Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Operation Trust: "Jumping The Shark."

Vote Leave and Boris Johnson's invocation of Hitler moment: "Where the show 'jumped the shark' and the polls nose dived from the artificial "neck and neck".

The term "Operation Trust" refers to the setting up "a fake anti-Bolshevik resistance organization as a counterintelligence operation of the State Political Directorate (GPU) of the Soviet Union". In fact Vote Leave can only be a fake (not authentic) anti-EU resistance organization: It's derived from the same sources as the opposite side to the campaign Pro-EU supporters from Westminster (Outer Party). Traditional "euroscepticism" has served so well to contain information by usurping it with multiplications of misinformation distribution via the Legacy News-Media to effectively "swamp" intelligence at large on the nature of the EU project.

I'm sure it's almost impossible to separate "fact and fiction" towards this effective result for the EU Referendum, it's no matter. What is of interest is something entirely different. First a recap, in the first three blogs I wrote:-

1. How do you become eurosceptic? (learning)
2. I've been expecting you (FUD/propaganda)
3. The greatest problem of our time (democracy in action)

I more or less already laid down everything that this blog has attempted to convey and now's the time to "memory recall" that now that it is so apparent:-

1. Few people have really learnt during this referendum process.
2. FUD has been on a prodigiously high industrial scale.
3. Democracy has been assumed and controlled by the political class away from the people.

One of the most important messages for any Pro-Brexit (Brexiteer) or other campaign is that there's 2 types of people for simplification:-

The people who believe there's essentially nothing wrong but some minor problems with respect to our politics and EU Membership.
The people who believe there's essentially significant problems and that this leads to so much else being wrong with respect to the above again.

Of course the frame for this is the EU Membership. And the requirement is to develop the conviction in people of 2 if you come to the conclusion that Brexit is politically high magnitude but significantly important enough to warrant such a decision. I did not use "Operation Trust" to suggest a conspiracy theory but much more to work on the suggestion that intelligence is blocked from Top-Downwards in the current political system we inhabit. In fact the link with Operation Trust to a work of fiction by George Orwell lends the diagram from 1984:-

Tip: The Big Idea (actually the structure built off people), Top (Figureheads such as Cameron PM or Obama or Carney) Middle (Vote Leave, BSE and "eurosceptic aristocracy") Bottom: Ignorant people create the political system according to the level of ignorance en mass in combination with the Outer Party distraction.

Effectively BSE and Vote Leave fulfill the "Outer Party" role. The core of our political class such as David Cameron are current form of Prime Minister (along with previous forms: Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Heath etc) form the Inner Party and are untouchable. Indeed Cameron is the core target in this referendum with his absurd degree of power to control the Referendum context and to deceive successfully to such high degree around it too, all of which have been explored but little distributed and in particular by those in Vote Leave (Outer Party).

And yet, ultimately the fundamental error, the idea or "Big Brother" itself is not a person but a systemic structure of our politics and the mass apathy and ignorance and acceptance of the "Proles" or people themselves. The idea of "Big Brother" or whatever you wish to call it, is built on this bottom condition which thus lends itself to the formation of this top condition with the tyranny of "One Big Idea" in this case (And not the only one): The EU. No matter, remove that and another "Big Idea" will take it's place soon enough given the base of people has not changed "shape".

However, this sort of possibility does indeed sound still in the realms of sci-fi as per 1984, only to be found in fiction. And yet let's look at the latest development in the EU Referendum from Vote Leave driving the "Proles" to distraction (only for the members of the "inner party" to come out with ever more sage and gravely kind advice saving us from ourselves by voting to keep the EU):-

All these blog posts from EUReferendum.com and in particular "opportunity cost" give rise to what has a useful name that perhaps many people are already so familiar with such a trend: "Jumping The Shark":-

Jumping the Shark is the moment when an established long-running series changes in a significant manner in an attempt to stay fresh. Ironically, that moment makes the viewers realize that the show's finally run out of ideas. It's reached its peak, it'll never be the same again, and from now on it's all downhill.

