Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Sunday, 26 February 2017

Brexit: The British Disease

It's worth listening to the Select Committees: Exiting The EU Committee with Sir Ivan Rogers. It's not worth listening to the shit-for-brains Politicians asking the questions however, which I've tried to capture in the cartoon above. In the EU the phrase "The British Disease" if I remember correctly refers to the idea of British euroscepticism being a possible contagion (attitude or belief) concerning the EU idea or ideology of Supranationalism which so dominates European politics in our current present.

However, in this blog "The British Disease" does not mean that: It means this:-
  1. Identify Change
  2. Establish Problems
  3. Moan about why the change happened and allow that to inform on reactions chosen - not work effectively on solutions.

In actual fact, the major problem of Brexit is the former EU perception of Brexit. Sir Ivan Rogers points out that the EU is based on a "Legal Order not Common Sense" and hence behaves as such. Also the problem with it's own "lack of solidarity" under conditions of change. Whereas our British Disease is summed up by a Scottish MP/SMP or whatever the hell it matters quoting Theresa May, our present Prime Minister: "No deal is better than a bad deal".

Sir Ivan Rogers also points out the perils of nomenclature clouding discussing Migration, which only echoes the larger battle in Maastricht concerning Major requesting the removal of "Federal" from that Treaty: In fact this divergence of conception of what is the EU is raised concerning the Cameron negotiations, itself harking back to the early 1970's...

In all that time the real British Disease has not been a predetermined genetic aversion towards Europe or Globalisation, as if some kind of assumed given order of nature, but this failure to understand change, to accept change for what it really is and work on effective solutions and hence appropriate responses and communication.

As for the EU, The Great Deception really does name their major problem with their chosen disease. I wonder how many people in European nations suffer this misconception, huge numbers; cue the EU budget... just like in Britain.

Sunday, 19 February 2017

Brexit: Mission To Mars!

A bit more Victorian "spunk" should see us safely through.

I've been enjoying reading around/about Mars in various ways recently, such as enjoying The Martian film of the The Martian book by Andy Weir (what a hell-hole!). I've also read a number of other scifi books that relate to Mars variously too, such as The Sirens Of Titan and Man Plus. And most recently there's an interesting boardgame that I may decide to get my hands on called "Terraforming Mars":-

The goal is simple (!!!): make Mars habitable. Forget Matt Damon as the primitive first "Martian"; Terraforming Mars takes place much further in the future and unfolds over centuries, ending with a green and blue map of a Red Planet covered with cities, vegetation, and oceans.
In fact I looked into the scientific investigation of this subject briefly and it's very interesting looking at how damn difficult and how long in scale any such attempt would be to Terraform Mars into a "Living Planet" such as Earth.

If you look at the above TIME magazine you'll note it accurately points out the relevance of the science AND politics of our attempts and interest in The Red Planet (as opposed to our Blue Planet). Considering what a complete headache it would be to make Mars habitable in an ecological sense, is quite useful: Our ambitions reach their limits and we may decide that working on what we already have in front of us, is probably a more efficient option? But for that to happen, we have to have a huge political change in the world's ability to organize as per the wishes of the population and their mentality or world view. Here the "Mission To Mars" does seem to provide a politically useful and tangibly real tool to achieve this mental change at the scale of millions and perhaps billions? In fact all the above scifi books are excellent in identifying this in their various enthralling and insightful ways.

But it's interesting that the initial conception of "Mission To Mars" probably has to start with the explicit will to "go further into the unknown" and "break our limits of knowledge" and perhaps find that miracle that immediately solves all our world's ills, all in one go; that's invariably over the next horizon as opposed to right in front of us??! NASA provides various reasons for the missions to mars:-
  • Finding traces of Life (despite there being so much to study and understand already on Earth!)
  • Sending the first people to Mars (after the "lowly" robots!)
  • There's analogies to the Age of Discovery and not being "left behind" by other Space Agencies in developing "future tech" (that empowers future "PRAW-gress"!)
I'm not against it, despite the displays of irony above; it's quite exciting and one of life's deepest drives. But these ostensible reasons seem more like "cooked up" reasons to match what is already ambitiously and symbolically decided.

The other thing to note is that as a thought exercise, I don't have to think about a quick trip down to the shops. It's fairly easy to pack my bags for a trip across country to stay with friends and family. Some more planning for a holiday trip abroad and then again more planning and preparation for moving to live and work somewhere far away from where one presently lives. Perhaps if one is drafted into the military the preparation for extreme environments is much higher? Now imagine a full manned-mission to mars and the exacting conditions involved in that?!

That's well beyond me (though the military environment I have some understanding of what that entails and the commitment and sacrifice) and besides I'm more than happy living in the lush Earth ecosystems right here, particularly with Spring around the corner, too!

As a taster of one small part of making the journey to Mars for a probe:-

From: Orbital Transfers between Planetary Orbits: An Example

There's some really interesting mathematics in evidence here and it shows that even the basic or theoretical conception is a level above of planning the journey than a quick walk down the shops or grabbing an cross-country train ticket from National Rail Enquires... .

The point of pointing this out is to provide a concrete contrast to people making comments about Brexit plans to which it is the equivalent of a loud-mouthed and gobby idiot calling up NASA and blasting them for not following the faxed instructions written on the back of a beer mat to "Get Their Asses To Mars Already!" The other point of contention is to point out that the more complex the journey, and the more outside of our daily experiences, the more rigorous we need to adhere to knowledge domains and the preceding knowledge of what we can rely on in those fields compared to the risk of what can go wrong and what we do not know or cannot account for or can only account for in a limited fashion given our knowledge, experience and current state of competence. Not so long ago, with "Scott Of The Antarctic" being a saying highly relevant in my own father's lifetime.

In my next blog and aimed at a new website platform, I'll choose an area from the dozens of areas that suggests we ARE going to have to rely on what we already know, what we already have got up and running to make an effective and successful Brexit journey in terms of time and space and information change both objective and through politics the subjective transformation of peoples' attitudes: How about making use of what's already in front of us, before planning "day trips" to our neighbouring galaxy, Andromeda?

Then and again, perhaps I've missed the entire point of all this "sharing and caring" in the public discourse, the Brexit discussion in the media with the public and politicians and pundits is exactly the same drama as "football phone-ins" where "Chris or Chad or Chuck calls in putting the two teams to rights by shouting out the riot act!"??

I hope not:- EUREFERENDUM.COM by Dr. RAE North. I've had to reread these several times and often not even looking further at the various links within each. But if you want to have a go at actually "doing the math" as per the math-ed link above in calculating the orbital transfers on paper needed to send a probe to mars... here you go (!), fill your boots:-

Booker: shut outside the EU fortress19/02/2017
Brexit: heavy lifting18/02/2017
Brexit: geographical indications17/02/2017
Brexit: breaking up is hard to do16/02/2017
Brexit: a potentially explosive issue15/02/2017
Brexit: fraud-busting could slow the pace14/02/2017
Brexit: losing control13/02/2017
Booker: chaos at our ports12/02/2017
Brexit: journey into the unknown11/02/2017
Brexit: more equals less10/02/2017
Brexit: a temple of ignorance09/02/2017
Brexit: the politics of contempt08/02/2017
Brexit: Operation Stack here we come07/02/2017
Brexit: Britannia cannot waive the rules06/02/2017
Booker: a catastrophic act of national self harm05/02/2017
Brexit: the bottomless pit04/02/2017
Brexit: we only do aspiration03/02/2017
Brexit: White Paper - an act of delusion03/02/2017
Brexit: the Digital Single Market02/02/2017
Brexit: horsing around01/02/2017
Brexit: prepare to meat thy doom31/01/2017
Brexit: medicines for all30/01/2017
Brexit: taking to the air29/01/2017
Brexit: high stakes on REACH28/01/2017

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Bercow's Law: Deus Ex Politics?

Lost Leonardo raises a very very interesting observation in his latest blog: Not Whether, But How:-
"What can one say when confronted with this level of wilful self-delusion? Europe is not the EU. I will keep saying that because it is true and because anybody who attempts to muddy the water on that particular issue is either being manipulative or is so stupid as to warrant no further attention. Many of the people who refer to the EU as Europe are both.

These are not knowledgeable people. These are people who have not troubled to learn anything new since the vote. Their arguments, if one can call them that, are stuck in the past, wishing after a referendum outcome that the British people declined to deliver."

What is an Argument?

An ARGUMENT is a sequence of statements of which one is intended as a CONCLUSION and the others, the PREMISES, are intended to prove or at least provide some evidence for the conclusion (using declarative sentences).

Though the premises of an argument must be intended to prove or provide evidence for the conclusion, they need not actually do so. There are bad arguments as well as good ones.

Building chains of premises based on midpoints being both premises to forward conclusions and such conclusions acting as premises subsequently are non-basic arguments or complex arguments. Those premises and assumptions which form the foundation of such arguments are BASIC PREMISES or ASSUMPTIONS.

If we are careful we define our premises. For example using the above diagram:-
  • Environment = European Continent
  • Economics = Customs Union, European Economic Area + Single Market, EFTA, UNECE and more.
  • Society = Various European Nations (see venn diagram of variable relationships) including a European Union.
  • Politics = Variable national demos as well as international and supranational and intergovernmental and global institutions.
To add to Lost Leonardo's examples is Speaker John Bercow: I voted to remain in EU recent statements or "argument" for voting to Remain as he freely communicates:-

  1. "Personally I voted To Remain" (CONCLUSION 2)
  2. "I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not." (NON-BASIC PREMISE or INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION).
  3. "Partly for economic reasons, being part of a big trade block." (PREMISE).
  4. "And partly because we're in a world of power-blocs." (BASIC PREMISE or ASSUMPTION).
  5. "And I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies of the European Union, it's better to be part of that big power-bloc, in the world. (CONCLUSION 1).
That is the order of his argument as it is said. To rearrange into the correct argument order:-

  1.  "And partly because we're in a world of power-blocs." (BASIC PREMISE or ASSUMPTION).
  2.  "Partly for economic reasons, being part of a big trade block." (PREMISE).
  3. "I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not." (NON-BASIC PREMISE or INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION).
  4. "And I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies of the European Union, it's better to be part of that big power-bloc, in the world. (CONCLUSION 1).
  5. "Personally I voted To Remain" (CONCLUSION 2).
It's worth noting that the visible majority of coverage of Bercow has been on point 5 his final conclusion in context to his SOCIAL ROLE IN OUR SOCIETY.

However it's worth a lot more to note his "basic premise" or assumption and what this foundation to his subsequent argument and conclusion and hence decision and hence information value input into this subject; is worth or worthless:-

Let's repeat it:-
  • "And partly because we're in a world of power-blocs."
  1.  IF we are in a world of power-blocs then as a single nation we must be part of one of those power blocs.
  2. IF 1 is true and observable THEN which power-bloc derives?
  3. IF we are in EUROPE (which is self-evident) then the only legitimate/sensible power-bloc or powerful or relevant power-bloc or best power-bloc is the EU.
Here Bercow has defined the model of our reality, our environment through IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS within his basic premise or 1st assumption of his argument. From this defintion of reality he then creates a model or concept of what this means in his next PREMISE:-

  •  "Partly for economic reasons, being part of a big trade block."
  1. Not only are 1-3 unquestioned and untested, but his economic concept of the EU as a "big trade block" is a bad argument. It firstly appears to define the EU as predominantly economics derived from our environment and not from our politics which it always was. You might mistake world wars as environment-driven conflict between European nations... but Anthony Scolefield's comment at - Journey Into The Unknown is powerful counterbalance to this view in mere representation of a huge other argument that exists but which is not propounded here (see below):-
  2. Secondly it also excludes the exploration of economic and trade relations with Europe and the EU and the rest of the world without EU Membership or assumes that such is so deleterious to our economy as to be a void choice even if categorical in possibility. Thirdly that such a decision being void now must always be void or void as long as is invalid and/or not viable either.
  3. Fourthly it assumes that the EU "trade bloc" not being a political creation (see point 1) is a successful "economic" or "big trade bloc".
"The terms of the Armistice of 11th November are quite interesting.One historian put it very well

'The Allied statesmen were faced with a problem:so far they had considered the 'fourteen commandments'(Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points) as a piece of clever and effective American propaganda,designed primarily to undermine the fighting spirit of the Central Powers,and to bolster the morale of the lesser Allies.

Now, suddenly, the whole peace structure was supposed to be built up on that set of 'vague principles', most of which seemed to them thoroughly unrealistic,and some of which,if they were to be seriously applied,were simply unacceptable'.
So in a few days punitive armistice demands were cobbled together which laid the basis for another war."
  • "I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not." (NON-BASIC PREMISE or INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION).
  1. (continuing from the basic premise) Fifthly it assumes that the UK could not have been successful outside of this from the start (remaining in EFTA(-EEA) as a non-viable powerbloc) or that sixth a transition depending on time-frame may be more successful eventually. Here the definition or bad argument reaches it's final crystallization: For economic reasons Bercow prefers Remain. This statement does fit the apparent stupidity of May's White Paper and hence his comments gain political intra-logical coherence thus appearing deceptively self-evident and/or correct. But that is a product of the assumptions behind his initial basic premise.
Following this chain of logic and concluding that John Bercow has made a bad argument may have appeared laborious at this point. But the core concept of this blog is arrived at and named

Bercow's Law

The use of political argument to appear to be environmental or "reality" informing our context or conceptual understanding which surrounds future arguments in the political arena or argumentation. In fact his argument is a DEUS EX MACHINA argument of Politics and politicians manipulating and controlling the level they abstract (derive) from: SOCIETY:-
"Nietzsche argued that the deus ex machina creates a false sense of consolation that ought not to be sought in phenomena."
THAT IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP to which they are obsessed and driven concerning. Effectively once this is repeatedly done and becomes orthodoxy of political belief-systems; it's self-reinforcing: Hermetically sealing off data and research which in turn drives logical relationships which in turn should drive arguments which in turn should drive societies choices through political engagement.

Let's alight from such lofty heights for a moment and come back down to earth with a personal anecdote: I had opportunity to assist some students with their English learning as they had to make speeches. I noticed that curiously they tended to pick subjects such as gender politics or racism and other such moral Aesop bolted on one-liner style topics. It took some persuasion to ask the students to consider speeches on: One something they know a lot about and perhaps are skillful at carrying out (!) and Two something they find genuinely interesting to themselves which they personally picked as individuals (!) - not apparently important as per what they can always without fail find to watch on the news shows daily... . My final thoughts from the English lesson were that young students when learning English Language seem to imitate their proximate authorities (schools themselves suffering the moral hazard of education by law and thus by force of either threat of sanction/fine or imprisonment) as opposed to learn their actual relationship with the world through the relations which we discover when learning from Logic used in argument?

Monday, 6 February 2017

ABC Learning: The Politics of Brexit

Weblink To The Above Source of Information from Ivan Rogers:-

Subject: EU-UK relations in preparation for Brexit: Witnesses: Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG, former Permanent Representative of the UK to the European Union

This is a short blog.

The purpose of this blog is a task completion: "Find the most relevant political information from the preceding week on the subject of Brexit which provides the most helpful overview to people who are interested in understanding the politics of Brexit at the present moment in time."

Assumption: To provide a source of information which is helpful to the above task completion to people who still consider themselves as learning more about this subject but suspect that most sources of information are either inadequate or error prone to the extent of ostensibly appearing to be sources of information but in fact are some form of social activity for example propaganda being one category amongst many.


