Brexit is off ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Mike - almost certainly there are seeds of doubt everywhere - its the name of the game. Also I congratulate Sara Olney on her democratic win and I hope  she will represent all her constituents to the best of her ability - irrespective of her personal views. Its the positioning and extrapolation of fantastical situations that I  poke fun at  by those desperate to make something from it that it isn't.

 

Yes.

Like when it is claimed that "The People have spoken" when in fact only 25% "spoke" to leave and of those who did vote, only a small majority voted to leave.

There is no widespread, overwhelming enthusiasm to Leave. But Brexit can't accept this,. That is what I call the extrapolation of a fantastical situation by desperate people.

This is an old argument now Don, the fact is an even smaller minority of people voted to stay and that ''small' majority was 1.3 million more votes to leave than to stay.  What's done is done (probably)

This situation is simple albeit very concerning to me as an internationalist.

A small majority voted to leave.  Their reasons were no doubt varied but I doubt many had a real understanding of the benefits or otherwise of EU membership - ask your average remainer if he/she understands how an EU mandate gets on to UK statute - but the most ridiculous I'e heard is "I wasn't really fussed about the EU but I wanted to get rid of Cameron"!

Now it's quite apparent the Gov't are finding it very hard to exit whilst at the same time retaining the benefits of the single market.  Against this uncertainty and given the very great consequences of this move once the terms and likely implications of our exit are more certain then the country has to be asked whether it's content with the terms of the arrangement.

Regards,

Lindsay

It has been asked Lindsay, 17.3 said they wanted to leave and 16.1 wanted to stay, 3.1 million didn't care enough to cast their vote.  The government, and the opposition for that matter have said that they will follow the advice of that vote.  Just because it won't be easy and it's a little scary shouldn't change the the final result.  We can't keep coming back to the country at every step - they have been asked, have given their advice and the government should crack on and deliver.  How well it's being managed and communicated is a different thing altogether of course.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

No I agree - I think there is no overwhelming enthusiasm to leave because of all the necessary disruption and complications of unravelling years of insipid and often not very transparent bureaucracy from Brusells- the alternative of staying however fills many with dread, despair and alienation - especially the less well heeled and prosperous in our country - and a majority of eligible voters who were prepared to vote stated they wished to leave - that is what is meant by the 'people'. A Win is a win - and despite Sarah Olney only getting in by a relatively small majority of votes - its still a win.

Its sad looking back at the shock of people like Cameron when they left their Westminster cocoon and spoke to real people up and down the land and started to realise not all see the state of the country and Europe in the same way as the liberal elite. We need a government and democracy that caters for everyone - and if it doesn't it can be elected out rather than being shackled by a third party administration setting the agenda.

And the rhetoric coming out of the EU towards Britain since the referendum to me show that administration in its true colours - toxic, divisive and self serving. I am quite impressed how restrained our politicians have been over it - I have been fuming personally and offended - I almost feel its racist and it has polarised my position since the vote and at the time I was a waverer - pros and cons both sides.

 

Strange Simon,

My view of the events since the referendum are almost exactly the opposite of yours.

I have found the reaction of most leading politicians in Europe to be extremely restrained and argued, and not at all toxic and divisive. Of course, there are some individual exceptions, but compare them with the likes of Nigel Farage and others since the BREXIT vote, and they are hardly anything like as offensive. The people that matter, such as Angela Merkel, have been remarkably restrained and fair to a fault. I personally have found the rantings and gloating of those on the extreme right of the BREXIT argument (such as Farage and Ian Duncan Smith) and their insistence that their version of BREXIT is the only legitimate version, to be absolutely toxic and divisive with respect to British politics, and deliberately playing to an audience that has shown itself to be receptive to division and conflict. I do agree with you that this country needs a government and democracy that caters for everyone, but that in my opinion can never be a Conservative Party led by Theresa May and her current far right cabinet. I stand by my earlier argument that this country is now divided as never before in my lifetime, and becoming more and more so as the vitriol continues to flow.

