Politics: Feeding the 46,500,001...

This info slide above describing junk food is possibly analogous to much/most of the news-media output on the political stories of the day. There does seem to be a social-circadian function to these stories that are "on the hour, every hour" so to speak, a collective rhythm to the day for peoples' establishment of their context to the world around them?

But if you're interested in more than this, then you may find that the quality of information is not very high for increasing understanding of politics apart from the more emotional stimulation and submersion socially within the constantly, ever-washing news stories.

The "good news" is that curated properly, there is a way to select (visibility problem) from this "roiling sea of emotion and excessive information":-

1. State of UK Politics

The great failures of statesmanship over Iraq and Brexit shows how much we need a proper leader

We pay but have no say

Just whose voice counts?

Sizing the ‘Liberal Leave’ position

2. State of Brexit

A Brexit consensus - EFTA EEA is the bridge 

Brexit: immigration versus market - a false choice

Public Law for Everyone: Brexit | On why, as a matter of law, triggering Article 50 does not require Parliament to legislate

This sources will more than suffice for an entire week of political news-media at the very least, if spaced across an entire week for the weekly intake of news - at the very very least!

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.

A Positive Vision In A Wider World

Stuck in the mud: A question of Sovereignty of Policy Control: Independent vs European Union Control?

The above illustration I think manages to visualize the current state of the EU Referendum Campaign; now that Vote Leave are the designated Leave camp and HM Government is coming out more and more using it's full force of power at it's disposal with HM Treasury reports, The President of the United States, Barrack Obama choosing this side and more besides, such as the "9m Leaflet".

I think the simple idea that drives the EU idea, is "One Big Idea", which I referred to previously in Political Barriers To Entry: An Image Of Power; A Course To Ruin

"There is an inherent assumption that those who take up our air-time or are invited to share their views in the lime-light in front of the broadcasting cameras, have somehow earned such an eminent position. Their achievements are the currency with which they deserve our notice or they are rewarded with others taking notice of them. I've long found it curious that actors often are called upon to take up the cause of "climate change", "world peace", "feminism", "palestine" and all the other idols that were pointed out so long ago by Francis Bacon in how people form bias in their thinking. Phony speakers promoting fake ideas. Why fake? I think there's a reason: One Big Idea is far more effective in drawing attraction from people than a series of interconnected and complex associations that more accurately reflects what we would suggest through scientific method is "objective reality" via independent, repeatable measurement that develop a current (but changeable) theory. When this process is "short-circuited" via such presentational problems as propounding "One Big Idea" we end up with something else too: Orthodoxy. In our politics today, such a process has been delivered."

To look at the illustration above, again: We see a tug of war over ownership and indeed money gained from ownership of the above big ideas between the rival camps. I think this enables us to see why Vote Leave recently focused on Migration (Immigration) despite the recent polling survey:-

Economy and immigration key issues for Britons in the EU referendum (Ipsos MORI Political Monitor - April 2016)

It seems to me that Vote Leave is trying to put focus on issues that are clearly "owned" by the their side of the argument in the popular imagination. For example I don't think Fisheries is an argument that can be countered by the Remain side except perhaps some token gestures towards Marine Sanctuaries given the belief that "too many boats and too few fish" was a self-inflicted disaster of Britain's Fisheries without international cooperation when the nothing could actually be further from the truth: The Betrayal of Britain's Fishing to the European Union.

Likewise Migration is generally is within the Leave side of the argument because enough numbers for long enough can't be realistically argued against that the UK no longer has policy control in this area and it generally started around 1995 after John Major's promise of "No more than <50,000 pa" if I remember off hand; which morphed into Labour's Political Correctness stamping down on open debate about the subject. However I suspect given the above polling, that the economy is in fact in the Remain camp's side of the argument because Vote Leave are driven by a campaign without a definitive Brexit plan:-

EU Referendum: why is Vote Leave trying to lose?

The reason is simple: Attention on a "Big Idea" eg Migration that is within the Leave camp's argument ensures the idea that there is a problem persists. However, I think it's a defective and eventually as Dr. RAE North suggests defeatist and hence losing tactic: It's a negative, it is a default and conceding the economy to the Remain camp for short-lived coverage of Migration in the popular imagination. And hence we come back to ownership and the cost or savings ie value of ownership that is battled inanely between the two sides per "Big Idea". The Economy is the biggest "Big Idea" and will ensure that as long as it's on the side of the Remain they'll win the Referendum. This was all so clearly put into writing on the internet a couple of years ago in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution.

Previously, we looked at Vote Leave more in terms of perception and the in my opinion obviously supplicant role they play in this wasteful monopoly by the Political Establishment over the entire functioning of this opportunity of Real (direct) Demoracy: Vote Leave: A Lesson In Power


I think this explains the silly, foolish and deeply irresponsible bandying about of economic "magic money": Große Lüge - The Big Lie of Magic Money. There appears to me even more evidence that "Monetary Policy" and the Spending and Government prudence in this area of the UK is in desperate need of reformation, lagging behind the other areas in our still-developing but under-developed democracy.

So, with the starting illustration dominating the picture of what people are voting for on either side of the referendum and the inevitable crassness of our Legacy News-Media and Politicians commentaries on that picture which inevitably leads to the public response: "We don't have enough information to know how to vote", or "they're all as bad as each other" or, "there's no point in voting it changes nothing" or finally, "how can we vote for fewer politicians and hence fewer liars?"

There's a couple of really useful articles that present a Positive Vision of what Brexit can lead towards:-

EU Referendum: Financial Times in denial

How global regulators are killing the value of EU membership  Stuck in the Middle with EU ~ Roland Smith (Adam Smith Institute)

Both these articles/blogs are incredibly upbeat and postive, they change the above "tug-of-war" nonsense from the ownership of "Big Ideas" into a conceptual paradigm shift in what we are actually supposed to be arguing (in a healthy and functioning democracy) about:-

Globalization: Trade Harmonization via Standardization and Regulation

Policy Areas = blue bubbles. Standards and Regulations Bodies = red bubbles and for finance = yellow (an especially visible example of globalization) and environmental conventions = green

For the purposes of this blog the diagram above is upside down: People know about "The Single Market" (EEA) or indeed in polling "Economy". However these would in fact be at the bottom or be at the end of the final flow of multiple bodies that formulate more and more of the legislative rules for governing standards to improve trade and quality control. As you can see each major policy area is surrounded by many (a few illustrated) specialist bodies that pool expertise in the devising of these regulations and integration with other connected policy areas for example Maritime will involve "Transport" and "Fisheries" and "Food" connecting such as: IMO, Codex Alimentarius, IACO and FAO and UNECE amongst others.

In fact instead of this sliding scale of popularity and ownership contest by our politicians, they are stuck in a small mindset, which needs to be replaced by the positive opportunities that can be a boon to world trade with the UK playing a highly active and connected part in all the multiple bodies, cooperating and sharing expertise in areas at a truly global level.

If we therefore look at the idea of Brexit or the European Union, there is something of an incorrectly framed debate going on which suits the "personality politics" low level of debate that manages to (mis-)characterize the choice as a popularity context between those in office and their prestige vs a bunch of low-grade politicians who make it up as they go along but appear "closer to the people" than the distant British Government which has been a supporter of the EU since the 1960s.

We've already seen more than enough examples of this contrast between the negative and losing arguments and how they manifest in the Legacy News-Media as if they are "the real thing":-

• Defence and Security: Sermonizing on Security
• Environment And Climate Change: Leaving EU would endanger Earth, says Miliband: Former Labour leader issues extraordinary warning that 'our global habitat' will suffer if Britain leaves  

Fortunately in the latter:-

‘If Britain leaves Europe, our environment, our wildlife and our global habitat will be starved of investment, bereft of protections and denied the leadership it needs.’

