[dane-pgp]

If just 1% of the population of the UK changed their voting intention (from Remain to Leave) because of illegally bought or misleading advertising, then undoing that effect would mean that Remain would have won.

Invoking the "democratically determined result" is begging the question, since we don't really know whether the result would have been the same if the Leave campaign hadn't broken the rules:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/04/vote-l...

When someone wins a sporting competition, and is found to have cheated by using banned substances, they don't get to keep their title by claiming "Well I still would have won even if I didn't cheat".

[stale2002]

Well, it was a non binding resolution.

It is the politicians who made the REAL decision to trigger brexit.

There is nothing to reverse. You can't cancel a non binding resolution.

Complain to the politicians who made the decision if you don't like what they did. And the politicians were very much voted in democratically.

People can vote them out if they don't like their decisions.

[matthewmacleod]

Seems like a wonderful idea, but unfortunately the UK now has both major political parties firmly and irrevocably commited to enforcing the referendum result (whatever that is).

[stale2002]

Ok, so I guess that means that all of the democratically elected parties are currently in favor of brexit.

That's democracy for you. If you don't like it then people should vote for someone else.

The fact that these major parties are committed to enforcing brexit IS the democracy.

[jdietrich]

Our electoral system makes it damned near impossible to elect someone else.

At the 1983 general election, the SDP won 25.4% of the popular vote, giving them 23 seats in parliament. Labour won 27.6% of the popular vote, giving them 209 seats. We are a de-facto two-party state, because the design of our electoral system is drastically biased in favour of the established major parties.

We did consider switching to a fairer electoral system in 2011, but ironically enough we decided against it by referendum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_electio...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...

[tomp]

> We did consider switching to a fairer electoral system in 2011, but ironically enough we decided against it by referendum.

On the other hand, the countries with the most stable democracies (measured in centuries) (US and UK) have two-party systems. So maybe the choice was less obvious than you allude to.

[jdietrich]

Stability of government is a perfectly legitimate defence of a first-past-the-post system, but that carries an inevitable democratic deficit - you're arguing for the benefits of constraining the choices of the electorate.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument, but it places a far greater onus of responsibility on our dominant parties. If our electoral system prevents a diverse range of parties in parliament, then those parties have a duty to represent the diversity of the electorate.

In the case of the EU referendum, they have a duty to represent the interests of both the 52% and the 48%. Totally ignoring almost-but-not-quite half of the electorate is just mob rule dressed up as democracy.

[matthewmacleod]

Mmmm, I think that’s unfortunately both technically correct and not that helpful.

Both major parties in the UK are commited to a policy that has around 50% support from the electorate. Because there are long-term issues that make the massive sudden support for an alternative party unlikely, this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.

[tathougies]

> this means that roughly half of the population is left without an effective democratic method of expressing opposition to that policy.

Since when in the UK has your ability to voice dissent been denied? Doesn't the UK have freedom of protest? Can't you just protest your government and speak against its policies without fear of repercussion?

[walshemj]

Are you counting those excluded from the vote in this ?

[pjc50]

If we get the food riots that the government seems to be planning for, we're very quickly going to cease to be a democracy. We've already had the lunatic wing of the Conservative party calling for the execution of dissidents, and an MP shot dead during the campaign.

[lostlogin]

I think the overriding point is that a simple majority is completely the wrong format for descisions like this. I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change. There is also the argument about them stifling debate.

There is an intersting criticism of the format in the below link from Chris Patten

“I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

[walshemj]

And there is a LOT of uk case law /precedent on this ie 2/3 or even 75% to make changes to the rules or organisation or to pass some types of motions at company AGM's is common.

Personally I think the CBI and Directors Institute lost the plot and let a few "bad apples" fuck the economy up - should have done what the TUC did in the 50's

[makomk]

I don't think there's any precedent for requiring such a supermajority in this case. Actually joining the EU required the support of 0% of the population in a referendum - there was no referendum on joining, the 1975 referendum was merely on whether we should remain in. The same arguments against leaving were made back then too, and if leave had won there'd probably have been exactly the same kind of pressure against following through on it.

[walshemj]

Citrine and any parliamentary based system (even the local allotment society ) plus the fact that every listed UK company AGM follows the same 2/3 /3/4 rule for major votes

[dragonwriter]

> I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler.

Referenda are the only mechanism of plebiscitary democracy (which is democracy by plebiscite, which is a synonym for referendum), so calling them someone's favorite form of plebiscitary democracy is vacuous and tautology true.

But neither Hitler nor Mussolini is particularly known as a supporter of democracy, whether plebiscitary or otherwise, so aside from the nullity of the literal reading, the clearly intended implication is false.

[growlist]

> They undermine Westminster

That's an argument against referenda?!

[tomp]

> I’d have suggested a two thirds majority requires for change.

Which position would you consider the "default"? Slavery? Prohibition on gay marriage? Ban on abortion? (All of these were "changed" through history, some very recently.)

[lostlogin]

It goes both ways, are you happy for those to pass into law with a simple majority?

None of those were referendums where I live, were any of them referendums where you live?

[commandlinefan]

So you're saying that you believe that governments should begin imposing censorship laws on privately held companies (a foreign one in this case) because without censorship, people who were susceptible to being convinced to do something were convinced to do so? And you really don't see the problem with that?

[dane-pgp]

I'm not suggesting that governments should decide what is and isn't misleading, or that they should restrict campaigns to only "approved" messages. Preventing foreign companies (and governments) from influencing British elections might be worth considering, though:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-russia-putin-fake-...

Ultimately it is the job of the British people to decide which claims (in political advertising bought transparently by British people) are misleading. To do this, I think it would be helpful if political campaigns had to also publish in a centralised register, up front, all the political messages they paid for.

There may even be a case for preventing political campaigns from targeting people based on individual psychological profiles, as opposed to geographically focused campaigns, or based on the demographics of a specific newspaper or television channel.

[walshemj]

And technically it was advisory and has zero legitimacy there is also the question of gerrymandering the vote by not allowing brits overseas to vote.

This is like say ruling out any votes in a presidential election from expats and or military.