No, they voted for lies.

Hey, I'm as onside with getting rid of Brexit as anyone, but a democracy is voting for a person or a platform. That person may be a horrible lying bastard, or the platform may be so full of holes you could drain spaghetti on it. That's just the way it works. People vote for the thing that they vote for. Now, if you decided to overturn the vote because the voters made a bad choice... that's pretty much the opposite of democracy, even if it results in a better choice.

I think it would be interesting if there was a law that you couldn't say something untrue in an election. That would be incredible. But, of course, then all your politicians would be in jail. As it stands, it falls on the opposition to eloquently communicate the truth in a believable way when someone lies. If they fail, I'm not sure you can blame democracy.

To be a bit less pointed, I understand that you are angry, but your anger is not effective. If the Brexit side lied (and I'm inclined to agree with you here), how did Brexit win? How would you improve the situation? If your answers are something like "Because Brexiteers are stupid racists" and "There isn't anything you can do", then you'll never get any farther. You need spend your time learning how to communicate to the people who voted for Brexit and to get your message across in a way that they can understand.

Otherwise you just become the angry guy on the internet, which isn't really satisfying for anyone.

Ah, so when you disagree, people voted for lies? But when you agree then it’s the will of the people?

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

N Farage, May 2016.

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).

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.

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?

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?

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?

I know that there's been voter blaming for Brexit, Trump and other surprising results around the world, but I don't hold with blaming the voters for being foolish/gullible. Even if the surprise option won, or especially if they were sold a pup. There's usually a reasonably simple underlying reason too -- unemployment, tax, corruption and disillusion with current politicians, an especially compelling campaign or a particularly poor one, etc.

Some of the reports of Russian involvement seem just a tad too convenient. Besides, much of the Trump/Brexit phenomena is explainable without. Maybe there was foreign meddling too, who knows?

The grievances seem clear for anyone who cares to look - those areas and people hardest hit by deindustrialisation, globalisation and have been deprived regions for knocking on 40 years, and also hardest hit by austerity voted most for leave, and for Trump. The chance to kick the system, hope for jobs, for a different way. So blame silly voters or the parties might have to admit that leaving those regions to rot may have been a mistake. Admitting mistakes isn't on message, so politicians can't do that!

Of media, I suspect for most of us old media - TV and papers - has far less an effect than ever before. So they get more and more outrageous to try and stay relevant. Most now get news from a selection of sites rather than the morning paper or evening TV. For older folks who still have the habit of news from a single source, I suspect they still have impact. I really doubt any media site or paper can turn an election like they could in the 70s and 80s.

Advertising on the other hand is much more insidious. I'm used to seeing ads from both sides of every campaign. Personalised net and social media ads mean people can be targeted with what they're susceptible to - their own personal hot issues. That has the potential for effect the old media used to have, perhaps far more, and is invisible to all except recipient. I was certainly very surprised (and disappointed) by some of the FB ads revealed after the referendum.

I think we may be in violent agreement. :)

Oh, come on.

Yes, mislead will is also a will.

However, the Brexit vote should never have been legally binding, it's now how referendums work in England. The people who wanted Brexit literally said out loud we lied next morning, the resigned and/or disappeared.

Sure, it's the will of the people...

>the Brexit vote should never have been legally binding

It wasn't.

>Brexit vote should never have been legally binding

It should have been legally binding, if it had been then it could have been challenged in court and very likely would have been overturned due to the cheating of the leave campaigns.

The lies told by the leave campaign has been extensively documented, including by courts. It's all a google search away.

It would only be worse if the government backed one side of the debate with millions of pounds of public money. Thank god that didn't happen...

/sarcasm

Yes, and it's completely beside the point. The point being that this was how the people voted. Democracy right there.

Whether lies were spread on one side or another does not invalidate the fact that people showed up to the polls and cast votes.

So are the lies of the remain campaign ?

Which is a case in point about the will of the people. Especially in very complicated situations, the people do not necessarily understand the impact of their choices, which is why they select representatives to act in their stead.

Judging by how things have progressed, it doesn't seem like those elected representatives have a much better understanding of the impact either.

The choice offered was a 'have cake, unicorns and rainbows with a free puppy' or remain in the EU. How were they expected to understand the real impact of their choice when it was so blatantly missold?

"There is no plan for no deal, because we'll easily get a great deal" Boris Johnson.

"getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" John Redwood.

I'm sorry, but in what universe are the terms for non members going to be better than the terms for members? The banks were expected to compensate for the insurance misselling scandal...

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys

Wow, what a succinct powerful argument. You've convinced me!