Back to Basics: Babel-18

Successful Communication: How?

In the previous blog Decrypting: What is Babel-17?, the lack of successful communication was pointed out with historic reference to the EURO debate and comparing it to today's EU debate and indeed seeing the "low drone" on BBC Question Time concerning The Norway Option, again and again and again, that substitutes thinking and communicating successfully, so successfully it's believed by so many to be "the real thing".

Daniel Dennett: Language allows us to "share knowledge and expertise" (rapidly)

In the above Daniel Dennett makes the telling observation that our language provides a high quality exchange of communication of ideas which can lead to a more rapid progress in solving problems and hence increasing knowledge.

There has been enormous "EXCLUSION" of people and experts from EU Debate. This has increased "OMISSION" of large areas of ideas from the debate. What we see & hear is "Babel-17".

Likewise the opposite holds, the omission of ideas will reduce the flow of ideas and increase in knowledge that is required to solve current problems collectively. An example of this is Exclusion from debate eg:-

Monbiot Grandstands At Environmental Committee, But Expert Witness Is Banned

This exclusion often goes in tandem with omission, though of course not always because knowledge and information depend on the total current state of knowledge (assuming it is all equally accessible!) which itself sits upon more unknowns than knowns and equally reflected in the number of people who have expert knowledge to those that do not.

An example of how this exclusion works and how it applies to our failing democracy:-

EU Referendum: democracy is broken

David Cameron "shares false ideas" to the Nation without challenge: There's no exchange of ideas only dictatorship of delivery of "dictated ideas".

It might considered that in choosing examples such as Dr. North that I too am excluding ideas that I don't like? Well I'm not I can look for the clearest ideas about the EU from it's most intelligent and honest proponents such as Andrew Duff:-

• ‘Facilitating Coexistence’: the endgame for Brexit 
• If not ‘ever closer union’, what next for Europe?

Andrew Duff is an expert on the EU and the EU Treaties and it's very easy to spot his consistency because he refers directly to the written words in the EU Treaties themselves to support his advocacy of the purpose of the European Union Political Project. In coming to my decision about my ideas about the European Union I am attempting to understand the other position that exists within the minds of these people. I'm sharing their ideas to come up with more ideas and in my case alternative ideas I find to be stronger.

Let's take an example of this. Stephen Pinker calls the problem of language communication the transition between:-

A Web of Ideas:-

 A String of Words:-

So we might hold a conversation about EU Membership and start it off with: "I'm Pro-EU because by being an EU Member it helps "achieving a cleaner and greener Britain."

I have a lot of sympathy for this sub-argument by itself and you'd assume that "Green Groups" must therefore be in full support of the EU? For example:-

Beavers in Scotland: A report to Scottish Government

"Assessing the need for beaver reintroduction has a legal basis, in particular the ‘Habitats Directive’. This requires EU Member States to study the desirability of reintroducing certain species, such as Eurasian beaver. The potential for beaver reintroduction to contribute to the aims of the ‘2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity’ (related to Natura 2000) is a further consideration"

 Looking at,

p.194 "Appendix 2: Summary  of Applicable Legislation" ((not exhaustive but most reflective):-

• Habitats Directive
• Fisheries and Salmond Act
• Pests and Disease and Control Directive
• Animal Welfare Act
• Countryside Act
• Nature Conservation Act
• European Zoo Directive
• Water Framework Directive
• Floods Directive
• Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

 Etc!
So even taking a highly specific case we easily get bogged down in the vast string of words required to describe the argument just for Beavers!

But this comes back to the above about "Exclusion and Omission". It seems like Monbiot's idea of planting trees in upland areas is a good idea. It certainly appeals to me and contributes to biodiversity and "Re-Wilding Brtain". But what if his evidence and ideas are not good enough given another set of ideas and research by another expert who was excluded and hence who's ideas were omitted? Well, it could have been a chance to refine those ideas. Maybe planting trees may help in some situations. Maybe in combination reintroduction of dam-building Beavers "could" also help much more effectively in slowing down the water flow?

Who knows. The exchange of ideas has been deprived of exploring and refining ideas which are inadequate by themselves. On the purely conservation side of reintroducing Beavers, I went to a talk at The Royal Zoological Society and the evidence was overwhelmingly that they are a net positive for biodiversity and habitat enrichment albeit not without some minor knock-on negative implications in specific areas.

The EU has taken on "totemic" significance in UK Politics: Beyond real democracy

I think if there's one argument that is most important against the EU membership it's this exclusion and omission and hence reduction of ideas. We have EFTA/EEA nations that have proven to be more prosperous than EZ/EEA nations suffering under the EUROZONE Crisis; yet our Prime Minister lies about "The Norway Option" repeatedly and deigns not to mention the EURO and our previous suggestion of membership of this at all.

Coming back to improving our communication again from Stephen Pinker:-

We have to find the means of establishing a shared focus of joint attention before productive communication of ideas is promoted; or else the quality of our communication is improved - in simple language!! It seems to me this is very important where we are talking and using strings of words to convey our ideas.

If it's possible to build up that "intellectual architecture" of a "web of ideas" to organize our thoughts and allow us to relate our arguments to an overall structure I think this will help reduce the detrimental tendencies of our politicians on both sides of the EU debate to exclude and omit ideas that expand the argument and increase knowledge and understanding subsequently.

 Web Of Ideas rejecting major arguments that are "Pro-EU". LHS: The arguments are generic and not exclusive to the EU. Middle: Political Union IS exclusive to EU Membership which I reject. The other major headline reasons I also reject and can use "headline" arguments to deal with economically and hence communicate effectively.

In the above digression on Beavers I was supportive of x1 Pro-EU idea except I believe it's not necessarily dependent on "Political Union" and may even be improved if we remove "political union". Yet I was bogged down in vast detail on a side of a side of a sub-specialist argument of a string of words!

Looking at my summary of ideas above to visualize ideas, the one "tick" is for Single Market access. Knowing The full EFTA/EEA aka "The Norway Option" argument for this I am very happy with this. Yet too many Pro-Brexit / Anti-EU supporters fail to appreciate this argument as per:-

The time has come to ignore the Leave campaigns

"For most European observers and officials this just won’t happen. No country has full access to the single market without making a contribution to the EU budget and accepting the four freedoms – and no such exception would be made for Britain. Campaigners assume that on Britain leaving, the EU’s remaining 27 members would be intent on helping. This is paradoxical given that the same people campaign to leave on the basis of these states’ unwillingness to accede to British demands for reform."

I read this before then seeing it on Pete North's blog site. Irrespective that the author Jacek Rostowski is correct here, what he's done is single out x1 argument from a set of flawed ideas supported by the major Leave Campaigns.

In doing so he's able to limit and reduce (ie omit and exclude ideas) the Pro-Brexit argument and then speak via "authority" on the sanctioned ideas aka more Babel-17:-

"I have seen for myself, at more than 60 meetings of finance ministers, the influence Britain has when in the room. Decisions to deepen the single market, cut the EU budget (unfortunately), reduce the legislative burden and increase competitiveness have all been taken in response to British voices. Over 40 years of membership, the UK has negotiated advantages for itself on a vast range of issues, especially financial services. This influence would be immediately relinquished at the point of a leave vote, as remaining members would position themselves to “divvy up” the British cake."

It's a great shame this grand speaker does not clear up both sides of the argument for everybody.

I have, On the one side The Fundamental Law of the EU and 40 years of trends of our membership to compare and contrast with the other side you have The Market Solution.

Each is a web of ideas. What we need is more open and more effective communication on each for lots of different people to share these ideas. But there is a qualitative choice:-

• Pro-EU: Listen to Leaders: You will get minor change in service of the present conditions.
• Pro-Brexit: Listen to Experts: You will eventually get major changes in service of the future conditions; but you will not likely be able to recognize it: It is for many/most "unknown unknowns". But these are just the kind of changes that equate to the sharing and increase of real knowledge.

The Leaders are good at excluding it seems to me. Whereas the experts are good at identifying what ideas are omitted: And hence changing the entire nature of the argument - if they are allowed to be included - in our communication of ideas or "democracy".

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ~ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Samuel R. Delany's sci-fi novel Babel-17 tells the story of a humanity encountering an alien language in the far future galaxy. This language "appears" to threaten invasion, but in order to counter the threat, the messages must first be understood. Not only the above consideration from Wittgenstein is implicit in this contention, but also:

"...my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."

Here we have two considerations: The limitation of language and the limitations of what we select in order to use language to communicate. In fact Wittgenstein manages to get to the heart of the story in Babel-17 without giving away the underlying plot of the story.

Now imagine these 2 core elements of the language used in the our politics of EU Referendum and Brexit in the Legacy News-Media broadcasting the ideas from the Top Tiers of the Political Food Web:-

• (1): Without the core concepts of understanding - one cannot speak without being able to think first.
• (2): What is said necessarily omits a vast range of potential communication.
• (1) + (2) = (3): Combining both: If the language itself omits the words and hence ideas, then these in reverse prevent the necessary thinking!!!

By now I hope you are reading this, thinking I knew this blogger was cracked; a little too quirky and now banging on about sci-fi and Wittgenstein and language... !

 A "low drone" dominates and is broadcast incessantly

Now, instead of travelling far into the future and facing the seemingly inscrutable dangers of an alien language, let us take a journey back into the recent past that already looks so far away: PANORAMA The Great Euro Debate TX. 27/1/97.

 Panorama: The Great Euro Debate - 27.01.97

• "The words used in the argument are a foreign language."
• "Strong passions"
• "Most of us aren't well informed"

Our next witness is John Monks, the 
General Secretary of the Trades Union 
Congress, a man who fears for Britain’s 
workforce, that if they are outside a 
single currency life will be a cold and 
uncomfortable place, and Peter Sutherland 
questions him first. I should just point 
out that friendly witnesses are questioned 
for a rather shorter period than hostile 
witnesses, which is why Ruth Lea had 
rather more time than you did.  The 
opposite will happen when the other 
witnesses come in.  Peter Sutherland.

 Peter Sutherland 
 Well let me take up the invitation from 
that introduction.  What is your view as a 
union leader of the effect on jobs of 
staying out of a single currency when it 
is created? What will the effect be?


 
 John Monks 
 Well on balance I think it would be 
Caption: damaging. Immediately I think we would 
JOHN MONKS pay a premium in interest rates. I think 
GENERAL SECRETARY, TUC our interest rates would go higher than 
that for the Euro area and I think that 
would be a damaging consequence.

Peter Sutherland 
 So that would cost business and investors 
money?

 John Monks 
 Well it would cost everybody - mortgage, 
people who have got mortgages and so on.  
Because we’ve got a record of devaluation 
and the Germans haven’t, which will be the 
core of the system, we would pay I think 
greater, a premium on our interest rates. 
I think too that we would lose some of the 
inward investment  which has been very 
important to Britain. Something like forty 
per cent of our exports at the moment come 
from foreign-owned firms and that’s been a 
tremendous boost at a time when a lot of 
British industries of the traditional kind 
have been struggling. And the third reason 
I would say it’s damaging is that our 
influence in this thing called Europe, the 
European Union, would be so much less. We 
would be peripheral to what was going on. 


 We would be in a small minority of 
countries and I think for Great Britain 
that’s a pretty hopeless future. We want 
to be at the centre of things, not on the 
edge. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Do you think it would be possible to 
Caption:  sustain membership over the medium to long 
PETER SUTHERLAND term by remaining outside a single 
CHAIRMAN, GOLDMAN SACHS currency with virtually everybody else in 
INTERNATIONAL the European Union inside a single 
currency? 

John Monks 
 You see I think it would be difficult to 
stay in the European Union indefinitely if 
we were floating our currencies against 
the Euro. If, as some people would argue, 
we actually pegged the level of the pound 
to the Euro then we get all the 
disadvantages of being in the Euro without 
 any of the influence and the advantages 
and probably still pay a premium on 
interest rates but I think, if we float 
against it, then it’s a matter of time 
before there’s tremendous tensions between 
us and the Euro area about devaluations or 
revaluation, probably devaluations on the 
long-term given our recent economic 
history, and that could blow us out of the 


 European Union which would be tremendously 
damaging. 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Thank you, Mr Monks.

 David Dimbleby 
 Norman Lamont. 

What is absolutely fascinating is that the time is different, yet the pattern of the subject is almost identical to the present prevalent "LOW DRONE" we find drowning us in the Legacy News-Media in the newspapers, webpages, radio and television mediums.

You can read the above or watch the video link.

I was just watching the latest BBC Question Time and the deception over the Norway Option was manifest once again:-

Summary from White Wednesday refining Paul Reynolds "Norway Scorecard"

Unfortunately this scorecard won't be broadcast far and wide by the BBC so instead we have:-

• Shabana Mahmood - Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
• Sal Brinton - House of Lords Peer and President of the Liberal Democrats

Emitting their "low drone" and suffusing the British electorate with it. Do they know what they speak of? If not they cannot speak of it. 

 Here's a most illuminating consequence of our "Babel-17" language on the EU Referendum: Pawel Swidlicki now TALKS FOR PEOPLE!!! because he knows what they want - OR, because people like him exploit the "low drone" language that people use to speak about the subject.... [Details: Norwegian model or Norway Option a lot like EU / Europe; Flexit or FLEXCIT]

There are 2 very hard results to discuss here:-

1. The language of the EURO matches the language today of the EU immaculately in it's shape, it's pattern, it's tendencies: Above all: It's severe limitations.
2. This language allows our "betters" to think for us and hence speak instead of us.

 It's probably for the best if you don't give Martin Durkin any money

Yet more Babel-17; coming to cinemas near you in 2016!!!

Sticky Ideas: Progression via Selection

Spring Progression: Snowdrops followed by Daffodils followed by Bluebells

I recently spotted some of the first Snowdrops of Spring; which is always a welcome sight, not only as they are beautiful flowers but also they remind me of the good things to come, to anticipate positively the future progression through mid-Spring with Daffodils and then into late Spring with Bluebells.

"It is estimated that 25%–50% of all common bluebells may be found in the British Isles."

 In the previous blog it seems like we're trapped in "Winter freeze" in the progression of our Referendum debate and discussion, EU Politics: Groundhog Day (2nd February), and so the question is: Why is this? We already noted that some very Sticky Ideas dominate the discussion as per Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation, with David Davies talking about "German Cars!" on the Daily Politics today perpetuating these empty ideas ie "political sloganeering memes". We've looked at Richard Reed of Innocent Smoothies banking on these empty memes to propound his own ignorance and dam up progress.

Simple … Unexpected … Concrete … Credentialed … Emotional … Story

• Be a master of exclusion.   Less is more.  Ruthlessly prioritize and focus on the vital few.
• Boil it down to simple + profound. Create messages that are both simple and profound.
• Create engagement.  Use surprise, emotions, concrete images, and curiosity.
• Surprise people.  Surprise people’s expectations.
• Have testable ideas.  Have a ‘”try it yourself” approach and help people test out your ideas for themselves

I think one of the challenges has been to provide a counter vision that can become a "Sticky Idea" more powerful than the above Confabulations. One sticky idea that "Brexiteers" need to get their head around is Selection ie the point 1 above: Exclusion:-

Progression: High Diversity of Ideas (LHS - BEFORE) ====>>>> Low Diversity of Ideas (RHS - AFTER)

In the above Referendum, if it is a well-structured Campaign before the Polling Day, there will be a competitive selection by the entire electorate (huge sample size ie full population sample!). Listening to Margaret Beckett also on The Daily Politics Show coughing up the "terribly dark and dangerous vision of Brexit" suggests to me a paucity of strong ideas on the Pro-EU side of the argument. But it's very easy for people like her to attack the Pro-Brexit (Leave) side of the argument due to the sheer diversity of ideas, many of them weak.

Oral statement to Parliament: Prime Minister's statement on EU renegotiation - 3 February 2016

David Cameron's powerful edict: Never say never: "We Shall NEVER surrender!"

It is interesting to hear David Cameron's speech above for what he will present as his "British Model" to the British public for the Referendum. "Never" is a very powerful word to utter; a clear evocation echoing our history, patriotism and sovereignty under duress...

If he really means all these things using such powerful evocation of the nation's identity and foundations of our society and state, then surely for "NEVER" to really mean "NEVER" then:-

Achieves that unequivocally. In effect:-

What we see in the above tabulation above, is that:-

• The top-half of the table, 1-11 = Political Union. 
• The bottom-half of the table, 12-18 = Single Market (+ Global Market).

 Aka what we've already met before: The Market Solution: A Growing Solution. So what we have concluded is that The Single Market (+) as part of Withdrawal aka Brexit/Leave is a critically positive outcome + the removal of political union (-).

However for this progression to work, selection must operate. And in my opinion the biggest selective pressure on the UK is indeed our >40yrs of EU Membership! Which boils down to Article 50 Lisbon Treaty; the latest and last Treaty we were signed up to by our Prime Minister which we did not get a Referendum on - until now.

The Referendum Question depends on The Single Market which depends on the stipulated terms of our EU Political Union membership (presently) = ARTICLE 50 LISBON TREATY

Progression is via a feedback loop: The Referendum Question requires Single Market guarantee to then vote Leave to remove the Political Union. Removal of the Political Union requires: Article 50! The Selection Bottleneck = Article 50 to withdraw/exit from Political Union.

So, how to make this idea Sticky? Using the advise we must refine our message and Exclude, Boil It Down, Surprise People and Tell A Story:-

EXCLUDE:

• This is the present state of the debate: Stuck in a cloud of confusion created as much by the "eurosceptic aristocracy" as by the Pro-EU's who profiteer from this behaviour that stops the feed-back loop above.

-

 SIMPLIFY:

• Do you trust David Cameron and our political class when they speak to you? Or do you trust a practical and working plan that matches words and actions:-

 +

=

 SURPRISE:

•  Do you know about Globalization of Regulations and Standards and the many many many Real Top Tables we could gain a place at "sans political union" in Supranational EU?

&

 TEST:

• Put your name on the future, for the first time in >40yrs...

EU Politics: Groundhog Day (2nd February)

Groundhog Day: Six more weeks of Winter or is Spring on the way?

A very popular and very funny and brilliantly created film is the comedy film: Groundhog Day starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell. The premise of the film is that Bill Murray for reasons unknown must live the same day over and over again, which is Groundhog Day:-

"Groundhog Day (Canadian French: Jour de la Marmotte; Pennsylvania German: Grundsaudaag, Murmeltiertag) is a traditional holiday celebrated on February 2. According to folklore, if it is cloudy when a groundhog emerges from its burrow on this day, then the spring season will come early; if it is sunny, the groundhog will supposedly see its shadow and retreat back into its den, and winter weather will persist for six more weeks."

It would have been "perfect timing" to have written this yesterday to coincide with February 2nd, but I was busy with The Market Solution: A Growing Solution and the newspapers and interviews and commentary have mostly all landed today on the question of: "EU Reform" and "EU Renegotiation" so that David Cameron can hold the "EU Referendum" and "get it out of the way". That last phrase is I think very telling:-

• Holding a Referendum on Cameron's "spin" not on >40yrs x7 Major Treaties is somehow going to resolve the question from now until June 23rd? Looking at below, the failure to serve people more democratically is as much a part of the reason to leave the EU and to not trust the politicians latest promises and their dismissal of the final delivery of a referendum, now that it has been officially offered:-

 A Growing Political Debt: Stuffing >40yrs and x7 Major Treaties into Cameron's reform renegotiation for the referendum to "refer to the people"...

• Apparently it's "bad for the economy" so needs to be gotten rid of; but very little argument about the ability for a Referendum to capture the minds and imaginations of the electorate and turn out in large numbers to participate in Real (direct) Democracy on a singular and most important political subject.
• If people are bored of this referendum in the news, why is that? Is that the fault of the politicians and legacy news-media? The trivialization of a problem to be "gotten out of the way" given it is such a large subject.
• We know that a subject becomes boring when:-

 Main Priority for "Referral To The People": Education & Time To Think to make good informed and well-reasoned decisions on large subjects.

It's interesting to compare, but if the EURO had had more debate and more open discussion, then a better decision may have been made? So to consider the Referendum as "something to get out of the way" I think is very short-sighted.

Some summaries of this Groundhog Day EU Politics:-

The Cam Sham? Rule One Of Politics Is Never Trust A Tory

 The Boiling Frog provides the most penetrating consideration of the present situation in my opinion: Namely what are the implications for the visible denouement being played out. That is to say: Or is it? And that further is to arrive at a very concrete conclusion: If David Cameron must resort to shadows and spin on the subject of the EU Referendum via EU Reform via EU Renegotiation, then the subject itself is casting too long a shadow over the functional purpose of politics in our political institutions, I would conclude.

Is the sun rising or setting on Political Union underneath EU Treaties for the UK?

Does the EU cast too large a shadow over UK Politics, it's very presence casting too much into shadow and doubt and uncertainty?

What are we to make of David Cameron's slippery and shoddy reform promises?

• A Reformed EU? ~ Lost Leonardo
• EU Referendum: a list of empty promises ~ EUReferendum.com
• This is not the deal you’re looking for…..move along ~ The Brexit Door
• The death of the Conservative Party ~ Pete North

Pete North has the right of it: Their very behaviour, conduct and dysfunctional politics (their shadow) of our politicians is answer already and answer more than enough, itself.

I suspect The Boiling Frog above is correct. We'll get a relatively poor deal in February, then I think the EU will work it's magic on Migration (Dublin IV?) and with that final flourish Cameron may go for a Summer Referendum to "get it out of the way"; if he and the EU have concluded that a Treaty Political I.O.U Promise for Association Membership in late 2017 is not on the current agenda, for whatever reasons; and that without that his chances diminish irreversibly with time (and the spread of information and public understanding of the subject).

Only such dysfunctional politics could produce a June 23rd Referendum date given all the above and against:-

• EC Recommendations
• Regional Elections in the UK
• Summer holiday season and major sports events
• The lack of "fundamental change" once again promised by David Cameron and once again demonstrating he's a serial liar when it comes to the EU.

Again our politicians and media commentators fail to point out how and why this is dysfunctional to even talk up the prospects of an "early referendum". Alternatively it may simply be an exercise to "park" the EU Referendum jitters with complex papers and details until 2017? Either way all we're really doing is chasing after political shadows and making predictions based off such lack of substance!

The Market Solution: A Growing Solution

The Market Solution - A Dummies Guide

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

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

To add another alternative, accessible version:-

•  The Market Solution ~ A Mind Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Behold - !!

We have discussed:-

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

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

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

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

Globalisation is killing the EU. Bring it on

The Olympics: "World Stage"

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

EU Referendum: an immensely complex operation

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

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

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

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

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

 The Harrogate Agenda

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

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

Leave Campaign: Asking The Right Questions

The Matrix of "Remove + Keep + Reclaim + Gain" within the Leave Question

The Electoral Commission has done a good job in converting the "In/Out" or "Yes/No" question into a "Remain/Leave" question. However it's still a very limited means of capturing the most relevant headline information per response. The above I hope helps demomstrate this?

Electoral Commission: Our advice on the proposed EU referendum question

The major consideration for Leave respondents is:-

• Remove
• Keep
• Reclaim
• Gain

Remove is discussed by Ben Kelly The supranational root of our EU problem. It should be clear that signing up to the Supranational "Ever Closer Union" tends to make those people who want to see more of each member nations' sovereignty yielded to this organization, justified in their motivations to achieve this - by invariably whatever effective means possible: Usually the more invisible the more effective. One of the real positives of removing these, via Triggering Article 50 (via playing by the rules) is that our Democratic Mandate to the government to carry out this result via Article 50 is effective also in removing such motivations that undermine and disrupt and produce disunity and deception. All catelogued in Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North's history of the European Union: The Great Deception. For many people who support Brexit this is the definitive result. Anything else is a bonus? It's also the primary definition of Brexit: Our leaders signatures or our signatures on joining and leaving.

Keep has been discussed "ad nauseum"; a particularly good summary at Campaign For An Independent Britain on The Market Solution primary path EFTA/EEA and this follows the rational of an interim state to ensure the above Political Question being resolved is not way-laid or sabotaged by Economic Questions. Hence the idea behind The Norway Option which secures Single Market Access, ensures cooperative schemes are all carried out to everyone's benefit. This is the mature attitude to ensure equal partners in our withdrawal and hence mutually agreeable and beneficial: It is of course a democratic decision and that must be respected by all: The way forward. It does hinge on Freedom Of Movement being conceded for this transition period. If you compare all that is gained then you'll find it a worthy concession to keep for the time-being.

Reclaim: If you have followed the history of the Fisheries by John Ashworth you'll see that it is a source of national shame concerning our politicians and civil servants against the people they are elected to serve. We will reclaim several major policy areas but it will take TIME! to reformat these over years.

Gain: Perhaps one of the least well appreciated or understood: We gain representation at the global bodies which have been advancing rapidly through the globalization process of regulations and standards where real global influence can be wielded. This is a true benefit and immediate upon withdrawal. Pete North has blogged about this extensively.

The exercise above is to "tot up" POSITIVES FOR LEAVING. Remember the "?" of Freedom of Movement if not combined will prevent any positives from being achieved most notably the "Remove" fundamentals of Brexit.

 Questions Behind The Question: EU Referendum: Remove, Keep, Reclaim, Gain

For more information on the questions and to try the exercise (removal and keep at least) head on over to a Question Survey at Survey Monkey I wrote up with some descriptions per option to flex out the details and your understanding.

However there's a very important element to asking the right questions for the Leave Campaign. If we do not, guess what? Deceptive Actors will ask the wrong questions in our place and sabotage the argument, as some examples will demonstrate:-

• Immigration: Cameron’s Emergency Brake (The Brexit Door); Immigration is this all we're arguing about? (White Wednesday)
• Enemy Within: Jurassic Park (Lost Leonardo), Conscious Free Conservatives (Semi-Partisan Politics)
• Fallacy of the Better/Best Deal NOW!: Eurosceptic tantrums will keep us in the EU (Pete North)
• Legacy News-Media Bombardment of FUD: And so the FUD continues……… (Scribblings From Seaham)
• Cameron using his Prestige to Deceive: Cameron's red card is a political decoy (Pete North)

And dominating the debate with a "Free Pass" in the Legacy News-Media keeping the public ignorant and in the dark:-

Beavis: "We'll %*&£!!! if we leave the EU" Butthead: "Trade Deal! Trade Deal!"

What a stupid spectacle the BBC serves up to the public; it's "biff-bam" modus operandi.

It's the same with Daniel Hannan, John Redwood, David Campbell-Bannerman, Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage. Our politicians are too busy trying to sound important to be able to develop the education of knowledge for the voters to be able to understand asking the right questions for either Remain or Leave.

Leave HQ: With whom should the power rest?

 

 

EU Reform: Asking The Wrong Question

The jam is not for the wasps: They're considered "a nuisance" to trick, trap & remove

I'm not a fan of jam traps for wasps. I actually do think the best way is to be both careful with sweet foods when outside and to provide an alternative sweet source at some distance elsewhere for the wasps if they turn up. Live and let live. But the trick is clear: The jam of a trap is not for the wasps, they don't know this, as they're simple insects, but it effectively "keeps them out of the way".

Now, why's this important? The reason is that the "EU Reform" is a method to get people out of the way. Another example of this previously used was given by John Ashworth in his history of the Common Fisheries Policy series of articles at Campaign For An Independent Britain:

Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

"To quote David Howarth again: it is of our own doing that we are in this club. (The EU) While we are in the club, we are bound by its rules. If we object to the rules, we can leave the club, but we cannot ourselves, by ourselves, change those rules—they can be changed only according to the rules of that club.

This causes a dilemma for David Cameron. He has no intention of leaving the EU"

The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?

"One theme that runs through the UK’s 43-year involvement with the EEC/EU is that our politicians –  supported by the Civil Servants – have done everything in their power to keep the UK locked into the Common Fisheries Policy and indeed, to the EU as a whole. There have been constant assurances and promises everything was being done for UK fishermen and the future was guaranteed to be better. There were glowing expectations of what reform would bring.

Yet the opposite has happened. These empty promises merely kept the UK locked into a system which progressively strangled our industry and the fishing communities. Constantly a light of hope and change for the better appeared to be shining at the end of the long tunnel but as you got nearer, the light disappeared further away into another tunnel so as to continue the flow of implementing integration – as commanded in the Treaties – often by stealth. An EU Common policy has one destination, a Union fishing fleet in Union waters."

 It is hard to do better than read John Ashworth's series of articles on the CFP as an exemplar of our relationship with the Political Union EU. But if "EU Reform" is the wrong question, then what is the right question?

It depends.

It is possible to demonstrate the opposite to asking these questions per side of the argument and show that asking the wrong question is the epitome of the art of deception:-

 Sunday Politics: Open Europe are a "EU Reform" aka "Remain" organization asking WHY? Leave questions and leading to deception: "Regulations Bonfire Cut Red-Tape"

If you are on the side of "Remain", you have this question to ask:-

• WHY should we Remain a Member of the Political Union (EU)?

If you are on the side of "Leave", you have this question to ask:-

• HOW should we Leave the Political Union (EU)?