The Brexit Thread

[SouthdownRebel]

Legitimate concerns. Not sure how they reached the headline figure but this pretty neatly highlights that it's mostly about dem immigants.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...iracy-theories

[ad hoc]

Sadly that figure of 85% of Hungarians believing at least one of the theories doesn't surprise me. I'm willing to bet that the one that got the most traction was the "Immigration to this country is part of a bigger plan to make Muslims a majority of the country’s population" one

[SouthdownRebel]

Still terrified of the Ottomans 200 years later.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Those numbers in the article which SDR linked are depressing, but the Leave/Remain divergence is hardly surprising. The divergence in tendency to believe conspiracy nonsense more or less matches the divergence in educational level between Leave and Remain, and I bet there is a very strong correlation of conspiracy theorising with low education. And the stat about social media usage reflects the age divergence of Remain and Leave voters, so simply reflects the fact that Remain voters are on average much younger. The young use social media more than the old, well you could K me D with a F.

[Nefertiti2]

And the use of actual conspiracies by government. What else would you call day, the Hillsborough cover up or the claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ?

[NHH]

Policy errors, Nef, exacerbated by a few bad apples

[Snake Plissken]

Raab just admitted that staying in the EU was better than Mays deal.

With this and his realisation that we're an island, it's like watching a toddler learning to walk, isn't it?

[Tubby Isaacs]

And the use of actual conspiracies by government. What else would you call day, the Hillsborough cover up or the claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction ?

I'd call them mostly irrelevant to what we're talking about. How many "The Rothschilds are flooding Europe with Muslims" were pushed over the edge by Iraq? Nah, they're racist idiots or liars. It's like climate denialism because "they said Thalidomide was safe".

[Tubby Isaacs]

Raab just admitted that staying in the EU was better than Mays deal.

With this and his realisation that we're an island, it's like watching a toddler learning to walk, isn't it?

Yep. Has anybody seriously thought it wasn't going to be like this?

Nobody even pretends they think German carmakers or Italian wine growers are going to show up to help us.

[Diable Rouge]

Raab just admitted that staying in the EU was better than Mays deal.

With this and his realisation that we're an island, it's like watching a toddler learning to walk, isn't it?

http://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1065952378321584128

[Ginger Yellow]

...while dragging them out of a restaurant.

[Diable Rouge]

Lord Ashcroft polling suggests little appetite at present for a second referendum:

http://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1065912062780559360

[ad hoc]

Bit of a trick question though isn't it? I don;t think that a second referendum is desirable, UNLESS it's the only way to stop Brexit

(which it might well be, but it's definitely not my first choice)

[ursus arctos]

I'm coming around to the view that it is the most effective way to break out of the "will of the people" death spiral.

[ad hoc]

I suspect you may be right, but given 4 possible choices on offer, here's my ranking...

1. People who are supposed to be leaders, turn around and say "Look we have really done everything to see if we could make this work, but it's never going to work and it is going to impoverish the country and all of you, and so we must, in all conscience, end this madness now"

big gap

2. Second referendum to try and get some kind of mandate for option 1

very very big gap

3. The deal that is being thrashed out now

massive gap

4. No deal

[Ginger Yellow]

My 2 would be a general election with Labour campaigning on Remain/EEA membership and winning, but yeah.

[ad hoc]

My 2 would be a general election with Labour campaigning on Remain/EEA membership and winning, but yeah.

Yes, I agree. (Well, maybe that would be #1, because it would get us out of the worst of Brexit and also leave us with a Labour government afterwards)

[San Bernardhinault]

Raab just admitted that staying in the EU was better than Mays deal.

With this and his realisation that we're an island, it's like watching a toddler learning to walk, isn't it?

Raab: Staying in the EU is better than May's deal
May: There's no deal better than my deal

They're actually both right, and if only they put these two thoughts together...

[Lucy Waterman]

While I think there is no chance of there being a general election, there is even less chance of Labour fighting it under a Remain banner.

Has any polling been done about whether the public want a general election? Three in less than theee years would presumably mean even more Brenda from Bristols.

[Ginger Yellow]

While I think there is no chance of there being a general election, there is even less chance of Labour fighting it under a Remain banner.

I agree, hence why I included EEA membership. Obviously I'd prefer them to campaign on Remain, but I don't see it happening.

[johnr]

I don't think that it matters whether the public want a general election or not - we should have one if it's necessary; and it Labour manage to get one via the Commons, then it's de facto necessary. I think.

Anyway, fuck Brenda from Bristol - for as many of her saying 'oh no not another one' they'll be me and others saying 'bring it on'. She has been afforded a status that she doesn't deserve, just on account of there being a camera near her. And anyway, her material circumstances might have changed since then, and she might want a GE after all.

[Flynnie]

If Brenda from Bristol was a Labour voter (which I kind of doubt, but anyway) she wasn't exactly sad another GE was happening once the exit poll came out.

[Pérou Flaquettes]

Legitimate concerns. Not sure how they reached the headline figure but this pretty neatly highlights that it's mostly about dem immigants.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...iracy-theories

[1/2]

From the Guardian article: The researchers had tried to be as broad as possible in their definition of the term as “a theory that some actors have conspired to do something covertly, usually something dysfunctional or evil”.

