

This is indeed seen in the way the EU Parliament actually works via groups:-

As you can see these groups work as "clusters" of alliances of MEP's. Predominantly the groups that are Pro-EU the institutions "club" together. So far from the UK "having a seat at the top table as a big player on the world stage in the EU club playing by the clubs rules", the UK is split up between these groups and it's national interest further diluted down. In fact these are politicians and their privilege and priority is to the EU and their careers. The amalgamation of different regional and national concerns of politics along with technical legislation is perhaps not a happy recipe?

An alternative model:-

FLEXCIT: 11.2 Potential regional structures, p.222 ~ Dr. RAE North:-

"Working within the aegis of the WTO's TBT Agreement, UNECE could thus be equipped  to  coordinate  the  production  of  single  market  instruments  for  the whole of continental Europe,  then administering the functioning of the market. It  would  replace the EU  as  the dominant  body,  thereby  involving  all  European countries in the decision-making process, not just EU Member States.

This is perhaps an improvement on that offered by Lord Leach of Fairford, who has advocated attempting "to redefine the EU as the Single Market" rather than as  "a  vague  aspiration  to  political  union". Such  a  scenario would  conform with  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee's  idea  of  "radical  institutional  change"  to give  decision-making  rights  in  the  Single  Market  to  all  its  participating  states, on  an  equal  footing. By  this  means,  the  EU-centric "Europe  of  concentric circles" would  be  avoided,  and  with  it  any  idea  of  first  class  and  second  class members. Each body, such as EFTA and the EU, has equal standing, creating a community of equals."

ASEAN and the European Union: Lessons in Integration


With this caveat, there are three main lessons worth considering for regional integration experiences in ASEAN and the EU.

1. Integration processes are not really comparable, though their fundamentals are similar

"Many like benchmarking ASEAN’s progress to that of the EU’s. There is a tendency to project the EU as a model for ASEAN and to propose the European way of integration as applicable to ASEAN as well.  The EU’s commitment to pooling sovereignty for common gains has been cited as key to an integrated community.  On the other hand, ASEAN pursues integration without yielding individual sovereignty of member states.  This has created the impression that the EU is a supra-national body in a way that ASEAN cannot or does not aspire to be. The principles of inter-state relations enshrined in the ASEAN Charter reiterate respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and national identity.  Yet, the two organisations are more similar in their decision-making processes than is generally acknowledged.

The EU depends on unanimity – not just consensus – for its major decisions. The image of the EU’s supra-national authority has also been recently shattered as the Eurozone crisis evolves. Individual members have made their (national) preferences prevail at the regional table.  Regional consensus cannot be forged without taking into consideration the national interests of individual members." 

2. Institutions (and mechanisms) do not always work

"Recent experiences in both ASEAN and the EU have shown that institutions notwithstanding, no regional organisation can accomplish its goals of regional peace and security nor economic integration without national commitment to regional priorities. Regional institutions can certainly play a role in community-building. However, if regional decisions are not supported – and implemented – at national levels, the institutions by themselves cannot do much, even with well-meaning attempts to fine-tune or reform them."

3. Regional disparities can hamper integration

"While the EU faced less of a problem of regional disparities in pursuing economic and monetary integration (with “strong” political will carrying the day) in the past, the EU today is confronting  the problem of relatively weak and unstable economies. The financial crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities of the EU economies, especially those in its periphery. Greece’s budget deficits have considerably weakened the EU’s economic position and standing, as have those of Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain."

What we're seeing is that political integration is introducing it's own set of stresses. What is needed for the EUROZONE is increase in Global Trade to increase it's chances of recovery. Effectively in conjunction with the wider global processes happening (see below) there's fundamental need in the EU Political Project for boosts to prosperity to "salvage" it's future. ASEAN shows that "Supranationalism" is not the only nor necessarily the best option for regional cooperation.

This is very important part of the Globalization of Regulations to which a full blog of links and references will be needed to cover the full details. As we can see above it's in the UK's ultimate interests to split the Single Market from Political Union. It might be argued from the opposite position, if argued honestly, that the Political Union needs to be split from the Single Market also for those goals and objectives; namely the future of the EUROZONE which we've already looked at referencing the top EU thinkers and their plans for this Political Union.

Pete North has written some excellent blogs on this globalization process. Which will be listed in another blog. But to try to show a summary of the concept (perhaps failing and falling far short, in the attempt):-

Metcalfe's Law: Two computers can make only one connection, five can make 10 connections, and twelve can make 66 connections.

Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n²).

Metcalfe's Law is related to the fact that the number of unique connections in a network of a number of nodes (n) can be expressed mathematically as the triangular number n(n − 1)/2.

