Let's get the obvious statement out of the way first. So far no one involved in funding the Brexit Leave campaign has, as far as I recall, been found guilty of a criminal offence. However, both campaigns (because there were two, of course, as the surest indication that no one knew what Brexit meant) are subject to serious, and now criminal in one case, investigations.
Such allegations can, of course, turn out to be wrong. This is why we have a due process of law. But that does not mean we can ignore situations arising, and their possible consequences.
Of course it is possible to argue that the process being followed is an elite establishment getting its own back at upstarts who had the temerity to challenge it.
And of course it is again possible to argue that the Remain argument had the power of government behind it. That resulted in the deeply wasteful, and spectacularly unread, government justification for Remain not being charged as an election expense.
I duly note both possibilities. And despite them I suggest that the time has come for the political and practical reaction to Brexit to change.
I fully accept that UK election law is far from ideal.
I also fully accept that the law in question is not wholly fair.
And I equally accept that the elite enjoy favour that others find hard to challenge.
But all the being noted I have to say that I expect the rule of law to matter more than most other things to our politicians.
And I expect their dedication to democratic processes to be absolute.
Whilst I expect that their commitment to good governance, which is built in the foundations of due process having been followed, on the basis of which sound judgement that can adapt to current circumstance, to be paramount.
And my argument is very straightforward. We are not enjoying good governance at present. In fact, I would say it was absent.
Good governance would suggest that the Brexit vote was secured in an election where there is now reasonable doubt (a civil law concept applicable to good governance) that due process, let alone elctoral law, was followed.
And there is, by the same standard, a whole raft of questions requiring answers as to the sourcing of much of the funding for the Leave campaign that need answers.
Put these two judgements together and good governance would demand that action be taken. What cannot reasonably be concluded, given the very narrow margin of the vote (and I would say something different if the margin had been much bigger) is that the referendum result can be considered reliable, or a basis for action.
I would now be expecting senior politicians, starting with the prime minister, to be saying that. I do so because it is glaringly obviously true. And it would also be the only possible way they could indicate their commitment to sound democratic process in accordance with the rule of law.
After which I would expect any responsible politician to say that they were seeking to suspend action based on this decision until the validity of the basis on which it was made can be established.
But if that was not possible I would expect them to suggest that such are the doubts that the whole issue should be resolved in another way. That is either to decide that the campaign that might have committed offences suffer the forfeit of being debarred from consideration (what might be called the ‘sporting outcome', where races are not rerun, but those committing abuse are simply removed from the results) or that we have a second referendum.
I would prefer the former. It makes most legal sense. Actions must have consequences. But pragmatically this may not be possible. The due process of law must complete first in that case, and this takes time. So a second referendum is the best likely alternative.
I cannot guarantee the outcome of that election. It may be Leave again. If properly run I would, of course, have to accept that.
But what I find increasingly hard to accept is that we must watch politicians standing by whilst democratic processes and good governance are torn to shreds whilst many, from too many parties, are willing to say nothing.
There are times when politicians must act for what is right. The time when the democratic process is under threat is one such time. But we are not hearing May or Corbyn speaking on this issue. They are failing us all as a result. And we need to say so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
Lord Acton
We were talking about this at home this morning over breakfast.
When the facts change, you can change your mind.
What do we know now since 2016? Quite a lot.
We have concerns over Russian influence on the apparatus of the debate (affecting the result).
We have confusion as to whether the vote was an advisory or a decision when such a decision actually resides with Parliament? This confusion seems to have inculcated politicians themselves (‘BREXIT means BREXIT’) who seem to think that Parliament has no role.
We have all sorts of concerns with social media and its role in the result – a lack of self policing by platform providers, an ‘anything goes’ attitude.
We have concerns about the amounts of money expended and where it came from and its legal limits.
The governance and conduct of elections has been shown to be weak with the High Court saying that the Electoral Commission didn’t seem to know its job.
Outright lies have been told.
The motives of the BREXIT brigade have become more clear as well as their minority status in the scheme of things.
So, there are grounds to stop this and take stock.
But still we march towards a cliff.
This behaviour is just bizarre.
The Tories sought to ride on BREXIT so as to entrench their position. They thought only of themselves and it back fired at the last election.
We need a party in parliament or just some sensible politicians working together to create a government of national unity to put the country first and either stop this nonsense or at least ensure that we leave with a deal. Leaving with a deal is the red line folks.
So – to the ‘politicians’ out there – I say this: Where the fuck are you?
