Brexit as beer: do you want a glass with that?

I've seen a Brexit analogy doing the rounds on social media recently, although it dates back to at least September 2019:

Nigel Farage walks into a pub and says, "I'll have a pint of beer, please." The barman pours a pint, then throws it all over Farage.

"What did you do that for?" says Farage, drenched to the skin.

"Because you're in a metaphor which illustrates the stupidity of asking for something, but not stipulating how you fecking wanted it delivered, you frog-faced sniveling cant!"

"But I'm still thirsty, so I want a pint - this time in a glass!" says Farage.

"You can't ask again!" said the barman.

"Why not?" sniveled Farage.

"Democracy." says the barman.

Personally, I voted to Remain in the EU. I also went on a couple of protest marches after the referendum, and I think the UK government has done a terrible job of implementing Brexit. However, I don't think that this analogy is helpful; in fact, it plays into pro-Leave stereotypes.

The Brexit referendum should never have been a single question, because there were so many subtleties involved. It would have been better to ask a series of questions in an indicative vote, e.g.:

• "Should we be in or out of the Single Market?"


• "Should we be in or out of the Customs Union?


• "How should we handle the Irish border?"

That lack of clarity means that it's absurd to claim that people knew what they were voting for, or that there was any kind of democratic mandate for what followed.

By contrast, ordering a pint of beer in a pub is a very simple process, and everyone knows what's involved. It would be ludicrous if you had to specify "I want that beer in a glass", "I want the glass to be upright", "I want you to put it down in front of me rather than balancing it on the roof", etc. That's the type of (mythical) EU red tape that Boris Johnson wrote about when he was a journalist.

I've heard some people claim that the EU are punishing the UK for leaving, e.g. by expecting us to actually stick to the terms of the deal that we signed. I don't think that's a fair criticism, but it's exactly what's happening in the analogy: the pro-EU bartender knows exactly what Farage wants, and is taking advantage of a tenuous loophole to be aggressive and abusive.

At first glance, I can see why this analogy is popular amongst Remainers. It's playing to the crowd, saying: "Hey, you know that guy you don't like? Here's a fantasy about something bad happening to him!" However, I think that the unfortunate result is to make him look like the voice of reason.

Back in my old blog, I wrote about some anti-UKIP propaganda. Then as now, I want to emphasise that I don't support Farage, UKIP, or the Brexit party. So please stop putting me in a position where I have to defend them!

What counts as research?

I've seen a post being circulated on social media, talking about what counts as research:

Please stop saying you "researched it."

You didn't research anything and it's highly probable that you don't even know how to do so.

Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?

Did you at least take each article, one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies.

Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?

No? Then you didn't fucking research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little to no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.

On the face of it, this is correct. When I was thinking about doing a PhD, I read a book about what makes a good research project; one concept that stuck with me is that there should be no such thing as a bad result. I.e. if you design your experiment correctly, whatever result you get will give you new information. (That's a principle which I try to apply when I'm troubleshooting IT problems.)

However, in the context of COVID etc., I think it just comes across as pedantic nitpicking, which misses the main point. As an analogy, here's an imaginary conversation on a different topic:

Alice: "I can't believe there are so many frivolous lawsuits nowadays. Like that woman who sued McDonalds just because her coffee was hot, it's ridiculous!"
Carol: "Actually, I did some research into that. It turns out that the coffee was hot enough to give full thickness (third degree) burns and she was in hospital for 8 days."
Alice: "Hah, that's not research! It's not even a literature review. So, your argument is invalid. Good day."
Carol: "But..."
Alice: "I said good day!"

In a situation like this, "self-study" would be a better term than "research", but I think it's still a legitimate activity, and YouTube can be a good source of information. (E.g. when I was decorating, I watched videos to learn how to take my radiators off the wall.)

I think it's valid to question whether a source is reliable (e.g. Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend). It's also valid not to bother engaging at all, on the basis that anyone who's anti-vax at this point clearly hasn't been paying attention. But I don't think anyone is going to change their views just because you have a different definition of "research".

On a side note, there's some irony when it comes to evaluating primary sources. The text above is floating around in the form of a screenshot, e.g. in this Facebook post by "Women's Rights News" from August 2021. The screenshot comes from a post by Saya Olivia Hayasha in April 2020.

I can understand why people share screenshots when they move between platforms, particularly since the original post would exceed Twitter's 280 character limit. However, if you're on the original platform, why not link directly to the source? That would improve accessibility (e.g. for blind people using screen readers), which is why I put the text above rather than an image. It's also worth noting that the original post mentions "Linda Gamble Spadaro" at the bottom, which was trimmed out in the screenshot. However, there's no link to where Spadaro wrote it, and I can't find the original. Someone has suggested that this was actually posted by someone else who then tagged her at the bottom, but I don't know whether that's true.

It's worth noting that Spadaro posted this about 2 weeks after Hayasha's post. Excerpt:

"I do not consent!
I do not consent to the mass manipulation of the public with faulty science and pharma propaganda.
I do not consent to quarantine and vaccines as the only way out of this manufactured pandemic."

So, it's interesting that she's being credited for a message which is used to discredit anti-vaxxers. It's also interesting that I've made more of an effort with source evaluation than lots of the people who shared the screenshot!