Pro-Brexit environment minister George Eustice dismissed the claims, saying that the EU offered hampered efforts by Britain to tackle global environmental problems.

Mr Eustice said EU membership had ‘systematically undermined the UK’s place on international wildlife conventions’.

He said Britain had lost its seat on key bodies and was sometimes barred from speaking out without EU permission.

He added: ‘If we vote to leave and take control, the UK would regain its own seat and its voice in vital international wildlife conventions and everything from promoting shark conservation to ending whaling would become much easier.’

There is a realization these "Big Ideas" do need breaking down. And I think this is a really interesting question:-

Will we get more rational politics if we break things down and realize that the expertise at Global Level and the level of coordination is sufficient to produce better results? Therefore these grand political ideas such as Supranationalism, even when we consider Environmental issues, which can be further investigated in FLEXCIT: The Market Solution: 15.0 Environmental Policy:-

"More so than perhaps any other policy area, environment is an amalgam of international, EU and domestic measures, to which the EU is a late arrival: a significant omission in the original 1957 Treaty of Rome was any mention of "environment". Legislation on environmental matters remained largely a matter for member states. "

Noticeably in the new framing of our arguments we can see that there is more complexity in this new positive and emerging picture that does not arbitrate according to popularity tactics in the polls but according to the factual nature of the growing body of legislation at global levels that then interacts with the destination nations, eg UK. Environmental legislation particularly interests me, but I don't take arbitrary sides as the opening illustrating showcases.

So, instead of this negative argument of the past failures we could be reorientating towards a successful and positive future as we tap into the huge change of Globalization instead of our petty and dysfunctional politically failing systems of bad governance:-

Where there's a will there's a way... but do we the people hold the political will for that change in this upcoming Referendum? Or do we have our will (power) sapped by those in charge?

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.

Pro-EU Corbyn: Politically, Playing Dead

Pete North notices there's something not very "convincing" about Jeremy Corbyn's new "Pro-EU/europhile Stripes" in: Sorry Jeremy, but workers are better off out:-

"I must confess, while I have nothing in common with him politically, he does have a certain superficial appeal. His contempt for media hacks is refreshing. But with closer scrutiny you soon realise that a lot of what he does is still calculated. He's still one of them. And his sudden Damascene conversion to Europhilia marks him as a man with no real political courage. He is also on the wrong side of the facts.

As much as Britain has signed most of the International Labour Organisation conventions that will remain in force after we leave the EU, it doesn't hold that Britain was a Dickensian slum before the EU social chapter. We did have workers rights and health and safety before and we'd accomplished an equilibrium through many small increments."

 I'm sure Jeremy Corbyn would far more enjoy assaulting Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and defending the NHS from the likes of Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS):-

"The controversial agreement has been criticized and opposed by unions, charities, NGOs and environmentalists, particularly in Europe. The Independent describes the range of negative impacts as "reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations", or more critically as an "assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations"; and The Guardian noted the criticism of TTIP's "undemocratic nature of the closed-door talks", "influence of powerful lobbyists", and TTIP's potential ability to "undermine the democratic authority of local government"."

But if he did that it seems to follow that he might also harbour similar misgivings about the EU? Perhaps? Perhaps not... instead he's on similar "turf" but without the possibly misgivings against the EU before the EU Referendum. Interestingly, on the one hand we have the Tory's patter about The Fallacy of The Wrong Turn as described by White Wednesday/Roland Smith; considering the EU and on the other hand we have the lost argument against Britain/UK being "at the heart of the EU Project outside the Eurozone and outside Schengen and hence the "Fallacy of EU Reform" in "Barking Cats" territory as per Dr. RAE North. which is related to "The Better Deal Fallacy" desired by Vote Leave and/or Leave.EU/GO.

In the first case, it's a convenient erasing of an inconvenient truth. In the third case, it's equally a convenient excuse to make unrealistic demands that can't possibly be achieved and hence a self-limiting exercise in futility. And what to make of the second and "Middle Way" case that is supported by David Cameron as equally as by Jeremy Corbyn, though he tries to hide the association of the Establishment working together? In Cameron's Case we know what to call it:-

EU Referendum: treaty fraud

In the case of Corbyn, he's certainly inhibited in his reaction to the EU, hence I think it's less deliberate and willful, though it still seems deliberate and volitional, but he's effectively "Playing Dead" or Apparent Death when it comes to showing his EU Stripes:-

It did seem like Corbyn was the attempted reassertion of the original Labour over the New Labour schism in the party. But it looks like Corbyn has opted for this old ruse when it comes to the EU:-

The Leave Alliance: A Choice With A Plan

Radar of Air Traffic Control over the UK: Planes, Plots and a PLANNED routes between origin and destination

This illustration above shows part of the United Kingdom and some of France, Belgium and Holland above which:-

• Planes IDs
• Planes at present positions at given times
• Planes plotted routes (lines)

What's abundantly clear is that all these planes must have stringently planned routes and schedules predicted in advance. Simulations of the above should correspond with live feedback data and hence relational positions of all planes to each other should be controlled, safe and secure and hence properly managed.

Let's say we're taking a plane, we have 3 pieces of coordinate information:-

1. Origin: London (point)
2. Route: Managed and safe and scheduled and efficient (line)
3. Destination: Brussels (point)

 This interested me because I was browsing a conversation over at EUReferendum.com in the comments section between Dr. RAE North and some commentators:-

Rommel was not about to sit down to a nice cup of tea with Montgomery and explain his strategy.

So what has the government actually provided help people know the UK/Britain's coordinates in the upcoming Referendum and our decision on Brexit or European Union Membership to political integration?

Remember the 3 Criteria both coordination and hence future planning decisions to be taken:-

• Origin
• Route
• Destination

 1. Origin (Present Status)

The Government decided to review this in one of their reports via the following criteria: Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union:-

 Links to the outcomes of the above report: Review of the balance of competences.

2. Route (How the UK Withdraws)

Again the government has provided something here: The process for withdrawing from the European Union.

1. Article 50
2. Single Market (EU/EEA)
3. Huge Scale of Renegotiation
4. Start of a process (not end of an event)
5. Mishandled has serious impacts across the board: EU referendum: impact of an EU exit in key UK policy areas
6. Risk Assessment is extraordinarily high which warrants "EU Reform" (?) alternative ROUTE

 Uncharted: Too many moving parts - Risk too high, wrong result mutually assured self-destruction for both the UK and EU! Wrong route = Mid-air collision.

"2.3 But the process is unprecedented. No country has ever used Article 50 – it is untested. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how it would work. It would be a complex negotiation requiring the involvement of all 27 remaining EU Member States and the European Commission."

3. x2 Destination ("Special Status" not EU Reform) vs Alternative Models

Again the UK government has provided somthing here: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union.

EU Alternative Final Destinations: EEA, Bi-Laterals, Customs Union, FTA

 Just to clear up some definitions/distinctions in the above:-

There's 3 categorical choices:-

1. Full participation in the Single Market as a MEMBER OF the Market; covers trade across the board.
2. FTA to the Single Market; is limited to specifics of the agreement.
3. Else WTO MFN status.

Effectively 1. is fully comprehensive to the point that movement of goods, services, capital and labour make it so. This is equivalent to what is called our present "Special Status" or "Best of Both Worlds".

The difference with the EEA to other such examples is the loss of sovereign controls over migration. But given The RULES of the EU are in-built this way because it's a Supranational organization that cannot change upon Brexit. So Freedom of Movement FOM is effectively a determinant of Single Market access as a full member with full participation. Given the UK is so highly integrated into the Single Market for it's economy (~35%) then the conditions of Brexit Article 50 preclude FTA's in time, so you have to opt for continuance of the economy to trade with the EU and with the current EU Trade deals elsewhere too. This is all factually grounded:-

* 35%
* 2 Years
* >200 Trade Agreements to which the UK/EU are party to

There is, " no ifs, buts" or "whataboutisms". It's Single Market or mid-air collision.

