FLEXCIT: Dance, Dance, Dance.

This beautiful picture shows two people dancing a beautiful dance.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to learn some dance, and perhaps not very good, but at least I learnt that it is a careful choreography between two partners and obviously they have to respond and interact to the music and each others moves to be able to dance well. Much easier said than done (!) though very very enjoyable when the odd successful routine is achieved.

I've said it before and will say it again, too often on television when you have a politics question and answer it's like watching the most fucking aweful dance routine possible!!!

Well, fortunately for one day, the conversation and question and answer session on a particular aspect of Brexit was conducted and it was "moderately good"!

The UK’s future economic relationship with the European Union

Witnesses: Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, Director, European Centre for International Political Economy, Shanker Singham, Director of Economic Policy and Prosperity Studies, Legatum Institute, and Richard North, Author

Look Closely: A copy of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution on the far RHS of the table.

The above screenshot is at the end of the 2 hours session and it was quite technical and complicated and in my opinion the problem was that the questioners must have been struggling to understand the answerers: Namely the "dance" was perhaps one-sided to use the metaphor above. Secondly I think the actual "dance" went very far very often away from the actual "beat of the music" ie relevance loss again probably because the questioners had a set number of questions and were in formality mode of going through those without really understanding the answers received beyond probing where they could their own set criteria? Just imagine one of the dancers going through the set moves without the blindest bit of awareness to the rhythm of the music! Well that was the impression I took from the questioners; the answerers were overall very good.

I use the metaphor of dance because even though it is technical and complicated, I am guessing there is a dance going on here that could be described in addition to pointing out the disparity above. For a more descriptive observation of the meeting Pete North fills in here: Treasury committee: first thoughts.

I read a lot of comments over at EUReferendum.com and they seemed to generally think that Hosuk Lee-Makiyama was overly negative and indeed it may appear that way. Whereas in general Shanker Singham seemed positive. I'll come back to Dr. North in a moment.

First as Pete North points out, it was quite an important meeting considering it covered ground in 2hrs that was never covered correctly in the entire Referendum campaign. We managed to remove from Brexit:-

• WTO Option (unilateral fall-back)
• FTA Alternative to Single Market Membership

I think I'm right in asserting both these options were completely eliminated? Goodbye, don't come back, the end!

"The general impression from the whole panel is what we said from the outset. CETA and WTO options are completely out there. For the birds. And though the expertise we heard today was extremely valuable in adding to our understanding we still see a Déformation professionnelle at work as our trade experts tend only to look at it from a trade perspective, neglecting to take into account, defence, cooperation programmes, aviation and the rest of the EU institutions."

It may have worked in the EU Referendum Campaign (how?!) to have multiple different voices all advocating different Brexit plans so that all "Leave" voters and potential such voters would "hear what they wanted to hear"? I don't know, but right now we can now all agree that most of those voices were talking complete and utter bullshit. If you signed up to any of those, you might want to reconsider how you choose to trust or assess information when you make decisions for yourself.

Now looking at Pete North's quote above we can come back to Dr. North and that last bit after Déformation professionnelle this is what is fascinating: Dr. North was at incredible pains to point out and stress just how challenging and potentially difficult withdrawal of the EU will be: The arch "eurosceptic or brexiteer" talking up the EU Institutions and their particular competencies, their particular requirements and such like. You know it sounds to me like we have a real expert talking here... .

As for the other two experts, I have to disagree with the commentators impressions over at EUReferendum.com: I think Hosuk Lee-Makiyama was almost coded in his careful demolition of both the WTO and the FTA (CETA) options and only obliquely alluding to EEA+ via pointing out that EEA- would likely be a bridge too far while EEA+ would "NOT SAVE MONEY" (actually fitting in with the title of the session about the economics of Brexit (something of a dubious quesiton imo in the first place). As such far from merely being a "problemator" (creator of problems) I think his negative appearance was very useful!

Whereas the positive trade negotiator perspective of Shanker Singham, I found overly descriptive of "in principle there's positive to be had" as opposed to "in application to the present conditions we perhaps need to tread carefully": It seems to me that there was great effort to point out the opportunities here and commercial imperative that would mostly likely drive the process, but this was all hinged on the assumption of an "EU Deal" being more of a formality to subsequent opportunities. In fact I found a distinct lack of structure though the content of what was said was certainly of high quality regarding the subject. Namely I'd argue here was someone who knew the moves but it seemed not so with the music. Having experience in trade deals, I'm sure there will be a place for such expertise and reading the Civil Service World website says they're desperate for such people who can bring their previous experiences and apply them and hence I'm sure give confidence and goodwill to all ("common interest" as Mr. Lee-Makiyama puts it).

As to the questioners, The Chair seemed most useful in his questions but did not chair the discussion I feel adequately for the entire course (a big challenge tbh it seemed); I'm not sure he was able to "ask the right questions" ie he did not "know the moves" well enough. But the rest of the questioners seemed to me to be completely out of their element. I mean really, really, really (!) poor and not able to maximize such a useful opportunity.

Interestingly enough, even though Dr. North was insistent on the challenges, as to the actual question of the economics, "any final contributions" had Dr. North mentioning "Trade Fascilitation" and the very real monetary benefits possible via this discussion... . This seems like a very solid and concrete contribution but with the cautionary privisio of our "Treaty obligations" and the magnitude of political change required to be undertaken - first.

Finally I'd like to contribute something myself that I think will help future discussions of Brexit:-

Firstly there's a lot of variable "relationships" with the EU. But crucially for the UK to quote FLEXCIT: The Market Solution, with "nine treaties and over 40 years of convergence" with an almost "unique degree of convergence required" with the Supranational EU as per the Treaty requirements ie concerning the acquis communautaire "swallow the lot and swallow it whole": When it comes to withdrawal from EU Treaties ie exit away from such convergence politically, legally, monetary and economically, it has to be reduced to 3 options and now 1 option after this meeting: EFTA/EEA of some variable composition eg EFTA/EEA and UK/EEA+. But that will Stage 1 axe for sure monetary, legal and political aspects while securing that commercial and economic... namely you guessed it: Once you boil down the actual possible solutions you see the logic of FLEXCIT emerging all by itself and I could go on to list as per the previous blog's introduction all over again the correct sequence of moves in time to the correct beat!

Finally The Chair of the meeting did try to probe concerning the idea of freedom of movement of labour and single market membership or else FTA (which we can thank Hosuk Lee-Makiyama for shooting down with his ellided but quite precisely pressurized statement that he did not think the UK was ready for such a "high societal cost" even if technocrats would be!). This comes back to the idea of the EU as Treaty in the process of designing a Supranational governance or to use the visual picture again, to develop a form of integration that converges nations so closely in so many areas to such a high degree as compared to other forms of "Trade Deals" (see Dr. North's (or Mr. North...) contribution that was extremely useful at the meeting here for retrospective: EU Referendum: no such thing as free trade) .

Namely we're back to dancing to FLEXCIT's beat again, we have to accept Freedom of Movement of Labour in the short-term if we are to be Single Market members (not merely FTA access to it outside it). In fact the Trade expert Shanker Singham (usefully) pointed out as such convergences get closer to incorporating more "sectors" such as services then these matters of employment and hence labour do become more involved in such relationships... an example of this was provided in financial services by Hosuk Lee-Makiyama on the loss of "safe harbours" (it's not something I'm personally familiar with!) for US workers from the EU. Curiously he did not seem to believe the timing issues under Article 50 of the EU Treaties stating 2 years would be very relevant: If there's one detail that needs to be prioritized I'd back up Dr. North's suggestion of requesting an extension with a view to notification of the EU of Article 50 by the UK if requested to do so sooner than later.

Afterall, we do not want to put a foot wrong in this very complex and very challenging process.

