FLEXCIT Application: 0. A Framework for Fisheries

 Restore Britain's Fish: A Model Example of FLEXCIT Applied

Primary Source Material (the DNA):-

• The Great Deception (A History of the EU) ~ Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North
•  FLEXCIT: The Market Solution to leaving the EU ~ Dr. Richard North et al.
• Consultation on a  National Policy on Fisheries Management in UK Waters ~ Owen Paterson January2005 
• Campaign For An Independent Britain: The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) ~ John Ashworth:-

1. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 1
2. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 2
3. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 3
4. The Common Fisheries Policy – Part 4
5. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 5: Spanish Accession
6. The Common Fisheries Policy part 6: The public swallowed the propaganda
7. The Common Fisheries Policy part 7: FleXcit: Our fisheries’ future.
8. The Common Fisheries Policy Part 8: Can we believe anything?
9. Cameron’s deceit over sovereignty

Correct Framing, Logical Reasoning, Comprehensive Organizing, Balance of Evidence = Brexit Solution Selection within FLEXCIT Paradigm Shift framework

In the previous blog, FLEXCIT: Back From The Future I think I managed successfully to finally encapsulate FLEXCIT in a visible and accessible form for people who have zero knowledge of the subject of the EU Referendum and Brexit. FLEXCIT: The Market Solution can be thought of as the "DNA": It is a compacted store of extraordinarily organized and complex information. Most people will not read this "genetic code". Hence for this "DNA" to be useful, it requires people to transcribe it into different "USE-ABLE FORMS". In this case we're going to do just that starting with The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as example of applying our method to harvest data/evidence to feed into the question of Supranationalism or Intergovernmentalism. The references above provide all the data. What people need is not mountains of data, they need organization of it:-

Evidence of a Problem: UK Fisheries under Supranationalism = Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

To provide an example the form mentioned above would be suitable for a 10-20 page pamphlet as a visual guide to the referendum and how people can structure their choice to vote to Remain or to vote to Leave. The challenge of the EU is to show to people that our Policy Control is best served when it is by self-governance of the people by the people as well as the positive alternative vision that replaces Supranationalism with Intergovernmentalism. So using our method on this data/evidence set of Fisheries let's begin:-
 

Inheritance: Method to Organize the Evidence for Fisheries - "Use-ably"

The reason we use this structured method is that it feeds into the upper levels which are most relevant to our Referendum Question itself and in a form that is easy for people to appreciate when they (millions) make their choice.

Each of the above:

• Problem
• Solution
• Outcome

Will be summarized from the primary research and references, then at the end abstraction of the "common messages". In turn these common messages will themselves become the form for a new form for people to use to easily understand the EU Referendum question inheriting the positive qualities that originate in the works above (the DNA) and ensuring a direct link to a common source of origin and expertise.

FLEXCIT: Back From The Future

• Tier 1 = "............................"
  
  
• Tier 2 = Conceptual Framework
  
  
• Tier 3 = Problem-Solving Process
  
  
• Tier 4 = Application
  
  
• Tier 5 = The (complete) Market Solution
  

In the previous blog FLEXCIT: A Paradigm Shift the key point was made that, to use a metaphor, "Brexit is a bridge - only". It is merely the evidence that it is legitimate (valid) and possible (viable) to withdraw from the EU. To quote Dr. RAE North in EU Referendum: suffering in silence:-

"By way of background, we are engaged in the political battle of the century, and to win it we need to do three things. Firstly, we need to convince enough voters that we need to leave the EU. Secondly, we need to offer them an alternative vision – one which is better than anything the EU has to offer. Thirdly, we have to be able to reassure people that moving from the EU to our alternative is practicable and safe. That is our so-called exit plan.

These three things I have previously described as the "three-legged stool". In my view, they are not optional. Together, they comprise the essential elements of the campaign. Without them, I am convinced that we cannot win this referendum.

What we don't need, therefore, is people of status and some prestige coming out of the woodwork, promoting ridiculous and totally unworkable ideas for an exit plan, and then undermining the work of those people (such as myself and all the other contributors to Flexcit) who have come up with a workable plan."

Effectively FLEXCIT/The Market Solution is the full context within which the solution (Brexit) is held between Problem and Outcome; and only one (but central) element of the full picture:

Incorrect/Zero Framing of the Problem:

Brexit: A small but pivotal part of the full story: NOT the full story!