"Jumping the shark" is an idiom popularized by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signalled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of gimmick in an attempt to keep viewers' interest, which is taken as a sign of desperation, and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irretrievably from its original formula. The phrase is based on a scene from a fifth-season episode of the sitcom Happy Days when the character Fonzie jumps over a shark while on water-skis.
The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise, or creative effort's evolution declines.

Probably a lot of people don't give a stuff about politics or think they don't, but you only have to look at just how &*%! crass that a particular scene is from Happy Days:-

EU Referendum 2016: Summed up perfectly in this total garbage attempt to manipulate audiences emotionally invested in this sitcom back in 1977!

Some day, people will look back at all the media information and and the hopelessly ignorant and gullible people and wonder how people could be so brain dead and so unquestioning and indeed tolerant or trusting of the garbage produced by our "opinion shapers and makers" of society such as the legacy news-media, surrounded as we are by oceans of information available at our fingertips within seconds?

I look at this clip above and all I see is cynism dripping off the screen filling buckets - pretty much like this whole EU Referendum political fraud enacted on the entire UK.

There's an argument that people on a side of the argument may not agree but must pull-together. No, this is wrong. Underlying the actual argument dictates what is of consequence.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Vote Leave Give Control

All the visible notions of the above campaign group it seems to me are intended towards, a continuation of the main political narrative of the UK Government and Establishment battling 'the big EU' over "the way the British do things with plucky spirit and much vim," in Britain but reluctantly accepting 'the coolly, rational case' for conceding some powers to a Supranational EU.

This has been a constant of the British Government since the early 1960's and Vote Leave it seems to me continue this two-faced role of the UK Government looking both to Brussels at the same time as talking a "different game" to the UK Electorate: Controlling THEM.

Brexit The Movie: More "plucky crap."

Some brief examples:-

Fake figures around the NHS
Johnson's appeal to Nazis/Hitler
Bonfire of Regulations
Sheer Confidence alone will conquer negotiations
Waving the Immigration Stick for agitation effect

All the work of Vote Leave and also the perfect demonstration of "inferiors" in both:-

Authority
Competence
Comparison of sources of prestige

And of course if you do agree with this minor jottings of the descriptions of Vote Leave and the effects they naturally lead to, just consider how much this is multiplied in error by both Remain (with puffed out chests) and by Leave (with little actual intelligence but tribal mores as bad as they claim Remain to suffer from).

Likewise on the Remain side we've had an endless parade of prestige:-

Barack Obama (President of the USA)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader)
Mark Carney (Bank of England Governor)
Christine Lagarde (Managing Director of the IMF)
David Cameron, Gordon Brown, John Major (past and present PMs)

I think taken TOGETHER, we see that Vote Leave is PLAYING TO THE PRESTIGE of the above perfectly, showing inferior behaviour in indirect methods. Whether or not it's intentional or not it is irrelevant, it's systemic both ways.

What I find remarkable is that for many people who don't feel confident about voting due to their information and knowledge levels, then they will tend towards resisting notions of:-

Take Then Give in preference to Give Then Take ("Give & Take")

My suggestion is this, Vote Leave is systemically designed to fail the Leave case for voting to leave the EU Referendum. They focus on taking not on leaving and in this taking world, firstly (1) they invite fantasy then (2) they ensure people feel as if "taking" (without feeling comfortable on the balance of the relationship) is perhaps a "rash" decision of violation against neighbours that may lead to wrongs and hence it feels safer to "keep the peace"...

What's been neglected is the case to build up that the EU is doing the TAKING:-

Boris Johnson generates more bubble politics/Babel-17 from citing Hitler instead of holding up this paper concerning the EU's future plans or indeed it's key proponents preferences for it's members.