Whatever the true merits of the Government's report as considered by The Brexit Door it's already leaps and bounds ahead of the Leave Campaigns Vote Leave, Leave.EU and GO.

David Cameron has not achieved "EU Reform" he's achieved what he's calling a real alternative: The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union.

A Clearer Picture:-

To note the UK government is not going to point out which Brexit routes are possible even if they do conveniently point out which routes are impossible and which destination are not appropriate.

The Government's contribution (summary:-

1. Origin: Review of the balance of competences
2. Route:  The process for withdrawing from the European Union
3. Destination: Alternatives to membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union  or The best of both worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union

But I think the trick pulled here is three-fold:-

• Present Brexit at impossible Route and negative Destination
• The one possible route (The Norway Option) is presented as a negative Destination.
• Use all the vested powers of the state to deceive that the "New Deal" is a new Destination and not the same old Origin!

The Leave campaign must therefore step in here and point out:-

1. A Possible Route
2. A Positive Destination
3. Taking this journey is comparable and comparatively better than the EU/EEA ; EZ/EEA Negative Origin.

Categorically: The route and/or destination both must be possible and positive - which only leaves The Norway Option. The government has covered over the fact it's possible by pretending it's not positive (end-destination)

If we look at the above "map representation" of Brexit. I think it manages to connect the gap between the government providing what alternatives are like with the information that it is possible and it is positive though there is inherent risk which can be gauged. You'll notice the most salient feature is "EEA" which is:-

• Off-The-Shelf Option: The destination is positive and working
• Full Single Market Access via repatriation to make the journey
• It's going in the same direction as UK's historic opt-outs from Political Union! Not the wrong direction as evidenced by this record.
• We know the EU/EEA or EZ/EEA route is possible. But the biggest question is is it the right destination?

Just like a plane journey that is meticulously scheduled and planned: Longer journeys often involve multiple connections

If we realize that The Norway Option (White Wednesday) or indeed The 1st Stage of the Market Solution comprising fall-backs, is a Layover or "Connection Point" to a future subsequent leg of the full journey/route, it suddenly starts to make a lot more sense not to focus on the Journey but the Destination!

• Political Union
• The Market Solution

I personally believe most people never did buy "an air ticket" to Political Union; see Dr. RAE North's EU Referendum: the genesis of obsolescence. The government sold us a trade relationship and sent us onto the wrong plane. This won't be admitted explicitly so we end up with this game of charades where they attempt to confuse the fact people would like to buy "an air ticket" to The Full Market Solution if they believed the route was safe, secure and possible.

I hope the above mock-up of travel maps helps simplify from the confusion of both the government and the leave campaigns who failed to help people understand the actual options.

Your boarding pass to Brexit

The Route is indeed possible, but it's the destination that counts.

David Cameron: Dominance Hierarchy Displays

Body-language often provides signalling of dominance hierarchies, especially homo sapiens; as does proximity positions in hierarchies!

Another day, and another dominance hierarchy display by David Cameron (ab)using his office of Prime Minister for all it's worth in conveying his Argument From Authority for the Remain side of the Referendum vote. Previously Cameron performed the same trick on his #DavesDodgyDeal:-

• EU Referendum: treaty fraud
• EU Referendum: papering over the lies
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal - 1
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 2
• EU Referendum: Dave's dodgy deal – 3 
• EU Referendum: debunking the deal 

 

To Be Seen... and "Seen With"

What is interesting is that the Deal was as per Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: beginning to make sense

"And indeed, there is much to hide – not least, as we pointed out at the time the document was published, that the Counsel was confirming that Mr Cameron's treaty was an intergovernmental agreement, subject to the Vienna Convention."

EU Referendum: debunking the deal:-

Technically, the instrument may be a "treaty" in terms of its construction. It may be irreversible in that the text cannot be changed, but the elements identified invalidate it. It may be a treaty, but that does not make it a valid treaty. As such, those elements cannot be legally binding.