Very good
The right are subverting democracy in several ways- see this article re disenfranchising voters and gerrymandering constituencies.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/america-minority-rule-voter-suppression-gerrymandering-supreme-court?CMP=share_btn_link
The Tories have been using America’s hard right playbook in many areas – so the ignoring of Brexit rule infringement should come as no surprise. The hard right in the UK are being allowed to disguise their real agenda by the supine media that we have – and the BBC is very culpable in this are, constantly giving them a platform; today interviewing Aaron Banks and allowing himto rubbish the institutions that should be upholding democracy.
I note that Arron Banks has contradicted himself in regards to the source of his money for the Leave campaign he orchestrated telling MP’s one thing and the BBC another:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/arron-banks-interview-bbc-brexit-leave-eu-donation-andrew-marr-latest-a8616826.html
I note too that Theresa May has nor responded to the accusation that as Home Security in 2016 she blocked a request from a British security agency (presumably MI6) to investigate Arron Banks merely issuing a statement the government doesn’t discuss security matters!
It would seem to me we now live in the age of the Intellectually Challenged Lout who think, whether male or female, they’re accountable to no one and can simply bulldoze their way through life regardless of the consequences to others. There are several reasons for the advent of this new age all of which feed into each but all ultimately manifesting a simple lack of awareness that life itself is based on a constant drive to balance caregiving for self with that of others. This awareness ebbs and flows but human societies are at a dangerous stage now where so much power has accrued to the species it can cause serious damage to its habitat, the Earth, either through global warming or nuclear war. The growth of the ILL (Intellectually Lazy Lout) Syndrome is a warning!
In the month before the referendum, the Remainers set up five new campaigns and funnelled £1m into them so they could stay under the spending limit:
*DDB UK Ltd registered as an independent campaign on 25 May 2016, less than a month before the referendum. DDB UK Ltd received £191,000 in donations.
*Best For Our Future registered as a permitted participant on 27 May 2016, less than a month before the referendum. It received £424,000 in donations
*The In Crowd registered on 10 June 2016, less than two weeks before the referendum. It received £76,000 in donations.
*Virgin Management Ltd registered as a permitted participant on 3 June 2016, less than three weeks before the referendum. It received £210,000 in donations.
*Wake Up And Vote registered as a permitted participant on 24 May 2016, less than a month before the referendum. It received £100,000 in donations.
Yet the Electoral Commission seems uninterested. Funny that…
Maybe that is because they were all genuine, noit under common control and raised legally permitted donations
In other words, the law was followed
Maybe; but unless the Electoral Commission investigates, how would we know? Prima facie, such arrangements look more than a little dodgy…
Rowntree & bill40
So you accept then that the Electoral Commission did not seem know what the rules were, did not enforce them and that being the case, the vote is null and should be retaken (alongside the other issues that we had)?
Yes?
No, PSR. I am saying that the Electoral Commission may not be applying the rules fairly and impartially.
And your evidence is
Remember they =got it badly wrong in Leave’s favour so far
Mr Rowntree
May I quote you?
‘No, PSR. I am saying that the Electoral Commission may not be applying the rules fairly and impartially’.
Not applying the rules fairly and impartially sounds like a shortfall in the understanding of the role to me.
I really can’t agree with you here Richard, we’re talking 600k spend on a totally cack-handed online campaign, no way could it have significantly have altered the result. Another referendum is an insane idea as it will likely be worse than the last one with far more bitterness,
The best outcome that can be hoped for is a WA leading a Norway type agreement.
Actually, we are talking £8 million – the biggest political donation in UK history
The spend was very much NOT cackhanded – just looking at their techniques in this thread is very instructive
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1059068463933743104.html
Since I am entirely sure the Electoral Commission is aware, what is your complaint?
Well, this is a fine mess that Cameron has got May into. There’s most definitely a necessity for a general election now. I would have thought she’d be glad to quit.
My impression is that if Banks’ £8m came via his Isle of Man company, even if it is under “his” control, then the Electoral Commission say the donation was illegal because the company is treated as foreign. But if Banks controls that IoM company from the U.K. where he says he is resident, as the ability to procure £8m would suggest if the IoM co proves to be the true source, then the IoM company is itself UK resident under UK tax law by virtue of central management and control being exercised here. Therefore it is not foreign for tax purposes and liable to UK tax. I trust tax expertise will be available to the criminal investigators? If this is the case I’m sorry Richard, the answer is a lemon for you on the EU front but good news on the Tax Justice front. Also bittersweet for Banks himself!
I suspect there is more to it than this
His own conflicting statements suggest so
Looking at the interview again just now, Banks seems very confident of his own position. There is no evidence the money came from arms length foreign third parties and he is refuting that heavily in the face of the NCA who have the resources to do a proper job unlike the Electoral Commission. We’ll see if there is indeed more to it as you suggest, but Banks to me looks like a man looking forward to seeing some egg on faces. If it’s an act, it’s a good one. You may think Britain looks stupid now but how stupid will we look if we postpone/ call off Brexit only to find the whole £8 million donation issue is just more Russia did it innuendo, with no evidence to support it.
You have to remember that so far Leave have lost every round of this
Philip Espin says:
” There is no evidence the money came from arms length foreign third parties and he is refuting that heavily in the face of …”
No he’s not. And refuting is not relative. It’s absolute. Something is true or it isn’t.
I do so hate it when the language is diluted like this so as to lose it’s meaning.
What he is doing is ‘denying’ allegations. So far he clams he didn’t do it; fair enough. As Mandy Rice Davis said ‘He would say that wouldn’t he?’
Refuting involves proof. We haven’t got there yet.
This isn’t mere pedantry it’s abuse of the language and it is as dangerous as electoral fraud in my estimation. We need to understand what we are saying to each other or we end up throwing brickbats and bombs about for no good reason.
Private Eye had Banks nailed ages ago.
Carol Wilcox says:
“Private Eye had Banks nailed ages ago.”
Perhaps we shouldn’t have bailed them out (?)……Oh, I see what you mean 🙂
I think I’m going to change my name it seems to be a powerful asset.
Andy Crow, given your concern about the precise use of language here is the OED definition of the word refute:
“Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
1.1 Prove that (someone) is wrong.
1.2 Deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)”
If you listen to the exchange I think you will find in the sense of 1.2, Banks refuted the allegation. Some words are less precise than you may wish them to be. I agree that the actual facts are what is important and it is to be hoped that the NCA will establish them beyond reasonable doubt. Don’t count on it though. If Banks is as criminally minded as many on here appear to believe unless an informer/whistleblower comes forward he may well walk away smiling with what the Scots would call a “not proven” verdict.
Carol Wilcox says:
” I would have thought [May]’d be glad to quit.”
That kind of explains why she’s a politician and you aren’t, Carol. You don’t have the brass neck, rhinoceros hide and complete disregard for what anyone thinks about you. ( I hope you will take that as the compliment it’s intended to be 🙂 )
She’ll go when the ‘grandees’ say she’ll go.
To me it feels as if it is too late to be having this conversation.
We needed to have it before we signed the Article 50. The entire process has been handled so kak-handedly.
I have to agree with Pilgrim’s comment as to the whereabouts of our politicians. Not just now, but before, during and after the referendum.
The elements of campaigning which were open and above board were little more than infantile bickering and posturing. I’m afraid I blame Alex Salmond for taking the bait on the Scottish Independence ‘willy waving’ competition. He was suckered.
Having won that Cameron thought he could walk on water, and repeat the stunt without the wit to see it was a very different fish he was angling for. (And he wants to come back into front line politics ?? Perleeze!)
Is the Queen allowed to dissolve parliament ? – actually even that’s too late. If HM was going to intervene (even if she’s allowed to) she should have pulled the plug on May buying the DUP seats to create a majority in 2017. No way that was acceptable. Not the way it was done. It’s just too late to call ‘foul’ now isn’t it ?
I fear even if we were to hold a second referendum it would not offer a considered result, because too many voters (my best guess) would dig in their heels and endorse the first decision on the ‘Pontius Pilate principle: ‘Quod scripsi, scripsi.’
I have no confidence we would have any more intelligent campaigning than we had first time round, and the fixers would fix with even more determination and the benefit of experience. And don’t forget our beloved MSM has worked hard on the bloody-minded-foreigners trope. Who caused all the difficulties with making a clean break of it ? Johnny Foreigner.
I think we’re screwed. The Iceberg approaches (or at least as in the original we approach it)….have your drinks at the ready and prepare to help yourself to as much ice as you fancy.
We hit the iceberg some time ago – that was Article 50
Niwcwe are discussing whether we can keep the ship afloat
I have to say that we are still living in a post-Thatcherite world where politics is now about winning for oneself at all costs. It’s the same Thatcherite politics of confrontation and no compromise.
Labour have tied themselves to winning an election before they help the situation. I’m very disappointed.
To me this is a form of blackmail that could backfire on them if they are not careful.
To what extent have Labour been reaching out to Remain Tories, Greens and SNP in the national interest?
I’m not sure and yes – we do know that the whole issue has reached levels of toxicity that are unparalleled in my time but there is something not right about Labour seemingly doing the same as the Tories before the last election – namely using BREXIT to get into power.
BREXIT is the political equivalent of the bubonic plague or an unexploded nuclear device – if any party is going to flirt with it with then they had better not drop it or else be caught in the fall out.
You could see BREXIT as rather like Tolkien’s Ring of Power. BREXIT too has its own power and internal logic but our politicians still think that they can harness it for their own ambitions – such as Labour’s 2017 manifesto, decent as it was. Who is controlling who here? Who is actually in charge? Where is this ‘will’ to leave coming from?
My view remains the same: The evidence is mounting and it is time as the Americans say to call time on bullshit. Cast the BREXIT Ring back into the fire. The whole referendum was flawed, illegal and dishonest and those who were meant to be regulating it ill equipped to do the job. It was cluster fuck of mega proportions on which we are going to – What? – make life harder for ourselves!!!!! So, having let the markets shaft us in 2008, we are now – under the auspices of democracy and state agency – going to shaft ourselves this time!
Our politicians must work together to end this travesty. Get it done now. Or be damned and face the consequences. And they will.
“We hit the iceberg some time ago — that was Article 50
Niwcwe? [Now] are discussing whether we can keep the ship afloat”
Granted. But can we actually un-hit the iceberg ? And do enough people want to, with the prospect of all that free ice on offer ?
The dire shortage of lifeboats ought to be focusing attention on the realities of the situation, but the captain insists the ship isn’t going down….and the band plays on…..and the people are still dancing. (Organising street parties, I’m told)
It’s pretty clear two wrongs don’t make a right, so if there’s been non-trivial interference we should bring down the criminal law and re-run the referendum ‘whoever dun it’. I find government from Westminster proved repugnant by Brexit and the dismal performance of MPs. All we have is a deceit versus deceit model – one made clear more thwn two millennia ago. This pathetic farce needs urgent repair.
Of course the police should have investigated illegality immediately given that the brexiteers celebrated their activities.
The other Brexit campaign – led by Dominic Cummings and his ‘bad boys and girls’ also proudly targeted a billion facebook ads using the CA/AIQ methods. How much do a Billion FB ads cost? How many voters were targeted and where? What were the ads?
Note that FB/Zeukerberg has not answered these questions yet.
Also I recall that in the surprise General Election – which was further curtailed by the mass murder terrorist attacks – that there were reports of a telemarketing operation that was suspicious (Banks again?) even as campaigning was officially stopped.
So both the Referendum and the more recent election can be considered to have been illegally manipulated.
Both should be re-run, especially the GE due to the fact that the current government didn’t win an overall majority.
Also that would force the politicians of all parties to crystallise their brexit positions – in their manifestos along with all the other vital austerity, spending, taxation and privatisation issues.
I am sure the eminently reasonable EU would extend the deadline while we cogitated a bit more.
I really cannot agree with this Richard, for a couple of reasons.
First, the arguments you make about the vote are thin to say the least. Has there ever been a vote with much democratic process integrity? Not in my lifetime, not least because the ‘Fourth Estate’ of any integrity or veracity (or diversity) – ie media – is utterly absent. Surely you and your readers would agree on that?
Second, and crucially, it’s terrible political strategy if you want to see Corbyn in No. 10, and would almost certainly ensure Corbyn loses, following his reversal on the issue (as you advocate). Not least due to a backlash from all those areas that heavily voted Brexit (eg 70% leave) that are traditional Labour voters, and which Corbyn will need (many of them) in order to win a GE.
As the Tories are in Gov, you can bet (with media support) that May will get the credit and political capital if Tory/Labour coalition forms to agree a 2nd referendum. It would totally let the Tories off the hook, and the mess they created which is tearing the Tories apart.
It’s my understanding that the required Parliamentary vote on the Brexit terms put forward will require a significant number of Labour MPs to support it. If Labour can hold it’s unity they should vote down any deal that fails to meet their minimum conditions, as already stated by Starmer and others.
So, what happens then? The ‘no deal’ Brexit you say, echoing all the media scaremongering. Not so fast..
The bit most people are missing is that the Eurozone is itself on the brink of economic and political collapse due to the inherent flaws and austerity by design of the Euro system. An economic shock from a no deal Brexit is too risky for the EU elites at this point in time. That is why they have repeatedly offered reversal of Article 50 or a long extension period before any deal is agreed.
A no deal Brexit is not what mainstream Tories want either – they are perfectly happy with a neoliberal structured EU as it stands. But they won’t get a majority to stay in the EU either, if Labour hold fast and respect the referendum outcome – stalemate. (Recall, the only reason Cameron called the referendum is because he never expected to lose and wanted to shut up the hard right UKIPers in his own party.)
The most likely outcome then, when it goes to the wire, is a collapse of the Gov and a GE, which Corbyn has a good chance of winning with the Tories getting all the flack for the mess they created, and Corbyn’s integrity in tact. I know it won’t easy, but I’d argue easier than if Labour reverse their stance and let the Tories escape their mess.
And we all know (I hope) that staying in the EU poses significant risks to the capacity of Labour to deliver on its economic programs at some future date. (ie Lexit really does have a very strong case, which can readily include most of the nice social features of the EU, if Labour hold their feet to the fire.)
In the light of the above, I believe Corbyn has played a masterful political strategy this far, and we should trust him on this. The more he is undermined now by his own supporters joining the Blairite faction, the less likely he is to win that election that may happen any time.
I hope everyone will very seriously reconsider criticising Corbyn’s judgement on this.
Mike
You make an absurd assumption that to criticise Corbyn is to be Blairite
Politely, that is crass
I criticise Corbyn because he is not left wing enough (see McDonnell’s recent misguided approach to tax) and he is not following the will of his party
That is not a Blairite reaction
But it is to say Corbyn has this wrong
@Mike Hall. (You’ve seen this, Mike. Straight lift from your page)
I think there is reason to suspect that the referendum was influenced by rather more than the usual bias of the ‘fourth estate’, Mike.
That this has not been assiduously investigated, proved, or put to bed marks a serious failure of governance (and opposition has seriously remiss in this) I suggest. And it should have been settled long before now. It’s a festering sore.
As for a Corbyn defeat, the sooner he gets hammered and joins a progressive party the better. At present he is just a nice idea with no prospect of delivery. His party IF they got to the government benches wouldn’t back him in my opinion and would undermine everything he claims he stands for…. and I believe him more or less… I think he’s straight.
” And we all know (I hope) that staying in the EU poses significant risks to the capacity of Labour to deliver on its economic programs at some future date.”
I don’t think we do know that, Mike. I don’t accept that as a given. The ‘Brussels won’t let us do it’ trope has been a stock excuse for every failure of the UK government for decades. I don’t buy it.
“(Recall, the only reason Cameron called the referendum is because he never expected to lose and wanted to shut up the hard right UKIPers in his own party.)”
Another example of abject craven political leadership. He should have chucked them out or otherwise shut them up not handed his party on a plate to them. What a feckless and unprincipled shower our polity is.
My only real beef with Richards position is that I think he’s probably wasting his breath because this baby is going to go down. I think it’s too late and too much damage has already been done.
Taking your pragmatic line that Labour can just keep their heads down and win a GE by default has been my interpretation of their policy all along. Business as usual in short; wait for the Tories to disintegrate whilst striving not to fall apart themselves on the opposition benches they have grown accustomed to.
You will gather I’m utterly pessimistic about the Brexit prospect. I see no prospect of any gain for anyone except those who would break up the union with an Independent Scotland and a United Ireland.
So to that end I’m well satisfied with progress so far, but I don’t see anything in it for England and I think that’s very sad.
I commend your initial assessment Richard. But the inference I would draw is that referendums are much too blunt an instrument to decide complex matters of international relations and trade; let alone the accompanying constitutional implications. Referendums are also a relatively rare process for most of the UK. They therefore lack the detailed scrutiny and policing procedures that have gradually been honed to ensure a modicum of democratic probity in elections- though in the internet age they may still need further improvement.
As there would be neither the time nor expertise to improve the governance of another referendum in early 2019 – let alone the wisdom of asking 50 million people to decide on international trade rules etc – the case for a general election on any or no deal is overwhelming. If half the campaigning pressure for a Peoples Vote were to be applied to May to hold a general election, she would have little choice but to do so; apart from handing over to a new incumbent who would face the same pressures.
What about the much touted “People’s Vote”? An opportunity for the nation to select from most or perhaps all possible options available – 1. No-deal Brexit, 2. No Brexit, 3. Brexit with Customs Union etc. If I recall correctly (and I might not have!) Norway had a similarly close-called result on their referendum on EU membership. The final say was democratically decided by a similar such popular vote which resulted in their choice to opt-in to the EEA.
Just to clarify, I am not trying to promote a specific outcome here but curious as to whether people would view the prospect of a final say vote as a viable prospect?
I’m interested in your views Richard. If there is a 2nd EU ref, how do you think that would affect a 2nd Scottish Independence ref?
Are the two related events?
Does one prevent the other?
Would one change the outcome of the other?
Your guess is as good as mine