From such a position, we should see that the UK has been a generous and benefactor nation to the EU since we joined in the early 1970's and has GIVEN a lot to the EU. But it's time for the UK to take a commanding role on the Single Market outside the Political Union and thereby give the world a boost to trade and positive global influence. Given the EU has chosen to take more powers, it's time for it to GIVE goodwill back to the UK if the UK chooses democratically to leave: Quoting Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com:-

EU Referendum: challenging the collective delusion

"The oddest thing of all is that, in devising our original scenario, we adopted the line taken by the British negotiating team in its successful attempt to enter the European Community in 1972.

In his report on the negotiations, Con O'Neill wrote a very telling piece on how he came to define his strategy. "First", he said:

…almost every conceivable Community policy or rule or enactment is the resultant of a conflict of interests between the members, and has embedded in it features representing a compromise between these interests. Open it up at any point, and the whole laborious compromise will fall apart …

Second, as in all negotiations, exceptions are dangerous, for they create precedents. Admit a change in this or that case, just because British arguments are strong and you will find it hard to resist changes in other cases where the matter is vital. So the two facets of the Community's principle became embodied in one precept: "Swallow the lot, and swallow it now".
On this basis, the character of the negotiations became one of leaving "relatively minor" matters to be settled after the UK had joined the Community while, in order to expedite the negotiations, the governing precept became, "Swallow the lot …".

Given the two-year time limit and "sudden death" character of the Article 50 negotiations, which would determine the exit settlement for the UK, it seemed to me that the precept which had facilitated our entry could do equal services in assisting us to leave the EU.

My reasoning in this respect was entirely straightforward. It would be far better to gain an exit settlement which was less than optimal than to end up with the catastrophic outcome of leaving without an agreement.

Furthermore, and crucially, I took that view that, unless we were able to show that compromise was possible, we would never secure the confidence of the electorate, and their support in the referendum. In effect, we either convinced the electorate that we were prepared to compromise on our exit expectations, or we would lose the referendum.

Such insight, of course, stems to a very great part from the intensive labour, with Christopher Booker, in researching and writing The Great Deception. And you might have thought that this might afford us some authority when it came to defining the referendum strategy."

I think Dr. North's logic is sound. But as important I'd extend, the attitude is cooperative and the communication is simplified and hence: The problem of LEAVING the EU is above all else:

IDENTIFIED:-

FLEXCIT: The Movie

Monday, 16 May 2016

The Darling Buds Of May

A tree in May: Life, light and colour: So much to see and so much to do outside.

I think perhaps for those that live in the UK Islands, this time of year, May, is a time of natural exuberance and one that our modern life schedules fails it seems to fully factor into with the change of the season. I remember one of my previous office jobs and watching some tree-surgeons tree-climbing and chopping back the branches of the trees away from the office buildings, outside. At this time of year I really enjoy being outside and indeed I've been doing just this for the past week: Working on renovating a property and it's land and working in the evenings managing a Summer sport. I've also managed to enjoy so much of the natural world from plants such as bluebells and somuch more to insects to myriad and highly visible and audible birds and finally to foxes and their cubs.

William Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 in particular the phrase:-

"The Darling Buds Of May" (darling or "to darl" either is as good as the other!)

By William Shakespeare - http://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/s/by2g21, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47881412

Captures much of what I've barely tried to describe in observation above but with more mood and fewer words! In fact at this time of year I feel my behaviour is in need of significant alterations:-

Two Jackdaws collecting horse hair to use to line their nest with.

I'll definitely put out some collected horse hair next year along with any bird food, realizing the value to these animals of such a material at this time of year.

As such, the EU Referendum subject has felt more remote than it has been for me for a long time. That said, given the huge efforts made for The Leave Alliance Launch and FLEXCIT - The Movie filming, the ideas and content discussed at these meetings are very vivid and fresh in my mind while I'm about other things. In fact so much so, what amounts to "news" in the Legacy News-Media feels like an anthropological documentary of some kind where the strange and bizarre customs of the natives is observed in bafflement but nonetheless recorded for science...