The law has often been illustrated using the example of fax machines: a single fax machine is useless, but the value of every fax machine increases with the total number of fax machines in the network, because the total number of people with whom each user may send and receive documents increases. Likewise, in social networks, the greater number of users with the service, the more valuable the service becomes to the community."

The irony of raising fax machines into the discussion...

Above Eg: 16(16-1)/2=120 ; EEA-31: 31(31-1)/2=465 ; UNECE-56: 56(56-1)/2=1540

As said the full globalization process is staggeringly complicated. But the above at least gives an illustration of the virtue of a larger network at GLOBAL - REGIONAL - NATIONAL connectivity level and as Dr. RAE North points out in:-

FLEXCIT: 19.0 Trading with the rest of the world p.350 ~ Dr. RAE North

"The  global  economy  is  being  re-shaped at  breakneck  speed.  In  the  past decades,  political  systems  have  changed,  new  players  have  emerged  on  the markets,  as  well  as  new  materials,  new  technologies  and  workers  who  are better skilled  than ever. To compete  in  this fast-changing economy requires regulation that promotes growth, better access to markets and the availability of new sources of energy. Cut EU Red Tape: Report from the Business Taskforce February 2014

By  this  penultimate  stage  of  our  six-stage  programme,  all  the  structural  issues have been addressed, leaving the way clear to look at Britain as a global trader. As  we  have  seen  earlier,  organising  trade  in  continental  Europe,  adopting formal   structures   around   UNECE,   would   not   replicate   European   Union arrangements,  in  that  there  would  be  no  external  trade  policy.  Britain  would thus  be  free  to  act  on  its  own  account  in  relations  with  the  rest  of  the  world. Alternatively,  it could act with EFTA, or take collective action through ad hoc alliances."

FLEXCIT: 21.4 Conclusion, p.402 ~ Dr. RAE North

"But it is this idea of a six-stage plan, integrating disparate points, which makes The Market solution what it is. We start with stage one – the process of leaving the EU.  We then move on  to  stage two – sorting  out  immigration  and asylum. Stage  three  has  us  launching  a  genuine  European  single  market,  breaking  free from the EU-centricity of Brussels and building a European village where every "house" is  equal.    In  stage four,  we address  the  task  of  rebuilding  independent policies, and stage five has us reinvigorating global trade, with the adoption and implementation of an eight-point programme."

Conclusions:

When we started this blog post we had this horrible confabulation of "Leading in EUrope!" that means nothing except false and broken promises to people and the abrogation of democracy itself.

I've tried to summary a vastness and of course failed in the attempt. But at least a glimpse may have been provided for the rational, the "intellectual framework", the foundations that are invisible and underpin the First Stage Of The Market Solution:-

The Sceptic Isle has a full summary here:-

• I -The Market Solution: A soft landing
• II – The Market Solution: EFTA/EEA
• III – The Market Solution: Negotiating Brexit 
• IV – The Market Solution: Exerting influence in Europe and beyond 
• V – The Market Solution: The realistic option

Coming back to the objective of this blog, to dispell the starting premise of confabulation from our Pro-EU Politicians; the rot starting at the top, I hope Leave Campaigners will not fall for such arguments as "Leading in EUrope", but choose an eminently wiser and more pragmatic and maturer political outlook:-

The Political Food Web of Prestige

The Food Web of Political Prestige

Before explaining the above, a wire frame version in text:-

Wire Frame: Layers (red arrows) & Levels (Groups) of Political Prestige

 Vital Statistic of this Vision of Politics of our EU Referendum:-

(1) Top of the Food Chain: David Cameron = PM Office of Power

At the top of the food web is David Cameron, The Great White Shark, with a huge huge huge Prestige Base flowing downwards far larger in magnitude than anything else both absolutely and in proportional ratio of dispersal of prestige further down the food chain.

Dr. RAE North has being making this effect explicit for sustained number of blogs, in particular: EU Referendum: the role of prestige. The ability to recommend via Government and via Statesmanship with the EU and other major institutions and other European leaders  and through various meetings shape the conditions of the vote is without equal.

(2) Legacy News-Media has a vast number of connections

What is noticeable, is that the channels of communication (their tentacles in the top diagram) of this Referendum are pivotal to the outcome of the vote. Groups can only influence other groups to influence yet further groups via the channels of communication available to them, their exposure.

A strong example of this is the spread coverage that the prestige of David Cameron entitles him and the folly of the legacy news-media reporting as per Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: a humiliating retreat from journalism this seems to explain a major component of the level of ignorance over the EU and Brexit of the British public for >40yrs... and again blogged about by LeaveHQ in The media has lost the plot  and again via The Sceptic Isle: The media’s analysis of the EU referendum is lamentable.

