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

And other results. Hmm... what to do about that, eh? Still no answers forthcoming from you, I see. And I already linked to one other case of overspending, so don't act like I haven't thrown you a bone.

And other results. — S

Obviously, if whatever result you're talking about meets the same four criteria I've just outlined, you can take it I'd support a rerun.

And I already linked to one other case of overspending, so don't act like I haven't thrown you a bone. — S

It's not even a referendum. And it should be obvious from the reporting that my criteria don't match up (there's no information on how close the result was and whether the spending could have affected it, for example). I could go on and detail the circumstances under which I think a byelection etc. should be rerun, which would be similar, but it's fairly irrelevant.

You can fix a result possibly brought about by cheating by rerunning the process in a fair way. — Baden

Rerunning the process wouldn't be fair to begin with! So your talk about how that could be done is for the birds. The real cheating would be against all of those who voted to leave and won, and all of those who innocently believed that the result would be binding, as we were told in no uncertain terms, and multiple times. The cheating of overspending has already been punished, and it's not up to you to come up with your own custom-made punishment like some sort of vigilante. You don't have that authority. If you don't like how it has been dealt with, then take it to court and see how far you get.

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. — Baden

No it isn't. It's already too late to act at a stage when actions taken would have retroactive consequences. The time to act would've been before the vote. That's why a fine is a better way of dealing with a campaign violation than rerunning the vote.

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. — Baden

His expectations in that regard are completely irrelevant. He wouldn't be at fault, whoever undermined it would be at fault. With a turnout of around 30 million, that's too big of promise to break, and would be by far the greater wrong.

The cheating of overspending has been already been punished, and it's not up to you to come up with your own custom made punishment. You don't have that authority. If you don't how it has been dealt with, then take it to court and see how far you get. — S

We're arguing here over whether a new referendum, which is a possibility, is justified. It's obviously relevant to take the cheating in the last one into account in determining that. I'm aware I don't personally have the authority to determine British law.

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. — Baden

A cancellation should be a last minute option if all else fails. We're not there yet.

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. — Baden

Oh, come on. You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV. Firstly, it's not a deal, it's a draft withdrawal agreement. And secondly, it suits both parties in the negotiations to spin it as the only offer available: the EU because they don't want to make any further concessions, and May because she wants to pressure the house to vote it through rather than be forced to do an about-face and scurry back to the negotiating table with her tail between her legs, begging for more. (Obviously, the latter has already happened now, to May's great embarrassment).

Also, it's in the interests of both parties in the negotiations to avoid a no deal scenario, so, with the knowledge that, at present, it's at serious risk of being voted down in parliament, why wouldn't they renegotiate?

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. — S

Then you should look into the research more. These arguments cannot be repeated and underlined enough because otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Look into the Dutch referendum on the association treaty with the Ukraine for another clear cut example. Suppose people voted leave because of immigration then it doesn't follow leave was what they wanted. It only tells you that of the available options presented one provided them a vote to stop immigration. But since the reason for their voting isn't known even that information hasn't been provided as a consequence of the referendum. So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time.

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. — Baden

If there are past cases with sufficiently similar circumstances, and if your argument here implies that this particular case should be treated differently to all of those other cases, then, absent justification, that's special pleading.

You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV. — S

You mean they didn't sign a deal, that there are negotiations now, or that May is not afraid to put it into Parliament? Those are the negations of the three facts I mentioned, and they are facts.

Also, it's in the interests of both parties in the negotiations to avoid a no deal scenario, so, with the knowledge that, at present, it's at serious risk of being voted down in parliament, why wouldn't they renegotiate? — S

You don't get it. The EU has far less to lose than the UK by the UK crashing out. It's 28 versus one, a huge crash for the UK and an inconvenient blip for the EU mollified by the severe disincentive the example would send to other potential leaving nations. So, the UK, despite the empty bravado of the Brexiteers, never had any cards to play and never had a hope of anything but managed capitulation, which is what happened. There is no better deal to be had. It's a Brexiteer fantasy. It's this or something even more objectionable to Tory hardliners, which won't fly unless there's a general election.

Given the existence of past cases with sufficiently similar circumstances, if your argument here implies that this particular case should be treated differently to all of those other cases, then, absent justification, that's special pleading. — S

My argument doesn't imply that, so again you're wasting my time with nonsense. Every case should be treated according to similar considerations. If you can find another case where all my four criteria apply then obviously I'd argue for the same thing.

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. — Baden

So, let me get this straight. You're inventing a new policy for righting the wrongs committed in situations when an important vote is put to the electorate, but you're trying to tie it down to the circumstances of the 2016 referendum? That way, you won't have to worry about all of those past cases which don't quite meet your criteria, yet you get your desired second referendum. How convenient. You seem to care more about that than real justice.

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. — frank

I agree.

Obviously, if whatever result you're talking about meets the same four criteria I've just outlined, you can take it I'd support a rerun. — Baden

So, go ahead and cheat, so long you're careful enough not to violate all four of Baden's criteria. Got it.

The results are only illegitimate if they match the circumstances of the referendum that Baden wants to see rerun so that we can have another chance to remain a member of the European Union.

The topic of this discussion is Brexit. I'm giving you the reasons I think a new referendum is justified. Which unsurprisingly relate to Brexit. You first accused me of not wanting to apply these reasons to other referenda and said that made me inconsistent. But I said I would apply them to any referenda you wish to raise. Now you're saying doing that means I don't care about real justice or some other such blather. Sorry Sap but that's not worthy of further response.

So, go ahead and cheat, so long you're careful enough not to violate all four of Baden's criteria. — S

Er, one of the criteria is cheating. :D

So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time. — Benkei

What the referendum tells us is that a majority of the people voting voted to trigger leaving and all who voted knew that was the consequence of the vote. To the extent the referendum doesn't provide us the basis for those voting, that's the fault/decision of the democratic process that created the referendum. Had the democracy wanted to know why the democracy was voting, or had it wanted the vote to provide other options, it could have asked that of the democracy, and it could have even written in that if the basis of the vote was to end immigration, then they wouldn't leave (if that's how the democracy wanted to do it). All of this is to say that the king can do whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants (within certain discriminatory limits). The king needn't be logical, honest, or virtuous. It's his kingdom and he can run it like an idiot if he wants. In this instance, the king is the people because it's a democracy, and the people can create whatever they want.

@S
(Besides I said "if" not "if and only if", but I think you know that and aren't arguing seriously).

Suppose people voted leave because of immigration then it doesn't follow leave was what they wanted. — Benkei

But that'd be on them for being too stupid to realise that the only guarantee under a leave vote is that we leave. The option on the ballot was to leave or to remain, not to leave with a guarantee on immigration. That's on them if they voted based on an imaginary ballot, or a hope, rather than the actual options presented to them, with all of the risks involved. We all knew, or at least should have known, that a deal would actually need to be negotiated and compromises would need to be made on either side. You can't rightly blame that on the government or on either of the campaigns. That's basic level stuff.

It only tells you that of the available options presented one provided them a vote to stop immigration. — Benkei

It provided them with a possibility. A means in which that goal might achieved. Not a guarantee.

But since the reason for their voting isn't known even that information hasn't been provided as a consequence of the referendum. So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time. — Benkei

No, not at all. It was leave or remain, and that much was understood. If they voted leave, then they should have been prepared to leave, even in the event that they didn't get everything they'd hoped for or expected.

But if people really are that stupid, or have such terrible judgement, then yes, referendums probably aren't such a great idea. I mean, I've already said that I would've rather we never had that referendum.

We're arguing here over whether a new referendum, which is a possibility, is justified. It's obviously relevant to take the cheating in the last one into account in determining that. I'm aware I don't personally have the authority to determine British law. — Baden

Right, and I'm saying that it can only be justified by going through the proper channels, not on a philosophy forum.

Right. There we were wasting time arguing ethics on the philosophy forum when we should have been speaking directly to Theresa May about all this.

You mean they didn't sign a deal, that there are negotiations now, or that May is not afraid to put it into Parliament. Those are the three facts I mentioned, and they are facts. — Baden

I mean your mention of a deal, when in fact there's only a draft withdrawal agreement. I mean your assumption that the negotiations are finished, just because that's what has been said, when in fact they've effectively resumed. And I mean your assumption that there's no other deal possible, again, just because that's what has been said - even though you should be astute enough to discern that there are political reasons for saying such things in public, when that might not in fact be an accurate reflection of what's happening behind closed doors.

You don't get it. The EU has far less to lose than the UK by the UK crashing out. It's 28 versus one, a huge crash for the UK and an inconvenient blip for the EU mollified by the severe disincentive the example would send to other potential leaving nations. So, the UK, despite the empty bravado of the Brexiteers, never had any cards to play and never had a hope of anything but managed capitulation, which is what happened. — Baden

No, you don't get it. That both sides would end up worse off than they would otherwise be with an acceptable deal undermines your point about which of the two would be more worse off. The key point here is that it's in the mutual interest of both parties to avoid that no deal scenario, hence the effective resumption of negotiations until May returns once again to put a final deal to a parliamentary vote.

There is no better deal to be had. — Baden

That's exactly what they want people to think! I can't believe you're lapping that one up. You sound like a member of the cabinet towing the party line! :lol:

It's a Brexiteer fantasy. It's this or something even more objectionable to Tory hardliners, which won't fly unless there's a general election. — Baden

Hold on, you said that there's the deal that May's afraid to put to parliament and nothing else. That looks like backtracking now, unless you actually meant that there's nothing else so far. Which is precisely why we need to wait it out a little longer. You never know...

What the referendum tells us is that a majority of the people voting voted to trigger leaving and all who voted knew that was the consequence of the vote. — Hanover

Key point here. Let that sink in.

Right. There we were wasting time arguing ethics on the philosophy forum when we should have been speaking directly to Theresa May about all this. — Baden

Not we, just you. I don't need to speak to anyone in a position of authority, or take any actions, in order to trigger a process whereby your ideas on why a second referendum should be held can stand a chance of attaining the required justification of which you speak, meaning the approval of an authoritative body, like if it were taken to court and a judge ruled in your favour. I'm okay with the situation as it stands, whereby your ideas are just that and nothing more, and will remain unjustified, except in your own mind.

(Besides I said "if" not "if and only if", but I think you know that and aren't arguing seriously). — Baden

You mean, if they meet your four criteria vs. if and only if they meet your four criteria? What's the relevant difference? Either way, each case would be required to meet your four criteria to qualify, and all other cases could be dismissed, correct? Which was my criticism.

Basically, although you've suggested in other comments that I'm moving the goalposts, I actually just think that you're cornered into a lose-lose scenario. On the one hand, without applying your criteria consistently, that's a double standard which leaves out other cases, but on the other hand, it looks like you've set up your criteria in such a way so as to exclude most other cases anyway, because otherwise you'd have to come up with a way of dealing with all of those cases in a satisfactory way, which would be challenging to say the least.

I don't think that it's fair to let the Tories off the hook with a fine for their overspending in relation to the 2015 general election, yet make it so that the overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, in combination with other criteria which I consider to be less relevant, qualifies for a rerun. I think that it's fair the way that it is: to just fine for overspending instead of messing with the results after the fact. Either that, or perhaps a zero tolerance all-or-nothing rule taking effect from now onwards, not retroactively, and which would apply across the board, instead of your 'pick-and-choose' method.

I'm not going to argue about established facts. Referenda don't work meaningdully the way the leave vote was put. I explained the mechanism why, in practice, it doesn't work and I get "but...". Your buts are uninteresting because theoretical points when reality has shown time and again it works as I described. Do some investigating yourselves.

What a pointless reply. Surely you can do better than that. What you've said doesn't engage anything I said. It doesn't even try. It just regurgitates your disputed claims, makes a vague reference to supposedly established facts, and has the gall to admit that you're not even interested in our criticism or counterpoints, although I suspect that it's more a case of you just not being bothered to give it a proper go. If you're going to bow out, there are better ways to go. That reply was weak and disappointing.

. I mean your assumption that the negotiations are finished, just because that's what has been said, when in fact they've effectively resumed — S

No they haven't. It takes two sides to negotiate and the EU have flat out refused to renegotiate the agreed text. There may be renogotiations if there's an election as I said earlier, but this deal will not be renogotiated with May.

https://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-eu-wont-renegotiate-brexit-deal/

The rest of your responses are repetitive and pointless. I've already explained to you my reasons for thinking a new referendum justified in this case, and that I have no reason not to apply the same type of thinking to other referenda though obviously each case is different and would have to be judged in its particular context.

You mean, if they meet your four criteria vs. if and only if they meet your four criteria? What's the relevant difference? — S

Yes, that's what I mean. And seeing as you're not willing to put in the mental effort to try to understand that basic distinction, and continue to harp on the red herring of an imagined inconsistency, we're done.

That both sides would end up worse off than they would otherwise be with an acceptable deal undermines your point about which of the two would be more worse off. — S

One can only reach that conclusion if one limits consideration to immediate consequences, and ignores longer term consequences.

The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU.

I expect the USA would take the same approach if California voted to leave the union - cause great pain on both California and, where unavoidable, itself as well, so as to discourage other states from following suit. [Disclaimer - I know nothing of the US constitution and whether it is possible for a state to leave]

It is emphatically not possible for a state to withdraw from the Union of states. That was settled during the Civil War - 1860-1865.

There are some who would like to split California into two or three states because some believe that northern California and southern California have quite separate interests. They may have quite different interests, but those differences are probably to California's advantage, in the same way that rural agricultural counties in a given state have little in common with large industrial cities. But states with combination rural agriculture/urban industrial economies tend to be financially more stable than all agricultural states, or all industrial states. The two different kinds of economy compliment each other.

There is no obvious road to splitting states either. A territory could be broken into several states, but there is no provision for states to divide or merge. If California really wanted to split, it would probably require a constitutional amendment which would need to be passed by congress and 3/4 of the states.

Were California to secede, everything else being the same, it would be the 6th largest economy. I think Hell would freeze over before California was allowed to leave. Not going to happen.