1-page map for arguments on the UK's EU Referendum: Remain or Leave
1. 41 Years since the last Referendum in 1975
One of the basic facts about the 2016 Referendum, is the length of time it's taken for the politicians to "allow" the UK Electorate a direct vote on membership. 41 years. If there's any basic fact that guides how to vote it's that 41 years, 59 years of age and 9 Major New EU Treaties without a vote:-
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2012)
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2012)
Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Consolidated version 2012)
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012)
Treaty of Accession of Croatia (2012)
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2010)
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2010)
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2010)
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2008)
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version 2008)
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007)
Treaty of Lisbon (2007)
Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (2005)
Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2006)
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2006)
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004)
Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (draft 2003)
Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003)
Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 2002)
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 2002)
Treaty of Nice (2001)
Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 1997)
Treaty on European Union (Consolidated version 1997)
Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (1994)
Act amending the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank empowering the Board of Governors to establish a European Investment Fund (1993)
Agreement on the European Economic Area (1992)
Treaty establishing the European Community (Consolidated version 1992)
Treaty on European Union (1992)
Single European Act (1986)
Schengen Convention (1985)
Treaty of Accession of Spain and Portugal (1985)
Treaty of Greenland (1984)
Treaty of Accession of Greece (1979)
Treaty amending certain provisions of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Investment Bank (1975)
Treaty amending certain financial provisions (1975)
Treaty of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom (1972)
The Trend of Powers is unidirectional as they can only be under EU Treaty Rules
Our General Elections were already a duopoly between Labour and Tories for the majority of the last Century and now even less vote on our own Self-Governance by the people.
The failure to hold a Referendum sooner than 41 years is merely a symptom itself of lack of democracy in the UK due to our ruling Establishment's monopoly on power away from the people.
Hence the EU Referendum is a Political Choice first and foremost and hence a Political Argument in nature.
This crucial definition is important to make: The EUropean Union (EU) is not Europe, it's not the Single Market, it's not International Law: It's a clear argument between:-
Political Executive and Legislative and Judiciary and Monetary in the EU
Political Executive and Legislative and Judiciary and Monetary in the UK
How? Reading the official document by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; FCO 30/1048: Sovereignty & The European Communities it is clear that the UK Government in the 1960's-70's deceived the UK People into joining not a Common Market but a Supranational organization.
Who?The Federalist ambitions and end-goal of the current EU is laid out in the document: The Fundamental Law of the European Union. It is to create a new "country" called Europe, so this is who you are voting for to vote for Remain.
What? Where? When? The EU is planning a New Treaty for the Eurozone to increase it's power even further on Monetary before further again Politically: Completing Europe's Economic & Monetary Union.
The first thing I would establish when considering the EU Referendum argument is:-
Question:"Have you read all the above and understood all the above and support all the above?"
If so, I would be interested in your answers. Secondly I would be interested in you demonstrating your understanding and reasoning for supporting the above. I would also be interested in your opinion as to why in the UK the major actors in the public domain who are allocated the greatest seriousness and air-time do not categorize, nor define the EU Membership question as above, a core political project for "Ever Closer Union"?
If, the UK is not a member of the EURO, not a member of Schengen and as above the next major EU Treaty is to treat the EUROZONE as it's core priority to resolve this crisis; then why is the UK a member? And why is the UK not planning an alternative relationship with the EU? In such a case it may pay to look at what the Leave question looks like:-
3. Why Leave?
Why? If we look at The Harrogate Agenda, to summarize it's about the right to Self-Govern.
Now this Core Argument is illustrated no better than in the Pro-EU officially nominated campaign group itself and even in it's name and it's own colours!
The Fundamental Deception at the heart of the EU Supranational idea is I think more or less above. The excuse given is that "Pooling Sovereignty" must be done to be able to increase "collective power" and/or "Subsidiarity" allows nations to retain their powers. But observation is consistent: The EU has been divisive in the UK and it's because of the above by the likes of BSE: Mixing where political power is held and by whom and hence how it is represented compromises democratic representation. If the UK is not an EU member then it must be held in the UK Parliament. Any problems there must be considered. But not only this, with the rise of globalization, the Single Market technical standards are now made not in Westminster Parliament nor in the EU Parliament but in hundreds of global bodies:-
"Nevertheless, despite the activity of the EU at global level, there is a perverse effect arising from globalisation. As more and more issues are addressed at global level, the EU is losing control over its own regulatory agenda. More than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU's Single Market legislation) falls within the ambit of existing international organisationsand is thus potentially amenable to global regulation."
Now looking at the Government's counter claims in their pamphlet:-
As previous blog IMF, FUD & JENGA we already suffer accumulation and political arrears for "years of uncertainty".
An "Off-The-Shelf" Solution already exists, replacing EU/EEA with EFTA/EEA: The Leave Alliance Grows In Support by Semi-Partisan Politics.
Following EU Rules is in fact under the EEA acquis; EU Referendum: the EEA acquis following global rules and being represented on those global bodies directly. The supporting arguments: Payment is not an issue and nor is Freedom of Movement concerning the Central Argument: Political independence of our decision-making processes. They are secondly time-modified subject to the actual Political result of the EU Referendum itself.
It does fulfill the criteria for clear political separation at the same time as trading through the single market.
This leaves us where we actually are in the arguments today:-
Why does it seem that there are political processes and mass media accommodation of exclusively narrowly sanctioned ideas and concepts, whereas the the arguments from The Leave Alliance in support of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution; the measures used against it, they have been bordering on the antithesis of Real Democracy via REJECT, ALIENATE, EXCLUDE & OMIT such "vigorous and rigorous" positive contributing arguments to democratic decision-making? Why?
In the next blog, this question - will be answered definitively.
"Etiology (/iːtiˈɒlədʒi/; alternatively aetiology or ætiology) is the study of causation, or origination. The word is derived from the Greekαἰτιολογία, aitiologia, "giving a reason for" (αἰτία, aitia, "cause"; and -λογία, -logia).
The word is most commonly used in medical and philosophical theories,
where it is used to refer to the study of why things occur, or even the
reasons behind the way that things act."
in the Pro-EU arguments takes the form of:-
The EU is not in terribly great shape, I admit that. I accept there is some minor issue with the eurozone or with Greece or with borders... however,
It needs reform and we would be "throwing away" our friendship with our good friends if we were to leave.
We should not "turn our backs" on """"""""Europe""""""""" but show "solidarity" and work on the inside... otherwise spurning our friendships, they would not think to treat us badly if we left having treated them so disrespectfully. And besides if Murdoch can influence Number 10 but not Brussels that tells you everything doesn't it!
And... and... that is why Climate Change, Terrorism, Crime and... and... CHINA!!!
I shall be fighting body and soul to remain in the EU my good people! How I will fight for you...
Example of giving a really "low-quality reason for"... Substitute labelling = Superstitious Results
This old appellation was used to label "the unknown" on old maps. And so it seems we experience the same use of a fearsome image when we fail to provide a map for our thinking in decision-making, in this case political so-called "democratic" decision-making for the UK's EU Referendum.
Now with any decision-making there is an element of uncertainty as opposed to certainty when there is no decision-making and hence it's certain. However I think this is an underlying cause of over the long-term increasing uncertainty more and more instead of dealing with smaller quantities of more specific areas of decision-making, what might be called "Antifragile" engineering into our politics: The longer the lack of decision-making the longer the lack of selective forces operating on any given system and the more divorced it becomes from reality checks until:-
A House Of Cards: The longer the game goes on, the bigger the fragility and FUD
The "sudden" collapse, that apparently none of the experts predicted. You can read more of this concerning the IMF via Dr. RAE North:-
There's an especially resounding reminder of the predictions of such economists:-
"In fact, so inaccurate is IMF forecasting that one commentator suggested taxpayers'
money could be saved by replacing its staff with dart-throwing
chimps.This was after its 2013 forecast for world growth came in at 4.1
percent when the S&P 500 had been at 1,400. When it issued its revised outlook of 2.9 percent, the S&P 500 had been just a whisker off its all time high.
