4 ms·

I’m not sure if I’ve been stuck in an information silo and have totally lost the plot, but there seems to be substantial circumstantial evidence that Russia int

I’m not sure if I’ve been stuck in an information silo and have totally lost the plot, but there seems to be substantial circumstantial evidence that Russia interfered in Brexit, which throws into question whether the result can be accepted. I’d be interested to know whether people on here think I’ve strayed into a very plausible conspiracy theory or whether this is something real and of concern. I feel I could accept a result in which there was not some effective psy-ops campaign being run, but cannot accept a result which is “not the will of the people”. [Edit: spelling correction]

cazum 8y ago
Is there any mechanism in Westminster politics, or any democratic political system for that matter, for invalidating election results if it is determined that an external state interfered with the process? If it was found that Russia interfered in some capacity, would/could anything be done?
- aurelwu 8y ago
  the referendum was non-binding so there would not need to be a formal process in this particular case - however it probably would cause a lot of upstir anyways.
- ProblemFactory 8y ago
  I don't think there is a mechanism for invalidating general election results. The parliament can vote to hold new general elections. For the Brexit referendum, there is no need to invalidate it, as it was an advisory opinion poll rather than a binding public vote for the government. The UK government could ignore the results or call for a new referendum if they wished to.
- CiaranMcNulty 8y ago
  Given that the Brexit referendum was legally non-binding (unlike an election), the only mechanism needed is political will to ignore the result
- pjc50 8y ago
  The Electoral Commission can void elections in the event of fraud: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil... One of their most high profile cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_%26_Ors_v_Rahman_%26_Anor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_%26_Ors_v_Rahman_%26_Ano... I don't think either of these apply for nebulous "external interference", but certain actions such as running unlawful electoral advertising should count. Vote leave have been fined and referred to the police: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/party-and-election-finance-to-keep/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/ele... BUT: these apply to elected positions. Referendums don't really have a strong constitutional place in the UK, and the Brexit referendum was "non-binding": the result did not legally oblige anything specific to happen. Brexit is a choice of the government. No-Deal Brexit is also a choice of the government, made two years ago when sending the A50 notification without a viable plan.
- nicoburns 8y ago
  The only real weight that the referendum has is the public sentiment it represents. If that was called into question it would lose most of it's power without anything needing to be done. It's not legally binding. I'm not convinced that the idea that Russia interfered is worth taking that seriously though. You don't need to go very far to find real people who are very pro-brexit. IMO it's the newspapers (rupert murdoch, etc) that had more influence, but I'm not sure what you can do about that.
thinkingemote 8y ago
It's certainly true that the UK and USA policy is anti Russian. and the Russians do try to meddle. But. It's also putting too much credit on a foreign state, and is used to abdicate responsibility. We all laughed when Saddam, Gadaffi and Mubarak claimed the west were manipulating their population and elections. Why dont we laugh when our politicians say the same about the Russians? To me it feels like the new bogey man. Some evidence but the impacts are grossly overegged. (Edits, worth saying that in its not our politicians in power that are claiming this though, which is different)
- mylons 8y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the western election interference comments because the west installed those people. The west did interfere in their elections at least once.
bsaul 8y ago
it’s pretty obvious to me ( european) that russia tries to undermine Europe and USA to make them pay for the economical measures it has taken against it since the ukraine incident. Yet to say that this is not the will of the people look like a bit of a stretch. Nigel farage isn’t a russian spy, trump didn’t invent the issues with taxes and immigration at the mexican border. What russian sponsored media only need to do is to let local people whose opinion are generaly banned from the mainstream media speak freely and reach the general audience. It forces mainstrem political party to stop being lazy, and talk about the real everyday issues, instead of relying on what’s morally right or wrong to think. Call me an optimist but i truelty think that it could in fact save europe and democracy in the long run.
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  Russian involvement seems to go a bit beyond that, there seems to be a lot of money flowing into Europe right now into far right and anti EU movements. Take for example those mysterious payments to the AfD via Switzerland, and it's likely that this is only the tip of the iceberg. That's not just Russian money or influence, though. Take a look at Steve Bannon's activities, his goal is to destroy the European Union in order to make European states as weak as possible.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
Yes, there was proven Russian involvement which could have been decisive, given the close margin. This is not a conspiracy theory. However, there seems to be some agreement, driven by May and her party, that a second referendum would be even more disastrous to democracy, since in any case the outcome would be close and keep the UK divided (as polls indicate) and at the same time a second referendum would cause people to question the legitimacy of the whole process. Foreign involvement in elections or referenda is a tricky thing, as it happens everywhere in one form or another and the legality of it is often in a grey zone rather than it being clearly illegal.
TheFattestNinja 8y ago
There is far more evidence that the same happened for the US election, and yet you won't see a change of President because of that.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
No, I don’t think this is a particularly conspiratorial theory. There’s shedloads of weird money floating around which was used for funding advertising campaigns in the run up to the referendum. Not to mention it’s a policy that would be welcomed by Russia, because it destabilises the EU. The problem is that nobody knows if that influence affected the outcome. There’s little popular movement to push back against the result on that basis, which has led us to the current clusterimpasse.
sametmax 8y ago
Russian is so conveniently used for everything these days. Terrorists were wearing off I guess, and too limited. I feel like watching old documentaries from the 50-70's, where everything bad hapening was because of the communists. And nobody questioned it. They had evidences. And certitudes.
- cazum 8y ago
  Most people don't really have a narrative that explains the recent rise of nationalism. In America, they blame Russia because that's easier than taking a critical look at why a voting majority of people in their country think building a whites-only wall is a good idea.
chki 8y ago
I have not seen a lot of "circumstantial evidence" of Russian interference as you are describing. However that is not to say that there has been none whatsoever and regarding the very close result of the vote this could theoretically have changed the outcome. But in my opinion the main point to your concern is that even if there was some evidence that Russia interfered in the referendum and if there was for example a medium sized probability that this changed the outcome: It should not matter. Elections are a tricky thing because they are _the_ constitutional element of the whole system. If people don't trust the outcome of the voting, there will be no trust in the system as a whole. But trust in the election system is what keeps the whole thing running. Questioning the outcome of a democratic process should therefore only be possible if there is a clear violation, it should only be done by an independent Court and there should be a clear time limit. Considering that the referendum has been held two years ago, that there is circumstantial evidence at best and that it has already immensely shaped British politics, I think it is not reasonable to go back and talk about the validity of the vote. Elections are not a scientific method to determine the true "will of the people". They are an event where people cast there vote and the democratic process gets an outcome to work with. My takeaway from the possible Russian interference would rather be that there have to be measures in the future that prevent meddling and also to prevent the perception that there could have been meddling.
kitd 8y ago
Sadly, there's no evidence at all that Russian influence was extensive enough to have affected the outcome. After all, who needs to deploy hackers when the UK's own tabloid press was doing the job perfectly well.
porpoisely 8y ago
What evidence? The russia-brexit narrative is as flimsy as the trump-russia narrative. Some russian company spent a few thousand dollars on facebook and google and that means that russian interfered? What about when obama openly campaigned against brexit? What about when our politicians and business moguls openly campaigned against brexit? What about the billions spent by US/Europe politicians against brexit. Is that foreign influence? There was obviously foreign interference in brexit and the US election. Most of it didn't come from russia, a country with an economy the size of australia or spain. It came from the anti-brexit side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... The russia narrative is simply propaganda by the powerful pro-globalism state and corporate institutions. Also, the idea of brexit is a pipe dream. The EU and corporation powers will never let britain leave. The US, EU, China, Saudi Arabia and every major corporation has come out against it. It will never happen. Everyone knows what is going to happen. The EU will force a revote like it has done every time they didn't get what they wanted.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  "Flimsy" Sure, we'll see how flimsy this is once everything comes to light
  - porpoisely 8y ago
    We pretty much already know it's flimsy. It's been nearly 3 years and we've had nothing. Now, the question is whether it is outright propaganda on the level of mccarythism or yellow cake. That a country with a GDP the size of australia is dominating britian and american politics seems laughable to me. But perhaps that's just me being naive.
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      "We know", speak for yourself The GDP of the country has not much correlation with their geopolitical capabilities
- adamzk 8y ago
bogle 8y ago
The result was advisory anyway so it was always up to the party in power whether they recognised the result or not. As it is, the result was almost certainly skewed by the cheating of the leave campaigners. If you cheat in a race, you are disqualified. The UK parliament has its own ideas about that. Brexit: Vote Leave broke electoral law, says Electoral Commission[0] Leave.EU donor Arron Banks 'must explain Russia link'[1] Brexit: Leave 'very likely' won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, Oxford professor to tell High Court[2] [0][https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992] [1][https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44428115 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44428115] [2][https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-leave-very-likely-won-eu-referendum-due-to-illegal-overspending-oxford-professor-to-tell-high-court/ar-BBQwZDM https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-leave-very-like...]
kodablah 8y ago
> I feel I could accept a result in which there was not some effective pay-ops campaign being run Define "effective". How do you know it was effective? If we invalidated results based on some peoples' assumed effectiveness of external interference, we'd invalidate all results. > but cannot accept a result which is “not the will of the people”. How do you define "will of the people"? How do you know that the result is not the will of the people? If another vote comes up and I find significant campaign spending by outsiders, can we assume it was not the will of the people and get another vote? I find the dichotomy strange. On one hand it is said that people are so easily externally influenced, then on the other they assume that the next election that won't be the case. Which is it? Can people be trusted to think for themselves in the face of a constant barrage of "scary EU" or "scary Russia" or not? If you believe they can, you have to accept the results and if you believe they can't, no number of elections will change it.

cazum 8y ago

Is there any mechanism in Westminster politics, or any democratic political system for that matter, for invalidating election results if it is determined that an external state interfered with the process? If it was found that Russia interfered in some capacity, would/could anything be done?

aurelwu 8y ago
the referendum was non-binding so there would not need to be a formal process in this particular case - however it probably would cause a lot of upstir anyways.
ProblemFactory 8y ago
I don't think there is a mechanism for invalidating general election results. The parliament can vote to hold new general elections. For the Brexit referendum, there is no need to invalidate it, as it was an advisory opinion poll rather than a binding public vote for the government. The UK government could ignore the results or call for a new referendum if they wished to.
CiaranMcNulty 8y ago
Given that the Brexit referendum was legally non-binding (unlike an election), the only mechanism needed is political will to ignore the result
pjc50 8y ago
The Electoral Commission can void elections in the event of fraud: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-elections-in-the-UK.pdf https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil... One of their most high profile cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_%26_Ors_v_Rahman_%26_Anor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_%26_Ors_v_Rahman_%26_Ano... I don't think either of these apply for nebulous "external interference", but certain actions such as running unlawful electoral advertising should count. Vote leave have been fined and referred to the police: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/party-and-election-finance-to-keep/vote-leave-fined-and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/ele... BUT: these apply to elected positions. Referendums don't really have a strong constitutional place in the UK, and the Brexit referendum was "non-binding": the result did not legally oblige anything specific to happen. Brexit is a choice of the government. No-Deal Brexit is also a choice of the government, made two years ago when sending the A50 notification without a viable plan.
nicoburns 8y ago
The only real weight that the referendum has is the public sentiment it represents. If that was called into question it would lose most of it's power without anything needing to be done. It's not legally binding. I'm not convinced that the idea that Russia interfered is worth taking that seriously though. You don't need to go very far to find real people who are very pro-brexit. IMO it's the newspapers (rupert murdoch, etc) that had more influence, but I'm not sure what you can do about that.

thinkingemote 8y ago

It's certainly true that the UK and USA policy is anti Russian. and the Russians do try to meddle. But. It's also putting too much credit on a foreign state, and is used to abdicate responsibility. We all laughed when Saddam, Gadaffi and Mubarak claimed the west were manipulating their population and elections. Why dont we laugh when our politicians say the same about the Russians? To me it feels like the new bogey man. Some evidence but the impacts are grossly overegged. (Edits, worth saying that in its not our politicians in power that are claiming this though, which is different)

mylons 8y ago
I'm not sure I understand the western election interference comments because the west installed those people. The west did interfere in their elections at least once.

bsaul 8y ago

it’s pretty obvious to me ( european) that russia tries to undermine Europe and USA to make them pay for the economical measures it has taken against it since the ukraine incident. Yet to say that this is not the will of the people look like a bit of a stretch. Nigel farage isn’t a russian spy, trump didn’t invent the issues with taxes and immigration at the mexican border. What russian sponsored media only need to do is to let local people whose opinion are generaly banned from the mainstream media speak freely and reach the general audience. It forces mainstrem political party to stop being lazy, and talk about the real everyday issues, instead of relying on what’s morally right or wrong to think. Call me an optimist but i truelty think that it could in fact save europe and democracy in the long run.

jonathanstrange 8y ago
Russian involvement seems to go a bit beyond that, there seems to be a lot of money flowing into Europe right now into far right and anti EU movements. Take for example those mysterious payments to the AfD via Switzerland, and it's likely that this is only the tip of the iceberg. That's not just Russian money or influence, though. Take a look at Steve Bannon's activities, his goal is to destroy the European Union in order to make European states as weak as possible.

jonathanstrange 8y ago

Yes, there was proven Russian involvement which could have been decisive, given the close margin. This is not a conspiracy theory. However, there seems to be some agreement, driven by May and her party, that a second referendum would be even more disastrous to democracy, since in any case the outcome would be close and keep the UK divided (as polls indicate) and at the same time a second referendum would cause people to question the legitimacy of the whole process. Foreign involvement in elections or referenda is a tricky thing, as it happens everywhere in one form or another and the legality of it is often in a grey zone rather than it being clearly illegal.

TheFattestNinja 8y ago

There is far more evidence that the same happened for the US election, and yet you won't see a change of President because of that.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

No, I don’t think this is a particularly conspiratorial theory. There’s shedloads of weird money floating around which was used for funding advertising campaigns in the run up to the referendum. Not to mention it’s a policy that would be welcomed by Russia, because it destabilises the EU. The problem is that nobody knows if that influence affected the outcome. There’s little popular movement to push back against the result on that basis, which has led us to the current clusterimpasse.

sametmax 8y ago

Russian is so conveniently used for everything these days. Terrorists were wearing off I guess, and too limited. I feel like watching old documentaries from the 50-70's, where everything bad hapening was because of the communists. And nobody questioned it. They had evidences. And certitudes.

cazum 8y ago
Most people don't really have a narrative that explains the recent rise of nationalism. In America, they blame Russia because that's easier than taking a critical look at why a voting majority of people in their country think building a whites-only wall is a good idea.

chki 8y ago

I have not seen a lot of "circumstantial evidence" of Russian interference as you are describing. However that is not to say that there has been none whatsoever and regarding the very close result of the vote this could theoretically have changed the outcome. But in my opinion the main point to your concern is that even if there was some evidence that Russia interfered in the referendum and if there was for example a medium sized probability that this changed the outcome: It should not matter. Elections are a tricky thing because they are _the_ constitutional element of the whole system. If people don't trust the outcome of the voting, there will be no trust in the system as a whole. But trust in the election system is what keeps the whole thing running. Questioning the outcome of a democratic process should therefore only be possible if there is a clear violation, it should only be done by an independent Court and there should be a clear time limit. Considering that the referendum has been held two years ago, that there is circumstantial evidence at best and that it has already immensely shaped British politics, I think it is not reasonable to go back and talk about the validity of the vote. Elections are not a scientific method to determine the true "will of the people". They are an event where people cast there vote and the democratic process gets an outcome to work with. My takeaway from the possible Russian interference would rather be that there have to be measures in the future that prevent meddling and also to prevent the perception that there could have been meddling.

kitd 8y ago

Sadly, there's no evidence at all that Russian influence was extensive enough to have affected the outcome. After all, who needs to deploy hackers when the UK's own tabloid press was doing the job perfectly well.

porpoisely 8y ago

What evidence? The russia-brexit narrative is as flimsy as the trump-russia narrative. Some russian company spent a few thousand dollars on facebook and google and that means that russian interfered? What about when obama openly campaigned against brexit? What about when our politicians and business moguls openly campaigned against brexit? What about the billions spent by US/Europe politicians against brexit. Is that foreign influence? There was obviously foreign interference in brexit and the US election. Most of it didn't come from russia, a country with an economy the size of australia or spain. It came from the anti-brexit side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... The russia narrative is simply propaganda by the powerful pro-globalism state and corporate institutions. Also, the idea of brexit is a pipe dream. The EU and corporation powers will never let britain leave. The US, EU, China, Saudi Arabia and every major corporation has come out against it. It will never happen. Everyone knows what is going to happen. The EU will force a revote like it has done every time they didn't get what they wanted.

raverbashing 8y ago
"Flimsy" Sure, we'll see how flimsy this is once everything comes to light
- porpoisely 8y ago
  We pretty much already know it's flimsy. It's been nearly 3 years and we've had nothing. Now, the question is whether it is outright propaganda on the level of mccarythism or yellow cake. That a country with a GDP the size of australia is dominating britian and american politics seems laughable to me. But perhaps that's just me being naive.
  - raverbashing 8y ago
    "We know", speak for yourself The GDP of the country has not much correlation with their geopolitical capabilities
adamzk 8y ago

bogle 8y ago

The result was advisory anyway so it was always up to the party in power whether they recognised the result or not. As it is, the result was almost certainly skewed by the cheating of the leave campaigners. If you cheat in a race, you are disqualified. The UK parliament has its own ideas about that. Brexit: Vote Leave broke electoral law, says Electoral Commission[0] Leave.EU donor Arron Banks 'must explain Russia link'[1] Brexit: Leave 'very likely' won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, Oxford professor to tell High Court[2] [0][https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992] [1][https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44428115 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44428115] [2][https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-leave-very-likely-won-eu-referendum-due-to-illegal-overspending-oxford-professor-to-tell-high-court/ar-BBQwZDM https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-leave-very-like...]

kodablah 8y ago

> I feel I could accept a result in which there was not some effective pay-ops campaign being run Define "effective". How do you know it was effective? If we invalidated results based on some peoples' assumed effectiveness of external interference, we'd invalidate all results. > but cannot accept a result which is “not the will of the people”. How do you define "will of the people"? How do you know that the result is not the will of the people? If another vote comes up and I find significant campaign spending by outsiders, can we assume it was not the will of the people and get another vote? I find the dichotomy strange. On one hand it is said that people are so easily externally influenced, then on the other they assume that the next election that won't be the case. Which is it? Can people be trusted to think for themselves in the face of a constant barrage of "scary EU" or "scary Russia" or not? If you believe they can, you have to accept the results and if you believe they can't, no number of elections will change it.