(3) The Electorate/Public are many LAYERS down the Prestige Food Web

Looking at Polls, the randomness of them in conjunction to general public sentiment, the obsession of the politicians with Big Data Mining of people's information, the rarity of Referendums in the UK and indeed voting on Major Treaties to do with the EU, the public are treated as political problem to be avoided as much as possible. Given the failure of the Legacy News-Media to educate at the same time as the opportunity of the public to set up their own blogs for other people and organize the information from other groups such as Think Tanks, papers published by the HM Government, by the EU or indeed the vast range of Global Bodies (UNECE, EFTA, Codex Alimentarius, WTO, G20, etc etc) as well as Political Parties, there exists an opportunity to directly communicate structured information via the internet to voters for this Popular Referendum.

The Referendum is when the politicians have failed to resolve a question of politics which continues to damage their legitimacy and hence must pose the question directly to the public. More information on Referendums as per Direct/Real Democracy: How They Do It In Switzerland by Campaign For An Independent Britain.

(4) The LEVELS of Prestige at which each group functions prohibits public education

It seems to me that blogs are exposing this, along with Twitter; leading to Technological Disruption to the old order. Some clear examples of these clashes:-

Lost Leonardo blogs about such an exchange at F For Fail. Another example is from the Pro-EU Think Tank British Influence which published Ten questions that Eurosceptics must answer about Brexit ; but when challenged by a blog "below the line" (get used to the meaning of this phrase!!) such as, Brexit: Ten answers to ten questions and then the "Think Tank" British Influence avoids communication as per the follow-up: British Influence haven't the guts to take us on. What is fascinating is that the video linked:-

FLEXCIT Presentation by Dr. RAE North

Is highly accessible. If I was from a Journalist post or a Think Tank, doing my research in this area, I would have found this video and compared it to many else besides for example these "Brexit" presentations list: Alternatives to EU Membership Conference 2015 - 16 videos and even the Brexit IEA shortlist from another "Think Tank" and developed a full picture of the state of the art of Brexit. But the Fallacy of Omission is employed via the tools of Prestige.

(5) The Higher The LEVEL of Prestige operating the more compromised the communication

A very good example of this is our Prime Minister, David Cameron or indeed the many eminent high status personages we met in The Columbo Method: Norway. Dr. RAE North records David Cameron's words here EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe" which is increasing beginning to hark back to one Tony Blair and the national sense of betrayal over The Iraq War. But then this is decades old as we've also discovered written in the history of the EU in The Great Deception, which continues to be largely ignored, apart from the very rare gleam of light, "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM" - Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP through the self-made miasma of confusion created by the interrelation and interactions of the different layers of prestige per group per level. This insistence not to form a researched basis or common ground for argument over the perceived problem of EU Membership continues to add more layers of deception over the original ones, decades ago by such as Edward Heath.

(6) Party Politics & Think Tanks, News-Media & Campaigns tend to be compromised by each other

The curiosity this food web of prestige is made clear in a number of blogs by The Boiling Frog:

• EU Referendum: WESS Digital, Guido And Matthew Elliott
• EU Referendum: Enriching Matthew Elliott and Friends...?
• Business For Elliott's Friends 
• EU Referendum, Data Mining And Hong Kong
• Guido Fawkes: Vote Leave, Take Control?
• EU Referendum: Elliott Was Director Of Britain in Europe Campaign Ltd 

 And it extends to "friends in journalism":-

• EU Referendum: a particularly stupid idea
• EU Referendum: designation - the war of words  

A different angle compromising so-called Think Tanks was covered previously with the IEA Brexit Prize:-

• Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) 

When we do get Think Tanks that hover nearer to a more "impartial" picture of Brexit as per The Adam Smith Institute "What exactly is the case for Brexit?" they seem too partial to their own filters and could simply refer for a much clearer and "on the pulse" picture from a "mere blogger" as Lost Leonardo provides: The Story So Far... 

Perhaps for a Referendum one of the worst forms of negative bias is the "tribal identity politics" such as discussed by both White Wednesday and The Brexit Door respectively, dragging everyone else down to their low quality argument zones as per Argument Abstraction, respectively:-

• We need to talk about immigration 
• Presenting The 'Open Goal'

This problem is easily magnified when for example a Twitter a/c with a handle that contains all the costume of "eurosceptic" retweets sources that are compromised by this food web that confuse, deceive and play according to the rules of prestige not real information quality and no wonder Pete North blogs Fun while it lasted concerning the "damaged goods" that is all three of the present Referendum Campaigns (Vote Leave, Leave.EU and BSE):-

LeaveEU is evidently passionate about leaving but I've yet to come across an Economist EU/Brexit article that was not deeply compromised... and the "decoy" starts drawing other "birds of a feather" in.

(7) The Structure of the Polical "Food Web" suggests a Top-Down Political Reality...

For me I can't do better than suggest despite the slight tendentious diagram construction, that better communication will lead to better relationships which requires systematic reformation of our politics closer towards people:-

• Brexit - A Catalyst For Political Reform
• Grand Strategy: "Promotion"

Turkish Delight! Turkish Delight!

'The White Witch' manipulates Edmund via his greed for "Turkish Delight!"

In C. S. Lewis' children's story, The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe, there's a particularly educational scene involving a meeting between The White Witch and Edmund. We know previously that Edmund has an inclination towards petty or mean-spiritedness; presumably from an as yet unacknowledged form of insecurity in the development of his character. This is what is exploited by the White Witch in her meeting with him, in addition to her artful methods of magic and deception: What we're really witnessing is the interaction of these two characters; within a fabulous context. She switches here domineering behaviour into flattery, cajolery and appeals to Edmund's own sense of greed and aggrandizement, promising him more "Turkish Delight!" if he will, only but, bring to her his other siblings and then veiled threats when he shows signs of not complying.

What's instructional for children is the deceptive behaviour by The White Witch who is clearly an untrustworthy character (both in the book and the animation of the book above, visually); whom has already been described as evoking fear and terror in others, from another character's account. And yet Edmund, blinded by his own smallness of character (not caring enough for his siblings while he stews in his own resentments) and his greed for "Turkish Delight!" demonstrates how easily he is manipulated by The White Queen, and how oblivious he is to the many signs of her real character that intermittently break through the "play-acting of pleasant and friendly", from time to time.

Turkish Delight: A gelatinous confection usually powdered with icing sugar

For so long, in the EU and Brexit debates in the UK the quality of arguments have been inferior and dominated by the Pro-EU Orthodoxy of the Status Quo Support For EU Membership. This orthodoxy has been defended by primarily FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and equally by the apparent merging of the Legacy News-Media with the State-Government (which itself seems to have merged) and again merged with the EU; as per Understanding The Mountains of Madness. There we saw the foreshadowing that EUReferendum.com as per Dr. RAE North has been blogging about so far ahead of the Legacy News-Media, of the Association Membership fudge via David Cameron's Fallacy Of The Middle Way argument, despite this very model being rejected so long ago in the 1960's!

Lying in Parliament: "No Turkish Delight, if you support The Norway Option."

I've been following the various attempts to highlight how as per White Wednesday The Norway Option, as per Argument Abstraction is not a Min-Max Declarative Fallacy of Brexit but an Iterative Step as per Sequential Problem-Solving in Corvids pointing out that in all the information alone on the EU or Brexit,

"How We Are Governed?"

is perhaps the unifying/integrating principle from which all our subsequent details follow, Off The Ball Movement. This is all covered again by The Sceptic Isle “Associate membership” of the EU is a third rate offer and again by Jonathan Lindsell in Cameron Is Using Norway to Make the Out Campaigns Look Risky in conjunction with as per Dr. RAE North again EU Referendum: the "better deal" fallacy:-

"By this mean, these two thinkers, Freidman (Milton Friedman on the behaviour of government bodies: Barking Cats) and Selznick (Philip Selznick's theory of bureaucracy), provide vital elements of the intellectual foundation, with which we can begin to understand how the EU will behave. Their principles have served me well in my many years as an analyst of EU affairs."

"First Steps Into A Bigger World."

But irrespective of the rigour, research and knowledge demonstrated above, the higher quality of arguments and concepts promoted, we see the basic tools of the deceptive politicians in attempting to dissuade people from choosing "The Norway Solution":-

Carswell vs Thomas: "Turkish Delight!" (Greed) vs FUD (Fear)

This along with Daniel Hannan's decade old Swiss Association Membership fantasy all seem to align with 'Vote Leave' Campaign is Cummings Apart as per Lost Leonardo. What's interesting in Douglas Carswell's speech above, is his mixture of terms in a way where their application is not really making a whole lot of sense: Mumbling "Project Fear, Straw Man..." with Lying Lucy Thomas looks like this: It all plays into George Osborne's

Best Of Both Worlds: "Turkish Delight! Turkish Delight!"

I think the solution is not to be so childishly and ignorantly greedy: If a stranger offers you something that sounds too good to be true... it's because it probably is. A better guide is Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game  aka "knowing the score". As suggested in both the campaign and the withdrawal process are 2 different contexts of Supranationalism and Intergovernmentalism: Both very very complicated, but the actual question boils down to a very simple choice for voters between Remain and Leave: Do you trust these people who attempt to manipulate the electorate via firstly Fear (for decades) then Greed (in the 2 years up to the referendum) and never ever attempt to educate them in the decades before a Referendum that has itself been promised and not delivered many times in the past as per Eurosceptic "Amnesia" vs Brexiteer "Total Memory Recall"?

The real face of our politicians' plans for the EU Referendum