What do you think of the Brexit Party?

whataboutism only works as a defense if the subject in question is the exception rather then the rule. Its not a universal get-out-of-jail card when ever anyone mentions a comparable wrong-doing as a defense.

For example:

lets say you have a class of kids in school.. and the teacher tells off bobby for talking during class.

Bobby says "but what about frank??"

The teacher points out that it doesn't matter what frank was doing, talking is still wrong, and if the teacher sees frank doing it, the same rule will be applied.

= good use of whataboutism by the teacher. It makes no difference what frank was doing, bobby still broke the rules, and should be punished, as should frank next time.

But lets say every kid in the class was talking, all 30 of them. The teacher tells off bobby, and bobby says "but what about everyone else??". If the teacher now using a whataboutism-type argument, is the teacher still in the right? If you are an objective outsider looking in, surely your first question would be, if the misbehavior was the rule not the exception, what is the motivation of the teacher to punish a single student and pick them out above all else? If the problem is so widespread, there is no way the teacher could have missed it, so do they have a motive behind their choice of who to call out? Do they have history with bobby? etc.

In the second case, a whataboutism-type arguement falls down.

---

So bringing it back to brexit, to make a whataboutism defense, you would need to first demonstrate that electoral issues are not the norm, and if they do prove common, B, justify why you are picking out brexit to focus on over other examples. Just crying whataboutism, isn't enough.

----

for the OP - the brexit party are an awful re-boot of UKIP aimed at giving nige an ego boost, and putting him back in the public eye for a year or so. They are nothing but cynical, and nothing more then a protest vote against the current goverment. In the end though, they will likely achieve nothing, just as UKIP have.

Ultimately, if both sides in the referendum misbehaved it just adds more credence to the conclusion that the end result is null and void. Two wrongs do not make a right.

if both sides are found guilty of misbehaving (I personally haven't seen any evidence that the remain campaign did, some other posters have said they did, but its not something I am aware of, and neither examples seem to be as clear and outright as what the leave campaign did) then the argument for a re-do would be 100% justifiable. Oppose to just calling it null and void, because obviously given that the status quo is one side of the argument, if you just wipe the whole thing it would be the same outcome as one side winning. But yeah, obviously if both sides cheated, a re-do is fair game.

The question would then become, how do you stop either side, especially the leave campaign cheating next time? The conservative party got finned for their 2015 election expenses didn't they? And labors momentum were in trouble for the last one. It seems like a very difficult problem to solve.

AFAIK there was a small fine doled out to some remain-supporting groups. It was significantly dwarfed by the fine that the leave camp had to pay, but there were certainly misdeeds on both sides.



Give the Electoral Commission teeth. Reform the UK's ailing democratic system to stop it being overtaken by tyrants and corruption. It's not an especially difficult problem to solve (granted, it's not stupendously easy either), we just need political motivation to actually get it done.

I really struggle to see a positive way forward.

I have clearly stated a fact that there was action taken by the regulatory body (Electoral Commission) for rule-breaking on behalf of the remain campaign. Do you condone this, because yet again you use 'whataboutery' to try to divert to the wrong doing of leave while painting remain completely innocent which they clearly aren't!

It's called a swear filter... And meaningless *******s is straightforward English, it's pretty much the opposite of mincing words.



And I googled "remain leaflet electoral commission" and found nothing. So, let's go back to the question - which campaign was illegal and would have resulted in grounds for the result to be thrown out had it been legally binding? The leave campaign was illegal, the remain one was not, as I stated. You attempted to divert it with "what about [lesser offence]" as if both sides were as bad as each other (they weren't) and therefore leaves criminal activity didn't matter.

It's called a lack of vocabulary!

A simple Google brought this for me http://www.tusc.org.uk/17278/02-06-2016/tusc-joins-protest-over-councils-how-to-vote-remain-guide-for-eu-postal-voters

Both sides were as bad as each other. And in any case you are still playing the whataboutism desparate to discredit the referendum result.

Swearing is absolutely not a lack of vocabulary

Yeah, that article is a complaint, not actually evidence of improper action...

No, both sides absolutely weren't as bad as each other, the leave votes proven criminal activity far outstrips any activity from the remain campaigns. But, even if they were that would be all the more reason to rerun the referendum, because it would mean that the referendum was absolutely not conducted with adherence to electoral regulations.