In 2014, the Finanical Times
was assessing its record in predicting the 2009 recession. Its verdict
was: "An astonishing record – of complete failure". To be fair, this
remark was not confined to the IMF. Nevertheless, none other than IMF
economist Prakash Loungani found there was little to choose between the
IMF and the World Bank, and private-sector forecasters. Their records
were all "terrible". Loungani wrote: "The record of failure to predict
recessions is virtually unblemished".
By 2104, Loungani, with a colleague, Hites Ahir, had returned to the
topic in the wake of the economic crisis. The record of failure remained
"impressive", he said. Of 77 countries under consideration, 49 had been
in recession in 2009. Economists had not predicted a single one."
"The terms "bull market" and "bear market" describe upward and downward market trends, respectively,and can be used to describe either the market as a whole or specific sectors and securities. The names perhaps correspond to the fact that a bull attacks by lifting its horns upward, while a bear strikes with its claws in a downward motion."
Seems to be concerned with either an upward or a downward trend but little with the respective "antifragile" quality of such directions in either direction. Confidence or Uncertainty are the two psychological terms for market conditions. And if you look at Google News and the IMF and Brexit and The Bank Of England, truly you'll start to see how ineffectual these institutions really are:-
"Some things benefit from shocks; they thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty.
Yet, in spite of the ubiquity of the phenomenon, there is no word for
the exact opposite of fragile. Let us call it antifragile. Antifragility
is beyond resilience or robustness. The resilient resists shocks and
stays the same; the antifragile gets better".
If we are to be sucked against our will into converting a Political Decision into something that has Economic consequences, then we can always point out that in any case, the IMF and the likes of the Pro-EU supporters created such a picture as this:-
As for Brexit and it's effect, the political causes "a priori" are:-
It seems to me that the take-home from the intervention and use of FUD by the likes of the IMF and The Bank Of England and the Eurozone/EU and Westminster is that not only do we need to reform our own politics, but the part that has not been completed; namely the "Separation Of Powers" to increase decision-making feedback on the exertion of those powers is in particular the "Monetary" Powers; to which a lot of "Here Be Dragons" is still applied in our daily lives:-
"I must confess, while I have nothing in common with him politically, he
does have a certain superficial appeal. His contempt for media hacks is
refreshing. But with closer scrutiny you soon realise that a lot of what
he does is still calculated. He's still one of them. And his sudden
Damascene conversion to Europhilia marks him as a man with no real
political courage. He is also on the wrong side of the facts.
As much as Britain has signed most of the International Labour
Organisation conventions that will remain in force after we leave the
EU, it doesn't hold that Britain was a Dickensian slum before the EU
social chapter. We did have workers rights and health and safety before
and we'd accomplished an equilibrium through many small increments."
"The controversial agreement has been criticized and opposed by unions, charities, NGOs and environmentalists, particularly in Europe. The Independent
describes the range of negative impacts as "reducing the regulatory
barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law,
environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers
of individual nations",or more critically as an "assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations"; and The Guardian
noted the criticism of TTIP's "undemocratic nature of the closed-door
talks", "influence of powerful lobbyists", and TTIP's potential ability
to "undermine the democratic authority of local government"."
But if he did that it seems to follow that he might also harbour similar misgivings about the EU? Perhaps? Perhaps not... instead he's on similar "turf" but without the possibly misgivings against the EU before the EU Referendum. Interestingly, on the one hand we have the Tory's patter about The Fallacy of The Wrong Turn as described by White Wednesday/Roland Smith; considering the EU and on the other hand we have the lost argument against Britain/UK being "at the heart of the EU Project outside the Eurozone and outside Schengen and hence the "Fallacy of EU Reform" in "Barking Cats" territory as per Dr. RAE North. which is related to "The Better Deal Fallacy" desired by Vote Leave and/or Leave.EU/GO.
In the first case, it's a convenient erasing of an inconvenient truth. In the third case, it's equally a convenient excuse to make unrealistic demands that can't possibly be achieved and hence a self-limiting exercise in futility. And what to make of the second and "Middle Way" case that is supported by David Cameron as equally as by Jeremy Corbyn, though he tries to hide the association of the Establishment working together? In Cameron's Case we know what to call it:-
In the case of Corbyn, he's certainly inhibited in his reaction to the EU, hence I think it's less deliberate and willful, though it still seems deliberate and volitional, but he's effectively "Playing Dead" or Apparent Death when it comes to showing his EU Stripes:-
It did seem like Corbyn was the attempted reassertion of the original Labour over the New Labour schism in the party. But it looks like Corbyn has opted for this old ruse when it comes to the EU:-
David Miliband descends from the heavens in the wake of fire and wind and all the people cow and huddle down in terror and awe!
The above picture could have been Lord Mandelson, David Cameron, Boris Johnson or Nigel Lawson or any other of dozens of such individuals.
What they have to say may be low quality, it may be proven to be inferior arguments, it may further be shown to be exposed as numerous fallacious argument techniques and finally just like Tony Blair, and now today David Cameron, it might be shown to be a Big Lie.
But repeatedly these individuals invade the political life of millions of people and hold disproportionate influence built through the media news with their privileged positions and access to these channels. This is based on their positions of prestige and not on the merit or quality of the arguments they are promoting.
"Leaving the EU would be an act of political arson that risks the
destruction of international order, the former foreign secretary David Miliband has said.
In one of the starkest warnings of the referendum debate so far,
Miliband argued that the impact of Brexit could extend far beyond the UK
and that it could have a disastrous effect on the rest of the world. Writing for the Guardian
before delivering a key speech in Westminster on Tuesday, he said it
would amount to “giving up on our alliances” with the rest of the world.
“It means forsaking our position at the negotiating table and
abandoning our international responsibilities – unilateral political
disarmament. No nation in human peacetime history has voluntarily given
up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23
June.”
Remember this is off the back of Nigel Lawson's own grand speech:-
Here Lawson has trashed the work done on building up arguments concerning the Irish Border and The Single Market. He's reported as the head of the Vote Leave group of Tory Politicians and thus symbolically the source and quality of their arguments or it's figurehead. He's only the latest in that rotation from Boris Johnson and David Cameron and Peter Mandelson:-
"The most striking piece of the interview is when he is asked whether
if the European Union was to change the deal, whether Britain should
interpret that as a failure to honour what was promised.
"Who counts as the “the European Union”
here? Member state leaders have met within the framework of the European
Council, but their agreement is in no way a document of the European
Union, but a text of hybrid character, which is unspecified and not
legally binding.
At the moment, the whole thing is nothing
more than a deal that has been hammered out down the local bazaar. The
European Union, however, is a community of law, in which there are
regulated responsibilities. If the British are going to put all their
eggs in one basket, in a promise made like this, which has not yet
complied with our clean process of law, then, for me, this process of
law is more important and preferable."
This finally puts to bed any doubt that the deal struck by David
Cameron is not binding. Here the Vice President of the EU Parliament
spells it out in totally transparent language – the EU hasn’t agreed to anything, it cannot be held to a promise it never made.
I'm sure David Milliband has learnt from the likes of Peter Mandelson, the ideology of these people that they rightfully are in power and must dictate how people behave, as if they are gods amongst mere mortals:-
Their important weapons:-
Fear
Prestige
Idolatry of the People themselves
Control over The Speaker's Position (They speak, people listen obediently and silently)
The Market Solution = Leave ; Why The Government believes in Supranational EU Membership = Remain
A recap on the previous question in 1975:-
Do you think the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?
That question was a blatant lie. If the Referendum is so "important" to decide for a generation the Nation's future, then I think getting the question right is a good start: 2016:-
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
Irrespective, with the above 2 documents/booklets you do posses all the information you need on how to vote Leave or vote Remain.
Interestingly what the government has to say about LEAVE:-
This reads to me as if the Government is suggesting that European Union (EU) membership is a necessary evil?
It seems to me Vote Leave (a bunch of arrogant Tories effectively) WANT people to believe this too by arguing that The Single Market is not important hence destroying the Leave argument entirely against Political Union in favour of a "Market Solution":-
I've mixed computer metaphors with car mechanical with political! The visual image is stronger for that of a car object but the concept is stronger for the computer architecture applied to the politics
This blog post observes two sets of useful feedback from the current compromised Referendum Process, for future information usage, which it is hoped can be accounted for and put into "political memory" for a subsequent time:-
Negative Feedback: Our Politicians and Politics on both sides of the Leave, Remain question have only become more exposed as failures and failing to serve their functions.
Positive Feedback: There is again through this Referendum process greater exposure to the early stages of useful contribution by people more actively into our political decision-making processes.
Let's look at the Negative Feedback first; because it's a real education.
The above diagram is intended to make a connection: A car without an engine cannot move. The engine is the essential feature from which the rest are in designed around. The rest of the hardware; a platform to sit the engine in, the wheels on the platform connected to the engine to power them forwards, breaks to stop the wheels by control of the driver and a fuel system to power the engine are all obviously needed. Over the top of this you have the "User Experience" the seats, driving wheel and dashboard and of course the hood or cover so that an enclosed space can have it's internal environment can have it's conditions regulated: Either heating or cooling so that the people's trip is both made and made comfortably and safely.
Without an engine, you could choose either a horse, a bicycle or other non-engine form of transport!
Interestingly Brexit campaigners have no qualms about visualizing David Cameron's "version" of a deal as a clap-trap car. But equally important, as David Cameron as a dishonest second-hand used-car salesman:-
People are much stronger making "investment based or risk analysis" decisions about buying a new car than about choosing how to vote in politics
So, in this Referendum Campaign, I think the analogy of an engine is the core requirement for the argument to be able to "move" politically forwards. How how well designed, how safely, securely and reliably does it work? Will people be convinced to buy it and make the journey using this "vehicle"? This then is in turn up to the Leave Campaigners to promote and sell to the voters. A really well run campaign will make people feel:-
Safe
Comfortable
Excited at this new model
Worth the investment
Worth the journey
Superior product to the competition
They can recommend to family and friends
What I find very peculiar from our politicians on the Leave Campaign side is that these people running the campaigns have built a chassis that they think fits what they think people think looks attractive for an automobile roof. Now I am confident I am not bullshitting here. Why? I have been observing and watching a lot of what is taken to be politics (the automobile roof) and the "plans" or policies created by the politicians to fit to that (the chassis or vehicle frame):-
"A vehicle frame, also known as its chassis, is the main supporting structure of a motor vehicle to which all other components are attached, comparable to the skeleton of an organism."
Now we have a framework for our own thinking we are all familiar with; let's implant this onto the actual subject. I was watching BBC News Night and Andrew Marr Show; two stalwarts of how we receive our political information via "rich" news-media (audio-visual and/or "live") presentation. On Newsnight Evan Davies had three ladies and they discussed the touchy-feely emotive reactions of various individuals concerned around a particular political subject. Then again on the Andrew Marr Show today, we had Grayling, Toynbee and Marr. Here driven dominantly by Toynbee the same "so-called politics" was discussed concerning the personalities and opinions and emotional reactions of the people, not the actual arguments. The same or similar when Lord Lawson is invited on, and he waffles on about a few details in his "chassis" but does not build a coherent picture.
By contrast, I have full sympathy for when empathy and emotion are called for: There were two women who expressed incredible compassion and intelligence on a particularly challenging subject (where such intrinsic empathy was required) at another time on Newsnight and I was deeply impressed with both of them and their ability to articulate such complexity and in a manner that was subtle but explanatory.
Now. My contention is this: All the designing of chassis, all the designing of automobile rooftops and accessories for the market are a complete waste of time if the core around the concept of a car, the engine is completely ignored! I can't imagine what weird non-working machines would be created imagining such a defect mechanically! Now imagine this picture politically.
But it's deliberate. And here we can move onto the second feedback, which is positive:-
A friend of mine once gave me a visual thought exercise that I find useful and enjoyable to think about and consider how to apply to various different situations. In fact it was with regard to my then current disillusionment with having completed a science degree and finding the idea of researching very deeply and very narrowly very unrewarding after spending most of my childhood thinking that I would probably become a scientist. It looks like this:-
Search Strategy: Buried in a specified area is "something wanted" = Current Information. Which is a more effective way of structuring a search for it? A or B?
What I think the above defect of our politics illustrates is that all the talking that dominates information delivery to people is a search strategy along the lines of "A". Doing the same thing expecting different results: Both the leave campaigners and our own politicians concerning the EU Membership. Instead what I've noticed which is very positive is that scouring commenting facilities online despite the huge numbers, a kind of Brute-Force Search by increasing the number of people feeding into a problem-solving exercise:-
"In computer science, brute-force search or exhaustive search, also known as generate and test,
is a very general problem-solving technique that consists of
systematically enumerating all possible candidates for the solution and
checking whether each candidate satisfies the problem's statement."
There's a vast majority of low quality comments, but the sheer number does throw up some exceptionally strong thinking and new ideas. Interestingly this theme was also noticed by Lost Leonardo in his recent blog: Leading In Europe:-
“The reasons to leave the EU are quite clear and simple.
Outside of the euro and political integration the UK has no role in the
EU. This message cannot be countered by the Remain camp”.
"So writes a commenter on my previous post. This is the kind of thing that makes writing a blog worthwhile."
In Dr. RAE North's recent blog post,EU Referendum: spurning the chance of victory , commenting on Christopher Booker's comments, I think we're all on the same wavelength noticing this analogy between designing a car back-to-front in our current politics compared to actually designing around the core function, the arguments themselves not the personalities that I've secondly tried to illustrate in the "search strategy" picture above: All the media focus is on "A". Whereas enough comments (ie "B"):-
Douglas Carter, writes a very observant comment:-
So too does Simon Stephenson:-
I notice The Daily Telegraph has ceased it's commenting function in the lead up to the Referendum. This goes some way back to when the old bloggers, Hannan, Obourne and prior to then Dellingpole all vacated the newspaper. Interesting Polly Toynbee and Chris Bryant all use the idea that the "Legacy News-Media" is at least half virulently eurosceptic and peddling lies which Remain supporters must battle against!
And yet to take these morons at face value is the biggest mistake of all. If you read Simon Stephenson, the use of the words "window-dressing" or to use my analogy the "automobile roof"; effectively this feedback loop as Dr. RAE North coined it provisionally: "Politico-Media Loop" is exactly the engineering failure of our politics I've been talking about. And to connect with Ragnarök or Referendum: The Final Battle concerning treating people as "childlike in their mentality" as above. As Douglas Carter notes, the actual argument on Remaining in the EU, Pro-EU is a defunct argument. It's replacement, the engine of Brexit is deliberately ostracized, again as Douglas Carter notes above or the commenter at Lost Leonardo's blog.
Telephone: Circa 1950 = number of components = very finite mechanical. Modern iPhone different order of complexity ie a pocket-sized computer: Who understands all this? Systems-orientated thinkers not sales/marketing and image "experts".
One of the core reasons I believe is that our politicians are not engineers, creating and running and understanding the systems of politics that as Dr. RAE North noted first of all in his FLEXCIT Presentation has become so technologically advanced in pace with our own technological revolutions over the decades aka container: "Globalization".
Again I'm confident I'm on the right tracks when reading Dr. RAE North's recent blog comment I considered just how much he must appreciate the enormous gaping gap in what "is taken as serious politics" vs what "actually is rigorous, technical understanding of the arguments that form the engine of political process".
"Fear works, and that is why it is being used by the reamins. We have
consistently warned that they would rely on FUD, and that is exactly how
it is turning out to be. The "leavers" don't like it, and it's not an
attractive form of campaigning. But, ultimately, this referendum will be
determined by people in the voting booths deciding on whether it is
safe to cast a "leave" vote.
As we went into this campaign, it was
my view that we were facing major hurdles, which were going to be
extremely difficult to surmount. Thus, the default scenario was that we
loose. Actually to win will require an inspired, well-fought campaign.
Instead, we are making every mistake in the book. Unless we
address that issue, there is no point in doing anything else. We can
wax lyrical about the joys of leaving the EU, and constantly warn people
about how terrible the EU is, but unless we can reassure people that
leaving is practical and safe, we're going nowhere.
I really don't
know how many more times I'm going to have to say this - or even how
many more times I'm even capable of writing it before my head explodes."
I've barely even started taking an interest in politics seriously and can truthfully say: It's been an education. I have barely participated so can only appreciate to a tiny degree the amount of frustration at the primitive and superstitious behaviours that still seem to dominate how a supposedly "Great" nation such as the UK/Britain runs it's serious decision-making capacities!
Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St AlbanPCKC (/ˈbeɪkən/;
22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman,
scientist, jurist, orator, and author. He served both as Attorney General and as Lord Chancellor
of England. After his death, he remained extremely influential through
his works, especially as philosophical advocate and practitioner of the scientific method during the scientific revolution.
The central contention of the title of this blog is simple:-
How we select the people to rule or govern us the people is deeply flawed.
We can examine this from the historic perspective and developments as far back as Francis Bacon, to provide some perspective on progress vs stagnation in our endeavours and sources of these.
Our politicians and our politics and legacy news-media are rife in these defective and more and more on context of globalization, defunct modes of thinking.
To put modern words to Francis Bacon's insights: Our politicians provide complexity for the sake of complexity: Namely in their over-elaboration of "horse-trading" with each other to confuse, befuddle and hold-up their "fixations" or "idols" they've all bought into for personal gain. I think The EU has been a very strong example of this not far removed by the people who intended for it to be so: Our own politicians in Westminster.
In the previous blog, The Betrayal Of Britains Fishing - Booklet I wanted to try to provide a stronger visualization of that so-called "Engine" that is at the heart of driving Brexit forwards. I think I was partially successful. However, much work remains to be done to develop more thinking of this engine in more useful ways. I have tried to consider it again using computer concepts (an area I'm currently learning hence): There's a bit more on this here: Kernels and Shells:-
The disappointement I've felt when at FLEXCIT meetings, some people start talking about "reactions"; little realizing few people ever directly interact with the kernel: Others usefully provide all the services they need built via layers on top of it!
In FLEXCIT we have a body of knowledge that effectively contains substantial research basis into the "hardware" of politics concerning the EU, Referendum and Brexit subjects. The actual research per area connected. This summarized form then is a final living document which people can read, and of course it's complicated and few of the "end-users" will use directly. But that's the whole point. Above the kernal some "power-users" will be able to interact directly and create useful information to then feed into useful functions for other people "application layer/level" and then share these with yet more and more people. So we have 2 analogies, a car engine and a kernel. I think I've given a visual concept of the engine/kernel, "what it looks like" in the above blog post. But there's much more to do for example:-
Some years ago, I actually worked on the EU's implementation of changes to "roaming charges" at the company I then worked for. From that personal experience I can say there were two types of driver for change:-
Top-Down
Bottom-Up
Effectively with mobiles you have "roaming" and "network coverage" covering a given area so the end-users can use their devices. Mobiles have increased communications beyond anything you can imagine (billions/trillions). This is as with Internet a good thing overall, allowing the spread of information. And this is indeed reflected in boosting economical activity, hence there always was going to be a political driver from this point of view of expanding the market. However, mobile operators passing on the use of different networks for travelling customers, would include charges for the use of their different networks. This new technology led to a couple of serious end-user consequences:-
Customers would unwittingly charge themselves thousands of pounds without realization.
The costs of such for such a function were incredibly heavily skewed to the intended activity for using the mobile.
The advent of data with new technology from EDGE/GPRS to 2.5G, 3G etc massively expanded the multimedia rich usees of smart phones along with their own improvements (see iPhone).
Fraud was a big issue: Lines become hacked and customers are footed with a bill that leads to negative retention between customer and service-provider.
Due to all the various carrier networks and matrix of combinations of "roaming" charges and their relative expense the consumer and business choice of understanding the vast array of different tariff options was always going to result in either telecoms service resale companies supporting such businesses or for consumers being ripped off with ridiculous bills and pushing for consumer changes. This again was a driver for turning networks into "dumb tubes" that behaved more consistently and transparently.
Secondly as above, the advent of rich media on mobiles created it's own demand for subsequent services such as apps which are immensely profitable (eg Apple). This further was a driver for consumers to have more accessible tariffs and pricing options.
So if you look at the whole picture, telecommunications was invariably going to mature as an industry and the promotion of competition in this service an aid to uptake usage and the data/information revolution itself.
Hence it's quite a good example of the globalization process. Albeit to simply illustrate that using a particular policy area is challenging, or a problem of communication that someone reading FLEXCIT might like to develop an argument for in aid towards for example arguments that support and promote and extend the "usablity of FLEXCIT" in our political decision-making.
I think there's space here for intelligent and inventive people to politically make a difference and network around some prodigiously advanced and capable work and build off the shoulders of such progress!
The alternative is of course that "The EU wot did it?" Well I'm sure the EU probably was conducive, certainly for it's self-image, but why not? It just makes practical sense concerning Telecommunications trends. But did that require over-complexity of political idols and fixations?
As was reported recently concerning the tax issues: If you build a society around rewarding greed, sanctifying certain types as "good greed" you'll get tax avoidance results. The same with our politicians: If you build a voting system that promotes the self-serving and the over-complex manipulators of appearance over promoting a rigorous or "stoic" system of selection of candidates who can actually PROVE what they have contributed rather than fabricate it in the minds of captive audiences... that sounds a lot like what we've ended up with and more sharply in focus in this EU Referendum than ever before, in my opinion.
"Readers
who appreciated John Ashworth’s excellent series of articles on the
Common Fisheries Policy will be delighted to know that the eight pieces
he wrote for this website have been edited into a single booklet, which
is now available free of charge (although any contributions would be
greatly welcomed).
If you live in near a fishing port, it
will be a particularly useful booklet to distribute, but even if you
don’t, what has happened to our fishing industry does not stand alone.
This well-researched and hard-hitting account of the destruction of our
fishing fleet by government ministers and civil servants epitomises
everything that is wrong with our membership of the EU and provides a
very powerful reason as to why we should vote to leave. Please contact admin[at] campaignforanindependentbritain [dot] org [dot] uk if you wish to order copies."
You can read the above booklet at the link provided or order a physical copy of the booklet by John Ashworth via The Campaign For An Independent Britain (CIB) again using the link or email contact address above.
I previously blogged about this subject and John Ashworth's work as it was being written up at CIB. There's a very very strong reason why it is one of the best works ever produced on Brexit or the EU and with respect to Fisheries as a Political Argument, possibly the best I have personally read. I think I am right in being able to successfully convey this reasoning via the efficacious illustration that I hope will be immensely valuable for framing and structuring conceptual understanding to the work and the factual research and details it's based upon and the core principles from which it continuously refers and repeats and rigorously demonstrates - in reality:-
Useful 'Thinking Framework' for John Ashworth's magnificent work
The Booklet is only 31 pages in total length including supplementary pages. Please take time to sit down and read it and think about it. If you do, you'll have, I'm absolutely sure and confident, understood the core arguments of the EU Referendum and Brexit as applied to a specific policy area: Fisheries. But the principles are transferable to all other policy areas; and hence it is an encapsulation of the complete argument - By reading this booklet you will have successfully learn the core or "kernel" of the political argument concerning the UK's Referendum on its EU membership and its alternative, Brexit; by which you will be informed enough to know how to vote either "Remain" or "Leave".
This booklet really is that valuable.
Many Thanks to John Ashworth for producing such a useful work.