What we see when the context/framing is not applied correctly is a list of declarative battles over what is the problem and what is the solution? Nobody apparently knows and both "sides of the argument" are apparently equivalent: They're not - they descend into low quality arguments as per Argument Abstraction:-

The Political Dark Ages Today: Exemplified by these "prestigious groups" AND The Economist

In Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule it was pointed out that most of the EU Referendum discussion and Brexit by implication is wasteful communication, "mountains of madness" in the legacy news-media and "piles of garbage" produced by Westminster politicians. The assertion was made that the Positive Vision as per Dr. RAE North,above, is predominantly the future creation of a genuine single market in which Britain plays a leading role amongst equals, due to initiating this change, not by default of dominating.

However there is another positive outcome preceding this one: "Which is which when all is said and done?" And that is the very process of holding a referendum is an opportunity to increase the quality of arguments and increase the positive engagement of people into the political decision making process itself.

If you've noticed our politicians for decades and in great volume have talked about "uncertainty" in our politics: They're the biggest source of this so-called "political disease" as per The Root Of All Uncertainty, both the above two sides represented/hand-picked in The Economist above are full of The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich.

In fact what we're already doing is starting to describe the problem of our EU Membership indirectly. But there is much much more to do to build up the argument to it's full completion:-

FLEXCIT: The sum of it's parts and more than the sum of it's parts

FLEXCIT: A Paradigm Shift

What is Brexit? A Bridge. What is Flexcit? A Paradigm Shift.

Brexit is misconceptualized in almost all communication and particularly by the majority of "Leave" supporters.

• Brexit = A Bridge or "A Process". It is not the same as "The Outcome".

THE LEAVE ALLIANCE

Flexcit - The Market Solution to leaving the EU

Dr Richard A E North with Robert Oulds of the Bruges Group and the assistance of readers of EUReferendum.com

Outcomes: The 20:80 Rule

This is now the 81st blog post, so it seems appropriate to try to change the nature of Brexit Discussion to the essential "Positive Vision" component. Looking at the above graph, this is an illustration of a Power Law, in the above case the form of the 20:80 Rule aka The Pareto Principle that people are more familiar with:-

"The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.^[2] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who, while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, published his first paper "Cours d'économie politique." Essentially, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; Pareto developed the principle by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas."

Namely and only in this case to illustrate as opposed to measure accurately: What we talk about when we talk about Brexit and our Referendum on the EU is prodigiously, prodigiously distorted. It's a reflection on the extremely low quality communication that is passed off as national decision-making in the UK/Britain today by our "leaders".

The even worse news is that the above 20:80 Rule is merely more memorable for illustration given Brexit discussions. I have not measured and categorized all the Brexit discussions the volume in the legacy news-media and I suspect in our politics conducted in Westminster but the above Power Law type is "too generous" the reality I guess is much closer to 5:95 or even 1:99...

That said, we can use the 20:80 Rule to illustrate a fundamental problem with the EU:-

The QMV voting percentages in the EU Parliament for example follow broadly population. But the effect of comparing GDP of EU Members shows a similarity to the Power Law above. Namely the economic power of a few large members suggests an uneven distribution of economic importance.

Here's the suggested problem: The UK as a member of the Supranational EU gains advantage ONLY from Single Market membership. It actually receives disadvantage from Political Union membership; where different political priorities interfere with the progression of the Single Market and with the growth in World Trade.

Therefore I would say a lot of the Brexit discussions FAIL to properly address: What is our desired outcome when/if we leave the EU? The answer is the reformation of the Single Market to globalization without the complications of Political Union (eg EURO). The problem is Supranationalism prohibits this process for the UK: Instead we have the deceptions of our politicians who are incompetent and liars and do not appear to have any motivation to resolve the problem, in fact they "prolong it".

EU Political Union of "Concentric Circles"

EU-Centric Europe: Illustrative gradations of Core = Centralization of Power to Outer-Periphery removal of political power

As per Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.0 UNECE:-

"Even within ther EU, there are different levels of commitment, with the inner core defined as the eighteen eurozone members iniwhat is often described as a Europe of concentric circles. The non-eurozone Schengen and then non-Schengen members are described as the outer core zone, while accesssion countries and EEA members are part of the "periphery". Neighbours are known as the "outer periphery".

"This image of concentric circles conveys the reality of an EU-centric Europe, where those furthest from the centre have least power."