This country, like the US, has lurched significantly to the right with a danger (and it is a real danger) that the labour party will lose significant numbers of supporters in its former heartlands to UKIP, whose main aim under its new leader is to replace Labour as the party of choice for the working class. UKIP has already all but killed off the BNP, and their focus is now on the working class population who might naturally be expected to vote for the Labour party. How appalling a prospect is this? It appears to be one that has a reasonable chance of coming to fruition, given the fact that large numbers of the voters who were swayed by UKIP's rhetoric and blatant racism may indeed feel that they have found a new home.

We are in danger of becoming a country where UKIP and the Conservatives barter policies that are more and more toxic and dangerous, and where there is no effective opposition (or at least not one with any chance of winning a general election) to moderate these views and policies.

I am also increasingly annoyed and more than a little confused by the constant use of the term 'Liberal Elite', which I infer to represent people of relatively left wing persuasion, and with 'liberal' or 'fair minded' views. I fail to understand how the lable 'Liberal' can be used as a derogatory term, and I also equally fail to understand why the term 'Elite' should be applied to those people. My understanding of the term 'Elite' in terms of society as a whole, is that it applies either to those people (such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage) who are exceptionally well off, and campaign on behalf of political policies that enhance their positions as members of the 'Elite', or to members of the 'upper class' in our society (whatever that might be) but then maybe I am just old-fashioned.

Yes, it may well be that similar results occur elsewhere in Europe, but as far as I am concerned these are to be feared and not to be viewed with gleeful anticipation.

I feel obliged to state that my next statement is specifically NOT directed at anyone who has taken part in this thread, just in case anyone takes offence.

In my view the world has quite simply become a far nastier place, and a relatively large number of people in both Britain and the States who up to now have felt constrained, now feel empowered to voice views that are becoming dangerously close to being blatantly xenophobic or racist.          

dayjay posted:

It has been asked Lindsay, 17.3 said they wanted to leave and 16.1 wanted to stay, 3.1 million didn't care enough to cast their vote.  The government, and the opposition for that matter have said that they will follow the advice of that vote.  Just because it won't be easy and it's a little scary shouldn't change the the final result.  We can't keep coming back to the country at every step - they have been asked, have given their advice and the government should crack on and deliver.  How well it's being managed and communicated is a different thing altogether of course.

...........probably the understatement of today's posts................

If, and I only say If, but IF it were clearly shown that our exit will leave us economically destitute, with 1m non-EU immigrants arriving each year......................

.................should we invoke A50 ?

I only suggest this to "balance" the above understatement.....................

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

No I agree - I think there is no overwhelming enthusiasm to leave because of all the necessary disruption and complications of unravelling years of insipid and often not very transparent bureaucracy from Brusells- the alternative of staying however fills many with dread, despair and alienation - especially the less well heeled and prosperous in our country - and a majority of eligible voters who were prepared to vote stated they wished to leave - that is what is meant by the 'people'. A Win is a win - and despite Sarah Olney only getting in by a relatively small majority of votes - its still a win.

Its sad looking back at the shock of people like Cameron when they left their Westminster cocoon and spoke to real people up and down the land and started to realise not all see the state of the country and Europe in the same way as the liberal elite. We need a government and democracy that caters for everyone - and if it doesn't it can be elected out rather than being shackled by a third party administration setting the agenda.

And the rhetoric coming out of the EU towards Britain since the referendum to me show that administration in its true colours - toxic, divisive and self serving. I am quite impressed how restrained our politicians have been over it - I have been fuming personally and offended - I almost feel its racist and it has polarised my position since the vote and at the time I was a waverer - pros and cons both sides.

 

Unfortunately the current indicators seem to suggest that it's the less well heeled who will suffer disproportionately from Brexit.

But I really wanted to pick up on a couple of other things. First, the term 'liberal elite' because it gets thrown about and I don't think it has any clear meaning. It seems to mean all sorts of different groupings, from very rich individuals, to the multi-national corporations, to the intelligentsia, to anyone who supports socially liberal policies (anti-capital punishment, gay marriage, equal rights, etc). I voted remain but I don't see myself as sharing political common ground with Cameron. Of course, what we don't get from the hostile commentators on the right is any acknowledgement that there is a right-wing elite - the likes of Farage, Johnson and other members of Parliament, and the press barons who own the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Express. In other words 'liberal elite' is a right-wing slur, like politically correct, that disguises the aims and intentions of the reactionary right, who are promoting and riding on a fake populism that has nothing to do with the interests of the mass of the working population.