As such, therefore, this matter has neither been properly addressed nor resolved by the many commentators who have discussed it. Not even a note by Arnold Ridout Counsel for European Legislation, acting for the EU Scrutiny Committee, has been of much help.

Asserting as it does: "This international law agreement does not purport to change the Treaties, only clarify or supplement them", it is plainly wrong. The phrasing in the agreement, stating: "The substance of this Section will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision …" is clear evidence of it purporting to change the treaties.

Ridout, however, does say that the areas of future Treaty change "are … conditional, as they must be, on the approval/ratification of the Member States". He then adds: "This makes any future Treaty change vulnerable to a change in government or an adverse referendum result in another Member State".

On that basis alone, the commitment to the treaty change cannot possibly be binding, as falling within Article 61 of the Vienna Convention. 

 Hugs All Around: Reaffirming social bonds and alliances

If we note also that the subject in question with the French leader President Hollande then looking at White Wednesday's Brexit and the Calais problem:-

The “Calais arrangements” mostly refer to the Le Touquet Treaty of 2003 (coming into force in 2004) which was signed by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett and his French counterpart Nicholas Sarkozy. It allowed British immigration officials and therefore passport checks on French soil and the reverse arrangement on British soil. A migrant seeking to claim asylum under the Geneva Convention of 1951 therefore becomes unable to even set foot on British territory in order to claim asylum under the convention. Thus we hear about makeshift camps in Calais where migrants get stuck.

But the important point about the Le Touquet Treaty is that it is an intergovernmental treaty between France and the UK. It has nothing to do with the EU. The fact the two states are EU members is incidental — the two states also happen to be members of NATO and other international organisations.

The point is that these issues/complaints are nothing to do with Britain’s membership (or not) of the EU — they are practical implementation issues calling for a British response. Basically more money.

And to spell it out, if the complaints are not related to EU membership then EU membership can’t be the cause of them.

 You can interpret David Cameron's behaviour as attempting to suggest that Brexit is risky and will lead to FUD. But I think as important you can given both of these "conspicuous shows" are outside relative to the EU (the irony of Cameron's deal...) that in fact they are purely an attempt to assert dominance of authority derived purely from his Office of Prime Minister over the quality of arguments to be had.

 Leading Primatologis Frans De Waal on his excellent book: "Chimpanzee Politics"

His "Snap Referendum" appears to further back up this possibility in combination with the lack of substance combined with high social visibility performances. If you really want to extend this way of describing behaviour, our politics in the highest capacity appears to be run by a naked ape conducting chimpanzee politics.

There is of course a more sophisticated and civilized alternative: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution

The Market Solution: A Growing Solution

The Market Solution - A Dummies Guide

The Market Solution is a brexit paper (for more see: Brexit For Beginners) (also known as FLEXCIT: A portmaneau of FL-exible, C-ontinuous, EX-IT) written by Dr. RAE North in collaboration with The Bruges Group, EUReferendum.com correspondents and various other similar input sources. It is "a living document" that is constantly being updated online and, presently, comes in two written versions and one video presentation version:-

• The Market Solution: Full Work ~400 pages in length and content 
• Flexcit Lite: A "Lite" Paper version ~30 pages in length and content
• FLEXCIT Video Presentation ~ condensed from 60mins into 30mins

To add another alternative, accessible version:-

•  The Market Solution ~ A Mind Map

Feel free to download a copy. The aim of this new version:-

1. Expand the audience via alternative methods of communication.
2. Establish the major concepts for people to organize their own thinking.
3. I hope I can pass on some of the huge inspiration I've found from reading The Market Solution and from the other bloggers efforts (I've been using to help myself learn with, see side panel) to more people.