 What we can clearly summarize:-

• Communication of the EU Political Project is horribly skewed in UK Politics.
• Members are unequal economically within it.
• Members are unequal politically within it.
• Members are in all likihood moving in different directions due to the preceding variability.

 And yet we have EU Treaties that tie all these nations together. The next step is:-

• The Monetary/Fiscal Union of the EUROZONE
• Aligning with the globalization process to boost prosperity

Effectively the UK in it's own decisions should be considering that the former is not a realistic nor desirable outcome. So the question remains why have we not had more discussion on the creation of a genuine single market and focus on what this really means?

Even the former has not been fully explored and discussed in the UK:-

FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU - 11.1: Breaking away from Brussels:-

"For instance, when a group of European think-tanks in 2013 published a proposed draft treaty to take the EUropean Union on from the Lisbon Treaty, which they called "A Fundamental Law of the European Union", they defined the new status of "Association Member", whereby states could take part in specific policies of the EU - such as the single Market - without committing to the full acquis. This would accord a position of less power and influence to those states which adopted this status."

The biggest (political) "splash" is in the center!

Looking at the existing alternative:-

"A new EFTA-EU relationship, therefore, would still put it's members in a subordinate position, in the outer circle with Brussels still in the central, dominant position, perpetuating the idea of a Europe of concentric circles.

Despite this very obvious handicap, the "No to EU" coalition in Norway would welcome this development. There is considerable antipathy towards the Agreement and an aspiration to replace it with a free trade agreement. Here, British membership of EFTA is seen as increasing the negotiating power of the bloc. That position may be strengthened by other member states which may wish  to leave the EU."

 There's no protestant or catholic when it comes down to trade.

With possibly Denmark as well this would the ~20:80 forging the Single Market while the rest forge on with Political Union.

The Root Of All Uncertainty

The Uncertainty Precept: Start with the right question(s).

Quoting Wikipedia once again on the "Uncertainty Principle" (must donate!):-

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

So "uncertainty" is in-built it seems into the very nature of the realistic universe! Or to adapt it for a more "relate-able" misuse:-

And this is indeed a hilarious transposition of "uncertainty" when we also find the same "joke"as noted by Mr. Brexit:-

London School of Economics' CEP publishes partial and inaccurate Brexit report

CEP: "You Just Made That Up."

Interestingly enough we can actually take what Dilbert says above and apply it to the CEP "analysis" above:

"If you understand a project you won't know it's cost, and vica versa." ~ Dilbert

Effectively to para-phrase: "because we don't understand the project (Brexit)" we therefore DO understand it's costs: They're "ginormous"!! The Project Uncertainty Principle, in action.

This is attributed to "uncertainty". So how do we reduce/remove uncertainty?

What does "uncertainty" look like = Bad Decision-Making ; What is at the root of uncertainty = Not asking the right questions aka 1. DEFINE THE PROBLEM

Once we use such a framework it should be noted, CEP above launches into Stage 3. [See Above: "What are the UK's options outside the European Union?"] suggesting there is uncertainty over 3 million jobs and The Single Market and the EU are all blurred into one amorphous and undefined entity to which all manner of uncertainty properties can be attributed.

But the dual fallacies are both launching into Stage 4. AND not starting at Stage 1.

I think this simple process explains probably 95% of all the work we see published by various think tanks on the EU Referendum and on Brexit as per Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com.  It's staggered that our National Decision-Making apparatus and institutions is so primitive in it's observable out-put.

Progress? Nope. Uncertainty? Yup.

The enormous disregard for The History of the European Union as described and defined in The Great Deception has been a key contributor to failure of progression of the argument.

If anyone is interested in Brexit, they must know what the defined problem is as per Lost Leonardo: For The Avoidance of Doubt. But this also allows an insight into the workings of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" who are taking over the Leave Campaign forming their own "Policy Ponzi" scheme as per Leave HQ: What's Wrong With the WTO Option?. Why? Why do they do this? What we see by the process of obscuring the definition of the problem ie ignoring The Great Deception is that it means the "Consideration Set" is kept broad and undefined. Here is the space with which the politicians can peddle their "Policy Ponzis" as per The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich to a bewildered public. By going through the entire cycle of Decision-Making we can connect the original problem itself to a form that is "fitted" to democratic decision-making on a mass scale for voters to be an executive part of the full decision-making cycle. But it relies on HIGH QUALITY!

It's funny you don't need the likes of LSE or CER who are paid so much by such powerful entities with such jealously guarded vested interests, a simple tabulation tells the story as effectively and more clearly. And as pointed out they deliberately go about:-

Finding The Right Answer(s) to The Wrong Questions.

There seems to be a lot of money and prestige sloshing around in those think tanks as per The Political Food Web of Prestige and possibly far too much geopolitical power projection invested in the EU to allow us plebs to decision on the right question: EU Reform: Asking The Wrong Question.

Is economics in the core defined problem? No. So remove it.

We can see that CER and Open Europe are determined to also ask the wrong questions and get the right questions on economic projections. This is why FLEXCIT removes this area from the original question and from the practical implementation of Brexit too. No other Brexit plan do we see this simple high quality thinking.

And this itself can be used to reinforce our Problem Definition:-

Just look at all these useless reports that fail to Define The Problem and Ask The Right Questions.

Our Membership of the Supranational EU is itself a deterioration of democratic decision-making processes as a nation!!

"If it sounds too good to be true": Elliott, Lea, Campbell-Bannerman, Redwood, Cash, Hannan, Carswell, Cummings,

Why don't the above avowed "Leave Campaigners" seek to solve this problem via higher quality decision-making and hence avoid uncertainty? It's their trade as "eurosceptic aristocrats" in SW1 as part of the political class: Farage on that front is certainly right!

It's up to voters to force such people either out of the way as part of the problem preventing problem definition or make them part of the solution:-

Why Norwegians never wanted EU membership

Importance of sovereignty

"Many voters had sovereignty at the top of their list for their reasons to say ‘no’, both in 1972 and 1994.

Norway gained independence from 90 years of Swedish rule in 1905, and was prior to that a part of the Danish Kingdom for more than four centuries. Skinner writes that this history of foreign rule has made Norwegians reluctant to give up independence to a supranational union such as the EU.

“For many Norwegians, the distance to Oslo is long,” says the researcher. “But the distance to Brussels is even longer.”

She says Norwegians are content with their political system, characterised by a short socioeconomic distance between the government and the governed, and are put off by the decision-making process in the EU.
Marianne Sundlisæter Skinner.

This attitude was found both in the seventies and nineties."

I guess the Norwegians had their heads screwed on tightly both:-

• Defining the Problem.
• Defining the Challenge: Not trusting or being led by THEIR lying politicians who did want to join! 

However one important difference to sharp-eyed observers, this was about Sovereignty to them in the 70's and 90's.

Today, in the 10's the problem is still Supranationalism but the challenge is Intergovernmentalism. The problem with Supranationalism?

Bad Decision-Making = ... (you guessed it!).

The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich

It's got everyone salivating - !

This is just yet another example of the Referendum Miasma Phase as discussed briefly in The Market Solution: A Growing Solution. Stage 0: It's not even progression yet, but it is a matter of selection as per Sticky Ideas: Progression via Selection.

On the one side you have EU Referendum: the "better deal" fallacy; quoting Dr. RAE North:-

"In my piece on barking cats to which I constantly refer, I call in aid a commentary written by Milton Friedman on the behaviour of government bodies. The way an agency behaves, Friedman argues, is not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat."

What this means is that the argument itself has it's own objective reality irrespective of the subjective political calculation of persuasion via promises of Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain! which I don't like the sounds of at all for example Ponzi Schemes:-

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

 "Suckers": Sooner or later original lies are going to need more lies to sustain them which in turn require yet more and more lies to service subsequent lies... Numbers don't lie if you look after them very carefully

I personally cannot tell or know if this is some master-stroke strategy to gain the attention of swing-voters into believing that it's time for the UK to "get a better deal!" from the EU: Afterall we're supposedly partners in "political union": What kind of partnership is this?

I don't know. But what I do know is that the our politics is predominantly Top-Down and THIS dictates the type of communication from those in power to those under power ie the people:-

 Most of our politics is conveyed by the BBC FROM our politicians. Very little of the voters is shared in this medium of communication. Alternatively via google people can find alternative sources of information from other people to share and communicate on a vastly larger scale and scope.

Interestingly, google is taking a lot of "flak" for it's taxes at the moment. But I've found google immensely useful; I use it most days multiple times and in particular for helping to find useful information on "EU Referendum" and "Brexit". The problem as I see it is that the the major Legacy News-Media delivery of information is very Top-Down so we end up with the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman regressing progression of ideas of Brexit once again back to the "Better Deal Fallacy" territory again: EU Referendum: in spite of these people …

Unfortunatately google works both ways, there's a lot of information about "Control Our Borders" that also does not hold up no matter how passionately it is believed; particularly by UKIP supporters. It's another "Policy Ponzi" it probably needs to be conceded: Driven by how many people it can "sucker" in.

 Immigration: joined-up policy needed

In FLEXCIT aka The Market Solution, Chapter 7.0 Freedom of Movement & Immigration and 7.8 A Comprehensive immigration Policy p.143:-

"Putting the arguments in the chapter together, two separate themes emerge. Firstly, there is the issue of intra-EU "freedom of movement", mandated by EU treaties and then either a condition of the Market Solution, whetehr through the EFTA/EEA route ("Norway Option"), via the unilateral "shadow EEA" approach or Australian process.

We retain the view that the interim stratagem facilitates our expeditious withdrawal from the EU. The Market Solution with the short-term continuation of freedom of movement provisions, is an acceptable price to pay, especially if the alternative is continued membership of the EU, which would also require the implementation of freedom of movement provisions.

This notwithstanding, we have also argued that leaving the EU, per se, will not solve our immigration problems.

[...]

It has failed in this context to realise that "controlling our borders" is not a policy per se, but an aspiration - and a wholly unrealistic one at that."

In effect a "Policy Ponzi". Let's make this clear as per The Market Solution:-

 Brexit will allow greater Policy Control over Migration (not the same thing as "Control Our Borders" outcome) - but not over Freedom of Movement, immediately. Secondly it will not resolve Pull-Push Factors by itself which are systemic and regional-global, not only national (ie control our borders). But it will help and above all make our politicians MORE DIRECTLY accountable to this policy.

What we can see is that this is a very variable number of interacting issues:-

Any effective policy, though must be properly coordinated with other policy areas, as in "joined up policy".

Effectively:-

• Brexit (British Exit) = "Withdrawal -- from -- EU Treaties -- via -- Article 50 Libson Treaty -- Only."
• The Market Solution (FLEXCIT) = The context of "joined-up Policy" around Brexit => "a continuous, flexible (on-going) process -- over a decade."

What we're currently doing is failing the progression of the argument, mainly due to the 650 MP's and the Legacy News-Media combination in poor communication and exclusive omission of ideas from the 32,000,000 people who own "British Sovereignty". The result is The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich that is used to persuade and sell to people a lot of different "Policy Ponzis".

The result of this:-

Failure of progression via failure to implement a fair system of selection = Status Quo Result

The confusion in the argument perpetrated by the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman and The cancer in the Tory establishment means our arguments are prevented from progressing in quality. On the otherside of the BS sandwich we get UKIP putting x1 Policy Migration in front of Withdrawal because they've built up a following of "suckers for lies" aka a "Policy Ponzi Scheme"... let's see where that leads to in the future for all the followers who have invested their goodwill and emotional attachment to these promises shall we?

 Or we can all start using google and talking with each other and generating more honest and accurate ideas to discuss their merits in our national decision making as per Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight, for a start:-

Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain!

Moses The Raven: "Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest forever from our labours!"

In George Orwell's Animal Farm the character Moses The Raven is described as such:-

"The pigs had an even harder struggle to counteract the lies put about by Moses, the tame raven. Moses, who was Mr. Jones's especial pet, was a spy and a tale-bearer, but he was also a clever talker. He claimed to know of the existence of a mysterious country called Sugarcandy Mountain, to which all animals went when they died. It was situated somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses said. In Sugarcandy Mountain it was Sunday seven days a week, clover was in season all the year round, and lump sugar and linseed cake grew on the hedges. The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place."

Dr. RAE North writing in Strategy ten: the need for an exit plan:-

"Anything as complex and challenging as leaving the European Union will present significant problems. Therefore, you do not need a focus group to tell you that, when confronting the prospect of an EU referendum, voters will need to be reassured that a choice to leave is not a leap in the dark.

That much has been obvious to anyone who has even begun to look at the issue. More specifically, I have long argued that we would need to produce a credible exit plan. Without that – as I was writing in May 2008, over seven years ago – our opposition would rely on the status quo to support their case and, in particular, the assertion that there is no alternative (TINA) to our membership of the European Union.

It actually took five years, until June 2013, for the IEA to trigger the process of producing an exit plan, with its Brexit Prize. But so badly managed was the competition – and then ultimately rigged – that the winning entries added nothing to the debate and have disappeared into the obscurity they rightly deserve."

 Sugarcandy Mountain!

There is no such thing as "Sugarcandy Mountain" but there is such as thing as people who make a good living for themselves selling it:-

EU Referendum: Hannan, the enemy within 

"In Mr Hannan's world, however, time has stood still. The idea of a staged exit is rigorously excluded while he rehearses the same issues he was writing about ten years ago, in terms that have scarcely changed. Laboriously, he goes on a hunt for the ideal "model", with a tedious and somewhat flawed review of the Norway-EEA and Swiss arrangements.

This leads him then to conclude that Norway "gets a better deal than Britain currently does", and – quite wrongly – that Switzerland gets "a better deal than Norway". And upon this flawed assumption, he then drops into an exposition of the better deal fallacy as he assert that "a post-EU Britain, with 65 million people to Switzerland's eight million and Norway's five, should expect something better yet"."

 EU exit: death of the WTO option?

"One of the converts to this idea is Ruth Lea. She was formerly an advocate of the so-called "Swiss option" (page 27), so she now stands – without explanation - completely at odds with her earlier position. But we have also seen an intervention from Global Britain." 

EU Referendum: let stupid dogs lie

 

There is a telling difference between us lesser mortals and men such as John Redwood. We believe that we need the 419 pages of Flexcit, and something like three years of study, to define how we leave the EU. Redwood believes he can do it in a mere 417 words, contradicting the bulk of what we have to say in the process.

Both writers take exception to Mr Redwood's many assertions, including the most egregious of them which have him declaring that "the Leave campaign does not want the UK to seek a Norway style deal", that in order to leave "the UK could simply amend the 1972 European Communities Act" and that, after leaving, we could "simply rely on World Trade Organisation membership to stop tariffs and other barriers being imposed"."

 EU Referendum: we, the invisibles

"Amazingly, the Eurosceptic "aristocracy" simply can't get their soggy little brains round the idea that it would be extremely unwise to attempt a "big bang" separation from the EU. They also have difficulty with the idea that the two year period allowed for the initial Article 50 exit negotiations isn't long enough to broker a bespoke free trade agreement – which can take 5-15 years to conclude."

 Britain can enjoy the good life after Brexit ~ by David Campbell Bannerman

"Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!"

"My answer on what the alternative plan should be called is "WTO Plus". All other benefits - democratic control, border control, economic control - flow from it. It is a simple and genuine alternative plan. So, you may ask, what on earth is it? 


My plan for the UK outside of the EU combines a guaranteed basic trade deal based on current World Trade Organisation arrangements with a better free trade deal on top.

The basic deal is guaranteed whatever happens, as the UK and EU are both World Trade Organisation members in their own right and must follow its rules or be hauled into an international court.

This worst case scenario would mean tariffs on some goods. But I think we can do better than that. There are already indications that German car manufacturers would ensure their government does not impose tariffs on UK cars – why penalise BMW-owned Minis and Rolls Royces? There would be such demand from all sides for a better deal"

He then rattles off a list of Pro-Brexit Arguments: Beyond the Mirage:-

 Back to Moses The Raven:-

"In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still did no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy Mountain. He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by the hour to anyone who would listen. "Up there, comrades," he would say solemnly, pointing to the sky with his large beak– "up there, just on the other side of that dark cloud that you can see– there it lies, Sugarcandy Mountain, that happy country where we poor animals shall rest for ever from our labours!" He even claimed to have been there on one of his higher flights, and to have seen the everlasting fields of clover and the linseed cake and lump sugar growing on the hedges. Many of the animals believed him. Their lives now, they reasoned, were hungry and laborious; was it not right and just that a better world should exist somewhere else? A thing that was difficult to determine was the attitude of the pigs towards Moses. They all declared contemptuously that his stories about Sugarcandy Mountain were lies, and yet they allowed him to remain on the farm, not working, with an allowance of a gill of beer a day."

So you see it's quite useful having a clever talker persuading people that Paradise is just around the corner if they continue "working harder for a better Britain!" supporting their betters on such matters...