newolder wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

newolder wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

As far as I know, the vote was conducted legally: people were able to vote for the position of their choice at polling stations without a pistol being pressed into their back. If you know otherwise, I sincerely suggest you contact the police.

Of course, I fully expect that many of those same people, in making that choice, were influenced by the many lies told by both campaigns (in the case of 'remain', state-sponsored lies funded by taxpayers); I also fully expect that some of those lies were quickened by illegal activity, and would be amazed were it otherwise.

Democratic decisions, it turns out, are not exercises in the application of disinterested reason. Who knew?

There were illegal activities according to Wylie & friend (data protection violations, campaign funding naughties & others) and I'm aware that elections are rarely devoid of menace. Minimising electoral menace seems appropriate. Who cares?

A great many people, as they should. But it's really beside the point.

It seems then that you are not happy that the referendum may have been influenced illegally yet you maintain that, "... any pretext will do." is a valid point here. Okaaaay, I'll just go over there -> for now.

I don't know what sort of inconsistency you're attributing to me here. Go where you like, anyway.

OlivierK wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

newolder wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

No; no. But that won't stop peope who still cannot accept that Britain is leaving the EU from trying, of course, since any pretext will do.

Do I take it that you are happy that the referendum result may have been achieved by means illegal? If not, what exactly is your opposition here?

As far as I know, the vote was conducted legally: people were able to vote for the position of their choice at polling stations without a pistol being pressed into their back. If you know otherwise, I sincerely suggest you contact the police.

Of course, I fully expect that many of those same people, in making that choice, were influenced by the many lies told by both campaigns (in the case of 'remain', state-sponsored lies funded by taxpayers); I also fully expect that some of those lies were quickened by illegal activity, and would be amazed were it otherwise.

Democratic decisions, it turns out, are not exercises in the application of disinterested reason. Who knew?

Democratic processes are also designed around the principle that the available corrective to revelations of dishonest campaigning is at the ballot box. This corrective is somewhat more pragmatically useful when the beneficiaries of such dishonesty are required to stand for periodic re-election, at which the revealed dishonesty can betaken into account. A one-off referendum should be (but as far as I know, isn't) protected by some mechanism more akin to false advertising laws. While provisions to overturn results could be problematic, and probably best avoided, penalties including large fines and long periods of incarceration could act as a deterrent.

I disagree with or don't follow every sentence here save the last one, and I'm not even sure about that one (much depends on exactly what dishonest behaviour you're seeking to criminalise). Still, I agree at least with the general principle that such dishonesty should be taken seriously.

If anyone is interested, here's a completely different angle on the overspending allegations:

https://order-order.com/tag/britain-stronger-in-europe/

First and foremost, the Remain campaign did exactly the same thing that Cadwalladr is accusing Vote Leave of, only far, far worse. Vote Leave gifted BeLeave £625,000. Yet in the month before the vote the Remainers set up FIVE new campaigns and funnelled a MILLION pounds into them so they could stay under the spending limit:

https://order-order.com/2017/12/28/rema ... gal-limit/

The combined spending of The In Campaign Ltd (Britain Stronger in Europe), Conservatives IN, Labour and Liberal Democrats during the control period was £14,496,806. Given the clear evidence of coordination between these campaigns, this means that Britain Stronger in Europe looks to have breached its spending limits by up to £7,496,806, more than double the legal limit allowed under Electoral Commission rules.

As far as I can tell the Electoral Commission ruled that it was acceptable to do what the Remain campaigns did and that this did not constitute breaking the rules on campaign financing. Whether the allegations against the Leave campaigns amount to essentially the same thing, as alleged there, I cannot say. We'll probably get more info in the coming days, and hopefully the Electoral Commission will shed some light as well.

Tracer,

There's an argument, which informs current Australian electoral law and that I agree with, that laws pertaining to false advertising should not apply to political campaigning, due to the extremely problematic issue of leaving courts to decide when democratic election results should be overturned. In short, it would be a hugely corruptible process. The argument goes that if political claims can be shown to be false before an election, then the voters can take that falsity into account when casting their ballots, and if political claims are shown to be false after an election, then people can take that into account when those making the claims stand for re-election (as well as taking any other democratic action in the interim, such as protests or calls for resignation or fresh elections). It is, however, an approach somewhat ill-suited to votes that are not subject to re-election, such as referenda.

As an approach to accountability for political claims, it's less authoritarian, and more democratic, and is itself thus more transparent and less corruptible than a system where a judge makes a ruling on the truth of a political claim, and whether any proven falsity is sufficient to annul an election result. Regardless of one's position on Brexit, I'm sure nobody really wants to see a court case deciding whether the NHS funding claim printed up on buses constitutes cause to annul the referendum result, or thinks that this would be anything but divisive, no matter which decision was reached. But because a referendum does not require a periodically renewed democratic mandate, this leaves false claims, especially those made so close to a vote that little time is available to argue against them, subject to no accountability checks and balances of any meaningfulness. That's an open goal for the unscrupulous, and an affront to the integrity of democratic processes.

To me, at least, criminalising claims that fail a falsity test similar to that used in fraud cases, seems like an approach that would at least act as a deterrent, given that any corrective action that includes setting aside of democratic vote results would do more harm than good. It would certainly be better than having no accountability mechanism at all, as at present.

Might be worth a read for those interested:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07 ... l-offence/

Michael Doherty: Should Making False Statements in a Referendum Campaign Be an Electoral Offence?

There's a summary of the current laws he mentions in that article here: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... e-regulate

What we don't regulate - and advice on who does

Thanks, Thommo. An interesting read. There's a good similar discussion on Australian electoral law regarding truth in political advertising (very similar to UK law, it appears) that I'm not having any luck finding, but if I do I'll post a link.

Thanks, please do.

I see the Migration Advisory Committee published its interim report yesterday.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... update.pdf

EU referendum won through fraud, whistleblower tells MPs

Former Cambridge Analytica worker says Brexit result may have been different without financial ‘cheating’

The EU referendum was won through fraud, the whistleblower Christopher Wylie has told MPs, accusing Vote Leave of improperly channelling money through a tech firm with links to Cambridge Analytica.

Wylie told a select committee that the pro-Brexit campaign had a “common plan” to use the network of companies to get around election spending laws and said he thought there “could have been a different outcome had there not been, in my view, cheating”.

“It makes me so angry, because a lot of people supported leave because they believe in the application of British law and British sovereignty. And to irrevocably alter the constitutional settlement of this country on fraud is a mutilation of the constitutional settlement of this country.”

It was an advisory referendum without thresholds. Any country taking such a momentous decision would have had attendance and majority thresholds.

Every election is won involving outright lies and deceit, and there is no redress in UK for lies in elections. Whether those lies actually make a difference I'm unsure, but as a remainer who lost I would be extremely cautious about attempting to overturn a referendum result on the basis of dodgy spending or politicians lying.

The penalty should be on those politicians, where appropriate, or groups found guilty, but not the overall result. I dont see how that can work.

ronmcd wrote:Every election is won involving outright lies and deceit, and there is no redress in UK for lies in elections.

Actually no. Oliver's whole point, which I agree with, is that the means of redress is that elections are not a one shot deal. Politicians who outright lie can be held to account the next time the electoral cycle roles around, should their local constituents decide that is important to them.

One of the many issues with the referendum (some of the flaws of which Scot has already neatly summarized) is that complete lack of accountability for those involved in the campaign process.

One year to go:

Sendraks wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Every election is won involving outright lies and deceit, and there is no redress in UK for lies in elections.

Actually no. Oliver's whole point, which I agree with, is that the means of redress is that elections are not a one shot deal. Politicians who outright lie can be held to account the next time the electoral cycle roles around, should their local constituents decide that is important to them.

One of the many issues with the referendum (some of the flaws of which Scot has already neatly summarized) is that complete lack of accountability for those involved in the campaign process.

Okay but my point about no redress was that lying is allowed in election campaigning. You can't take a politician to court for lying, making up numbers, smearing an opponent. Carmichael was found to have been a lying shit in court, but there wasn't anything the court could do with regard to his election. Also worth noting the voters then voted him back in.

I would accept that a referendum is different, making a single policy decision with huge ramifications rather than just electing one liar over another for a short period. But If it's legal to lie politically in elections, and it is, it must be legal in a referendum.

I'm not suggesting a solution, unfortunately.

Thresholds are very important.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thresholds are very important.

Thresholds aren't used here for elections, and so imposing them in individual cases so you dont get the result you dont want would be seen for what it is.

(*cough* 1979 *cough*)

Here is a list of the British governments achievements in negotiations with EU they dont want to talk about:

11 Brexit promises the government quietly dropped

Leaving aside the £350m for the NHS, Brexit has promised quick and easy trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, an end to ECJ jurisdiction and free movement, and British control of North Sea fishing. None of this has come to pass. Here are 11 key abandoned claims

ronmcd wrote:(*cough* 1979 *cough*)

ronmcd wrote:Okay but my point about no redress was that lying is allowed in election campaigning. You can't take a politician to court for lying, making up numbers, smearing an opponent. Carmichael was found to have been a lying shit in court, but there wasn't anything the court could do with regard to his election. Also worth noting the voters then voted him back in.

I would accept that a referendum is different, making a single policy decision with huge ramifications rather than just electing one liar over another for a short period. But If it's legal to lie politically in elections, and it is, it must be legal in a referendum.

I'm not suggesting a solution, unfortunately.

I'll suggest a solution. Don't ever have a referendum.

Or at least just don't have them over anything likely to matter in the long run.

Entirely agree. Why do you have parliaments? To make informed decisions of course. Do not leave it to the masses who have not got a clue what it is about.

It's worse that the masses not having a clue, its the fact they will vote for whoever spends the most money to act that, whether its Putin or Rupert Murdoch.

If the Sun decides most of the countries problems are due to witches or left handed people I can guarantee give it a couple of years and we will have anti-witchcraft or anti-left handed party dominating politics