Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court

Brexit: Leave ‘very likely’ won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor’s evidence to High Court

Dec 9, 2018 | Articles, Campaigns & Events, News

It is “very likely” that the UK voted for Brexit because of illegal overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, according to an Oxford professor’s evidence to the High Court.

An exhaustive analysis of the campaign’s digital strategy concludes it reached “tens of millions of people” in its last crucial days, after its spending limit had been breached – enough to change the outcome.

The evidence will be put to the High Court on Friday, in a landmark case that is poised to rule within weeks whether the referendum result should be declared void because the law was broken.

Professor Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, at the university, said: “My professional opinion is that it is very likely that the excessive spending by Vote Leave altered the result of the referendum.

“A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure victory for Remain.

“Given the scale of the online advertising achieved with the excess spending, combined with conservative estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend.”

The conclusion came as Theresa May scrambled to find a concession she could give to rebel Tories to persuade them to back her deal, as she appeared to be veering towards a heavy defeat in next Tuesday’s landmark vote.

Full article in The Independent

Illegal overspend from Vote Leave altered EU referendum, says new report

Illegal overspend from Vote Leave altered EU referendum, says new report

Dec 9, 2018 | Articles, Campaigns & Events, News

Professor Philip N. Howard studied the digital campaign strategy and practices of Vote Leave and its impact on voter behaviour – using materials disclosed by Facebook to the parliamentary committee investigating “fake news” and publicly available accounts written by campaign insiders.

Howard who is the director of the Oxford Internet Institute provided an expert’s report to the claimants in the UK in EU Challenge judicial review. He concludes that Vote Leave reached tens of millions of people over the last few days of the campaign as a result of Facebook advertising purchased in excess of its statutory spending limit.

Croft Solicitors, which is acting on behalf of the UK in EU Challenge claimants, have now asked the High Court for permission to use the report as evidence at a hearing.

Professor Howard said: “Having studied its digital campaign in line with voter psychology and behaviour, my professional opinion is that it is very likely that the excessive spending by Vote Leave altered the result of the referendum.

“A swing of just 634,751 people would have been enough to secure victory for Remain. Given the scale of the online advertising achieved with the excess spending combined with conservative estimates on voter modelling, I estimate that Vote Leave converted the voting intentions of over 800,000 voters in the final days of the campaign as a result of the overspend.”

Read full story in The New European

Brexit Opponents Target Referendum Result in Latest Court Case

Brexit Opponents Target Referendum Result in Latest Court Case

Dec 9, 2018 | Articles, Campaigns & Events, News

A group making a last-ditch attempt to challenge the June 2016 Brexit vote asked a London court to review whether findings that “corrupt and illegal practices” took place during the campaign were enough to invalidate the referendum.

The lawsuit centers on an investigation into Vote Leave by the U.K.’s Electoral Commission. The agency said in July that the campaign breached legal spending limits, and said last month that it had referred payments made by Leave.EU and another pro-Brexit group to the National Crime Agency for investigation.

The Friday court hearing came as lawmakers were in the middle of a five-day debate on U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s plan to leave the EU. In addition, the EU’s top court in Luxembourg will rule on Monday whether the country can revoke the Brexit process.

May came under fire at the hearing for “simply soldiering on” with Brexit and ignoring findings that Vote Leave broke election law.

May decided to take the U.K. out of the EU on the grounds that leaving was the will of the people, said Jessica Simor, the lawyer for the group “U.K. in EU Challenge” that filed the lawsuit. Her refusal to act on the findings of the elections watchdog is unlawful, Simor told the court Friday.

Full story in Bloomberg

Brexit: Campaigners seek judicial review of 2016 vote

Brexit: Campaigners seek judicial review of 2016 vote

Dec 9, 2018 | Articles, Campaigns & Events, News

The UK in EU Challenge group says the result should be quashed because of “misconduct” by pro-Leave campaigners.

Mr Justice Ouseley’s decision is expected on either Monday or Tuesday.

An earlier attempt to challenge the result was rejected on the grounds that it had not been proven that any wrongdoing affected the vote’s outcome.

The case is being brought against the government by four British citizens living on the European continent, Susan Wilson, Elinore Gayson, Carole-Anne Richards and John Shaw.

They say the Article 50 process, by which the UK is leaving the EU, should be halted due to breaches of spending limits and other irregularities by leave-supporting groups during the referendum.

Lawyers for the group say the infractions, which resulted in Vote Leave and Leave.EU being fined £61,000 and £70,000 respectively by the Electoral Commission earlier this year, cast doubt on the legitimacy of the result under the terms of the 1983 Representation of The People Act.

‘Proven illegalities’

Speaking after the hearing, Susan Wilson said she was hopeful of success.

“We also maintain our firm belief that the referendum result cannot be considered the ‘will of the people’,” she said.

“The Leave campaign’s fraudulent behaviour has been proven by the Electoral Commission and we are continually frustrated that the government fails to acknowledge the impact of this illegality and continues to defend its position.”

Read full story on the BBC website

Jon Danzig’s World – EU referendum broke code of good practice

Jon Danzig’s World – EU referendum broke code of good practice

Nov 26, 2018 | Articles

In all democracies, it’s essential that elections – including referendums – are run fairly, and that the regulatory authority has the power to annul an election or referendum if serious irregularities may have affected the result.

That’s not just my opinion. Such a requirement forms part of the Venice Commission’s ‘Code of Good Practice on Referendums’.  Although the code is voluntary and not legally binding, the UK is one of the 61 member states of the Commission and helped to form the Code, which was adopted in 2006. The Commission advised me:
 
 
“The Code was and is strongly supported by the Committee of Ministers recommending to the member States to respect its provisions.”
The UK’s Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, currently sits on the Commission’s Committee of Ministers.
Clause II 3. 3 e) of the Venice Code states:
‘The appeal body must have authority to annul the referendum where irregularities may have affected the outcome. It must be possible to annul the entire referendum or merely the results for one polling station or constituency. In the event of annulment of the global result, a new referendum must be called.’
In the UK, our Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body for elections and referendums, set up by Parliament to “regulate political finance in the UK” and to “promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity.” 
 
I asked the Commission if they have the power to annul a referendum, in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Code.
 
They replied:
“In short, no we do not have the power to annul an election or referendum.”
If the Electoral Commission had the power to annul a referendum in accordance with the Venice Code, then it’s unlikely that members of the public would now be calling on the High Court to declare the EU referendum “void” as a result of serious irregularities. 
 
The case of Susan Wilson & Others versus The Prime Minister, is scheduled to move to a full hearing on 7 December.
The case will argue that Brexit must be declared void and the notification of Article 50 quashed because, “various criminal offences may have been committed”. 
 
Read the full Jon Danzig’s article in his blog…