Learning & Playing The Rules Of The Game

Specification of a Rugby League field of play (pitch) - not football!

The above Rugby Football League (Rugby League) team sport's field of play dimensions is an integral part of the rules of the game, defining the game space and as you can see, are themselves strictly defined. In such a contest 2 opposing teams obey the same set of rules and within those limitations, attempt to out-play each other. In general the number of players per team game ranges from about ~4-25. Robin Dunbar as per Dunbar's Number points out:-

Robin Dunbar: "The size of almost all inner cabinets around the world is somewhere in the order of 12 to 15. People seem to settle out at these grouping layers quite naturally, according to the task they’re doing." "Without language, Dunbar speculates, humans would have to expend nearly half their time on social grooming, which would have made productive, cooperative effort nearly impossible."

Different group sizes are required for different tasks and the greater the group size the rise in "overhead for group cohesion" as briefly looked at in When To Attend/Hold Meetings. It follows, that areas of the world with a "tribal" composition of human groups need to spend more of their social overhead on group cohesion activities, such as religious practices and observances, and/or bureaucratic organization at a national scale or else they lapse into "Failed Nation State status" such as Sudan: Lords of the Tribes - The Real Roots of the Conflict in South Sudan.

It also is worth suggesting that the EU's drive alongside the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to create and support a "universal human rights set of rules" is firmly rooted in the absolute necessity to service the increasing "group cohesion overhead" of political union of 500m Europeans of diverse and different nationalities. By implication, the dilution of features of cultures that prevent or limit that goal may be observable? If so, then the incoherent results we see in the Regional Migration Policy amongst others across the entire EU follows (see EUReferendum.com references from OMG !!!! Parakeet invasion). Secondly the rulings of The European Court of Justice (ECJ) also tends towards upholding "Ever Closer Union", effectively ruling in favour of EU Stability as opposed to representing the realities of different nation states already have with each other through culture, history and customs.

This trend is so easily observed that it's useful to listen to what Pro-EU VIP's sometimes have to say from their equally welcome point of view; a famous quote from French foreign minister Laurent Fabius:-

'Britain joined a football club. They can't now say in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby. It's one thing or the other.'

 This quote is very useful analogy to the very clear rules of the EU which are discussed and explicitly focused upon in "BRIEFING PAPER Number 07230, 15 June 2015 - "Ever Closer Union" in the EU Treaties and Court of Justice case law By Vaughne Miller" (google cache av. online). However in the paper despite making clear what "sort of game" the EU Political "Ever Closer Union" is, the advice to modify the game rules for different players is absurd if we hold to the concept of "playing by the same rules".

The highlight of The Bruges Group meeting of the speakers, Owen Paterson, made it clear referencing:-

• The Great Deception : A History of the European Union
• A Fundamental Law of the European Union ~ The Spinelli Group, Bertelsmann Stiftung

Namely from my notes of the meeting: The History of the EU founded by Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter from their experiences of the World Wars and the "failure in their eyes" of The League Of Nations to form a Supranational Political Government of Europe to prevent further wars. Hence "Ever Closer Union" is not a "clause that can be simply crossed-out, otherwise you have an entirely different basis of governance. This is backed up by the above "Fundamental Law" applied to members of the EU:-

"This proposal for a Fundamental Law of the European Union is a comprehensive revision of the Treaty of Lisbon (2007). Replacing the existing treaties, it takes a major step towards a federal union"

One of the Concept Shifts that can be introduced is as per Robert Oulds book, the idea of a "Democratic Deficit" concerning the EU. However from Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter's experiences of the League Of Nations where the power of national members Veto's reduced it's role from their Supranational vision, they decided to ensure the voting procedure of the EU would be based on

 Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) designed to create a "democratic dilution"

as per trend from Bruges Group with phasing out of National Vetos, and thus far from being a "defect" it was a "vital function" of Supranationalism. Lost Leonardo (see blogroll) explains the gradual removal of Vetos (as per Monnet's plan all along) via "Engrenage": This is How the EU Works! :-

EU "Influence": QMV proportion per EU members

"The proposal was agreed by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV) in the Council of Ministers. This is the essence of supranational (“above the nation”) treaty governance.

