4 ms·

If just 1% of the population of the UK changed their voting intention (from Remain to Leave) because of illegally bought or misleading advertising, then undoing

If just 1% of the population of the UK changed their voting intention (from Remain to Leave) because of illegally bought or misleading advertising, then undoing that effect would mean that Remain would have won. Invoking the "democratically determined result" is begging the question, since we don't really know whether the result would have been the same if the Leave campaign hadn't broken the rules: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/04/vote-leave-cheated-will-people-mps-electoral-commission https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/04/vote-l... When someone wins a sporting competition, and is found to have cheated by using banned substances, they don't get to keep their title by claiming "Well I still would have won even if I didn't cheat".

walshemj 8y ago
And technically it was advisory and has zero legitimacy there is also the question of gerrymandering the vote by not allowing brits overseas to vote. This is like say ruling out any votes in a presidential election from expats and or military.
lostlogin 8y ago
I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate. There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten “I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
- walshemj 8y ago
  And there is a LOT of uk case law /precedent on this ie 2/3 or even 75% to make changes to the rules or organisation or to pass some types of motions at company AGM's is common. Personally I think the CBI and Directors Institute lost the plot and let a few "bad apples" fuck the economy up - should have done what the TUC did in the 50's
  - makomk 8y ago
    I don't think there's any precedent for requiring such a supermajority in this case. Actually joining the EU required the support of 0% of the population in a referendum - there was no referendum on joining, the 1975 referendum was merely on whether we should remain in. The same arguments against leaving were made back then too, and if leave had won there'd probably have been exactly the same kind of pressure against following through on it.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Citrine and any parliamentary based system (even the local allotment society ) plus the fact that every listed UK company AGM follows the same 2/3 /3/4 rule for major votes
- growlist 8y ago
  > They undermine Westminster That's an argument against referenda?!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tomp 8y ago
  > I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. Which position would you consider the "default"? Slavery? Prohibition on gay marriage? Ban on abortion? (All of these were "changed" through history, some very recently.)
  - 8y ago
stale2002 8y ago
Well, it was a non binding resolution. It is the politicians who made the REAL decision to trigger brexit. There is nothing to reverse. You can't cancel a non binding resolution. Complain to the politicians who made the decision if you don't like what they did. And the politicians were very much voted in democratically. People can vote them out if they don't like their decisions.
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Seems like a wonderful idea, but unfortunately the UK now has both major political parties firmly and irrevocably commited to enforcing the referendum result (whatever that is).
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Ok, so I guess that means that all of the democratically elected parties are currently in favor of brexit. That's democracy for you. If you don't like it then people should vote for someone else. The fact that these major parties are committed to enforcing brexit IS the democracy.
    - matthewmacleod 8y ago
      Mmmm, I think that’s unfortunately both technically correct and not that helpful. Both major parties in the UK are commited to a policy that has around 50% support from the electorate. Because there are long-term issues that make the massive sudden support for an alternative party unlikely, this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.
      - walshemj 8y ago
        Are you counting those excluded from the vote in this ?
      - tathougies 8y ago
        > this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy. Since when in the UK has your ability to voice dissent been denied? Doesn't the UK have freedom of protest? Can't you just protest your government and speak against its policies without fear of repercussion?
commandlinefan 8y ago
So you're saying that you believe that governments should begin imposing censorship laws on privately held companies (a foreign one in this case) because without censorship, people who were susceptible to being convinced to do something were convinced to do so? And you really don't see the problem with that?
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  I'm not suggesting that governments should decide what is and isn't misleading, or that they should restrict campaigns to only "approved" messages. Preventing foreign companies (and governments) from influencing British elections might be worth considering, though: http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-russia-putin-fake-news-war-elections-2017-11 http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-russia-putin-fake-... Ultimately it is the job of the British people to decide which claims (in political advertising bought transparently by British people) are misleading. To do this, I think it would be helpful if political campaigns had to also publish in a centralised register, up front, all the political messages they paid for. There may even be a case for preventing political campaigns from targeting people based on individual psychological profiles, as opposed to geographically focused campaigns, or based on the demographics of a specific newspaper or television channel.

walshemj 8y ago

And technically it was advisory and has zero legitimacy there is also the question of gerrymandering the vote by not allowing brits overseas to vote. This is like say ruling out any votes in a presidential election from expats and or military.

lostlogin 8y ago

I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate. There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten “I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

walshemj 8y ago
And there is a LOT of uk case law /precedent on this ie 2/3 or even 75% to make changes to the rules or organisation or to pass some types of motions at company AGM's is common. Personally I think the CBI and Directors Institute lost the plot and let a few "bad apples" fuck the economy up - should have done what the TUC did in the 50's
- makomk 8y ago
  I don't think there's any precedent for requiring such a supermajority in this case. Actually joining the EU required the support of 0% of the population in a referendum - there was no referendum on joining, the 1975 referendum was merely on whether we should remain in. The same arguments against leaving were made back then too, and if leave had won there'd probably have been exactly the same kind of pressure against following through on it.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Citrine and any parliamentary based system (even the local allotment society ) plus the fact that every listed UK company AGM follows the same 2/3 /3/4 rule for major votes
growlist 8y ago
> They undermine Westminster That's an argument against referenda?!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomp 8y ago
> I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. Which position would you consider the "default"? Slavery? Prohibition on gay marriage? Ban on abortion? (All of these were "changed" through history, some very recently.)
- 8y ago

stale2002 8y ago

Well, it was a non binding resolution. It is the politicians who made the REAL decision to trigger brexit. There is nothing to reverse. You can't cancel a non binding resolution. Complain to the politicians who made the decision if you don't like what they did. And the politicians were very much voted in democratically. People can vote them out if they don't like their decisions.

matthewmacleod 8y ago
Seems like a wonderful idea, but unfortunately the UK now has both major political parties firmly and irrevocably commited to enforcing the referendum result (whatever that is).
- stale2002 8y ago
  Ok, so I guess that means that all of the democratically elected parties are currently in favor of brexit. That's democracy for you. If you don't like it then people should vote for someone else. The fact that these major parties are committed to enforcing brexit IS the democracy.
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Mmmm, I think that’s unfortunately both technically correct and not that helpful. Both major parties in the UK are commited to a policy that has around 50% support from the electorate. Because there are long-term issues that make the massive sudden support for an alternative party unlikely, this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Are you counting those excluded from the vote in this ?
    - tathougies 8y ago
      > this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy. Since when in the UK has your ability to voice dissent been denied? Doesn't the UK have freedom of protest? Can't you just protest your government and speak against its policies without fear of repercussion?

commandlinefan 8y ago

So you're saying that you believe that governments should begin imposing censorship laws on privately held companies (a foreign one in this case) because without censorship, people who were susceptible to being convinced to do something were convinced to do so? And you really don't see the problem with that?

dane-pgp 8y ago
I'm not suggesting that governments should decide what is and isn't misleading, or that they should restrict campaigns to only "approved" messages. Preventing foreign companies (and governments) from influencing British elections might be worth considering, though: http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-russia-putin-fake-news-war-elections-2017-11 http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-russia-putin-fake-... Ultimately it is the job of the British people to decide which claims (in political advertising bought transparently by British people) are misleading. To do this, I think it would be helpful if political campaigns had to also publish in a centralised register, up front, all the political messages they paid for. There may even be a case for preventing political campaigns from targeting people based on individual psychological profiles, as opposed to geographically focused campaigns, or based on the demographics of a specific newspaper or television channel.