A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation — Hanover

I explained several times already they were officially found in violation of campaign rules.

It seems like something more sophisticated and manipulative is at play. — Hanover

Fascinating.

But if they had a redo, would that undermine confidence in voting?

All it said on the bus was "... let's fund our NHS instead" it didn't say "we will". In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie.

That's an odd charge. The topic of this conversation is Brexit, which is why that's the focus of my posts. I'm not under any obligation in order to maintain consistency to research and comment on other referenda that were closely fought and narrowly won through illegal means (and I don't know of any off-hand). Which were you referring to? Name one. — Baden

No, I don't think that it's in the least bit odd to be subjected to a charge of inconsistency in any debate on this forum. And the relevance is that if you're found to be guilty of inconsistency, then that calls into question why anyone should accept your argument here when you yourself don't even accept it when it's reasonably applied in other contexts.

First of all, I said elections or referenda, not just referenda. And a brief google search will bring up elections or referenda where there has been evidence of lies or of twisting the truth or of not being very transparent - which, let's be honest, is going to be every single election or referendum that we've ever had - and it will also bring up elections or referenda where the results have been narrow, and likewise with overspending. Now, given the aforementioned, I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to suppose that, throughout our entire political history to date, there has never been an election or a referendum whereby the results were narrow and there were lies or twisted truths or a lack of transparency involved, or that there has never been a sufficiently similar situation to that of the 2016 EU referendum. But, to give you some idea, here's an example of a lie in another referendum, here's a list of close election results, and here's an example of overspending in an election. These things do happen, and they're dealt with in the usual manner.

Off-topic but feel free to name them, so I at least have a chance to respond. — Baden

No, it's not off-topic, as I've now explained.

It isn't a moral argument in the context in which you applied it, which didn't involve any crime or immoral act on the part of those who you aimed the comment at. — Baden

Yes it is, changing the context doesn't change the fact that it's a moral argument, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with that argument. I don't get why you're dismissing it as a moral argument. It's clearly an argument about personal responsibility, a bad attitude, apportioning blame, judgement, and consequences. How is that not a moral argument? I just think that you disagree with it and the language I used to express it, which you're free to do, but dismissing it as a moral argument is simply a mistake.

The issue is what an ethical response would be and that's what I was explicating. — Baden

No, it's not as matter of fact as you make it seem. That's merely your opinion of what an ethical response would be, and it's an opinion I happen to disagree with.

So again, you're filling your posts with irrelevancies. — Baden

No, not irrelevancies, since my ethical views are in sync with the usual manner in which these problems are dealt with through the law.

It doesn't matter what political viewpoint I take or whether it appears opportunistic to you. The argument that a referendum that may have been won by cheating should be repeated so as not to deny those cheated a chance to change their minds stands on its own merits. — Baden

Or falls on its own demerits. But consistency is also relevant, as I've explained. You can't duck that charge so easily.

Nor have they ruled that it can't be. Which is why we're having this discussion. — Baden

It should be left up to judges, not left in the hands of laypeople, and especially not in the hands of politicians.

An extremely weak case from which when you extract all the irrelevancies and accusations concerning the motives of your opposition still boils down to nothing more than "tough luck". — Baden

No, you're not being at all charitable in your assessment, and I put that down to bias.

Those who are strongly against a new referendum are strongly against it because they might lose one that's run fairly and without illegality or cheating. Again, a very weak position morally. — Baden

It was run about as fairly as some past elections and referenda, so again, consistency! If I were to accept your argument here, then again, I ask you what is to be done to right similar wrongs in the past? It's not a weak position morally at all. I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying that we already have a system in place which deals with these things, and that gets my approval. If you overspend, for example, then I think that you should be punished, usually with a fine. On the contrary, you're coming from the weaker position, as your proposal is unorthodox and carries with it a backlog of past cases which would demand compensation. It's impractical and unworkable, even if you do think that you've got the moral high ground.

And if a significant number wouldn't vote the same way, which polls do show (see my last post), why should they be denied that opportunity? Oh I know, "tough luck" because murderers have to go to prison. You're going to have to do better than that. — Baden

No, not quite. Tough luck, because we already had a referendum, and undoing that is the greater wrong.

No (and I have no idea where you got that from. Where did I suggest we "create" more lies?). — Baden

Yes, I'm afraid that is what you're suggesting, in effect. What you suggest - having a second referendum - would turn the guarantees that there would only be one referendum with the results treated as binding into lies. That doesn't rectify the situation, it makes a bad situation worse. You can't fix lies by bringing about bigger lies, just as you can't put out a fire by pouring fuel onto it. Your ethics are whack and you need to go back to the drawing board.

I suggest an unfair referendum where one side conducted their campaign dishonestly and illegally (in part) be rectified with a fair referendum where both sides conduct their campaigns honestly and legally. — Baden

I'm still waiting to hear how you'd deal with the backlog of cases. You can't overturn a system without consequences.

I explained several times already they were officially found in violation of campaign rules. — Baden

Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent.

Fascinating. — Baden

You're being dismissive of my pointing out that your characterization of German intent was incorrect. You were suggesting that Germany's remaining in the EU was mutually beneficial and for that reason it wouldn't leave. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place.

No, I don't think that it's in the least bit odd to be charged of inconsistency in any debate on this forum. And the relevance is that if you're found to be guilty of inconsistency, then that calls into question why anyone should accept your argument here when you yourself don't even accept it when it's reasonably applied in other contexts. — S

This is silly. Quote me where I was inconsistent or stop wasting my time.

. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place. — Hanover

So now you've gone from saying Germany would benefit from leaving because poorer countries were taking advantage of it to Germany is taking advantage of poorer countries and they should leave. When you've finished debating yourself, let me know, and also please tell me why it's relevant to the UK as it's not one of these poorer countries.

But if they had a redo, would that undermine confidence in voting? — frank

That is a fair point. It might to an extent. It then depends on much weight to give to that. In any case, it's the only sensible objection I've seen here so far.

Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent. — Hanover

Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result.

That's what I'm arguing on the basis of, the possibility of a no-deal scenario. May's deal does not have parliament's support and there is no deal B both according to her and to Europe. If May's deal had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would be nothing left to talk about. So... — Baden

When it's confirmed that there's no plan B - which is something for which we'll have to wait and see, since what is said whilst talks are still ongoing can't be taken as sacrosanct, and the meaningful vote has not yet taken place - then there will be more of a place for arguments for and against that scenario, but as things stand, it's still hypothetical.

You can't fix lies by bringing about bigger lies, just as you can't put out a fire by pouring fuel onto it. You're ethics are whack and you need to go back to the drawing board. — S

You can fix a result possibly brought about by cheating by rerunning the process in a fair way. The fact that this means that Cameron would have turned out retroactively to have told a falsehood is a less important consideration than having a fair referendum. And presumably when he made his promise, he didn't expect cheating to occur, so the idea that that was a bigger lie than the deceptions of the Leave campaign doesn't hold up.

Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result. — Baden

Ok, and a rerun undermines the legitimacy of the result as well. The question is what to do about violations. Lock the cheaters up, fine them, throw tomatoes at them, whatever. I'm just saying a re-do isn't the answer. I

In my view the outcome AND the fact there were lies and people were badly informed are immaterial as the referendum should be totally ignored in light of the fact nobody knows what the fuck the question meant when they voted and nobody knows what it was that the voters voted for or against. — Benkei

Although I recognise the problems you raise, you can know what something means without knowing the finer details or the consequences. The electorate understood the option to leave or remain, even if they weren't clear on the finer details or consequences, so I think that these kind of arguments are overstated. I mean, I didn't exactly look at the question and think that it was written in Japanese or that it was asking me whether I prefer jam sandwiches to apple pie.

I'm not saying it's black and white either, there are negatives to re-running it, but I'm arguing that it's the less unfair of the two options. Again, if there were no cheating and/or if the referendum result wasn't so close and/or the looming consequences of a no-deal weren't so serious, it would be harder to make this argument. But with those qualifications in place, it seems reasonably clear to me what the fairer option is, and not only that but that the British population as a whole would feel more upset by being pushed into an unexpected and damaging no-deal than being offered the chance of a final say to avert it.

We know that leave won, which should limit our options. So it's deal or no deal, and the majority want a deal. The problem is that the negotiations seem to be failing, which is down to those doing the negotiating. So, what now? If this government can't do it, then they should step aside and let someone else give it a try. And if it reaches a stage where impending catastrophe is on the horizon, then, and only then, as a last resort, should it be delayed if possible or cancelled. But there's still time and there's still hope.

142
All it said on the bus was "... let's fund our NHS instead" it didn't say "we will". — TWI

You think that the fact they played with words to give a false impression makes it alright?

In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie. — TWI

What money? Every economic forecast says the exchequer will have less money to spend after leaving the EU, potentially a lot less, and there's a 39 billion pound divorce bill to pay even before exiting. There is no "extra" money for the NHS. There's less money overall, which actually puts pressure on the government to cut the NHS.

he problem is that the negotiations seem to be failing, which is down to those doing the negotiating. — S

No. The negotiations finished and a deal was signed. There are no negotiations now. There's a deal that May is afraid to put to Parliament and nothing else.

...and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis... — Baden

:brow:

Well that's one way of looking at it, on the other hand it could be wrong.

I'll amend that to where they "mostly" lie.

Well that's one way of looking at it, on the other hand it could be wrong. — TWI

You mean all the expert's forecasts could be wrong and Britain could make money on leaving? That's a hypothetical possibility I suppose, but rather far-fetched.

A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation. It's just what happens in political events. — Hanover

Yes, that's true. People ought to stop making it out to be more than it is, bringing it up alongside actual campaign violations, as though they're even remotely on par. Overspending, on the other hand, is an actual campaign violation, but that's not something unique to the referendum, and we already have procedures in place for dealing with that. There's no justification for suddenly overhauling these procedures on the basis of a single case, and it smacks of opportunism.

If you overturned every election every time a lie were found, we'd never have had a single leader. — Hanover

Yes, but Baden doesn't seem keen on talking about that logical consequence. Perhaps because it either exposes his double standard or renders his position absurd.

But if they had a redo, would that undermine confidence in voting? — frank

Yes! It would do that and more.

Yes, but Baden doesn't seem keen on talking about that logical consequence. Perhaps because it either exposes his double standard or renders his position absurd. — S

There's a strawman to add to the red herrings. The logical consequence of arguing this particular referendum be rerun based on the particular circumstances I've outlined are not that every election should be overturned every time any lie is found. Hard to believe I have to explain that to you.

All it said on the bus was "... let's fund our NHS instead" it didn't say "we will". In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie. — TWI

At best, it was very misleading, which isn't much better. Permissible in terms of the law, but nevertheless condemnable.

This is silly. Quote me where I was inconsistent or stop wasting my time. — Baden

Then stop hiding behind the Brexit debate and tell me how you would make your proposal here work fairly, in light of similar past cases.

Before I get strawmanned again, here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.

1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.

All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda.

I'm not under any obligation to research other cases to try to help you out. If you want to raise a particular case, I'll test it against the criteria I've outlined above and respond.

That is a fair point. It might to an extent. It then depends on much weight to give to that. In any case, it's the only sensible objection I've seen here so far. — Baden

Funny. I don't recall you saying anything like that when I've raised that objection, yet you give him credit. I'll take that as indirect praise. Thanks. :grin:

Yes! It would do that and more. — S

They should wait and let it play out for better or worse then. If it's detrimental, the next generation can vote to rejoin with tangible evidence.

Better to do it that way than have every referendum outcome from now on being rejected by the losers.

I had a brief moment of charity. I'm over it now. :wink: