It’s much more questionable when we start to look at organised funding and lobbying. We have those rules specifically to prevent elections being bought with cash.
I think your questions could be seen as whataboutism[0], but as an answer I do know somebody who was furious that Obama was "telling us what to do" and subsequently voted leave. I don't know anybody who voted remain but was obviously swayed by Obama. Sample size is small but thats what I know.
I get what you're saying but it doesn't really have any relevance here. If you're disregarding legality then any questions about why a criminal investigation happened vs didn't is moot.
I mean we literally are. The original premise is about invalidating democratic results. If no one cares if it's right or wrong the conversation is moot in the first place because leave won regardless of circumstance.
>I get what you're saying but it doesn't really have any relevance here.
It actually does. Again the original premise was about mitigating factors of a democratic vote. That is almost entirely a moral/ethical issue. Regardless good laws should follow morals and not the other way around so they're totally inseperable in my mind.
> At this point it amounts to fighting very hard to find any reason to undo a democratically determined result.
which is almost entirely a moral point. The "Obama statement" was just a reply to someone suggesting that "ad spending" might have swung the vote.
Citing "whataboutism" does not make this go away, it is the essence of the argument.
If Joe is disqualified from his hockey tournament for throwing his stick, but Mike receives an eye-roll from the same referee, it should not be criticized as whataboutism to say "What about Mike?" - it is a legitimate complaint, because there is injustice in the way both incidents are dealt with.
The situation the OP was describing compared illegal, unreported campaign overspending with a foreign politician expressing an opinion. They're not in any way similar.
A foreign politician who is popular will generate free advertising showcasing the merits of his endorsed position through news media coverage of his statements.
Take money out of the equation entirely. I am a rich filthy corrupt CEO who owns a giant media corporation. I contribute 0 dollars to your campaign, but my TV channel has reporters singing your praises daily. My newspapers write about you in positive terms. My interns spend time on social media defending you from critics.
Everything I have done for you has helped get you elected. My news channel and publications are read by millions. You now owe me.
Similarly, a politician from another place who is very popular in your constituency shows up and campaigns for you. You pay nothing for it, but thousands show up to listen to him. His speech is aired to millions in your constituency.
Eventually you are elected, now you owe him.
Not accounting for some money is principly the same as not accounting for an endorsement by the President of the United States. The same negative outcomes that are associated with money in politics can be applied to endorsements too.
Existing laws do not address this, and are thus unjust because they are outdated in the context of how news and discourse works in 2018
Besides, what would you have happen? All of the people who are actually knowledgable about the topic should exempt themselves from debate? It's a silly argument.
And I still don't understand what you think should have happened. People across the world should have conferred to make sure that representation for both sides was exactly 50/50?
The United States had the view that the UK staying in the EU was in their favour, so their President expressed that view. What's actually wrong with that? Surely it's up to voters to decide whether they think America's opinion is important or not when deciding how they should vote? Business leaders were in favour of Remain because they knew that leaving the EU would be financially perilous. How is that not relevant information for voters?
What is a fair fight in this context? If there was a referendum to decide whether the country believes in evolution would you make sure the balance of scientists vs cranks in the public sphere was exactly 50:50? The vast majority of people with knowledge in the area knew that Brexit was a terrible idea, so they said so. And reality has proven them right. Or is this a prelude to complaining that the EU isn't being "fair" because it won't give the UK what it wants?
> this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite
Remain was obviously not the favourite because it lost. That the winning side continues to paint itself as a victimised minority speaks volumes.
You've lost me entirely with your last comments. Opinion polls showed a narrow Remain victory - that's a matter of fact - and that's the very definition of favourite. To say the result changes the favourite after the fact is frankly bonkers.
And portraying themselves as a victimized minority? I think you got that from the Guardian the other day didn't you? Anyway given that the powers that be keep trying their hardest to subvert the democratic will of the people, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
I have no idea what Guardian piece you're referring to. I'd certainly never claim to be the only person capable of formulating such an obvious conclusion from the evidence in front of me. Won the referendum, have no idea how to actually follow through on the promise, so blame anyone but themselves. That's where Leave is today.
And please, save the "democratic will of the people" guff. A 52/48 vote when people didn't even know what they were voting for. For example, Leave campaigners said we'd stay in the single market, and get £350m for the NHS, yet here we are on the precipice of leaving the single market and NHS budget freefall. You can try to deflect the blame for that all you want, but the reality is that the Leave side didn't think they'd win, made a pile of fanciful promises anyone with their head screwed on knew would never come to fruition, and then sat there and shat themselves for months on end while they were supposed to be negotiating an exit. No one voted for this.
55% of people would prefer to remain in the EU than crash out with a no deal Brexit, so presumably you'd be fine with that "will of the people" too. Or are opinion polls bad when they don't say what you want?
Here's what I said originally:
Point is, citing the overspending by Leave as some massive deal looks a bit rich when virtually the entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain.
So Remain are Goliath, complaining that David used a catapult (overspend) when David should have just taken his punishment from Goliath's big clunking fists (coordinated conspiracy from powers that be to scare the public into voting Remain). All clear now? It's Remain that are playing the victim which as I said, given Remain's overwhelming advantages in the campaign and apparent incompetence in convincing the public despite that advantage, attracts ridicule. This is all I said. I'm not sure how I can be any plainer.