Democracy: The Experience of Growing Choice

"Mi Swing Es Tropical" ~ Apple's Ipod/Itunes' 2007 video advertisement

The above Applie Ipod/Itunes advert featuring stylized visuals of dance (latin/salsa) to the music of "Mi Swing Es Tropical" is a good example of the exception to the rule that I dislike adverts. This was probably one of my favourite adverts I've ever seen amid a sea of raw sewage of advertisements in general. I also really liked the Ipod (mine was an ipod mini version for my Birthday) with it's bright design. Later I then bought an Iphone and even if it was fairly expensive through the mobile contract I think I got my money's worth from this product that was so far ahead of anything else comparable on the market at the time:-

The above graph shows that over time Apple's growth coincided with more advanced technology sold to a public who were willing to buy even at comparatively higher market prices for the higher quality Apple was providing.

The Iphone is a really good example of what is called "Convergence" in technology. The phone combines multiple devices into one universal device:-

• Phone & Contacts
• Email, Calendar, Organization, Productivity
• Music, Video, Internet and multimedia
• Alarm Clock
• App utilities of a diverse range

It's also a good example of the public given a choice of a superior product even at a comparatively "premium product" price, if that product meets their needs and surpasses their expectations they will take to it very positively, as the numbers above prove. For people to have one device that performs all these functions which they can literally slip into their pocket and it fits comfortably instead of the previous alternatives of many devices - Wow!

Recap: The Market Solution only makes comprehensive sense with respect to all of it's complete components interacting with the other components and their derivative strands

We could go from this established statement onto various subjects: Advertising of ideas and communication, regulation of products and services to harmonize and converge a common standard for trade; the former an extremely low level topic and the latter more of an example of convergence with respect to the Single Market and the illustration of a potentially superior "product" for voters to eventually experience as per Dr. RAE North FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: STAGE 3: A Genuine European Single Market -  9.0 Regulatory Issues:

"In this third stage, we address, the defects of the Market Solution, and look to a more permanent solution to international trade and co-operation in Europe, as a whole. And in this first of three chapters in this stage, we deal with the regulatory consequences of remaining as an EEA member."

"In this even, the UK will be obliged to keep all Single Market regulation in place."

But instead of these possible subjects, let's look at the "product" we currently have as a member of the EU and it will I think help make eminent sense of the above quote considering the Single Market and the UK which removes so much of the nonsense communication of politicians.

Red = EU Opt-Outs (UK, Denmark & Poland)

Fortunately Wikipedia has done a lot of the hardwork already in this article: Opt-outs in the European Union:-

• United Kingdom (four opt-outs)
• Denmark (four opt-outs)
• Ireland (two opt-outs)
• Poland (one opt-out)

Let's look at the various areas of opt-outs:-

LHS = Schengen Variables (UK & Ireland Opt-Outs)

RHS = EUROZONE Variables (UK full Opt-Out, Denmark provisional Opt-Out)

The UK's current EU product has two very beneficial Opt-Outs from core EU integration policies. Other nations also have variable relationships with the EU on these two subjects.

LHS: EU's Common Security & Defence Policy CSDP (Denmark Opt-Out only)

Middle: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (UK & Poland Opt-Out only)

RHS: Area of Freedom, Security & Justice AFSJ (Denmark full Opt-out, UK variable provisional Opt-Out only) 

There's generally very easily explained reasons why the UK should hold these opt-outs. The UK has a global history with the Anglosphere and Commonwealth from which it already is a multicultural/multi-ethnic high migration destination in Europe apart from EEA migration on economic provisions.

As for the EURO all I can say is that I find it baffling that any Sovereign nation would yield up control of it's currency. The UK is a major Defence contributor in either NATO or the EU/Europe:-

Clearly without the UK the EU’s Common Security Defence Policy (CSDP) is sizeably reduced.

