tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post7800421120234267613..comments2024-03-02T10:38:04.108+00:00Comments on Borthlas: Re-running referendumsJohn Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-29243393241671700842016-07-06T08:22:07.863+01:002016-07-06T08:22:07.863+01:00Whilst I agree with the logic, the difficulty is t...Whilst I agree with the logic, the difficulty is that if any vote were to be annulled on the basis that one side or another had lied, no vote would ever be valid! And in this case, most of the lies were exposed as such before polling day. <br /><br />People are, ultimately, entitled to believe lies if they wish; democracy includes the right to make bad decisions as well as good ones (even assuming that 'bad' and 'good' could be defined other than in a subjective way in any case). No, I see no justification for a re-run without solid evidence that a sufficient number of people have changed their minds in the light of events. Whilst recent polls do suggest some change, I think we'd need to see that evidence over a period before politicians would be brave enough to legislate for another vote.John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-32849430426357928612016-07-05T23:31:32.037+01:002016-07-05T23:31:32.037+01:00Would it be correct to say that a significant numb...Would it be correct to say that a significant number of those who voted leave, did so on the basis of mis-information and even downright lies? Particularly on the hot button issues of the UK financial contribution to the EU and immigration controls.<br />A referendum yielding a result under those conditions could justify a re run. In a similar way to a court agreeing to a re-trial on the basis of incorrect evidence being presented in the first trial. <br />Is this an unreasonable argument?Peter Freemannoreply@blogger.com