It's mainly the ever more perverse behaviour of our politicians as they go about their roles in the same way as if the Referendum were no different to any general election and they can come out with their lies and low quality arguments and hence low value to our society. There's plently of discussion on this and observation and description of it by "The Blogger's Army" in support of The Leave Alliance:-

Pete North

M.E. Synon

The Protected vs the Unprotected: the new Reformation

EUReferendum.com

Leave Alliance

Sorry Jeremy, but workers are better off out

Independent Britain

The EU Is A Government

White Wednedsay

Statements Remain and Leave can agree on?

Scribblings From Seaham

The people’s referendum?

EU Question

EFTA EEA is the real deal

Semi-Partisan Politics

Brexit For Grown Ups

The Brexit Door

Video Evidence: a safer Brexit

The Sceptic Isle

The EU is not just a trading bloc and was never meant to be a democracy

I still manage when not able to blog and develop ideas on the EU Referendum to read most if not all of the above sources. In fact, looking at the fact there's a small but steadily emerging movement, despite the risible politics of the UK made even more visible in this EU Referendum:-

The burnt remains of the Establishment controlling both "Remain" and "Leave" sides of the EU Referendum

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

EU History: Destructive Emotions & Creative Thinking

Fire and Ice ~ By Robert Frost

"Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favour fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice."

The above poem is not only a nice poem but as with good poems it condenses the core elements of the content as much as possible, in this case the musings on "destructive emotions that shape the consequential external destruction invoked". In this spirit, it's also referred to by George R.R. Martin in his series of fantasy epic: A Song Of Fire And Ice and acts as the complete canvas to all the micro and macro dramas in that "tapestry"; involving multiple warring factions which itself is loosely based in historic events of The War Of The Roses (and other such conflicts fictional or historic):-

Attribution: By Richard Burchett (1815–75)[1] - File:Richard Burchett - Sanctuary (1867).jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12626198

"The Wars of the Roses was a series of wars for control of the throne of England. They were fought between supporters of two rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet, the Houses of Lancaster and York. They were fought in several sporadic episodes between 1455 and 1487, although there was related fighting before and after this period. The conflict resulted from social and financial troubles that followed the Hundred Years' War, combined with the mental infirmity and weak rule of Henry VI, which revived interest in Richard, Duke of York's claim to the throne."

Here was a war for control of the Throne of England. Subsequently power itself was fought over in The English Civil War:-

Attribution: By Unknown - Encyclopædia Britannica online, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8631860

"The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") over, principally, the manner of its government. The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–51) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The war ended with the Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651."

Here was a conflict between two factions: The Throne and the emerging power of Parliament itself.

Before moving onto the third and final "conflict" in this series on "Conflicts of Power by Internal Forces" centred on Political Power in our history, we need to take a view of another history neighbouring, a "Conflict of Power Amongst External Forces": Two relatively recent blog posts on this subject by Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com and in connection with the recent Introduction by Christopher Booker to FLEXCIT: The Movie:-

EU Referendum: the genesis of obsolescence

EU Referendum: the myth of preventing war

They are, how to express how essential these two summaries from The Great Deception, essential to understanding the genesis of forces acting on the Remain side of the question in the upcoming EU Referendum Question and as I asserted in the previous blog, any derivative motivations and intentions of the modern descendants or inheritors of this strand of feeling and thinking in how to "manage power":-

"What was especially interesting, though, is that Juncker and Cameron are pictured visiting a First World War cemetery on the Somme, despite the official hagiography of the EU firmly rooting its genesis in the post-WWII period.

In fact, the First World War was far more important to the intellectual genesis of the EU than the Second, something that Booker and I observed in The Great Deception (see p.14 et seq).

So vital is it that we start Chapter One with an account of how, on 22 September 1984, two portly middle-aged men stood holding hands in front of the largest pile of human bones in Europe. One was the President of France, François Mitterrand; the other the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl.

The reason why the two most powerful political leaders in western Europe were staging an act of reconciliation before tens of thousands of graves was that the site of this ceremony was the ossuary at Douaumont, just outside Verdun in eastern France.