Looking at both The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Area of Freedom, Security and Justice these areas show distinct difference in the UK as per:-

 UK's alternative legal history and systems in comparison to the rest of Europe (Common vs Civil Law)

In 2016 David Cameron has suggested that he has added to this obvious trend of "Opt-Out" in the EU with:-

The key points of the deal are EU deal gives UK special status, says David Cameron:-

•     An "emergency brake" on migrants' in-work benefits for four years when there are "exceptional" levels of migration. The UK will be able to operate the brake for seven years

•     Child benefit for the children of EU migrants living overseas will now be paid at a rate based on the cost of living in their home country - applicable immediately for new arrivals and from 2020 for the 34,000 existing claimants

•     The amending of EU treaties to state explicitly that references to the requirement to seek ever-closer union "do not apply to the United Kingdom", meaning Britain "can never be forced into political integration"

•     The ability for the UK to enact "an emergency safeguard" to protect the City of London, to stop UK firms being forced to relocate into Europe and to ensure British businesses do not face "discrimination" for being outside the eurozone

However what is quite noticeable with the previous "Opt-Outs" is:-

1. They were achieved around "Treaty Change" time.
2. They were not fully permanent (Social Charter and Rebate & variable opt-ins)
3. They failed to reduce or remove political integration "Ever Closer Union"
4. They were communicated as great achievements when in comparison to the Treaties they are very very small exceptions and low in number.

But the trend does continue with David Cameron's so-called "Special Status". Apparently we the UK voting customer are getting "more choice" which is exceptional in the EU. This can be illustrated:-

There's a clear trend of the politicians attempting to wedge the UK (a square peg) into the EU (a round-hole).

But look at how much more reform or "opt-outs" we can actually get by being outside the EU but inside the EEA Single Market. Also the question of their legitmacy as compared to David Cameron who exceptionally has not secured his "opt-outs" DURING TREATY CHANGE is unquestionable ie Full Political Confidence in what is said in the rules is actually so and not a political deception.

Let's consider the above. What is happening is that with more democracy, the voters are achieving more choice over what components of the EU we find acceptable and what we prefer not to "spend our money on" as careful consumers in an open market of political products. We know we chose well avoiding the EURO despite the best laid plans of our politicians.

Now remember what happened to the iPod when it become a major musical app on the iPhone? Convergence. A great deal of the Single Market acquis communautaire rules have been influenced/made at global top tables as convergence of standards and regulations increases towards harmonization of sets of standards to global level:-

FLEXCIT: Figure 20: Breakdown by policy areas of EU legal acts in the EEA Agreement: As of December 2010 (share of the 4,179 incorporated acts in force) Source EFTA.

"We leave the EU, we start making the law in Rome and elsewhere and Brussels does as it's told." ~ Dr. RAE North FLEXCIT presentation

If we continue with our idea of Convergence and the idea that this is leading to an improvement in consumer choice as it were in comparison with iPhones, then we look at:-

 FLEXCIT: WTO - Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

Here what we're saying is that if we're withdrawing from the EU, we're participating in this whole "convergence" process of globalization directly and hence we GAIN INFLUENCE on regulations and legislation by withdrawing and reconnecting with the global world forums.

SUMMARY:-

1. The logic of opting-in from outside the political EU increases our selection of immediate "opt-outs" we find preferential eg CFP.
2. The biggest boon perhaps is to clarity of communication and removal of deception by our political class, because this new status is very clear and is in anycase an extension of a long-drawn out trend due to our dishonest politicians about the nature of the EU political integration project.
3. Withdrawing not only achieves the above but also gains us more real influence in the area that the UK does want to participate and in fact lead on: Economic-focused trade relationship with Europe and the EU and the rest of the world on the global standards making bodies.

If you think about what has happened to the iPhone from bakelite to pocket computer it's a quantum leap of progress.

EU Referendum: open that DOR:-

"Hence, enter the open DOR strategy: Debunk; Offer; and Reassure. The first priority is to Debunk Mr Cameron's deal, and ensure that the public are fully acquainted with the fact that he is perpetrating a fraud on the British public."

If we look at our ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP with the EU already as it stands, then we merely extrapolate that factual and obvious trend, it seems to me to be a very reassuring and consistent to choice to vote to LEAVE in the upcoming Referendum and merely gain more "Opt-Outs" via "opting-in".

A more honest relationship than we've ever yet known with the EU: That itself I find the most reassuring reason to choose a "Leave" vote.

Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain!

Moses The Raven: "Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest forever from our labours!"

In George Orwell's Animal Farm the character Moses The Raven is described as such:-

"The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr. Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. It was situated somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses said. In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place."