  • Learning involves the skill of filtering relevant information from irrelevant and erroneous information to increase focus and reduce distraction.
  • Learning involves increasing the "stamina" of the above activity in progress to be able to deal with lots of new information which may often be unfamiliar in form and structure and content.
  • Learning increases in effectiveness when the ability to spot errors in the above filtering is developed further: This provides sources of questions.
  • Often learning only starts with finding the sources that fit the first criteria most reliably. For example in the case of Brexit.
  • Efficiency of learning develops when automation of the above as a process is created or stored: To speed up the actual focusing on the actual relevant information.
  • From this each individual will develop their own particular skills to understand the information.
  • A framework of conception of the subject starts to develop.
  • A lot of repetition and study is required for the full learning process.
The above is a rough account of my own learning about the politics of Brexit, so it's far from a formal set of principles but perhaps a few helpful pointers for others interested in how people might learn more more effectively here.
Some of the problems, learners will have to contend with in the above talk with Ivan Rogers:-

  1. The questioners in the committee appear to me to not have a conceptual framework: Namely the people asking questions appear not be fully functional learners of the subject they think they have the competence to pose questions about (see the 3rd point about learning). I believe this as I find their questions hard to establish a connection with what Ivan Rogers is saying (who himself does skillfully manage to make connections from the obscure questioning) as I cannot easily work out their context in relation to the subject. Compared to this, I find I easily do understand the multiple dimensions of context Sir Ivan Rogers involves in his answers.
  2. For people totally used to the news-media format, the above will test their stamina of understanding probably exactingly. The density of information will be challenging to parse, to pattern, to arrange in mental conceptions in relation to further contexts, it will remain a very dense lump of heavy substance to use a word picture and effect of exhaustion on comprehension.
  3. The more familiar with the actual subject the more usefully one can filter out the "hackneyed" redundancies in language ie phrases and such like that are empty of information value and reflect much more the struggle of the people attempting to communicate ideas with each other; often through mixed and confused motivations; around a subject they don't have a strong grasp of (instead of through it).
  4. The motivations of people mix the real ABC's of this learning exercise. Let's use some examples in the talk: On one side you have Kinnock making value-laden conclusions about the risks of Brexit not "being worth it" and on the other side you have Bill Cash acting as the high priest of "the people have spoken and will not be deterred from their absolute right to sovereignty" as based upon the Referendum result. Before stating what "ABC" means, which should be familiar to everyone in a different form, to investigate not the A as here, but the C as per this week's
In the EU Referendum Campaign there were two notoriously full of BS flags held aloft by each side the Remain and Leave official campaigns:-

  • "£350m to spend on the NHS saved from wasting/thieving on the EU."
  • "The demons of FUD will get you! if the UK leaves the EU."
If we all assume most of the time that all of the adults voting in politics are mostly rational, why do we allow such BS to to be the flags around which each group rallies around and fights these political battles?

To communicate to millions of people, in films there's a device known as "Anvilicious"; helpfully provided from TVTROPES (everyone should be so familiar with by now):-

"A portmanteau of anvil and delicious (or possibly vicious), anvilicious describes a writer's and/or director's use of an artistic element, be it line of dialogue, visual motif, or plot point, to so obviously or unsubtly convey a particular message that they may as well etch it onto an anvil and drop it on your head. Frequently, the element becomes anvilicious through unnecessary repetition, but true masters can achieve anviliciousness with a single stroke.
Heavy-handed for the new millennium. Extreme polar opposite of subtle.

Most people as Dominic Cummings rightly points out in his long blog post on the subject make value-laden decisions, often resorting to their tribal chieftan or other (anthropolitically-the-same-thing) "belief leaders" (be they politicians or celebrities)."

Most people don't learn, they believe instead. And that means believing what your mother-surogate or dominant-group-father-figure tells you is good for you. It may or it may not be but if you don't know, you rely on those who you often fall back on to rely on, trusting they're looking after you as "one of their own" and visa versa.

As it stands at the present, this is the past description of domination of the argument as value-laden "so-called democracy". The present "negotiations" or phony war as Sir Ivan Rogers calls it, can be characterized by another heavy object: Anchoring:-

Anchoring or focalism is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions. During decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgements. Once an anchor is set, other judgements are made by adjusting away from that anchor, and there is a bias toward interpreting other information around the anchor. For example, the initial price offered for a used car sets the standard for the rest of the negotiations, so that prices lower than the initial price seem more reasonable even if they are still higher than s what the car is really worth

Cash and Kinnock hold arguments that only fall into the above behaviour in evidence, by the way. Hence so much of the talking of Brexit is at this Behavioural level only stems from dictating each groups' own particular brand of gospel ie coded language singing  to the belief systems of large groups (hence why each side cannot fathom the other's strange and WRONG! tribal customs and beliefs), leading to very little explanation - merely consternation at bizarre behaviour of people interacting with each other that seems to so obsess so many people unproductively (another example the incessant obsession in the news-media with anything related to Trump; amusingly Robert Harris in the Evening Standard suffars from this without seeming to have seen it in Blair or Mandelson during their particular political hay-day). We have moved on from the A at the start considering people's value-laden basis A For Attitude to decision-making roots, to the behavioural descriptions operating, the B For Behaviour. Lastly the C:

As above EUReferendum has been providing these:-


Brexit: the Digital Single Market02/02/2017
Brexit: horsing around01/02/2017
Brexit: prepare to meat thy doom31/01/2017
Brexit: medicines for all30/01/2017
Brexit: taking to the air29/01/2017
Brexit: high stakes on REACH28/01/2017

Brexit: fishing for policies26/01/2017

Brexit: of customs, chickens and roosts24/01/2017

I've removed the other blog posts which point out the aberrant behaviour level and left the Cognitive areas that are supremely useful if we can avoid distractions and not be beguiled by our more innate habitual biases...

These to use a picture are the SECTORS of our economy and society and state and the mix between all these - where for people we have strange organic patterns as of a surreal dream, for this we have some more neat and tidy engineering systems little circuits buzzing like so much plumbing, for illustration purposes and visual representation only (not accurate due to time requirements):-

Each slice is a "SECTOR" and within each "sector" there is numerous legislation for repatriation, and from that each "bit" of legislation has sub-divisions that need analysis. Not only that but each "bit" itself links to other "bits". For example:-

Brexit: fishing for policies

Obviously, with some regulations, there will be no problems. For example, we have Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011, "amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives". This is a straightforward technical regulation and as long as we keep it in force, our trade with the EU will not be interrupted by virtue of disparities in rules on food additives.

On the other hand, there are the more complex laws that cover policy issues related to economic activity, and include the regulation and coordination of the actions of Member States and the Commission – plus other EU bodies. These might be considerably harder to integrate into UK law without, at the very least, substantial amendment. 

One such example might be Regulation 1380/2013
 which sets out the current parameters for the Common Fisheries Policy. If Ministers think they can simply re-enact this at a UK level, they may be rather disappointed.

 Brexit: medicines for all

The crucial point about medicines for human use is that their manufacturing, distribution and sale is currently an EU competence, and heavily regulated by a considerable number of legal instruments, many of great length and complexity. 

Even with the best will in the world, full separation from the EU, and restoration of independent control over medicines is not going to be easy, although there are elements that could make returning UK control easier than in some other sectors. 

In this short piece, though – continuing a theme introduced in several earlier posts – we look at the post-Brexit supply of medicines in the context of the UK Brexit strategy which is largely reliant in the short- to medium-term on the Great Repeal Bill, repatriating EU law and applying it as UK law. 

The idea generally is that we can simply pluck EU law out of its context and re-apply it with a UK label but, as we saw with fishing and other sectors, this may not be as straightforward as is imagined. 

This is just a sample of the productive level of learning and understanding once the barriers below this level have been removed, which are so innate:-

Ape tantrums: Chimps and bonobos emotional about choice

And perception of fairness on those Brexit negotiations:-

That all said, for people, the layer below behaviour which animals exhibit is based on our formation of our values and hence our attitude which informs are basic behaviour - BEFORE - we even begin the more challenging task of learning and growing our knowledge through more cognitive means. Eg as per Dr. North at considering the legislation as one form of measurement of scope for action in a very complex and very large operation in scale (time and space).

But even the above animals exhibit some basics here eg Fairness. I think the more people can learn about the subject, the more they will be persuaded to think in terms of fairness as being the most practical method of how to work Brexit successfully, be that for London, Scotland, Ireland, any of the European countries, whichever of the plus 30 sectors which are integrated into the Single Market and so on.

I looked at the usual offerings: The newspapers, the tv and the sheer quantity of this material which mixes up the ABC's of Brexit constantly only reinforces the idea that for people politics is some sort of specialist activity for experts, when so much of it is based at such low levels of behaviour masquerading as intelligent and rational decision-making. To begin learning it, separate these layers and focus on the Cognitive sources and raise the value and input of the national conversation on our politics.

Even Sir Ivan Rogers, who knows a lot about the EU and Brexit makes an error in saying that the EU was more of a market and now is more of a political thing. Yes it's true in one sense, but he fails to point out the origins of the EU idea were always of a Supranational Institution and this purpose seeking an audience to subdue instead of serve by means of gaining power in Europe. See Christopher Booker and Richard North's The Great Deception history. As Dr. North points out: Curiously those who supported this narrative now attack the narrative of FLEXCIT, their values at odds with their cognitive understanding dictating their monkey like reactions (see above).

What next? D For Deadlock?

Sunday, 22 January 2017

Displacement & Distraction = Powerless Protest

It seems more accurate to describe our "current democracy" as closer to a "public sounding off" or "letting off steam" as the true type of participation with which people interact with politics. The most recent example is the hyperventilating as above: People resorting to "Displacement Activities":-

  • Marching up and down
  • Chanting and engaging in righteous condemning activities
  • Joining large groups of other such people.
  • Making a lot of noise and jumping up and down...
The above tweet was an amusing joke I noticed on twitter and makes a useful contrast: That protest may be full of expression and often not very conducive expression, but falling so short of explanation of the situation. In short, people don't seem to hold any bearing of where they are, what they stand for and how they can usefully and effectively engage in politics. What happens? Protest channels this helpless energy and this distraction fills the news-media: It's almost as if the political machinery has a flow chart and this is merely one visible stage of "PROTEST" in a flow chart where people's "Input" is ticked off - as above, the above tweeter demonstrates perfectly the true utility of protest compared to expectations of participation. From this stage in the flow chart politics swiftly moves on - away from the useless people stage.

Assuming the above is very quick and general description, then we could consider what the next step in such a flow diagram might be?

The above exchange is in fact a perfect example of the implications of "Powerless Protest" to elaborate on:-

John Finn's understanding is based on an assumption he reveals in his subsequent response, but first his communication shows a couple of problems:-

  1. He's expressing an opinion without checking his own state of knowledge: "Have you actually read FLEXCIT?" And that itself is just the beginning of that journey.
  2. He sprinkles politeness and "friendliness" as substitute for the above in his communication.
It's a mistake I've unfortunately made so many times: It's a form of self-conceit that is very hard to acknowledge but if you are going to criticize then you really have to be able and competent in your ability to marshal your arguments or send them to their massacre! And one needs a lot of self-sincerity in that case to cope...

The assumption is laid bare here: "You only have an opinion and no say in strategy." This really is a couple of things:-

  1. Applicable in general to everyone concerning moving politics onto the next stage away from people - leaving people with powerless protest and possibly even encourage to be distracted in this displacement type of activity mistaking it for real political action that is real because it's effective.
  2. Dr. North provides his own answer below. But I'd suggest this is mixing up arguments: It veers away from explanation of arguments which is exactly what FLEXCIT does do (as Dr. North mentions examples of below). It literally is accepting that argument explanation must be trumped by those in power who do have a say on strategy!!!
  3. This is a remarkable claim and I suspect a claim that perhaps most people blindly, mutely and hence in behaviour STUPIDLY accept... something along the lines of "that's the way the world works". This is a sort of "abbatoir of democracy":-

Here to point out the correct made by Dr. North's response, pointing out how much FLEXCIT asserts the "Political Context" not a "vacuum" unlike the IEA Brexit Competition papers (!). But also notice:-

  • Coherent Exit: An argument that is built up from beginning to end logically that increases explanation value if used and hence if used...
  • Rational Negotiation - again insistence to avoid basing arguments on lies, on games such as "Brinkmanship" (see historic errors that manifest from this) etc.
There is also another response: Without following these principles in democracy we do end up with an alternative result: Powerless Protest, Pointless Voting in both of the pictures above: Twitter and the Sheep pictures.

From The Harrogate Agenda:-
"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value."

The political abberations follow from this:-

1. Recognition of our sovereignty

"One consequence of Germany losing the Second World War was that the success or state to the Third Reich had imposed upon it a new constitution, in which British legal experts had a part to play.  It is thus highly significant that Article 20 of that constitution (the Basic Law) declares that all state authority comes from the people. Although not specifically stated, the effect of this was to recognise that the German people are sovereign. 

Despite the British effectively bequeathing this principle to a nation it had a hand in vanquishing, it does not apply to the people of the United Kingdom.  Instead, we have the doctrine of “Parliamentary sovereignty”. Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future 
Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty, says the Parliamentary website, is the most important part of the UK constitution.

We believe this should change, not least because, in the name of parliamentary sovereignty, our MPs have a licence to ignore the wishes of the people and to hand power to bodies such as the European Union. This has led to a situation where UK courts recognise the supremancy of EU law in preference to our own, and can strike down laws made by Parliament.

However, we do not believe that we should make a statement along the lines of the German constitution, declaring the source of power. What can be made can be unmade.  What can be granted can be rescinded.  Instead, we take our guidance from the United States constitution, which starts with the words: “We the people … ”. In so doing, it signifies that the fount of all political power stems from the people, but there is no declaration of sovereignty as such. Sovereignty is regarded as inalienable. Because of that, it cannot be taken away by any body, governmental or otherwise."
If we can start seeing how people actually integrate into politics currently, we might also begin to think ahead a bit further imagining our political flow chart: What is the next step on that?

Well, again, I think you can spot this for yourself if you pay close attention: One example on The Andrew Marr Show today is the fact that Mrs. May's incoherence in her speech allows other politicians their own fiefdoms from which to operate from such as the previously, heavily discredited Nick Clegg, who now suddenly appears to be a politician of wise caution and sensible suggestions. In fact these politicians manufacture their own almost inscrutable dynamics to people where so much is veiled and muddied, that ensures their arguments always appear to be FROM THE SOURCE OF POWER (which is not the people) to which people cannot possibly fathom... "experts" or "authorities" or "chiefs" or "celebrities" even too.

Compare: Rational Argument egs from Dr. North's
With the monopoly of Arguments by these imposters:-

They are imposters on account of from first principles derived above in The Harrogate Agenda (again John Finn above is probably highly representative of most people falling under the opposite delusion created by these "authorities") but also on performance which betrays that they too are just as ignorant as most "ordinary voters" are and are made to feel by their useless demonstrations and protests. By dint of their superior prestige in society they act more coolly and appear thus ever more superior - the trappings of power.

Let's try and therefore combine all the thoughts and ideas above and make a useful prediction: What the hell will happen with Brexit given all the noise?

If we consider the above, it seems likely that the politicians are much more involved in allowing people to demonstrate and protest mistaking this as democracy before they themselves then use various political fudges to ascertain how much political power they really are in control of. Thus the options may present themselves if we use this as our guide:-
  • the EFTA/EEA option and it's auxillery options as per FLEXCIT is too clearly too rational and visible to be ostensibly chosen. The power dynamic would be too exposed and out of control by the politicians in the UK and EU members.
  • If we had voted Remain however the other problem would have been how to deal with the UK while the rest of the EU engage in a New Treaty. Again the power dynamic under stress.
  • Attenuating out Brexit into fudged language and backroom deals and popular sounding nostrums and generally blurring and blending it's meanings as far away from coherence as possible and closer towards, "Who said what" and hence how many prestigious consensus can be sold to peoples across Europe, then I think we'll see a variation on a New Treaty and some renamed Association Membership balancing the Non-EUROS with the EUROS members.
Dr. North has already warned this is exactly what you'd expect from Mrs. May stupid speech (again incoherent but people accepting superior opinion instead of rational coherent argument + being able to protest too and then add on further bullshit eg brinkmanship sounding ever-so clever); this is nothing new to be said.

But what I believe I have achieved, far from perfectly, is link this expected result with the roots of failure of democracy and power: As again already pointed out with people failing to understand the true nature of the Brexit vote previously: It was always a test of people to rise above themselves and be worthy of living and running a real democracy of relations between each other: Which they failed even at the same time as apparently winning against the Establishment. Cue the politicians reassert their former roles once again with zero opposition permissible.

That Twitter comparison above is food for thought: The inchoate animal-like anger-fear mixture at a perceived threat to the self = probably most voters?

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

May's Brexit Gambit: Cheap Parlour Games

It wasn't the strategic masterclass perhaps we all hoped for... ! (Excuse the humorous, modern day Oracle that is "google").

[GERMAN] "Sollte es das Ziel von Theresa May gewesen sein, Europa mit einer Flut von Adjektiven zu überschwemmen, dann war sie an diesem Tag überaus erfolgreich. Großbritannien werde nach dem Brexit fairer, vereinter und weltoffener, sagte die Premierministerin, ein sicheres, wohlhabendes, tolerantes, globales Land. Ein verlässlicher Partner, bereitwilliger Verbündeter, enger Freund.

Unter der Welle an oberflächlichen Nettigkeiten kam vorne am Rednerpult im Lancaster House aber bald etwas Härteres zum Vorschein. Die steinerne Frau May. Sollte der Rest Europas nicht mitziehen und Großbritannien während der Brexit-Verhandlungen sogar bestrafen, sagte die Regierungschefin, dann habe das für alle ungute Folgen. Das war keine Versöhnungsansprache, sondern ein Katalog von Forderungen mit einer Prise Drohung. Viele ihrer Sätze begannen mit: Ich will."

[ENGLISH] "If Theresa May's goal was to flood Europe with a flood of adjectives, she was very successful on that day. According to the Brexit, Britain would be a fair, united and cosmopolitan country, said the Prime Minister, a safe, prosperous, tolerant, global country. A reliable partner, willing ally, close friend.

Under the wave of superficial niceties, however, something harder came to light at the front of the lectern at the Lancaster House. The stone woman, May. If the rest of Europe were not to go with it and even punish Great Britain during the Brexit negotiations, the government said, then this had consequences for all. This was not a question of reconciliation, but a catalog of demands with a pinch of threat. Many of her sentences began with: I want."

I made my opinion very clear about how Brexit negotiations should (and probably will) begin in the previous blog whatever "conflagration of words" is heaped onto the "bonfire of vanities", this Fahrenheit 451. I notice two former Leave Alliance bloggers are (gleefully) joining in concerning FLEXCIT being thrown on too: Flexcit is dead & Flexit is dead. Is FLEXCIT a straw dog?

But this blog is a subject about Mrs. May and her value as a "LEADER". Her speech as the Germans are able to easily deconstruct shows a leader of this type:-

1. Style over substance
2. More concerned about impression with others than a centred self.
3. "I want, I want, I want," like the cries of a baby.
4. Someone who speaks a lot (of adjectives) instead of acting decisively.

In all the maelstrom and firestorm of the speech, created by so many stupid writers, none of them can hide the above results from Mrs. May speech that reveal what kind of leader she is for Brexit: A cowardly politician who's childish communication is the only real source of danger to what otherwise is a complex web of the networks and relationships between people in the EU and out of the EU.

For example, how do the Germans see this speech and this leader? As above. I have limited experience of Germans, except a number of flatmates I've lived with; three or four such people, who have been excellent people with very high standards. In particular my last German flatmate. So how about in a speech as a great leader considering the "other" people on the other side of the deal as part of the speech? I think that would be great leadership and example of the people of the UK, being represented to others by Mrs. May - which is what she's really doing ultimately as Prime Minister. But instead: These "cheap parlour games".

Monday, 16 January 2017

Black & White Brexit: Time to Go

Go (9x9)

I have not found the current news-media very interesting for the last few months concerning Brexit. This statement has been made frequently and there's a couple of distinctions to make about it.

First, it needs to be repeated because the quality lacking in the news-media needs to be made more visible and more audible to more people. Secondly, however, repeating it is not the solution. Investigating why the news-media should matter at all is worth thinking about. Here, the little formula can be applied:-
(1) New(s) → Exciting → Interesting?

It's clear that something new grabs our attention. Cats make perfect test subject on this, whenever I let one into my room it likes to investigate new objects or objects in new positions from the previous visit (I'm time-sharing my room with these nocturnal creatures!). Actually, instead of paying any attention to the British News-Media, which is so hopeless, it's better to revisit for example The Great Deception, and the current page I'm on, p.358 New Edition (Referendum edition) concerning how so much legislation passed through so many thousands of various bodies not actually a part of the EU itself. This rings true today, but is updated in FLEXCIT as part of the framing against "globalization" progressing the "story" further from the original framing of how the EU manages to be designed to work through current institutions as per The Great Deception story
in the early 2000's.

What is new may likely be the least interesting thing, but it seems exciting and hence sells "news"...

Hence, it's with a little pleasure to investigate a German news ource and spurn the British News-Media instead as worthless on reporting of Philip Hammond, our present Chancellor:-

They, too need the "new" to be "exciting" with a craptastic title. As for the content of the interview, it's not much better, but just to enjoy avoiding the worthless British news-media and perhaps indicate even crap German news is better than our crap British news-media!
(2) Travel → Jobs → Immigration → British Vote
This line is taking a simple everyday concept people can all grasp such as travelling from country to country and productively in the case of jobs and work and then setting it in contention with what apparently British people opposed in their vote: Migration.

This little track is then set against the more abstract line:-
(3) Capitalism → Free Trade (between nations) → Freedom of Movement (conducive)
Both these tracks then crash headlong into "Immigration", according to the progress of questioning by the German interviewer. Of course this problem then explicates apparently the nature of the Political Problem that the UK and Germany now face with each other:
(4) A problem in their successful working relationship
What I find very stupid, is the emphasis on "threat" in the title, which echoes most of the recent very stupid New-Media titles, foremost amongst them the British News-Media , to check with google news briefly:-
  • UK Set to Choose Sharp Break From European Union (New York Times)
  • The political gulf over Brexit is growing at an alarming rate (Financial Times)
  • Ireland: Brexit vote forces Dublin to seek new EU friends (Financial Times)
  • May's call for 'clean and hard' Brexit to benefit all (Australian)
  • Brexit: UK 'could change economic model' if single market access denied (BBC)
  • If the City vs Brussels is like a game of Jenga, it's possible both sides could lose (Guardian)
  • Whether she's pursuing a hard Brexit or not, Theresa May needs to stop accusing us all of 'subverting democracy' (Independent)
Even from this arbitrary sample, the language has significantly changed (thank the lord) from conflating Europe =/= EU! or EU =/= Single Market (not to mention Customs Union vs Customs Cooperation or Internal Market (acquis communautaire) vs European Economic Area (acquis applicable to EEA Treaty). Thanks to Lost Leonardo for pointing this subtle yet essential shift out in the legacy news-media.

There's actually a recent wider framing of historic and ultimate causes brought up over at by one of the commentators ScepticSid: The ultimate causes of Brexit: history, culture, and geography. Who knows? Pan out even more and perhaps see further and more yet again?

And here the interview goes in an interesting direction:-

UK/US are brought up due to Brexit/Trump presumably but Hammond compares the relationship difference in terms of:-
(5) UK → US = Security
(6) UK → EU = Economic
With the caveat that the UK is in the EU Economic sphere but at the US end of the spectrum within that sphere. Here the pressures on relationships are again in the abstract: Forces, Uncertainty, Time impacting negatively on relationships. There's a final bone thrown to the "young": It's true this category (nebulous at best) raises images of renewal, the future, energy and growth. But the young are predominantly far from political genius' and this again is something the "news" in general creates aberrations of: "The cult of the young". In fact "Fake News" is a theme that I spotted by Sophie Ridge in a newspaper article on the 18th November, 2016:-

 Sophie Ridge: 18th November, 2016

Christopher Booker’s column: lost childhoods, barmy Brexits, and tidal power fantasies
"How revealing of the desperate muddle our Brexit debate has got into were all those headlines last week over the interview between Theresa May and Sophy Ridge of Sky News. Mrs May, they told us, wants us to “leave the single market”, triggering a further costly slump in the value of the pound. It is true that Ms Ridge repeatedly asked Mrs May whether we were going to leave the single market.

But what Mrs May actually replied, as several times before, was that she wants us to remain “within” the single market. If Ms Ridge had been more on the ball, she would have pounced on this to ask how, outside the EU, such a thing is possible.  She could have pointed out (as I have been consistently doing here) that there is only one conceivable way in which, on leaving the EU, we could still remain “within” the single market."
 Again to extend ideas, if "Fake News" how about "Fake People" also? What about "Fake Democracy" run by "Fake People" who also seem very close to "Fake News" which then goes on about complaining about "Fake News" but not "Fake Democracy"?

Brexit: an epidemic of complacency

"One of the oddest things I've been finding in my background research on the potential effects of a "walk away" from the Article 50 negotiations, leaving us relying solely on WTO rules, is how little information or discussion there is on the potential consequences.

There is an endless procession of people saying we should "just leave" and take up the WTO option – the latest being Bill Clarke in the letters column of The Sunday Telegraph, who says there is no need to reach agreement with the 27 EU Member States. But, like the idiot Goodman in Conservative Home, it is perilously clear that Clarke and most of the others advocating a "walk away" can have no idea of what this entails. 
These people, it would seem, not only want us to jump off the edge of a cliff, they want us to do it blindfold and in the dark, mentored by people who are unable to tell us whether the ledge gives way to a six-inch or thousand-foot fall. And merely to ask is to be condemned for making things needlessly complicated."

Equally, there's many groups that are fake. Brexit is not about finding a "check-mate" solution as above, but about acquiring "Just enough territory" or area control as this particular game of Go requires for, to quote FLEXCIT:-

"Leaving the EU will have significant geopolitical and economic advantages. But we believe it is unrealistic to expect a clean break, immediately unravelling forty-three years of integration in a single step. Therefore, we have set out a process of phased separation and recovery.

In all, we identify six phases. The first deals with the legal process of
withdrawing from the EU, with the aim of concluding an agreement within the initial two year period allowed in the Article 50 negotiations. In this, we seek continued participation in the EU's Single Market."

Go (game) & Opening Moves:-

"Despite its relatively simple rules, Go is very complex, even more so than chess, and possesses more possibilities than the total number of atoms in the visible universe. Compared to chess, Go has both a larger board with more scope for play and longer games, and, on average, many more alternatives to consider per move.

In the opening of the game, players usually play in the corners of the board first, as the presence of two edges makes it easier for them to surround territory and establish their stones. After the corners, focus moves to the sides, where there is still one edge to support a player's stones. Opening moves are generally on the third and fourth line from the edge, with occasional moves on the second and fifth lines. In general, stones on the third line offer stability and are good defensive moves, whereas stones on the fourth line influence more of the board and are good attacking moves. The opening is the most difficult part of the game for professional players and takes a disproportionate amount of the playing time. "