And if there was one historical event which more than any other inspired what was eventually to become the European Union, it was the battle which had raged around Verdun the First World War. For the British the defining battle of that war was the Somme in the summer of 1916."

The Great Deception (2nd Edition Link)

And again in the subsequent blog but with a view not to the past (World War I) but to the future (World War III):-

"With Mr Cameron claiming on this of all days, "Europe Day", that leaving the EU would bring us closer to war, all he is actually doing is repeating the most insidious myth of them all in relation to the European Union - that this monstrous construct has helped keep the peace.

The myth finds is purest form in the EU hagiography, where the European Commission's asserts that "probably very few people in Europe know that on 9 May 1950 the first move was made towards the creation of what is now known as the European Union".

Crucially, it would have us believe that this was an attempt at preventing a Third World War, but completely omits to tell us that the intellectual genesis lies not in the post-WWII period but in the 1920s, devised is response to the problems arising out of the First World War.

For the myth-makers, though, the origin of the EU was Paris on 9 May 1950. Against the background of the threat of a Third World War engulfing the whole of Europe, the then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman (pictured above, right, with Jean Monnet) read to the international press a declaration calling France, Germany and other European countries to pool their coal and steel production as "the first concrete foundation of a European federation".

This was what was on offer was the creation of a supranational European Institution, charged with the management of the coal and steel industry, the very sector which was, at that time, the basis of all military power. The countries which Schuman called upon had almost destroyed each other "in a dreadful conflict which had left after it a sense of material and moral desolation". Thus, concludes the European Commission in its own history, "Everything... began that day".

Needless to say, the reality is very different. Far from the heroic Schuman standing at the centre of the "project", he turns out to be little more than an unwitting stooge, manipulated by one man who had made its his life's work to set up a "government for Europe"."

That man was Jean Monnet.

FLEXCIT THE MOVIE Intro by Christopher Booker. ~ Linking both sides of the argument and pointing out the difference between quality arguments and "destructive low quality emotions" that dominate the Referendum today.

What we see is that the widely held belief about the EU is itself a Myth taking the form of a "Creation Story" and that story is not factually/historically accurate, even if it's hyper-emotional. Far from seeing the genesis of obsolescence alone, we see the seeds of destructive emotion where perhaps "we least expect it" and indeed the European Union does not appear to have developed as perhaps so many in power set the peoples' expectations for it towards, only 10 or 15 years ago?

The "Creation Story" is very important, to forging an "origin of legitimacy for political union and power". Ultimately (that means eventually on this preset course!) however this requires a formation of an established "Demos" of some form as acknowledged perhaps under International Law? Indeed much of this is the thinking behind those who still support the further Political Union of the EU:-

So you see, the assertion in the previous blog for both sides of the argument, despite my personal support of one over the other, I think is still highly applicable, irrespective of my own opinions, the arguments themselves must be asserted.

And here is indeed where and why I part ways with the EU Remain side: Those destructive emotions we see in our histories and in our stories ultimately find their most potent form when the consolidate and centralized around power instead of dispersing or controlling that power or "kratos" as per The Harrogate Agenda:-

The Harrogate Agenda

To be clear I'm not pitting the forces of "Good" on one side vs the forces of "Evil" on the other side. For some European Nations the EU may indeed under The Fundamental Law above be a very necessary next step for many possible reasons.

However, coming back to the UK, and those historic "Internal Conflicts" over the source and control of political power:-

The War Of The Roses (Throne vs Throne)
The English Civil War (Throne vs Parliament)
EU Referendum (Parliament vs People)

In my view, the modern equivalent of those previous power conflicts is fortunately not a battle involving either guns or steel but ideas as is possible when democracy establishes itself in a nation and the idea of war recedes as a destructive way to resolve problems rather than the creative solutions people can generate through argumentation and analysis and communication tools:-

