Brexit - Causes of indecision

We are modelling various aspects of Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations.  

In this model we illustrate the many times the UK has been undecided about its membership of the EU and all that this implies and entails. The model suggests that this raises issues about the nature of UK politics. There may now be good reasons to leave the EU jurisdiction legally (given the way the EU has behaved during the UK 'negotiation' and the growing unease about the nature of the EU by other nations). The UK stance to the EU institutions, Brussels specifically, has historically been ambivalent at best and uncommitted at worst. Oddly, the UK helped shape much of the European Project and its treaties. Does this reflect a divide between the 'people' and the 'political class' ... sometimes called the 'elites' who 'know what's best for the people'. Has this been a cause of disconnect, a failure to take the people with them? What are the causes of the unease and indecision?

Brexit - Chequers and Politics

We are modelling various aspects of Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations. 

As the EU-UK 'negotiation' (in reality nothing of the kind) moved to its final stages, the weak Conservative Party, developed a plan for exit that become known as 'The Chequers Plan', signifying that it was underwritten by all members of Cabinet. This was far from true. There were resignations and a lot of disquiet about the plan, which was a compromise solution that held little appeal for either Brexiteers or Remainers. The EU stated their opposition to the plan also. It was, however, the only 'plan' on the table. 

The model illustrates a theory of the author and does not purport to represent the truth. Since the plan tried to satisfy many camps, including the 'red lines' of the EU and the practical aspects of trade, commerce and customs, the question arises of how such a compromised plan came about. The model illustrates how UK democracy (Commons and Lords) has played a role in weakening the UK negotiating position by constantly questioning, and critiquing ANY plan put forward. This both exposed the UK's thinking to the EU who, seeing these divisions, does little but wait for the next version or idea to be put forward ... stating the unacceptability of the UK position in a way that spreads division and political disunity in the UK. As the plan became weaker (fudged and compromise) the model proposes that the EU may finally 'accept' it ... locking the UK into a difficult position for the future. 

It was against this background of trying to please all, but satisfy none, that the hard-line Brexiteer camp kept re-emerging. With only months left before final exit agreements are to be signed off, the UK now faces a difficult decision. It will be interesting to see which leader or party comes forward to take those decisions. 

The agent 'Sow division in UK' (highlighted above as a focus of concern) describes the EU's bureaucratic tactics during the Brexit negotiations. The fact that the UK had been forced to hold its deliberations (post-referendum) in the full light of the public gaze, has contributed to Brussels' ability to play this game well. The weak referendum result, coupled to the clear vested interests of certain UK-EU constituencies, contributed to the willingness of the UK PM to fudge and compromise. This weakness of response by the UK Parliament to the EU Bureaucrats lies at the heart of the concern about the current exit 'deal' by the so-called Brexiteers. 

Brexit - EU and UK levers in the negotiation

We are modelling various aspects of Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations. In this model we show a grid separated 'by role': the EU and the UK. The levers (advantages useful, disadvantages harmful) that each side have are shown. As you can see, the EU has a lot of power. The UK position during the negotiations that followed the submission of Article 50 was considerably weakened by a change of Conservative Party leadership. 

Note the use of 'insufficiently useful' to denote the relatively inconclusive referendum result. 

This, and all other Brexit models in this blog, were drawn up during the final stages of negotiation as both sides started to come to terms with the reality of the situation.

Brexit - The core problem

We are modelling various aspects of Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations. In this model we show the core of the problem: the EU contradiction .... useful benefits and also disadvantages for any sovereign nation, including the UK. 

The model illustrates a range of 'directions' for solutions (generated by Southbeach Modeller) as well as the essence of what 'brexiteers' want and what 'remainers' (sometimes called 'remoaners') want. 

Brexit - How we got here

We are modelling various aspects of Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations. Here we use a typical TRIZ '9 boxes' template to show factors before, during and after the referendum. The role of the EU, UK and UK politics is shown. The model does not attempt to be complete. Combined with the other models of Brexit we have developed it adds to the picture by providing evidence for the debilitating arguments that took place after the vote, the UK being roughly split, 50/50, on the decision. 

