The Remain Argument: A Hollow Relationship Built From Empty Promises

At some point in time, too many empty promises that don't materialize or else "run out long ago" by spending "the stored good will" in others results in a requirement to change the relationship.

I think perhaps the above manages to symbolize, or capture or encapsulate all that the EU has become, perhaps regrettably and sadly?

• Financially: The Eurozone/EURO Debt Crisis
• Prosperity: The Unemployment Rates
• Peace: The mixture of Terrorism and Immigration
• Politically: The increase in lack of trust and confidence in politicians due to their constant failure of promises to voters.
• Deception: The abuse of the terms of "goodwill": Peace, Prosperity, Global "Clout" or "Influence" by pooling sovereignty become their opposites and hence the relationship feels based upon a Deception.
• Democratic Deficit: The failure to include people along the way towards "Political Union".
• Empty Promises: Of "EU Reform" and "this this time it will be different" along with the avalanche of FUD and orthodoxy in the areas of society with their hands on the "levers of power" compared to other areas of society which may like to question more?

If you are a Remain advocate, I've tried to above capture some sentiments of a Leave advocate, the general "gut-feeling" that no amount more of rhetoric will do to "persuade" to change minds and vote Remain. The accumulation of the above into an overall feeling that "It's done" and "It's time to move on and break with this stale and empty relationship". All these reactions are how people deal with when a relationship feels as if it's not working and is dragging on too long, with too much negative consequence.

For almost all of the past two years, I'd argue as reasonably as I can, using the materials I've found most rigorous on both sides of the argument, mostly in fact from the affiliated sites on this blog such as: The Great Deception (WHAT?), The Harrogate Agenda (WHY?) and FLEXCIT: The Market Solution (HOW?). The basics of grasping a basic understanding via such questions on such a wide range of subjects within politics.

However, recently I noticed some appalling coverage in the news involving various acts of "terrorism". Here there is I think a combination of two ways of understanding the forces driving the question over our status as "A Member Of The EU":-

• Identity
• Relationship

I think in general the great problem with the idea of the EU is that it's effectively taken away control over the peoples' ability choose their identity and hence feel secure in their relationship: The most notable and visible example of this has been the great debate over immigration (Migration) as well as it's connection to the spread of terrorism or else other "atrocities" in Europe by people who are ruled by other ideas of identity that are not compatible and should have been filtered out more effectively.

I'm not making a new argument for myself here. But am pointing out that for many many people who don't know the arguments to a high degree, it is I think very understandable if they choose this form of argument and decide they "get control" back more if they vote Leave on this sense of identity and relationship with stronger controls or security over Migration Policy. Not only this, but the government does not talk "straight" to people: They code everything they say in political language which is frankly weird and hence likely unreliable. Given a direct vote to "tell" them how to behave/act, the choice is obvious. The threat of economic disaster is possibly an "empty on" or bluff: The government already suffers from economic failure not by it's own choosing and would point to economic success as by it's own hand for winning the votes.

This takes us to Remain arguments: What are they?

They are the same form on identity and relationship:-

• International Relations eg "Global Top Table"; "Peaceful Unity in Europe",
• Internal Relations eg "Good Friday Agreement"
• Tory Internal Relationship dynamics: "Feuding Tories" ; "Tory Infighting".
• Good People support Remain: Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins, Ai Weiwei, Russell Brand, Gordon Brown, Amartya Sen, Tim Berners-Lee, Stephen Hawkins, Ban Ki-Moon... etc...
• Higher Values: "Human Rights", "Interdependent World"
• Big Challenges: "China", "Putin", "Globalization Threat", "A Modern Marshall Plan for Middle East and Africa", "Europe-Wide Challenge of Immigration"