If we take another model of understanding and apply it to this posited idea:-

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

What we see is that the basic necessities of life are much to are "First World Problems" chagrin catered for and we run up against another layer of problems. In fact "Safety" is a basic expectation of our own government and social contract with the state. But it is a basic "need" and one that I'm sure the UK is predominantly in control of. Yet the government failing at delivering "higher needs" inevitably overplay's it's hand concerning how valuable it is and indeed how valuable the EU is, doubly so given it's own "Creation Story" in this area. And so so much of the debate is bogged down via lower quality arguments and lower order needs without a positive argument that reaches towards more productive and creative and growth generating solutions:-

What we see from FLEXCIT is those higher order forms of actualization and self-expression by people:-

I'd finish this overview of history and the "Remain" side of the question, by suggesting for the UK, clinging to "security and safety" is the least or minimum of our aspirations for progress. And driving that "expectation setting" is our own Parliament and politicians who in my opinion more than anyone appear to be holding back the UK's ability at creative thinking to solve our modern and very global problems.

Tuesday, 10 May 2016

Bringing More People Into the Referendum

Unity of Arguments from Source successfully scaled for mass distribution

Previously I used the above image to represent the inverse of argument creation: Argument distribution. In fact the idea is little different to Software release life cycle:-

"The term "release to manufacturing", also known as "going gold", is a term used when a software product is ready to be delivered or provided to the customer. This build may be digitally signed, allowing the end user to verify the integrity and authenticity of the software purchase. A copy of the RTM build known as the "gold master" or GM is sent for mass duplication. RTM precedes general availability (GA), when the product is released to the public."

With respect to the EU Referendum we have 2 primary source materials for either side of the question:-

Remain: The Great Deception
Leave: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU

In the creation and understanding of these, a few experts were involved. In terms of The Great Deception, it is so important because it creates a coherent system of thinking about the EU from an historically accurate context to subsequent future behaviour by the EU and it's advocates: Knowing this allows greater understanding of subsequent important EU materials.

Likewise, FLEXCIT may itself be a specialist document, of interest to a few compared to the many voters, but this is not it's primary function, the fact it's created allows a similar coherent system of thinking and core functionality for the subsequent production of materials for the arguments on the Leave Side for Pro-moting Brexit and beyond. Such materials can continue with the fidelity of the source materials they are inherited from, but serve to scale up distribution in more accessible forms for more people to use productively.

For example:-

Using FLEXCIT as the Source material, subsequent production of materials for distribution can be produced sustaining a unity of argument even while scaling up for mass distribution

In the above, I've added an animation for comparison:-

Just looking at it, it's excellent animation and deserves some attention on that alone. It produces some positive messages:-

Change from the 1970's: Soviet Russia, Internet, mass container shipping
Emphasis on Trade instead of Political Union
FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt)
Change is happening both to the EU and outside it.

However, it makes some tell-tale errors or "bugs":-

It calls a "Free Trade Area from Iceland to Turkey": This is really glossing over the details of the Single Market (EEA) and indeed confusing with Customs Union. Here is a presumptiousness.
Instead of building on the ideas of Trade outside the EU to boost prosperity, there is little extension of the influence of global bodies here, but instead their a certain pomposity replacing it.
It antagonizes the character of the EU as an "authoratative regime" which leads to loosing information on the EU as it originally was designed and comparing this out-dated design to the aforementioned changes from the 1970's and the opportunity of a Global Relationship as much as a European one.

So, here is an example of a piece of work which was very well done, but it's distribution inserts errors into the Leave case and this is a problem that could have been avoided if the creator had consulted the superior works for the original inspiration for the ideas presented and discussed.

We can take another example in today's City AM:-

The Norway option is far from just paying into the EU without having a say ~ Hjörtur J Guðmundsson

He makes some useful contributions too (I follow him on twitter and he's productive):-

The correlation of EFTA (and EEA) of these prosperous non-EU members to prosperity.
The correction on laws from the mass error produced "75%" (he cites a Vote Leave figure of 10%) and indeed there's proactive not purely passive element to the adoption of such legal items as he mentions as compared to an EU member such as the UK which it is argued has to be more passive taker of such laws.
The correction that the EEA (EFTA) members pay a "Single Market fee".
A comparison with the rights to sit on Global Bodies as compared to the UK is briefly pointed out.
EEA agreement covers only the Single Market and does not cover some major policy areas notably that may "interest" the UK.
72% of Norwegians in the latest poll would reject EU membership.

