Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Thursday, 10 December 2015

Slip of the Tongue: Influence

Below the level of volitional, conscious control

A Slip Of The Tongue I noticed on BBC's Newsnight, a number of times, comes up during the subject of "Europe". People can't help slipping into:-

"When I Go To Europe..." or "On the Continent."

Both Pro-EU and Pro-Brexit speakers make these slips of the tongue before being corrected by David Dimblebee: "We are in Europe." And there's nothing exceptional about this common mental model of our place in the world: Britain is a geographical island in the North Atlantic, off the coast of "mainland Europe".

Once again there was clear rejection of The Norway Option,

References: google.co.uk/search?q=The+Norway+Option

Especially vigorously so from Caroline Flint MP (Labour), which was considered in a scorecard style of communication previously:-

One of the core concepts I've promulgated from the very start of this blog is "quality of argument" in particular arguing the central point where it can be established. Another approach is engaging the arguments of the "other side" and a strong way of showing this engagement is to "Speak Their Language" as well as offer the suggestion of alternative conceptual models of understanding.

A cursory inspection of the above scorecards suggests "tally the ticks vs crosses": EFTA/EEA aka Norway Option:-

Global Council: 6 v 4
British Influence: 5 v 3

Which is higher than all the other options, assuming equal weighting. So questioning the validity of those x's is perhaps a rational next check on which Brexit to choose:-

Influence over EU Regulations retained
Able to adopt own approach to regulation
Freedom to pursue trade deals independently (FTAs)
No Contribution to EU budget
Freedom to impose immigration controls

We looked at a small sample of VIP politicians in The Columbo Method: Norway previously. But the Legacy News-Media:-

EFTA/EEA Influence on Regulations

In general this can be boiled down to at the most forceful negatives:-

100% of the EU Rules with 0% say in how they are made
All the EU Rules with No Say in how they are made

Quoting Dr. RAE North who references EFTA official sources on the quantity of rules applied:-

EU Referendum: the EEA acquis

"By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the three-quarters that is claimed."

This is hard evidence. As such in any popular debate there's no opinion: It's factual and quantitatively asserted. Onto the actual regulations: Making and Shaping again this was somewhat covered previously.

1. Norway does not have a seat in the EU Institutions with representation to vote on legislative process. However the UK only has:-

29/352 votes 8% in the Council of Ministers (requiring q.maj: 252, ~74%)
Of 73 MEPs in EU Parlliament (9.7%) they do not vote as a block to reach 376/751 for a majority
According to Dr. North: x30 more legislation by-passes the above normal legislation process in any case "delegated legislation".
More and more legislation has it's origins at "Global Level" via "international standards bodies"

As for the Acquis Communautaire itself, again as per Dr. RAE North EU law: definitive stupidity and it's origins:-

"A very substantial amount of that law originates with higher bodies, from UNECE to Codex and points south. Of the 6,000 or so laws in the Single Market acquis, potentially 80 percent are of international origin. The rest of the acquis also has international input, which means that a substantial proportion of the so-called "EU laws" would remain in force even if we left the EU."

Indirect means of influence applicable to EFTA/EEA: Veto, contest of "EU acts marked as EEA relevant" by EFTA in various commitees (holding-pens as I conceptualize it), case studies include: Oil & Gas, Postal Services, Iceland disputing Bank Charges and Lichtenstein uses EEA provisions on Migration.

Quoting FLEXCIT: 5.5 Influence in Perspective, p.100 in full now,

"Alongside Norway and other EFTA/EEA members, Britain resumes its place on global and regional "top-tables", and would be able to argue its own positions."

"When it comes to a vote, if the UK objects to a measure, it can either veto proposed standards or opt out of them. A 27-member EU, once the UK left, would cast as many votes on international councils (see above diagram!), but would have only one veto - giving the UK an exact equivalence with the EU."

"[...] Only if proposals get past this filter, and then have a mutually accepted Single Market relevance, would Britain - as an EEA member - have to consider adopting them. Even then, the States can also refuse to adopt EU law that they consider against their national interests."

Robert Oulds: Chapter 3: A Question Of Influence, p.60

The above also avoids the referal to the ECJ for resolution. Again another side of the coin is EU influence according to it's objectives of Ever Closer Union and increasing members requiring diluting of total percentage per member nation, and her Robert Oulds book helps when we consider that the British Government and in particular MEP's are often Pro-Integration measures and Pro-EU over National Self-Interest, a particular exemplar being the British Commissoner role's oaths to the EU.

I would argue that citizens influence is very low input too in the EU limited to EU Elections and rejected in Major New Treaties!

EFTA/EEA: Free Trade Deals

If we look at British Influence's score-card above it destroys 2 of the x's leaving only FTA's: Can Britain seal decent trade deals if it leaves the EU?

Norway has a half-in, half-out relationship that gives it free trade with Europe but keeps it out of the EU‘s political institutions. Jonathan Lindsell in a Civitas report New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option looks at The Norway Option and EFTA/EEA rules on Trade Policy:-

Again the argument would seem to fall down if the UK joined the EFTA/EEA group this would as per FLEXCIT create the 4th largest trade group in the world which would seem to indicate that any talk of requiring to be in a "large club" apart from being highly contentious as per Lindsell's report highly likely to be a redundant argument!

FLEXCIT: 4.3 The "off-the-shelf" Market Solution ~ Dr. RAE North

What should be most satisfactory about the above status and relationship of the UK is that this is what was offered in 1975 as per the wording of the Referendum specifying "Common Market" membership in the EEC.

This has not only the virtue of delivering that which was requested, but also denying the opportunity for further Great Deception by politicians with the stipulation of "ZERO" Political Representation in the EU Political Institutions amounting to 100% TRUST in our Trade dealings with the EU and other equal partners.

Dr. North reveals the tortured history of the EU "what could have been..." discussing an alternative vision for the EU + EEA members in FLEXCIT: Background to the EEA, p.76 once again:-

"The President's vision, at the time, was a of a European village", in which he saw a house called the "European Community." [...] What is so relevant to the current debate is that, at this point, the Community (now EU) was seen by Delors as one "house" in a village, alongside the EFTA "house", with which decision-making could be shared."

EFTA/EEA Cost To Single Market

FLEXCIT: EEA cost and contributions p.82-84:-

EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe"

"On the other hand, in 2014, the UK gross contributions to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net contribution was £9.8 bn.

"With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution (without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223 per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments"

Quoting FLEXCIT for the equivalent cost of Single Market for the UK in the EFTA/EEA arrangement:-

"Budgetary costs attributed to EFTA run to 22,360,000 Swiss Francs (about £16 million), of which 55 percent is borne by Norway. This includes categories defined as EEA related activities, EFTA/EU statistical co-operation and EU/EFTA cooperation programmes. That, strictly, is the cost of Single Market.

"Access which, on a pro-rata basis, would cost the UK less than £200 million per annum."

EFTA/EEA Migration (Immigration)

Again quoting Dr. RAE North: EU Referendum: the tedium of it all

"Funnily enough, this would be very similar to Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement, the so-called "Safeguard Measures" which permit EFTA states unilaterally to take "appropriate measures" if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral or regional nature arise and are liable to persist."

Wednesday, 9 December 2015

I Can't Believe It's Not Brexit! Can You?

I can: It's NOT butter!

I am very cynical of advertising; a particularly good area of research on sales techniques is Robert Cialdini's The Art of Influence, so much so GCHQ as part of it's online influence training/methods referenced this work iirc. Effectively the above is attempting to ensure their brand is remembered by you when you're shopping and swamped by choices of which "butter" to buy, you may have a tendencies to pick the brand on familiarity simply due to a default and low requirement to think about such a trivial choice.

The above I remember because it had a very annoying "Ear Worm Catch-Phrase" but also for me, margerine tastes nothing like butter! Where one tastes "organic" in the way vegetables or meat taste "organic", margerine tastes synthetic. Evidently it sells very well, perhaps due to "low fat" branding and "easily spreadable properties" so it has it's place and I'm not knocking it as a poor quality product, just that it's an imitation butter and I'd personally prefer be labelled as such:-

"is an imitation butter spread used for spreading, baking, and cooking. It was originally created from beef tallow and skimmed milk in 1869 in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès, as a result of a challenge proposed by Emperor Napoleon III to create a substitute for butter for the armed forces and lower classes. It would later be named “margarine”.

Whereas butter is made from the butterfat of milk, modern margarine is made mainly of refined vegetable oil and water, and may also contain milk. In some locales it is colloquially referred to as "oleo", short for oleomargarine.

Margarine, like butter, consists of a water-in-fat emulsion, with tiny droplets of water dispersed uniformly throughout a fat phase which is in a stable crystalline form. In some jurisdictions margarine must have a minimum fat content of 80% to be labelled as such, the same as butter. Colloquially in the US, the term margarine is used to describe "non-dairy spreads" like Country Crock, and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! with varying amounts of fat content."

What I'm trying to say here, is that advertising is the Art of the Plausible. As such there's a great deal of this in politics, where multiple viewpoints and values in modern secular societies are concerned. This may be "Popularity Politics", but it leads to an erosion of clear definitons and hence clear communication as per Communication: Shadows On The Wall (2) .

The stricter definitions of the words are:-

Possible > Plausible > Probable > Likely

But in politics it boils down between Plausible and Popular Sounding to gain "Vote Share" (in whatever context (people/politicians/nations/etc) vs politically possible within the rules of for example Treaty Laws and the wider interrelations such as Market forces and as well within some scope of popular acceptability. As the diagram above attempts to illustrate there's a widening divergence between the the art of selling a political proposition and the actual political "product" itself. Like the above "margerine" it may advertise itself as equivalent to butter but it is not defined as butter technically!

And so it is with Brexit. Which I've defined very clearly and as simply as possible in Brexit For Beginners and elsewhere The Brexit Number and the EU Onion. The result of this lack of clarity is of course confusion as repeated numerous times for example: Understanding The Mountains Of Madness. We looked The Columbo Method: Norway previously and perhaps another detective can help when considering the Plausible vs the Possible:-

Brexit: When defined seems like a much less grand out-come than anticipated. But that's because it's merely the first step into a larger world.

To understand Brexit in terms of the difference between Plausibility and Possibility in Politics, FLEXCIT applies considerable definition of limitations ie demarcation between plausible and possible Brexit events and hence options. This is the grounding for The Market Solution:-

"Negotiators will have to deal with the political realities of the day, and be forced to respond to the demands and limitations imposed on them."

"Compromise will not so much be possible as inevitable."

"We do not consider that it is possible to resolve all the issues arising from forty years of political and economic integration in one set of talks, or one stage."

"Whilst we aver that it would be impossible to win a referendum with a plan which seeks to reject the EU's freedom of movement provisions."

"Estimates cannot be any stronger than the validity of the assumptions on which they are based. Weak assumptions, lacking a sound evidential base or not rooted in the real world, are poor foundations for any plan. Dazzling predictive models and complex calculations cannot remedy inherent deficiencies."

"No solutions offered in respect of specifics are of any value unless they fit with others to make a fully integrated whole. There is no point defining any one policy area if the outcome creates irresolvable problems elsewhere. Partial solutions are not an answer. An exit strategy must work as a whole, providing the best fit over the entire policy domain – even if it requires adopting sub-optimal policies in some specific areas."

Numerous stringent caveats on Brexit production are clearly given from multiple view points in FLEXCIT, by Dr. RAE North. Heed Sherlock Holmes' deductive advice!

And much of the Legacy News-Media and "think tanks" stream of report after report about "What is Brexit?" including "Plausible Brexit Options" not appreciating the narrowing to "Possible Brexit Options", for example: British Influence: What Would Happen if the UK Voted To Leave or indeed another report it's similar to: Global Council Brexit: The Impact on the UK and the EU and there are endless numbers of these reports. The most interesting facet of them comes down to:-

Advertising political propositions: Which is the more plausible product vs MORE importantly which is the most possible product?

No doubt David Cameron's Association Membership "British Model" will be "much better/butter" (sorry about the pun!) than all? Well no not if it's a lateral transition not a vertical transition in redefining our relationship with the EU:-

So we come back to: British Influence: Ten questions that Brexit supporters need to be able to answer which LeaveHQ addresses, which draws from much of the answers to these questions already written in FLEXCIT: The definitive EU exit plan for Britain:-

Brexit: Ten answers to ten questions

So feel free to read the more in-depth answers there. However, one of the important tasks of this EU/Referendum/Brexit debate is to organize information and increase understanding. A "war of words" or "wall of text" is an inhibitor to this outcome. So given the above use of conceptual understanding given above, to answer the questions in a way that presents the essence of A Science of Simplicity in which is asserted:-

Complexity = EU = Fragile = Deceptive
Simplicity = Brexit = Flexible = Trust

Where Brexit defined =

"Brexit (British Exit)" = “Withdrawal from the EU Political Treaties which grant representation of politicians in the EU political institutions and removal of such representation” - only – via triggering Article 50 Lisbon Treaty

Which means Brexit is merely x1 step, a single stage or Present Simple Event of change of Relationship Status of the UK with the EU qualitatively not quantitatively as component of FLEXCIT, the full process, itself. This incidentally is not wishful thinking: It mirrors the "Engrenage" and "negotiations" that are phantom of our Prime Minister David Cameron according to the EU Time-Table on Association Membership status (new relationship quantitatively not qualitatively) stretching from 2013-2017-2020+!

Here's the answer to British Influence. I've even appropriately organized the questions according to their categorization to help with clarity of understanding. What Brexiteers/Pro-Brexit Supporters need to do is understand that Brexit must be politically possible (which is much much smaller range of possibility than "politically plausible"), to then trigger democratic legitimacy and trump The Great Deception once and for all in Britain.

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Communication: Shadows On The Wall (2)

Shadows on the wall

In Plato's well-known Allegory of the Cave, he describes:-

"A gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality."

This is really so very applicable to the Legacy News-Media reporting that suffuses and smothers the knowledge and understanding of people concerning the twin-subjects of: The EU and Brexit (British Exit). What is reported is like the shadow above. It is derived, it matches what is visually, but it is not the same, and it reduces the potential increase in understanding that voters require to express their opinions freely in the Referendum on EU membership, which is likely in 2017, the first time since 1975: 45 years: Almost half a century of time. There's your "fire" that casts this shadow.

In the previous blog, Communication: Learning To Speak Dog (1), the Brexit article in Money Week was considered in the context of the type of communication we experience as part of the EU. I've tried to assert one core proposition concerning Brexit of the EU deals with the quality and type of communication we have a record of as members for 43yrs as almost as important as the assessment of the condition of our membership status vs Brexit status. In this blog this article in Money Week "Why we're backing Brexit" [subscription] (it could be Pro-EU or Pro-Brexit it does not matter) is the template, or "shadow on the wall" and I hope I am successful in showing in tandem the fire/flame simultaneously:-

"Our membership of the European Union (EU) is a subject that divides Britain."

The article references a recent poll, but the above is far more significant suggesting imo amnesia and lack of increase in public understanding (namely: temperamental ephemeral politics in action)

The EU suffers a "democratic deficit"... it is reactive rather than proactive... many question the future of the European project and the EU's drive for "ever closer union"."

Here's some essential concepts to appreciate:-

Robert Oulds in his book Everything You Wanted To Know About The EU - But were afraid to ask, mentions that the "democratic deficit" is no such thing: "trading democracy for dictatorship on the false prospectus that they would deliver prosperity" it was effectively a design to REDUCE democracy (mainly via Qualified Majority Voting QMV) and hence was intentional (eg x7 Major Treaties without a public Referendum in 45yrs!).

The reactionary consideration also requires a conceptual understanding of the above "how" the EU works as well as "Beneficial Crisis" of "Engrenage" requiring... you guessed yet more/another major new Treaty called by the politicians!

Finally the nature of the EU is not a question of how much more "Ever Closer Union" or reverting back to more of an Economic EU: As per The Great Deception history which is never referenced (!) the plan by Jean Monnet was always to avoid the mistakes of the League of Nations and have power over the nations ie Supranationalism which requires competencies of national policies ever closer to political union for example Monetary Union requiring Fiscal Union and centralized budget setting for the EU.

What do you think: Arrears of public voting on all those Treaties of "Ever Closer Union"

"The key difference is that the Ins believe we should try to reform the EU from within, rather than take the risk of leaving... the Outs see reform as impossible, and the risks of leaving as overstated."

The journalists favourite approach to Brexit is "biff-bam" categorization of the beliefs of two large equal but opposite groups/tribal colours. This is very very artificial: Defining what Brexit is properly clears up almost all the fun to be had here for the journalists:-

Brexit (British Exit) = "Withdrawal from the EU Treaties and membership via representation in the EU Institutions via triggering Article 50 TEU Lisbon Treaty - ONLY."

The White Line that ONLY divides, it does NOT define!!

From this definition it is clear that the UK can use the 2 year period to renegotiate access to the Single Market devoid of the above political/legal status as a member SUB-/under EU Treaties compared with relationship EXTRA-/outside EU Treaties. Various routes to accessing The Single Market are described in Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT document at EUReferendum.com under "The Market Solution". This changes the so-called polling groups above like "alchemy" into voting for

Single Market relationship with the EU vs Political Ever Closer Union + Single Market relationship with the EU.

Which is in which: Light and Darkness?

One of the core arguments against this are simply exercises in "bad relationship" which all people can understand: Coercion, Dominance-Submission, FUD for example. This is very important feature of the upcoming Referendum which empowers people "to speak to each, each according to their own understanding."

"In short, the status quo won't do - we need to reach a new deal that gives us more autonomy and a greater say in our own future."

Here the misconception is that the Status Quo is implicitly in stasis. The Status Quo of the EU is the inherent instability of the Treaties and this consequential political uncertainty. This word "Uncertainty" has been used as one of the key descriptions of the Prestigious VIP's who have advocated EU Membership since before Macmillan used it in the 1960's to state EEC "was causing uncertainty"! So too today, with a New Treaty being described as per A Fundamental Law Of The European Union.

"...and this appears structural (a product of the eurozone's design) rather than cyclical (due to temporary unfavourable economic conditions)."

This is where the article is on firm ground and seems confident of itself. It would be a useful addition to paraphrase Dr. RAE North and point out that these "structural flaws" are not so much a bug in the design of the Eurozone but a "feature" as per Beneficial Crisis for the completion of Sovereign policy powers to the ECB to include Fiscal with Monetary.

The lack of memory or consolidation of information in EU/Brexit articles: This graph is immensely useful visual aid of the Eurozone and the description of "Political Project" > Economic Project of the EU/EZ itself.

"It's worth noting on this point that we're far from alone in questioning our relationship with the EU. Finland's parliament will debate its membership of the euro next year."

"David Cameron - best described as a right-wing In vote - wrote to Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council with four demands."

The article is wasting space here: It has no bearing on Cameron, and by labelling him as "right-wing in vote" shows how poorly the EU is understood, let alone the empty Breadcrumbing of the above Theatre: The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. we've discussed previously. Talking about Finland only reinforces the lack of historic context here and is anohter case of Politicians: No Taste, No Style, So Derivative! ie superficial indications being taken seriously; namely the article is in full "describing shadows" mode, at this point.

"The Ins both left and right-wing, see Britain as the bridge between Europe and the English-speaking world. The EU would be weaker without us, and the risks to us of leaving are too high, so why rock the boat? ... The Outs, on the other hand, come at the issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum. The Outs on the right cite right cite greater global trade, less regulation, and improved control over immigration... but they want to keep the free movement of capital goods and labour. The Outs on the left... they want to nationalize or subsidize industries... both... want our laws to be written in Britain, not Brussels."

Random Items Selection: "Macy has 7 apples, Brad has 5 pears and Emma has 11 oranges... How can they share them equally if..."

Apart from the perverse use of Out/In instead of Leave/Remain... the above is very interesting because having defined Brexit as a subjective of groups' disparate and effectively random desires/inclinations, a summary of the above is then used to define Brexit or EU Membership as per the groups. Interestingly such groups are labelled as very lacking in knowledge about the EU here Brits know less about the EU than anyone else ! Very likely the sort of stuff written as per this Money Week article to reshape that poor understanding and nudge it as per the polls graph since the 70's along with "cyclical events" such as the economy. Effectively the authors here are basing their arguments on shifting sands.

What do other non-EU European PEOPLE think of the EU?

"As for Norway - the nation held a referendum on joining the European Economic Community in 1972 and 53.5% of voters said "no". The Norwegian government dragged them into the European Economic Area regardless in 1994. That gives them 100% of the regulations and 0% of the say - hardly an enviable position."

I intend to go over the influence subject in this blog despite it already being covered numerously, particularly in FLEXCIT: 5.0 The Market versus the Swiss option p.88 and again in this blog: The Columbo Method: Norway

"Business for Britain (a right-wing Out group) has put together a detailed analysis of how a new trade deal with the EU could be pre-negotiated before any Brexit. The rest would quickly fall into place. Steve Baker, MP, head of Conservatives for Britain, notes that Britain is already a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under these rules, Europe must offer us "most favoured nation" trading status. As a result, says Baker, "our membership of WTO defrays even the worst-case scenario of trade barriers being erected under WTO rules if we left."

Oh dear, there's a lot by Dr. RAE North on this subject if they bothered to research as per google "eu referendum" coming in at No.1 Result then adding "+WTO":- EU exit: death of the WTO option? and Pete North Whose rules are they anyway? and again EU referendum: we the invisibles ; showing that the shadows are what are presented to the people, not the actual "flame". And more from Ruth Lea who is Globalisation: a conspiracy of silence?

"Ruth Lea – member of the advisory board for Business for Britain"

"More broadly speaking, global trade tariffs have been falling under globalization. Free trade benefits all involved, so it is in no one's interests to reverse that."

EU Referendum: the tyranny of non-tariff barriers

"In Short, the problem is that while the EU may have been built on free-market ideals, it is a long way from achieving those ideals. The regulatory burden and the European parliament's supremacy over national parliaments is unwelcome... that attitude is holding back the rest of Europe, particularly those countries locked into the the EURO. That's a great pity. But we don't have to remain a part of that... it is better than remaining in an unreformed EU."

It's difficult to tell whether the weasel is in the words or the wood is lost in the forest...

There's little to no conception of Globalization of Regulations! There's a lot of incomprehension as to the nature and definition of the EU and there's False Friend tone of voice about "Reform" and being moderate and sensible about Brexit if the EU does not reform. It makes no sense: These are the patterns on the wall for the public:-

Plato's Cave: What do people know? What they are shown.

Tuesday, 1 December 2015

Communication: Learning To Speak Dog (1)

We love dogs, they love us: But how many of "us" can speak "Dog"?

It's a relatively well-known phrase and a very effective in conveying strong sense and sensibility to dog-owners:

"You have to learn to speak dog, because dogs are not going to learn English."

"Sense" in the book means good judgement or prudence, and "Sensibility" means sensitivity or emotionality.

I've got to admit, I love talking about animals and one of the first Spanish phrases I learnt was "Mi encantera los animales", and sure enough by blog number 2, I've been expecting you... a rabbit had turned up, already. That said animals appear to be a very well represented form of metaphor, phrase and sayings and stories such as Aesop's fables and equally at home in politics as became noticeable in Learning Politics Can Be Fun! where I attempted to introduce the idea of "The Fluorescent Scorpion Test". So rest assured, reader, you won't find me "Kicking The Dog"!

He may be "all sorts of bad," but... "now, he's finally gone and done it!"

As you may be aware, one of the reasons for the above test was as per A Science of Simplicity. Yesterday I came across a book in a second-hand bookshop which I bought New Complete Dog Training Manual - Dr. Bruce Fogle which starts with some excellent simple advice:-

"There are a few easy rules about dog training: Keep it short, keep it simple, keep it fun - for both of you... Your objective is to reinforce the social relationship your dog should have with you."

After the last blog, Grand Strategy: Promotion, I'm not sure for that purpose I could come up with a more perfectly defined statement containing the core message of Pro-Brexit, in principle! In Strange Trails the first connection was made concerning the communication of our purpose form first principles: Happiness. But we also looked at where in the process in Referendums from "anticipation" to dissipation (positive or negative depending on how we define your purpose in the first place).

"In terms of our "no" campaign, with a little help from our friends, I have been gradually able to whittle down the essence of our "intellectual foundation" to three words: problem; solution; and outcome. Now mixing metaphors outrageously, I jump from foundations to three-legged stools. I liken these words to the legs of a three-legged stool. They effectively constitute our "offer" to the public, upon which we will ask them to vote "no"."

Fortunately a reference to Dr. RAE North's EUReferendum.com blog on "Foundations"; namely the very start of our journey was (puntastic!) fundamental to the above experience type. And it's the experience of people that is the rightful focus of politics as described in Power To The People; which we automatically fail at unless we establish Argument Abstraction.

The 3-legged stool idea is quite important above, in dog training it's "short, simple and fun," for my own computer programming learning I came up with "environment, tools, application" etc etc. But now talking directly about Brexit:-

(1/3) Problem:-

FLEXCIT = A Process of withdrawal from the EU

In Brexit For Beginners "withdrawal from the EU" was defined quite clearly as removal of representation in political institutions as "the price to pay" for removal of Treaty obligations of the UK in law as a member of the EU; via Article 50 Lisbon Treaty. This I think is a very powerful picture: In the above, the emphasis was on "reinforcing our social relationship your dog should have with you," as significant means to happiness in tandem with health and welfare as per:-

"Some of you know I'm a practising veterinarian, not a professional dog trainer. When I was starting out, I learned early on how important good dog behaviour is: It makes or breaks relationships between us and our canine buddies. I quickly realized that answering questions about behaviour and training was just as important as answering those about health and welfare."

I think this is a good way of simply asserting that the UK/Britain's relationship with the EU, it's "nature" is of critical importance on as equal a footing or if we diagnose the problem correctly: Of greater/greatest significance to our Referendum Question concerning whether or not we should leave or remain:-

"Rescue-centre statistics show that the dogs most likely to be "given up" are under two years old with behavioural problems. In some parts of the world the most common cause of death in dogs under two years old is euthanasia because of such problems."

Visually friendly book: Good dog-training is good communication learning

At some stage I hope to take a dog-training course, as the best way to learn "to speak dog", but the above book provides some useful pointers and general examples to add to my own experiences which I presently apply when attempting to communicate with dogs and it tends to increase mine and the dogs positive experiences knowing some useful tips such as how to greet a dog properly, what it's body language/type of bark signals are communicating to you so that you can respond appropriately. Coming back to the above diagram of FLEXCIT: The Withdrawal Options Pie discusses the options of Brexit.

These options are ALL (without exception) Declarative "Brexit is... ." definitions, in answering "What Is Brext?" They are all FRAMED as Pro/Con declarations of variables along the lines of: Welfare of the UK vs Welfare of the UK in the EU. However, this requires a concept shift: Brexit's true frame of reference is >40yrs of EU Membership and hence "What Is Brexit?" depends on defining "What Is The EU?" as we defined in Brexit For Beginners.

Brexit presented as a puzzle as to "where does the UK/Britain fit in?"

Effectively the real definition of Brexit is the relationship of the UK outside (extra) the EU Treaties which apply to members represented in the EU political Institutions/Buildings. In all the Referendum questions the question of our "Relationship with the EU" is the defining variable. It is the central point of the argument as per Argument Abstraction. Here is defined the (1/3) Problem. I would encourage all arguments to assert that a history of the EU provides sufficient evidence of both "What is the EU?" and "What is OUR relationship with the EU?" under our membership?

What is very clear is that most of the debate and discussion hinges on the failure to define the problem of the EU via it's relationship status with the UK and hence in FLEXCIT the four sections on Brexit Options is the layer of confusion that reigns presently in the majority of communication on this subject.

In the above diagram taken from the article, whether or not wittingly or unwittingly, the author is suggesting something of his own mind and his own conception of Brexit (I suspect the actual picture is purchased from online where you can view it, to fit the magazine); whether or not such subtlety is incidental or emphatical, there's a lesson to learn here: When we communicate, our objective is to build "order" in our recipient's minds in a way that they understand, be it talking to one another, to dogs or to computers. I've spent some of my professional working life teaching children of different ages and you adopt different forms of communication with them; again with autistic children, significantly different communication is needed and so on. The above diagram provides a simple suggestion: Where does Britain fit in with the EU? The EU however itself is a collection of 28 members of different nations: Those other "pieces" should in fact be other national flags as part of the EU "puzzle". In fact a more useful diagram in my opinion is this one:-

Figure 1. Communication paths increase multiplicatively as team size increases linearly.

The above shows communication "overhead" from different sized teams of programmers from Less is More: Jumpstarting Productivity with Small Teams by Steve McConnell, 1997:-

"Communication flows more easily on small teams than large teams. If you’re the only person on a project, communication is simple. The only communication path is between you and the customer. As the number of people on a project increases, however, so does the number of communication paths. It doesn’t increase additively, as the number of people increases, it increases multiplicatively, proportional to the square of the number of people.

Figure 1 illustrates how a two-person project has only one path of communication. A five-person project has 10 paths. A 10-person project has 45 paths, assuming that every person talks to every other person. The 2% of projects that have 50 or more programmers have at least 1,200 potential paths. The more communication paths you have, the more time you spend communicating, and the more opportunities for communication mistakes are created. Thus, larger-size projects demand organizational techniques that streamline communication or limit it in sensible ways."

You can of course read more of this via the link, but it itself links to an article today via Lord Lamont in City AM:-

Lord Lamont uses another animal metaphor to make his point

"Politics often involves horse-trading, but I've never known a system of government where everything is determined by horse-trading as it is in the EU. Everything is a trade-off: "You want this on whisky? I'll give you this on horse meat."

This is the type of relationship we must have under the EU Treaties as the complexity of communication ramps up via the overhead of excessive political union. Remember in Legitimacy and Listening we looked at the extras involved in political governance:-

Cognitive Legitimacy
Moral Legitimacy
Pragmatic Legitimacy

Cognitatively the EU is illegitimate as per it's foundations of Supranational governance; it's morally illegitimate as per it's Great Deception on preventing democracy in it's signing of EU Treaties and when there has been Referendums it's rejection of them along with the EU supporters, our politicians who's broken promises also compromise their moral guidance. And finally pragmatically the more we experience of the EU the more it is not "working":-

EURO
Migration
Globalization

The political complexity generates great uncertainty systemically that cascades into the economies and policies of the members. But not only this; the huge huge overhead of communication and waste of our valuable prosperity: Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2):-

DO: Positive reinforcement (good relationship building) >> DON'T: Aversive reinforcement training (negative relationship building)

"Effectively people have to start trusting their own decision-making for their own lives, more than our politicians, otherwise they'll end up wasting yet more of our valuable time, our valuable attention and our valuable energy: The real roots of our prosperity."

I've seen so much low quality/deceptive/destructive communication on the EU and on Brexit and so much of it is a waste of time and words and often money.

In the next part I'll dig/sniff through the article in Money Week and despite the averred intention of the author to "leave" the EU, I'll explain why/how he's failed to communicate effectively and indeed possibly adds his own confusion and hence "communication overhead" to all mountains of the stuff as per Understanding The Mountains Of Madness.

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish