4 ms·

You seem to have misinterpreted me. I was not speaking to the finality of the Brexit vote (and I agree that a roughly 50/50 split is not a mandate), but to the

You seem to have misinterpreted me. I was not speaking to the finality of the Brexit vote (and I agree that a roughly 50/50 split is not a mandate), but to the tactic of attempting to invalidate your political opponents by claiming that they were duped or hoodwinked into voting the way they did. It's incredibly patronizing (in addition to being illogical).

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It's not a "tactic". It's a statement of the absurd level of lies and disinformation from the Brexit side from Farage, Gove and Johnson and in interviews and advert all the way down to local campaigns. Subsequently shown to have had illegal levels of spending, criticised by the electoral commission and countless stories about hidden funding, dubious tactics from Cambridge Analytica or whoever, or bullshit facebook ads. Remain came out with some poor predictions, but there weren't, as far as I can tell, any outright lies. A distinct lack of revelations after the event too. Sure, there's always some dubious local leaflets, or a stupid statement or three, in every election. This was quantitatively and qualitatively different by orders of magnitude. By far the most disingenuous campaign I've ever seen for a UK vote. So I do feel duped - I don't think it matters which way one voted - as UK elections have generally done much, much better at presenting issues. The leave campaign promised the moon on a stick in a very US style, which 24hr news happily amplified. Farage burst the bus slogan the morning after the result. Suffice to say both sides ran bloody awful campaigns, and the end result is no-one is happy. The first EU referendum saw a booklet sent to every household discussing and arguing both sides of all the main issues - to allow people a chance to understand before voting. Leave actually had a case back then - in joining the EU we were turning our back on significant and long standing Commonwealth trade arrangements.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  So the actions of some people (whoever lied about issues related to the referendum) invalidates the actions of a separate, unaffiliated group (voters)? In other words, what you're saying is that all I have to do to invalidate your vote (and, really, your entire political viewpoint) is to take out some ads on Facebook that make untrue claims about your cause?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    That's the reason the political process, funding, advertisements are all regulated in the UK. To supposedly prevent such things. Clearly struggling in current conditions, but redesigning the oversight is a different conversation. It's not just one ad or campaign, or funding, but a whole interminable series of them. At some point it's no longer poetic licence and firmly into fraudulent. The vote should - based on the numerous breaches found - have been invalidated and a rerun forced, along with prosecutions for those found to have breached rules. A fraudulent contract is not held to be binding. Not for a different answer, but for a referendum that adheres to the standing laws of the land. It matters not if the result of the rerun is another vote for leave - this time one achieve by legal means. How else to ensure that the democratic process itself remains fit for purpose and something we can have confidence in? Without the need to accommodate international observers. Otherwise where's democracy? Why should that be OK, but fraudulent contracts or selling of investments not be? Does no amount of fraud invalidate the process for you?
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Look, I'm not British, so I don't know all the details on the Brexit campaign. I just see a certain thing all the time (generally on the part of people on the left, though I am certain that the roles have been reversed many times in the past), which is to point to some disinformation (Russian meddling in the U.S., whatever happened around Brexit in the U.K.) and then draw the conclusion that the only reason people on the other side voted for Brexit/Trump is because they're just so darned gullible that they were taken in by the Russians (or Farage or whatever). Frankly, it's just people being unwilling to consider that the opposition has legitimate and deeply held political grievances with the status quo. I mean, just think about the argument. People only voted for Trump because of Russian meddling. That implies a belief that media can significantly influence people. But the vast majority of the media hated Trump. So then you have to hold two opposing viewpoints simultaneously: that media is deeply influential (when it's paid for by the Russian state) and that it simply isn't influential (when wielded by the established media and every celebrity with a platform). I suspect that there are a lot similarities with Brexit. So which is it? Does media matter? Or does it not?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

It's not a "tactic". It's a statement of the absurd level of lies and disinformation from the Brexit side from Farage, Gove and Johnson and in interviews and advert all the way down to local campaigns. Subsequently shown to have had illegal levels of spending, criticised by the electoral commission and countless stories about hidden funding, dubious tactics from Cambridge Analytica or whoever, or bullshit facebook ads. Remain came out with some poor predictions, but there weren't, as far as I can tell, any outright lies. A distinct lack of revelations after the event too. Sure, there's always some dubious local leaflets, or a stupid statement or three, in every election. This was quantitatively and qualitatively different by orders of magnitude. By far the most disingenuous campaign I've ever seen for a UK vote. So I do feel duped - I don't think it matters which way one voted - as UK elections have generally done much, much better at presenting issues. The leave campaign promised the moon on a stick in a very US style, which 24hr news happily amplified. Farage burst the bus slogan the morning after the result. Suffice to say both sides ran bloody awful campaigns, and the end result is no-one is happy. The first EU referendum saw a booklet sent to every household discussing and arguing both sides of all the main issues - to allow people a chance to understand before voting. Leave actually had a case back then - in joining the EU we were turning our back on significant and long standing Commonwealth trade arrangements.

toasterlovin 8y ago
So the actions of some people (whoever lied about issues related to the referendum) invalidates the actions of a separate, unaffiliated group (voters)? In other words, what you're saying is that all I have to do to invalidate your vote (and, really, your entire political viewpoint) is to take out some ads on Facebook that make untrue claims about your cause?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  That's the reason the political process, funding, advertisements are all regulated in the UK. To supposedly prevent such things. Clearly struggling in current conditions, but redesigning the oversight is a different conversation. It's not just one ad or campaign, or funding, but a whole interminable series of them. At some point it's no longer poetic licence and firmly into fraudulent. The vote should - based on the numerous breaches found - have been invalidated and a rerun forced, along with prosecutions for those found to have breached rules. A fraudulent contract is not held to be binding. Not for a different answer, but for a referendum that adheres to the standing laws of the land. It matters not if the result of the rerun is another vote for leave - this time one achieve by legal means. How else to ensure that the democratic process itself remains fit for purpose and something we can have confidence in? Without the need to accommodate international observers. Otherwise where's democracy? Why should that be OK, but fraudulent contracts or selling of investments not be? Does no amount of fraud invalidate the process for you?
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Look, I'm not British, so I don't know all the details on the Brexit campaign. I just see a certain thing all the time (generally on the part of people on the left, though I am certain that the roles have been reversed many times in the past), which is to point to some disinformation (Russian meddling in the U.S., whatever happened around Brexit in the U.K.) and then draw the conclusion that the only reason people on the other side voted for Brexit/Trump is because they're just so darned gullible that they were taken in by the Russians (or Farage or whatever). Frankly, it's just people being unwilling to consider that the opposition has legitimate and deeply held political grievances with the status quo. I mean, just think about the argument. People only voted for Trump because of Russian meddling. That implies a belief that media can significantly influence people. But the vast majority of the media hated Trump. So then you have to hold two opposing viewpoints simultaneously: that media is deeply influential (when it's paid for by the Russian state) and that it simply isn't influential (when wielded by the established media and every celebrity with a platform). I suspect that there are a lot similarities with Brexit. So which is it? Does media matter? Or does it not?