However this again appears to be a Vote Leave note and negative:-

"This isn’t to say that Britain will simply end up with a copy of Norway’s relationship if it votes to leave. In fact, a series of bilateral treaties, the so-called Swiss model, may be better because it wouldn’t require the adoption of EU laws. Further, the UK will no doubt be able to secure a better arrangement than both countries, as even the Remain campaign admits."

There's a certain disconnect contained here that introduces errors or "bugs" as we compare this that undermines the arguments being propounded at different levels of complexity, already the view count online for City AM is >1,000 and the paper version no doubt fairly high too.

That said he does end extremely well:-

"But more importantly, by leaving and by being able to sign its own trade deals, Britain will secure a far better relationship with the rest of the world which, unlike the EU, is actually growing."

How? And here is where more inheritance from FLEXCIT and the creation of A Genuine Single Market integrated argument would have pushed the argument into a stronger position away from the cacophany of the Legacy Media and the neurotic arguments of either Vote Leave or HM Government/David Cameron. Instead the introduced error from the Vote Leave source I suspect obfuscates this development and extension of understanding in more people. What we want to compare with Political Union is Genuine Single Market that is part of the new relationship of the UK with the EU AND the relationship Globally too.

And this is how I feel about the present Referendum: To win or to lose are secondary considerations. For me it is about the fidelity of the source material and the ability to use it successfully to distribute with fidelity in further forms to more people. This is in my opinion all that matters: Failure here is a symptom of deeper failings that won't go away magically in the case of either result, I'd guess.

People at the moment are left given the introduction of errors by the idiot sophisticates of Westminster, with the conclusion:-

"It's so complicated, I don't know enough how to vote..."

I'm fairly confident with enough consistent and coordinated work by those who support The Leave Alliance, most people would feel confident enough to know how they will vote according to their own understanding.

The biggest problem distributing arguments to people successfully is the Official Vote Leave Campaign and other incoherent sources of error that are propagated unwittingly consequentially.

EUReferendum: The Pub Question

The EU Referendum Question - Visualized

During the filming of FLEXCIT: The Movie, the question was asked:-

A Visual Aid To Shared Attention During Discussions - Available on All Good Smart Phones (!)

"How do you explain the EU Referendum to anyone if you are talking to them in the Pub?"

Which is to say, how can you talk about the EU Referendum and explain to anyone to help them understand the headline issues and hence persuade them how to vote? As Dr. RAE North pointed out, there's a limit to how much you can simplify or "dumb down" a subject as complex as this. But I think establishing some fundamentals using a visual aid to create context to either choice is a possible substitute?

Afterall in the pub we can use our smartphones to tell us the directions of somewhere on a map (google maps for example) or we can use google to find the answer to a pub quiz question too (if we are cheating!). So why not an EU Referendum Question, as well?

I produced the above video in under 2 minutes as the most summarized overview of the EU Referendum using the "Map Argument" or "Decision Flow Diagram" approach, in both cases to visualize the context around each question and provide the necessary headlines should people wish to learn more and I've included a visual of the information that is:-

Readily available to anyone on the internet to use to inform themselves.
Readily available to the Legacy News-Media and politicians who in the main continue to ignore and not use such wealth of information and hence continue to perpetrate a disservice on the citizens of the UK.
The sources have been selected for quality and for the essential fact they are all holistic: They all work together to create a complete and definitive argument structure on both sides of the question.

I think ultimately people are most interested in the Destination of the vote, and leaving the in between details to politicians and others to reassure and secure such complexity for people to then consider.

Afterall isn't that the job of the politicians and if they're not doing a good job or indeed failing at this vital job we have elected and paid them to perform in public service of representing the people... can we get rid of them?!

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish