
Fewer Than 1000 Brits Googled “What Is the EU?” After Referendum - nzp
http://steve-patterson.com/less-than-1000-brits-googled-what-is-the-eu-after-referendum/
======
xlm1717
The cracks continue to show in the media blitz, which is actually a media
meltdown reflecting the meltdown of the elites, against Brexit. First, the
petition for a second referendum was revealed to be a fraud. Now, the story
that Brits somehow didn't know the implications of Brexit and, worse, somehow
didn't even know what the EU was, is revealed to be greatly exaggerated.

The author put it very well:

>I’ve never seen such snobbery in my life. The post-Brexit condescension has
been nauseating.

~~~
wanda
I'll say this first: I personally think the referendum was a terrible idea.
Economically, I disagree with the result. This notion of "prosperity in 10
years" with "a bit of a recession in the short/medium term" burns the working
class the most. It's not fair on workers at all to throw the dice like this.

Nevertheless, it is absurd to predict the collapse of the UK because the pound
tanked. Most people pressing for a Brexit probably expected that, and many may
profit from it. Similarly, the turbulence so far is a non-event compared to
the banking crisis.

I would feel better about Brexit if it had a plan behind it. Equally, if
Scotland would be extended an invitation to vote for its independence and then
EU membership. Of course, this (apparent) lack of planning is not the fault of
the electorate.

I think the big issue now is indeed the response from an elite which has had
its pretty face scratched. All that these desperate articles on Brexit
loopholes reveal is that, since people who profit from speculating are
thinking about such loopholes, you can bet that the likes of Boris Johnson (or
any Conservative for that matter), who will prefer or profit from preserving
the status quo, are thinking about the same things.

About how they can reimagine or circumvent the idea that the majority voted
for. About how a Brexit can be converted into a downgrade from EU to EEA
membership, or how the Brexit might be indefinitely postponed. It might make
economic sense, but there will be a lot of perplexed people out there watching
"BoJo" become a hero who handled a difficult situation by failing both sides
of the Brexit debate in equal measure.

Of course the kind of thing Farage has in mind is absurd, of course, but a
Brexit doesn't have to be a tragedy. People just have to realise that for a
profitable solution, the EU must be identified as a competitor as well as a
friend.

Personally, I think Cameron and Johnson planned the whole thing from the
start. Boris acting as a Trojan horse for Cameron/the remain campaign. He was
never a Eurosceptic, until suddenly after the Leave campaign started gaining
momentum.

I have no proof, just a _whisper_. Observations of the both of them, and
Angela Merkel's sudden "patience is a virtue" approach after a phone call from
Cameron over the weekend followed by a cocky return to parliament by the
incumbent prime minister.

And no, it's not wishful thinking. I don't enjoy recessions more than the next
person, but the recession is not _guaranteed_ no matter how many times the
banks warn against it. I am not concerned by nations or identities. I believe
in realpolitik and economic strength. If Brexit turns profitable, it will have
been worth it. I'm just speculating for the sake of speculating.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
> they can reimagine or circumvent the idea that the majority voted for. About
> how a Brexit can be converted into a downgrade from EU to EEA membership

The ballot paper said "leave the EU". What that looks like is apparently
negotiable and dependant on political realities, since no one actually knows
what people intended when they voted leave.

------
weberc2
Is it just me, or have the mainstream media lowered their journalistic
standards to compete with sensationalist blogs (e.g., HuffPo, BuzzFeed, etc)?
This sort of thing seems to be happening with increasing frequency, even at
NYTimes and friends.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is it just me, or have the mainstream media lowered their journalistic
> standards to compete with sensationalist blogs

Sensationalist blogs got a bit ahead, on the same trajectory, of where
mainstream media was already heading, and that gap has significantly closed,
yes.

------
waqf
Being a Brit who believes I know more about the EU than the median Briton
does, but less about it than Wikipedia does, why should I be ashamed to google
"What is the EU?"

------
mnx
Yeah, the way many media outlets grasped at any available pro-remain
narratives after the results was quite funny.

Kind of the same thing was happening to news about Trump - first it was "The
polls can be wrong", than "He may have won Iowa, but he will have a hard time
continuing", then "Still could be a contested convention", and now it's
"Delegates are dumping Trump". It's like they are trying to change reality
just by pretending it's different. Sadly, it is not, and I think we would be
well served by facing that head-on.

~~~
putlake
Cruz won Iowa, not Trump

~~~
mnx
I knew I should've fact-checked that, but I hope my point is clear anyway.

------
stretchwithme
I find it it funny that people think that someone who doesn't know what the EU
is will vote to leave it anyway. And then somehow remember the letters E and U
long enough to google the grammatically correct phrase "What is the EU?". With
correct title and punctuation too.

Of course, such people are always on the other team, never on one's own.
Something that even Google probably doesn't know.

------
greenyoda
For reference, here's the discussion of the Washington Post article the author
refers to, which hit 411 points on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11970344)

Also, a related article from yesterday:

"Inappropriate Uses of Google Trends"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11987414](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11987414)

------
tcgv
Google Trends related tweet that some sensationalist news linked to:

\-
[https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status/746303118820937728?l...](https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status/746303118820937728?lang=en)

------
otherstark
fuckin scroll-assisted JS ...

~~~
unfamiliar
Why do people do this? Does it look better on systems that don't have smooth
scrolling or something?

~~~
JonnieCache
I think if you're using a traditional clicky mousewheel it might be less
awful.

~~~
corobo
Not at all. I'm used to my "awful" clicky scroll. I know subconciously that a
scroll click is equal to a certain distance down the page.

When I then scroll 3 clicks and I've almost cleared the entire page because of
smooth scrolling, that's no fun.

I'd much much rather janky jerky scrolling consistently across all sites than
the odd one or two smooth scrollers

Don't even get me started on smooth scrolling when it comes to using a bit of
a dated computer. Scroll... wait for the js to catch up and the page actually
scrolls.

Edit: may have misinterpreted where the awful was directed. I deal with a lot
of Mac users. Apologies if I did misread it, leaving comment intact for
posterity

~~~
Nadya
Glad to see someone else who hates smoothscroll. I absolutely despise smooth
scroll - especially since it is a _browser option FFS_. If I wanted it, I'd
enable the option. I don't want it - which is why I disabled the option.

As a developer, a sincere "Fuck you" to every developer who adds this to their
sites. I shouldn't need to add this to my 3rd party filters:

    
    
        !Disable Smoothscroll 
        */smoothscroll.js
    

ps: I find the above rule blocks maybe 80% of all smoothscrolling on websites,
thankfully.

E:

Unfortunately not this site as it uses a Jquery plugin called niceScroll()
which is anything but...Running this in the console will remove it.

    
    
         jQuery('html').getNiceScroll().remove()

------
pklausler
Fewer, not less.

~~~
mc32
Comparatively speaking, 999 is less than 1000. They might have constructed it
that way. One doesn't say 7 is fewer than 9.

~~~
pklausler
You removed the discrete units from the text ("Brits") and then made a point
that holds true only when discussing comparisons that do not have discrete
units.

7 is less than 9. But 7 Brits are fewer than 9 Brits.

~~~
mc32
True. It depends if the emphasis is on the mathematical number or not..

A number less than one thousand represents the number of Brits who queried...

