Why isn't the idea that Brexit was a Russian intel operation being discussed

[tikka]

It seems strange that with all the evidence that Russia is committing cyber warfare across the world that this isn't getting more attention in the UK. Look at Calexit. The people behind it live in Russia. Look at LaFarage supporting Calexit, hanging around Rohrabach and Assange, and meeeting Trump.

[OnDoutside]

1. Yes it's odd, there is no traction on the story. Of course the

Big story was the Tory lie about the extra £350m going into the NHS.

[Jarqui]

2. I've seen some discussion, for example

UK officials now think Russia may have interfered with the Brexit vote
http://www.businessinsider.com/labour-mp-ben-bradshaw-suspicious-russian-interference-brexit-2017-2

Brexit: foreign states may have interfered in vote, report says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/12/foreign-states-may-have-interfered-in-brexit-vote-report-says

Labour MP claims it's 'highly probable' Russia interfered with Brexit referendum
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russian-interference-brexit-highly-probable-referendum-hacking-putin-a7472706.html

What I'm not as clear on is what they're doing about it. It could well be something I've missed in their media ...

[syringis]

4. I really don't understand the purpose of such statements

It doesn't make any sense. Strategically, a GB out of UE is more damaging than a GB remaining in.

The only flawed supposition I see, is a way to avoid the exist...

[Jarqui]

5. I'm not as convinced that

"a GB out of UE is more damaging than a GB remaining in."

It's quite possible but I'm far from being convinced

[syringis]

6. 2 very basic reasons

1 - It is more interesting to have an "agent provocateur" inside than to struggle from outside. Since day one, GB was more often in opposition trying to impose its ultraliberal dogmatism wich is not really in the rest of Europeans mentality. A part of the problems encountered by UE came from that had an impact on many Europeans giving them the false idea that Europe is an almost derailled organisation, not efficient, not having much utility.

Brexit just made the rest of European countries closely united among themselves. It is enough to see the single and unique voice they are confronting to Ms. May...

2 - GB was the warmest advocate to the Turkish admission. Turkey is a highly strategic geopolitical region with extremly close and strong ties with Russia. This fact on itself is more than enough to not to interfere in a matter that will destroy or at least, postpone the opportunity to have Turkey accepted in UE, far long in the future.

I replied very shortly in a very condensed way, so there is a few shortcuts.

But it gives you the general idea.

[syringis]

3. For many reasons

First the result caught everyone by surprise. Exit wasn't at all expected. I was only a political move in part Cameron promised a referendum if his party wins the general elections in 2015. On another part, GB issued a veto threat over the UE budget 2014-2020 (Bloomberg discourse). The aim was to maintain the Tories cohesion (their win in 2015 was unexpected), to counter UKIP which was a growing threat to the Tories and put pressure on UE.

Brexit wasn't at all taken seriously and if you want a proof, Tories did not even had a first draft on how to leave Europe...Not the slightest idea, not a single word or thought in this case.

Several factors may explain the disastrous result : the way the question of the referendum was oriented, a campaign focused on wrong issues, false figures,...mostly, voters were less informed, all that in a context where extremists parties were growing almost everwhere in Europe. The mythic idea that the simplistic (idiot) answers to extremely complicated problems would fit. I was appalled to see how much britains hadn't any idea of what was really UE or couldn't even name the countries member of UE or did know how much countries were members...They started to search AFTER the results...

Furthermore, Russia as no strategic interest to have GB out the UE. In fact, it is exactly the opposite.

This is why Russia is almost certainly not involved in the referendum results.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Almost everything you say applied to the American presidential election too

"First the result caught everyone by surprise. Exit wasn't at all expected. "

Not really true; plenty of polls, especially online ones (as opposed to telephone) had pointed to a Leave win: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016 . People just didn't know how much attention to pay to them.

"Tories did not even had a first draft on how to leave Europe...Not the slightest idea, not a single word or thought in this case"

It's now obvious the Republicans weren't prepared for winning; they took ages thinking of nominations for government positions after the election, and are still behind. This is just an indication of being bad administrators, who focus just on campaigning.

"a campaign focused on wrong issues, false figures,...mostly, voters were less informed"

The American problem in a nutshell.

"The mythic idea that the simplistic (idiot) answers to extremely complicated problems would fit."

And again.

So these really aren't reasons to think Russians weren't involved; it's these kind of reasons that has had people wondering about it.

Having the UK outside the EU does help Putin - it significantly decreases the size and wealth of the EU, puts another division between NATO countries, and between the UK and France, 2 permanent Security Council members. It may encourage other countries, like Hungary, to think about leaving.

But I'm not convinced there is that much solid evidence about interference.

[syringis]

13. Hello Muriel

I answered you earlier but sent the reply to the wrong person...

Here's a copy :

Thank you for your comment.

I would say I agree and disagree in the same time

I can't answer you right now, because it will take much more time than I have. I'm not an English native speaker so I have to check carefully when it comes to such specific subjects. It requires a bit more vocabulary more precise and also a careful check to the way I built sentences. A wrong word or not in the right place can completely change the meaning of an argument.

Translating at the drop of the hat is risky too.

But i promise, I will reply and develop my point of view. Probably later in the afternoon or early evening.

Have a nice day

Do you understand French?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. My French isn't great, but I can give it a go if you think you can express yourself better in it

They say it's easier for the native to speak a language and someone else translate to theirs, than the other way round (I'd already say from your posts that your English is better than my French, though).

[syringis]

16. Hello Muriel

I find my way in English but when it comes to specific subjects which requires both an adequate vocabulary and to be precise , in part to state clearly an argument, in another to not be misunderstood, it is a bit more trickier.

My reply to Jarqui, which brought your comment is a glaring proof.

After re reading it, I realise it doesn't reflect exactly what I meant.

So, I'll go for a "bilingual" answer with French sentences if I feel it is too hard to be clear in English.

Globaly, in regard to what I meant, I agree with your comment except for a few details.

"First the result caught everyone by surprise. Exit wasn't at all expected. "

Not really true; plenty of polls, especially online ones (as opposed to telephone) had pointed to a Leave win People just didn't know how much attention to pay to them.

Indeed. I was referering to the politicians. Maybe people didn't know how to interprete the polls, but Politicians should and probably did but they chose to not care.

It has worried me during the campaign. A wise leader should never sweep aside such indications. In any election or referendum, the uncertainity factor, whatever low it is, can't be neglected. Unless if you have a special knowledge of the future, which is not very frequent to the least, and which is for sure not politicians' main strenght. They barely anticipate the events even if they are highly foorseeable...

Besides the other reasons, I would say that Russia probably kept the same reasoning.

I agree that you can find some similarities with the American elections but there huge differences too.

first, the personnality of Trump. a blurred behavior, too many twilight zones in his past, nothing never very clear, dubious ties...

From here, I'll switch to French. I'll try to translate later and if someone can help me here, it would be really great to argue and confront the point of views.

Je ne peux bien sûr pas me montrer affirmative, mais énormément de questions se posent quant à Trump, sa candidature aux élections et plus encore, son incroyable élection. A ce jour, personne ne sait exactement à combien s'élève réellement sa fortune. On sait en tous cas, qu'il a un passif beaucoup plus important que ce qu'il affirme. A leur actuelle, en fonction de diverses reconstitutions, on approche plutôt les 2 milliards de dettes que les 350 millions qu'il reconnait. Pour ma part, je me demande si cette soudaine candidature ne masque pas une fuite en avant désespérée et qu'en réalité, il n'a plus le sou. Il est quand même interpellant de voir que les banques américaines ne voulaient plus lui prêter le moindre $ et de voir la source de ses financements actuels. Des sources hautement sulfureuses et beaucoup de liens avec les milieux criminogènes. On peut se demander si ce n'est pas plutôt le couteau sur la gorge qui l'a propulsé candidat. Il maintenant quasiment certain que les russes ont influencés les élections d'une manière ou d'une autre. Peut-on imaginer que Poutine y aura vu l'occasion de pousser une marionnette à la Maison-Blanche? Il est réputé pour être un tacticien hors-pair. Par contre, c'est un stratège médiocre. Au vu du cirque actuel aux US, j'aurais effectivement tendance à penser qu'il n'est pas innocent...
Ce qui a pu jouer aussi, c'est que les autres candidats républicains avaient encore moins de chances que Trump face à HC. En fait même aucune. Pour le GOP, peut-être qu'ils ont vu dans Trump une marionnette, la possibilité ténue d'une victoire (j'ai des doutes) mais je pense plutôt qu'il était le candidat idéal à qui faire endosser la faute en cas de perte des élections. Une façon de préserver ses troupes en attendant des temps meilleurs. En admettant qu'ils visaient réellement la victoire, je ne pense pas qu'ils auraient choisi Trump. Ils sont ce qu'ils sont, et je ne suis vraiment pas fan, mais ce serait excessif de dire qu'ils ont sciemment choisi de flinguer leur propre pays...Qu'ils aient su que Trump était pour le moins sulfureux, ça d'accord, faut pas être naïf non plus, mais avoir fait exprès de se retrouver dans ce bourbier, je n'y crois pas. Ils ont été pris au piège et d'ailleurs, comme vous le soulignez, ils n'avaient rien préparé, et se sont retrouvés dans l'obligation d'improviser. Avec en prime (et c'est le même problème pour les russes), qu'ils se retrouvent à gérer quelqu'un de totalement ingérable, incontrôlable, ignare et probablement aux abois, ce qui le rend très dangereux.

Having the UK outside the EU does help Putin - it significantly decreases the size and wealth of the EU, puts another division between NATO countries, and between the UK and France, 2 permanent Security Council members. It may encourage other countries, like Hungary, to think about leaving.

Jusqu'à un certain point, j'aurais dit oui. Mais seulement et seulement si, Outre-Atlantique, les choses étaient dans la norme, avec un président crédible et l'influence des US au niveau mondial. Parce que dans ce cas, la GB pouvait compter sur les US pour contre balancer en partie les effets du Brexit. Ce n'est plus le cas. Non seulement le Brexit n'affaiblira pas l'Europe mais au contraire, pourrait la renforcer considérablement. Parce qu'il ne faut pas se leurrer, Londres ne sera plus la place financière puissante qu'elle est. Beaucoup d'investisseurs sont courtisés par l'Europe et beaucoup pensent que traverser la Manche a bien plus d'avantages que d'inconvénients. Surtout quand on voit la gestion calamiteuse de T. May, les turbulences qui ne manqueront pas de prendre de l'ampleur et une Ecosse ainsi qu'une Irlande du Nord pro-Europe qui ne feront pas de cadeaux. Et ce n'est pas l'alliance stupide et coûteuse avec les cinglés du DUP qui y changeront beaucoup...
Et c'est là que je reviens sur les facteurs négligeables qui n'auraient pas dû l'être et les impondérables auxquels il fallait penser.

Donc je maintiens qu'en l'état, Les russes ont bien plus intérêt à une GB dedans que dehors, d'autant que et j'insiste là-dessus, c'est le plus chaud partisan de la Turquie. A ce sujet, je ferai une petite parenthèse pour préciser que sur ce coup-là, la GB a raison. Il faut bien sûr pondérer mais comme ce n'est pas le sujet je referme la parenthèse. On peut en parler ailleurs pour ceux qui sont intéressés.

Voilà en gros, pourquoi je suis loin d'être convaincue, je n'y crois pas du tout, de l'intervention des russes dans le Brexit.

J'espère franchement qu'on va pouvoir oublier cette débilité et que noyer définitivement cette connerie de Brexit et avancer. Personne n'en retira rien de bon. C'est hélas ce qui arrive quand on fait de la politique comme on joue aux dés ou au poker.

J'en veux à mort à ces opportunistes qui ne voient pas plus loin que le bout de leur nez, qui démissionnent au lieu d'assumer leurs idioties et en fin de compte, les seuls qui douillent sont les peuples.

[Denzil_DC]

17. Hi, Syringis

Last edited Fri Oct 6, 2017, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't want to butt into your discussion with Muriel, but I have my own (hot!) take on this:

Indeed. I was referering to the politicians. Maybe people didn't know how to interprete the polls, but Politicians should and probably did but they chose to not care.

It has worried me during the campaign. A wise leader should never sweep aside such indications. In any election or referendum, the uncertainity factor, whatever low it is, can't be neglected. Unless if you have a special knowledge of the future, which is not very frequent to the least, and which is for sure not politicians' main strenght. They barely anticipate the events even if they are highly foorseeable...

David Cameron had not long before fought the Scottish independence referendum, in which his "side" (No) won, though not as comfortably as the government might have expected since the Yes camp started out on roughly 28% and this climbed to around 45% by the time of the vote - a late (outlier) opinion poll that showed Yes winning excited panic and many promises of concessions to Scottish autonomy which were never honoured, but I'll try not to sidetrack onto that.

Despite that scare, I think the result gave him a false sense of confidence in his own abilities to sway public opinion when he called the Brexit referendum (arrogance was one of his hallmarks as prime minister).

What he didn't allow for was that the media were almost universally hostile to Scottish independence (only one Sunday newspaper supported it, and no broadcast media).

This did not apply in the Brexit referendum.

Like many others, I'd watched the polls closely. I'd predicted the Scottish referendum result correctly to friends - despite the polls being relatively close, I expected there to be a late swing towards the status quo, which is normally what happens in such cases.

That sort of swing didn't happen in the Brexit referendum - if anything it swung the other way. Cameron, the figurehead, represented the establishment, so he was a focus for a protest vote, which added to any other late swings among undecided voters and the unpredictable effects of voter turnout.

Cameron had effectively disenfranchised many students before the vote happened by changing the rules for voter registration because this would favour his party in a general election. Since younger people have been consistently in favour of Remain, this was one significant factor that tipped the balance. There were many others.

Pollsters always have problems taking account of likely voters and turnout. Especially when the polling results are close, that's very significant.

He was unbelievably irresponsible in making public statements and including on the ballot form a declaration that this would be a binding referendum rather than an advisory one - that was not the original intention. I think he did it to try to ensure that people took the vote very seriously. He was a habitual risk-taker in such matters - brinkmanship - and it backfired on all of us.

That and not setting a threshold greater than 50% for a "win", as well as refusing to let our civil service plan for the possibility of Leave winning, are among the stupidest, most destructive acts by a prime minister I can imagine short of going to war on false pretexts or setting armed thugs against a non-violent sector of the population, for whatever reason.

[syringis]

18. Hi Denzil Dc, you are welcome.

It is an open thread and It is interesting to have point of view, precision, etc. from anyone.

Your comment brought me a new light and I learned this :

Cameron had effectively disenfranchised many students before the vote happened by changing the rules for voter registration because this would favour his party in a general election. Since younger people have been consistently in favour of Remain, this was one significant factor that tipped the balance. There were many others.

It is significant, yes. Younger are more often pro Europe. Almost everywhere in Europe.

As far as I can remember, I never cried for an election result. Until Brexit.

The first words I had in mind were : "unsustainable stupidity".

But when these dingbats started one after the other to resign, I I badly wished I could throw them straight to the head my screen.

So they messed up on all the line then...Oh sorry, was wrong, I resign...besides the imbecile Farrage who claimed he has done his "job" so he leave now...

They could just add : Oh ! And to clean up the mess we have done, cleaning necessary is in the closet...

[Denzil_DC]

19. I posted about the issue of student disenfranchisement back in mid-2016:

Last edited Fri Oct 6, 2017, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/108811646

With a reported 87% of eligible students voting Remain despite Cameron's machinations, again it's not the whole story - but since the result hinged on such a small number for a majority, every factor is potentially significant and could have tipped the balance closer to 50%.

We've discussed and posted about so many issues around the Brexit vote on this group over the past year or two - this probably explains why some of us may be a bit impatient with any attempts to over-simplify the circumstances surrounding the result as "a Russian intel operation". Not that you've done that, of course.

If English isn't your first language, you can be excused from reading through all the past posts!

[syringis]

20. Thank you, I will take a look

I'm Belgian from the French part of the country

I read easily and understand almost all, unless if it is too technical. I speak more or less without too much difficulties, with a great accent probably and time to time, joyfully beating grammar rules It is more difficult when it comes to writting.

All in all, I'll say I find my way in ordinary casual subjects and struggle with specific ones.

[Denzil_DC]

21. OK, I hadn't checked your profile and didn't realize you were Belgian.

I'm Welsh-born and have lived in Scotland for many years, so other people's confusion over my national identity is something I'm very familiar with!

On DU and this group, I don't think many of us set much of a good example when it comes to grammar rules ...

[Not Ruth]

7. Russia likes chaos for the sake of chaos

[democratisphere]

9. Chaos creates and allows control. We are all living that nightmare everyday.

Russians must be stopped completely.

[syringis]

10. Hello Muriel

Thank you for your comment.

I would say I agree and disagree in the same time

I can't answer you right now, because it will take much more time than I have. I'm not an English native speaker so I have to check carefully when it comes to such specific subjects. It requires a bit more vocabulary more precise and also a careful check to the way I built sentences. A wrong word or not in the right place can completely change the meaning of an argument.

Translating at the drop of the hat is risky too

But i promise, I will reply and develop my point of view. Probably later in the afternoon or early evening.

Have a nice day

[beachbum bob]

11. the facts would show its more than Russia spreading fake news and propaganda

around the world....but to think Russian involvement in Brexit didn't happen would be ignorant. Splintering factions make's Russian goals easier to accomplish, period.

[Denzil_DC]

12. Because it wasn't a "Russian intel operation".

This was something that had been brewing for decades, and opinion polls consistently showed a roughly 50/50 split between Leave/Remain in the years running up to the referendum.

There were other forces - and big money, and some non-Russian extra-national actors funneling money, e.g. via Ulster Unionists - at work behind the scenes that deserve more scrutiny because they made more impact. If you look back on the posts on this forum alone (you may need to go back a few pages), you'll see that we've discussed a number of them.

As with the current problems with Catalonia, there seems to be an urge - especially on DU - to overplay the roles of Russia and its bots in events. They usually amount to disinformation adding to an already disinformation-rich media environment. They don't help, but I doubt, in our case anyway, they were decisive. And if you don't think that the UK and Spanish state also run their own disinformation campaigns and bots, then you need to do some reading around the issue (e.g. Google 77th Brigade). They're all at it.

I have no doubt that they may have opportunistically waded in and may have had a marginal effect, but trying to dismiss Brexit as "a Russian intel operation" ignores all the other factors at play and the real problems we face in dealing with and possibly overcoming the damage that's being done to our country by some of our own people.

Our own media have done enough to champion and promote Farage and UKIP and spread plain lies about the EU over the years without Russian meddling, so beware of looking for a "one-size-fits-all" answer to where the drive for the destructive vote came from. We're apparently quite capable of harming ourselves without outside help.

If you want to look for a primary source of the disinformation about the EU, you need look no further than our current Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who started the media trend of EU-bashing, nonsense about straight bananas, etc. etc., as has been well documented.

If you're saying he's a long-term pawn of Russian intel, I'd like to see the evidence, as it might stop him becoming prime minister (though who knows nowadays?).

[LeftishBrit]

15. Russian intel may have got involved at the end but it's too simplistic to call it a 'Russian intel

operation'.

The roots of Brexit began in the 70s, as soon as we entered the EU. A big initial part was played by the late Enoch Powell.

Brexit comes from a combination of good old British xenophobia; nostalgia for the Empire; and a tendency, even among people who suffer from neither of the above, to be totally ignorant about the functions of the EU, and to blame it for things that are mostly the fault of our own government (I should know, I fell into that trap for a while in the past). And, like all organizations, it is not perfect, often over-bureacratic and sometimes corrupt. But all the alternatives are far worse.

If there were strong vested interests that tipped the balance, these probably involved tax-avoiding billionaires, some of them media owners, more than they involved Russia. Of course the Russian government meddles with everything to varying degrees, doubtless including Brexit, but the seeds of Brexit were sown when Putin was still an obscure student.