On The Argument itself:-

• UK/British public immensely ignorance on the EU.
• Brexit is about Immigration only, a "jaundiced view of the world"
• The UK COULD NOT TRADE in the Single Market without EU Membership
• Brexit would be disastrous for the UK Economy and for the rest of the world, the stock markets, the pound and euro currency and house prices and pensions and a new budget would be needed. Jobs would go in their hundreds of thousands.
• Admittedly "European Union is not doing particularly well at the moment..." but the alternative "Britannia ruling the waves" no longer exists.
• Problems can only be addressed "together" and not "in isolation".
• Britain/UK acts as a "balance" in the EU improving some of the weaker positions of France and aiding Germany to steer the EU towards a more economic EU than political.
• Norway is totally different to the UK, therefore there can be no Brexit possible eg all the other models are "what Brexiteers want" but they lose what "we already have".
• Britain would be sending out the "wrong signal" to the "global community" quitting: "A jilted partner has more reason for angst than an unapproached suitor".
• Besides "policy changes" and "institutional reform" are what the EU needs not Brexit. The EU needs "solidarity".
• "The EU was built from the rubble of two world wars and has ensured peace and prosperity for a generation of Europeans".
• "Europe will be able to deal with Enormous challenges if it speaks with one voice."
• "We live in an increasingly  interdependent and globalized world. No nation can afford to be too isolated."
• "Scientists are not known for their conformity, but there i one topic on which the great majority agree: Being part of the EU is good for British Science".
• "We want our country back" is a constant Brexit refrain. Yet many of the things that make our country great - the BBC, the NHS, the Post Office - are at most risk not from the EU but from the largely pro-Brexit right wing of the Tory party".
• "Many of these pesky European regulations and directives, meanwhile, are designed to improve the quality of our air, beaches and animal welfare - imrpovements that our government often fights tooth and nail."
• "If we do Remain, we need better (and better-expressed) ideas, not about "Britain and Europe" but rather about Britain engaging more constructively with Europe." (LOL!!!)
• "Sovereignty is not something to be hoarded. It is an asset that governments can use nationally or in co-operation with others, issue by issue, depending on which appraoch is the most beneficial to their citizens. The question, therefore, is whether the UK is likely to benefit from continuing to link certain aspects of its sovereign power with the EU. Meanwhile the UK has retained Sovereign control over most of the matters of greatest concern to British voters."
• "In an increasingly competitive as well as interdependent world, Britain will be better off pooling discrete areas of its sovereign power with 500 million fellow Europeans than leaving its population of 65 million beholden tot he rules and whims of others."
• "Being a part of something larger than states and empires is a source of optimism and inspiration."
• "I believe Britain should stay in the EU. The logical reason is that we need structures of alls cales to manage this planet, and there are a good manythings that are best done at the scale of Europe. The emotional reason is that it is somcuh more fun to embrace the fascinating mix of people, cultures and languages that is Europe."
• "The EU level, though, is essential for us. There are a lot of regulations that may be boring and bureaucratic, but is it not more efficient to use the ones set by the EU, rather than for each country to make its own?"
• "Trying to persuade people, especially the young, to vote in the Referendum on 23rd June."
• "I strongly believe we are safer inside the Union".
• "Gone are the days when we could stand on our own, against the world. We need to be part of a larger group of nations, both for our security and for our trade."
• "We're flourishing in this open Unoin of ideas and talent exchange, and baffled by the desire to choose a parochial "Little England" rather than the bigger, richer, more generaous terrain of the EUropean continent.
• "Europe for me means os mcuh more than economic union. It is about a gate opening on the world, the start of a great love affair with all things international."
• "In case of Brexit, we call for urgent measures to retain the vital rights and protections created by the EU."
• "The European project is about peace as well as prosperity; the EU creates a shared identity that encompasses and celebrates diverse cultures and understands the free movement of people as a strength rather than a threat."
• "A European community, a European union, must be created to ensure tha another war between European nations would never happen. It was in effect, a declaration of peace and reconciliation."
• "Is this European Union perfect? No. Is the bureaucracy so often absurd and wasteful? Yes. Does it have the democratic integrity it should have? No. But, does it, has it, helped to keep the peace? Most certainly."
• "Making Europe into one place was the obvious intellligent reaction to two European world wars."
• "We ought to stay in, get on with changing what needs to be changed and stop complaining about it."
• "First, Europe, to me, does not mean a perfect institution; it is not faultless - but it represents moving forwards rather than backwards. Europe means achieving so many things through unity that we could not achieve in isolation."
• I like to think that although therw will be inevitable political disagreements, we all want to bring countries - and therefore people - closer."
• "We are connected in some way with our fellow human beings, and connection is good, especially now that the world has turned into a giant Wes Craven film."
• "When Brexit advocates tell me that if the United Kingdom leaves the EU, the open road will remain open, I know they cannot guarantee that. Fundamentally, Brexiteers are asking voters to take a monumental gamble."
• "For me, co-operation with our partners on th European continent and the restriction of the powers of our government is a positive, not a negative."
• "Europe is not an elite conspiracy against the public: at its best, it is the opposite. It is about the solidarity of the peoples of Europe with each other and our determination to create a better, freer and fairer world."
• "My granddad was an internationalist."
• "I will be voting for Remain on 23rd June and so should you, if you care for the immediate health and safety of your friends and neighbours."

It's fascinating reading the "Remain" case. I don't believe it makes any difference to the Leave advocates concerned about Immigration: So many words and so little direct contact. What it does suggest is that these arguments are about Relationship and Identity also. But that they have put the ideas of these things BEFORE the arguments themselves and hence understanding why such "promises of building better worlds" don't turn out quite as expected or promised.

Perhaps the most dangerous Remain position is to characterize the EU as THE ONLY RELATIONSHIP that is possible and good. And by doing so preventing the temptation to vote for Brexit for a different relationship? This failure either because the EU is reality or else because any alternative cannot be reality (too dangerous!) is suggestive of a hollow relationship:-

Leinen: Shock of Brexit would draw EU closer together

So how should the EU deal with the UK itself? Many so-called Brexiteers have advocated leaving, but maintaining access to the single market. But German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) said just a few days ago that he is not in favour of such an arrangement and that the UK is either in or out.

There can’t be special treatment for the UK. Brexit would be a huge cost to the country; the British would have to pay to leave the EU. But, of course, we would still need to continue our relationship with the UK, which is our neighbour and a country that has been in the EU for some four decades now. What status does the UK want and what would the remaining 27 be likely to confer on it? At the end of the day, the decision to leave will have to be accepted by the other member states and the European Parliament. It’s still unclear how that would actually play out.

The best case scenario for them probably is the Norwegian model: the UK would continue to enjoy access to the single market through membership of the European Economic Area, but would still have to pay for that privilege, as Norway does. But with this, the UK also takes on the same rules, like the principle of freedom of movement. That would probably be the main stumbling block in the negotiations.

CONCLUSION:

If Arguments had been promoted more thoroughly and fairly, more people would have ended up less confused than they already exhibit. That is to say, the result always was going to be about RELATIONSHIP continuing either way and if people had learn the actual arguments instead of willing the results to come first such as clinging to safety of relationships known (EU) irrespective of it's quality, and secondly more Vote Leave morons had understood this too about a staged withdrawal such as EFTA/EEA aka "The Norway Option", then this Referendum might have had to deal with far less emotional digestion and concentrated on more mature democratic participation in action - a positive result either result: Remain or Leave.

The fact Remain denied there was a future alternative relationship possible, is potentially the most useful error of that argument's proponents. Any relationship suggesting such is no real relationship to build the future upon, I would argue?

An example of the childish confabulation of Remain Arguments is this article Which would you rather, President Trump or Brexit? It’s no contestJonathan Freedland which shows so clearly how the childish conception of taking elements that it wants and elements that it can see and concocting a mixed up communication of an event to the adult patiently listening (sometimes with amusement!):-

"Words Will Work If We Will A Better World Enough." ~ Remain in the EU
I don't agree at all no matter how much propaganda is used.

Confabulation: Lessons To Learn, Promises To Keep

"I got the feelin' something ain't right..."

If you look up the above Sunday Politics on the BBC show: Is the EU good for business? you can observe the argument between Digby Jones and Richard Reed. Both are apparently very prestigious and successful businessmen. I like Jones' projected persona when he's on TV a lot, even though Richard Reed comes across as shrill and tremulous in his attempt to appear dominant, I do love Innocent Smoothies drink.


Previously we looked at Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation; and we see that the above is exactly this kind of false argument. Now we look at a glimpse of how far and wide this potentially was distributed:-

BBC: Distribution of the above argument across the entire UK

 What is the function of Confabulation Arguments? In this case the title gives the game away: The Economic Question of the EU Referendum is focused upon. The very thing we already suggested is not needed:-

 Confabulation Arguments are detracting from the Main Point/Central Focus of the Argument

 Now, we have information why the Pro-EU side of the argument would want to conflate EU and EEA from political calculations information:-

Leave could be making the same mistake Labour made at the 2015 General Election

"If the referendum comes down to a popular leader with economic credibility versus an unpopular leader without any economic credibility then there will only be one winner, again."

"The ComRes poll showed “44% British adults say they think the state of the British economy would be better off with Britain remaining a member of the EU, compared to 23% who feel the state of the economy would be better off if Britain left the EU.” This is the type of polling advantage the Tories enjoyed over Labour in the run up to the last election."

Irrespective, the default voting intentions of the electorate are invariably to avoid risk to the Economy. However the article's parting advice is poor interpretation through clear lack of understanding of the argument itself:-

"Leave should make more use of someone like Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, under Margaret Thatcher, to help boost their economic credibility. As a seasoned political campaigner once observed about winning votes and elections, it’s the economy, stupid."

We know Lawson is no use from his ERM days. But also his stupidity and arrogance concerning the IEA Brexit Prize competition, from previous blogs: Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2). Secondly the nature of the argument is not an Economic Question. We can remove the Economic Question via EFTA/EEA. In fact comparing EU/EEA to EFTA/EEA is what Campaign For An Independent Britain have recently done in this article:-

EU/EEA or EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?

Notably the exact reverse effect is produced from arguing for EFTA/EEA instead of EU/EEA:-

Q. What does the opinion poll show for different regions of the UK?

• A. Scotland: EFTA/EEA 68%, EU/EEA 32%
• A. Wales: EFTA/EEA 59%, EU/EEA 41%
• A. London: EFTA/EEA 63%, EU/EEA 37%
• A.UK: EFTA/EEA 71%, EU/EEA 29%

What we see from the Pro-EU argument is the use of "RISK + ECONOMICS". There is a solution to this inherent in sticking to the Political Question: "GROUP + POLITICS":-

 Possible EFTA+ Group via UK removing EU->EFTA + EEA

The rational for EFTA/EEA replacing EU/EEA for the UK needs to be the greater focus of the argument. And this lesson has yet to be learnt, to find more examples of Confabulation arguments:-

(1) FEAR (FUD/Risk-Aversion Exploitation):-

 

Britain Stronger In (BSE): 1. We'll lose FDI if we leave 2. We'll lose "lower airfares if we leave" 3. We won't protect the environment if we leave 3. Ireland will be majorly disrupted if we leave 4. Leaving EU or Europe or Single Market (???) will be "worst of all worlds": How terrible and frightening.

The defeatist, dishonest, manipulative propaganda from Pro-EU campaigners who cannot even campaign on the real merits of Political Union (EU) and must resort to conflation and fear of: Europe, Political Union, Single Market.

(2) UKIP: Control Our Borders & Trade Deal!

 Poor old Steven: Comparing China and the UK's political situations... Confabulation is in full throttle to excuse "Control of Borders!" empty meme and explain away EEA Treaty obligations via reference to China... and - and Trade Deal! Trade Deal!

If you look at the above Steven is trying to self-justify borders with appeals to non-applicable Treaty relationships to the UK's EU present membership status.

(3) Bonfire of Cutting Red-Tape & "We Buy more German Cars!"

 Ruth Lea bangs on about Economic Question and falls for Confabulation over both Red-Tape Bonfires (see Digby Jones also) as well as "German Cars!" economy comparisons. She's detrimental to Leave Arguments

Lessons still need to be learnt. And if there is any good reason to learn them, for Leave Campaigners it's this: Sooner or later if you make arguments which attack promises to them, you have to either PROVE those promises beforehand or afterwards KEEP your promises.

EU Referendum: the third battle

Ask yourself both of those questions before selecting from the tired, old out of date eurosceptic arguments that are the property of the old eursceptic aristocracy who fail to advance the arguments because they believe they OWN the arguments and hence are a part of the problem as much as the Pro-EU campaigners who resort to low quality arguments too.

"Political Union" OR "Free Trade Association"?

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:-

Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation

Confabulation: Creating "plausible" cause-effect relationships between disparate but selected objects

Quoting and referencing the above wonderful illustration:

"Confabulation  is a memory disturbance that is the production of fabricated, distorted or misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious intention to deceive. Confabulation is distinguished from lying as there is no intent at deception and we are unaware the information is false. Although we can present blatantly false information, confabulation can also seem to be coherent, internally consistent, and relatively normal."

Yesterday's blog felt very needed to me: EU Sketches: The Importance of Being Ernest. Some humour to provide optimism and relief. Now I've recovered a little bit, to tackle the source of disconsolation with the lack of veracity in the words people use in their arguments either to Remain or to Leave the EU in the upcoming Referendum.

EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe"

 

I was watching Prime Minister's Question Time earlier and was very impressed with how David Cameron made everyone else involved in the EU Debate and indeed in Westminster look very unimpressive!! Coincidentally the BBC Political Mouth Laura Kuenssberg, finally seemed to have caught up with the fact David Cameron will be the leader of the "In" (she means Remain) Side .

Confabulation in Politics: "If we leave the EU we'll lose our seat at the top table and 3 million jobs will go whereas Norway as a fax-democracy has to pay and but has no say."

As I said, above, there's a lot of disconsolation because the above confabulation seems to me to constitute at least 90% of all the arguments. What has happened is that the constant repetition and high emotional pitching of the above Memes (surrogate concepts of the actual argument details) have created a closed and limited list of ideas with which people swap and choose and mix and match to be able to comprehend the EU Brexit debate/question and hence talk and express themselves with.

The result? Confabulation, unwitting and on scale of millions of people. The problem is, "A Fish Rots From The Head Down":-

This is something that should be very observable now. Looking at David Cameron's attack of The Norway Option again from Dr. RAE North back in the Autumn: EU Referendum: Flexcit comes home to roost. And this ironically is pointed out by the Britain Stronger in EUrope (BSE) campaign again recorded: EU Referendum: the lies sharpen. The problem for the Leave Campaign is that they do not have David Cameron and his prestige (Media, Money, MP's) to back them when they start confabulated in the vein hope of winning over voters in this battle of lies.

Heads of the Leave Campaign (Leave.EU ; Vote Leave): Their own confabulations they perpetrate and encourage onto their followers

The problem with the above is that none of the above "objects" with which people argue about this EU Referendum debate actually means anything. You could argue the more people participate (wittingly or otherwise) in this behaviour the more it feeds The Great Deception; the original confabulation of Europe's own story in the minds of European people.

I'm on the side of the argument which holds the stronger arguments. So it's not for me to argue with David Cameron's side of the argument. It's to encourage anyone voting Leave to consider the above. Two bloggers in particular have already noted the detrimental effect of this behaviour on the Leave Campaign:-

Mr. Brexit at Vote To Leave The EU and The Boiling Frog have both identified Vote Leave's extremely high "Confabulation Positive" tests results. It's bordering on intentional mendacity. I already highlighted this in Referendum: "Plenty of Time To Finish This Game." so no need nor desire to rehearse that evidential message they're chugging out and adding to the confusion layers.

Pete North has identified Leave.EU's failings in this way too, though it appears with this campaign group it's mere incompetence rather than mendacity.

A message to fellow Brexit bloggers

A pathetic show from the Leave campaigns

You win Ukip. Have it your way: full EU membership

I think the last blog and in particular the image above, nails the problem with Leave.EU's strategy. It's no wonder people start to hate politics. Here's a referendum for the first time in over 40yrs. Maybe it's time to "do something different"? In the case of Vote Leave, it looks like their malaise of "political confabulation" has no cure: It is "deceptive politics as normal" in their world. I hope however that Leave.EU can be cured of their strand of confabulation aka "bullshit production". You can't argue with it on both sides: They'll just switch from one "object" not listen to the arguments in detail that disprove it and move right back to one of the other ones and start the story all over again.

There's a new report out my Migration Watch. Leave.EU leapt all over it and it stinks to high-heaven of confabulation!!

 Migration Watch UK Press Release on UK Immigration Policy outside the EU

1: TRADE DEAL! TRADE DEAL!

"The UK would, nevertheless, need to negotiate its own arrangements^1 in the aftermath of a decision to leave the EU.

If such arrangements had been in place in recent years"

"If EU migrants were, in future, to be subject to the still tighter
regime that is now applied to non-EU migrants, the effect would be even
greater.

All the statistics hinge off this. On first impression of headlines, wonderful news for the Leave Campaign: Wrong: Deflection away from the main argument which hinges on removing complexity and confusion and transforming the Referendum into a purely political question as per Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight.


And Mr. Cameron tells a far more impressive confabulist than anyone else, as he should be, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.