Dr. RAE North writing in Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan:-

"Anything as complex and challenging as leaving the European Union will present significant problems. Therefore, you do not need a focus group to tell you that, when confronting the prospect of an EU referendum, voters will need to be reassured that a choice to leave is not a leap in the dark.

That much has been obvious to anyone who has even begun to look at the issue. More specifically, I have long argued that we would need to produce a credible exit plan. Without that – as I was writing in May 2008, over seven years ago – our opposition would rely on the status quo to support their case and, in particular, the assertion that there is no alternative (TINA) to our membership of the European Union.

It actually took five years, until June 2013, for the IEA to trigger the process of producing an exit plan, with its Brexit Prize. But so badly managed was the competition – and then ultimately rigged – that the winning entries added nothing to the debate and have disappeared into the obscurity they rightly deserve."

 Sugarcandy Mountain!

There is no such thing as "Sugarcandy Mountain" but there is such as thing as people who make a good living for themselves selling it:-

EU Referendum: Hannan, the enemy within 

"In Mr Hannan's world, however, time has stood still. The idea of a staged exit is rigorously excluded while he rehearses the same issues he was writing about ten years ago, in terms that have scarcely changed. Laboriously, he goes on a hunt for the ideal "model", with a tedious and somewhat flawed review of the Norway-EEA and Swiss arrangements.

This leads him then to conclude that Norway "gets a better deal than Britain currently does", and – quite wrongly – that Switzerland gets "a better deal than Norway". And upon this flawed assumption, he then drops into an exposition of the better deal fallacy as he assert that "a post-EU Britain, with 65 million people to Switzerland's eight million and Norway's five, should expect something better yet"."

 EU exit: death of the WTO option?

"One of the converts to this idea is Ruth Lea. She was formerly an advocate of the so-called "Swiss option" (page 27), so she now stands – without explanation - completely at odds with her earlier position. But we have also seen an intervention from Global Britain." 

EU Referendum: let stupid dogs lie

 

There is a telling difference between us lesser mortals and men such as John Redwood. We believe that we need the 419 pages of Flexcit, and something like three years of study, to define how we leave the EU. Redwood believes he can do it in a mere 417 words, contradicting the bulk of what we have to say in the process.

Both writers take exception to Mr Redwood's many assertions, including the most egregious of them which have him declaring that "the Leave campaign does not want the UK to seek a Norway style deal", that in order to leave "the UK could simply amend the 1972 European Communities Act" and that, after leaving, we could "simply rely on World Trade Organisation membership to stop tariffs and other barriers being imposed"."

 EU Referendum: we, the invisibles

"Amazingly, the Eurosceptic "aristocracy" simply can't get their soggy little brains round the idea that it would be extremely unwise to attempt a "big bang" separation from the EU. They also have difficulty with the idea that the two year period allowed for the initial Article 50 exit negotiations isn't long enough to broker a bespoke free trade agreement – which can take 5-15 years to conclude."

 Britain can enjoy the good life after Brexit ~ by David Campbell Bannerman

"Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!"

"My answer on what the alternative plan should be called is "WTO Plus". All other benefits - democratic control, border control, economic control - flow from it. It is a simple and genuine alternative plan. So, you may ask, what on earth is it? 


My plan for the UK outside of the EU combines a guaranteed basic trade deal based on current World Trade Organisation arrangements with a better free trade deal on top.

The basic deal is guaranteed whatever happens, as the UK and EU are both World Trade Organisation members in their own right and must follow its rules or be hauled into an international court.

This worst case scenario would mean tariffs on some goods. But I think we can do better than that. There are already indications that German car manufacturers would ensure their government does not impose tariffs on UK cars – why penalise BMW-owned Minis and Rolls Royces? There would be such demand from all sides for a better deal"

He then rattles off a list of Pro-Brexit Arguments: Beyond the Mirage:-

 Back to Moses The Raven:-

"In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still did no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy Mountain. He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by the hour to anyone who would listen. "Up there, comrades," he would say solemnly, pointing to the sky with his large beak– "up there, just on the other side of that dark cloud that you can see– there it lies, Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!" He even claimed to have been there on one of his higher flights, and to have seen the everlasting fields of clover and the linseed cake and lump sugar growing on the hedges. Many of the animals believed him. Their lives now, they reasoned, were hungry and laborious; was it not right and just that a better world should exist somewhere else? A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, and yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a day."

So you see it's quite useful having a clever talker persuading people that Paradise is just around the corner if they continue "working harder for a better Britain!" supporting their betters on such matters...

Brexit For Beginners

 Founding Purpose: Supranationalism to override Nations = Concentric Circles

The EU Onion seems a good way to remember the vertical tiers that DEFINE:  Brexit = "Withdrawal From The European Union (via Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty". This definition accords with our workings out previously in The Brexit Number & The EU Onion  via parsimony that simply defined, Brexit is the "threshold" of crossing from Supranational EU political membership: Either conceptually, the number count quantitatively (Currently 43 years and counting) the maximum number of days before the first day outside membership or emotionally and very realistically, removal of our membership and representation in the EU political institutions and forums such as

• EU Commission
• EU Parliament
• European Council of Nations
• European Court of Justice
• European Central Bank 

In fact removal of all the vestigial forms of the EU's drive towards a higher form of governance above our own such institutions which if you remember was alluded to in The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up:-

• Executive
• Legislative
• Judiciary
• Central Bank
• Electoral System

What's important for Brexit is defining withdrawing from POLITICAL (Ever Closer) UNION of the above which means membership and representation and voting rights in the above institutions for the above functions! The words:-

How Long Ago: And we're still having to resolve the above!

"No! No! No!" EU Treaties: Ctrl+Find: "EVER CLOSER UNION"

Is a big lie by David Cameron. Effectively the EU is similar to the concepts as per Legitimacy & Listening, a "Dominance-Submission" Relationship on a whole larger scale of political organization. We can verify this from a history of the EU as per The Great Deception. The core acts like a political black-hole of political gravity in Europe, around which various rings of association gravitate and from which "Ever Closer Union" or ever more policy powers or "competencies" are sucked INWARDS via the process of "Engrenage" as per Jean Monnet's "Engrenage": Destination Unknown? 

But why should The Brexit Number be so interesting? If we've only so far had a ratio of x1 day to vote vs 43 years of EU Membership then it bears remembering the relationship between democracy and time as per Of Democracy and Time Dilation. Or think of it like this, in the way our politicians treat our democracy and voting competence/ knowledge on the EU and on Brexit and all the many issues:-

 "They work for you" /s: 45 years of EU Membership; x7 Major EU Treaties: Every voters' In-Tray for x1 day in 2017

This should not be surprising as discussed in Our Government: "Ifs, Buts, Maybes" where our government prefers to prolong the problem, and indeed this is explained in Dr. RAE North's most recent Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan :-

"So fraught with risk would be such a process that, wisely, any sensible politician (i.e., one who wishes to remain in office) would run a mile from it.

That is not to say that the complexity could not be addressed and overcome, but the word means what is says. Complex is, er … complex. To come up with a well-founded strategy for leaving the EU – and thus replacing the web of EU policies with distinctive national policies of our own – would take a massive amount of work, requiring a huge team of experts familiar with every aspect which the EU touches.

That work has not been done – there is no likelihood of it being done in the immediate future. Yet, unless and until the British public (and the politicians) can be offered a reasoned and better alternative to the EU, like it or lump it, TINA (There Is No Alternative) lives."

 Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan

 If TINA lives, Then Brexit is DOA!

Unfortunately it's a lesson a lot of voters curious about the EU membership and interested in Brexit have failed to fully appreciate, in part because Vote Leave is staffed/stuffed with the same people as our government above and hence the same mentality:-

"For more than forty years, though, that debate hasn't happened. This is largely due to the malign grip of a small number of individuals – mainly London–based, who dominate the public arena. These are the so-called eurosceptic"aristocracy", currently including the likes of Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan, the self-styled David Campbell Bannerman, Roger Bootle, Lord Lawson and Ruth Lea – as well as the two co-directors of Vote Leave Ltd, Matthew Elliott and Dominic Cummings.

These people regard "euroscepticism" – insofar as it is an intellectual movement – as their own personal domain. They believe they "own" it. And, far from fostering the widest possible debate, they try to contain it – to keep it to themselves and thereby block others from taking part in it."

What's the link between the "greed of our government", their political and legal obligation (Pro-EU'er holding on) since the 1960's to "The Heart of EU / At The Center of EU" and now equally the opportunity (eurosceptic opportunists) to towards a Global Britain or British Model?

= Impossibility:

 The monkey trap: Without unclenching it's fist from the food reward, the monkey remains trapped.

Effectively we have people in power who are greedy for legitimacy and we have so-called "eurosceptics" who are greedy for brexit without first understanding the problem's nature. And this extends from the above mentioned people into the Legacy News-Media as per Understanding The Mountains of Madness. The product of this is the EU's offer of association agreement and rebranding of this by David Cameron (much as the monkey is trapped above). For most people the "the full in tray" is augmented by the Legacy News-Media's FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt):-

EU Membership Cacophony: Presented as a Many-Headed, Hydra Of Complexity

Effectively the above is a Hydra Of Complexity. And here's where this blog becomes interesting: How do you defeat it? You lop-off one head, two more heads will grow in it's place, it cannot be defeated this way? And yet this is the very "declarative Brexit" approach of the various Brexit Options, ALL OF THEM!

WTO Brexit:

Out Of The EU And Into The World ~ William Dartmouth

"Splendid Isolation" Option

 A Global Britain: The "Brexit Option"

"The Perfect Vacuum" Option

EFTA + Bi-Laterals Brexit:

 A Blueprint for Britain - Openness not Isolation ~ IEA Winner Ian Mansfield

 "Min-Max Fallacy" Option

 Cutting the Gordian knot: A road map forBritish exit from the European Union ~ IEA Finalist Iain Murray and Rory Broomfield

"Min-Max Fallacy" Option

 Swiss Option (Bi-Laterals) Brexit:

 Britain and Europe: a new relationship ~ Ruth Lea and Brian Binley

"2 birds in the bush mistake" Option

EEA -Lite: A Positive Vision of an independent Britain outside The European Union ~ David Campbell-Bannerman 

"Superficially Attractive" Option

Norway Option (EFTA/EEA) Brexit:

EFTA or The EU? ~ Hugo van Randwyck

The Norway Option ~ Dr. RAE North - Bruges Group

"Authentic Off-The-Shelf" Option

You could tabulate all the above Brexit Options according to Pros vs Cons Attributes and indeed many so-called academics/scholars on this subject do this to little fruitful outcome other than to confirm/conclude the impossible complexity that serves so well Referendum Status Quo Effects. But it still ends up looking like the above:-

The "terrible", Many-headed, Hydra of Complexity

 If we then look at the arguments against Brexit:-

CER: The Economic Consequences of Leaving the European Union

"Economic Brexit" = Economic Apocalypse!

Open Europe: What if...? The Consequences, challenges & opportunities facing Britain outside EU.

"Economic Brexit"

 If you look at:-

1. Legacy News-Media's "Mountains of Madness" output on multitudinous beyond count issues and angles and details and opinions
2. Brexit Papers themselves and their complexity of details and specialist areas of interest or emphasis for "What Is Brexit?"
3. The Pro-EU papers that emphasis Economic aspect of Brexit

What you come to the conclusion is that the way to defeat the "Hydra" is not lopping off heads and multiplying complexity but reducing complexity and taking a fire to each head that will be burnt away from the Argument leaving us with the Central Point of the Argument - as much as possible. Going back to The Brexit Number & The EU Onion Brexit was variously defined as a simple number or a threshold that results in the easiest, quickest and least complex exit/withdrawal from the EU. If there is a present option that is practically in use that fulfils this criteria then that is the Present Simple best option for Brexit and indeed for defining WHAT Brexit is.

Redefine Brexit via Simplicity: Reliable, Predictable, Repeatable