Brexit - Life is emotional

We are modelling various aspects of Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations. The referendum vote, we believe, distorted by emotional factors. In reality, the UK was leaving a legal system, not 'Europe' or collaboration with other nations and people. The 'EU' is a political union far beyond it's roots as a trading block. Increasing politicisation of the union was, in part, the reason the UK held a referendum. But having decided to hold one, a raft of emotional (non-legal, non-political) factors weighed in how people voted. Here will illustrate some of those factors.

The model is drawn from the perspective of those who voted to remain. The model is hypothetical of course and is not based on any survey or focus group. The topics were gathered from new stories that reflected the remain camp's viewpoint.

Brexit - Should we stay or should we go?

We are posting a series of models about Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations. In this model, we attempt to illustrate the two very different mind sets of the 'remain' and 'leave' camps. An opposition between the two poles of the referendum vote deliberately separates the different concerns.  The effects show 'imagined' future consequences of remaining, and leaving.

The model has mixed perspective. On the right, we characterise the views of 'brexiteers' and 'remainers'.  Of course, all real world solutions to the stark choice of the UK people will necessarily mix and match the elements of the model. Life is complex ... but some fundamentals, such as sovereignty remain.

Brexit - A Remain Argument

Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the jurisdiction of the EU political union but to remain a strong friend and ally of all European sovereign nations, is a near-perfect topic for exploring Southbeach Notation and TRIZ problem solving. The notation's ability to represent all viewpoints, given that there are so many predictions of the effects of Brexit on both sides of the debate, is a powerful way to communicate arguments and point to possible solutions.

We have been playing with a variety of models of Brexit from both sides of the argument. In this model a possible 'Remain' argument is presented. The focus of the model is the inevitability of the connected world with the goal of creating economic benefit for all. Whether or not you personally believe the EU has achieved this is not the point. The model shows one argument for the UK to remain an influential member of the EU, from the perspective of trade and commerce.

BPM + Problem Solving + Change Management = Southbeach

Over the last few years we have observed that Southbeach Notation is used by professionals in order to fill the gaps and flesh out the details that sit at the intersection of related disciplines. A BPM consultant may add problem solving, for example. A change specialist may add creative process design. Etc.

This 'Big Picture' approach to visual modelling has proved useful in a variety of fields. Many people are familiar with mind mapping. Now more and more consultants are finding that Southbeach's approach to visual change uniquely integrates a direct problem solving path.

African Elephant decline

This model illustrates issues that have led to the African Elephant becoming a threatened species. For more information see EAI International and CITES. An example of an organization working actively to improve the situation is David Shepherd Wildlife.

Southbeach Modeller contains a report engine. It can generate useful output from any visual model. The user provides a script and the tool keeps the report in line with the visual model. The script is very flexible and can generate all kinds of output which can be re-used across any model. Thus, a consultant working with the tool can develop report templates and apply them to any model they develop with their clients. The output from this model, from a simple script, is given below.

At the end of the page we also list the report script itself, so that you can see the type of language used. 

REPORT ON ELEPHANT EXTINCTION

There is a risk of Elephant extinction

We need to focus on:

1. Elephant decline

2. Changes in land usage

3. Demand for ivory

The following factors are contributing to the situation (in no particular order):

- Elephant poaching

- Orphaned elephants

- Demand for bush meat

- Some countries say they have too many elephants

- Culling activities

- Political unrest

- Illegal trade in ivory

- Habitat loss

- Elephant decline

- Conflict between people and elephants

- Insufficient game rangers

- Fragmented habitats

- Human population expansion

- Changes in land usage

- Demand for ivory

- Countries allowing hunting of elephants for sport

- Translocation programs and birth control

Good work is happening, but some of it is insufficient:

- Public denouncement of wildlife trade

- Orphan rescue centres

- Protected areas and wildlife corridors

- Funding of anti-poaching units

- Customs controls

- Government wildlife services

- International fund raising for wildlife projects

What we know is:

- China is the biggest consumer of ivory, elephant skins and meat

- Present day ~500000

- 1930's 3 to 5 million

- 1980 ~1.3 million

- 1990 ~600000

- African elephant is listed by CITES as a threatened species

Some additional actions are being taken, but are they sufficient?

A1. Public denouncement of wildlife trade

A2. Orphan rescue centres

A3. Customs controls

A4. International fund raising for wildlife projects

To generate ideas for reducing the decline, consider these questions:

Q1. How can we reduce or prevent Demand for bush meat from producing Elephant poaching?

Q2. How can we reduce or prevent Some countries say they have too many elephants from producing Culling activities?

Q3. How can we reduce or prevent Some countries say they have too many elephants from producing Translocation programs and birth control?

Q4. How can we reduce or prevent Elephant poaching from producing Orphaned elephants?

Q5. How can we reduce or prevent Elephant poaching from producing Elephant decline?

Q6. How can we reduce or prevent Illegal trade in ivory from producing Elephant poaching?

Q7. How can we reduce or prevent Habitat loss from producing Elephant decline?

Q8. How can we reduce or prevent Conflict between people and elephants from producing Elephant decline?

Q9. How can we reduce or prevent Culling activities from producing Elephant decline?

Q10. How can we reduce or prevent Translocation programs and birth control from producing Elephant decline?

Q11. How can we reduce or prevent Elephant decline from producing Elephant extinction?

Q12. How can we reduce or prevent Insufficient game rangers from producing Elephant poaching?

Q13. How can we reduce or prevent Political unrest from producing Insufficient game rangers?

Q14. How can we reduce or prevent Fragmented habitats from producing Elephant decline?

Q15. How can we reduce or prevent Changes in land usage from producing Conflict between people and elephants?

Q16. How can we reduce or prevent Human population expansion from producing Changes in land usage?

Q17. How can we reduce or prevent Changes in land usage from producing Fragmented habitats?

Q18. How can we reduce or prevent Conflict between people and elephants from producing Orphaned elephants?

Q19. How can we reduce or prevent Orphaned elephants from producing Elephant decline?

Q20. How can we reduce or prevent Demand for ivory from producing Illegal trade in ivory?

Q21. How can we reduce or prevent Conflict between people and elephants from producing Some countries say they have too many elephants?

Q22. How can we reduce or prevent Human population expansion from producing Some countries say they have too many elephants?

Q23. Put measures in place to deal with Elephant poaching.

Q24. Put measures in place to deal with Culling activities.

Q25. Put measures in place to deal with Translocation programs and birth control.

Q26. Put measures in place to deal with Orphaned elephants.

Q27. Put measures in place to deal with Elephant decline.

Q28. Put measures in place to deal with Elephant extinction.

Q29. Put measures in place to deal with Insufficient game rangers.

Q30. Put measures in place to deal with Conflict between people and elephants.

Q31. Put measures in place to deal with Changes in land usage.

Q32. Put measures in place to deal with Fragmented habitats.

Q33. Put measures in place to deal with Illegal trade in ivory.

Q34. Put measures in place to deal with Some countries say they have too many elephants.

Q35. Isolate the part of Demand for bush meat that is producing Elephant poaching and remove it.

Q36. Isolate the part of Some countries say they have too many elephants that is producing Culling activities and remove it.

Q37. Isolate the part of Some countries say they have too many elephants that is producing Translocation programs and birth control and remove it.

Q38. Isolate the part of Elephant poaching that is producing Orphaned elephants and remove it.

Q39. Isolate the part of Elephant poaching that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q40. Isolate the part of Illegal trade in ivory that is producing Elephant poaching and remove it.

Q41. Isolate the part of Habitat loss that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q42. Isolate the part of Conflict between people and elephants that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q43. Isolate the part of Culling activities that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q44. Isolate the part of Translocation programs and birth control that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q45. Isolate the part of Elephant decline that is producing Elephant extinction and remove it.

Q46. Isolate the part of Insufficient game rangers that is producing Elephant poaching and remove it.

Q47. Isolate the part of Political unrest that is producing Insufficient game rangers and remove it.

Q48. Isolate the part of Fragmented habitats that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q49. Isolate the part of Changes in land usage that is producing Conflict between people and elephants and remove it.

Q50. Isolate the part of Human population expansion that is producing Changes in land usage and remove it.

Q51. Isolate the part of Changes in land usage that is producing Fragmented habitats and remove it.

Q52. Isolate the part of Conflict between people and elephants that is producing Orphaned elephants and remove it.

Q53. Isolate the part of Orphaned elephants that is producing Elephant decline and remove it.

Q54. Isolate the part of Demand for ivory that is producing Illegal trade in ivory and remove it.

Q55. Isolate the part of Conflict between people and elephants that is producing Some countries say they have too many elephants and remove it.

Q56. Isolate the part of Human population expansion that is producing Some countries say they have too many elephants and remove it.

Q57. Find a way to reduce or prevent Countries allowing hunting of elephants for sport from decreasing Government wildlife services

Q58. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of Public denouncement of wildlife trade in decreasing Illegal trade in ivory

Q59. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of Funding of anti-poaching units in decreasing Elephant poaching

Q60. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of International fund raising for wildlife projects in decreasing Habitat loss

Q61. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of Protected areas and wildlife corridors in decreasing Fragmented habitats

Q62. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of Orphan rescue centres in decreasing Orphaned elephants

Q63. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of Customs controls in decreasing Illegal trade in ivory

Q64. Find ways to increase the effectiveness of Government wildlife services in decreasing Elephant poaching

List of all effects in the situation:

1. Demand for bush meat produces Elephant poaching

2. Some countries say they have too many elephants produces Culling activities

3. Some countries say they have too many elephants produces Translocation programs and birth control

4. Elephant poaching produces Orphaned elephants

5. Public denouncement of wildlife trade counteracts Illegal trade in ivory

6. Funding of anti-poaching units counteracts Elephant poaching

7. Elephant poaching produces Elephant decline

8. International fund raising for wildlife projects counteracts Habitat loss

9. Illegal trade in ivory produces Elephant poaching

10. Habitat loss produces Elephant decline

11. Conflict between people and elephants produces Elephant decline

12. Culling activities produces Elephant decline

13. Translocation programs and birth control produces Elephant decline

14. Elephant decline produces Elephant extinction

15. Insufficient game rangers produces Elephant poaching

16. Political unrest produces Insufficient game rangers

17. Protected areas and wildlife corridors counteracts Fragmented habitats

18. Fragmented habitats produces Elephant decline

19. International fund raising for wildlife projects produces Protected areas and wildlife corridors

20. Changes in land usage produces Conflict between people and elephants

21. Human population expansion produces Changes in land usage

22. Changes in land usage produces Fragmented habitats

23. International fund raising for wildlife projects produces Funding of anti-poaching units

24. International fund raising for wildlife projects produces Orphan rescue centres

25. Orphan rescue centres counteracts Orphaned elephants

26. Customs controls counteracts Illegal trade in ivory

27. Conflict between people and elephants produces Orphaned elephants

28. Orphaned elephants produces Elephant decline

29. Demand for ivory produces Illegal trade in ivory

30. Government wildlife services counteracts Elephant poaching

31. Countries allowing hunting of elephants for sport counteracts Government wildlife services

32. Government wildlife services produces Customs controls

33. Conflict between people and elephants produces Some countries say they have too many elephants

34. Human population expansion produces Some countries say they have too many elephants

35. 1930's 3 to 5 million becomes 1980 ~1.3 million

36. 1980 ~1.3 million becomes 1990 ~600000

37. 1990 ~600000 becomes Present day ~500000

APPENDIX

The Southbeach Modeller script which generated the report output above, directly from the visual model, was:

There is a risk of {risk}

We need to focus on:
[focus :  numeric]

The following factors are contributing to the situation (in no particular order):

[harmful+!risk : dashed]

Good work is happening, but some of it is insufficient:

[useful : dashed]

What we know is:

[knowledge : dashed]

Some additional actions are being taken, but are they sufficient?

[action :actions]

To generate ideas for reducing the decline, consider these questions:

[increases(*,harmful) "How can we reduce or prevent {source} from producing {destination}?" : questions]
[increases(*,harmful) "Put measures in place to deal with {destination}.": cont]
[increases(*,harmful) "Isolate the part of {source} that is producing {destination} and remove it.": cont]
[increases(useful,harmful) "How else could {source} be accomplished that would not result in {destination}?": cont]
[increases(useful,harmful) "What else could give the benefits of {source} that would not result in {destination}?": cont]
[decreases(, useful) "Find a way to reduce or prevent {from} from decreasing {to}": cont]
[decreases(, harmful) "Find ways to increase the effectiveness of {from} in decreasing {to}" : cont]

List of all effects in the situation:

[ *(*,) : allzero, numeric]