This process of engrenage and the supranational governance it empowers is what grants EU institutions the authority to override the democratic nation-states that consent to become (and remain) EU Member States. It is supranationalism that provides the impetus for ever deeper integration; ever more power for the Commission—and the other EU institutions—and the consequent diminution of power among the governments of the Member States, let alone the Parliaments of the Member States, to say nothing of the people who vote in those countries’ ‘democratic’ elections.

The smaller EU member nations are particularly badly served due to the “weighting” that is applied to the EU system of QMV in the Council of Ministers and the European Council, based, as it is, upon the size of the voting country’s population as a proportion of the Union as a whole."

These are the rules of the game. And another Concept Shift is possible aligning the difference between Rugby's Rules and Football's Rules, as per Owen Paterson, the EU is leaving the UK:-

"They Are Leaving Us!" 

This all demonstrates another Concept Shift, our Referendum on EU Membership:-

Brexit = A Political Event equivalent to The Reformation

And hence some of the Definitions Owen Paterson insisted upon making apply:-

1. European Union (EU) =/= Europe
2. European Union =/= The Single Market
3. Referendum = "A Golden Opportunity" to Renegotiate The Political Rules (as above Supranationalism via QMV) and hence remove 1/28th influence on various global seats.

Owen Paterson went on to speak about how only North Korea and Sudan don't have trade agreements with the Single Market (European Economic Area EEA) and therefore by implication of the above, the arguments of what choice we are deciding on is a choice of Which Rules We Choose for Our Governance, I would conclude? The Single Market is not a matter of concern in making this choice.

For Owen Paterson, 3 major areas needed to be delivered in such a renegotiation:-

1. Trade With the World as an Equal Member of the World Community
2. Cooperation with the EU which allows it to "forge a new country" without us getting in the way, upsetting the rules they choose to adhere by.
3. Ensure our laws are made in our Parliament under our democratic system.

Owen Paterson made some very useful contributions to the debate, in a very confident and positive manner. He made some clear definitons concerning the EU, Single Market and the context of the Referendum being above party-politics; he made clear that the EU effectively wants to "play by a different set of rules" to what Britain does and this is what defines our renegotiation.

Finally from defining what is the EU? as per the history, as per the current chief rule-makers in Brussels, Owen Paterson offered another Concept Shift of our relationship with the EU and with the World:-

The Supranational EU's Concentric Circles Relationship with the European Nations

The above shows the present "Concentric Circles" of power and loss of influence towards the periphery of the Supranational EUropean Union, as per Pattern Recognition to which Mr. Brexit (see blogroll An Independent Britain) provides an example of our loss of influence/sovereignty/power Remember how we keep being told EU member states are sovereign? and again A central reason why the UK should vote to leave the EU However Owen Paterson provided variety of examples of Global Regulatory Bodies where Britain needs to exert our own influence:-

 The Real "Top-Tables" of influence on Global Regulation and Standards "upstream" of the EU

 Coming back to Britain's rejection by France's Charles De Gaulle of our application to membership in 1963:-

"It's not a matter of sentiment but of facts and figures."

It is suggested that De Gaulle's real reasons was to ensure that France had acquired sufficient influence for it's farmers before Britain could then later join. And here is a difficulty with the mixture of the Political ambitions of the EU and the effects this has on "group cohesion" and their role as a regional standards body with all European member nations subordinate to the EU, as a consequence. To quote Bismark in 1886:-

"I have always found the word Europe in the mouths of those politicians who were demanding from other powers something that they did not dare demand  in their own name."

Namely there should be a forum free from sentiment, either hostile or sentimental and based on impartial reporting of facts and figures. The problem with the EU's role is European Court of Justice Biased referee? and time and again it's Group Cohesion is being tested it uses the word "Solidarity" or for "Economic Reform" as cloak to "Political Integration": "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM" - Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

"Nothing more exemplifies the determination to pursue the political project regardless of economics than the manner in which the euro has been supported in breach of treaty provisions. As Christine Lagarde as French Finance Minister said:
 
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone. The Treaty of Lisbon was very straightforward. No bailouts.”

Whatever we think we have agreed to, as long as supreme power is exercised by the European Commission and Court, the rules can be changed after the event.

We have now come to the fork in the road.The Eurozone has to become, in effect, a new country to make a full redistributive federal state where there are legitimate means of transferring funds from the wealth creating areas such as Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg or Noord-Brabant to places like Andalucía, the Mezzogiorno and the Peloponnese where it is simply not possible to create wealth at the rate  at  which their countries joined the Euro. In  order  to make  such  a  shift legally  watertight, particularly with reference to German constitutional arrangements, it is most likely that they will eventually needa new treaty"

It's this "internal logic of the EU Treaties" that drives the Rules they really play by. Not the rules of the real world according to the greater context of Globalization and hence the Concept Shift from a Concentric insular looking EU to a Hierarchical though not subordinate vision of the UK:-

 Hierarchical Reconnection with the global world

 In The Bruges Group meeting When To Attend/Hold Meetings there was a lot of "conventional wisdom" that no exit plan must be deployed or else divisions in the group would inevitably arise due to everyone holding a "different reason for leaving". And yet, this circular reasoning is quite similar to our Argumentum Ad Infinitum systemic defect of thinking. What needs to be understood is the concepts that arise from the details of research conducted, to reverse Charles De Gaulle's statement on the EU itself, and avoid sentiment but base our choices on facts and figures which define the set of Rules we are to play by with respect to the greater reference to the world and to the EU - and they are very clearly defined (For Example Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty): Within this "field of play" we can be certain those rules will be consistent and impartial as befits all good "officiation of rule systems" (Interesting to note the furore over Craig Joubert). All Brexiteers have to start doing is "learning the rules of the game" and then start enjoying playing our role in this global team game:-

 Britain has enjoyed great success exporting it's sports rules around the world!

When To Attend/Hold Meetings

Britain in a Global World: Rejecting renegotiation, leaving the EU

So far I've attended a few political meetings, from The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) as per How do you become a "eurosceptic"? ,  Global Britain, and the The Bruges Group (as above). It's interesting to note they're all cross-party or non-affiliated (Global Britain) as well as focused on the full picture of UK/Britain in reference to the EU and to the World. As a voter it's a lot more satisfying proposition to be involved and interested in. The "biff-bam" personality politics of party-politics in Westminster as reported ad naseam, by The Legacy Media isn't productive or interesting in my opinion. Evidently it does serve a function, a high-class version of the Celebrity Stories which reminds me of studies done on Monkeys: Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques :-

Individuals value information that improves decision making. When social interactions complicate the decision process, acquiring information about others should be particularly valuable. In primate societies, kinship, dominance, and reproductive status regulate social interactions and should therefore systematically influence the value of social information, but this has never been demonstrated. Here, we show that monkeys differentially value the opportunity to acquire visual information about particular classes of social images.

I've come to the conclusion that the General Elections in the UK are, for a general voter, a complete waste of time but also emotional energy and attention. Voting for squabbling parties that soon forget their promises before an election doesn't encourage much future trust in the system of politics used. So instead of voting for something I don't believe in (thus having to endure some form of cognitive dissonance or Catch-22 dilemma?) 

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules. An example includes: "To apply for this job, you would have to be insane; but if you are insane, you are unacceptable for the job."

Catch-22s often result from rules, regulations, or procedures that an individual is subject to but has no control over because to fight the rule is to accept it. Another example is a situation in which someone is in need of something that can only be had by not being in need of it. One connotation of the term is that the creators of the "catch-22" have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power.

The logical extraordinary alternative is to donate a small amount of money directly to a small and specific political cause I do believe in, interact with, contribute actively with and learn from others in such a group; because I've taken some time to try to understand it and think there's a chance it will be a productive function; a positive feedback-loop on decision-making: My own, the groups and hopefully connecting wider and wider until eventually at the national governance level; an example of which is provided by Christopher Booker: Our 'Snatch’ campaign is still saving soldiers’ lives:-

 Catch-22: Do Something Different!

It seems like a more honest and direct way of "voting" to me; particularly if you consider that "half our government is in Brussels as well as Westminster", it's diluted democracy even more as per Sir James Goldsmith Euro Moments: Goldsmith on setting up Referendum Party. Who knows perhaps cross-party groups that promote not voting in the General Elections is a good way to arm-wrestle our government into democratic reforms such as The Harrogate Agenda?

I was fortunate in the CIB meeting, because it was very high quality information and presentation, the size of the group was about right no more than 30 (high-end of classroom size to note); the people there were in general "on the same wavelength" with some of the basics to be presented, discussed and developed, there was diversity in the groups broken down into workshops again changing the dynamic and of course the extra-ordinary material or work being presented by Dr. RAE North (see EUReferendum.com blogroll), FLEXCIT: The Definitive EU Exit Plan For Britain:-

 Flexcit: The highest quality understanding is online for people to use and debate with...

So there are some meetings despite the above being freely available which very much are worth attending. However this raises possibly a critical question to consider upon which the fabric of success or failure is going to be woven into everyone's effort:-

What is the value of meetings for Brexiteers and how can they be of real value to those who attend them and what shape do they currently take?

 No words: The context & body-language tells the story

I also attended a Global Britain meeting, a while ago and although the pedigree of speakers and attendees was extremely high,with almost all "The Usual Suspects", it felt like a lot of "treading water" was being done; a lot of low quality communication exchanges between people: A genteel peace being observed in the room as opposed to exploring and structuring the debate more logically. There was nothing there that anyone serious and committed (in conviction, ideals or finance even) could not have already covered in their own time or even previously up to that point in time with some 3/4 years until a possible referendum out of over 40 years to get to this "home-straight" point in time. From that perspective it was for me, very bizarre ie not very efficient. Why?

Last night I attended The Bruges Group meeting, for two preceding reasons: Robert Oulds , The Bruges Group director is in my opinion from his speeches and his book as per Literature And Science : Everything you wanted to know about the EU - But were afraid to ask very informative (facts for memory recall), structured and referenced, well written and organized around "a guiding principle", above all. Secondly, one of the speakers was Owen Paterson, who again has been raised before. For example:-

Owen Paterson ("in beautiful Shropshire"): The EU is doing the leaving (subject) of the UK (object) = New Relationship

I spoke briefly to Robert Oulds, while in the process of acquiring some extra materials for future use (another reason to attend the meeting), and complimented him on a particular passage in his book. The significance, or qualifier of quality of the above two, to single out, is that due to starting with "a guiding principle" (whatever that may be!!), it follows that their thinking and organization of thoughts is invariably conducive to producing the most essential component of progression between arguments: A Concept Shift. This does not have to be as "disruptive (positively)" as a Paradigm Shift but can be in the most simple details or larger general topic realignments/reconnections between different sub-topics within a subject (tbc in future blog post).

 "AN OPTIMISTIC VISION OF A POST-EU UNITED KINGDOM"

~ Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP

 Eg of "a guiding principle": Meta-organization forms content coherence

I took some extensive notes, partly because I was always taught "active learning/listening" is a more productive use of your time but also because I generally have a constitution that requires me to fidget actively to avoid feeling sleepy! Overall I did not learn anything new in this meeting, there were some useful "concept shifts" however from hearing how other people think about things so it definitely useful attending. However the other area that was useful was hearing the type of questions posed and here the flaws were evident. Many of the questions were random. What I mean is that a lot of the people present did not have a "a guiding principle" so many of the questions were of the type: "Basic FAQ", basic preliminary grounding for REAL DISCUSSION. If you're familiar with different forums online, they always encourage new posters (aka noobs/newbies) to read the FAQ because such questions are diverting from productive discussion, evidently. And yet these meetings (Global Britain and Bruges a bit less so fail to apply such conventions in personal groupings? Examples if I refer to my notes were:-

• FUD & Status Quo Effect of Referendums
• Role of The Media eg BBC bias
• Cost of EU Membership
• Priority: Economics of Politics?
• Difference between T. of Rome: Freedom of Movement of Labour and T. of Lisbon: Freedom of Movement of People

Etc. There were equally some good questions and the best of the night was concerning:-

• The role of David Cameron and the question of Trust in what he delivers?

The above question refers to EUReferendum.com (quelle surprise!) of whom the questioner said to me later they are a regular reader, there. It may seem I'm being biased or appear to be attempting a superior tone. But when you've seen an example of the idea of "a guiding principle" then you see it's absence, you really really notice it! We can look at different group contexts:-

• Self-Study, online research to establish the basics for oneself and perhaps more depending on time and inclination.
• Conversation between a few well-acquainted participants who are able to match each other's mental models of understanding more rapidly to then use as a basis for arguing from. Rapid increase in understanding for individuals possible here eg "mentoring".
• Small Group for specific discussion; useful for introducing new ideas to an established idea: Creative, challenging & constructive criticism to refine ideas and test them.
• Classroom Size where differences can be discussed productively atst as progression: Increasing group aggregate understanding is usually the intended result of such group size or depending on the people: Between up and below.
• Large Group/Lecture Size: Generally more 1/Few-Many relationship. The message has to be generalized for a larger variability of understanding and needs.
• Crowd Gathering: Primarily slogans, working the crowd, chanting, singing, much more focus on "group affirmation" what the EU keeps on calling "Solidarity" ie the overhead for "group cohesion" is very high and hence meaningful communication is overwhelmingly reduced.

I have some interesting notes from The Bruges Group meeting, but I can't help think the above consideration is a higher priority to establish. And this comes back to what Dr. RAE North has been saying time and time and time again:-

Chimpanzee Politics!

EU Referendum: biding our time:-

"When it comes to running the campaign, one of our strongest suits is that we are the only group to have adopted Flexcit, and thus are the only group promoting a comprehensible and credible exit plan."

EU Referendum: agreement on a plan:- 

"But the paper ignores Flexcit, as do most Europhile organs, inventing any number of excuses for doing so, when challenged. But they all amount to the same thing. They dare not acknowledge it because it so comprehensively demolishes their superficial and facile arguments."

Honestly I would be almost persuaded to express some form of demonstrative "cri de coeur!" of unfairness, except there's no reason to when if you think about the behaviour of The Legacy News Media, of our own Government in Westminster and even of some deceptive or self-deceived "eurosceptics" that their collective behaviour is something you'd expect to be reported by the primatologist Frans De Waal, in Chimpanzee Politics:-

"As we watch the chimpanzees of Arnhem behave in ways we recognize from Machiavelli (and from the nightly news), de Waal reminds us again that the roots of politics are older than humanity."

As referred to, The Bruges Group meeting had some useful contributions, group affirmation itself is useful, not least for donations to the group itself or the chance to hear the people "in the trenches in politics" giving their views live to a room aka these days as "Face Time" and meeting some other people and learning what their point of view is. It was useful to provide elements of the above "group compositions" as above too. But the limitations and contradictions of not having an Exit Plan in contention with maintaining "group integration/disintegration" and the ambiguity this casts everything else under this shadow resulted in for example contradictions, repetitions, lack of deduction, circular reasoning etc etc, in my opinion, too much of that "treading water" sensation.

 FLEXCIT: A fully integrated, researched argument: A Concept Shift and A Guiding Princple: All-in-One = a fully Scalable National Argument usable for different group sizes

There's a distinct lack of understanding the difference between: "A Guiding Principle" (Integration) and "Diversity of Details" (Differentiation). This is in my opinion the basis for holding meetings for different group sizes, their quality and hence productive "scaling up of arguments" over time to more and more people. Of course different people will be receptive at different group sizes and hence type of message. But you have to have the actual "concept shift" itself first before "scaling up the argument to different group sizes" instead of "scaling down of arguments" to reach more people, aka "Dumbing Down" That's back on The Road To The European Union. And surely this relies on "a guiding principle" already agreed upon?