 The Market Solution starts with 2.0 The Political Background p.17 - 3.0 The Negotiating Framework p.30. These sections raise some important concepts:-

• Referendum was a matter of time from the 1970's through 1990's and onwards until David Cameron's entering office as Prime Minister, presently. The Bruges Group provides a list of Referendum and EU and "EU Reform" promises that have been accumulating over decades.
• EU Referendum = A Political Question essentially, first and foremost, as the linked evidence above clearly demonstrates (stresses and strains).
• Remain's default is effectively a shifting "status quo" held together by promises of "EU Reform" which may in the future tend towards an "Association Membership". The EU Treaties themselves are a source of political stress and strains.
• Paradigm Shift: Brexit is a process not a single event. It will be iterative as in the case of a soft or gradual or staged withdrawal "bit-by-bit". This paradigm shift is only noticeable in The Market Solution compared to the other Brexit papers that have been produced (see Brexit For Beginners).
• The Referendum Question itself must be made as clear to voters either side of the argument to validate the Referendum or else account for how people respond to the chance to exercise some Real (Direct) Democracy. This includes effects such as FUD propaganda exploitation from the Legacy News-Media, The Status Quo Effect of risk-aversion and the Prestige of our Prime Minister David Cameron himself: Is he someone we can trust with our nation's future?
• The Campaign designation for it to truly be a Bottom-Up People led Referendum must not fall into the hands of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" who inhabit SW1/Westminster and would treat the campaign as their personal property, their opportunity for career advancement or else turn the Referendum into a Top-Down Political Calculation for various Parties in power in Westminster. The symptoms of this negative result is of course: An Epidemic of Confabulations traded across the upper tiers of The Political Food Web of Prestige; which is their "bread and butter" and our "thin gruel of democracy".

1. Withdrawal, EU Referendum: the choice to be made, is an option to return "having a say" back to the people after losing it for >40yrs and never being asked for it since. Those long against EU Membership intuit this feeling already. But THEY must also be the first to understand HOW TO withdraw.
2. Withdrawal is about loss of legitimacy of our government, morally they've deceived the nation. Cognitively however we can only withdraw via the legal procedures to do so.
3. Article 50 Lisbon Treaty: As above, it delimits transition even if we are democratically legitimate from winning a Referendum, we must follow the rules which are 2 years. This excludes 2 of the 3 main categories of Brexit: WTO and Bi-Laterals. It would be triggered some 100 hundred days as a guide after the Referendum to set up the Negotiation Unit. The only Exit that fits the criteria of the rules that is legally legitimate is The Market Solution's Stage 1.
4. Ideally EFTA/EEA as you can see for the "radiation of positive reasons" from choosing this safe, secure option. There are full backs to this version happily as safety-nets to catch our legitimate and democratic withdrawal to add cognitive legitimacy, namely technical or stoicastic considerations are accounted for pragmatically.
5. Anyone, not accepting the imperative of Article 50 as illustrated above is simply attempting to bog the argument down and void it of legitimacy, the very thing that has been lost from our government and resulted in them forced over decades of dithering to offer a Referendum with the real and legitimate possibility of withdrawal: It must be both valid (legally) and viable (pragmatic: Single Market access sustained)) how to withdraw successfully.

Migration Policy is the most highly visible EFFECT of our government's loss of legitimacy! It is however not the CAUSE. In order to resolve the cause we must withdraw FIRST from the EU.

That means go back to Stage 1 and determine the strict parameters of successful withdrawal, then proceed back to Stage 2. Stage 2 we can finally start attending to the untangling of this policy which the public rightly want to see some competence and security in managing. This goes back to Labour taking the democratic conversation off the table for over a decade on this policy, subversively so and continuing with the present government's cleaving to "EU Reform" irrespective of this continued deception.

But it is noticeable that Migration itself is not the priority of the Leave Campaign yet it is presented as such, much by the "eurosceptic aristocracy" and greatly to the detriment of the effectiveness of the Leave Campaign. Not only that but within this strand of the argument Migration > Freedom of Movement (of Workers) is a minor singular and by no means most significant strand(!!!), Immigration: Is this really all we’re arguing about? when compared to Economic Migration or indeed for untangling the mess of Asylum Policy to return fairness and democracy and pragmatic competence to dealing with the problems here.

All of these can be addressed - only - if we first withdraw. All of them: Success. Concentration on one singular strand and indeed conflating it with all the other strands smacks too highly of the false Pro-EU arguments of conflating Europe == EU == Single Market. We can all do better than that, can't we?

And Behold - !!

We have discussed:-

1. Why we should LEAVE the EU.
2. How we should LEAVE the EU.
3. What we should be CREATING instead of the EU.

The EU may steam on with it's plans for "Ever Closer Union" and the creation of a New Nation of sorts under the Single Currency Eurozone. It is political. Instead the UK must detach the Regulatory and Standards Globalization Process of convergence, harmonization (rationalization etc etc) and forge a genuine single market to generate prosperity while sustaining sovereignty, democracy and I'm sure under such conditions peace will take good care of itself.

This is so little talked about and is perhaps the most important vision of Brexit/LEAVE, which tells you something about the state of our politics and politicians? If Lucy Thomas or whoever jibber-jabbers one more time about, "What does Brexit look like?" This is WHAT!

It's immensely complicated is part of the problem. But here is the Global Britain vision; I lean on White Wednesday again who seems to have the requisite "touchy-feely" skills to produce a standard-bearer vision, converting the above academic into the below:-

Globalisation is killing the EU. Bring it on

The Olympics: "World Stage"

You can see that Regulations is a huge positive for the Leave Campaign to argue for withdrawal from the EU: But not in the way it's been twisted by the "eurosceptic aristocracy" to cut/bonfire red-tape"; but to become fully involved in the global collaboration in this area to fascilitate global trade. Likewise "Global Governance" has expanded the sources of laws above the national, regional and up to the Global. This is where hundreds of bodies require our national representation and development of expertise in - and divorced of political power dynamics of the Supranational EU. Instead UNECE is proposed as a substitute for the entire European Nations for regulatory matters in this World Region:-

EU Referendum: an immensely complex operation

"… is founded upon recognition of the fact that no economic problem, indeed no important problem whatsoever, concerning sovereign governments can be solved by a majority decision in an intergovernmental organisation, but only by agreements between as many governments as are willing to consent."

 We see several emerging contexts to our Policy Control, now:-

• Supranational EU political intentions do not align with the Non-EZ UK.
• Globalization of Regulations and Standards require reform of our Policies aligned underneath and directly connected "at source" in the global top tables themselves to create "fully joint-up-policy" that is not dysfunctional eg Immigration, Defence, Flooding, Energy, Fisheries etc etc.
• Return of democratic accountability, responsibility and intelligence as part of the solution to these problems not as a problem to avoid additionally!
• The removal of a whole set of interfering posturing politicians ie EU and hopefully a cull of the useless centralized talking-shop in Westminster.

This arm was intentionally elongated to suggest that this stage will take a long time to emerge fully. But the benefits of cooperating within a functional Single Market with our Policy Control connecting democratically and technically, will ideally see progress in Global Trade truly connecting the Regional to the Global (Commonwealth and Transatlantic eg) as per Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT Flow Diagram:-

Finally the last stage which is in some ways the loop-back to the first stage. Holding a Referendum for the first time in >40yrs will be the first demonstration of Real (direct) Democracy eg Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight. As with the process of globalization of technical regulations and standards, the expansion of information and accessibility tends towards promoting more democratic conversation (Argument Abstraction) and input into "Good Governance". What starts with the EU Referendum may indeed not be the referendum to resolve the EU Question but the starting gun on a reformation of democracy and British Politics itself:-

 The Harrogate Agenda

Finally, one immediate take-home from presenting so much information and attempting to find a visual way to summarize a tiny fraction of it; if you take one thing away from this visualization, it's this Positive Vision of Brexit (Britain, Supranationalism & Globalization):-

The Referendum deliberation and Migration Policy are minor. Opportunities of the Genuine Single Market are dramatically more significant even if they're not promoted by Politicians, Legacy News-Media or Big Business/Banks - our so-called leaders.