Pretty broad… That could be part of the problem with these studies.

I don’t doubt that plenty of people believe in those conspiracy theories but I'm often sceptical about the methodology used in these conspiracy surveys/polls. And so is Marianne in this excellent article.

I’m not going to translate the whole thing as it’s very long but I’m putting the text below with the salient passages (in bold) on the dubiousness of the methodology used that I've translated:


"Huit Français sur 10 complotistes" : pourquoi ce sondage est problématique" ("8 out of 10 French people believe in conspiracy theories": the reasons why this poll is problematic)

Une étude de l'Ifop très relayée médiatiquement ce lundi 8 janvier [2018] avance que près de 80% des Français adhèrent au moins à une "théorie du complot". Mais la méthodologie du sondage empêche de tirer une conclusion aussi définitive. (An Ifop study, widely covered by the media, suggests that nearly 80% of French people believe in at least one “conspiracy theory”. But the poll’s methodology prevents us from drawing such a definitive conclusion)

A y regarder de plus près, la manière dont a été construite cette étude recèle plusieurs éléments problématiques qui atténuent sa portée. Explications.

Le mélange de complotistes éprouvés et "débutants" (A mix of seasoned and "novice" conspiracists)

Pour mener à bien son sondage, l'Ifop a soumis sur Internet un questionnaire à un échantillon de 1.252 personnes, dont il a "testé" les réponses à plusieurs théories complotistes. Sauf que certaines de ces théories n'étaient justement pas toujours connues des sondés avant l'enquête. Or, celle-ci ne fait pas la différence entre ceux qui les connaissaient et ceux qui les ont découvertes avec la question. (To conduct its poll, Ifop submitted a questionnaire via Internet to a sample of 1,252 people whose replies on several conspiracy theories were “tested”. Except that some of these theories weren’t known to the respondents before the study, yet the poll doesn’t differentiate between those who knew the theory and those who didn’t.)

Résultat, les sondés qui n'avaient jamais entendu parler d'un "Nouvel ordre mondial", par exemple, ont dû se prononcer en quelques secondes sur leur adhésion ou non à cette théorie avant d'être classés illico presto dans le camp des complotistes en cas de réponse positive. (As a result, the respondents who, for instance, had never heard of a “New World Order” had to decide there and then whether they adhered or not to this theory). "C'est embêtant, sachant qu'une bonne partie des gens découvrent les théories en question, d'annoncer des résultats auprès de l'ensemble des Français, regrette pour Marianne Mathieu Gallard, sondeur à l'institut Ipsos. Cela n'a pas la même portée que de poser la question auprès des gens qui connaissaient ces théories au préalable, qui ont réfléchi dessus". En clair, l'étude mélange des complotistes éprouvés, qui nourrissent des théories plus ou moins absurdes, et de simples sondés qui ont pu se dire "plutôt d'accord" avec l'une de ces thèses quand celle-ci leur est soumise. "Si 8 Français sur 10 ne sont sans doute pas complotistes, ils peuvent être sensibles à des idées qui ont trait au complotisme", résume Mathieu Gallard.

Le gloubi-boulga des questions posées (All manners of questions happily lumped together)

Autre élément frappant à la lecture complète du sondage : les intitulés des questions, plus ou moins précis voire orientés. (Another striking feature of this poll is the wording of the questions, of varying degrees of precision and even biased) "La Révolution française de 1789 et la révolution russe de 1917 n'auraient jamais eu lieu sans l'action décisive de sociétés secrètes tirant les ficelles dans l'ombre", propose par exemple l'Ifop. La théorie est connue de seulement 27% des sondés mais ils s'avèrent pourtant 28% à y adhérer. Bref, ils sont plus nombreux à y croire qu'à en connaître l'existence ! (This theory [on the French and Russian revolutions fomented by secret societies pulling the strings] is known by only 27% of the respondents, yet it turns out that 28% of them believe in it. More people believe in it than know of its existence!).

La curieuse formulation de la question peut expliquer ce phénomène, tant elle est alambiquée et balaye large. (strange wording and a convoluted sweeping question) Elle mêle d'abord deux événements historiques qui se sont déroulés à plus d'un siècle d'écart, dans des pays et des contextes totalement différents. Elle est en outre très vague sur le complot visé : une "société secrète", qu'est-ce que c'est, un réseau de révolutionnaires, une machination mondiale, une invasion extraterrestre ? Mais au bout du compte, que vous pensiez que la Révolution française résulte d'une machination ourdie par une secte chinoise ou que vous considériez que le soulèvement russe a de bonnes chances d'avoir été soutenu par des organisations bolchéviques clandestines, vous êtes classé comme "complotiste". (The question is very vague on the actual conspiracy: what is a “secret society”, is it a network of revolutionaries, an international cabal, an extra-terrestrial invasion? But ultimately, whether you think that the French Revolution resulted from a plot hatched by a Chinese cult or you consider that the Russian uprising is likely to have been supported by clandestine Bolshevik organisations, you are classified as “a conspiracist”.)

[ursus arctos]

Didn’t realise Casimir was writing for Marianne

[Pérou Flaquettes]

[2/2]

Des théories plus ou moins loufoques (theories chosen are more or less outlandish)

Parmi les complots proposés par l'Ifop, on en trouve pour tous les goûts : par exemple, une évidence de base (la Terre est ronde) côtoie une vérité scientifique plus complexe à appréhender (la responsabilité des activités humaines dans le réchauffement climatique), les deux étant mises dans le même sac que des théories plus ou moins farfelues sur d'autres thématiques (l'assassinat de John F. Kennedy, le 11-Septembre…). Mathieu Gallard, d'Ipsos, estime qu'il était "intéressant d'avoir une graduation de théories complotistes" mais reconnaît que certaines de celles-ci "contiennent des éléments qui posent question".

Les sondés classés à la louche (Respondents classified with great approximation)

Autre limite méthodologique préoccupante : l'Ifop indique que "les sondés ne se sont pas vu proposer de réponse 'je ne me prononce pas'". Seules deux possibilités sont donc offertes : on croit à une théorie, ou on n'y croit pas. "On oblige à se positionner sur une version 'officielle' et une version complotiste, alors que le sondé ne connaît pas le sujet !", (Here is another worrying methodological limitation: Ifop indicates that the respondents weren’t given a “Don’t know/No opinion” option. There were only 2 possibilities of reply: you either believe in a theory or you don’t. People are forced to choose between an “official” version and a conspiracist one, whereas the respondent doesn’t know the subject!) relève le journaliste scientifique Martin Clavey, très critique vis-à-vis de l'étude. Le but, selon lui, est de classer au chausse-pied chaque sondé "dans le cas des gentils qui n'y croient pas, ou dans celui des méchants qui y croient. Cela polarise artificiellement la société".

Car l'Ifop n'a guère pris de gants : toute personne ayant répondu "tout à fait d'accord" ou simplement "plutôt d'accord" à l'une quelconque des 11 théories présentées se voit automatiquement rangée dans la case des "complotistes". Peu importe qu'il soit absolument sûr que la Terre est plate ou qu'il estime possible que la CIA soit impliquée dans l'assassinat de Kennedy. Avec un râteau aussi large, facile de parvenir à 79% de Français complotistes !

Des conclusions hâtives (hasty conclusions)

L'étude comporte encore des éléments parallèles curieux, visant à "croiser" l'adhésion aux thèses complotistes avec le vote à la présidentielle ou la confiance envers les médias. (The study comprises strange parallel elements seeking to “link” the support towards the conspiracy theories with the Presidential election vote or people’s trust in the media). Ainsi Rudy Reichstadt, de Conspiracy Watch, nous assène que l'électorat de Jean-Luc Mélenchon et de Marine Le Pen - mélangé sous l'étiquette "populiste" - est "surreprésenté" parmi les "complotistes endurcis". Les "non-complotistes" voteraient quant à eux pour Emmanuel Macron, Benoît Hamon ou François Fillon. Une conclusion qui fait une nouvelle fois soupirer Martin Clavey. "Il y a un biais statistique, note le journaliste scientifique. C'est logique que des personnes conspirationnistes ne votent pas pour des partis perçus comme ceux du système. Mais ce n'est pas pour autant qu'à l'inverse, les personnes qui votent pour des partis 'anti-système' sont complotistes !". (There is a statistical bias here, remarks [scientific journalist] Martin Clavey. It makes sense that conspiracists don’t vote for those parties thought to be part of the system [Macron, the Socialists and Fillon’s conservative right]. But this doesn’t mean that conversely those who vote for anti-system parties [Front National and France Insoumise] are conspiracy theorists!)

Même chose pour le jugement sur la "compromission des médias" : les Français estimant que les médias ont "une marge de manœuvre limitée" car subissant "des pressions du pouvoir politique et de l'argent", ou ceux jugeant que "travaillant dans l'urgence, ils restituent l'information de manière déformée et parfois fausse", se retrouvent au beau milieu d'une enquête où l'on demande par ailleurs si les traînées blanches des avions relèvent d'un complot chimique… Un parallèle qui a mis en rage le chercheur Frédéric Lordon. Dans Le Monde diplomatique, lui critique une "étude qui accole les 75% de la population manifestant une défiance envers les médias avec le reste de la benne à complotistes, l'idée étant de suggérer, comme il se doit, que douter des médias et battre la campagne conspirationniste, c'est un tout"

(Ditto for the judgement on “media dishonesty”: those French people who believe that the media have “limited room for manoeuvre” because of the “political and financial pressures exerted on them”, or those who believe that the media “report the news in a distorted and sometimes untruthful way because they work under tight deadlines”, find themselves in a survey where people are asked if the white trails left behind by airplanes are part of a chemical conspiracy… This parallel enrages the researcher Frédéric Lordon who criticises a “study which lumps together 75% of the population who express a degree of mistrust towards the media with the rest of the conspiracists’ skip, the end goal being to infer that doubting the media and going on conspiracy campaigns form a coherent whole.