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.
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?