To think the Brexit referendum result should be set aside if allegations of corruption are proved?

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Vanity Fair article about this

Just like the US election last year, there is more and more evidence emerging now that some parts of the Leave campaign were fundedy in very shady ways. Also, social media was manipulated to feed personalised fake news to voters before the referendum. Even the ludicrous #usepens seems to have been pushed by Russian bots as a way of undermining confidence in the electoral process.

We are teetering on the brink of making the biggest political mistake of my lifetime (and I'm in my 50s and remember a good many other bad times). That's bad and bad enough, but if it wasn't even a legitimate vote surely it should just be set aside?

I was a remainer but, you need to let it go

Perhaps not set aside, but I think it would be sensible to ask the electorate to vote definitively on the final deal as it’s shaping up to be nothing like the pixies and fairydust version pushed in the referendum campaign. The government should also publish the economic impact assessments that they are sitting on.

(For the record, remainer.)

Let it go the country voted to go we need to leave..(im a remainer but now thinking id vote to leave. I think a revote would be a lot higher to leave)

How can it not be a legitimate vote? I don't expect all the Remain money was pure as the driven snow either.

Voting to go into the EEC was the biggest political mistake of my lifetime, am in my 50s too. I am glad we are leaving and voted to do so.

In before anyone cries "But Farage said that if Remain won by 52% it would be such a small margin that he wouldn't let it go". Yes, he did. And do you know how much clout he would have held? As much as Nick Clegg peddling the same argument for the other side. As someone else said, if the vote was to be reheld, the vote to Leave would be so much higher. If the government just scrapped it altogether, there would be uproar.

It should be set aside anyway. If Theresa May had the courage of her convictions and said 'you know what, people, I just can't do this to you' even I would have a grudging respect for her.

With the funding specifically, I don't think it would work, because I'm sure all kinds of people have potential funding controversies lurking in the cupboard.

Unfortunately we have a situation where very slightly over half the voters in an advisory referendum made their views apparent, fed by lies, and this has been taken as 'the will of the people' which must on no account be frustrated, and it is going to be an absolute unmitigated disaster.

It should be set aside anyway. If Theresa May had the courage of her convictions and said 'you know what, people, I just can't do this to you' even I would have a grudging respect for her.

THIS X1m.

Given that the referendum was only advisory I'm not sure that setting it aside has any meaning. The key (and suicidally stupid) act was when Parliament voted to allow Article 50 to be triggered.

That can (and should) be overturned by Parliament voting to revoke Article 50. I agree, though, that one of the grounds for that vote would be that the Leave campaign is under investigation by the Electoral Commission.

Those people who are saying that both sides lied, etc, should really be reporting their concerns about the Remain campaign to the Electoral Commission. They are not doing so because there are no grounds (that I am aware of). In the absence of any grounds, the two sides are not comparable at all.

Even if we leave we will apply to rejoin as the yoof gets old enough to vote/campaign/have some power. The whole thing is a massive waste of time, resources and attention. I predict we'll rejoin in ten years max.

Don't agree with the leave being higher. Out of the people I know who voted leave 90% have changed their mind

I think the biggest issue with Brexit is people were asked to vote on a vague idea with no facts on the real implications known. The remain side went in for some serious scaremongering and the leave side promised things with no idea if they'd be true or not.
Another referendum once everything's been decided would be ideal but I admit completely unfeasible.

I think once there is an actual plan or deal, then it should put to a referendum.

The previous one was in based on principle, with no actual plan, regardless of foreign interference or corruption (or blatant lies).

Out of the people I know who voted leave 90% have changed their mind

I know of remainers who have said they would vote leave if it was run again as they don't believe there should be another referendum.

Truth is anecdotal evidence has no weight really as there is always someone with a counter argument.

There is very little movement in the polls.

I voted remain and would do again, however I'm not naive enough to think those that campaigned for remain are as pure as the driven snow.

Where is the evidence that the vote to Leave would be higher if the referendum was re-run? I haven't seen any empirical evidence published to suggest that but perhaps I don't read the right papers, lol! Yes, once the result was declared many remain voters accepted it and wanted the country to 'get on with it', but that is in no way indicative that they support leave or would now change their vote. So where's the evidence that the Leave vote would now be so much higher?

This year alone, there has been 2-3m registered new voters in the 18-25 age group prior to the election. That demographic is something like 85% remain, so that would probably be enough to swing a second referendum.

This year alone, there has been 2-3m registered new voters in the 18-25 age group prior to the election. That demographic is something like 85% remain, so that would probably be enough to swing a second referendum.

Relying on a certain demographic or certain votes doesn't work.

Just because they are registered it certainly doesn't mean they would vote or a guarantee as to which way they would vote.

There is no guarantee either way.

dont

I agree ive never seen any evidence that leave would have a bigger majority

Would the EU even let us stay now? I suspect it's no longer a decision for us as a nation.

Social media propaganda.... I'm not convinced it makes a huge difference. People generally seek out evidence to back up an opinion they already hold imho, I don't think that it would have made much difference at the time given how both sides were dealing in possibilities not facts.

Any other corruption is for us to deal with as a nation. Probably unsatisfactorily for the general publics need to see something tangible with a couple of humiliations and new legislation.

Yes, the change in demographics since the vote alone suggests a new referendum would not have a majority for Leave. A lot of Leave voters were older and have since died.

Re funding - the point alleged is that the Leave campaign didn't declare the true source of all its funds. That's why the Electoral Commission is investigating. Are there comparable charges against Remain?

It has been a real eye opener how undemocratic some remain voters are. Remain did not get the result they wanted and now want all us leave thickos to keep voting until we get it right. This narrative is as shocking as it is offensive.

I don't think Brexiters, as a group, have the monopoly on being undemocratic. Did you?

I don't think individual people can be undemocratic, but, rather, anti-democratic.

It could be argued, though, whether the referendum, in the form that the question was posed, was democratic or undemocratic.

The Article 50 notification having been given, for the UK to not leave the EU requires the agreement of the EU. Probably the unanimous agreement of all the other members. It's not the UK's decision to make any more.