I think the comments from senior EU politicians and administrators are addressed to our politicians not the British in general. They reflect an anger with Cameron for screwing up and an anxiety about holding everything together. Don't forget they are also a response to some insulting comments made by the Leave campaigns - Farage was particularly rude to members of the European parliament after the result.

Clive

Cdb posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

No I agree - I think there is no overwhelming enthusiasm to leave because of all the necessary disruption and complications of unravelling years of insipid and often not very transparent bureaucracy from Brusells- the alternative of staying however fills many with dread, despair and alienation - especially the less well heeled and prosperous in our country - and a majority of eligible voters who were prepared to vote stated they wished to leave - that is what is meant by the 'people'. A Win is a win - and despite Sarah Olney only getting in by a relatively small majority of votes - its still a win.

Its sad looking back at the shock of people like Cameron when they left their Westminster cocoon and spoke to real people up and down the land and started to realise not all see the state of the country and Europe in the same way as the liberal elite. We need a government and democracy that caters for everyone - and if it doesn't it can be elected out rather than being shackled by a third party administration setting the agenda.

And the rhetoric coming out of the EU towards Britain since the referendum to me show that administration in its true colours - toxic, divisive and self serving. I am quite impressed how restrained our politicians have been over it - I have been fuming personally and offended - I almost feel its racist and it has polarised my position since the vote and at the time I was a waverer - pros and cons both sides.

 

Unfortunately the current indicators seem to suggest that it's the less well heeled who will suffer disproportionately from Brexit.

But I really wanted to pick up on a couple of other things. First, the term 'liberal elite' because it gets thrown about and I don't think it has any clear meaning. It seems to mean all sorts of different groupings, from very rich individuals, to the multi-national corporations, to the intelligentsia, to anyone who supports socially liberal policies (anti-capital punishment, gay marriage, equal rights, etc). I voted remain but I don't see myself as sharing political common ground with Cameron. Of course, what we don't get from the hostile commentators on the right is any acknowledgement that there is a right-wing elite - the likes of Farage, Johnson and other members of Parliament, and the press barons who own the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Express. In other words 'liberal elite' is a right-wing slur, like politically correct, that disguises the aims and intentions of the reactionary right, who are promoting and riding on a fake populism that has nothing to do with the interests of the mass of the working population.

I think the comments from senior EU politicians and administrators are addressed to our politicians not the British in general. They reflect an anger with Cameron for screwing up and an anxiety about holding everything together. Don't forget they are also a response to some insulting comments made by the Leave campaigns - Farage was particularly rude to members of the European parliament after the result.

Clive

Very well put, CDB.

The use (or misuse) of the term 'Liberal Elite' is also one of my bug-bears, and I very much agree with your comment about senior EU politicians - see my earlier post. 

Actually, I would be very happy to be labelled 'Liberal', since I view this label as being a compliment rather than an insult, but I don't believe any of my achievements are deserving of the term 'Elite' - certainly not my accumulated wealth. 

Hmack posted:

Very well put, CDB.

The use (or misuse) of the term 'Liberal Elite' is also one of my bug-bears, and I very much agree with your comment about senior EU politicians - see my earlier post. 

Actually, I would be very happy to be labelled 'Liberal', since I view this label as being a compliment rather than an insult, but I don't believe any of my achievements are deserving of the term 'Elite' - certainly not my accumulated wealth. 

 

 

 

Well, yes - we agree! I started my post and got diverted - after I finished and posted it, I saw yours covering much the same ground. I certainly worry about the future for my children and grandchildren.

Clive

Those two posts by Clive above and HMack a couple before sum up my view entirely. Britain, and the US are becoming nastier. The Brexit issue lead to the appalling death of Jo Cox and recently a 15 year old has been convicted of killing a Polish man. 'Foreigners' who have lived here for many years are being abused. At the local hospital where I was treated recently EU doctors and nurses have left because they don't feel welcome. A friend of mine who is a consultant in a Brighton hospital bought flowers for a German colleague who was in tears over Brexit. Will this lead to a triumph for Le Pen in France next year? What will it do for the Northern League in Italy? I'd class myself as a liberal, as a left leaning Guardian reading educated person, and what's wrong with that? 

I rarely post on this thread because I find it too annoying and upsetting. I'm pretty sure we'll end up coming out, but at what cost? A deal has already been done to bribe Nissan to stay. How many more will be needed and at what cost? It could end up costing more than the much touted EU contribution. 

If only all the implications could have been spelled out at the time. The Government has no idea what it's doing, with the Brexit minister saying one thing and May saying something else entirely. Never mind if we lose 5% of GDP, so long as we keep those foreigners out. And get rid of all those idiotic rules from Brussels which, oh, the Government has now decided are largely required anyway. 

It's all too depressing. 

HH posted:

".......................I'd class myself as a liberal, as a left leaning Guardian reading educated person, and what's wrong with that? "

Count me in as well, even if I don't read many newspapers (not even the Guardian) nowadays.

And to echo your sentiment - what's wrong with that indeed?

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

And the rhetoric coming out of the EU towards Britain since the referendum to me show that administration in its true colours - toxic, divisive and self serving. I am quite impressed how restrained our politicians have been over it - I have been fuming personally and offended - I almost feel its racist and it has polarised my position since the vote and at the time I was a waverer - pros and cons both sides.

 

Simon - like HMACK below, my perception is that most of the statements by senior folk in the EU institutions and other member states have been moderate but I agree some have not.  I suspect that is motivated in part by fear of what Brexit might lead to, e.g. the whole EU edifice eventually crumbling, but I'm sure that the negotiations will be carried out professionally and, by the end, pragmatism will come through on both sides. That said, I can also foresee a situation once the deal is done that some of the more rabid Europhobes in the Conservative party and Press cry 'betrayal!'  When D Cameron went off on his tour of EU capitals to negotiate a better deal for the UK - and I believe he was sincere in intent - I can recall thinking that no matter what he came back with there would be those in his party who would say it still wasn't enough.

Mike    

Don Atkinson posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Mike - almost certainly there are seeds of doubt everywhere - its the name of the game. Also I congratulate Sara Olney on her democratic win and I hope  she will represent all her constituents to the best of her ability - irrespective of her personal views. Its the positioning and extrapolation of fantastical situations that I  poke fun at  by those desperate to make something from it that it isn't.

 

Yes.

Like when it is claimed that "The People had the opportunity to speak" when in fact 52% of those who voted "spoke" to leave and even less voted to stay.

There is a majority amongst those who voted, to leave. Brexit won,. My ranting is what I call the extrapolation of a fantastical situation by desperate me.

There, fixed it for you. Please, you should stop this nonsense of distorting facts to meet your agenda.

Why is it that so many Brexiters are grumpy and aggressive, while the liberal elite remainers are calm and considered?

Another endorsement for the summaries provided by Hmack and Clive which more or less capture my perceptions as well.

However, on a more flippant (*) note (so apologies to those who thankfully spend more time composing their thoughts)........

.....I can visualise a typical British compromise evolving, in which we leave the EU (Brexit means Brexit), but we pay a weekly fee of (say) £350m to remain part of the Single Market, the various Research & Development Organisations, EASA, etc (but not the Council of Ministers' Dinner Parties) and we agree to the free movement of EU Citizens to/from the UK in exchange for the free movement of UK Citizens to/from the EU.

Presumably such an arrangement would suit all the Brexiteers on this forum ?

(*) For the avoidance of doubt, this post is really intended to be light-hearted, but of course, "many a true word............")

Lindsay, being traditionally left wing most of my life, I certainly would not call the Liberal Elite left wing.. far from it.. it tends to be the metropolitan middle classes in my book ... who regrettably I feel see life through their prisms and look at  those who are less fortunate through idealised politically correct presepectives.. my fathers side of the family was traditionally liberal, and I can't help thinking the stance of the current libereal party would have my great grandfather turning in his grave .. as an equalitarian, internationalist, pacifist and proud Methodist  running a business providing coal to the mills in the NE Manchester area, he absolutely valued  all including those more and less successful and fortunate than himself. He valued local accountability, democracy and not the priveledges of  the landed gentry or beurocratic classes... I cuurently feel those values  run   through the family, and my view it is currently best served by the left wing of the Tory party at this time ... I don't like labels and keep an open mind.

one thing that really irritates me, and let me be clear I am not accusing anyone here of it, are comfortable champagne socialists who really don't understand the plight and struggle of so many in our country but yet seem to want to represent them in their views . to me it's hypocracy in the extreme... and yes I can't help feeling some of that gets wrapped up into the current Brexit debate.

dayjay posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

dayjay posted:

It's amusing to see how politicians continue to misjudge the public mood at every turn

The public mood was shown by the referendum result. Where the whole nation voted. Whether you like the result or not.  Using an election vote in leafy, wealthy, Richmond, to push some sort of idea that public mood is changing, is frankly rather desperate.

Almost as desperate as your interpretation of my post.  I was refering to the then incumbent MP and his judgement of what matters most to his former constituents whch backfired rather badly. I rather liked to result of the referendum, thank you very much, despite the fact that the whole nation didn't vote at all.  BTW, very subtle highlighting of the Rich in Richmond, added significantly to the weight of your argument I thought.

Damn, my highlighting of Rich in Richmond wasn't meant to be subtle. Seems I've failed again. Maybe because I'm one of those uneducated types.

Oh but I feel the whole eligible nation really did vote - some voted for Brexit, some voted to remain, and some voted for neither.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Why is it that so many Brexiters are grumpy and aggressive, while the liberal elite remainers are calm and considered?

Don't you mean remoaners ??

Wugged Woy posted:

...
Oh but I feel the whole eligible nation really did vote - some voted for Brexit, some voted to remain, and some voted for neither.

Err, do you perhaps believe they were voting for emigration to Mars?  I don't recall seeing any option like that on the ballot paper!

I thought it was binary logic, not tri-state.

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

...
Oh but I feel the whole eligible nation really did vote - some voted for Brexit, some voted to remain, and some voted for neither.

Err, do you perhaps believe they were voting for emigration to Mars?  I don't recall seeing any option like that on the ballot paper!

I thought it was binary logic, not tri-state.

Probably not Mars. Eligible voters were eligible to vote  If they didn't it means that they didn't want to vote for either Brexit or Remain. Their choice. 

Let's look at simple facts. More people voted to leave than to remain. Let's cut out the spin.

Wugged Woy posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Why is it that so many Brexiters are grumpy and aggressive, while the liberal elite remainers are calm and considered?

Don't you mean remoaners ??

Which rather proves the point. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Why is it that so many Brexiters are grumpy and aggressive, while the liberal elite remainers are calm and considered?

Don't you mean remoaners ??

Which rather proves the point. 

Hmm. What about this point (or doesn't this one count?) "Why is it that so many Brexiters are grumpy and aggressive" . Oh sorry, this must be the 'calm and considered' you mentioned, unlike my terrible grumpy, aggressive comment.

Erm, please stop re-moaning....

Wugged Woy posted:

Probably not Mars. Eligible voters were eligible to vote  If they didn't it means that they didn't want to vote for either Brexit or Remain. Their choice. 

Let's look at simple facts. More people voted to leave than to remain. Let's cut out the spin.

Indeed, let's cut out the spin:  Such as stating or implying that a majority voted to leave (certainly you didn't do this, but others have), or ascribing motives to those who didn't vote.

It is what it is: less than 50% voted to leave, less than 50% voted to stay; neither were the majority of the electorate.  The specified outcome criterion was simple majority of those who voted and on that basis the criterion to leave was met.  However no indication of how or when this was to be achieved was included in the vote.  This referendum result is an advisory recommendation to parliament (N.B. that was known at the time of the vote), but it should still be considered to be a moral obligation on parliament to deliver this outcome, in just the same way as the campaign commitments made by the winning side are equally a moral obligation to deliver their commitments.  Hence their moral obligation is, among others, to deliver a £350M per week increase to the UK economy and this to be committed to the NHS.  If this cannot be delivered then the corresponding moral obligation on parliament to deliver Brexit is equally called into question.

Having said that I believe that Brexit should be implemented so long as a favourable fiscal outcome can be achieved, even if it isn't the promised £350M per week!  If these commitments cannot be achieved and if it becomes clear that the country will be damaged by Brexit, then due to the failure to meet the undertakings given to the electorate a further vote should be held to reflect the grossly changed circumstances.

Simon posted:

.............. one thing that really irritates me, and let me be clear I am not accusing anyone here of it, are comfortable champagne socialists who really don't understand the plight and struggle of so many in our country but yet seem to want to represent them in their views . to me it's hypocracy in the extreme... and yes I can't help feeling some of that gets wrapped up into the current Brexit debate.

Now Simon, that is a little petulant, but although I do object to being labelled in derogatory terms as an 'Elite Liberal' (I am proud to describe myself as 'Liberal'), I really wouldn't mind being accused of being a comfortable champagne socialist. Actually, the tag doesn't really suit because I rarely drink, and when I do it's beer rather than wine or champagne, and I wouldn't describe myself as a confirmed socialist either. A part time socialist at best, but I don't view the label 'socialist' as being remotely derogatory either, even if many others do. However, I guess I am relatively comfortably well off nowadays (although by no means wealthy), although that certainly hasn't always been the case, and I have been around in times of plight and struggle. Do you remember the 3 day working week, the power cuts and  petrol rationing. Probably not - I suspect you are far too young. It seems to be a popular misconception that today's older citizens have always had it easy and that they can't possibly comprehend the plight of the less well off and disadvantaged.

I certainly echo your concerns about the plight and struggle of the disadvantaged in our society, but I also simply do not believe that Theresa May and her cronies are the people who are fighting their corner. I am no longer a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, having been disappointed by some of his cabinet appointments, but if asked to choose between Corbyn and May  in this particular respect, I would very happily side with Corbyn, despite my reservations.

Now back to the subject of champagne socialists. I wonder to whom the term could really apply? I guess it almost certainly applied to Tony Benn (although his favourite tipple was tea). Now, there was a man who (despite his great personal wealth) was a political figure I admired in many ways, even if he was a bit of an odd-ball in some respects. Despite his personal wealth, I am pretty sure that he understood the plight of the 'common man'. He certainly campaigned for the common man, and espoused policies that were obviously designed to be to their benefit, and to the detriment of his own personal wealth and dare I say class - that in stark contrast to the likes of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, who appear to me to be almost entirely self serving. Do you really think that Farage cares one jot for the common working man's plight and travails? I think not, 

Now, who else could be classed as a champagne socialist? Richard Branson? Bill Gates? Possibly! Certainly not Nigel Farage or Donald Trump.

Who else do you have in mind?         

Huge posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Probably not Mars. Eligible voters were eligible to vote  If they didn't it means that they didn't want to vote for either Brexit or Remain. Their choice. 

Let's look at simple facts. More people voted to leave than to remain. Let's cut out the spin.

Indeed, let's cut out the spin:  Such as stating or implying that a majority voted to leave (certainly you didn't do this, but others have), or ascribing motives to those who didn't vote.

It is what it is: less than 50% voted to leave, less than 50% voted to stay; neither were the majority of the electorate.  The specified outcome criterion was simple majority of those who voted and on that basis the criterion to leave was met.  However no indication of how or when this was to be achieved was included in the vote.  This referendum result is an advisory recommendation to parliament (N.B. that was known at the time of the vote), but it should still be considered to be a moral obligation on parliament to deliver this outcome, in just the same way as the campaign commitments made by the winning side are equally a moral obligation to deliver their commitments.  Hence their moral obligation is, among others, to deliver a £350M per week increase to the UK economy and this to be committed to the NHS.  If this cannot be delivered then the corresponding moral obligation on parliament to deliver Brexit is equally called into question.

Having said that I believe that Brexit should be implemented so long as a favourable fiscal outcome can be achieved, even if it isn't the promised £350M per week!  If these commitments cannot be achieved and if it becomes clear that the country will be damaged by Brexit, then due to the failure to meet the undertakings given to the electorate a further vote should be held to reflect the grossly changed circumstances.

No Huge. The moral obligation is to abide by the result of the referendum based on what was written on the ballot paper. 

Wugged Woy posted:

No Huge. The moral obligation is to abide by the result of the referendum based on what was written on the ballot paper. 

You clearly believe there's a moral obligation to support the result even if it's based on a deception, irrespective of the magnitude of that deception.

If it turns out that it was a deception, then is it not appropriate to give an opportunity to those who were deceived to reconsider in light of the revelation of that deception?  To do otherwise is to give moral support to that deception; and that's a strange moral position.