Brexit Activist: Vote Leave Overspent

[Kromovaracun]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43535497

An activist for Brexit in the original referendum has alleged that Vote Leave illegally overspent by using BeLeave and the infamous donations to Darren Grimes.

Shamir Sanni is expected to present evidence of this to MPs today.

Do people think this will go anywhere or will this just be quietly filed away somewhere until Brexit has passed into history?

[Jackdaw33]

The latter. Illegal overspending or not does not affect the result. Just another example of Project Fear.

[jim360]

Much as I guess I would cynically love this to overturn the result, clearly it's better that it does not.

All the same, if the allegations are true then they should be a lesson for future campaigns. It's not about the "wrong" result being delivered through fraudulent means, but about having faith in democracy -- if the people who voted one way or another were manipulated into doing so then it makes a mockery that elections really are about "power to the people".

[Kromovaracun]

It does seem a bit disingenuous to complain about VL overspending when the Prime Minister himself was heading the opposing campaign.

Nontheless, I can't make my mind up as to whether this looks like an effort by this individual activist (whose motives are a little unclear) or whether this information is being deliberately timed to chime with the Cambridge Analytica revelations to actually build a claim to overturn the vote.

[Jackdaw33]

I can't believe that this is even an issue.

[Kromovaracun]

^ Why do you think there are spending limits at all?

[Old_Geezer]

Makes no odds. Noise only by this stage; and standing on principle. Let's waste money investigating, get any due apologies, and move on.

[Jackdaw33]

https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-campaign-was-totally-illegal-claims-whistleblower


Anyone else detect the stench of rotting fish?

[cassa333]

I read that by comparison this alleged overspend pails into insignificance compared to how much remain actually spent.

In any case the money was donated above board and perfectly legal and signed off by the relevant watchdog, twice.

[Jackdaw33]

Two gay boys fall out and their spat goes viral.

[Kromovaracun]

//I read that by comparison this alleged overspend pails into insignificance compared to how much remain actually spent. //

Where did you read it?

I do think the Remain camp had their own unfair (if not illegal) advantage, in that the government of the day sat openly on their side. Albeit in theory as private citizens, I don't think anybody seriously believes that they simply put aside the influence and contacts available to them as the government for the duration of the referendum.

In addition, despite being a Remainer, as I've said before, I'm not convinced that foiling Brexit will do anything other than expose the UK to other forms of harm.

But I am a little surprised to see people trying to shrug off or dismiss illegal overspending. Campaign finance laws (such as the UK has them...) are there for a reason and setting a precedent for just ignoring them has very serious consequences down the line.

[Bertrum]

What matters here is not the result of the referendum it is the allegation that one side or another broke the rules governing the referendum. It doesn’t matter if you voted with them or against them the rules are what matter here, they were put in place for a reason weather you understand them or not. If no rules are put in place or you ignore them you end up with a Russian style election.

[New Judge]

“It is certainly an issue. How can you have a fair election when one party has more of a budget than another?”

Indeed. The Remain camp had the UK government on its side. Among other things the government sent a leaflet to every household in the country. It was said to have cost £9m (which is clearly an underestimate as it must have cost more than 30p a throw, but no matter). It said, in big letters (among many things):

“The government believes the UK should remain in the EU”

But they still lost.

[sunny-dave]

It's much more difficult to overspend if you are writing the rules and they are framed so that much of your own expenditure "doesn't count as expenditure" ...

[ToraToraTora]

as the judge says the government et al had access to public money and still lost. David won this one, against Goliath, end of.

[youngmafbog]

Spath, to get round the limits Cameron and Gideon sent out the £9m leaflet drop just prior to the start date of campaigning.

£9m in itself would be an overspend if a few days later but to make matters worse it was tax payers money.

Make of that what you will.

[Jackdaw33]

Spot on, YMB.